HomeMy WebLinkAbout091691 PC AgendaAGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
September 16, 1991 6:00 PM
VAIL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
29915 Mira Loma Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
Chairman Hoagland
Commissioners: Blair, Chiniaeff, Fahey,
Ford, Hoagland
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the
commissioners on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited
to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners about
an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be
filled out and filed with the Commissioner Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state vour name and
address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the
Planning Secretary before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3)
minute time limit for individual speakers.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Minutes
2.1 Approval of minutes of August 19, 1991 Planning Commission Meeting.
NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
3. Park Property on LaSerena Way, Christmas Tree Sales-presented by Gary King
10.
11.
12.
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Change of Zone No. 17 and First Extension of Time Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 23125
Sterling Builders
Northeast Corner of DePortola and Butterfield Stage Road
Change the zoning on 88.4 acres from R-A-2-1/2 to R-1
and R-5; and subdivide 88.4 acres into 215 single family
residential lots.
Richard Ayala
Recommend Approval
Plot Plan No. 232 (Bay City Services)
Bay City Services, Inc.; Represented by K.M.A. - Mr. Tom
Awbrey.
Rancho California Business Park, Phase II, Parcel No. 10,
west frontage of Business Park Drive Loop, east;
approximately 1/4 mile north of Rancho California Road.
Request to construct a two-story office/warehouse/trucking
service facility totaling 6,900 +/- square feet on a 6.04
acre site developed portion of site = 1.9+/- acre.
Charly Ray
Approval
Plot Plan No. 239 - Rancho California Water District
Headquarters Complex
Rancho California Water District
Northwesterly of the Intersection of Diaz Road and Rio
Nedo.
Construction of three (3) structures housing Rancho
California Water District Headquarters functions as follows:
2-story office at 40,000 square feet; warehouse at 13,000
square feet and an Operations (Maintenance) Building at
20,000 square feet. Total Project Site Area = 11.45
acres.
Continue to October 7, 1991
Tentative Tract Map No. 25892
David Pearson
South Side of Pauba Road, between Ynez and Margarita
Roads
Subdivide 20 acres into 34 single family residential lots.
Oliver Mujica
Recommend Approval
13.
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Tentative Tract 25277 and Zone Change 5724
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-l,
single family residential and to create 102 residential lots
and 7 open space lots.
Scott Wright
Continue to October 21, 1991
14.
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Change of Zone No. 5631; and
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320
Bedford Properties
Northside of Pauba Road, West of Margarita Road
Change to zoning designation of the subject property from
R-R (Rural Residential o 20,000 sq. ft. minimum) to R-1
(one-family residential - 7,200 sq. ft. minimum); and,
subdivide approximately 56.6 acres into 102 single family
residential lots and 4 open space lots.
Oliver Mujica
Recommend Approval
15.
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Plot Plan Administrative No. 184
Bedford Properties/Costco
Northwest corner of Margarita and Winchester Roads
Landscape Plans for Costco site and Winchester and
Margarita Road Frontage
Steve Jiannino
Recommend Approval
16.
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
Approval
Planning Director Report
Planning Commission Discussion
Other Business
ADJOURNMENT
Next meeting: October 7, 1991, 6:00 p.m., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira
Loma Drive, Temecula, California
SJ/Ib
pc/TAgn9/16
ITEM # 2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 19, 1991
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was
called to order Monday, August 19, 1991, 6:00 P.M., at Vail
Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula. The meeting
was called to order by Chairman John E. Hoagland.
PRESENT: 3
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Chiniaeff,
Hoagland
ABSENT: 2
COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford
Also present were Planning Director Gary Thornhill, City Engineer
Doug Stewart, Robert Righetti, Department of Public Works, Gary
King, Park Development Coordinator, and Gail Zigler, Minute Clerk.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. ADDroYal of A~enda
CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND advised that Item No. 6 would be continued
off calendar and Item No.'s 10, 11, 12 and 13 would be
continued to the meeting of September 16, 1991.
COMMISSIONER CMINIAEFF moved to approve the agenda and move
Items for continuance ahead on the agenda for public comment,
seconded by COMMISSIONER BLAIR.
AYES:
3 COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Chiniaeff,
Hoagland
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford
6. VARIANCE NO. 6
Proposal for a 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 HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 6:10 P.M.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to continue Variance No. 6 to
September 16, 1991, seconded by COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS:
AUGUST 19,
Blair, Chiniaeff,
Hoagland
None
Fahey, Ford
1991
0e
TELEVISION/RADIO ANTENNA ORDINANCE
10.1 Proposal for a City wide ordinance establishing
regulations for Television/Radio Antennas.
CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 6:10 P.M.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to continue Television/Radio
Antenna Ordinance to October 7,
COMMISSIONER BLAIR.
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS:
1991, seconded by
Blair, Chiniaeff,
Hoagland
None
Fahey, Ford
11. PARCEL RAP NO. 25059 MINOR CHANGE NO. I
11.1 Proposal to modify or delete inappropriate engineering
conditions. Located at Ridge Park Drive, south west
side.
CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 6:10 P.M.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to continue Parcel Map No.
25059 Minor Change No. i to October 7, 1991, seconded
by COMMIS8IONER CHINIAEFF.
AYES:
3 COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, chiniaeff,
Hoagland
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford
PCMINS/19/91 -2- 8/21/91
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 19, 1991
12. DIRECTIONAL SIGN ORDINANCE
12.1 Proposal for City wide ordinance establishing regulations
for directional signs.
CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 6:12 P.M.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to continue Directional Sign
Ordinance to September 16, 1991, seconded by COMMISSIONER
BLAIR.
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff,
Hoagland
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford
13,
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 17 AND FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME VESTING
TENTATIVE TRACT HAP NO. 23125
13.1
Proposal to change the zoning on 88.4 acres from R-A-2 1/2
to R-1 and R-5; and subdivide 88.4 acres into 215 single
family residential lots. Located northeast of DePortola
and Butterfield Stage Road.
CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 6:15 P.M.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to continue Change of Zone No. 17
and First Extension of Time Vestrig Tentative Tract Map
No. 23125 to September 16, 1991, seconded by COMMISSIONER
CHINIAEFF.
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff,
Hoagland
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford
2. ADDroYal of the Minutes
2.1 Approve the minutes of August 5, 1991 Planning Commission
Meeting.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to approve the minutes of
August 5, 1991 as mailed, seconded by COMMISSIONER BLAIR.
PCMIN8/19/91 -3- 8/21/91
PL/~NNING COMMISSION MINUTES
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 2
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
AUGUST 19,
Blair, Chiniaeff,
Hoagland
None
Fahey, Ford
1991
NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
3. QUIMBY ACT PRESENTATION
GARY KING, Parks Development Coordinator, provided the
Commission with a brief summary on the requirements for the
Quimby Act as it relates to sub-divisions as follows:
As a condition of approval of a tentative map or
parcel map proposed to be divided for residential
use, the dedication of land or the payment of fees
in lieu of land for park and recreation facilities
shall be required.
Five acres of land for each 1,000 persons
residing within the City of Temecula shall
be devoted to neighborhood and community
park and recreational facilities.
2. Commercial or industrial subdivisions are
exempt.
Applicant shall submit to the Planning Director
in writing a statement whether he intends to
dedicate land, pay fees in lieu of land, or a
combination of both.
a.)
If the intent is to dedicate land, applicant
shall first consult with the Temecula
Community Services District (TCSD) as to the
appropriate area to be dedicated, and the
area to be dedicated shall be shown on the
tentative tract map as submitted.
If the intent is to pay fees, the condition
of approval shall require that the fees are
to be paid to the TCSD at such time as is
agreed upon by the subdivider and TCSD
through the conditions of approval.
PCMINS/19/91 -4- 8/21/91
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
AUGUST 19, 1991
Payment of fees shall be prior to recordation of the
final map. However, the payment of the fees may be
deferred to the date of the issuance of building
permits, or the date of final inspection or the date
the certificate of occupancy is issued, whichever
occurs last.
In determining the amount of land to be dedicated or
fees paid, the number of dwelling units of the
subdivision is multiplied by the number of persons
per unit by the ratio of the number of acres of
park land required for each 1,000 persons (i.e. 005).
PLOT
4.1
PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE NO. 184
Proposal for landscape plans for Costco site and
Winchester and Margarita Road Frontage.
STEVE JIANNINO provided the staff report.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR questioned why palm trees were
being used since the Commission has expressed a
dislike for them on a number of occassions.
STEVE JIANNINO stated that the palm trees were
already started on Winchester with Palm Plaza and
also that this particular palm was one of the few
tall, slender trees that would work in the Cal
Trans area.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF indicated that he still had
concerns about inadequate landscaping along the
Winchester Road frontage.
CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND stated that the Palm Plaza project,
which has implemented the use of palm trees, was
originally approved by the County and not the City,
and the Commission has expressed their opposition
to the use of palm trees in Temecula. He added that
he felt the use of palm trees along street frontages
was inappropriate and he could not support the changes
that were being presented.
The Commission agreed unanimously to have staff work
on the landscape plans further, addressing their
concerns, and bring it back to the Commission on the
next agenda.
PCMIN8/19/91 -5- 8/21/91
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
AUGUST 19, 1991
5. PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 664 (REVISED)
Proposal to construct church facilities with a special
review for parking reduction. Located at the southwest
corner of Ynez Road and Rancho Vista Road.
STEVE JIANNINO provided the staff report.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF expressed a concern for the
landscape buffer separating the project from the
adjacent residental.
STEVE JIANNINO advised that staff had a requirement
for a 6' wall along the property line abutting
residential. He added that the applicant has to come
before staff with a landscape plan prior to the issuance
of building permits.
CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND questioned the placement of the parking
entrance south of Rancho Vista on Ynez, which is situated
close to the intersection.
ROBERT RIGHETTI advised that this driveway would be
restricted to right-in and right-out only.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF questioned if the County geologist
has re-reviewed the earthquake fault determination.
GARY THORNHILL stated that staff could add that this issue
be reviewed prior to issuance of building permit.
CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 6:55 P.M.
REVEREND EDWARD J. RENNER JR., 31130 S. General Kearnery
Road, #92, Temecula, spoke in favor of the extension of
time.
CHAIPa{AN HOAGLAND questioned the time frame for
construction.
REV. RENNER stated that the plan is for ground breaking
next April for the first phase.
JAMES CAULCANS, 545 E. Florida Avenue, Hemet, architect
for the project, concurred with staff recommendations;
however, questioned the requirement for a wall along
the entire property line. He stated that they understood
PCMINS/19/91 -6- 8/21/91
PLANNING
COMMISSION MINUTES
AUGUST 19, 1991
they would be required to place the block wall along the
property line abutting the single home and that the
residential to the South was considerably lower than the
site and the residential to the East was considerably
higher and screened by Eucalyptus trees. Mr. Caulcans
also stated that engineering required the driveway that
the Commission has expressed a concern with.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF referenced Condition 25 regarding
the requirement for a wall.
STEVE JIANNINO stated that he agreed with the applicant
that a block wall would not be necessary to separate the
church from the residential to the south; however, the
residential to the East would require the fencing.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF stated that he felt some type of
fencing was necessary to separate the project from the
property to the South.
STEVE JIANNINO recommended that rather than a block wall
fence, possibly a western type fencing.
CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND concurred with Commissioner Chiniaeff
recommendation for fencing along the southerly property
line.
The applicant indicated their concurrence with the
modifications to the fencing requirements.
CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND suggested that the northerly driveway
on Ynez be closed at Phase Three when the second driveway
to the south is completed.
DOUG STEWART concurred with Chairman Hoagland's suggestion
and stated staff would re-write that condition.
