Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout070191 PC Agenda' LA :BLA' ,,REGULAR MEETING July 01, 1991 6:00 PM g23gQ CALL TO ORDER: ROU A total of 15 minutes ~s provided so members of the public can addressT'~ ~ ':'~:~': commissioners on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out a'~a'filed with flie:'C0mmissloner Secretary. When you are called to::splak; please come, forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a ",Request to Speak. form must be filed with the Planning Secretary before CommisSion 9ets to thatltem. There is a three minute time limit for~idua[ Speakers. ~ COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval ef Agenda 2. Minutes 2.1 Approval of minutes of June 17. 1991 Planning Commission Meeting. NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 3. Memorandum of Understanding withCal Trans regarding access to Rotrte::~9~' ;'' PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Case Planner: Recommendation: Change of Zone No. 91Substantial Conformance No. 11 Buie Corporation North of Rancho California Rd., East of Margarita Rd. Amend zoning and issue substantial conformance to allow one four plex unit to exist in Planning area 37 of SP 199, No change in density. Mark Rhoades Approval Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Case Planner: Recommendation: Change of Zone No. 15/Tentative Parcel Map No. 26q88 Mr. Jan Vanderwall Southeasterly corner of Walcott Lane and Calla Chapos Zone change from R-A 2-1/2 (Residential-Agricultural 1- I/2 acre minimum parcel size) to R-1-1 (Single Family Residential, 1 acre minimum parcel size) and subdivisions of u,.5 +/- acres into u, parcels. Charles Ray Approval Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Case Planner: Recommendation: Plot Plan No. 226 (PP226) Mr. Sam McCann Southwesterly corner of Pauba and Margarita Road Construction of a commercial retail complex of 3 structures totaling 27,150 +/- square feet on a 2.5 +/-Acre site. Charly Ray Approval Case No. Applicant: Location: Proposal: Case Planner: Recommendation: Variance No. 6 Superior Electrical Advertising, Inc. Northwest Corner of Jefferson Avenue and Overland Drive Variance in order to allow an additional freestanding sign display in lieu of the maximum allowed freestanding signs per Ord. 348. Richard Ayala Denial Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Case Planner: Recommendation: Tentative Tract 25277 and Zone Change 572~ Acacia Construction Southwesterly side of Pechanga Creek abutting the easterly side of Temecula Creek Inn Golf Course To change the zone from R-R, Rural Residential, to R-1, single family residential and to create 102 residential lots and 7 open space lots. Scott Wright Denial Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Case Planner: Recommendation: Outdoor Advertising Displays Ordinance City of Temecula City Wide Interim Ordinance establishing regulations for Outdoor Advertising Displays. Oliver Mujica Recommend Approval Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Case Planner: Recommendation: Ambient Air Balloon Ordinance City of Temecula City Wide Ordinance Establishing Regulations for the use of Ambient Air Balloons. Oliver Mujica Recommend Approval Planninq Director Report General Plan Update Planninq Commission Discussion Other Business ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: July 15, 1991, 6:00 p.m., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California SJ/Ib pc/TAgn6/3 ITEM #2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17# 1991 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order Monday, June 17, 1991, 6:00 P.M., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Dennis Chiniaeff. PRESENT: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff Hoagland Also present were Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh, Planning Director Gary Thornhill, Director of Public Works Tim Serlet and Minute Clerk Gail Zigler. PUBLIC COMMENT None COMMISSION BUSINE88 APPROVAL OF AGENDA GARY THORNHILL advised that Items 3, 10 and 11 would be continued to the meeting of July 1, 1991. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND arrived at 6:05 P.M. COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to approve the agenda continuing Items 3, AYES: 3 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 1 ABSTAIN: 1 10 and 11, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Chiniaeff COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS: Fahey COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland MINUTES 2.1 Approve the minutes of May 20, Meeting 1991 Planning Commission PCMIN6/17/91 -1- JUNE 18, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 17, 1991 COMMISSIONER FORD moved to approve the minutes of May 20, 1991 as mailed, seconded by COMMISSIONER BLAIR. 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS: Fahey AYES: NOES: 0 ABSENT: 1 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 3. VARIANCE NO. 6 Proposal for variance in order to allow an additional freestanding sign display in lieu of the maximum allowed freestanding signs per Ordinance 348. Located at the northwest corner of Jefferson Avenue and Overland Drive. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 6:05 P.M. COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to continue the public hearing for Variance No. 6 to the Planning Commission meeting of July 1, 1991, seconded by COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey 4. PARCEL MAP NO. 26135 el Proposal to subdivide 5.19 acres into three residential parcels. Located at the northwest corner of Santiago Road and Ormsby Road. RICHARD AYALAprovided the staff report. CMAIRMANCHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 6:10 P.M. LUIS 8TANL, applicant, provided a brief summary of the project and answered questions regarding the grading permits. Mr. Stahl stated that in relation to the development of Santiago Road, he does not object to an Assessment District being formed on or in the area of the parcel and waives his right to object to one; however, PCMIN6/17/91 -2- JUNE 18, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 17, 1991 since he is being forced to dedicate approximately one- half acre, he feels that this, along with waiving his right to protest should be sufficient contribution as opposed to paving Santiago Road. He also stated that regarding engineering, the easement along the westerly side of parcel 1 and 2 is being requested as a half street, which he did not believe was logical. JOHN CAVANAUGH, Assistant City Attorney, advised that if the applicant was not in concurrence with the conditions, the Commission could deny the application. LUIS 8TAHL stated that he was expressing his objection to these two requirements so that he may continue to appeal at City Council. COMMISSIONER HOAGLANDmOved to close the public hearing at 6:25 P.M. and Adopt the Negative Declaration for Tentative Parcel Map No. 26135 and AdoPt Resolution No. 91-[next] approving Tentative Tract Map No. 26135, seconded by COMMIS8IONER BLAIR. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF stated that he felt the development of the improvements to Santiago is a logical process from the roadway in this area. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND amended his motion to have staff include a finding that reflects the Commission's decision as it relates to the improvements to Santiago Road. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey TE~ATIVE TRACT HAP NO. 5.1 PCMIN6/17/91 25055 Proposal for a 29 unit condominium map. Located on the northside of Via La Vida, East of Margarita Road. STEVE JIANNINO provided the staff report. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 6:30 P.M. IDA SANCHEZ, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester Road, Temecula, expressed the applicant's concurrence with the -3- JUNE lS, 1991 PLANNING CO~XISSION HINUTES ~UNE 17, 1991 staff report. She stated that they did not agree with Condition 23B. STEVE JIANNINO stated that Condition 23B could be deleted. TOM TAYLOR and JACK HAMRY, developers, were present to answer questions by the Commission. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF stated he was concerned with the set- back from adjacent residential units on the easterly boundary and commented that reducing the plan by one unit (Unit 19) on the far westerly side, the applicant could get comprable set-backs on the easterly boundary. TOM TAYLOR stated that he went through the adjacent neighborhood and received no opposition to the project. COMMISSIONER FORD moved to close the public hearing at 7:45 P.M. and Adopt a Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract Map No. 25055 and Adopt Resolution No. 91-(next) approving Tentative Tract Map No. 25055, deleting Condition 23B, seconded by CHAIRI~,N CHINIAEFF for discussion purposes. CHAIRMAN CRINIAEFF stated that he still had problems with the buffering from single family residential to the multi family housing. TOM TAYLOR stated that if giving up the one unit (19) would get the project approved, they would relinquish it. AYES: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Ford NOES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Hoagland, Chiniaeff ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND moved to close the public hearing at 6:45 P.M. and Adopt a Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract Map No. 25055 and AdoPt Resolution 91-(next] approving Tentative Tract Map No. 25055, and delete Condition No. 23 (B) and direct staff to have applicant remove Unit 19 and relocate all the units along the southernly portion of the project further to the West, seconded by COMMISSIONER BLAIR. PCMIN6/17/91 -4- JUNE 18, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 17, 1991 COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND stated that this project, with the modifications suggested, will meet the transitional concerns expressed by the Commission. He added that he would want a minimum of a 25 foot set-back. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey 6. TENTATIVE TRACT HAP NO. 24785 el Proposal to subdivide 5.0 acre site into two parcels. Located at the northwest corner of Liefer Road and Kimberly Lane. STEVE JIANNINO provided the staff report. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 6:50 P.M. STEVE LEE, applicant and owner of parcel, concurred with the staff report and Conditions of Approval with the exception of Condition 29. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND stated that he felt Condition 29 was a considerable burden to be placed on one property owner. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF suggested amending Condition 29 to read "Developer will work deligently to form an assessment district and waives his right to oppose one." HA. LEE concurred with the modification to Condition 29. COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to close the public hearing at 7:10 P.M. and Adopt Resolution 91-(next) approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 24785, amending Condition 29 to read "Applicant will work delingently to form an Assessment District and waives their rights to oppose one, seconded by COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey PCMIN6/17/91 -5- JUNE 18, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 17, 1991 7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 11 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow automotive sales by individual owner at an existing parking lot. Located at 27919 Front Street. Chairman Chiniaeff, stepping down due to a conflict of interest, turned the gavel over to Vice Chairman Ford. STEVE JIANNINO provided the staff report. Mr. Jiannino verified that the Commission had received the copies of the letters of opposition from neighboring property owners as well as local automobile dealerships. VICE CHAIRMAN FORD opened the public hearing at 7:10 P.M. BARBARA ELIAS, Charles L. March Red Carpet Real Estate, 38710 Murrieta Hot Springs Road, Murrieta, representing the applicant, gave a presentation on the proposed "For Sale By Owner" car lot. Ms. Elias stated that this concept would offer individuals a safer avenue for selling their automobiles as opposed to having people come to their homes or businesses as well as discourage people from parking their "For Sale" automobiles all over town on private property. CHARLES L. MARCH, Red Carpet Real Estate, 28500 Front Street, Temecula, spoke in favor of the project. SANDRA WILSON, 40310 Carmelitia Circle, Temecula, spoke in favor of the project. DAN ATWOOD, Toyota of Temecula, spoke in opposition to the proposed "For Sale By Owner" lot. STEVE PALMER, Nissan of Temecula, and speaking for the principals of Temecula Dodge; Griffin Oldsmobile, GMC and Cadillac; and Temecula Acura/Mazda, expressed opposition to the proposed "For Sale By Owner" lot. DENNIS CHINIAEFF, 29321 Via Norte, Temecula, spoke in opposition to the proposed "For Sale By Owner" lot. He added that the Traffic Ordinance recently adopted by the City of Temecula will address individuals parking their "For Sale" automobiles on public streets and private property. PCMIN6/17/91 -6- JUNE 18, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 17, 1991 COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to close the public hearing at 7:45 P.M. and Denv Conditional Use Permit No. 11, seconded by COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND. AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Hoagland, NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey ABSTAIN:i COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff The Commission indicated the following as their findings for denial: the location and it's proposed use, on-site parking, trash pick-up and clean-up of oil spills, control of illegal parking on adjacent properties and traffic congestion. Vice Chairman Ford turned the gavel back over to Chairman Chiniaeff. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF declared a recess at 7:50 P.M. reconvened at 8:00 P.M. The meeting 8. REVISED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2 Proposal to increase the building space of an approved automotive service center by approximately 300 square feet and delete 3 parking spaces. Located on the westerly side of Ynez Road approximately 200 feet North of Solana Way. STEVE JIANNINO provided the staff report. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 8:00 P.M. LARRY GABELE, 10706 Birchclub Avenue, San Diego, gave a brief summary of the request for the increase. COMMISSIONER HOAGLANDmoved to close the public hearing at 8:00 P.M. and Adopt Resolution 91-(next] approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2, Revision No. 1, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey PCMIN6/17/91 -7- JUNE 18, 1991 PLANNINR COMMISSION HINUTES JUNE 17, 1991 9. CHANRE OF ZONE NO. 11, PARCEL HAP 26852 AND PLOT PLAN NO. 224 Proposal to change zone from R-R to C-P-S on 24 acres of a 97.3 acre site, subdivide 97.3 acres into 13 parcels, construct a 149,500 square foot commercial center on 19.7 acres. Located at the northwest corner of Margarita and Winchester Roads. STEVE JIANNINO provided the staff report. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 8:15 P.M. RRER ERICKSON, Bedford Properties, 28765 Single Oak Drive, Temecula, gave a summary of the project. Mr. Erickson discussed the landscape plans and advised the Commission that the plans for the traffic signal at the corner of Winchester and Margarita Roads has been designed and have been submitted to Cal-Trans. JIM ALLEN, 27195 Rainbow Creek Drive, Murrieta, expressed a concern for increased traffic and lack of traffic signals. ALl MORIARITY, representing Costco, provided a brief summary of the Costco warehouses. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF stated that the Assessment District is suppose to build the bridge over Santa Gertrudis Creek; however, if the Assessment District does not build the bridge the developer should be responsible for those improvements. COMMISSIONER HOARLAND stated that he would like staff to review the landscaping plan and that much larger canopy trees be utilized in the parking areas as opposed to the proposed palm trees. COMMISSIONER BLAIR added that she would like to staff to review the architecture more closely as well. GARY THORNHILL stated that staff could look at the color of the building and the roof materials or maybe adding a accent strip on the building. 8TEVE JIANNINO advised that the applicant had presented in writing the opposition to Condition 66, Public Facilities Fee. COMMISSIONER HOARLAND also suggested that the Conditions of Approval reflect that "prior to Issuance of Occupancy, PCMIN6/17/91 -8- JUNE lS, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 17, 1991 the Commission require that all the required street improvements including the signals, must be in and until the signals are complete, entrances off Margarita are not open." ROBERT RIGETTI, staff representative, stated that under the parcel map there was a occupancy condition. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF suggested placing a traffic control officer at the Margarita/Winchester intersection until the signal is in place. GREG ERICKSON, Bedford, concurred with the suggestion. TIM SERLET, Director of Public Works, stated that staff would pursue the installation of the signal a little more intensely with Cal Trans. ROBERT RIGETTI stated that staff would require interim traffic control be provided by the developer at the developer's expense. JOHN CAVANAUGH suggested that this condition be added to the Plot Plan as well. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND moved to close the public hearing at 9:00 P.M. and recommend that the City Council AdoPt a Negative Declaration for Change of Zone No. 11, and Adopt Resolution No. 91-(next) for Change Of Zone No. 11, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: i COMMISSIONERS: Fahey COMMISSIONER FORD moved to close the public hearing at 9:00 P.M. and recommend that the City Council Adopt a Negative Declaration for Parcel Map No. 26852 and Adopt Resolution No. 91-(next) recommending Approval of Parcel Map No. 26852, seconded by COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Fahey PCMIN6/17/91 -9- JUNE 18, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION HINUTES JUNE 17, 1991 CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF reiterated the following concerns the Commission had with the landscaping: shade in the parking lot, landscaping along the channel, softening of the mass of the building as well as concerns about the architecture of the building. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND moved to close the public hearing at 9:05 and recommend that the City Council Adopt a Negative Declaration for Plot Plan No. 224 and Adopt Resolution No. 91-(next) approving Plot Plan No. 224 with added Condition No. 85 requiring traffic control at Winchester and Margarita Roads and staff's review of the landscape and architecture, addressing the Commission's concerns, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Blair ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey GARY THORNHILL suggested bringing the landscape plans back before the Commission. The Commission concurred with reviewing the landscape plans. COMMISSIONER FAHEY arrived at 9:05 P.M. 10. TENTATIVE TRACT 25277 AND ZONE CHANGE 5724 10.1 Proposal to change the zone from R-R to R-l, single family residential and to create 102 residential lots and 7 open space lots. Located on the southwesterly side of Pechanga Creek abutting the easterly side of Temecula Creek Inn Golf Course. CRAIPa~AN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 9:05 P.M. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND moved to continue the public hearing for Tentative Tract 25277 and Zone Change 5724 to July 1, 1991, seconded by COMMISSIONER BLAIR. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PCMIN6/17/91 -10- JUNE 18, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~UNE 17, 1991 11. CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 9/SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE NO. 11 11.1 Proposal to amend zoning and issue substantial conformance to allow one four plex unit to exist in Planning area 37 of SP 199. Located north of Rancho California Road, East of Margarita Road. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 9:05 P.M. COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to continue the public hearing for Change of Zone No. 9/Substantial Conformance No. 11 to July 1, 1991, seconded by COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 12. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 5 12.1 Proposal for car care center consisting of a retail car wash, service station and market. Located at the northwesterly corner of Front Street and Highway 79. RICHARD AYALAprovided the staff report. Mr. Ayala advised that staff was proposing a different roof line as well as deleting the primary colors on the building. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF suggested that staff review the proposed trees in the landscape plan. GARY THORNHILL stated that staff would be reviewing the entire landscape plan along the front. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND stated that he did not object to the proposed primary colors. GARY THORNHILL indicated that staff was removing the use of yellow in the colors, and the addition of a tile roof on the service station canopy to match the rest of the center. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 9:15 P.M. SANDRA FINN, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester Road, Temecula, representing the applicant, concurred PCMIN6/17/91 -11- JUNE 18, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 17, 1991 with staff recommendation. Ms. Finn added that the roof that staff is proposing would block the car wash. LOU KABMMERE, applicant, 19555 Camino De Paz, Murrieta, provided the Commission with a description of the proposed facility. COMMISSIONER BOAGLAND moved to close the public hearing at 9:30 P.M. and AdoPt Negative Declaration for Conditional Use Permit No. 5 and Adopt Resolution No. 91-(next] approving Conditional Use Permit No. 5 as proposed in the architectural renderings and direct staff to work with applicant to enhance the landscape buffer along the front of the building as well as behind the building, seconded by COMMISSIONER BLAIR. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey 13. TENTATIVE TRACT HAP NO. 21760, AMEND NO. 2 13.1 Proposal to revise housing mix on Lots 29, 49, 73, 78 and 88, and also modify conditions of approval to allow a one foot fireplace encroachment into the 5' side yard minimum setback. Located at Preece Lane and Via Fanira. RICHARD AYALA provided the staff report. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 9:35 P.M. DANNYGROVER, representing Coleman Homes, 43180 Business Park Drive, Temecula, gave a brief summary on the proposed change/amendment to the project. COMMISSIONER FAMEY moved to close the public hearing at 9:35 P.M. and AdoDt Resolution No. 91-(next) approving Tract Map No. 21760, Minor Change No. 1, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PCMIN6/17/91 -12- JUNE 18, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 17, 1991 14. PARCEL HAP 26232 AND 15. PLOT PLAN 29 (PARCEL HAP 26232 ABOVE) 14.1& 15.1 Proposal to create 15 commercial parcels and a 39 acre remainder parcel on a 70 acre site and a proposal to construct a multi-tenant commercial center with 196,500 square feet of gross floor area. Located on the east side of Winchester Road North and South of Nicolas Road. STEVE JIANNINO provided the staff report. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 9:50 P.M. MICHAEL PERRY, representing Wall Street Properties, 1250 Prospect Street, La Jolla, provided a brief summary of the proposed tenants of the project. TODD GRAHAM, Wall Street Properties, 1250 Prospect Street, La Jolla, answered various questions by the Commission about the project and it's access. COMMISSIONER HOAGLANDmOved to close the public hearing at 10:10 P.M. and recommend that the City Council Adopt the Negative Declaration and Adopt Resolution No. 91- [next) approving Parcel Map No. 26232, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to close the public hearing at 10:10 P.M. and recommend that the City Council Adopt the Negative Declaration and Adopt Resolution No. 91- (next) approving Plot Plan No. 29, seconded by COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Noagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None APPEAL NO. 14, PPA NO. 103 16.1 Proposal to appeal Planning Director's decision to deny a sign application. Located at 41895 Motorcar Parkway. PCMIN6/17/91 -13- JUNE 18, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 17o 1991 GARY THORNHILL advised that the applicant has withdrawn their application, and will proceed with site plans consistent with staff recommendations. 17. TEMPORARY OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES ORDINANCE 17.1 Proposal for ordinance establishing regulations for temporary outdoor activities City wide. STEVE JIANNINO provided the staff report. The Commission raised various questions about the proposed ordinance pertaining to fees, activities, minimum criteria, etc. C~IRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 10:20 P.M. LARRY MARKHAM, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester Road, Temecula, commented that relative to the fees, most of these events are related to charitable activities and that the time invested by City staff is minimal. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND moved to continue Temporary Outdoor Activities Ordinance to July 15, 1991 to allow staff time to address fee levels, what activities the ordinance covers and does not cover and a minimum criteria, seconded by COMMISSIONER FANEY. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 18. OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAYS ORDINANCE 18.1 Proposal for interim ordinance establishing regulations for outdoor advertising displays City wide. C~IRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 10:30 P.M. PCMIN6/17/91 -14- JUNE 18, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 17, 1991 COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to continue Outdoor Advertising Displays Ordinance to July 1, 1991, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT GARY THORNHILL advised the Commission of the following: * General Plan Update: Contract has not been approved yet, but an Authorization To Proceed has been initiated, allowing the consultant to begin work. * 14 month process for completion. * Will be looking at the formation of some technical sub- committees. * Consultant will be scheduling interviews with the Commission members and City Council members. * Moving to new City Hall facility the last week of June. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION None OTHER BUSINESS None PCMIN6/17/91 -15- JUNE 18, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 17, 1991 ADJOURNMENT CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF declared the meeting adjourned at 10:40 P.M. The next regularily scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission will be held Monday, July 1, 1991, 6:00 P.M., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula. Secretary Chairman Dennis Chiniaeff PCMIN6/17/91 -16- JUNE 18, 1991 ITEM #3 M]l~Ogj~rDtJ~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Planning Director July 1, 1991 Memorandum of Understanding with Caltrans for Access Management on State Route 79 PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: DISCUSSION: Steve Jiannino Review and Discussion of Draft Memorandum of Understanding. Attached for your review is a draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Caltrans and the City of Temecula. The intent of the MOU is to define access spacing to State Route 79 for the entire corridor within the City of Temecula prior to each agency reviewing individual development projects. The MOU should eliminate past conflict between the two agencies regarding appropriate access management for the SR79 Corridor. The MOU is still in draft format at this time. Your review and comment of this document is greatly appreciated. SJ:ks A:~M0-0F-UND ROUTE79A.MOU 1 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DRAFT This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is between the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the City of Temecula (the City). The MOU covers intersection and driveway location spacing. The purpose of this MOU is to provide guidelines for the City and Caltrans to use in reviewing and approving new development along State Route 79. Route 79 enhancements shall be made through Developer contributions and assessment district funding administered by Riverside County. The basic understanding is as follows: Route 79 shall have three lanes for through traffic and up to two lanes for local traffic turning movements in each direction. Realignment may be necessary upon future development along Route 79. The City shall protect the right-of-way for Route 79 realignment. North Route 79 (Winchester Road) is to have 1/0, mile spacing for intersections with 1/8 mile spacing for limited access (i.e. right in, right out only access) driveways from 1-15 to Margarita Road. From Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road the spacing shall be mile intersections or driveways. Intersection spacing beyond Murrleta Hot Springs Road will be 1/2 mile. Approvals prior to the date of this MOU are excepted. South Route 79 is to have 1/2 mile intersection spacing ( prior approvals accepted) from 1-15 to Anza Road with 1/0, mile limited access driveways li.e. right in, right out only access). Driveway and Intersection design shall be developed in accordance with policies, procedures, practices and standards Caltrans and the City would normally follow. Caltrans and the City may in the future discuss dedication of the current Right-of-Way for Route 79 to the City of Temecula. An attempt shall be made to establish an alternative Route 79 alignment prior to the adoption of the City~s General Plan. IConcur: KEN STEELE District8 Director RONALD J. PARKS Mayor City of Temecula Date: D ate: PLANN I NG\ROUTE79. MOU ITEM MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Planning Department July 1, 1991 Change of Zone No. 9 and Substantial Conformance No. 11 Recommendation: 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: BACKGROUND: 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. This project was continued from the April 1, 1991 meeting because the Planning Commission was concerned about not being able to visit the site and the applicant was not present to address any commission questions. The project was continued once again from the June 17, 1991 Planning Commission meeting at the request of staff due to the length of the June 17, 1991 agenda. The applicant has been unable to set up times to enable the Planning Commissioners to visit the site. The applicant has, therefore, provided a photo survey of the site to hopefully address the commissioners concerns regarding the project. The commission did not discuss the item other than request a possible visit to the site. sc11-me~ -b Planning Commission July 1, 1991 Page 2 STAFF RECOMMENDAT ION: The April 1, 1991 staff report is attached and incorporated by reference. The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 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. sc11-mem -b 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 I 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: 4.6 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 (Margarita 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 4.6 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 348.2922 (Specific Plan No, 199). The change in question is page56 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 348. 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 of the CEQA guidelines. STAFFRPT\SC11 3 FINDINGS: Chanqe 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 4 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: MR:ks Attachments: 1. 2. 3. The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 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. Resolution (Change of Zone No. 9) Exhibits A - H Large Scale Maps STAFFRPT\SCll 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 MARGAR ITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 946-060-010. 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 July 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 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\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, Change of Zone No, 9 has been determined to be exempt. SECTION 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of July, 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 July, 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 9 STII I C,) IP..PU A. HCE 1 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16, 19 the front. ride or rear yard except as provided ~c,r 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 Article VIII of Ordinance No. 348. kk. Planninq 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 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), (d), and (e)(1). (2) and (4) shall be deleted and replaced by the tollowing: 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 solely for access to the portion of a lot used as a building site. KNNN 4-I-q I ROPO ED 0RI> NANC£ 348. 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. 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-plexes,~ noncommercial community association recreation and assembly buildings and facilities; medical and dental offices; and onsite building walls, stating the name of the churches; institution, however, the sign shall not (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. signs, affixed to structure, use, or exceed five percent -56- PLANNING coilelm EXHIBIT ~ APPROVAL DATE CASE PLANNER I TABLE II-3 HOUSING TYPES DENSITY HOUSING TYPE Family-Oriented Housing 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 Housing Very High Apartments and Condo- miniums [58s] Medium-High Patio Homes, duplex and 4-plex condominiums [1,308] Medium Patio Homes [duplexes, [107] t4-plexes] ~ Subtotal: 2,000 Grand Total: 4,381 Note: Text in brackets [] amended by Substantial Confor- mance numbers 1 and 2. -33- PLANNING COMMISSION EXHIBff ('- APPROVAL DATE CASE PLANNB! CITY OF TEMECULA ~ EXHIBIT NO. ~) ~P.C. DATE LI-t-qt j CITY OF TEMECULA ~ r "~ VICINITY MAP ~ CASE P.C. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA ) ~,. -'~."L"'k - ~,~.,,j, PLANNING AREAS --, ............. 37,38,39,40 4 A Margarita Villae'e r As NO.C'2-qL/4>'c'tt~ C E EXHIBIT NO. ~P.C. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA LOCATION .MAP CASE NO.t-*'2'~Y P.C. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA ) J~C_~,LI ~L~Uu u ~:,u ~. ,.~,_.._~./,-_ .DEL HOME COMPLEX EXHIBIT NO. ~P.C. DATE ITEM #5 Case No.: Recommendation: STAFF REPORT -PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION July 1, 1991 Change of Zone No. 15 (CZ 15) and Tentative Parcel Map No. 26488 {TPM 260,88) Prepared By: Charly Ray Staff recommends that the City Planning Commission: RECOMMEND ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration for Tentative Parcel Map No. 26488 and Change of Zone No. 15; ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending approval of Change of Zone No. 15 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report; and ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 260,88 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCAT ION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: Mr. Jay Vanderwall Mr. N. Scott Jewett/ANACAL Engineering Residential subdivision of 4.5+/- gross acres into four parcels with an accompanying zone change from R-A-2 1/2 to R-1-1. Southeast corner of Calle Chapos and Walcott Lane. R-A-2 1/2 {Residential-Agricultural - 2 1/2 Acre Minimum Parcel Size) North: R-A-2 1/2 South: R-A-2 1/2 East: R-A-2 1/2 West: R-A-2 1/2 A: PM26488 1 PROPOSED ZONING: R-1-1 EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: BACKGROUND: (Single Family Residential, 1 Acre Minimum Parcel Size) North: South: East: West: Vacant Vacant/Single Family Residence Single Family Residence Vacant Total Area: Average Parcel S/ze Proposed: Largest Proposed Parcel Area: Smallest Proposed Parcel Area: Existing Improvements: Access: Domestic Water: Electricity: Sewage Disposal: Natural Gas: Telephone: CATV: Gross Acres 1.125 Gross Acres 1.0,5 Gross Acres 1.0 Gross Acre Calle Chapos {adjacent to the north) and Walcott Lane ladjacent to the west); both of which are currently unimproved at the project site. Existing rights-of-way dedications are 60~ total width on Calle Chapos 66~ in width on Walcott Lane. Rancho California Water District Southern California Edison On-site Septic System proposed Southern California Gas GTE California Inland Valley Cablevislon Tentative Parcel Map No. 260,88 (TPM 260,88) was initially submitted to the City of Temecula for review and consideration on September lu,, 1990. Subsequent Development Review Committee consideration followed on November 8, 1990 and again on January 3, 1991. As originally submitted, the map proposed residential subdivision of the subject site into 0, each 1/2+/- acre parcels, with a remainder parcel of approximately 13/u, acres. The initial proposal has been redesigned and submitted with an appropriate zone change request based on Staff concerns regarding the disparity in land use between that requested and that allowed by the underlying R-A-2 1/2 land use zoning ~1/2 acre parcels A:PM26~88 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A: PM26~,88 proposed vs. 2 1/2 acre minimum allowed by the zone district), as well as concerns arising from the initial lot configurations. As initially designed, the map proposed steep access gradients, disproportionate lot length/width ratios, limited availability of buildable terrain, further complicated by the land use difficulties inherent maps proposing small remainder parcels. As indicated above, in response to Staff design and land use consideration/concerns, the applicant has submitted an appropriate Change of Zone request {R-A-2 1/2 to R-1-1) allowing subdivision at the 1 gross acre parcel density proposed, which is consistent with recent zone changes and land divisions in the area. Further, the Tentative Map has been redesigned eliminating the 'lremainder" originally proposed, thereby providing greater acreage for each residential lot, which in turn allows the design currently proposed incorporating internal, centralized access, and lots with more tenable dimensions and building areas. The applicant proposes a residential subdivision of just over ~, gross acres, realizing ~, residential lots averaging approximately 1 gross acre each. The project site is located in a rural but developing area of the City, southeasterly of Nicolas and Butterfield Stage Roads. Utilities available to the project include: - Electric Power JSo. Calif. Edison) - Natural Gas (So. Calif. Gas Co. ) - Potable Water { Rancho Water District) - Sewage Disposal ( On-site septic system designed per County Environmental Health Standards) - Telephone (GTE); and - Cable Television ( Inland Valley Cablevision ). Abutting rights-of-way are currently unimproved. Paved access to the project vicinity ends on Walcott Lane at a point approximately l/u, to 1/2 mile south of the proposed Parcel Map. Several unimproved off-road trails traverse the site. Terrain of the subject site consists primarily of a large knoll, increasing in elevation from north to south. On-site grade differential between highest and lowest points is approximately 60 feet, with slopes ranging from 12%-20%. Existing vegetation 3 ANALYSIS: on the project site is primarily native grasses with evident disturbance by human activity; e.g., off- road trails, litter, etc. Mature landscaping exists on adjacent properties. No significant anlmal habitat was detected though the site is likely inhabitated by common species of rodents, small reptiles and insects. Further consideration of this proposal's specific merits is contained in the following project analysis. Land Use Compatibility The requested Change of zone district from R-A-2 1/2 to R-1-1 reflects on-going urbanization of the general area surrounding the subject site. Recent project approvals in the vicinity of Tentative Parcel Map No. 26~,88 {e.g., CZ 56631, TPM 25212) have allowed subdivision of land at densities similar to that requested by this proposal. Further to the south, land has been subdivided at even greater densities in conjunction with larger scale tract home developments. Additionally, the recommended Southwest Area Plan density for the subject site is 1-2 dwelling units/acre. Densities at the lower end of this range are considered appropriate at present pending extension of necessary support services, primarily roads and sewers, to the area in question. As such, the proposed change in land use designation allowing residential subdivision of property at a density of one dwelling unit/acre is considered compatible with land use(s) currently in the vicinity of the subject site. Access Legal access to the site as a whole is provided by dedicated City rights-of-way, e.g., Walcott Lane and Calle Chapos, both of which are currently recommended as 66' width right-of-way dedications adjacent to the subject site I reference Exhibit D) . Both road frontages as well as the cul-de-sac indicated on Exhibit D will be improved to provide all weather access prior to occupancy of residences which may be eventually constructed on the proposed parcels. I reprovemerit of affected rights-of-way per Schedule H map standards will, as a minimum, be bonded for prior to final map recordat/on. A: PM26488 GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Map Design Applicant responses to the issues discussed above are reflected primarily in the map design currently proposed (Exhibit D). The map, as presently configured, is included in the project staff report. Specifically, the map was redesigned to eliminate the remainder parcel initially proposed, and also provide centralized common access to all proposed parcels via a public cul-de-sac connecting to Walcott Lane. The current design of the proposed map also reflects Staff concerns regarding appropriate residential )and use densities currently applicable to the subject site. In summary, the proposed parcel map, together with the requested change of zone from R-A-2 1/2 to R-1-1, and mitigation measures specified in the project Conditions of Approval, provide for development compatible with City land use and subdivision standards, ordinances and policies. Further, the Initial Environmental Assessment conducted for the project has determined its compliance with applicable sections of the California Environmental Quality Act I C. E. Q. A. ). As discussed in the preceding portions of this Staff Report, proposed Change of Zone No. 15 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 26~,88 comply with applicable 5tare and City land use and subdivision ordinances/policies currently in affect. Further, the map together with the requested change in land use designation are both compatible with the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) guidelines for the subject property, which recommend residential development at 1-2 dwelling units/acre l raference exhibit C) . SWAP guidelines will likely comprise the basis utilized in the currently developing City General Plan. Accordingly, it is likely that Change of Zone No. 15 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 26u,88 will both substantially conform to the CityIs General Plan goals, objectives, and directives affecting the subject property. An Initial Environmental Assessment has been prepared for Change of Zone No. 15 (CZ 15) which has determined that the proposed zone change could not have a significant effect on the environment. A: PM26q88 5 The environmental analysis prepared for Tentative Parcel Map No. 26L~88 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 significant potential adverse impacts." FINDINGS: Chanqe of Zone No. 15 The proposed zone change will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment, as determined in the initial study performed for this project. A Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. 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. The project is not of significant scope in the context of city- side and regional development patterns. The proposed change in district classification is reasonable and beneficial at this time as it is a logical expansion of residential uses which exist in the vicinity of the project site. The proposed change in district classification from R-A-2 1/2 to R-1-1 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 (SWAP) recommendations for the subject property. Further, densities and uses proposed are similar to existing densities and uses in the vicinity of the project. 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. A:PM26~88 6 Adequate access exists for the proposed residential land use from Walcott Lane and Calle Chapos. Additional internal access and required road improvements abutting proposed lots will be designed and constructed in conformance with City standards. That said findings are supported by analysis, minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with this application and hereln incorporated by reference. Tentative Parcel Map No. 26488 The proposed Parcel Map will not have significant negative impact on the environment, as determined in the Initial Environmental Assessment prepared for Tentative Parcel Map No. 26488. A Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. There is a reasonable probability that this proposal will be consistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time. The map together with the attendant zone change request are consistent with applicable subdivision and land use ordinances, and conform with the City's 5outhwest Area Plan {SWAP) guidelines affecting the subject property. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with, the future adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The project is consistent with surrounding development, and does not logically have the potential to generate significant adverse environmental impacts. The proposed use or action complies with City and State planning and zoning laws. Reference local Ordinances No. 348, 460, California Governmental Code Sections 65000- 66009 ( Planning Zoning Law ), and Government Code Title 7, Division 2. A:PM26488 7 10. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of parcel configurations, access, and density. The project has access to public rights-d-way, and is designed with sufficient parcel acreage allowing appropriate building pad sitings. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the initial study prepared for this project. Reference the attached initial Environmental Study and Conditions of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map No. 260,88. 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. Easement dedications are not evident in grant deeds describing the property. The site for the proposed use is provided legal access via Walcott Lane and Calle Chapos public rights-of-way. Development of these roads shall comply with City Engineering Conditions of Approval contained hereln. The proposed project will not inhibit or restrict future ability to use active or passive solar energy systems. Adequate lot areas and exposures are provided for these alternatives. The proposed use will not have a substantial adverse affect on abutting properties or the permitted use thereof. The proposed map provides for residential development similar in character and densities evident on vicinity properties. Land use incongruities and associated adverse affects arising from implementation of this proposal are unlikely. A: PM26L~88 8 STAFF RECOMMENDAT ION: 1. Staff recommends that the City Planning Commission: RECOMMEND ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration for Tentative Parcel Map No. 260,88 and Change of Zone No. 15; ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending approval of Change of Zone No. 15 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report; and ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 260,88 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. CR:ks Attachments: 1.A, 1.B. 2. 3. 4. R esol uti ons Conditions of Approval Environmental Assessment Exhibits A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. Southwest Area Plan Recommended Land UseIs) D. Tentative Parcel Map No. 260,88 Fee Checklist A: PM26488 9 ATTACHMENT NO. 1A RESOLUTION NO. 91-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 15 CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-A-2 1/2 TO R-1-1 ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WALCOTT LANE AND CALLE CHAPOS AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR~S PARCEL NO. 911)-300-0~9 WHEREAS, Mr. Jay Vanderwall filed Change of Zone No. 15 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 July 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 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1, Findings, That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a genera) 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 genera) 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. A: PM26u,88 10 b) c) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposec use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. , local ordinances. B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amendedI 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, i ' ' ' the boundar,es of the C,ty. At th,s t,me. 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 approvll of the proposed Change of Zone, makes the following findings, to wi: a) The proposed zone change will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment, as determined in the initial study performed for this project. A l~egatlve Declaration is recommended for adoption. b) 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. The project is not of significant scope in the context of city- side and regional development patterns. c) The proposed change in district classification is reasonable and beneficial at this time as it is a logical expansion of residential uses which exist in the vicinity of the project site. d) The proposed change in district classification from R-A-2 1/2 to R-1-1 will likely be consistent with the goals, policies and action programs which will be contained General Plan when it is ultimately a. The density and land use propo,. consistent with the Southwest At, (SWAP) recommendations for the property. Further, densities an proposed are similar to existing densl uses in the vicinity of the project. in the topted. ,ed are :a Plan subject d uses :ies and A: PM26~,88 11 e) 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. f) Adequate access exists for the proposed residential land use from Walcott Lane and Calle Chapos. Additional internal access and required road improvements abutting proposed lots will be designed and constructed in conformance with City standards. g) That said findings are supported by analysis, minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. D. The Change of Zone is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION 2. Environmental C~mpliance. An Initial Study was performed for this project determined that Change of Zone No. 15 could not have a significant affect on the environment, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. SECTION 3. Recommendation. That the City of Temesula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Zone Change No. 15 to change the zoning on Ik5 acres of land from R-A- 2 1/2 to R-1-1 on property generally located at the southeast corner of Walcott Lane and Calle Chapos and known as Assessorbs Parcel No. 91~,-300-0~,9. SECTION PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of July, 1991. DENNIS CHINIAEFF CHAIRMAN A: PM26q.88 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 July, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS A:PM26488 13 ATTACHMENT NO. 1B RESOLUTION NO, 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PARCEL MAP NO. 26zl8 TO SUBDIVIDE A ~.5+1- ACRE PARCEL INTO ~ ONE GROSS ACRE (MINIMUM) RESIDENTIAL PARCELS; GENERAL LOCATION OF SAID MAP BEING THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WALCOTT LANE AND CALLE CHAPOS. WHEREAS, Mr. Jay Vanderwall filed Parcel Map No. 260,88 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 July 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 Parcel Map; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Finding~. 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: I1 ) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. ~2 ) The planning agency finds, in approvlng 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. A: PM26q.88 1 b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. c) The proposed use or 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 approvlng 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 Parcel Map No. 260,88 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 7.1 of County Ordinance No. ~,60, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are made: a) That the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. A: PM26u,88 15 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 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 Environmental Assessment prepared for Tentative Parcel Map No. 260,88. A Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. b) There is a reasonable probability that this proposal will be consistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time. The map tagether with the attendant zone change request are consistent with applicable A:PM260,88 16 c) d) e) f) g) h) subdivision and land use ordinances, and conform with the City~s Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) guidelines affecting the subject property. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with, the future adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The project is consistent with surrounding development, and does not logically have the potential to generate significant adverse environmental impacts. The proposed use or action complies with City and State planning and zoning laws. Reference local Ordinances No. 3~,8, ~60, California Governmental Code Sections 65000- 66009 (Planning Zoning Law), and Government Code Title 7, Division 2. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of parcel configurations, access, and density. The project has access to public rights-of-way, and is designed with sufficient parcel acreage allowing appropriate building pad sitings. The project as designed and condltioned will not adversely effect the built or natural environment as determined in the initial study prepared for this project. Reference the attached Initial Environmental Study and Conditions of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map No. 26~,88. 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. Easement dedications are not evident in grant deeds describing the property. The site for the proposed use is provided legal access via Walcott Lane and Calle Chapos public rights-of-way. Development of these roads shall comply with City Engineering Conditions of Approval contained herein. A: PM26488 17 i) The proposed project will not inhibit or restrict future ability to use active or passive solar energy systems. Adequate lot areas and exposures are provided for these alternati yes. j) The proposed use will not have a substantial adverse affect on abutting properties or the permitted use thereof. The proposed map provides for residential development similar in character and densities evident on vicinity properties. Land use incongruities and associated adverse affects arising from implementation of this proposal are unlikely. E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Parcel Map proposed is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. SECTION 3, Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Parcel Map No. 26~88 for the subdivision of a ~.5+/- acre parcel into ~ parcels, generally located at the southeast corner of Walcott Lane and Calle Chapos subject to the following conditions: A. Attachment 2, attached hereto. SECTION PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of July, 1991. DENNIS CHINIAEFF CHAIRMAN A: PM26~88 18 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 July, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS A: PM26488 19 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Tentative Parcel Map No: Project Description: Assessor's Parcel No.: R-1-1 residential subdivision of0,.5 qross acres into 0, parcels 910,-300-049 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 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 0,60. The expiration date is Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. Legal access as required by Ordinance 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. The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations outlined in the Riverside County Health Department's Conditions of Approval, contained herein. The applicant shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined in the Riverside County Fire Department's Conditions of Approval, contained herein. A: PM26488 20 The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the City Building and Safety Department~s Conditions of Approval, contained herein. 10. All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as outlined in the Southwest Area Plan. 11. Prior to final recordation of Tentative Parcel Map No. 26~88, Change of Zone No. 15 shall be in effect. 12. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern Municipal Water District~s Conditions of Approval, contained herein. 1:3. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following: Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development standards of the R-1-1 (Single Family Residential, I Acre Minimum Parcel Size) 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 until such time as those operations are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director. 15. Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: 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. 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 A: PM26~,88 21 16. 17. 18. maintenance responsibilities have been assigned as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. 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. 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. All dwellings to be constructed within this subdivision shall be designed and constructed with fire retardant ( Class A ) rods 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. Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall not be less than ten (10) feet. f. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten (10} feet. 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. 260,88, which action is brought within the time period provided for in California Government Code Section 660,99.37. 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: PM260,88 22 19. 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. 20. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the developer or his assignee must conform to the park district Quimby Ordinance, unless waived to time of issuance of a building permit. 21. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. 22. 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 711.4( d ) ( 2 ) plus the Twenty- Five Dollar ($25.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight (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 Came Code Section 711.4(c). Riverside County Department of Health - Environmental Health Services Division 23. Prior to map recordation, "will serve" letters from Rancho California Water District and Eastern Municipal Water District shall be provided to the Environmental Health Services Division of the Riverside County Department of Health. City of Temecula 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 RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: 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; A: PM26488 23 Eastern Municipal Water District; Riverside County Flood Control district; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; Planning Department; Engineering Department; Riverside County Health Department; CATV Franchise; and Parks and Recreation Department. 25. 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. 26. Calle Chapos shall be improved with 32 feet of asphalt concrete pavement plus one 12 foot lane, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 103, Section A (66'/32'). 27. Walcott Lane shall be improved with 32 feet of asphalt concrete pavement plus one 12 foot lane, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 103, Section A (66'/32'). 28. Street "A" shall be improved with 36 feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right- d-way in accordance with County Standard No. 105, Section A (60'/36'). A cul-de-sac per County Standard No. 800 shall be constructed at the terminus. 29. In the event road or off-site right-d-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. 30. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. 31. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage, if required, shall be delineated or noticed on the final map. 32. 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. 33. A Notice of Intention to form or annex into the Temecula Community Service District, service level "C" ( Landscape Maintenance), shall be submitted to the TSCD. The engineering costs involved in District formation or annexation shall be borne by the developer. A: PM26~88 2~, 34. 35. 36° 38. 39. 0,O. 0,1. 0,2. /4-3. 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, signing, striping, and other traffic control devices as appropriate. b. Storm drain facilities. c. Landscaping (street and parks). d. Sewer and domestic water systems. f. Undergrounding of existing and proposed utility distribution lines. The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with adjoining developments. 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. All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the City Engineer. 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. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent. All driveways shall conform to the applicable County of Riverside standards and shall be shown on the street improvement plans in accordance with County Standard 0,00 and o,01 (curb sidewalk). All driveways shall be located a minimum of two 12} feet from the property line. 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 20," x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. A: PM260,88 25 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. Drainage calculations shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 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 Cityts 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 Engineer's Office. 50° A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of- way. 51o 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: 52. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan. 53. 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. The fee to be paid shall be 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. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public A: PM26u,88 26 Facility fee. The amount of the bond shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000. 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). By execution of this Agreement, developer will waive any right to protest the provisions of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project; provided that developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY: Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, and drive approaches. 55. Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. 56. Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than 1~, days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39, and 9~, of the State Standard Specifications. Transportation Enqineerinq PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: 57. A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for Calle Chapos and Walcott Lane and shall be included in the street improvement plans. Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) 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: 58. Schedule H fire protection. An approved standard fire hydrant (6"x4"x2 1/2" ) shall be located so that no portion of the frontage of any lot is more than 500 feet from a fire hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for 2 hours duration at 20 PSI. 59. The applicant/developer shall provide written certification from the appropriate water company that the required fire hydrants are either existing or that financial arrangements have been made to provide them. 60. 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. A: PM26~,88 27 MITIGATION: 61. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the City of Temecula, a cash sum of $0,00.00 per lot/unit as mitigation for fire protection impacts. All questions regarding the meaning of Conditions shall be referred to the RCFD Planning and Engineer Staff. City of Temecula Community Service District 62. 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 condominium 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 20% for offsite improvements) shall be paid by the owner of each such parcel(s) 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. The following chart has been prepared to assist staff in calculating requirements of the existing Quimby Ordinance: Dwellin.qs Type Persons Per Acres Dwellinq Unit Required* l(ea) '~' l(ea) l(ea) 2(ea) 3 or 0,(ea) 5 or More Single Family (Detached Garage) 2.98 Single Family (Attached Garage) 2.59 Mobile Home 2.60, Dwelling Units Per Structure 2.0,8 Dwelling Units Per Structure 2.30, Dwelling Units Per Structure 2.72 .010,90 .01295 = 0.0518' .01360 .01320 .0120,0 .01170 * Plus 20% for offsite improvements. A: PM260,88 28 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY II I Backqround 1. Name of Proponent: Jay Vanderwall Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 992 Carnation Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Date of Environmental Assessment: May 1, 1991 Agency Requiring Assessment: CITY OF TEMECULA Name of Proposal, if applicable: Change of Zone No. 15 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 26Lffi8 6. Location of Proposal: Southeast corner of Calle Chapos Road and Walcott Lane Environmental Impacts Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets. ) Yes Maybe No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X Disruptions, displacements, compac- tion or overcovering of the soil? X Substantial change in topography or ground surface relief features? X The destruction, covering or 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 A: PM26u,88 29 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 reglonally? 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 A: PM26b,88 30 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 wildllfe habitat? Yes Maybe No X X X X X X X X X X A: PM26q.88 31 10. 11. 12. 13. Noise. Will the proposal result in: Yes Maybe N._9o a. Increases in existing noise levels? __ X Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce substantial new light or glare? Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: Substantial increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X X X X Substantial depletion of any non- renewable natural resource? X Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, 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? X X X X X A: PM26u,88 32 Yes Maybe No Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking? Substantial impact upon existin9 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? be 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? X X X X X X X X X X X X X X A:PM26488 33 17o 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 A: PM26~,88 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 wildllfe species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environ- mental 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 A: PM26u,88 35 Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation 1.8. 1.d. 1.f. 1.g. 2.a-c. 3.b,c. 3.d. No. The project does not propose excavation or invasion of significant geologic substructures. Maybe. At full realization, the project may involve construction of up to four (u,) new residences; with the necessary attendant grading and compaction. Due to the limited scale of this project, environmental impacts of soil disruption should be insignificant. No. Construction pad grading of the subject site is anticipated should residential construction eventually occur. Given the project~s limited scale, impacts will be restricted to the immediate site. No significant impact. No. No unique geologic nor physical features exist on the subject site. No. The project, if fully realized, will result in only minor overcoverlng of natural terrain. Substantial increase in erosion .of on and off site soil is highly improbable. No. The project does not propose elements or activities that will likely modify existing erosion patterns affecting beach sands and river/stream beds. No. No construction is proposed in known earthquake, landslide, or similar hazard zones. No. The project is of insignificant scale in the context of City-wide and regional development. Ambient air qualities should not be noticeably affected. No. No development activities are proposed that could foreseeably impact rivers, streams, ocean beds, inlets or lakes. No. Localized runoff patterns may change subsequent to eventual construction of a new residence. However, due to the limited scale of this proposal and relative distance from marine and fresh waters, these ecologic features should not be impacted to any degree of significance. No. There may be a nominal increase in off-site bodies of water volumes due to increased runoff from the subject site should residential construction eventually occur. No realizable impacts. No. Assuming residential construction ensues approval of this project, runoff characteristics of the subject site may be altered, including minor fluctuations in runoff characteristics such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, and turbldity. However, impacts of any significance are unlikely. A: PM26u,88 36 3.f,g. 3.h. 3.i. zl.a,b, c,d. 5.a. 5.b. 6.a. No. Percolation rates of the project site will likely decrease subsequent to eventual residential construction, thereby decreasing ground water recharge rates. As possible new construction will likely consist of four lu,) or fewer residences, impacts of such limited development will likely be insignificant. No. Potential water consumption of the few single family residences which may result from this proposal are insignificant in the context of City-wide development. No. The project site is not subject to identified flood hazard nor tidal inundation. No. Subsequent to subdivision of the property in question, and in conjunction with eventual residential construction, native species on the subject site may be replaced with new plant species, i.e., turf, non-indigenous shrubs, trees, etc. Significant impacts are unlikely. Endangered/unique vegetative species are not currently present on the subject property. The subject site supports no agricultural crops at present. No. Eventual residential construction may displace insignificant numbers of typical native animals and insect species. Environmental consequences will be negligible. No. The subject property does not serve as identified habitat for any endangered species of animals or fish. Such species do not currently inhabit the project site. No. Elimination of insignificant habitat may eventually occur should residences be constructed. No noticeable impacts are anticipated. Mitigation of regional destruction/displacement of Stephen's Kangaroo Rat and habitat is mitigated by appropriate fee payment as per attachment No. 5 of this Staff Report. Maybe. No. Ambient noise levels on the subject property may increase should construction activities ensue approval of this parcel map. Long term noise level increases are also a logical consequence of eventual development of the project site. Overall noise level increase are considered insignificant in a City-wide context. No. Residential construction subsequent to parcelization of the subject site will contribute only nominally to ambient light levels. No. Full project realization may result in construction of new residences at a greater density than present zoning of the property allows. Approval of the attendant Zone Change Request (CZ No. 15) will provide for subdivision of the subject slte as requested. Noticeable impacts should be negligible given the trend toward increased densities of residential development in the vicinity of this proposal. A: PM26~88 37 10.a. 10.b. 11. 12. 13.a,c. 13.b. 13.d. 13.e. 13.f. 1Lka-e. 1Lkf. 15.a,b. 16.a-f. No. Eventual construction and habitation of additional residences, which may result subsequent to project approval, will not significantly affect resource consumption rates. No. Hazardous substances of any significant quantity are not, nor will be located on the subject site. No. The project site is not within an identified emergency response/evacuation plan movement corridor. Maybe. The proposal may eventually contribute a nominal quantity of additional residences to the regional population with no discernable impacts. Maybe. The proposal at full realization, will result in the potential addition of four {u,) single family residences to the region's housing stocks. Impacts are insignificant. No. The addition of four (4) single family residences subsequent to full project realization will not contribute significantly to average daily traffic to and from the project site. Maybe. The project could possibly contribute approximately 8-12 additional parking spaces subsequent to eventual construction activities. Effects on parking availability are considered insignificant. No. Traffic will eventually commute to and from a currently vacant lot which may eventually accommodate single family residences. Existing traffic volumes and circulation patterns should not be noticeably affected. No. Waterborne, rail, and air traffic routes of significance are non- existent in the vicinity of the project site. No. Slight increases in localized traffic volumes, may increase the possibility of traffic hazards. Increases in hazards above existing levels are considered insignificant. Maybe. All subdivision proposals may eventually increase demands on public services. Such demands are partially mitigated and financed by property taxes, user fees, assessment districts, developer impact fees, etc. Impacts of this individual proposal will not be significant. No. Impacts on other governmental services have not been identified at this time. No. Eventual construction and habitation of single family residences should only nominally affect consumption and stores of energy sources. No. Nominal extensions of individual service lines may eventually be required. Impacts are considered insignificant. A: PM26L~88 38 17.a,b. 18. 19. 20.a,b. 20.d. 21 .a-d. No. The project may eventually result in construction and habitation of single family residences; which is not normally associated with the creation of health hazards. Further, no health hazards have been identified on the project site. No. Identified vistas of significance do not exist in the immediate vicinity of the project site. No. The project site is not an identified recreational amenity. Further, use of existing recreational facilities should increase only nominally at full project realization. No. Due to the disturbed nature of the project site and surrounding area, presence of historic or prehistoric archaeologic resources is highly unlikely. No. No religious or sacred facilities are present on or in the vicinity of the project. No. Reference items 1 - 20. A: PM26488 39 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed Change of Zone (CZ No. 15) COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed Tentative Parcel Map (TPM No. 260,88) could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect on this case because the mitigation measures described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project. 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. May 1, 1991 Date For CITY OF TEMECULA X X A: PM26~88 ATTACHMENT NO. EXHIBITS A: PM26488 41 CITY OF TEMECULA ~ CASE CITY OF TEMECULA ) CITY OF TEMECULA ~ CITY OF TEMECULA ) PARCEL MAP NO. 26488 II ,,. CASE NO.: ATTACHMENT NO. 5 CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST Chanqe of Zone No. 15/Tentative Parcel Map No. 26~,88 The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this project. Fee Habitat Conservation Plan (K-Rat) Parks and Recreation ( Quimby ) Public Facility ( Traffic Mitigation ) Public Facility ( Traffic Signal Mitigation ) Public Facility ( Library ) Fire Protection Flood Control (ADP) Condition of Approval Condition No. 17 Condition Nos. 20, 62 Condition No. 53 Condition No. 36 Condition No. 16(a) Condition No. 61 Condition No. 51 A: PM26~,88 LF2 June 20, 1991 City of Temecula Planning Comm4ssion 43180 Business Park Drive Temecula, Ca 92390 Case No: Change of Zone No. 15/Tentative Parcel Hap No. 26488 (CZ No. 15/'rP~ 26488) Centlemen: We o~n the 2~ acres to the south, adjoining lit. Vanderwall's property and 5 acres across the street from the southwest corner of the Vanderwall property. Our major concern is whether the Planning Commission plans to impose a house only restriction. All of the properties south of Hr. Vandervallvs property have custom homes built on them. North and west of the property,. the area is spattered with mobile homes, many of which are in serious need of upkeep. Host have illegal barns and sheds which are an eyesore to the area. Another concern is what does the Planning Commission plan to do with the road? Allowing a property split will generate more traffic on our dirt road. An it stands now, I personally (with no help from the neighbors and certainly not from the city) grade one (1) mile of dirt road to make this accessible during the rainy season. Hare traffic will create more work for me. This is not what I pay taxes for. In s ........ ~ry, we would not oppose the property split providing the Planning Comm~ssion paces an Irrevocable "homes OZLty' restriction On the property and providing the city is committed to at least maintenance of the dirt road if paving is not a consideration. If the above concerns are not incorporated as conditions to the splits we then adamantly oppose this subdivision. Sincerel~ P, O. Box 1680 40095 Walcott Lane Temecula, Ca 92390 Certified Hail No. P754 681 484 ITEM #6 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION July 1, 1991 Case No.: Plot Plan No. 226 (PP 226) Prepared By: Charles Ray Recommendation: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Plot Plan No. 226; and ADOPT Resolution 91- approving Plot Plan No. 226; based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: Mr. Sam McCann Beck-Moffet Associates Request to construct a commercial retail complex of 3 single-story structures totaling 27,150+/- square feet on a 2.5+/- acre site. Southeasterly corner of Pauba and Margarita Roads. C-P-S Scenic Highway Commercial ) North: R-R South: RoR East: SP West: C - P - S ( Rural Residential) ( Rural Residential) ( Specific Plan - Margarita Village- Residential) {Scenic Highway Commercial ) C-P-S {no change proposed in conjunction with this project) Vacant/scrubbed (evidence of previous land fill activities ) A: PP226 1 SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: BACKGROUND: North: South: East: West: Vacant, Natural Vegetation Vacant, Natural Flood/Drainage Channel Specific Plan Residential Uses/Under Construction Vacant/Disturbed Vegetation Site Area: Building Area: 3. ~5 acres ( gross ) ( 150,282 sq. ft. ) 2.53 acres (net)J110,206.8 sq.ft. ) Building "A" 3,110+/- sq.ft, Building "B" 12,410+/- sq.ft. Building "C" 11,630+/- sq.ft. Total 27,150+/- sq.ft. Building Coverage/ Net Site Area: Parkin9 Provided: 24.6% Automobile Spaces: 135 Loading Zones: 3 Bicycle Racks: 9 Plot Plan No. 226 was submitted to the City of Temecula Planning Department on March 6, 1991. The proposal was considered by the City Development Review Committee ( DRC ) on a preliminary basis on April 11, 1991. Primary design/informational issues identified by the City DRC at that time were as follows: Additional landscaping adjacent to, and architectural articulation of, southerly and easterly facing building elevation was requested in order to mitigate the visual impacts of the initial design of these structures. Proposed landscaping and parking lot shading, as originally submitted, was insufficient in area coverage as specified by City ordinance. Compliance with adopted planting standards and schedules was requested. Minor architectural features such as utility fixture/trash enclosure should incorporate building materials similar to those proposed for the project's primary structures. Articulated landscape betruing {minimum of 3 feet in height) was requested as a means of street scene enhancement along the project~s Pauba and Margarita Road frontages. A:PP226 2 Further identification and enhancement of project entrances was suggested. Possible design elements accomplishing this might include textured pavers in, and placement of, large boulders or landscape planters adjacent to the project site entrances. The City Engineer requested additional information and detail regarding proposed grading and drainage improvements. Further, proposed building "C" as originally designed did not provide adequate rear areas for pedestrian ingress/egress to this structure~s rear doorways initially proposed. This latter concern was reiterated by the DRC~s Riverside County Fire Department representative. A site specific traffic study was deemed necessary in order to identify project traffic impacts and appropriate mitigation. Minor driveway and parking reconfiguration/ redesign was requested. The initially proposed drive width improvements accessing Pauba Road were considered inadequate and were specified by the City Transportation Engineer to be 30 feet minimum width with full improvements. Additionally, it was suggested that the applicant reconsider proposed locations of loading zones and handicap accessible parking spaces, minimizing potential internal site traffic circulation conflicts. Riverside County Fire Department concerns generally focused on proper site circulation and access requirements for emergency vehicles. Specifically, the drive accessing Pauba Road was specified to be fully improved as referenced in #8 above. Further, the proposed openings at the rear of Building "C" would require not only wider pedestrian access, but full-wldth improvements allowing for ingress/egress by emergency vehicles as well. Alternatively, it was suggested proposed rear door openings be removed. A: PP226 3 ANALYSIS: Applicant responses, including proposed design solutions to the above referenced issues are contained in the following project analysis. Land Use and Architectural Compatibility The proposed use is identified as one of those allowed under the subject site's current zoning designation of Scenic Highway - Commercial J C-P-S ) { Reference Exhibit B ). Further, as the surrounding properties are currently vacant, the City has the opportunity to ensure compatibility of this project's architectural design with future development through architectural review of additional projects which may eventually be constructed in the vicinity of Plot Plan No. 226. Materials and design elements proposed by the applicant are considered compatible with the design guidelines currently observed by the City. As such, the project is considered compatible with current development standards and ordinances affecting the proposal site and neighboring properties. Proposed landscaping as currently indicated provides additional aesthetic enhancement to the site and adjacent street. Planting and irrigation schemes are in keeping with City policies regarding water conservation and use of drought-tolerant vegetative species. Installation of proposed landscaping will be secured by means of bonding adequate to cover costs of landscape installation plus one J 1 ) year maintenance. Actual installation timeJ s) of proposed landscaping is contingent upon weather conditions and irrigation water availability. Site Access The site is currently accessible by Margarita and Pauba Roads, both of which will be improved to their designed half-width standards adjacent to this proposal as a condition of project approval {reference PP 226, Conditions of Approval Attachment No. Project related traffic impacts as documented by the traffic study submitted by the applicant, are mitigated by signalization and public facilities fees, also specified in the attached Conditions of Approval. { Reference also Attachment No. 5 - "Fee Checklist". ) A: PP226 4 Access into the site proper is provided by 2, two- way drives, one each accessing adjacent road frontages. As revised, the Pauba Road drive access will be improved to its full design width of 30 feet. The location of this drive, which is bisected by the project slte~s westerly property line, also provides for shared access to anticipated commercial development immediately to the west, thereby red ucl ng ex it/entrance trips between sites utili z i ng Pauba Road as their primary access. Parkinq and On-Site Circulation Current auto and bicycle parking ratios planned for this proposal are considered adequate to support parking demands based on the variety of allowable occupancies. Significant change in proposed occupancies will mandate site/user-specific parking demand analyses with corresponding modifications to vehicle parking provisions if deemed necessary. The applicant has also incorporated design al Iowances faci l itati ng futu re shared access between the property in question and the westerly adjacent parcel as discussed previously. Shared access is graphically portrayed in Exhibit D. Proposed easement documentation/agreements and drive construction plans for this site access point have been reviewed by the City Engineering Department and are considered acceptable. Alternative trash enclosure and loading zone locations which might facilitate traffic circulation within the project site were also investigated by the applicant. The loading zone and enclosure locations currently indicated by Exhibit D are considered appropriate by the proposalis prospective tenants as well as the affected trash pick-up service and the City Engineering Department. Access to the rear of proposed Building ~C", as revised, allows for adequate emergency vehicle response capabilities as required by the Riverside County Fire Department. As a corollary, pedestrian access at the rear of this building has also been redesigned to eliminate potential conflicts with rear door openings. Guard railings indicated along the walkway at the rear of the structure reduce the possibility of accidental falls down the abutting slope to the north. Railings as designed are in accordance with applicable City and Uniform Building Code Standards. A: PP226 5 GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: Gradinq and Drainaqe As redesigned and specified, proposed on-site drainage improvements are considered adequate to convey 100 year storm discharge volumes. Design modifications initiated by the applicant also included relocation and redesign of proposed off-site drainage structures adjacent to the northerly property boundary of the subject site, Changes in the project~s original grading plans, as initiated by the applicant, included a significant gradient ratio increase (2:1 originally proposed vs. 1:1 currently indicated) in the site~s northerly facing slope. The proposed change is realized primarily through incorporation of recently available slope stabilization technology commonly known as "Mirafi". As a result of the increased slope stabilization achieved through use of this material, the retaining wall indicated at the toe of the slope referenced has been reduced in scale from a maximum height originally planned at approximately 16'+/- to that currently indicated of approximately 3'-6'. Scale reduction in the proposed retaining wall lessens overall project visual impacts, often associated with construction of massive retaining walls. Specifications of materials and construction methodologies proposed have been reviewed by the City Engineering Department and are considered appropriate for this project's design requirements. Easements allowing for construction and maintenance of all proposed off-site grading and drainage improvements, acceptable in content and format to the City Engineer, will be secured by the applicant prior to issuance of grading/building permits. The project, as proposed, conforms with existing zoning ordinances affecting the subject property, and is compatible with Southwest Area Plan {SWAP) land use recommendations for the site {Reference Exhibit C) . As discussed previously, the proposal is also compatible with existing and anticipated development in its immediate vicinity. As such, it is likely Plot Plan No. 226 will be consistent with the City~s General Plan recommendations for the property in question, upon the Plan~s final adoption, A:PP226 6 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: FINDINGS: Pursuant to applicable portions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Environmental Assessment was prepared for Plot Plan No. 226. Based on findings contained in that assessment, it was determined the project in question will not have a significant impact on the built or natural environment; a Negative Declaration of potential environmental impacts is recommended for adoption. There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 226 will be consistent with the City~s future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law. The project, as proposed, conforms with existing applicable city zoning and development ordinances. Further, the proposal is characteristic of similar development approved by the City to date. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with the City~s future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The project is of insignificant scale in context of the broad goals and directives anticipated in the City~s General Plan. The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws. Reference local Ordinances No. 3~8, ~60; and California Governmental Code Sections 65000-66009 (Planning and Zoning Law). The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use. Adequate site circulation, parking, and landscaping are provided, as well as sufficient area to appropriately construct the proposed structures, Reference Exhibits D and E. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare. Reference the proposaPs Initial Environmental Assessment, (Attachment No. 3), and project Conditions of Approval ( Attachment No. 2 ). A: PP226 7 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area. The project conforms with applicable land use and development regulations and reflects design elements currently existing within the City. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-d-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. The project draws access from both Margarita and Pauba Roads, dedicated City rights-of-way, which will be improved to realize their respective ultimate design configurations as a project Condition of Approval. Project access, as designed, conforms with applicable City Engineering standards and ordinances. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the initial study performed for this project. Reference the attached Initial Environmental Study and Conditions of Approval for Plot Plan No. 226. The design of the project together with the type of supporting improvements are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through, or use of the property within the proposed project. Reference the proposed site design in the context of the approved, underlying parcel map configuration, Exhibits D and H respectively. 10. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. Supporting documentation is attached. The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Plot Plan No. 226, and ADOPT Resolution 91- approving P'~ ~'an No. 226; base"a'on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. A: PP226 8 CR:ks Attachments: 2. 3. u,. 5. Resolution Conditions of Approval Environmental Assessment Exhibits A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. SWAP Recommended Land Use D. Site Plan E. Landscape Plan F. Elevations G. Floor Plans H. Parcel Map No. 8~,55 I. 1. Color Exterior 2. Materials Samples Fee Check List A: PP226 9 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 226 TO CONSTRUCT A COMMERCIAL RETAIL COMPLEX OF 3 STRUCTURES TOTALING 27,150+/- SQUARE FEET ON A PARCEL CONTAI N I NG 2.53 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF MARGARITA AND PAUBA ROADS AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORIS PARCEL NO. 9q.5 - 110 -003. WHEREAS, Mr. Sam McCann filed Plot Plan No. 226 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Plot Plan on July 1, 1991, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report regarding the Plot Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECT ION 1. Findinqs. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: [1 ) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. ~2 ) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: A:PP226 10 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 'ISWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: (1) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. {2) The Planning Commission finds, in approving of projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: a) There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 226 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. The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. A:PP226 11 D. (1) Pursuant to Section 18.30~c), no plot plan may be approved unless the following findings can be made: a) The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. b) The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. (2) The Planning Commission, in approving of the proposed Plot Plan, makes the following findings, to wit: a) There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 226 will be consistent with the City~s future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law. The project, as proposed, conforms with existing applicable city zoning and development ordinances. Further, the proposal is characteristic of similar development approved by the City to date. b) There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with the City's future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The project is of insignificant scale in context of the broad goals and directives anticipated in the City's General Plan. c) The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws. Reference local Ordinances No. 3/48, 460; and California Governmental Code Sections 65000-66009 (Planning and Zoning Law). d) The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use. Adequate site circulation, parking, and landscaping are provided, as well as sufficient area to appropriately construct the proposed building, Reference Exhibits D and E. A:PP226 12 e) The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare. Reference the proposal~s Initial Environmental Assessment, {Attachment No. 3), and project Conditions of Approval IAttachment No. 2). f) The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area. The project conforms with applicable land use and development regulations and reflects design aspects currently existing within the City. g) The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. The project draws access from both Margarita and Pauba Roads, dedicated City rights-of-way, which will be improved as necessary to realize their respective ultimate design configurations. Project access, as designed, conforms with applicable City Engineering standards and ordinances. h) The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the initial study performed for this project. Reference the attached Initial Environmental Study and Conditions of Approval for Plot Plan No. 226. i) The design of the project together with the type of supporting improvements are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through, or use of the property within the proposed project. Reference the proposed site design in the context of the approved, underlying parcel map configuration. j) That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. Supporting documentation is attached. 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. A:PP226 13 SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Plot Plan No. 226 to construct a commercial retail complex of three 13 ) structures totaling 27,150+/- square feet generally located at the southwesterly corner of Margarita and Pauba Roads and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 9u,5-110-003 subject to the following conditions: A. Attachment No. 2, attached hereto. SECTION 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of July, 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 __ day of , 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS A:PP226 1~ ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Plot Plan No: 226 Project Description: Commercial retail complex of 3 structures totallinq 27. 150+/- square feet on a 2.53 acre site. Assessor~s Parcel No.: 9~,5-110-003 Planninq Department The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for construction of a commercial retail complex of three ( 3 ) structures, total ing 27, 150+/- square feet on a 2.53 acre site. 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. 226. 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. 226 marked Exhibit D, or as amended by these conditions. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-d-way. The applicant shall comply with the Engineering Department~s Conditions of Approval which are included herein. A:PP226 15 10. 11. 12. 13. The applicant shall comply with the street improvement recommendations outlined in the Transportation Engineering Division~s Conditions of Approval, which are included herein. Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's Conditions of Approval which are included herein. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance No. 5~,6 and the County Fire Warden~s Conditions of Approval contained herein. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the City Building and Safety Department~s Conditions of Approval contained herein. Prior to the issuance of grading or 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. 3~8, 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, or within the time frame specified by the City Planning Director and City Building Official as referenced in Condition No. 19, below. 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 138 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 3L~8. 138 parking spaces shall be provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit D. The parking area shall be surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on ~, inches of Class II base. A minimum of four (~1) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on Exhibit D. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: A:PP226 16 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. "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 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the following additional plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval: Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans. A Plot Plan application for a Sign Program shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Director prior to occupancy. Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibits F.1, F.2, and F.3. Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit H. 1 (Color Elevations) and Exhibit H.2 (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. As a minimum, each enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall be constructed with materials similar in appearance to that utilized for structure exteriors and a steel gate which screens the bins from external view. Bermed landscape screening shall be provided along the project's Margarita and Pauba Road frontages. Betruing shall be a minimum of three (3) feet in height; street frontage landscaping shall substantially conform with the concept illustrated in Exhibit E. Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along streets and within the parking areas. A:PP226 17 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 30. 31. All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance which is based on the gross acreage of the parcels proposed for development. 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. Nine (9) Class II 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 planrings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed with the Department of Building and Safety. Contingent upon availability of irrigation water, 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. Alternatively, installation of landscaping may be by means of bonding as referenced in Condition No. 27 above, and installed at such times as irrigation water is in adequate supply as determined by RCWD and the City Planning Director. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire all required off-site property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the developer shall at least 120 days prior to submittal for building permit, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such time as the City acquires the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the project. Security for a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the developer, at the developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. A:PP226 18 32. 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. ~,( 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 herein shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.~,(c). City of Temecula En.qineerinq 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: 33. 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; and Parks and Recreation Department. The developer shall submit two ( 2 ) prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code and Chapter 70 as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2~,"x36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. 35. The developer 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. A:PP226 19 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 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 commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of- way. No grading shall take place prior to the improvement plans being substantially complete, appropriate clearance letters and approval by the City Engineer. If grading is to take place between the months of October and April, erosion control plans will be required. Erosion control plans and notes shall be submitted and approved by the Engineering Department. All site plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency with approved plans. Street improvement plans including parkway trees and street lights prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer shall be required for all public streets prior to issuance of an Encroachment Permit. Final plans and profiles shall show the location of existing utility facilities within the right-d-way. No fill slopes shall be steeper than 2:1 unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. An earthen berm shall be provided along the top of all slopes as directed by the City Engineer or his representative. Prior to any work being performed on the private streets or drives, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office. Prior to any work being performed in public right-d-way, fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office. Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. 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, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, and other traffic control devices as appropriate. b. Storm drain facilities. A:PP226 Landscaping ( street and parks). Sewer and domestic water systems. Undergrounding of existing and proposed utility distribution lines. 20 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. 49. A drainage easement shall be provided along the eastern property line for construction and maintenance of the drainage structure outlet. A copy of the recorded drainage easement shall be submitted to the City for review. 50. Adequate protection shall be provided at the storm drain outlet structure to prevent any damage to existing or proposed slopes or pertinent structures. 51. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 52. All concentrated drainage directed toward the public street shall be diverted through the undersidewalk drains. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT: 53. 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 a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact. 55. The developer shall obtain an easement for ingress and egress over the adjacent property. Easement and access geometric shall be as approved by the City Engineer. 56. Prior to building permit, the subdivider shall notify the City~s C.A.T.V. Franchises of the intent to develop. Conduit shall be installed to C.A.T.V. Standards prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. 57. 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. The fee to be paid shall be 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. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of the bond shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to A:PP226 21 exceed $10,000. 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). By execution of this Agreement, developer will waive any right to protest the provisions of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project; provided that developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY: 58. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent. 59. Improvement plans per City Standards for the private streets or drives shall be required for review and approval by the City Engineer and included with the precise grading plan. 60. All driveways shall conform to the applicable County of Riverside standards and shall be shown on the street improvement plans in accordance with County Standard 0,00 and 0,01 (curb sidewalk). 61. 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. 62. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along all public street frontages in accordance with Riverside County Standard Nos. 0,00 and 0,01. 63. 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. This minimum centerline radii shall be 300 feet or as approved by the City Enginee~r. 65. 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. 66. Margarita Road shall be improved with 0,3 feet of asphalt concrete pavement within the dedicated right-d-way in accordance with County Standard No. 100 ( 110~/86~ ). 67. Pauba Road shall be improved with 32 feet of asphalt concrete pavement within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 103, Section A 68. 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 A:PP226 22 developer~s cost pursuant to Government Code Section 66462.5, which shall be at no cost to the City. 69. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. City of Temecula Transportation Enqineerinq PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: 70. A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for Margarita Road and Pauba Road and shall be included in the street improvement plans. Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) With respect to the Conditions of Approval regarding Plot Plan No. 226, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: 71. 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. 72. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2000 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 73. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants, on a looped system ( 6"x4"2 1/2 x 2 1/2 ), will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in the permit process to reflect changes in design, construction type, area separation or built-in fire protection measures. 75. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "1 certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." A:PP226 23 76. 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. 77. Install a supervised waterflow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation, as per UBC. 78. A statement that the building will be automatically fire sprinklered must appear on the title page of the building plans. 79. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. 80. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC. Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 81. 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. 82. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall deposit with the City of Temecula, a check or money order equaling the sum of 25 cents per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts. This amount must be submitted separately from the plan check review fee. 83. 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. 84. 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 RCFD Planning and Engineering Staff. Riverside County Department of Health The Environmental Health Services has reviewed Plot Plan No. 226 and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services should be available in this area. Prior to any building plan submittals, the following items will be required: 85. "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies. 86. 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. For specific reference, please contact Food Facility Plan examiners at i714) 358-5172). A:PP226 24 87. A clearance letter from the Hazardous Materials Management Branch Services (Jon Mohoroski, 358-5055), will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for: a. Underground storage tanks. b. Hazardous Waste Generator Services. c. Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with AB 2185). d. Waste reduction Management. City of Temecula Department of Buildinq and Safety 88. Request for street addressing must be made prior to submittal of Building Plan Review. 89. Comply with applicable provisions of the 1988 editions of the Uniform Building, Plumbing and Mechanical codes, 1990 National Electrical Code, California State Administrative Code, Title 2~, Handicapped and Energy Regulations and the Temecula City Code. 90. Lighting on site and located on structures shall comply with Mount Palomar Lighting Ordinance No. 655. A:PP226 25 II ATTACHMENT NO. 3 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY Backqround 1. Name of Proponent: Mr. Sam McCann Address and Phone Number of Proponent: z&3121 Margarita Road Temecula, CA 92390 (71q.) 676-7q.8q. Date of Environmental Assessment: March 26, 1991 u,. Agency Requiring Assessment: CITY OF TEMECULA Name of Proposal, if applicable: Plot Plan No. 226 (PP 226) 6. Location of Proposal: Southeasterly corner of Pauba and Marqarita Roads 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 A: PP226 26 Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltatlon, 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 Fate 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 A:PP226 27 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, benthlc 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 A:PP226 28 10. 11. 12. 13. Yes Maybe No Noise. Will the proposal result in: Increases in existing noise levels? __ X Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce substantial new light or glare? Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: Substantial increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? Substantial depletion of any non- renewable natural resource? Risk of Upset. Will the proposal i n vol ve: 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? X X X X X X X X A:PP226 29 Yes Maybe No b. Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking? X c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? __ __ d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? __ __ e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, blcyclists or pedestrians? __ X 1~,. 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: __ __ 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? __ __ b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? __ __ 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? __ __ X X X X X A:PP226 30 17. 18. 19. 20° b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? Human Health. Will the proposal result in: Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? Exposure of people to potential health hazards? Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? Yes Maybe No X X X X X X × X X X X X X A:PP226 31 Yes Maybe No 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environ- mental goals? I A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future. ) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumu- latively considerable? |A project's impact on two or more separate resources may be relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant. ) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substan- tial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? __ X X X X A:PP226 32 III Earth 1.a. 1.b. 1oC. 1.d. 1.e. 1.f. 1.g. Air 2.a,b,c. Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation No. Construction is not proposed at depths sufficient to adversely affect geologic substructures of the site. Unstable earth conditions which might result from proposed cut/fill activities are mitigated by the crib retaining wall extending along the site~s easterly property line. Fill activities are subject to City material and compact/on specifications. Yes. Compact/on and overcovering of soil is necessary to effect the construction proposed. The limited scale of this proposal precludes any significant impacts on regional topography or soil characteristics. Maybe. Reference item 1 .b. Grading plans submitted propose a 20-25 gradient drop between the subject site and the property immediately adjacent to the east. Gradient differentials are effected by a 2:1 slope downward from the subject property, supported by a crib retaining wall approximately 10 feet high. Partial mitigation of the visual impacts of this slope/wall are realized through slope landscaping. Visual impacts affecting properties immediately adjacent are further mitigated by architectural articulation of the proposalis opposing building facades. No. No unique geologic or topographic features are evident on the subject site. No. Insignificant change in regional surface erosion can be expected if this project is eventually realized, i.e., additional on-site structures and paving will undoubtedly reduce erosion at the project site. Resultant environmental impacts of additional off-site drainage are nominal as mitigated by properly designed and constructed drainage conveyances. (Reference City of Temecula Engineering Department Conditions of Approval. ) No. No construction is proposed that would logically affect beach sands; nor should the project produce deposition/erosion which may modify stream channels or lake beds. No. The subject site is not affected by known earthquake, landslide, mudslide or ground failure hazards. Further, all proposed fill/compact/on and substructures shall conform to applicable City and Uniform Building Code standards. No. Nominal addition of localized air pollutants may result from increased auto traffic accessing the project site. Regional effects are considered nominal. Nominal changes may result in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Based on the scale of this proposal, environmental effects are anticipated to be largely undetectable. A:PP226 33 Water 3.a. 3.b. 3.d,e. 3.f,g. 3.h. 3.i. Plant Life ~.a-d. Animal Life 5.a-c. No. The proposed structure is not located within defined marine or fresh water flows. No effect on these environmental assets is anticipated. No. Currently permeable ground will be rendered impervious as a result of this proposal. Consequently, surface runoff and absorption rates on the project site itself may change. Site drainage shall conform with plans approved by the City of Temecula. Necessary improvements to effect proper site drainage shall be as indicated in the project conditions of approval. No significant impacts are anticipated. No. Plans proposed at this time indicate no adverse on or off site flooding impacts. Proposed drainage plans and all related necessary improvements shall be as specified by the City Engineering Department. No. increased runoff from the project site may nominally increase surface levels and turbidity of off-site bodies of water. However, due to the limited project scale proposed, this possibility is unlikely. No. Reduced permeat/on at the project site may eventually affect underlying groundwater. Possible environmental alteration /s unlikely, as are negative impacts. No. Water consumption rates typical of commercial projects is proposed. All water consumption activities are subject to monitoring and allowances specified by the applicable purveyor. Proposed landscaping/irrigation shall respect current drought conditions affecting the City as specified in the project Conditions of Approval. No. Reference Item No. 3.c. No. No quantities of native plants to speak of, are currently present on, or in the vicinity of the subject site, including species identified as "rare or endangered". Further, new species which may be introduced as a result of required site landscaping cannot be considered invasive because of the referenced lack of on-site native varieties. Similarly, no impacts are anticipated on agricultural assets. No. Minor losses of small common urban species, e.g., small lizards, insects, rodents, and their habitats may result from this project. Numerically and qualitatively, these losses should be envlronmentally insignificant. Further, if not previously paid, the applicant is required to submit Stephen*s Kangaroo Rat habitat procurement fees in an amount specified by City ordinance, Such monies are to be used for purchase of suitable habitat for the Kangaroo Rat as it is gradually displaced due to generalized development of the Temecula Valley. This A:PP226 34 proposal contributes incrementally to regional displacement of the Kangaroo Rat. Noise 6.8. Maybe. No. Minor increases in ambient noise levels may occur subsequent to project implementation and commercial occupancy of the project site. Long term noise impacts will be insignificant. Short term construction noise levels generated may result in localized disturbance, self- mitigated largely by normally conducting such activities during daylight hours, Monday through Friday. Liqht and Glare No. While the project could potentially impact night skies, the proposal is required to comply with applicable City/Palomar Observatory lighting policies and ordinanceIs). These policies and ordinances address potential night-sky lighting impacts of development proposals that might logically affect activities of the Mt. Palomar Astronomical Observatory. Land Use No. The project is consistent with underlying land use ordinances and Southwest Area Plan guidelines affecting the subject property. No change in Land Use designations is proposed by the project; no anticipated impacts. Natural Resources 9.a,b. No. The proposal is of limited scale and would not logically deplete substantial renewable or non-renewable natural resources. Risk of Upset 10.a,b. No. The proposal does not entail storage or use of hazardous substances; nor is the subject site within a designated emergency/evacuation plan movement corridor. Population 11. Housing 12. No. The project does not contain population relocation elements. No. No housing is proposed to be added nor deleted. A:PP226 35 Transportation/Circulation 13.a,c. No. Commercial retail construction of relatively limited scale (less than 30,000 square foot) is proposed, generating similarly limited amounts of destination traffic. Further, the project is required to contribute monies to area-wide, as well as localized public improvements {e.g., traffic impact mitigation) proportionate to the proposal's anticipated impacts. 13.b. Yes. In compliance with City ordinance, the project is required to, and does provide a total of 138 additional off-street, improved parking spaces as referenced in the proposaPs Conditions of Approval (attached) and indicated by Exhibit D. 13.d. No. The project will attract additional traffic to the subject site upon its implementation. Impacts are expected to be insignificant given the proposalis limited scale. Reference also Item 13.a. 13.e. No. The project is not in a location which would logically affect waterborne, rail or air traffic, nor does it propose addition or deletion of such facilities. 13.f. Maybe. Any increase in traffic naturally increases the possibility of traffic accidents. Impacts are likely to be unnoticeable in view of the proposaPs limited scope and proposed infrastructure improvements. Public Services 14.a-c. Maybe. All new commercial development may generate at least nominal increased demands for police and fire protection services, utility provisions and, indirectly, schools. Mitigation is realized through assessment districts, property taxes, and similar funding mechanisms. lu,.d. Maybe. Construction is not proposed which would directly impact schools or parks. However, the applicant is required by state law to contribute applicable school fees as partial mitigation for secondary impacts on school systems resulting from co..'~ercial development. lu,.e. Yes. Increases in road maintenance activities in the immediate vicinity of the proposal will be required due to proportionate increases in localized traffic generated. Mitigation of such impacts are as specified by the City Engineering Department in the project~s Conditions of Approval. lu,.f. No. Impacts on other governmental services have not been identified at this time. Energy 15.a,b. No. Reference Item Nos. 9.a. and b. A:PP226 36 Utilities 16.a-f. No. Nominal service line extensions/increased demands can be expected for the utilities referenced. No significant impacts are anticipated. Human Health 17,a,b. No. The project does not include introduction of potential health hazards to the region; nor are there existing health hazards identified at the project site. Flood hazards affecting the site previous to improvements proposed are mitigated by those improvements, including overall elevation of the project site realized by planned fill activities. Aesthetics 18. No. The application has been reviewed for architectural compatibility and complies with the City's applicable guidelines and standards in this regard. Potential visual impacts of proposed grading and the previously referenced crib retaining wall are mitigated primarily through landscaping of the project site as indicated by Exhibit F. Recreation 19. No. Additional recreational assets are not proposed, nor are they to be deleted in conjunction with this project; direct impacts on recreational facilities are not anticipated. Cultural Resources 20.a. No. Construction is not proposed that will logically affect known archaeological religious or cultural assets; no identified impacts. 20.b. No. The proposal is not within an identified historic preservation/conservation district. As such, impacts on the existing character of historic assets in the region are unlikely. 21 .a,b, c, do No. Reference Item Nos. 1-20. A:PP226 37 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. March 26, 1991 Date For CITY OF TEMECULA X A:PP226 38 ATTACHMENT NO. 11. EXHIBITS A:PP226 39 CITY OF TEMECULA ) HIIII P.c. eATS "/. I'ql ( CITY OF TEMECULA ) t .' " r.C. OatE "7'j'~! CITY OF TEMECULA ~ , "~;T:~.- case .o. ~'z2,~ r.c. e~ate "7-1.~tl CITY OF TEMECULA ~ ~p,C, DATE CITY OF TEMECULA ) , / rlSXhisiT .P- CASE NO.~-ZIP p.C. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA ) CASE NO. p.c. ~>ATE "7'('ql CITY OF TEMECULA ) I; CASE NO. ¢p.C. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA ) ;; + CASE FC. DATE 1.t~t CITY OF TEMECULA ) C CITY OF TEMECULA ) PARCEL MAP 8455 PARCEL I IO. q4ACRE$ NLv'r I 1.01 ACe, GROSS CASE NO. F:f'zz-p p.c. o,,,TE CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST CASE NO.: Plot Plan No. 226 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 ) FiFe Protection Flood Control {ADP) Condition of Approval Condition No. 25 N/A Condition No. 57 Condition No. 50· N/A Condition No. 82 Condition No. o,7 A:PP226 40 ITEM MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Planning Director July 1, 1991 Variance No. 6 (Winchester Square) The above subject case was scheduled to be heard before the Planning Commission on June 17, 1991. However, the applicant has recently hired a private consultant to represent the subject case. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a continuance "Off-Calendar" in order for the applicant's representative to further review the case. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission CONTINUE Variance No. 6 "Off- Calendar". RA/GT:ks A:VAR6-B.MEM ITEM #8 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION July 1, 1991 Case No.: Tentative Tract Map No. 25277 and Change of Zone No. 5724 Prepared By: Scott Wright Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. ADOPT Resolution 91- recommending denial of Change of Zone No. 5724 from R-R, Rural Residential, to R-1, One Family Residential; and 2. ADOPT Resolution 91 - recommending denial of Tentative Tract Map No. 25277 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCAT ION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: A: TM25277 Acacia Construction Markham 8 Associates To change the zone from R-R, Rural Residential, to R-l, Single Family Residential, and to create 102 single family lots and seven open space lots on a 47.7 acre site. The southwesterly side of Pechanga Creek between Via Gilberto and the easterly side of Temecula Creek Inn Golf Course. R-R Rural Residential North: South: East: West: R-2, Multiple Family Dwellings Mountainous 10 acre Minimum Lot Size (SWAP) R-R Rural Residential R-R Rural Residential R-1 Single Family Dwellings Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: BACKGROUND: North: Single Family Residential South: Vacant East: Vacant West: Golf Course Site Area: ~,7.7 acres No. of Residential Lots: 102 No. of Open Space Lots: 7 Proposed Density: 2.1~, DU/AC Oak Trees to be Preserved in Open Space Lots: 267 Oak Trees to be Transplanted On-Site: 27 Oak Trees to be Eliminated: 3 Slope Analysis: % of Site 0-9% Slopes: % of Site 9-15% Slopes: 18% % of Site 15-25% Slopes: 18% % of Site 25%+ Slopes: 19% Grading: Excavation: Fill: Shrinkage: Export: 200,650 cy 180,770 cy 18,080 cy 1,800 cy Tentative Tract Map No. 25277 and Change of Zone No. 572~, were submitted to the County on February 16, 1990. The County Land Development Committee reviewed the project on March 15, 1990, and deemed the application incomplete pending submittal of an archaeological survey, a biological survey plotting the location of all oak trees on the site, a geology report addressing faults, liquefaction and slope stability, grading information regarding degree of slopes, cut and fill volumes, and existing topography, and arrows indicating direction of drainage on the site. The case transmittal from the County to the City was dated April 30, 1990. On August 1, 1990, a revised map was prepared which reduced the proposed number of residential lots from 137 to 105 and introduced six open space lots in order to preserve a natural drainage course and the majority of the 297 oak trees on the site. The City Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the project and expressed concern regarding prov. ision of a secondary paved access to the site and the appropriateness of the proposed Change of Zone. The Development Review Committee requested additional information regarding the limits of Flood Zone A, the provision of a secondary access, and traffic impacts. A: TM25277 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ANALYSIS: City Planning staff visited the site with the applicant's representative and expressed concern regarding the proposed Change of Zone on a site containing 297 oak trees and substantial slopes. Staff raised the issue of preserving more of the natural topography and drainage courses and suggested that a Planned Residential Development allowing increased density on the flat portions of the site in return for preserving more open space on the hillsides would be more appropriate for the site. In response to these concerns, the applicant submitted a redesigned map which reduced the number of residential lots from 105 to 102, provided slightly larger lots on the hillsides, realigned some streets, and reconfigured the hillside lots to reduce the impact on the natural topography. The redesigned map still contains proposed residential parcels on the hillside areas. The applicant requests a Change of zone from R-R, Rural Residential with a half acre minimum lot size, to R-1, One Family Residential with a 7,200 square foot minimum lot size. The applicant proposes a subdivision to create 102 single family lots and seven open space lots which would preserve existing oak trees and a well defined drainage course on the site. Access A bridge across Pechanga Creek at Via Gilberto would provide the primary access to the site. Clearance from the Army Corps of Engineers would be required to construct a bridge across the creek. A temporary secondary access is proposed from the southwesterly side of the site to Rainbow Canyon Road via pavement to be constructed over a Municipal Water Department easement. The permanent secondary access is proposed to be provided upon development of the property southeast of the site which would provide a street to a second bridge to be constructed across Pechanga Creek at Via Eduardo. Permission from the adjacent property owner and the Municipal Water District will be necessary for the temporary secondary access from Rainbow Canyon Road to the site. To date, permission from said property owners has not been provided to the City. Staff is also concerned that provision of the proposed permanent second access is uncertain. Most of the adjacent property through which the A:TM25277 3 proposed street would pass is occupied by steep slopes. This site is also currently zoned R-R, Rural Residential, and may, in Staff~s opinion, be inappropriate for development of sufficient density to support construction of a second bridge across Pechanga Creek. Traffic Impacts The Traffic Study prepared for the proposed Tentative Tract was based on the originally proposed number of lots. Traffic generation projections indicated 1,060 trip ends per day with 80 vehicles during the AM peak hour and 105 vehicles during the PM peak hour. Existing plus project generated traffic would warrant signalization at the intersection of Pala Road and State Route 79. The developer would be required to pay the traffic signal mitigation fees and to install signals at the intersection of Pala Road and State Route 79 if the intersection has not already been signalized in conjunction with another project. The developer would also be required to enter into an agreement with the City to replace the existing inadequate bridge on Pala Road by not protesting the formation of a special district to provide for construction of a new bridge. Flood Plain The northeasterly portion of the site is designated as an open space parcel and is located in the 100 year floodway of Pechanga Creek. The 100 year flood plain encroaches into 2~· of the proposed residential parcels. Pechanga Creek and its flood plain constitute a wetland as defined by Federal and State agencies. Clearance from the State Department of Fish and Game will be required prior to the issuance of permits to grade within the flood plain. The developer will also be required to comply with City Ordinance 91-12 which may involve obtaining a Conditional letter of Map Revision from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Geotechnical Investiqation of The Site A geotechnical investigation of the site was conducted. The conclusions of the investigation were that a previously mapped pre-pliocene fault passes south of the site and does not present a significant hazard to the site, that there is no significant hazard of surface rupture on the site, A: TM25277 ~ and that the potential for liquefaction is considered possible on the site. Recommended mitigation measures include structural design to withstand ground motions of 0.37g, recompaction of subsurface soils, and foundation reinforcement to mitigate liquefaction potential. The County Geologist found that the report provided sufficient information for purposes of environmental review and concurred with the recommended mitigation measures. Site Topoqraphy The site is located at the base of foothills adjacent to a mountainous region to the south. There is a 96 foot difference between the lowest proposed pad elevation adjacent to Pechanga Creek and the highest proposed building pad on the hillside. Slopes between 15 and 2596 in steepness comprise 1896 of the site, and 1996 of the site is occupied by slopes of 25% or more. Approximately 30% of the proposed residential parcels are located in areas with significant slopes. Southwest Area Plan Hillside Policies The Hillside designation in the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) is applied to relatively small isolated topographic features with slopes in areas of 25%. Although the site is not within the Hillside designation, the boundaries of the designation are based on general topographical data and should not be considered final for purposes of determining how much of a given parcel is within the designation. The land south of the site is within the Mountainous designation. The SWAP states that applications for development of sites located on the edge of Hillside or Mountainous designations may be accompanied by more detailed topographic data to further define slope characteristics. The SWAP Hillside Policy states that land with slopes in areas of 25% should be incorporated into the design of the development as open space and/or larger lot sizes. The Hillside Policy also states that the Hillside designation shall have a density of 0.2 dwelling units per acre for density transfer purposes. That development shall blend into the natural features of the site, that narrow canyons which might create significant fire hazards shall be left undeveloped, that the alignments of roads and driveways should avoid areas of natural slopes in A: TM25277 5 excess of 25%, and that erosion control through retention of existing trees, planting of cut and fill slopes, and proper compaction of manufactured slopes shall be encouraged. Although large open space areas are provided, substantial portions of 16 of the proposed parcels in the hillside area are located where existing slopes are 25% or greater. Grading The Tentative Parcel Map indicates 200,650 cubic yards of soil to be excavated from the hillsides, 180,770 cubic yards of fill to elevate the proposed building pads adjacent to Pechanga Creek, 18,080 cubic yards of shrinkage, and an excess of 1,800 cubic yards of soil to be exported from the site. Some off-site grading creating 1.5:1 slopes is indicated at the southeasterly corner of the site. Grading will not alter natural drainage courses or significantly impact open space areas. Bioloqical Impacts The applicant has provided a Biological Assessment of the u,7.7 acre site. Field surveys were conducted during the months of March through August, 1990. The report indicated that the 28 acres of non-native grassland and Southern Mixed Chaparral on the site are not significant biological resources. However, the Southern Oak Riparian Woodland includes 297 Coast Live oak trees which are considered to be important biological resources in themselves, and are considered to be an Area of Special Biological Importance. An oak tree survey and an Arborist's Report provided information regarding the location and condition of the oak trees. The tentative map was redesigned in August of 1990 to incorporate open space parcels which allow for preservation of 267 oak trees in their existing locations. An additional 27 oak trees will be transplanted on the site. Three oak trees will be