COMMIS8IONER CHINIAEFF moved to close the public hearing
at 7:10 P.M. Adopt Resolution No. 91-(next) approving
Public Use Permit No. 664, Revision No. 1, modifying
Condition No. 25 and adding a Condition relating to
phasing and a Condition relating to a review of the
geo-technical report prior to building permits and
Adopt Resolution No. 91-(next) approving Extension of
Time for Public Use Permit No. 664, Revision No. 1,
seconded by COMMISSIONER BLAIR.
PCMIN8/19/91 -V- 8/21/91
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: 2
COMMISSIONER FORD arrived at 7:12
Commission.
AUGUST 19, 1991
Blair, Chiniaeff,
Noagland
None
COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford
P.M. and took his seat on the
7. PLOT PL~ NO. 233
7.1
Proposal to construct a new fast food restaurant. Located
at Rancho California Road and Margarita Road.
STEVE JIANNINO provided the staff report.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF questioned the lack of landscaping
along the drive-thru side of the building and suggested
some trees be placed in this area.
STEVE JIANNINO stated that the planters could be widened
to allow room for some trees.
CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND questioned the timing of the street
improvements on Margarita.
ROBERT RIGHETTI stated that the City Engineer is looking
at completing those improvements with assistance from the
Buie Corporation.
CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 7:20 P.M.
LORENZO REYES, P.O. Box 4999, Anaheim, California,
representing the applicant, expressed their concurrence
with the staff report and the Commission's request for
enhanced landscaping along the drive-thru side of the
building.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to close the public hearing
at 7:25 P.M. and Adopt Resolution No. 91-(next) approving
Plot Plan No. 233 and modifying Condition No. 9 to include
additional trees along the drive-thru side of the
building, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD.
PCMIN8/19/91 -8- 8/21/91
pLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS:
AUGUST 19, 1991
Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford,
Hoagland
None
Fahey
8. PLOT PL~ NO. 230
8.1
Proposal to construct a new "Hungry Hunter" restaurant.
Located at 27590 Jefferson Avenue, Temecula.
STEVE JIANNINO provided the staff report.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF questioned the landscaping
along the east side of the building.
STEVE JIANNINO stated that there was no major
planned for that side of the building.
CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 7:30 P.M.
MIGUEL VALDIVIA, 270 E. Douglas Avenue, E1 Cajon,
representing the applicant, concurred with the staff
report.
COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND questioned if the applicant would
be willing to plant some trees along the east side of
the building.
MIGUEL VALDIVIA concurred with the Commission's request.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to close the public hearing at
7:30 P.M. and AdoPt the Negative Declaration for Plot Plan
No. 230 and Adopt Resolution No. 91-(next) approving Plot
Plan No. 230 with modifications to the landscaping
conditions for the east elevation of the building;
seconded by COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF.
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford,
Hoagland
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: i COMMISSIONERS: Fahey
PCMINS/19/91 -9- 8/21/91
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 19, 1991
9. CHANGE OF ZONE 14 TENTATIVE PARCEL HAP NO. 26845
Proposal to change zone from R-A 2 1/2 to R-A 1/2 and
subdivide 3.68 acres into 4 residential lots. Located
at the northeast corner of Ynez and Santiago Roads.
STEVE JIANNINO provided the staff report.
CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND stated that he did not see adequate
transition from 2 1/2 acres to 1/2 acre lots.
CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 7:40 P.M.
8ANDRAFINN, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester Road,
Temecula, representing the applicant, concurred with
staff's recommendation with the following modifications:
Condition No. 34 to read, "A transition taper, 105 feet in
length, at a ratio of 5:1"; No. 41 to read, "Street lights
shall be provided along the intersections only of A Street
and Santiago Road"; and No. 61, requirement for subsurface
sewage systems be approved prior to building permit.
DOUG STEWART stated the Health Department has to approve
the grading permit and therefore does not feel the
applicant can modify Condition No. 61.
JIM MYLER, 29930 Santiago Road, Temecula, owner of the
property, concurred with staff's recommendation and
requested the Commission's approval.
SUE NEIMEYER, 29962 Santiago Road, Temecula, resides
next to the property and indicated her approval of the
proposal.
The Commission as a whole expressed a concern for the
circulation element of this area.
ROBERT RIGHETTI indicated that staff would agree to the
applicant's request to modify Conditions No. 34 and 41;
however, Condition No. 61 would remain as required.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF moved to close the public hearing at
8:00 P.M. and Recommend Adoption of the Negative
Declaration for Tentative Parcel Map No. 26845 and Change
of Zone No. 14; and AdoPt Resolution No. 91-[next}
recommending approval of Change of Zone no. 14 and Adopt
Resolution No. 91-[next) recommending approval of
Tentative Parcel Map No. 26845 based on the analysis and
findings contained in the staff report with additional
findings that provisions for future access of this type
PCMIN8/19/91 -10- 8/21/91
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
AUGUST 19, 1991
lot has been taken into consideration and modifying
Conditions 34 and 41, and requiring Condition 65 be
complete prior to issuance of building permit,
seconded by COMMI88IONER BLAIR.
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford,
NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey
CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND stated that he could not support the
motion based on the inadequate transition from 2 1/2 acre
to 1/2 acre lots and concerns for the circulation in this
area.
PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT
GARY THORNHILL discussed the following:
Introduced John Meyer and Debbie Ubnoske, new Senior
Planners for the City and thanked Oliver Mujica and
Steve Jiannino for all their efforts.
Proposed joint City Council and Planning Commission
"workshop" meeting sometime in October to discuss
General Plan.
, Format of agenda packages.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
None
OTHER BUSINESS
None'
PCMIN8/19/91 -11- 8/21/91
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 19, 1991
ADJOURNMENT
COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to cancel the meeting of September 2, 1991
due the the holiday and adjourn to September 16,1991, seconded by
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF.
AYES:
4 COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford,
Hoagland
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey
The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning
Commission will be held Monday, September 16, 1991, 6:00 P.M., Vail
Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California.
Chairman John E. Hoagland
Secretary
PCMIN8/19/91 -12- 8/21/91
ITEM # 3
AGENDA REPORT
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
September 16, 1991
Park Property on La Serena Way
RECOMMENDATION:
DISCUSSION:
That the Planning Commission review the request of the
Ridgeview Homeowner's Association to lease the property
on La Serena Way for a Christmas Tree Farm and comment
as to the Commissions interpretation of the property and its
best use.
On September 18, 1990, the Board of Directors directed
staff to prepare the necessary documents to accept a 3.47
acre property on La Serena Way and enter negotiations
concerning the possibility of leasing the property to the
Ridgeview Homeowners Association for a Christmas Tree
Farm.
On November 5, 1990, a staff report was prepared
recommending that the Board of Directors accept the La
Serena property and reserve its use as open space until the
Parks and Recreation Master Plan was completed. This
recommendation was unanimously approved by the City
Council.
This site has been identified as a potential equestrian trail
due to a Metropolitan Water District easement that runs
transversely through the site that could link this property to
northern trails in the City. The Parks and Recreation Master
Plan is scheduled to be completed within six (6) months.
Enclosed is background information concerning this
property for your review.
MEMO ....
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
REFERENCE:
PARKS AND RECREATION'COMMISSIONERS
SHAWN D. NELSON ~
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES
AUGUST 21, 1991
PROPERTY ON LA SERENA WAY
The Ridgeview Homeowners Association and the La Serena Homeowners Association
desires to have the City sublease this 3.47 acre property on La Serena Way, northwest
of Veterans Park, to the Ridgeview Homeowners Association to develop a Christmas
Tree Farm on the site.
This item was discussed by the City Council on September 18, 1990. Staff was directed
to pursue acquisition of the property and enter into negotiations with the homeowners
association to sublease the property. On November 5, 1990, I presented a staff report
to the City Council recommending that the property be accepted by the City and that it
be designated as a potential trails site. I stated this would be determined when the Parks
and Recreation Master Plan is completed. This recommendation was unanimously
approved by the City council.
This item will be on the agenda for the September 9, 1991 Commission meeting. I have
enclosed some background information for your review. If you have any questions,
please contact me at 694-6480.
CC:
Dave Dixon
Mark Ochenduszko
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECUI..4
AGENDA REPORT
Board of Directors
David F. Dixon, City Manager
November 5, 1990
Acceptance of Donated Property
Prepared By: Shawn Nelson, Community Services Director
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council accept donated property containing
Metropolitan Water District Easement for possible future
park development.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impact due to the property being donated.
However, if developed, monies will need to be budgeted for
maintenance end operation.
DISCUSSION:
On September 18, 1990, the City Council au~horized staff to execute the necessary
paperwork to accept this donated property containing · Metropolitan Water District
Easement for possible future park development. This undeveloped, narrow parcel on
La Serene Way could be integrated into a city-wide :Tails system that will be designed
when the Parks and Recreation Master Plan is completed.
CSD Minutes
November 27, 1990
~,. Acceptance of Donated ProPertY
Shawn Nelson, Director of Community Services, stated this parcel contains a
Metropolitan Water District Easement, and said it is north of La Serena Way,
between the La Serena and Ridgeview Developments. He recommended the
Board accept this donated proper~y and hold it until completion of the City-wide
master plan. He explained this property could possibly be used as a pare of a
Cit~/-wide bike path and trail system.
It was moved by Director Parks, seconded by Director Mur~oz to accept
donation of proper~y (3.47 acres) located off La Serena Way, containing a
Metropolitan Water District Easement for possible future park cleveloprnent.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5 DIRECTORS:
NOES: 0 OIRECTORS:
ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS:
Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz,
Parks, Birdsall
None
None
COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT
None given.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
None given.
DIRECTORS REPORTS
None given.
17. ,4couisirjon of Park Lands
City Manager Dixon recommended staff pursue acquisition of property offered
by Bedford Properties. He also stated that Metropolitan Water District does
have right-of-way for their pipelines on this property.
Mayor Perks called · one minute break to change the tape at 9:15 PM. The meeting
was reconve~ed at 9:17 PM.
Joe Pribanic, 30929 Calla Pins Colado, stated he is in opposition of the
acquiring this property for use as a public park. He said me topography of this
land does not lend itself to a park. He stated property owners have had trouble
with drugs and vandalism in this area and The strip of land would be virtually
impossible to patrol. He asked that the Council not accept this property.
John Cloughen, 41304 Bravos Court, ~ecretary/Treasurer of the Ridgeview
Homeowners Association, stated the homeowners are opposed to this property
being used as a City park. He advised the City Council that the Ridgeview
Homeowners Association has been offered this property by Bedford Properties
for development of a tree farm for e joint venture with La Serene Home Owners
Association. ,*
NtnUteS%I\II\f~ -13o 09126190
City Council Minutes Seoteml~er 18.1990
James Donan, 41300 Bravos Court, said this property must have a road
maintained down the center for access by the Metropolitan Water District. He
also stated that due to the configuration of this land, it is very difficult to
supervise and asked that the CiW Council not acquire this land for use aS a
park.
Jim Williams, 27425 Ynez Road, stated he seconded everything that has been
said before him.
Terry Cordell, 41284 BraVos Court, objected to public use of this property
stating it cannot be supervised and he has had problems in the past with
vandalism.
Kim MuscaTo, 41365 Bravos Court, stated she is also in opposition to this land
becoming a City Park.
Karin Pavlovsky, 30911 White Rocks, President of the Ridgeview Homeowners
Association, stated the association has voted to support the cooperative
development of this site as a Tree farm. She stated The association is in
opposition to STaffs proposal. She also said it would not be appropriate for
Bedford to receive credit for a park for this unusable property.
Councilmember. Birdsall asked if a representative ~f the La Serene Homeowners
Association is present. Mr. CIoughen said that there is not a representative
tonight, but he met with the association and they favor the joint venture for a
tree farm.
Councilmember Mu~loz suggested the City acquire this land and lease it back
to The homeowners association at a nominal fee. This would enable the City
to obtain open space which is needed also. By doing this it would serve both
needs,
Councilmember Lindemans said the City is in desperate need of parks but
stated the City needs to purchase usable land.
Councilmember Moore expressed the desire to use this land for possible
walking and bike trails or a skate board park.
Mayor Parks said that he understands this site has been used for many years
been a nuisance to the surrounding property owners and stated ha felt it would
be better to allow the homeowners association to have this particular piece of
land.
City Council Minutes Seoteml~er 18.1990
It was moved by Councilmember Mur~oz, seconded by Councilmember Moore
to direct staff to pursue acquisition of the proper~y offered by Bedford
Properties with the provision that the City will enter into negotiations to sub-
lease the property to tt~e Ridgeview Homeowners Association for an undefined
period of time.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 4 COtjNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Ljndemans, Moore,
MuI~oz
NOES:
I COUNCILMEMBERS: Parks
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Mayor Parks asked that the Council reorder the agenda and that Item No. 18 be
then
upon
Septe~
salaries for the
tions
could
the new
A
and
Services
mity
nlreatee\l\ll%N -1S*
FZ"EI,U ./., t,', 'Z3,O r,, ::,7~_25e. 0
~.,-.r' t;.]U ~3iTMe..Oer s;
O,/er tme la~c /ear o~r' Oca~,; of directors, alcm~
t.%a P[icgevie~ Homec~ner~ ,~ssn., mas been discussing a
p, opcs~i with a potential lessee to consider the
oossibii~zies cf using ~he unimO, oved acreage ~et~een the
Ridgavle~ and La Serene Humeo~ners Associations as an area to
farm :tees. The Oart~Culars are undeveloped. Our ~card had
oeen ,,ttamOtinG to fine some ideas thac ~ould ~ut the land
to gooc use ~ithout comprcmising our non-Orofit status or the
~e/~are of the residents of the tract. For this reason the
proddeal ~as ~elcomed...it seemed that the development of a
Christmas tree farm cn this proOerty could be imOlemented in
a manner that ~ould be beneficial on both counts.
There are 15.5 acres of land to be considered on the
Oart of ta Serena. ~.5 acres that abut the easement and 11
acre~ that serve as a buffer between the northern homes cf La
Serene and the Meadowview homes above them. This land,
sL,~tin,'3 unused, has been troublesome for several reasons. It
has been an area ~here Children and adults from several parts
af the community have gone to pitch tents, smoke cigarettes
and, uOon occasion, use drugs. It is especially convenient
because it is virtually i~Qossible to see ~hat is taking
~lace there because of the design of the tract, the fences
that obstruct the vie~ to that area, and the fact that the
,MeadowvieN homes are sitting higher up with their homes
backing up the open area.
We have hid several fires as a result of the misuse of
this property. While they have not been serious, they serve
as a reminder that there is an above-average chance that a
fire could occur, endangering the homes and property
surrounOing this area. This open space is keot in a natural
state, and ~e do disc it annually; however, we believe that
using it in a manner that ~ould retain the green-belt feel
~nU reduce the fire hazard that exists in its present state
~ould be to everyone's benefit.
,ham simply weed abatemen', it leaps
3ene~icial to all Darri-:~ ,,~r-e,
,~culd De:slit by ~aving ne
r ~c: 3:ha:cement frCm the
'n;'istnl,s5 t,-e~=~s In :~;nc'si3b~, we should have taken A no,'e
-~-:ga, tire 5tend on behalf ,}f La gerena in voicing JuT'
~Dr the use o= '.hi5 land as a Chri~Cn~as ~ree farm pcicr ~Q
the ,,eta a,~d in the follow-u~ thereafter. We felt ,~
~ime, however, ~at ~e hag little tO offer in the way
adding any in~igh: due to ~he face thac talk~ wi~h the
interested lessee had been ~ith Riagevie~ and, following the
vote of Cne City Council, we ~eiieved the framework ha,J ~een
se~ to proceed.
· 4e ws,-e aware that one of the Ridgeview nameowners had
~ooken ou~ against this ~rooosal in October lggO, but Ne did
~o~ think that this would alter the decision ~assed the
orevious month by the City Council. ~e were satisfied that
adequate research had been done ~y the Ridgeview ~ssn.
regaroing the viaDility of the development of a Christmas
tree farm and its implications to
we took the Dosition that it .ould be appropriate to
allcw the Ridgeview Assn. to handle the process of developing
terms to be considered until more concrete details were in
O~ace since Ridgevie~ had been in contact with the potential
lessee and various city agencies from the beginning. We felt
that once a well-defined plan was in place, ~e ~ould review
all the factors and negotiate from ~hat point, if necessary,
~d ~roceed accordingly.
From the perspective of the board of La Serene, and as
members Of the community at large, ~e acknowledge the need
for the city to acquire land for public use, be it for a
:rail system or a more conventional Dark. However, ~e have
soncornS that we feel need to be addressed, namely:
(~) There are 3 private ~arks in the La Serene tract
:tself. some of which are already being used by people other
than those who reside in the tract. This misuse may increase
3nould you oecide to develop the area in question as ~ublic
land. If you felt that this could be solved by building some
nomeo~ners it-, RiCgevie~ ~mase b..~c ,yarcs are enc,oseC
~roug~t iron fences, and t~e nor. eowner'i cf Ma.~Oo~view
have invested in land tha~ ..Fov_d~ ~ sense 3f
s;aciousness ~hich ~ill li ~e'_>. b~ ripen a~ay if f~nce's or
,~alls start being erected.
(C) You may consicer :he Oossibility of claiming t:ne
green-belZ area tha~ e..<ists between La Serene and Meadowvi~
under imminent domain. ~e feel this ~ould be unwise because
you ~ould be declaring this area for public use desOats
limited visibility and no vehicular access, Oerhaps resulting
in security problems for the residents of La Serena and
Meado~vie~. If there.~as ever an emergency. be it medical or
fire. access by tne appropriate city departments ~ould be
minimal at best. The green-belt area ends at the rear
boundary of ~ancho Elementary. bringing up further
:considerations, i.e. security of life and property.
The proposed figures ~e have regarding money between the
association and the potential lessee (approximately $167 per
acre per year for the first S years and then $500 per acre
per year thereafter) represents monetary benefit, although ~e
feel that in no ~ay could this be considered a "~indfall." ~e
~ould like t~ have the chance to use this money to upgrade
and enhance the tract in ~ays that ~ould not only benefit the
residents, but also the city. ~dmittedly. La 5erena is less
attractive than other tracts in Temecula. This is due in
part to its relative age. an~ perhaps the lack of vision of
earlier Ooards. ~e have been trying to rectify this problem,
~ut it is a slo~.process due largely to limited funds. Every
bit counts.
You may entertain the thought of having the city lease
the land t~ the ir~lviduals interested in using the area to
farm Christmas trees. If you do not claim the green-belt
area under imminent domain, you prevent us from being able to
fulfill our desire to use it ~isely because of the lack of
access. If you do claim the green-belt area, you leave us
vulnerable to all the potential hazards addressed above.
Finally, we are certain your intentions are motivated by
good ~ill. Unfortunately. ~e have no idea if future council-
members ~ill be so motivated. ~hile the same may be said for
the various boards involved, the association boards ~ill,
,:nang3s ~.il[ affeu: L:~b ~e ,:~ ~ssociaCLon due~ ~f :hose
trying in auc ~ract.
hie intena to ci,'cu] ~r,e .~ ,setic~on ,~Along our'
r,-.D[~ion. in cLo~L,ng, [ ,.-,c,_Ld J].Pe ~h~ City Co~rcil to
,. ,der~]nd that ~he Bcara of :;it,act,Dry. off *hi m_'~ Cerena
- l':.T : , , r.~ ~e{.L. = tc, PD.iC~ 'h.' 3ug.~ ~2:r+
'n,,:. .,'~u ..~L ~,L~ :nr, Si'zer t;~S~ thOught'a car3fuil'~
.~k.r,.] a f~'a. .:eelsion i~ ~,'Our ~u9uSt 2~th C:SD mee;inj,
, s' Ld ~;,r~c'~..~;a k'.earLng from you on ~is maC~er.
/;i,~c.3rely,
~t~s~ Warren
President, eoard of Directors
La 3erena Homeo~ners ~ssociation
Dixon
Nelson/
ITEM # 5
ITEM # 4
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 16, 1991
Case No.: Change of Zone No. 5740
Prepared By: Oliver Mujica
Recommendation: 1.
RECOMMEND ADOPTION of the
Negative Declaration for Change
of Zone No. 5740; and
ADOPT Resolution 91 -
recommending approval
Change of Zone No. 5740.
of
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
John F. Firestone
PROPOSAL:
Change the zoning designation of the subject property from
R-A-20 (Residential Agricultural) to I-P (Industrial Park) and
R-5 (Open Area Combining Zone).
LOCATION:
Westside of Ridgepark Drive, south of Rancho California
Road.
EXISTING ZONING:
R-A-20 (Residential Agricultural)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North: I-P
South: I-P
East: I-P
West:
(Industrial Park)
(Industrial Park)
(Industrial Park)
R-A-20 (Residential
Agricultural)
PROPOSED ZONING:
I-P (Industrial Park); and R-5 (Open Area
Combining Zone)
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
A:CZ16 I
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North: Office
South: Vacant
East: Vacant
West: Vacant
SWAP DESIGNATION:
RLI (Restricted Light Industrial); and
Mountainous (10 Acre Minimum)
BACKGROUND:
Change of Zone No. 5740 was submitted to the
County of Riverside Planning Department on
March 1, 1990. Subsequently, this application was
transferred to the City of Temecula on April 24,
1990.
Upon receipt of the transferred application, the
Planning Staff informed the applicant that zone
changes were processed on a case-by-case basis
with the majority of these cases being processed
with a concurrent Plot Plan application. Pursuant to
staff's recommendation, the applicant filed Plot Plan
No. 237. However, it was identified by the City's
Public Works Department that the proposed Western
Transportation Corridor is proposed to pass through
the subject property; and that it will be some time
before this issue is resolved by the City. Therefore,
staff indicated that they would support this particular
request without a development application because
1) of the existing developments with similar zoning
to the north and east; 2) due to the fact that the
property immediately adjacent to the south has been
previously mass graded; 3) infrastructure is available;
and 4) any future development of the subject
property will require an approval by the City. The
applicant was also cautioned that the Change of
Zone application was a discretionary application and
that the Planning Commission and/or City Council
could require a development permit (plot plan) prior
to approval of the Zone Change.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Change of Zone No. 5740 is a request to change the
zoning designation of the subject 41.12 acre
property from R-A-20 (Residential Agricultural) to I-P
(Industrial Park) and R-5 (Open Space Combining
Zone), as follows:
A:CZ16 2
I-P 12.73 acres
R-5 28.39 acres
The I-P portion of the subject property will be along
Ridgepark Drive, and the R-5 portion will be the area
within the existing hillside in order to preserve the
existing natural topography.
It should be noted that the boundary line between
the proposed zoning areas is the tentative alignment
for the proposed Western Transportation Corridor.
ANALYSIS:
FUTURE GENERAL PLAN,
SWAP AND ZONING
CONSISTENCY:
Change of Zone No. 5740 proposes to change the
zoning designation of the subject property to be
consistent with the current Southwest Area Plan
(SWAP) designation. The Southwest Area Plan,
which has been adopted as a General Plan guideline
by the City, designates this site as Restricted Light
Industrial along Ridgepark Drive and Mountainous on
the hillside.