eliminated by the project. The redesigned map has done as much as possible to preserve the Riparian Woodland portions of the site. A variety of reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammal were observed and signs indicated the presence of other species not directly observed. There were no sightings of special wildlife species listed by the National Diversity Data Base as possibly occurring on the site. Some raptors which are listed as Species of Special Concern by the State A:TM25277 6 probably occur on the site. The BiolocJical Assessment stated that removal of grassland and Chaparral habitat will cause some species to relocate and foraging, predatory, and migratory species to exclude the site from their range without direct adverse impacts to biological resources. Stephen~s Kangaroo Rats were not observed on the site and are considered to have a low probability of occurring on-site. However, the California Blacktailed Gnatcatcher, a State listed Species of Concern and a Category 2 Candidate for Federal Listing, was observed on the site. The United States Fish and Wildlife Department is in the process of considering the Gnatcatcher for listing as a threatened or endangered species. The Department will probably make its determination by September or October of 1991. In the event that the Gnatcatcher becomes a federally listed species, the City would be unable to issue grading permits for the site prior to approval and adoption of a habitat conservation plan. Archaeoloqical and Paleontoloqical Resources The applicant has provided an Archaeological Assessment of the site. Although no cultural resources were observed within the boundaries of the subject property, a recorded historic site is located just outside of the southwesterly corner of the site near the proposed alignment of the temporary secondary access street. The historic site consists of the base and corners of a wall of an adobe house purportedly owned by John Magee who established the first mercantile store in the Temecula Valley. The San Bernardino County Museum made no recommendation regarding paleontologic resources. Off-Site Sewer Improvements The Eastern Municipal Water Districthas stated that existing conditions in the vicinity of the subject property do not conveniently allow for the subject property to receive service without making off-site improvements to the existing system. The developer is expected to propose a plan of sanitary sewer service that allows for a gravity flow system of sewers located within road right-of-way. The District suggests that the developer obtain the approval of the District Planning Department prior to submittal of sewer improvement design plans. A:TM25277 7 Chanqe of Zone The applicant requests a Change of Zone from Rural Residential with a minimum lot size of one-half acre, to R-1, One Family Residential with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. The proposed Change of Zone is consistent with the site's Southwest Area Plan designation of 2-~ dwelling units per acre. It has been Staff's position that a Planned Residential Development concentrating the development on the flatter portions of the property and reserving the hillside areas for much larger residential lots and/or open space would be more appropriate for the site. On the basis of an Oak Tree Survey and an Arborist~s Report, the applicant voluntarily revised the Tentative Tract Map, reducing the number of residential lots from 137 to 105 and creating several large open space lots to preserve the majority of the existing oak trees and a natural drainage course. I n response to concerns expressed by City Planning Staff, the applicant revised the map again, reducing the number of residential lots from 105 to 102 and reconfiguring street alignments and lot layouts to be more sensitive to existing natural contours. The most recent version of the proposed Tentative Tract Map still includes lots on the hillside slope areas. The Planning Department recognizes the efforts made by the applicant to preserve significant open space areas on the hillsides, to save the majority of oak trees on the site, and to be sensitive to existing terrain and drainage courses. However, Staff's position is still that the site is inappropriate for the type and intensity of proposed development. Pechanga Creek is a natural boundary between the R-1, One Family Residential Zone and lower density residential development. The subject property is located at an interface between urban residential uses and a mountainous area designated for lots of at least 10 acres. The site is subject to slope, biological, and flood plain constraints, and provision of a secondary access and utility service are still not worked out. Moreover, approval of a Change of Zone for the subject property could set an undesirable precedent. The adjacent property southeast of the site has even greater slope constraints and is therefore even more unsuitable for inclusion in the R-1 zone. The only existing land uses in the vicinity on the same side of Pechanga Creek as the property are the A: TM25277 8 GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: FINDINGS OF FACT: Temecula Creek Inn Golf Course, two houses on the property southeast of the site, and part of the Pechanga Indian Reservation. For these reasons, Staff does not support a Change of Zone from R-R to R-1 for the subject property. Moreover, it is Staff's opinion that the subject property should remain R-R, Rural Residential until the General Plan is adopted for the City or an overall development plan for the subject property and the adjacent property southeast of the site is proposed. The proposed project is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan designation of 2-4 dwelling units per acre. However, the design of the subdivision does not adequately comply with the SWAP Hillside Policy which stipulates that slopes in areas of 2596 should be incorporated into the project as open space and/or larger lots. An Initial Study prepared for the project determined that the project will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts which could not be adequately mitigated by measures incorporated as Conditions of Approval. Had the application been submitted directly to the City, Staff would have required an Environmental Impact Report which would provide analysis of possible alternatives to the proposed project. Because the project was transferred to the City from the County in process and beyond the point of the legally prescribed time limit, the City was not able to required an Environmental Impact Report. Tentative Tract Map No. 25277 There is a reasonable probability that Tentative Tract Map No. 25277 will be inconsistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed within a reasonable time in accordance with State Law, in that the site is inappropriate for the proposed intensity of development due to topographical, biological, and flood plain constraints and problems relating to site access and provision of utilities. There is a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan if the proposed use of action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan in that A: TM25277 9 the project would set a precedent which could interfere with the incorporation of hillside development policies in the future General Plan. The proposed density, 2.10, dwelling units per acre, is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan designation of 2-0, units per acre. However, the design of the project is not consistent with Southwest Area Plan Hillside Policies. The site is not physically suited for the proposed project in that; The provision of secondary access and utilities to the site is not yet adequately demonstrated. The City will be unable to issue grading permits prior to adoption of a habitat conservation plan if the State or Federal Governments list the California Gnatcatcher, which was observed on the site, as threatened or endangered. The project meets the requirements of ordinances 30,8 and 0,60 in that all lots conform to the minimum size and dimension requirements of the R-1 zone. The design and improvements of the proposed land division will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed land division. 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 projectIs Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect 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: TM25277 10 Chanqe of Zone No. 5724 There is a reasonable probability that Change of Zone No. 572~, will be inconsistent with the City~s future General Plan, which will be completed within a reasonable time in accordance with State law, in that the site is inappropriate for the proposed intensity of development due to topographical, biological, and flood plain constraints and problems relating to site access and provision of utilities. There is a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan in that the project would set a precedent which could interfere with the incorporation of hillside development policies in the future General Plan. The proposed density, 2.1u, dwelling units per acre, is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan designation of 2-L~ units per acre. However, the design of the project is not consistent with Southwest Area Plan Hillside Policies. The proposed Change of Zone is not reasonable and beneficial in that the site is unsuitable for the proposed intensity of development, and approval of the Change of Zone would be an undesirable precedent which could be applied to the adjacent property and would probably be inconsistent with and detrimental to the future General Plan. These finds are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution 91- recommending denial of Change of Zone No. 572~, from R-R, Rural Residential, to R-1, One Family Residential; and A: TM25277 11 ADOPT Resolution 91- recommendin9 denial of Tentative Tract Map No. 25277 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report. SW: ks Attachments: Resolution for Change of Zone Resolution for Tentative Tract Map Conditions of Approval Negative Declaration Exhibits A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. Tentative Tract Map A: TM25277 12 RESOLUTION NO. 91-__ CZ5724 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF ZONE NO. 572~, CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-R, RURAL RESIDENTIAL, TO R-l, ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY SI DE OF PECHANGA CREEK SOUTHEAST OF TEMECULA CREEK INN GOLF COURSE AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 918- 180-005. 019. WHEREAS, Acacia Construction filed Change of Zone No. 572~, 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 July 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 denial of said Change of Zone; NOW. THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings. That the City of 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:TM25277 13 CZ5724 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 denial of the proposed Change of Zone, makes the following findings, to wit: a) There is a reasonable probability that Change of Zone No. 572u, will be inconsistent with the City~s future General Plan, which will be completed within a reasonable time in accordance with State law, in that the site is inappropriate for the proposed intensity of development due to topographical, biological, and flood plain constraints and problems relating to site access and provision of utilities. b) There is a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan in that the project would set a precedent which could interfere with the incorporation of hillside development policies in the future General Plan. A: TM25277 1 q. CZ5724 c) The proposed density, 2.1u, dwelling units per acre, is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan designation of 2-LI units per acre. However, the design of the project is not consistent with Southwest Area Plan Hillside Policies. d) The proposed Change of Zone is not reasonable and beneficial in that the site is unsuitable for the proposed intensity of development, and approval of the Change of Zone would be an undesirable precedent which could be applied to the adjacent property and would probably be inconsistent with and detrimental to the future General Plan. D. The Change of Zone is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION 2. Conditions, That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends denial of Zone Change No. 5724 to change the zoning on 47.7 acres of land from R-R, Rural Residential, to R-1, One Family Residential, on property located southwest of Pechanga Creek and southeast of Temecula Creek Inn Golf Course and known as Assessor~s Parcel No. 918-180-005, 019 subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. SECTION 3. PASSED, DENIED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of July, 1991. DENNIS CHINIAEFF CHA I RMAN 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 July, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: A: TM25277 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS 15 RESOLUTION NO. 91- TM25277 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 25277 TO SUBDIVIDE A u,7.7 ACRE PARCEL INTO 95 RESIDENTIAL PARCELS AND 7 OPEN SPACE PARCELS AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY SIDE OF PECHANGA CREEK SOUTHEAST OFTEMECULA CREEK INN GOLF COURSE, ALSO DESCRIBED AS ASSESSOR~S PARCEL NO. 918-180-005, 019. WHEREAS, Acacia Construction filed Tentative Tract Map No. 25277 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Tentative Tract Map on July 1, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WH ER EAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended denial of said 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: TM25277 16 TM25277 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 Tentative Tract Map is not consistent with the SWAP and does not 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 taking actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: a) There is reasonable probability that Tentative Tract Map No. 25277 proposed will not be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. b) There is a 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: TM25277 17 TH25277 c) The proposed use or action does not comply with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances in that the County should have required an Environmental Impact Report including an analysis of project alternatives.. D. {1 ) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. ~,60, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are made: a) That the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. b) That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. c) That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type of development. d) That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. e) That the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. f) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. 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. A: TM25277 18 TM25277 (2) The Planning Commission in recommending denial of the proposed Tentative Tract Map, makes the following findings, to wit: a) There is a reasonable probability that Tentative Tract Map No. 25277 will be inconsistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed within a reasonable time in accordance with State Law, in that the site is inappropriate for the proposed intensity of development due to topographical, biological, and flood plain constraints and problems relating to site access and provision of utilities. b) There is a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan if the proposed use of action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan in that the project would set a precedent which could interfere with the incorporation of hillside development policies in the future General Plan. c) The proposed density, 2.1~, dwelling units per acre, is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan designation of 2-~ units per acre. However, the design of the project is not consistent with Southwest Area Plan Hillside Policies. d) The site is not physically suited for the proposed project in that; The provision of secondary access and utilities to the site is not yet adequately demonstrated. The City will be unable to issue grading permits prior to adoption of a habitat conservation plan if the State or Federal Governments llst the California Gnatcatcher, which was observed on the site, as threatened or endangered. e) The project meets the requirements of ordinances 3L)8 and ~60 in that all lots conform to the minimum size and dimension requirements of the R-1 zone. A:TM25277 19 TH25277 f) The design and improvements of the proposed land division will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed land division. g) The proposed project makes adequate provision for future passive or natural solar heating opportunities in that all proposed parcels have adequate southern exposure. h) The lawful conditions stated in the project's Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect 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 · E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Tentative Tract Map proposed is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION 2. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends denial of Tentative Tract Map No. 25277 for the subdivision of a u,7.7 acre parcel into 95 residential parcels and seven open space parcels located at the southwesterly side of Pechanga Creek southeast of Temecula Creek Inn Golf Course. A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. SECTION 3. PASSED, DENIED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of July, 1991. DENNIS CHINIAEFF CHAIRMAN A: TM25277 20 TM25277 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 July, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS A :TM25277 21 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Tentative Tract Map No: Project Description: Assessores Parcel No.: TN25277 25277 102 single family lots on a u~7.7 acre site. 918-180-005, 019 Planninq Department The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance ~,60, Schedule A, unless modified by the conditions listed below. 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 L~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 u,60 shall be provided from the tract map boundary to a City maintained road. Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant shall provide permission from the adjacent property owner and the Municipal Water District to construct a paved street from Rainbow Canyon Road to the site. Said permission shall include the provision that the street may be permanent. 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: TM25277 22 10. 11. 12. 13. lu... 15. 16. TM25277 A Homeowners Association shall be established for maintenance of Lots 103- 109. Open Space/Common Area and the developer/applicant shall pay for all costs relating to establishment of the Homeowners Association. 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 environmental health recommendations outlined in the County Health Department~s transmittal dated February LL 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 , a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the County Geologist~s transmittal dated May 29, 1990, 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 12, 1990, 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-1 (Single Family Dwelling) 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:TM25277 23 TM25277 17. 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. 18. Prior to recordation of the final map, an Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS} shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed with the office of the 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. 19. 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 as outlined in the Southwest Area Plan. 20. The Environmental Constraints Sheet shall note the existence and location of the recorded historic site near the southwest corner of the property and shall prohibit disturbance of the site by grading or construction operations. 21. Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: 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. Any oak trees removed with four (~,) inches or larger trunk diameters shall be replaced on a ten {10) to one (1) basis as approved by the Planning Director. Replacement tress shall be noted on approved landscaping plans. If the project is to be phased, prior to the approval of grading permits, an overall conceptual grading plan shall be 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 sedlmentation 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: TM25277 TH25277 22. 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. 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. The developer shall provide clearance from the State Department of Fish and Game prior to grading in the flood plain of Pechanga Creek. 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 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. 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. Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall not be less than ten |10) feet. e. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet. A: TM25277 25 23. 25. 26. 27. TM25277 All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and automatic irrigation. The developer or his assignee must satisfy the requirements of the Park District Quimby Ordinance. The developer shall obtain a Section o,0u, Permit from Army Corps of engineers prior to grading in the flood plain or construction of a bridge over Pechanga Creek. 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. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. The subdivider shall submit to the Planning Director an agreement with The Temecula CSD which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City that the land divider has provided for the payment of parks and recreation fees in accordance with Section 10.35 of Ordinance No. 0,60. 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 Tentative Tract Map No. 25277, which action is brought within the time period provided for in California Government Code Section 66u,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: TM25277 26 TM25277 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 {CCF, 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. 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 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. 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. 33. All existing specimen trees on the subject property shall be preserved wherever feasible. Where they cannot be preserved they shall be relocated or replaced with specimen trees as approved by the Planning Director. Within forty-eight (0,8) 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 Came Code Section 711.0,(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 10, Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight {0,8) hour A: TM25277 27 TM25277 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 711.41c). 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 RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: 35. 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; Metropolitan Water District; and Parks and Recreation Department. 36. 37. 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. Via Gilberto, Streets "A", "B", "C", "D", "E", "F", "G", and "H" shall be designed and improved with 40 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. 104, Section A (60'/40'). 38. Via Gilberto shall be connected with full improvements to the northeast, and the existing barricade shall be removed and relocated to Via Odessa. A:TM25277 28 TM25277 39. 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, 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 (CC~,R's) shall be prepared by the developer and submitted to the Director of Planning, City Engineer and City Attorney. The CCF-R~s shall be signed and acknowledged by all parties having any record title interest in the property to be developed, shall make the City a party thereto, and shall be enforceable by the City. The CC~,R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded. The CC~,R's shall be subject to the following conditions: a. The CC~,R~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 CCSR'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 CCE, 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 CC~,R's shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the condition required by the CCF, R's, then the City, after making due demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and perform, at the ownerIs sole expense, any maintenance required thereon by the CC~,R's or the City ordinances. The property shall be subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not promptly reimbursed. A: TM25277 29 TM28277 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. Secondary access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all roads, drives or parking areas shall be provided by CCBR'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. A Notice of Intention to form or annex into the Temecula Community Service District, Service Level "C" (Landscaping Maintenance) shall be submitted to TCSD. The engineering costs involved in District formation or annexation shall be borne by the developer. 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. Storm drain facilities. c. Landscaping (street and parks). d. Sewer and domestic water systems. e. All trails, as required by the City's Master Plans. f. 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. 461 and as approved by the City Engineer. Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation towards traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written A: TM25277 30 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. TM25277 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. 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. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent. All driveways shall conform to the applicable County of Riverside standards and shall be shown on the street improvement plans in accordance with County Standard 400 and 401 {curb sidewalk). All driveways shall be located a minimum of two (2) feet from the property line. 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 24" x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. 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. 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. 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 "Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions." Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. A: TM25277 31 TM25277 61. 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. 62. The site is in an area identified on the Flood Hazard maps as Flood Zone A subject to flooding of undetermined depths. Prior to the approval of any plans, this project shall comply with Flood Damage Protection Ordinance 91-12 of the City of Temecula and the rules and regulations of FEMA for development within a Flood Zone "A", which may include obtaining a letter of map revision from FEMA. 63. The developer shall record an Environmental Constraint Sheet delineating the area within the 100-year floodplain. 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: 65. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer~s Office. 66. 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. 67. Prior to any work being performed, an application for Development Permit shall be submitted per Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance 91-12 of the City of Temecula. All requirements of this Ordinance shall be complied with as directed and approved by the City Engineer. 68. All lot drainage shall be to the street by side yard drainage swales independent of any other lot. 69. 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: 70. 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. A: TM25277 32 TH25277 71. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan. 72. 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. The fee to be paid shall be 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. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of the bond shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000. 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). By execution of this Agreement, developer will waive any right to protest the provisions of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project; provided that developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY: 73. 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 281 wide secondary access road to Rainbow Canyon Road shall be provided within the Metropolitan Water District easement as approved by the City Engineer. A letter of permission from MWD stipulating their restrictions for such access shall be provided to the City Engineer prior to recordation of the final map. Permission letter shall address issues of access (including weight limits, etc. ), maintenance, and liability. Transportation Engineerinq PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: 75. A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer and shall be included in the street improvement plans. A: TM25277 33 TM25277 PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: 76° A focused traffic study shall be prepared and submitted to the City Engineer for approval addressing the project's impacts on the existing alignment of Pala Road and Highway 79. The study will determine a reasonable "fair share" cost to be paid by the developer toward a new bridge. Once the amount of the developer's portion for a new bridge has been determined and approved, the owner may post appropriate securities and execute an agreement with the City, or a cash deposit in the full amount of the approved portion may be deposited with the City. A: TM25277 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY Backqround 1. Name of Proponent: 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 5. 6. Date of Environmental Assessment: Agency Requiring Assessment: Name of Proposal, if applicable: Location of Proposal: Acacia Construction 1021 W. Bastanchury Road, Suite 100 Fullerton, CA 92633 (71u,) 992-0880 May 21, 1991 CITY OF TEMECULA Tentative Tract Map No. 25277 Southwesterly side of Pechanqa Creek adjacent to the southeasterly side of Temecula Creek Inn Golf Course II Environmental Impacts ( Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets. ) Yes Maybe No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? __ __ X b. Disruptions, displacements, compac- tion or overcoverin9 of the soil? X __ c. Substantial change in topography or ground surface relief features? X __ d. The destruction, covering or modi- fication of any unique geologic or physical features? __ __ X e. Any substantial increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off site? X A: TM25277 35 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 A: TM25277 36 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 numbeFs of any species of animals (birds, land animals including rep- tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? Yes Maybe N__o X X X X X X X X X X A: TM25277 37 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 A: TM25277 38 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 A: TM25277 39 17. 18. 19. 20. b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? Human Health. Will the proposal result in: Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health ) ? Exposure of people to potential health hazards? Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? Yes Maybe No X X X X X X X X X X X X X A: TM25277 ~,0 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 A: TM25277 III Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation 1 .b,c. 1.d. 1.e. 1.f. 1.g. 2.a,b,c. 3.a,c. 3.b. 3.d,e. 3.f,g,h. No. The project will involve recompaction of subsurface soils as a mitigation of liquefaction potential in accordance with the recommendations of the Geology Report. This is not considered a significant adverse impact. Yes. Parts of the site include slopes in excess of 25%. Excavation and fill operations will alter the topography of the site, and will involve displacement and compaction of soils. No slopes steeper than 2:1 will be allowed and soil compaction as a liquefaction mitigation is not regarded as a significant impact. Portions of the site will be maintained as open space and will remain undisturbed. No. The site does not contain any unique geologic features. Yes. Wind erosion may occur during grading operations. Fugitive dust is typically controlled by standard measures required during grading. This impact would be temporary and is not considered significant. Yes. Some siltation could occur during grading. This is a temporary impact and is not considered significant. No. The geology report states that there are no signs of faulting on the site. No. The project will not result in any emissions other than typical auto emissions. This will not constitute a significant impact on air quality. No. Portions of the existing topography which are well defined drainage courses will be maintained as open space and drainage patterns will not be altered. No grading will occur in the floodway of Pechanga Creek. Yes. The addition of impermeable surfaces will alter rates of absorption and runoff. Surface runoff will be disposed in a manner approved by the City Engineer and will not constitute a significant adverse impact. Existing drainage patterns will not be significantly altered. No. The project will not result in any significant withdrawals or additions to any body of water or any discharge into surface waters which would significantly alter water quality. No. Subsurface compaction of soil will not significantly alter the flow of groundwaters. The project will be served by the Rancho Water District and will not involve direct additions to or withdrawals from the aquifer. A: TM25277 u,2 3.i. No. The 100 year floodplain of Pechanga Creek encroaches into 20, of the proposed residential parcels. Grading of the site will elevate those parcels above the 100 year flood level. The applicant will be required to obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. No grading will be allowed within the floodway or main water course of Pechanga Creek. u~.a,b. No. The site contains 297 oak trees which are considered an important biological resource. Large portions of the site will be maintained as open space in which 267 oak trees will be preserved in their existing locations. 27 oak trees will be relocated on-site. Three trees will be removed in conformance with the recommendations of the arborist's report. The chaparral and non-native grass lands which will be eliminated were not considered to be important biological resources in the Biological Assessment of the site. Maybe. Non-native species of plants may be introduced in conjunction with landscaping. This is not considered a significant adverse impact. No- The site is not used for agricultural crops. 5.a,b,c. According to the Biological Assessment of the site, the project could cause some species to relocate or to exclude the site from their foraging range, but this would not be considered a significant direct adverse impact to biological resources. No special species listed by the Natural Diversity Data Base were observed on the site. Stephen~s Kangaroo Rats were not observed, and the probability of their occurrence was considered low. The California Blacktailed Gnatcatcher was observed on the site. Should this species become Federally listed as threatened or endangered, the City would be unable to issue grading permits for the site prior to adoption of a habitat conservation plan. 6.a. Yes. The project will result in an increase in existing noise levels. Noise during grading and construction is temporary and will be limited to daytime hours. Noise generated after occupancy of the project will be typical for a single family residential neighborhood and is not considered a significant adverse impact. 6.b. No. The project is a single family residential neighborhood and is not expected to generate severe noise levels. No. The project will generate new light. However, the Mount Palomar Outdoor Lighting Policy requires the use of low pressure sodium vapor lighting which reduces glare to a level which may be considered insignificant as an environmental impact. Yes. The proposal is in conformance with the residential nature of land uses planned for the area, but does involve a request for a Change of Zone which involves some intensification of the residential land use. The proposed number of lots is only slightly in excess of what is allowed under the existing zoning. Moreover, large portions of the sight are retained as open space in order to conserve oak trees and will define A: TM25277 q.3 9.a,b. 10.a,bo 11. 12. 13.a. 13.b,c,e,f. 13.d. lq.a,b,c, d,e,f. 15.a,b. drainage courses on the site. The main impact of the project on land use intensity involves a smaller lot size rather than a substantially increased number of lots and therefore will not constitute a significant adverse environmental impact. No. The project will not involve any unusual increase in the rate of use of natural resources or depletion of any non-renewable resources. No. The project will not involve use of any hazardous substances. Grading and construction should not require temporary blocking of lanes on existing streets. No. The project will not result in any significant alteration of population densities or growth rates in that it involves a change in lot size more than a substantial increase in the number of lots permitted on the site. No. The project will not result in a demand for additional housing or affect existing housing. Yes. The project will generate additional traffic which will constitute a significant impact on the Pala Road bridge and on the intersection of Pala Road and State Route 79. Pala Road needs a wider bridge than the existing structure. All projects in the vicinity are required to enter into an agreement with the City to participate in the construction of a new bridge and not to protest the formation of a special district to provide for a new bridge. The Traffic Study indicates that the project will generate 1,060 trip ends per day with 80 vehicles per hour during AM peak hour and 105 vehicles per hour during PM peak hour. Existing plus project generated traffic will warrant the installation of a signal at Pala Road and State Route 79. The developer shall pay traffic signal mitigation fees and shall install the signal if it has not already been installed in conjunction with other projects. No. The project will not result in a demand for parking facilities, an impact on existing transportation systems, or an increase in traffic hazards. Yes. Although existing patterns of circulation will not be altered, new patterns will be created by the project. This does not constitute an adverse impact on circulation patterns. Yes. The project will result in a need for expanded services in the areas of fire and police protection, schools, parks, and maintenance of public services. Payment of fire mitigation, school, and park fees, and property taxes will provide the resources to help mitigate the project's impacts on public services. No. The project will not result in unusual amounts of energy consumption or require the development of new energy sources. A: TM25277 16.a,b,c, 6,f. 16.d. 17.a.b. 18. 19. 20. 21 .a-d. No. The proposal will not result in a demand for substantial new power, communications, water, drainage, or solid waste facilities. Yes. The project will require a plan of sewer service that allows for a gravity flow system of sewers. The developer~s engineer must meet with the Eastern Municipal Water District's Planning Department in order to develop an acceptable plan. This does not constitute a need for substantial new facilities but does require the development of a plan acceptable to the Water District. No. The project will not result in any health hazards in that the site will be adequately drained and will be served by water and sewer districts. No. The project will not obstruct any scenic views. Portions of the site will be retained as natural open space to preserve existing oak trees. No. The site is not used for recreational purposes. The proposed residential neighborhood is separated from the nearby golf course by a municipal water department which provides an open space buffer. No. The project will not result in any adverse impacts to cultural resources or sacred uses in the area. The only historical resource identified by the Archaeological Assessment is the remains of an adobe house just outside of the subject property. The Environmental Constraints Sheet developed in conjunction with the final map shall note the existence and location of the adobe walls and shall prohibit any disturbance of the historical site by grading or construction operations. No. The project will not result in any adverse impacts to biological or historical resources, secondary impacts, cumulative traffic impacts, or adverse health impacts which cannot be mitigated to levels of insignificance. A:TM25277 45 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 May 21, 1991 Date For CITY OF TEMECULA A: TM25277 DRC ITEM NO. ~ TRACT/PARCEL MAP NO...~ f.~-,~t'9 CH'Y OF TEMECULA TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT QUIMBY ORDINANCE · residential density shall be determined by multiplyiug the number of dwelling units by tile number of persous per unit by the ratio of the number of acres of park land required for each 1,000 persons (i.e., .005). Credits given for proposed parks will be under the discretion of tile Temecula Commtmity Services District (I'CSD) Director. Whenever tile actual amount of land to be dedicated is less than the amount of land required to be dedicated, tile subdivider shall pay fees for the fair market value of any additional land that otherwise would have been required to be dedicated plus 20% for offsite improvements. ['~tl;17q~ subdivisions containing 50 parcels or less only the payment of fees may be required; provided however, wheu condominium project, stock cooperative or community apartment project exceeds 50 dwelling units, tile dedication of land may be required even though the number of parcels may be less than 50. ["~Less than 5 Parcels Subdivisions containing less than five 15i parcds w#~I be subject to the following conditions: Upon the request of a bu#Tding permit for construction of reddential structures on one or more of the parcels within tour years following approval of a tentative map, parcel map, or planned devdopmenL real estate devdopmonC stock cooperative, community apartment project and condominium for which a tentative map or parcel map is fled, a predetermined ~uimby Act fee in the amount equal to the fair market value of required acreage (Rus 2096 for offsite improvements) shall be paid by the owner of each such parcd(s) as a condition to the issuance of such permit as authorized by ~iverside County Ordinance No. 460 as amended through Ordinance No. 460.93. TIle following chart has been prepared to assist staff in calculating requirements of the existing Quimby Ord intoroe: Dwellings F] l(ea) ~ I (ea) F'] I (ca) ["1 2(ca) ["] 3 or 4(ca) I~ 5 or More Persons Per Type Dwelling Unit Single Fatnily (Detached Garage) 2.98 Single Family (Attached Garage) 2.59/O,,~ ~ Mobile honle 2.64 Dwellings Units Per Structure 2.48 Dwelling Units Per Structure 2.34 Dwelling Units Per Structure 2.72 Acres Required* .01490 .01360 .01320 .01240 .01170 * Plus 20% for of f site improvements. Gary L. King, Park Development Coordinator (TCSD) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 4065 COUNTY CIRCLE DR. RIVERSIDE, CA. 92503 (M,dinq Adoires1 - P.O. Box 7600 925~3-7600) FACS ,me (7r4) 358-4529 February 4. 199! Z[TY OF IEMECULA CITY HALL 431,~2!3 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE. TEMECULA. CA 923'90 SUITE 200 ATTN: Scott Wriqht RE: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 25277: BEING A PORTION OF THE LITTLE TEMCEULA RANCNO AND ALSO PARCEL 1 OF MAP 11533. P.M. 63/84-85. RECORDS OF RIV~I~SIDE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA. (105 lots) Dear (Fent[emen: The DePartment of Public Health has reviewed Tentative Tract Mao No. 2527? and recommends: A water system shall be installed according to Dian~ and soeclflcatlons as aDDroved by the water company ~nd the Health DePartment. Permanent prints of the plans of the water system ~hall be submitted in triplicate. with a minimum scale not less than one Inch eGuals 500 feet. ~ion~ with the original drawing to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the Internal DIme diameter, location of valves and fire hydrants: DIme and 3olnt sDeclflcatlons. and the s~ze of the main at the ~unction of the new system to the exlstln~ system. The plans shall comply in all respects with Dlv. 5, Part l, Chapter 7 of the California Health and Safety Code. California Administrative Code. Title Chapter 10, and General Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California. when applicable. The mIans shall be sIGned bY a registered enelneer ~nd water company with the foliowine certification: 'I certXfv that the design of the water system in Tentative Tract Mam 25277 is in accordance with the water svstem expansion plans of the Rancho California Water Company and that the water services. storage. and distribution svstem will be adequate to mrovlde water service to such Tract MAD". City of Temecula Pace Two Attn: Scott Wright February 4. 1991 This certification does not constitute a ouarantee that it will suoo[v water to such tract mad at any soeclflc ouantztles. flows or pressures for f~re protection or any other ourpose". This certification shall be sloned bv a responsible official Of the water comDanv. The plans mus~ be subm!.tted to!he_C~uD~ ~.~.eyQr?%0fflc.~.~Q._revlew a~ least. t~O~e.e.kS.pr_!0~_tQ~b~.E.~e.~..[~_.therecord~on the f!nal~ This subdivision has a statement from Rancho California Water Commanv aoree~no to serve domestic water to each and every lot in the subdivision on demand orov~dlno sat%sfactorv f~nanc~al arranqements are completed with the subdlvldeF. [t will be necessary for financial arrangements to be made prior to the recordat~on of the f~nal maD. This subdivision is w~thln 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 smeclficat~ons as aDDroved by the Dlstr~ct, the County Surveyor and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the sewer system shall be submitted in trlollcate, alond with the or~dlnal drawing, to the County ~Burvevor. The prints shall show the ~nternal Dl~e dlameter, locat~on of manholes. complete prof~le~. pipe and .3o~nt specifications and the size of the sewers at the 3unction of the new ~vstem to the exlst~n~ system. A single Plat lnd~cat~nu iocatlon of sewer lines and water llnes shall be a mort~on of the sewage plans and ~rof~le~. The Plans shall be B~ned by a reu~stered engineer and the sewer dlstr~ct w~th the followin~ certification: "I certify that the design of the sewer system in Tentative Tract MaD 25277 is in accordance w~th the ~ewer system expansion Dlan~ of the Eastern Municipal Water Distr~ct and that the waste disposal system is adeuuate at this time to treat the anticipated wastes from the Proposed tract City of Temecula PaGe Three Attn: Scott WriGht February 4. 1991 It will be ~ecessaFv for financial arranoemeI~ts to be comPletelY flnallzed Dr%OF tO recordatlon of the f%nai maD. It will be necessary for the annexatxon proceedings to be completely fxna[xzed Orlor to the recordatlon of the final maD. SM:dr Health Specialist IV Eastern M,,.idpal Water General Manager ~X~i[~I J. Andrew Schlange Board QfDirectors Richard C. Kelley, President Rodget D. Stems, Vice President Wm. G. Aidridge John M. Coudures Chester C. Gilbert Secreta~ Juanlla L. Machek March 12, 1990 Riverside County Planning Department 3636 University Avenue First Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Attention: Lisa Cooke, Planner Subject: Tract 25277/Change of Zone 5724 - APN 918-180-005, 19 Dear Ms. Cooke: This is in response to your February 20, 1990 transmittal of information describing the subject project. The subject project is located within the sanitary sewer service area of EMWD. However, the existing conditions in the vicinity of the subject project do not conveniently allow for the subject project to receive service without making offsite improvements to the existing system. We suggest the developer's engineer arrange to meet with the District's Planning Department in order to develop an acceptable concept plan of sanitary sewer service. The developer is expected to propose a plan of sanitary sewer service that allows for a gravity flow system of sewers located within road right-of-way. This plan should receive the necessary District Planning Department review and approvals prior to the submittal of sewer improvement design plans for plan check. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at {714} 766-1880. DGC:lp Mail To: Post Office Box 8300 · SanJacinto, California 92383-1300 · Telephone (714) 925-7676 · Fax (714) 929-0257 Main Office: 2045 S. SanJacinto Street, SanJacinto · CustomerService/EngineeringAnnex:440E. Oakland Avenue, Hemet, CA May 29, 1990 :eiVE:I iDE coun;Y PLAnninG DEPa:I;mEn; Soil Tech, Inc. 41607 Enterprise Circle North P.O. Box 1568 Temecula, CA 92390 AllENTION: David L. Jones Marc W. Sullivan John T. Reinhart Anthony B. Brown SUBjECT: Seismic-Geologic/Liquefaction Hazard Project No. 3093-PS-89 Tentative Tract Map No. 25277 A.P.N.: 918-180-005 County Geologic Report Nos. 704 & 705 Rancho California Area Gentlemen: We have reviewed the Seismic/geologic aspects of your report entitled "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Assessor's Parcel Number: 918-180-005," dated June 21, 1989, and your response to County review, dated May 15, 1990. Your report determined that: 1. There is no significant hazard of surface fault rupture on this site. An earthquake of Richter Magniutde 6.0 on the nearby Elsinore Fault Zone is expected to generate a bedrock acceleration at the site in excess of 0.579 with a duration of strong ground shaking of approximately 37 seconds. The potential for liquefaction is considered to be possible on the site. Should liquefaction occur, it is possible that surface soils will experience settlement. The areas subject to liquefaction are delineated on Figure 3, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Site Plan, accompanying your response to County review, dated May 15, 1990. The site is not believed to be subject to the secondary seismic hazards of lurching, amplification, seismic settlement, seismic-induced flooding and landsliding. Your report recommended that: 1. The proposed structures shall be designed to undergo ground motions of 0.379. 2. Subsurface trenching on the site is not considered necessary to evaluate faulting. 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TH FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787-6181 79733 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE. SUITE E BERMUDA DUNES, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-8277 Seismic-Geologic/Liquefaction Hazard County Geologic Report Nos, 704 and 705 Page 2 3. Measures to mitigate liquefaction potential include the following: a) All areas to support structures and/or fills affected by liquefiable soils shall be rounded on a mat of recompacted native earth materials. This mat should extend a minimum depth of five feet below final grade elevation and extend five feet outside the building and/or fill areas. b) All structures shall have the minimum foundation reinforcement as indicated in Section 9.15 of your report. c) The final grading and footing design plans shall be reviewed by the project geotechnical engineer prior to site grading. d) Liquefaction mitigation measures apply to the areas delineated on Figure. 3, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Site Plan, accompanying your response to County Review, dated May 15, 1990. 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 following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet prior to final map recordation "County Geologic Report Nos. 704 and 705 were prepared for this property by Soil Tech, Inc. on June 21, 1989 and are on file at the Riverside County Planning Department. The specific items of concern are seismic design of structures and liquefaction." 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, RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMEN Joseph A. Ri hards, Planni g Direc r 120s n, ng, g Geolo st SAK:jg cc: Markham and Associates Norm Lostbom - Building & Safety (2) Planning Team I - Lisa Cooke CITY OF T*!~ECULA ~ VICINITY MAP r CASE NO,TYtZSznl P.C. DATE ITEM #9 Case No.: Recommendation: STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION July 1, 1991 Outdoor Advertising Displays Ordinance Prepared By: Oliver Mujica ADOPT Resolution No. P. C. 91- recommending adoption of the Amended Interim Outdoor Advertising Displays Ordinance. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: City of Temecula PROPOSAL: An Ordinance establishing regulations for Outdoor Advertising Displays. LOCATION: City Wide BACKGROUND: On April 2~,, 1990, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 90-08, declaring a forty-five (u,5) day moratorium pertaining to regulations for outdoor advertising displays. The moratorium was based upon the following findings: The City Council is concerned about the maintenance of the visual aesthetic quality of the City of Temecula, and with the creation of an orderly and balanced development scheme within the City of Temecula. Accordingly, to protect the integrity of the ultimate General Plan and to assure the continued development stability of property within the City of Temecula, this Council finds that it is necessary to establish interim zoning policies concerning such signage to allow Staff the time necessary to investigate and formulate the ultimate plan of development for the City of Temecula as encompassed within the terms and provisions of the General Plan. The City of Temecula is presently developing a General Plan for development of the City of Temecula. The ultimate goal is to provide a balanced and unified plan of development within the City of Temecula. A material portion of the General Plan study will be the formulation and establishment of regulations A: OUTDOOR3. ADV 1 for signage, including primary signs, in the City of Temecula. There is the potential for certain applications for the establishment of Outdoor Advertising Displays, the approval of which would contradict the ultimate goals and objectives of the General Plan. Moreover, pending completion of the General Plan it is foreseeable thatfurther such applications will be received which may further contradict such goals and objectives of the General Plan. Pending approval of the General Plan, and associated Land Use Code Regulations concerning signage, the approval of any further sign location plans, plot plans, or other discretionary entitlement for Outdoor Advertising displays, would result in immediate threat to the public health, safety or welfare of persons and properties the City of Temecula. The Council also adopted the following interim zoning regulations: Pending the completion and adoption of the General Plan of the City of Temecula together with associated signage regulation for the Land Use Code for the City of Temecula, the establishment of Outdoor Advertising Displays is hereby prohibited and no application for sign location plan, plot plan or other applicable discretionary entitlement for a Outdoor Advertising Display shall be accepted, acted upon or approved. The provisions of subparagraph 3(a), shall not apply to any application for: (i) Onsite Advertising Structures and Signs (Ordinance 3~,8, Section 19.5) {ii) Subdivision Signs (Ordinance 3~,8, Section 19.6) Other than as expressly provided in this Ordinance, all other applications for signage shall be processed and acted upon pursuant to the normal and customary provisions of the Land Use Ordinance of the City of Temecula. A: OUTDOOR3. ADV 2 DISCUSSION: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: FINDINGS: On June 5, 1990, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 90-09, declaring a ten (10) month and fifteen (15) day extension of Ordinance No. 90-08, which was due to expire on April 2~,, 1991. On April 23, 1991, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 91-17, declaring a one (1) year Extension of Ordinance No. 90-09, which will expire on April 23, 1992. In adopting Ordinance No. 91-17, the City Council directed the Planning Department Staff to prepare an amendment to the Ordinance that would provide for an exemption procedure so that special cases could be heard. Based on this direction, Staff has amended Ordinance No. 91-17 by adding the following section: "SECTION ~,. Not withstanding the provisions of this Ordinance, should any party believe that they would suffer a hardship if not permitted to build an outdoor advertising display, they may apply for an exemption to this Ordinance. Such exemption may be granted by the City Council only after due notice and public hearing thereon." This project does not have a potential for causing a significant affect on the environment. Therefore, Staff has determined that the project is exempt from CEQA under Section 150611 b ) { 3 ). The proposed Interim Outdoor Advertising Displays Ordinance is necessary to bring about eventual conformity with the City~s future Land Use plans. There is reasonable probability that the proposed Interim Outdoor Advert(s( ng Displays Ordinance will be consistent with the City~s future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with the goals and/or policies of the City~s future General Plan. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan, if the proposed policies are ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that policies will be adopted for the new General Plan. Therefore, it is likely that the City will consider these policies during their preparation of the General Plan. A: OUTDOOR3. ADV 3 GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: The proposed Interim Outdoor Advertising Displays Ordinance is consistent with SWAP. In addition, Staff finds it probable that this Ordinance will be consistent with the new General Plan when it is adopted. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution No. P.C. 91- recommending adoption of the Amended Interim Outdoor Advertising Displays Ordinance. OM: I b Attachments: Resolution "Draft" Ordinance City Council Minutes (dated April 23, 1991 ) A: OUTDOOR3. ADV 4 RESOLUTION NO. P.C. 91- RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE AMENDED INTERIMOUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAYS ORDINANCE. WHEREAS, City Ordinance No. 90-04 adopted by reference certain portions of the non-codified Riverside County Ordinances, including Ordinance No. 348 ("Land Use Code"); and WHEREAS, such regulations do not contain adequate provisions for Outdoor Advertising Displays; and WHEREAS, the City of Temecula desires to further regulate the Outdoor Advertising Displays and to protect the health, quality of life, and the environment of the residents of Temecula; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on July 1, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; and WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, County Library, Rancho California Branch, the U.S. Post Office and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECT ION 1. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby finds that the proposed Interim Outdoor Advertising Displays Ordinance will provide for the establishment of regulations for temporary outdoor activities and events. SECTION 2. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecu la further finds that the proposed Interim Outdoor Advertising Displays Ordinance is necessary to bring about eventual conformity with its future land use plans. SECT I ON 3. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecu la hereby finds that the proposed Interim Outdoor Advertising Displays Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under Section 15061 ~b )| 3). SECTION u,. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby recommends to the City Council adoption of the proposed Interim Outdoor Advertising Displays Ordinance. The Ordinance is incorporated into this Resolution by this reference and marked Exhibit "A" and dated July 1, 1991 for identification. A:OUTDOOR3.ADV 5 PASSED APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of July, 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 July, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS A:OUTDOOR3.ADV 6 ORDINANCE NO. 91- AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 91- 17 PERTAINING TO REGULATIONS FOR OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAYS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858 Co) AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF WHEREAS, On December 1, 1989, the City of Temecula was established as a duly organized Municipal Corporation of the State of California. On said date, pursuant to the requirements of California Government Cede Section 57376, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted its Ordinance No. 89-01, thereby adopting, by reference, for 120 days the Riverside County Code, which contains the Land Use Regulations of the county of Riverside, and which Regulations are currently applicable to the establishment of all uses and development applications (including allowance of signage) within the City of Temecula. WHEREAS, Pursuant to Ordinance no. 90-04, the City readopted Ordinance No. 348 of the County of Riverside as the Land Use Regulations for the City of Temecula; WHEREAS, As part of its review of new and potential development within the city of T~mecula, the City Council examined the Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP) portion of Riverside County General Plan as it has pertained to development in the City of Temecula. Such examinations revealed that said SWAP may not provide an appropriate development scheme for the City of Temecula, and consequen~y, the City Council adopted SWAP as planning guidelines until the City could adopt its own General Plan. All action on development applications since incorporation, as to required consistency with the adopted General Plan, has taken place pursuant to the terms and provisions of California Government Code Section 65360. WHEREAS, In recognition of the need for effective long range planning criteria, the City Council commenced within the time limits prescribed for adoption of a General Plan, the study and formulation of a General Plan for the City of Temecula. A material part of said General Plan Study will be the review and development of effective criteria to regulate all forms of signage within the City of Temecula. WHEREAS, Ordinance no. 348 of the Riverside County Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Land Use Code") currently provides for the approval and establishment of "Outdoor Use Advertising Displays" within the City of Temecula. The l~nd Use Code defines an "Outdoor Advertising Display" as "The advertising structure and signs used for outdoor advertising purposes, not including on-site advertising as hereinafter defined", 5/Ords27 -1- ~atEREAS, In the near future there could be certain applications for such Outdoor Advertising Displays, the approval of which would not conform to the contemplated General Plan scheme of development in the City of Temecula and would contradict the specific purposes for the adoption of a unified General Plan. Moreover, pending completion of the General Plan, it is foreseeable that further outdoor advertising display proposals will be submitted for property within the City which would contradict the ultimate goals and policies of the proposed General Plan; WHEREAS, This Council is concerned about the maintenance of the visual aesthetic quality of the City of Temecula, and with the creation of an orderly and balanced development scheme within the City of Temecula. Accordingly, to protect the integrity of the ultimate General Plan and to assure the continued development stability of property within the City of Temecula, this Council finds that it is necessary to investigate and formulate the ultimate plan of development for the City of Temecula as encompassed within the terms and provisions of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to ordinance No. 90-08, the City Council of the City of Temecula enacted an interim zoning ordinance, which expired on June 8, 1990, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65858; WHEREAS, Pursuant to Ordinance No. 90-09, the City Council of the City of Temecula extended Interim Zoning Ordinance No. 90-08, which expires on April 24, 1991 pursuant to California Government Code Section 65858; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to Ordinance No 91-17 The City Council of The City of Temecula extended Ordinance No. 90-09 pursuant to Government Code section 65858 which expires April 23, 1992; WHEREAS, All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Temecula does Hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth above are true and correct. SECTION 2. The City Council further finds as follows: (a) The City of Temecula is presently developing a General Plan for development of the City of Temecula. The ultimate goal of the General Plan is to provide a balanced and unified plan of development within the City of Temecula and will ultimately upgrade the economic, social, and cultural welfare of persons and properties within the City of Temecula. A material portion of the General Plan Study will be the formulation and 5/Onh27 -2- establishment of regulations for signage, including primary signs, in the City of Temecula. (b) There is the potential for certain applications for the establishment of Outdoor Advertising Displays, the approval of which would contradict the ultimate goals and objectives of the General Plan. Moreover, pending completion of the General Plan it is foreseeable that further such applications will be received which may further contradict such goals and objectives of the General Plan; and, (c) Pending approval of the General Plan, and associated Land Use Code Regulations concerning signage, the approval of any further sign location plans, plot plans, or other discretionary entitlement for Outdoor Advertising Displays, would result in immediate that to the public health, safety or welfare of persons and properties within the City of Temecula. SECTION 3. The following interim zoning regulations are hereby adopted. (a) Pending the completion and adoption of the General Plan of the City of Temecula together with associated signage regulation for the Land Use Code for the City of Temecula, the establishment of Outdoor Advertising Displays is hereby prohibited and no application for sign location plan, plot plan, or other applicable discretionary entitlement for a Outdoor Advertising Display shall be accepted, acted upon, or approved. The provisions of subparagraph 3 (a), shall not apply to any application for: (i) Onsite Advertising Structures and Signs (Ordinance 348, Section 19.5) (ii) Subdivision signs (Ordinance 348, Section 19.6) (c) Other than expressly provided in this Ordinance, all other applications for signage shall be processed and acted upon pursuant to the normal and customary provisions of the Land Use Ordinance of the City of Temecula. SECTION 4. Not withstanding the provisions of this Ordinance, Should any party believe that they would suffer a hardship if not permitted to build an outdoor advertising display, they may apply for an exemption to this Ordinance. Such exemption may be granted by the City Council only after due notice and public hearing thereon. SECTION 5. This Ordinance is enacted under the authority of the California Government Code Section 65858 Co) and shall be of no funher force and effect one (1) year from the date of adoption of this Ordinance unless the City Council has extended this Ordinance in the manner as provided in said Section 65858 Co). 5lOrds27 -l- SECTION 6. This Ordinance is hereby declared to be an urgency measure pursuant to the terms of the California Government Code Sections 65858 and 36937 Co), and this Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance an shall cause the same to be posed in three (3) public places. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of __, 1991. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, HEREBY DO CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance 91-__ was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the day of , 1991, by the following roll call vote: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, City Clerk 5/Ordi27 -4- ITEM #10 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION Case No.: Recommendation: July 1, 1991 Ambient Air Balloon Ordinance Prepared By: Oliver Mujica 1. ADOPT Resolution No. P.C. recommending adoption of the Ambient Air Balloon Ordinance. 91- APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: LOCAT ION: BACKGROUND: City of Temecula An Ordinance establishing regulations for the use of Ambient Air Balloons. City Wide On May 14, 1991, the City Council considered an Ordinance which included the following: A maximum size of 1,500 square feet (as measured at the cross section of the balloon used ); a maximum height of 30 feet (as measured from the point of anchor to the highest portion of the balloon); and a time period not to exceed fifteen (15) days within any ninety (90) day period. In addition, a thirty (30) day permit may be issued by the City durin9 the month of the Temecula Annual Balloon and Wine Festival. At the conclusion of the public hearing. the City Council continued this item in order to allow the Planning Department staff the opportunity to further define the term "site". as it relates to an entire business complex or individual businesses; and to include a provision for separation between balloons. A:\AMBORD-A.PC 1 DISCUSSION: According to the California Government Code, revisions to a "Draft" Ordinance must be first reviewed by the Planning Commission, in order to allow the Commission the opportunity to forward a formal recommendation. Thus, the Revised "Draft" Ambient Air Balloon Ordinance is before the Planning Commission for reconsideration. Based on the direction given by the City Council, staff has included the following definitions for "site" within Section 19.8Jb) of the proposed ordinance, "b. For the purpose of this Section, a site shall be defined as the following: 1. One or more contiguous parcels of land identified by the Assessor's records wherein an individual building or an integrated building development has been approved. 2. A building wherein two or more separate independently owned or operated commercial, office or industrial businesses are contained." In regards to separation between balloons, Section 19.8(c) (5) includes the following: "Spacing shall be a minimum of five hundred J 500~ ) feet between the ambient air balloons." It should be noted that a provision has also been included within this Section of the proposed ordinance to waive the maximum allowable number of balloons and minimum spacing requirement during the month of the Temecula Annual Balloon and Wine Festival. This will encourage the Citywide promotion if such event is held. A: \AMBOR D-A. PC 2 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: FINDINGS: Staff has also included the following provision for exemptions within Section L~ of the proposed ordi nance: "Not withstanding the provisions of this Ordinance, should any party believe that they would suffer a hardship if not permitted to install an ambient air balloon, they may apply for an exemption to this Ordinance. Such exemption may be granted by the City Council only after due notice and public hearing thereon ." In Addition, staff has eliminated the phrase "and other similar inflatables" in order to ensure that only hot air type balloons as typically depicted in the City of Temecula's Annual Balloon and Wine Festival are used. The project is exempt from CEQA under Section 15061 (b) (3). This project does not have a potential for causing a significant affect on the environment. The proposed Ambient Air Balloon Ordinance is necessary to bring about eventual conformity with the City~s Land use plans. There is reasonable probability that the proposed Ambient Air Balloon Ordinance will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with the goals and/or policies of the City~s future General Plan. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan, if the proposed policies are ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that policies will be adopted for the new General Plan. therefore, it is likely that the City will consider these policies during their preparation of the General Plan. A:\AMBORD-A.PC 3 GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: The proposed Ambient Air Balloon Ordinance is consistent with SWAP. In addition, Staff finds it probable that this Ordinance will be consistent with the new General Plan when it is adopted. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution No. P.C. 91- recommending Adoption of the Ambient Air Balloon Ordinance. OM: ks Attachments: Resolution "Draft" Ordinance A :\AMBORD-A. PC 4 RESOLUTION NO. P.C. 91- RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE AMBIENT AIR BALLOON ORDINANCE. WHEREAS, City Ordinance No. 90-0~, adopted by reference certain portions of the non-codified Riverside County Ordinances, including Ordinance No. 3~,8 ( "Land Use Code" ); and WHEREAS, such regulations do not contain provisions for the use of ambient air balloons for on-site advertising; and WHEREAS, the City of Temecula desires to regulate the use of ambient air balloons for on-site advertising and to protect the health, quality of life, and the environment of the residents of Temecula; and WHEREAS, public hearing was conducted on July 1, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; and WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, County Library, Rancho California Branch, the U .S. Post Office and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecu la hereby finds that the proposed Ambient Air Balloon Ordinance will provide for the establishment of regulations for the on-site use of ambient air balloons in a fair and equitable manner. SECT ION 2. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecu la further finds that the proposed Ambient Air Balloon Ordinance is necessary to bring about eventual conformity with its land use plans. SECT ION 3. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby recommends to the City Council adoption of the proposed Ambient Air Balloon Ordinance. The Ordinance is incorporated into this Resolution by this reference and marked Exhibit "A" and dated July 1, 1991 for identification. A:\AMBORD-A.PC 5 PASSED APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of July, 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 July, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS A:\AMBORD-A.PC 6 ORDINANCE NO. 91- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING PORTIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 90-0~,PERTAININCTOADVERTISINGREGULATIONSAND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF AMBIENT AIR BALLOONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings: 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: (a) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. (b) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, each of the following: ('l) 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. (2) 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. A:\AMBORD-A.PC 7 The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, I hereinafter "SWAP" ) was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. The proposed land use regulations are consistent with the SWAP and meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: (a) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. (b) The City Council finds, in adopting land use regulations pursuant to this title, each of the following: (1) There is reasonable probability that Ordinance No. 91- will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (2) 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. (3) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. SECTION 2. City Ordinance No. 90-00, adopted by reference certain portions of the Non-Codified Riverside County Ordinances, including Ordinance No. 3o,8. Article XIX of the Ordinance No. 30,8 is hereby amended to read as follows: "SECTION 19.8. TEMPORARY AMBIENT AIR BALLOONS AND OTHER SIMILAR INFLATABLES. a. For the purpose of this Section, a temporary ambient air balloon shall mean a sign, not otherwise permitted by Article XIX, which is a temporary structure supported by forced cold air { non-helium), constructed of fabric materials, and affixed to the ground or roof top with cable using steel anchoring systems. Such signs may be illuminated at night using electrical lighting systems. All such signs under this Section using electrical lighting systems shall be installed in conformance with the provisions of Riverside A:\AMBORD-A.PC 8 County Ordinance No. 655, adopted by reference by the City of Temecula, and all other applicable provisions of the Temecula Municipal Code regulating the installation of such electrical lighting systems. b. For the purpose of this Section, a site shall be defined as the following: 1. One or more contiguous parcels of land identified by the Assessor's records wherein an individual building or an integrated building development has been approved. 2. A building wherein two or more separate independently owned or operated commercial, office or industrial businesses are contained. c. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Section, temporary ambient air balloons are permitted only in commercial and industrial zones subject to the following limitations: 1. The maximum allowable size of any such sign shall be limited to no more than 1500 square feet, as measured at the cross section of the balloon used. 2. All such signs shall be ground mounted or roof mounted. The allowable height shall not exceed thirty (30) feet, as measured from the point of anchor to the highest portion of the balloon. 3. All such signs shall not be free-floating (tethered) nor constructed in a shape different from the "hot-air balloon shape" typically depicted in the City of Temecula~s Annual Balloon and Wine Festival. For example, such balloons in the shape of blimps or cartoon characters shall not be permitted. All such signs shall be permitted to be displayed for a period not to exceed a total of fifteen (15) calendar days within any ninety {90) calendar day period. In lieu of the maximum allowable fifteen (15) calendar day period herein, a thirty (30) calendar day permit may be issued by the City during the month of the Temecula Annual Balloon and Wine Festival, if such event is held. 5. The number of signs proposed to be used shall be limited to no more than three {3) on any one site during any allowed time period as set forth in subparagraph c. ~,. Spacing shall be a minimum of five hundred (500') feet between the ambient air balloons. In lieu of the maximum allowable three (:3) signs on any one site and minimum five hundred (500~ ) foot spacing between balloons herein, the provisions of subparagraph c. 5. may be waived by the City during the month of the Temecula Annual Balloon and Wine Festival, if such event is held. A:\AMBORD-A.PC 9 6. No such sign shall be erected, placed or maintained unless first approved by both the City Building Director and the City Planning Director. Approval shall be obtained by the submittal of an application and payment of required fees (to be established by Resolution). The application shall be accompanied with a drawing, utilizing the Site Plan, specifying the location of the sign to be approved with the specified dates of the proposed set-up and take down of the sign(s). 7. All such signs shall be removed no later than the last day permitted in the approved application. 8. No temporary ambient air balloon shall be erected, placed or maintained so that it does any of the following: ~a) Mars, defaces, disfigures or damages any public building, structure or other property; and (b) Endangers the safety of persons or property. 9. Any temporary ambient air balloon erected, placed or maintained in violation of any provision of this Section may be removed by the City five (5) days after notice of the violation given to the owner, lessee or person in lawful possession of the property. Any temporary ambient air balloon which constitutes an immediate danger to the safety or persons or property or which has not been removed within ten (10) days as provided in subsection c. 7., may be removed by the City summarily and without notice. The City may bring as an action to recover the reasonable costs of sign removal under this subsection." SECTION 3. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE. The City Council hereby finds that this project does not have a potential for causing a significant affect on the environment. Therefore, the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under Section 15061 ( b ) ( 3 ). SECTION o,. EXEMPTIONS. Not withstanding the provisions of this Ordinance, should any party believe that they would suffer a hardship if not permitted to install an ambient air balloon, they may apply for an exemption to this Ordinance. Such exemption may be granted by the City Council only after due notice and public hearing thereon. SECTION 5. 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. A:\AMBORD-A.PC 10 SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty ~ ~ys 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. RONALDJ. PARKS MAYOR ATTEST: JUNE S. GREEK CITY CLERK A :\AMBORD-A. PC 11 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 90- 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 A:\AMBORD-A.PC 12