The Planning Commission has adopted the policy of
processing Change of Zone requests on a case-by-
case basis, but generally preferring that plot plans be
submitted in conjunction with the Zone Change
application. Upon review of the area, with the
existing improvements and development, Staff
recommended to the applicant processing of the
case without a development proposal. The proposed
zoning, in staff's opinion, appears to be a logical land
use with the development of compatible uses in the
vicinity. In addition, any potential right-of-way
dedications required for the Western Transportation
Corridor will be handled at the time of a development
proposal for the subject property.
This project is consistent with the SWAP designation
of Restricted Light Industrial and Mountainous. The
proposed zoning is also compatible with the current
and proposed surrounding zoning. It is anticipated
A:CZ16 3
that the proposed zoning will be consistent with the
ultimate City General Plan when it is adopted, since
the proposed project is compatible with surrounding
developments and improvements.
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION: An Initial Study has been completed for the project and a
Negative Declaration is being recommended for adoption.
It has been determined that the proposed Zone Change
from R-A-20 to I-P and R-5 will not have any significant
impacts on the environment.
FINDINGS: 1.
The proposed Change of Zone will not have a
significant negative impact on the
environment, as determined in the Initial Study
performed for the project, A Negative
Declaration is recommended for adoption.
There is a reasonable probability that this
project will be consistent with the General
Plan being prepared at this time, due to the
fact that the project is compatible with the
surrounding development, zoning, and SWAP.
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 compatible with surrounding
developments and improvements.
The site is physically suited for the proposed
Change of Zone in that required infrastructure
exists in the area including commercial
roadways, drainage facilities, and main sewer
and water lines.
The proposed Change of Zone is consistent
with the SWAP designation of Restricted Light
Industrial and Mountainous. The proposed
zoning provides a support area for the
employment based developments recently
A:CZ16 4
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
approved.
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
1. RECOMMEND ADOPTION of the Negative
Declaration for Change of Zone No. 5740; and
2, ADOPT Resolution 91- recommending
approval of Change of Zone No, 5740.
SJ:ks
Attachments:
Resolution
Initial Study
Exhibits
A. Boundary Map
B. Legal Description
Large Scale Plan
A:CZ16 5
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL CHANGE OF
ZONE NO. 5740 CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-A-20 TO
I-P AND R-5 ON PROPERTY L OCA TED ON THE WESTSIDE
OF RIDGEPARK DRIVE AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NOS. 940-310-020 AND 021.
accordance
Ordinances,
WHEREAS, John F. Firestone filed Change of Zone No. 5740 in
with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision
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
September 16, 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. Findinqs. 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:CZ16 1
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)
The proposed Change of Zone will not have
significant negative impact on the
environment, as determined in the Initial Study
performed for the project. A Negative
Declaration is recommended for adoption.
b)
There is a reasonable probability that this
project will be consistent with the General
Plan being prepared at this time, due to the
fact that the project is compatible with the
surrounding development, zoning, and SWAP,
c)
There is not a likely probability of substantial
detriment to, or interference with, the future
adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The
A:CZ16 2
d)
project is compatible with surrounding
developments and improvements.
The site is physically suited for the proposed
Change of Zone in that required infrastructure
exists in the area including commercial
roadways, drainage facilities, and main sewer
and water lines.
e)
The proposed Change of Zone is consistent
with the SWAP designation of Restricted Light
Industrial and Mountainous. The proposed
zoning provides a support area for the
employment based developments recently
approved.
D. The Change of Zone is compatible with the health, safety
and welfare of the community.
SECTION 2__, Environmental Compliance,
The proposed project could not have a
environment and a Negative Declaration therefore is
adoption.
significant effect on the
hereby recommended for
SECTION 3, Conditions,
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends
approval of Change of Zone No. 5740 to change the zoning designation of the subject
property from R-A-20 (Residential Agricultural) to I-P (Industrial Park) and R-5 (Open
Area Combining Zone) on the property located on the westside of Ridgepark Drive and
known as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 940-310-020 and 021.
SECTION 4.~,
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of September, 1991.
A:CZ16 3
JOHN HOAGLAND
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 16th day of September, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
A:CZ16 4
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
I Background
1. Name of Proponent:
John F. Firestone
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
10392 Ladera Senda
Santa Ana, CA 92705
(714) 832-8429
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
August 5, 1991
4. Agency Requiring
Assessment:
CITY OF TEMECULA
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Change of Zone No. 5740
Location of Proposal:
Westside of RidgeDark Drive, south of
Rancho California Road
Temecula, California
Project Description:
Change of Zone from R-A-20
(Residential Agricultural) to I-P
(Industrial Park) and R-5 (Open Area
Combining Zone)
II Environmental Impacts
(Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets.)
Yq~ 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
A:CZ16 5
Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features?
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
X
X
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on
or off site?
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?
Yes Maybe
X
No
X
X
X
X
X
X
A:CZ16 6
Plant
a,
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?
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?
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
X
X
X
X
Maybe
X
X
X
X
X
X
No
A:CZ16 7
plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
Substantial reduction in acreage
of any agricultural crop? __
Animal Life. Will the proposal result
in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
(birds, land animals including rep-
tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms or insects)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals?
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
X
X
X
X
X
Ye~ Maybe N__o
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? __ __
b. 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:
a. Substantial increase in the rate of
use of any natural resources? __ __
b. Substantial depletion of any non-
X
X
X
X
X
A:CZ16 8
renewable natural resource? X
10.
11.
12.
13.
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?
X
X
X
X
X
Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking?
Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic?
Y~ Maybe
NO
X
X
X
X
A:CZ16 9
14.
Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
Public Services. Will the proposal have
substantial effect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
Parks or other recreational
facilities?
Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
f. Other governmental services:
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
16.
Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy?
Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy?
Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
8. Power or natural gas?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A:CZ16
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
10
Ye~ Maybe N__Qo
X
X
X
e. Storm water drainage? _ _ X
Solid waste and disposal?
X
17.
Human Health. Will the proposal
result in:
Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health)?
X
Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
X
18,
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?
X
19.
Recreation. Will the proposal result in
an impact upon the quality or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities? __
X
20. Cultural Resources.
Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
X
Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object?
X
Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
X
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
X
A:CZ16 11
Yes Maybe N_go
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 tong-term, environ-
mental goals? (A short-term
impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief,
definitive period of time while long-
term impacts will endure well into
the future.) __
Does the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but cumu-
latively considerable? (A project's
impact on two or more separate
resources may be relatively small,
but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment
is significant.)
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substan-
tial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X
X
X
X
A:CZ16 12
III. Discussion of Evaluation
for Initial Environmental Study Item
Change of Zone No. 5740
1. through 21.
No.
The current proposal only involves a Change of Zoning
classification from R-A-20 to I-P and R-5. The proposed I-P
and R-5 zoning is consistent with the SWAP designation of
Restricted Light Industrial and Mountainous. Since this
application is a request to provide a consistency with
SWAP, Change of Zone No. 5740 does not pose any
potential significant environmental impacts, at this time.
However, it sould be noted that any future development of
the subject property will require the preparation of an
environmental assessment to review any potential impacts
associated with a project.
A:CZ16 13
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-
ticant 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
August 5, 1991
Date
Oliver Mujica, Senior Planner
For CITY OF TEMECULA
A:CZ16 14
t.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill
September 16, 1991
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24183
Recommendation:
RECOMMEND ADOPTION of Negative Declaration for
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24183; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending
approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24183.
PROPOSAL:
BACKGROUND:
DISCUSSION:
Subdivide 48.8 acres into 155 single family residential lots;
3 open space lots; and 1 park site within Planning Area No.
5 of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1, located on
the southeast corner of De Portola Road and Meadows
Parkway.
On August 5, 1991, the Planning Commission reviewed
this item, and a concern regarding parkland availability
within the overall specific plan area was expressed by the
Commission. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the
Planning Commission continued this item in order to allow
the Community Services Department Staff the opportunity
to discuss parkland dedications for this tentative tract map.
Subsequent to the Planning Commission public hearing of
August 5, 1991, the Community Services Department Staff
discussed this matter with the applicant; and the following
conditions of approval have been added to the project with
the approval of the applicant.
Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the
developer or his assignee shall meet with the
TCSD staff and enter into an agreement as to
A:VTM24183 1
the proposed site location of the required 2.0
acres of improved parkland."; and
Prior to the issuance of the 50th building
permit, the developer or his assignee shall
improve and dedicate said 2.0 acres of
improved parkland to the TCSD.";
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
RECOMMEND ADOPTION of the Negative
Declaration for Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 24183; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending
approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
24183.
OM:mb
Attachments:
Resolution
Conditions of Approval
Planning Commission Staff Report
(Dated August 5, 1991)
Planning Commission Minutes
(Dated August 5, 1991)
A:VTM24183 2
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24183 TO
SUBDIVIDE A 48.8 ACRE PARCEL INTO 155 SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, 3 OPEN SPACE LOTS, AND
I PARK SITE LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
DE PORTOLA ROAD AND MEADOWS PARKWAY AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 923-230-002
(PORTION)
WHEREAS, Bedford Properties filed Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
24183 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 September 16, 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 Tentative Tract Map;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1o Fin(ringS. 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
A:VTM24183 3
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
(a)
There is a reasonable probability that the land
use or action proposed will be consistent with
the general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
(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 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 recommending
approval of projects and taking other actions, including the
issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of
the following:
A:VTM24183 4
(a)
(b)
There is reasonable probability that Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 24183 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.
(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.
460, 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.
A:VTM24183 5
f)
g)
That the design of the proposed land division
or the type of improvements are not likely to
cause serious public health problems.
That the design of the proposed land division
or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at
large, for access through, or use of, property
within the proposed land division. A land
division may be approved if it is found that
alternate easements for access or for use will
be provided and that they will be substantially
equivalent to ones previously acquired by the
public. This subsection shall apply only to
easements of record or to easements
established by judgment of a court of
competent jurisdiction.
(2) The Planning Commission in recommending approval
of the proposed Tentative Tract Map, makes the following findings, to
wit:
a)
The proposed Tract Map will not have a
significant negative impact on the
environment, as determined in the Initial Study
performed for the project. A Negative
Declaration is recommended for adoption,
b)
There is a reasonable probability that this
project will be consistent with the General
Plan being prepared at this time, due to the
fact that the project is consistent with
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1.
c)
There is not a likely probability of substantial
detriment to, or interference with, the future
adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to
the fact that the project is consistent with
A:VTM24183 6
d)
e)
f)
g)
surrounding land uses.
The proposed use complies with State
planning and Zoning law, due to the fact that
the project conforms to the current zoning for
the site and to Ordinance No. 460, Schedule
A.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configurations, access, and
density due to the fact that the project has
access to public roads and a specific plan will
be implemented with this project.
The design of the subdivision or the proposed
improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or
substantially avoidable injury to fish or wildlife
or their habitat as determined in the Initial
Study.
The design of the subdivision is consistent
with the State Map Act in regard to future
passive energy control opportunities due to
the fact that the lots provide sufficient
southern exposure.
h)
All lots have access to existing and proposed
dedicated rights-of-way which are open to,
and are useable by, vehicular traffic, access is
provide from Street "A" of the specific plan.
The design of the subdivision, the type of
improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed project as
conditioned. The project will not interfere
with any easements.
A:VTM24183 7
j)
The lawful conditions stated in the project's
Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary
to protect the public health, safety and
general welfare.
k)
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps,exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Tentative Tract
Map is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
SECTION 2..=. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project 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 EIR
235 and in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative
Declaration, therefore, is hereby recommended for adoption.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends
approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24183 for the subdivision of a 48.8 acre
parcel into 155 single family residential lots; 3 open space lots; and 1 park site
located on the southeast corner of De Portola Road and Meadows Parkway and
known as Assessor~s Parcel No. 923-230-002 (portion) subject to the following
conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of September, 1991.
JOHN HOAGLAND
A:VTM24183 8
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 16th day of September, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
A:VTM24183 9
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No:
24183
Project Description: 155 Sinale Family
Residential: 30oen Seace; and I Park
Assessor's Parcel No.: 923-023-002
Planning Deoartment
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision
Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule A, unless
modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in
accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request,
if made 30 days prior to the expiration date.
This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the
approval date by the City Council, unless extended as provided by Ordinance
460.
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final
map.
Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract map
boundary to a City maintained road.
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 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:
a. Be limited to a maximum slope ratio of 2 to 1,
A:VTM24183 10
10.
11.
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, An erosion control landscaping plan
demonstrating methods of erosion protection for these slopes shall be prepared
by a qualified professional; and 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 November 13,
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.
This subdivision shall comply with Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1.
Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following:
Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the
development standards of Planning Area 5 as provided Specific Plan No.
219, Amendment No, 1.
b. Lots 1-155 shall be a minimum size of 4,000 square feet.
Corner lots and through lots, if any, shall be provided with additional
area pursuant to Section 3.8B of Ordinance 460 and so as not to contain
less net area than the least amount of net area in non-corner and non-
through lots.
Trash bins, loading areas and incidental storage areas, located in
recreation areas, shall be located away and visually screened from
surrounding areas with the use of block walls and landscaping.
Bike racks and bike lockers in sufficient quantity shall be provided in
convenient locations to facilitate bike access to recreation areas.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free
condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided
A:VTM24183 11
12.
13.
14.
with other erosion control measures as approved by the Director of
Building and Safety.
The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes,
landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations are
the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director.
The subdivider and all successors in interest shall comply with the provisions
of Development Agreement No. 4 and Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment
No. 1.
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.
15. 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
recommendations.
County Slope Stability Report No. 122 was prepared for this property
and is on file at the Planning Department. Specific items of concern in
the report are as follows: Slope Stability.
16. The developer shall comply with the following parkway landscaping conditions:
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall secure
approval of proposed landscaping and irrigation plans from the City
Engineering and Planning Department. All landscaping and irrigation
plans and specifications shall be prepared in a reproducible format
suitable for permanent filing with the City Engineering Department.
The developer shall post a landscape performance bond which shall be
released concurrently with the release of subdivision performance bonds,
guaranteeing the viability of all landscaping which wilt be installed prior
to the assumption of the maintenance responsibility by the district.
A:VTM24183 12
17.
The developer, the developer's successors-in-interest or assignees, shall
be responsible for all parkway landscaping maintenance until such time
as maintenance as taken over by the Community Services District.
The developer shall comply with the standards and exhibits in Specific
Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1.
Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
If the project is to be phased, prior to the issuance 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:
1. Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and
sedimentation during and after the grading process.
Approximate time frames for grading and identification of areas
which may be graded during the higher probability rain months of
January through March.
3o Preliminary pad and roadway elevations.
4. Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase.
All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded natural terrain and exceeding
ten (1 O) 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.
4. Where cut or fill slopes exceed 300 feet in horizontal length, the
A:VTM24183 13
18,
19.
horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved in a continuous,
undulating fashion.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall provide
evidence to the Director of Building and Safety that all adjacent off-site
manufactured slopes have recorded slope easements and that slope
maintenance responsibilities have been assigned as approved by the
Director of Building and Safety.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be
retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed
grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. Should the
paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a
pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading
contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or
representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt
grading activity to allow recovery of fossils.
Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
The project shall comply with the requirements of Development
Agreement No. 4.
Prior to the issuance of building permits detailed common open space
area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning
Department approval for the phase of development in process. The
plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for the
following:
Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all
landscaped areas requiring irrigation.
Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be
opaque up to a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity.
All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from
view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle
treatments, as approved by the Planning Director. Utilities shall
be placed underground.
4. Parkways shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a
A:VTM24183 14
transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscape
elements shall include earth herruing, ground cover, shrubs and
specimen trees. Front yards shall be landscaped and street trees
planted.
Wall plans shall be submitted for the project perimeter. Wooden
fencing shall not be allowed on the perimeter of the project. All
lots with slopes leading down from the lot shall be provided with
gates in the wall for maintenance access.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent
trees at key visual focal points within the project.
Where street trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of
interior streets and project parkways due to insufficient road right-
of-way, they shall be planted outside of the road right-of-way.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant
plants where appropriate.
All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow
growing trees shall be steel staked.
No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit
within the project boundary until the developer's successor's-in-interest
provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures.
A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ( $100) per lot/unit shall be deposited
with the City as mitigation for public library development.
Prior to the submittal of building plans to the Department of Building and
Safety an acoustical study shall be performed by an acoustical engineer
to establish appropriate mitigation measures that shall be applied to
individual dwelling units within the subdivision to reduce ambient interior
noise levels to 45 Ldn.
All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required
elements from the subdivision's approved fire protection plan as
approved by the County Fire Marshal.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and
irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval.
The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requiring
A:VTM24183 15
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 comply
with the design guidelines of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1.
All street side yard setbacks shall comply with the design guidelines of
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1o
All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and a manually
operated permanent underground irrigation system,
Prior to the issuance of building permits for Lots 1-155, a plot plan shall
be submitted to the Planning Department pursuant to Section 18.30 of
Ordinance No. 348 accompanied by all applicable filing fees, as a plot
plan that is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act and
is not transmitted to any governmental agency other than the City
Planning Department. The plot plan shall ensure the conformance of the
final site development with the Design Guidelines of Specific Plan No.
219, Amendment No. 1, and shall contain the following elements:
A final site plan showing the lots, building footprints, all setback,
and floor plan and elevation assignments to individual lots.
One (1) color and materials sample board (maximum size of 8 x
13 inches by 3/8 inch thick) containing precise color, texture and
material swatches or photographs (which may be from suppliers'
brochures). Indicate on the board the name, address and phone
numbers of both the sample board preparer and the project
applicant, tract number, and the manufacturer and product
numbers where possible (trade names also acceptable).
One (1) copy of the architectural elevations colored to represent
the selected color combinations, with symbols keyed to the color
and materials board. The written color and material descriptions
shall be located on the elevation.
A:VTM24183 16
20.
21.
Said plot plan shall require the approval of the Planning Director prior to
the issuance of any building permits for lots included within the plot
plan. The submittal of plot plans prior to the issuance of building permits
may be phased provided:
A separate plot plan shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for each phase, which shall be accompanied by
appropriate filing fees.
Each individual plot plan shall be approved by the Planning
Director prior to the issuance of building permits for lots included
within that plot plan.
Prior to the issuance of building permits for Lot 156, a plot plan shall be
submitted to the Planning Department pursuant to Section 18.30 of
Ordinance No. 348 accompanied by all applicable filing fees, as a plot
plan that is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act and is
transmitted to any governmental agencies other than the City Planning
Department. The plot plan shall ensure the conformance of the final site
development with the Design Guidelines of Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 1o
Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall
be satisfied:
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with
approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal
conditions do not permit planting, interim landscaping and erosion
control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning Director
and the Director of Building and Safety.
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with
approved plans and shall be verified by City field inspection.
Not withstanding the preceding conditions, wherever an acoustical study
is required for noise attenuation purposes, the heights of all required
walls shall be determined by the acoustical study where applicable.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the
provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that
A:VTM24183 17
22.
23.
24.
25.
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 Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 24183, which action is brought within the time period
provided for in California Government Code Section 66499.37° 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,
The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site
property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the developer shall at
least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an
agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code
Section 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 subdivision. Security of a portion of
these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an
appraisal report obtained by the developer, at the developer's cost. The
appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the
appraisal.
All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable
TV shall be provided for underground, with easements provided as required,
and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility
provided. Telephone, cable TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in
the residence.
Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the developer or his assignee shall meet
with the TCSD staff and enter into an agreement as to the proposed site
location of the required 2.0 acres of improved parkland.
A:VTM24183 18
26. Prior to the issuance of the 50th building permit, the developer or his assignee
shall improve and dedicate said 2.0 acres of improved parkland to the TCSD.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground,
The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works prior
to final approval of the tract maps. The CC&R's shall include liability insurance
and methods of maintaining the open space, recreation areas, parking areas,
drainage facilities, private roads, and exterior of all buildings.
No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation,
association, property owner's group, or similar entity has been formed with the
right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have
any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in
the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses
of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of
said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate
under recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsory membership of all
owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meet
changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&R's shall
permit enforcement by the City of Provisions required by the City as Conditions
of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this
requirement to, and receive approval of, the City prior to making any such sale.
This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes.
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.
Maintenance for all landscaped and open areas, including parkways, shall be
provided for in the CC&R's,
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 (91,250.00) 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
A:VTM24183 19
and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight (48) hour
period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the
check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void
by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
Riverside County Fire DePartment
34.
Schedule a fire protection approved standard fire hydrants, (6"x4"x2 1/2")
located one at each street intersection and spaced no more than 330 feet apart
in any direction, with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from
a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for 2 hours duration at 20
PSI.
35.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire
Department for review. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer,
containing a Fire Department approval signature block, and shall conform to
hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow, Once plans are signed
by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire
Department for signature.
36.
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.
37,
Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the
City of Temecula, a cash sum of $400.00 per lot/unit as mitigation for fire
protection impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment,
he/she may enter into a written agreement with the County deferring said
payment to the time of issuance of the first building permit.
Department of Public Works
The following are the Department of Public Works 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 Department of
Public Works.
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:
A:VTM24183 20
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, 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;
Department of Public Works;
Riverside County Health Department;
CATV Franchise; and
Temecula Community Services District.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, 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 Department
of Public Works.
Streets B,C,D,E,and F shall be 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'}.
Streets G,H, and I shall be improved with a ten foot (10') median strip bounded
by 20 feet of asphalt concrete pavement on each side, or bonds for the street
improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance
with County Standard No. 104, Section A (70'/50').
In the event that full improvements for Meadows Parkway, De Portola Road and
Street A are not constructed by Assessment District 159 prior to the final map
recordation, the developer shall construct or bond for the improvements to
provide for one-half street improvements plus one 12 foot lane per Riverside
County Standard No. 109 (100'/76'). The improvements shall be constructed
· prior to occupancy.
Vehicular access shall be restricted on Meadows Parkway, De Portola Road and
Street "A" and so noted on the final map with the exception of Public street
intersections as approved by the Department of Public Works or shown on the
tentative map.
44. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No.
A:VTM24183 21
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
805.
Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be dedicated to the City where
sidewalks meander through private property.
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 Department of Public Works.
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, traffic signal systems, 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
Department of Public Works.
Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the
Department of Public Works 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.
A:VTM24183 22
51. Street names shall be subject to the approval of the Department of Public
Works.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
The minimum centerline radii shall be 300 feet or as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the
Department of Public Works,
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 Department of Public Works.
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 Department
of Public Works. 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 Department of Public
Works.
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."
A:VTM24183 23
63.
A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final map, along with
supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations should be submitted to the
Riverside County Flood Control District and to the City of Temecula Department
of Public Works for review.
64.
The subdivider shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing
onto or through the site. In the event the Department of Public Works permits
the use of streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Article XI of
Ordinance No. 460 will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street
capacity, or use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the subdivider
shall provide adequate facilities as approved by the Department of Public
Works.
65.
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:
66.
Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and
an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public
Works.
67.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior
to commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of-
way.
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 Department of Public Works
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:VTM24183 24
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. Secondary Access shall be provided for any phasing
as specified and approved by the Department of Public Works.
74.
Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times
with adequate detours during construction.
75.
Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than 14 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
94 of the State Standard Specifications.
Transoortation Engineering
A:VTM24183 25
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
76.
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the City Engineer for Meadows Parkway, De Portola Road and
Streets "A" through "1" and shall be included in the street improvement plans.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
77.
A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Civil
Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works for any street
closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the
City Engineer.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
78.
All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and striping
plan.
Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact the Department of Public
Works for the design requirements.
79.
Plans for a traffic signal shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the Department of Public Works for the intersections of Meadows
Parkway and De Portola Road, De Portola Road and Street "A" and Street "A"
and Meadows Parkway. All traffic signals shall be installed and operational per
the special provisions and the approved traffic signal plan when warranted.
A:VTM24183 26
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 5, 1991
Case No.: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24183
Prepared By: Oliver Mujica
Recommendation: 1.
RECOMMEND ADOPTION of Negative
Declaration for Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 24183; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 91-
recommending approval of Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 24183.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Bedford Properties
REPRESENTATIVE:
Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates
PROPOSAL:
Subdivide 48.8 acres into 155 single family residential lots;
3 open space lots; and 1 park site within Planning Area No.
5 of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1.
LOCATION:
Southeast corner of De Portola Road and Meadows
Parkway.
EXISTING ZONING:
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. I
SURROUNDING ZONING:
Density
North:
South:
East:
West:
Planning Area No. 9
Planning Areas 2 (Very High Density
Residential) and 3 (Medium High
Density Residential).
Planning Area No. 3 (Medium High
Density Residential)
Planning Area No. 6 (Very High
Residential)
A:VTM24183 1
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
Not Applicable
Vacant
PROJECT STATISTICS:
BACKGROUND:
Total Land Area:
48.8 acres
No. of Proposed Lots: 155 single family, 3
open space, I park
Proposed Density: 4.37 DU/ac
Specific Plan Density: 4.37 DU/ac
Min. Residential Lot Size: 5,095 sq.ft.
Useable Open Space Area: 1.60 acres
(Lot 156)
On September 6, 1988, the Riverside County Board
of Supervisors adopted Resolution No, 88-470
approving Specific Plan No. 219 (Meadows). The
Meadows provided a total of 5,611 dwelling units on
1,036 acres. In addition, the Board of Supervisors
certified Environmental Impact Report No. 235 for
Specific Plan No. 219 as an accurate and objective
statement that complies with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Furthermore, a
statement of overriding findings was made for the
Air Quality Impacts.
On November 15, 1989, the applicant filed Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No, 24183 to the Riverside
County Planning Department, which proposed to
subdivide the subject 48.8 acre site into 155 single
family residential lots; 3 open space lots; and 1 park
site.
The project was reviewed by the Riverside County
Land Division Committee (LDC) on December 11,
1989; February 26, 1990; and April 2, 1990.
During these meetings the LDC indicated that
Specific Plan No.219, Amendment No. 1 must be
adopted prior to the approval of the tentative map.
A:VTM24183 2
Subsequently, this project was transferred to the
City of Temecula on April 23, 1990.
On November 15, 1990, this project was reviewed
by the Preliminary Development Review Committee
(Pre-DRC) in order to informally evaluate the project
and address any possible concerns, as well as
suggesting possible modifications. The comments
by the Pre-DRC included the following:
2.
3.
4.
Park Site Considerations
Public Improvements
Storm Drain System
Drainage
Subsequent to the Pre-DRC meeting, Staff met with
the applicant to discuss the required supplemental
material in order to address the Pre-DRC's concerns.
On February 27, 1991, Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 24183 was reviewed by the Formal
Development Review Committee; and, it was
determined that the project, as designed, can be
adequately conditioned to mitigate the DRC's
concerns. The DRC has forwarded a
recommendation of approval subject to conditions.
On April 9, 1991, the City Council Adopted
Resolution No. 91-36 approving Change of Zone No.
5621 and Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1,
amending the boundaries and land use designations
of Planning Areas 1, 2, 5 and 6 of Specific Plan No.
219. Subsequently, on April 23, 1991, the City
Council adopted Ordinance No. 91-13 amending
Zoning Ordinance No. 90-04 pertaining to Ordinance
No. 348.2919 (Specific Plan No. 219) as it relates to
zoning.
The Planning Commission May recall that Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 24183 was originally
scheduled for their public hearing meeting of March
18, 1991. However, at the request of the applicant,
A:VTM24183 3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
this item was continued prior to the meeting "off-
calendar" in order to allow the applicant the
opportunity to further discuss the Conditions of
Approval, relative to traffic mitigation, with the
Engineering Department Staff.
As noted above, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
24183 proposes to subdivide the subject 48°8 acre
parcel into 155 single family residential lots; 3 open
space lots; and I park site.
The proposed subdivision has been designed in
accordance with the standards of Specific Plan No.
219, Amendment No. 1.
Traffic Impacts
The Transportation Engineering Staff has reviewed
this project; and determined that the proposed
project is consistent with the traffic mitigation
measures of EIR 235 adopted for Specific Plan No.
219. Thus, the project has been conditioned
accordingly.
Access and Circulation
Access to the proposed subdivision is provided from
proposed Street "A" and Meadows Parkway. The
proposed access points are consistent with the
circulation plan of Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 1 (see Figure 4, Page 22; and
Figure 15E, Page 91 of Specific Plan Text).
Grading and Landform Alteration
While substantial grading and recontouring of this
site, which includes 635,000 c.y. of excavation and
450,000 c.y. of fill will occur in the immediate area,
the overall plan is intended to promote preservation
of site topography. The terraced landform creates
view lots within the proposed subdivision, in which
the slopes range from 5 to 30 feet in height. It
A:VTM24183 4
should be noted that a recommended Condition of
Approval has been included to require that all slopes
over five (5') feet in height shall be landscaped
immediately upon the completion of grading and shall
be maintained by the homeowners association.
General Landscaoe Requirements
Pursuant to Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No.
1 (see Landscape Design Guidelines and Community
Elements, Pages 223-295), all areas required to be
landscaped shall be planted with turf, ground cover,
shrub or tree materials selected from the plant
palette contained in the guidelines.
Planting shall commence as soon as slopes are
completed on any portion of the site and shall
provide for rapid short-term coverage of the slope as
well as long-term establishment cover per City
standards. The developer shall provide a landscape
bond to the City at the time that the landscape plan
is approved. The bond is to guarantee the
installation of interim erosion control planting in the
event that the grading operation is performed and
building construction does not commence within
ninety (90) days.
The owners of parcels which require landscape
development shall assess any existing common
landscape areas adjoining their property. Where
feasible, landscape development shall reinforce or be
compatible with such existing common area setting.
Cut slopes equal to or greater than five (5') feet in
vertical height and fill slopes equal to or greater than
three (3') feet in vertical height shall be planted with
a ground cover to protect the slope from erosion and
instability. Slopes exceeding fifteen (15') in vertical
height shall be planted with shrubs, spaced not more
than ten (10') feet on center or trees spaced not to
A:VTM24183 5
exceed twenty (20') feet on center or a combination
of shrubs and trees at equivalent spacings, in
addition to the ground cover.
The plants selected and planting methods shall be
suitable for the soil and climatic conditions, Refer to
the plant materials palette for the list of community
wide slope stabilization plants.
The Planning Department Staff has included a
Condition of Approval requiring that a final
landscaping plan for lots 157-159 (open space) must
be submitted for approval by the Planning
Department prior to the issuance of building permits.
Land Use
The project site is located within Planning Area 5 of
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1, which is
designated as Medium High Density Residential and
allows a maximum of 155 dwelling units. Therefore,
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24183 is consistent
with the specific plan, due to the fact that 155
residential lots are proposed. In addition, according
to the development standards, as outlined in Specific
Plan No. 219, in Amendment No. 1, Planning Area 5
permits a minimum lot size of 4,000 square feet, in
which the proposal provides a minimum lot size of
5,095 square feet. Thus, this project is consistent
with the Specific Plan.
Useable Ooen Soace
A 1.60 acre private park site (Lot 156) is proposed
and is centrally located to provide recreational open
space for the residents within the subject tract. The
Planning Department Staff has included a Condition
of Approval requiring that a plot plan application
must be submitted for Planning Department approval
prior to the issuance of building permits.
A:VTM24183 6
SPECIFIC PLAN AND
GENERAL PLAN
CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS:
The proposed project is consistent with the Land Use
Designation of Specific Plan and Specific Plan No, 219,
Amendment No. I (Planning Area 5 - Medium High Density
Residential). In addition, Staff has determined it probable
that this project will be consistent with the new General
Plan when it is adopted,
Pursuant to Condition Of Approval No. 12 of Specific
Plan No. 219,an Initial Study was performed for this
project which determined that although the proposed
project could have a significant effect on the
environment, no significant impact would result to
the natural or built environment in the City because
the mitigation measures described in EIR 235 and in
the Conditions of Approval have been added to the
project, and a Negative Declaration has been
recommended for adoption.
The proposed Tract Map will not have a
significant negative impact on the
environment, as determined in the Initial Study
performed for the project. A Negative
Declaration is recommended for adoption.
There is a reasonable probability that this
project will be consistent with the General
Plan being prepared at this time, due to the
fact that the project is consistent with
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1.
There is not a likely probability of substantial
detriment to, or interference with, the future
adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to
the fact that the project is consistent with
surrounding land uses.
4. The proposed use complies with State
A:VTM24183 7
planning and Zoning law, due to the fact that
the project conforms to the current zoning for
the site and to Ordinance No. 460, Schedule
A.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configurations, access, and
density due to the fact that the project has
access to public roads and a specific plan will
be implemented with this project.
The design of the subdivision or the proposed
improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or
substantially avoidable injury to fish or wildlife
or their habitat as determined in the Initial
Study.
The design of the subdivision is consistent
with the State Map Act in regard to future
passive energy control opportunities due to
the fact that the lots provide sufficient
southern exposure.
All lots have access to existing and proposed
dedicated rights-of-way which are open to,
and are useable by, vehicular traffic, access is
provide from Street "A" of the specific plan.
The design of the subdivision, the type of
improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed project as
conditioned. The project will not interfere
with any easements.
10. The lawful conditions stated in the project's
A:VTM24183 8
Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary
to protect the public health, safety and
general welfare.
11.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps,exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
RECOMMEND ADOPTION of the Negative
Declaration for Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 24183; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending
approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
24183,
OM:mb
Attachments:
1. Resolution
2. Conditions of Approval
3. Environmental Assessment
4. Exhibits:
A. Vicinity Map
B. Specific Land Use Map
C. Planning Area No. 5 Map
D. Planning Area No. 5 Standards
E. Tentative Tract Map
5. Large Scale Plan
A:VTM24183 9
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
Background
1. Name of Proponent:
2o Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
Bedford Properties
28765 Single Oak Drive, Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92390
(714) 676-7290
February 13, 1991
Agency Requiring
Assessment:
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
CITY OF TEMECULA
Tentative Tract Map No. 24183
Location of Proposal:
Southeast corner of De Portola Road
and Meadows Parkway.
II. Project Description
Tentative Tract Map No. 24183 proposes to subdivide the subject 48.8 acre site,
which is within Planning Area 5 of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1, into 155
single family residential lots; 3 open space lots; and 1 park.
Project Summary:
SP 219 TM 24183
Planning Area 5
155 D.U. 155 Lots
A:VTM24183 35
III. Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
The following environmental impacts associated with Specific Plan No. 219 are
insignificant in that the design of the project as proposed includes the necessary
mitigation measures which have been adopted within EIR 235:
Water and Sewer:
The project will have an average daily consumption
of domestic water of 1,683,300 gallons at 300
gallons/d.u./day. The project will generation
between 1.81 and 3.08 million gallons per day of
sewage flow. Onsite wastewater collection facilities
will be constructed to tie into Eastern Municipal
Water District's master planned facilities being
constructed through the Rancho Villages Assessment
District. Construction of all structures within the
project will conform to state laws requiring water
efficient plumbing fixtures.
Utilities:
Gas, electricity, and telephone service will be
provided by respective purveyors of the service.
Lines for electrical and telephone services, and mains
for natural gas are located along the project
boundaries.
Energy Resources: The project will increase consumption of energy for motor
vehicle movement, space and water heating, air
conditioning, use of home appliances, and operation of
construction equipment. The project will adhere to State
Code Title 24 energy conservation standards and will
employ site design, when possible, for additional energy
conservation. Non vehicular pathways are included within,
and adjacent to, the project site. Commercial and
employment centers are in proximity to the project site.
Parks and Recreation:
Project residents will create a demand for parks and
recreation facilities, and for open space. The project
design provides 242+/- acres of recreation areas,
parkway greenbelts, and paseo open space.
The following environmental impacts associated with Specific Plan No. 219 are
potentially significant, but will be avoided or substantially lessened by the identified
mitigation measures which have been adopted within EIR 235:
A. Seismic Safety
A:VTM24183 37
1. linDact:
2. Mitigation:
Slooes and Erosion
1. Impact:
2. MitigatiOn:
Flooding
1. Imoact:
Although faults have been previously mapped on-
site, they have been determined to be inactive and
the risk of ground rupture due to faulting on the
project is considered nil. Liquefaction potential
exists along the entire flat alluviated area of
Temecula Creek within the southern site boundary.
During site development, additional geologic
evaluation shall be continued in order to verify the
extent and relative age of fault activity. Mitigation
of the liquefaction potential within the southern
portion of the site will occur as a result of project
development, which will lower artificially high
groundwater levels by removal of recharge ponds, as
well as increase overburden as a result of site
grading.
The Meadows Specific Plan will unavoidably alter
some of the existing landforms. Owing to the
general granular nature of graded slopes, a moderate
to severe erosion potential exists if slopes are
unprotected. Removal and recompaction of portions
of alluvial/colluvial soils within fill areas and shallow
cut areas will be necessary.
Temporary groundcover shall be provided to prevent
erosion during the construction phase. Permanent
vegetation shall be planted as soon as possible after
grading. Specific requirements for alluvial/colluvial
soils removal shall be developed during tentative map
studies and incorporated into project grading. The
three small possible landslide areas shall be
investigated during design level studies and all
mitigation measures identified as a result of that
investigation will be incorporated into future
development approvals. Remedial grading
recommendations to provide for the long term
stability will be provided based upon a finalized
grading design.
Development of the Vail Meadows Specific Plan will
A:VTM24183 38
2. Mitigation:
Noisq
1. linDact:
2. Mitigation:
Water Quality
1. Imoact:
2. Mitigation:
alter the existing drainage patterns and will increase
runoff to Temecula Creek and, to a lesser extent,
Murrieta Creek.
A master drainage plan has been developed to
respond to the hydrological constraints of the site.
A more in-depth assessment of the Temecula
floodplain shall be conducted during the final design
and preparation of the tentative tract maps, and all
mitigation measures identified as a result of that
assessment will be incorporated into future
development approvals. Erosion control devices shall
be utilized in hillside development areas to mitigate
the effect of increased runoff at points of discharge.
If required, the project applicant will contribute
Drainage Improvement Fees as appropriate.
Noise generated from the project will derive from
two sources, construction and vehicular traffic, but
is not anticipated to result in unacceptable noise
levels to existing or proposed off-site uses. Onsite
areas adjacent to high volume roadways may be
subject to noise impacts.
A noise analysis shall be required in planning areas
adjacent to high volume perimeter roads. If
indicated, noise attenuation will be incorporated into
project design.
Implementation of the project will alter the
composition of surface runoff by grading the site
surfaces; by construction of impervious streets,
roofs and parking facilities; and by the irrigation of
landscaped areas. Runoff conveyed to Temecula
and Murrieta Creeks will contain minor amounts of
pollutants.
The project will employ erosion control devices
during grading, such as temporary berms, culverts,
sand bagging or desilting basins. Urban runoff will
be mitigated through implementation of a street
A:VTM24183 39
Wildlife/Vegetation
1. linDact:
cleaning program.
2. Mitigation:
As a consequence of grassland and coastal sage
scrub vegetation removal, existing wildlife will either
be destroyed or displaced. Impacts upon habitat
containing a population of the Stephen's Kangaroo
Rat will result.
The project applicant will participate in any in-place
County program which provides for off-site
mitigation of impacts to the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat,
or enter into a Memorandum of Understanding wit
the California Department of Fish and Game.
Historic and Prehistoric Sites
1. linDact:
2. Mitigation:
H. Circulation
Without proper mitigation, implementation of the Vail
Meadows Specific Plan could potentially destroy
archaeological/historical sites on the property.
1. Impact:
Prior to the approval of any additional implementing
processes, the applicant/developer will meet with the
County Historical Commission to determine
appropriate measures to mitigate potential impacts to
archaeological/historicalsites; all mitigation measures
identified as a result of the meeting(s) will be
incorporated into future development approvals.
2. Mitigation:
The Vail Meadows Specific Plan is anticipated to
generate 47,600 vehicle trips per day at project
completion. Approximately 40,000 of these trips
would be external to the site.
I. Fire Protection
Construction of the proposed circulation network will
adequately service future on-site traffic volumes.
Off-site improvements will be constructed as
required by the County Road Department and
CalTrans.
A:VTM24183 40
1. Impact:
2. Mitioation:
Sheriff
1. Impact:
2. Mitigation:
Schools
1. Imoact:
2. Mitigation:
Solid Waste
1. Imoact:
2. Mitigation:
M. Librarie~
The project site would be subject to Category 11
urban development requirements with regard to fire
protection services.
The project site will be served by a proposed fire
station, to be constructed near Highway 79. The
developer will pay mitigation fees as required by the
Board of Supervisors.
Project residents will impose increased demands on
law enforcement and sheriff services.
Project design will incorporate appropriate lighting,
site design, security hardware and such design
features as will promote optimal security. The
developer will pay mitigation fees as required by the
Board of Supervisors.
The project will generate an estimated 3,109
students in grades K-8 and 1,187 students in grades
9-12, impacting the Temecula Union School District.
The project has designated four elementary school
sites and one junior high school site. The developer
will pay school mitigation fees as required.
Project residents, estimated at 14,587, will generate
approximately 58 tons per day of solid waste,
incrementally shortening the life of County landfill
sites.
The County Solid Waste Management Plan includes
programs for reducing the quantity of wastes being
landfilled, including source reduction and business
and residential separation of recoverables. These
programs may be implemented by project residents
and businesses,
A:VTM24183 41
1. Impact: The project's population will increase demand for
library facilities and services.
2. Mitigation:
The developer will pay library mitigation fees as
required by the Board of Supervisors.
The following environmental impact associated with Specific Plan No. 219 cannot be
fully mitigation and a statement of overriding findings has been adopted within EIR
235:
Air Quality
1. Imoact:
At project build-out, daily motor vehicle emissions
for the project will total approximately 7,754
Ibs/day. Power plant emissions for electrical energy
consumed on-site will total 175 Ibs/day. Natural gas
emissions for project consumption will total 163.6
Ibs per day. Approximately 100 Ibs of dust per acre
will be generated each day of construction in
addition to an undetermined amount of motor
emissions during site preparation an construction.
2. Mitigation:
Because most of the project-related air pollution
emissions are generated by automobiles, effective
mitigation is limited. On-site provisions for schools,
shopping, and recreation has been incorporated into
project design. Sufficient acreage has been zoned
for industrial use in the Rancho California/Temecula
area to provide employment opportunities. project
design includes a circulation plan designed for
efficient and direct traffic flows and alternative
transit modes including pedestrian, bicycle, and
equestrian trails. The Rancho Villages Policy Plan, to
which this project is subject, requires pedestrian and
bus stop facilities for commercial areas. These
requirements will be implemented at the
development application stage. Particulate matter
and other pollutants generated during grading and
construction will be reduced through compliance
with County Ordinance No. 457 which specifies
watering during construction, and planting of ground
cover.
A:VTM24183 42
IV. Conclusion
The Riverside County Board of Supervisors certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
No. 230 in conjunction with the approval of Specific Plan No. 219 and Change of
Zone No. 5140. The EIR included mitigation measures to reduce environmental
impacts to levels of insignificance. The Board of Supervisors also adopted statements
of overriding considerations for the air quality impacts. Tentative Tract Map No.
24183 proposes a residential development that is consistent with the guidelines and
requirements of Planning Area 5 of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1; and will
not result in impacts to the environment. The Conditions of Approval are adequate
to mitigate any potential significant impacts to levels of insignificance.
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and Condition of Approval No.
12 of Specific Plan No 219, this Initial Study has been prepared to demonstrate that
the proposed Tentative Tract Map will not result in new or substantially increased
significant impacts, that there have been no changes in the circumstances surrounding
the project that would require important revisions to the EIR due to new significant
impacts, and that no new information has arisen which would indicate that the project
will have significant effects not previously discussed or underestimated, or that
alternatives or mitigation measures not previously considered would substantially
reduce any significant impacts.
A:VTM24183 43
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-
ticant effect on this case because the mitigation measures
described on attached sheets, which were adopted for EIR 235
and in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
X
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required.
Februarv 13, 1991
Date
Oliver Mujica, Senior Planner
For CITY OF TEMECULA
A:VTM24183 44
ITEM # 8
ITEM # 6
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill
September 16, 1991
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25417
RECOMMENDATION:
PROPOSAL:
BACKGROUND:
DISCUSSION:
RECOMMEND ADOPTION of Negative Declaration for
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25417; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending
approval of Vesting Tentative tract Map No. 25417.
Subdivide 37.8 acres into 6 multi-family residential lots and
2 open space lots within Planning Area No. 6 of Specific
Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1, located on the southwest
corner of DePortola road and Meadows Parkway.
On August 5, 1991, the Planning Commission reviewed
this item, and a concern regarding parkland availability
within the overall specific plan area was expressed by the
Commission. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the
Planning Commission continued this item in order to allow
the Community Services Department the opportunity to
discuss parkland dedications for this tentative tract map.
Subsequent to the Planning Commission public hearing of
August 5, 1991, the Community Services Department Staff
discussed this matter with the applicant; and the following
conditions of approval have been added to the project with
the approval of the applicant.
Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the
developer or his assignee shall meet with the
TCSD staff and enter into an agreement as to
the proposed site location of the 7.79 acres of
improved parkland."; and,
A:TM25417 I
Prior to the completion of the first phase,
completion of the 50th unit, or issuance of
the 50th building permit, the developer or his
assignee shall improve and dedicate said 7.79
acres of improved parkland to the TCSD."
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
RECOMMEND ADOPTION of the Negative
Declaration for Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 25417; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending
approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
25417.
OM:mb
Attachments:
Resolution
Conditions of Approval
Planning Commission Staff Report
(Dated August 5, 1991)
Planning Commission Minutes
(Dated August 5, 1991)
A:TM25417 2
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 25417 TO
SUBDIVIDE A 37.8 ACRE PARCEL INTO 6 MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 2 OPEN SPACE LOTS LOCATED
ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DEPORTOLA ROAD
AND MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 926-1330-012-014
WHEREAS, Bedford Properties filed Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
25417 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 September 16, 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 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
A:TM25417 3
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.
(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 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 recommending
approval of projects and taking other actions, including the
issuance of building 3ermits, pursuant to this title, each of
the following:
(a)
There is reasonable probability that Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 25417 proposed will
be consistent with the general plan proposal
being considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
A:TM25417 4
{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.
460, 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
A:TM25417 5
alternate easements for access or for use will
be provided and that they will be substantially
equivalent to ones previously acquired by the
public. This subsection shall apply only to
easements of record or to easements
established by judgment of a court of
competent jurisdiction.
(2) The Planning Commission in recommending approval
of the proposed Tentative Tract Map, makes the following findings, to
wit:
a) The proposed Tract Map will not have a
significant negative impact on the
environment, as determined in the Initial Study
performed for the project. A Negative
Declaration is recommended for adoption.
b)
There is reasonable probability that this
project will be consistent with the General
Plan being prepared at this time, due to the
fact that the project is consistent with
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1.
c)
d)
e)
There is not a likely probability of substantial
detriment to, or interference with,the future
adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to
the fact that the project is consistent with the
Specific Plan.
The proposed use complies with State
planning and zoning law, due to the fact that
the project conforms to the current zoning for
the site and to Ordinance No. 460, Schedule
A.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configurations, access, and
density, due to the fact that the project has
access to public roads and a specific plan will
be implemented with this project.
A:TM25417 6
f)
The design of the subdivision or the proposed
improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or
substantially and avoidable injury to fish or
wildlife or their habitat as determined in the
Initial Study.
g)
All lots have acceptable access to existing and
proposed dedicated rights-of-way which are
open to, and are useable by, vehicular traffic,
access is provided from DePortola Road,
Meadows Parkway and Street "A" of the
Specific Plan.
h)
The design of the subdivision, the type of
improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed project as
conditioned. The project will not interfere
with any easements.
The lawful conditions stated in the project's
Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary
to protect the public health, safety and
general welfare.
j)
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Tentative Tract
Map is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
SECTION 2..;. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project 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 EIR
235 and in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative
Declaration, therefore, is hereby recommended for adoption.
SECTION 3_. Conditions.
A:TM25417 7
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends
approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25417 for the subdivision of a 37.8 acre
parcel into 6 multi-family residential lots and 2 open space lots located on the
southwest corner of DePortola and Meadows Road and known as Assessor's Parcel
No. 926-130-012-014 subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of September, 1991.
JOHN HOAGLAND
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 16th day of September, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
A:TM25417 8
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No:
25417
Project Description: 6 Multi-Family
Residential and 2 Open Space
Assessor's Parcel No.: 926-013-012
Plannine Department
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision
Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule B, 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 by the City Council, unless extended as provided by Ordinance
460.
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final
map,
Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract map
boundary to a City maintained road.
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 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:
a. Be limited to a maximum slope ratio of 2 to 1.
b. Be contour-graded to blend with existing natural contours.
A:TM25417 9
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. An erosion control landscaping plan
demonstrating methods of erosion protection for these slopes shall be prepared
by a qualified professional; and 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 November 13,
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.
10. This subdivision shall comply with Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1.
11. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following:
Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the
development standards of Planning Area 6 as provided in Specific Plan
No. 219, Amendment No. 1.
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.
12.
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~
13.
The subdivider and all successors in interest shall comply with the provisions
of Development Agreement No. 4 and Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment
No.1.
14.
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
A:TM25417 10
Department of Building and Safety,
15. 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
recommendations.
County Slope Stability Report No. 122 was prepared for this property
and is on file at the Planning Department. Specific items of concern in
the report are as follows: Slope Stability.
16. The developer shall comply with the following parkway landscaping conditions:
17.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall secure
approval of proposed landscaping and irrigation plans from the City
Engineering and Planning Department. All landscaping and irrigation
plans and specifications shall be prepared in a reproducible format
suitable for permanent filing with the City Engineering Department.
The developer shall post a landscape performance bond which shall be
released concurrently with the release of subdivision performance bonds,
guaranteeing the viability of all landscaping which will be installed prior
to the assumption of the maintenance responsibility by the district.
The developer, the developer's successors-in-interest or assignees, shall
be responsible for all parkway landscaping maintenance until such time
as maintenance as taken over by the district.
The developer shall comply with the standards and exhibits in Specific
Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1.
Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
If the project is to be phased, prior to the issuance 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:
1. Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and
sedimentation during and after the grading process,
A:TM25417 11
18.
19.
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.
4. Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase,
All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded natural terrain and exceeding
ten (10) feet in vertical height shall be contour-graded incorporating the
following grading techniques:
The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the
angle of the natural terrain,
Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall reflect
the natural rounded terrain.
The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves with
radii designed in proportion to the total height of the slopes where
drainage and stability permit such rounding.
Where cut or fill slopes exceed 300 feet in horizontal length, the
horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved in a continuous,
undulating fashion.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall provide
evidence to the Director of Building and Safety that all adjacent off-site
manufactured slopes have recorded slope easements and that slope
maintenance responsibilities have been assigned as approved by the
Director of Building and Safety.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be
retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed
grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. Should the
paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a
pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading
contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or
representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt
grading activity to allow recovery of fossils.
Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
A:TM25417 12
The project shall comply with the requirements of Development
Agreement No. 4.
Prior to the issuance of building permits detailed common open space
area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning
Department approval for the phase of development in process. The
plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for the
following:
Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all
landscaped areas requiring irrigation.
Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be
opaque up to a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity.
All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from
view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle
treatments, as approved by the Planning Director. Utilities shall
be placed underground.
Parkways shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a
transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscape
elements shall include earth berming, ground cover, shrubs and
specimen trees. Front yards shall be landscaped and street trees
planted.
Wall plans shall be submitted for the project perimeter. Wooden
fencing shall not be allowed on the perimeter of the project. All
lots with slopes leading down from the lot shall be provided with
gates in the wall for maintenance access.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent
trees at key visual focal points within the project.
Where street trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of
interior streets and project parkways due to insufficient road right-
of-way, they shall be planted outside of the road right-of-way.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant
plants where appropriate.
All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow
growing trees shall be steel staked.
A:TM25417 13
Prior to the issuance of building permits for Lots 1-6, a plot plan shall be
submitted to the Planning Department pursuant to Section 18.30 of
Ordinance No. 348 accompanied by all applicable filing fees, as a plot
plan that is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act and is
transmitted to governmental agencies other than the City Planning
Department, The plot plan shall ensure the conformance of the final site
development with the Design Guidelines of Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 1.
20.
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.
21.
The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Temecula, its agents, officer, and employees from any claim, action, or
proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officer, or employees to
attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Temecula, its
advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 25417, which action is brought within the time period
provided for in California Government Code Section 66499.37. 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.
22.
The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site
property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the developer shall at
least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an
agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code
Section 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 subdivision. Security of a portion of
these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an
appraisal report obtained by the developer, at the developer's cost. The
appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the
appraisal.
23. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable
A:TM25417 14
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
TV shall be provided for underground, with easements provided as required,
and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility
provided. Telephone, cable TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in
the residence.
Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the developer or his assignee shall meet
with the TCSD staff and enter into an agreement as to the proposed site
location of the required 7.79 acres of improved parkland.
Prior to the completion of the first phase, completion of the 50th unit, or the
issuance of the 50th building permit, the developer or his assignee shall
improve and dedicate said 7.79 acres of improved parkland to the TCSD.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Department and the Public Works Department prior
to final approval of the tract maps. The CC&R's shall include liability insurance
and methods of maintaining the open space and private drainage systems.
No lot 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 flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance,
repairs, and services. Recorded CC&R's shall permit enforcement by the City
of Provisions required by the City as Conditions of Approval. The developer
shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive
approval of, the City prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not
apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes.
Every owner of a lot shall own as an appurtenance to such 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.
Maintenance for all landscaped and open areas, including parkways, shall be
provided for in the CC&R's.
A:TM25417 15
31.
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 (48) hour
period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the
check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void
by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
Department of Public Works
The following are the Department of Public Works 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 Department of
Public Works.
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:
32. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works 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;
Department of Public Works;
Riverside County Health Department;
CATV Franchise; and
Temecula Community Services District.
33.
All road easements and/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication to
the public and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such
offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
A:TM25417 16
34.
In the event that full improvements for Meadows Parkway, DePortola Road and
Street "A" are not constructed by Assessment District 159 prior to the final
map recordation, the developer shall construct or bond for the improvements
to provide for one-half street improvements plus one 12 foot lane per Riverside
County Standard No. 101 (100'/76). The improvements shall be constructed
prior to occupancy.
35.
Vehicular access shall be restricted on Meadows Parkway, DePortola Road and
Street "A" and so noted on the final map with the exception of private street
and driveway openings as approved by the Department of Public Works.
36. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No.
805.
37. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage, when deemed necessary,
shall be delineated or noticed on the final map.
38. Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be dedicated to the City where
sidewalks meander through private property.
39. Easements for joint use driveways shall be provided prior to approval of the
Final Map or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first.
40.
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 Department of Public Works.
41.
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, traffic signal systems, 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.
A:TM25417 17
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
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
Department of Public Works.
Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the
Department of Public Works a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation
towards traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time
of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written
agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a
building permit.
Street names shall be subject to the approval of the Department of Public
Works.
The minimum centerline radii shall be 300 feet or as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
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 Department of Public Works.
A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent.
The subdivider shall submit two (2) prints of a comprehensive grading plan to
the Department of Public Works. 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 Department
of Public Works. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
A:TM25417 18
53.
A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of
Public Works. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the
Department of Public Works,
54,
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."
55.
A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final map, along with
supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations should be submitted to the
Riverside County Flood Control District and the City of Temecula Department
of Public Works for review.
56. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface
drainage entering the property from adjacent areas.
57.
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:
58.
Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and
an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public
Works.
59.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior
to commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of-
way.
60.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The
charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If
the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to this
property, no new charge needs to be paid.
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT:
61.
A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works
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:TM25417 19
62.
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.
63.
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; orovided 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:
64.
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.
65.
Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times
with adequate detours during construction.
66.
Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than 14 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 Noso 37, 39, and
94 of the State Standard Specifications.
Transportation Engineering
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
67. A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
A:TM25417 20
approved by the Department of Public Works for DePortola Road, Street "A"
and Meadows Parkway. These shall be included in the street improvement
plans. Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact the Depatment of
Public Works for the design requirements.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
68.
A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Civil
Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works for any street
closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the
Department of Public Works.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
69. All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and striping
plan.
70.
Plans for a traffic signal shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the Department of Public Works for the intersection of Meadows
Parkway with DePortola Road and Meadows Parkway with Street "A". All
traffic signals shall be installed and operational per the special provisions and
the approved traffic signal plan when warranted. Prior to designing any of the
above plans, contact the Department of Public Works for the design
requirements.
A:TM25417 21
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 5, 1991
Case No.: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25417
Prepared By: Oliver Mujica
Recommendation: 1.
RECOMMEND ADOPTION of
Declaration for Vesting Tentative
Tract Map No. 25417; and
Negative
ADOPT Resolution No. 91-
recommending approval of Vesting
Tentative tract Map No. 25417.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Bedford Properties
REPRESENTATIVE:
Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates
PROPOSAL:
Subdivide 37.8 acres into 6 multi-family residential lots and
2 open space lots within Planning Area No. 6 of Specific
Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1.
LOCATION:
Southwest corner of DePortola road and Meadows
Parkway.
EXISTING ZONING:
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North: Planning Area No. 8 (Medium density
residential)
South: Planning Area No. 1 (Community/
Neighborhood Commercial)
East: Planning Area No. 5 (Medium high
density residential)
West: Planning Areas Nos. 1 and 8
PROPOSED ZONING:
Not Applicable
A:TM25417 1
EXISTING LAND USE:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
BACKGROUND:
Vacant
Total Land Area:
No. of Proposed Lots:
Proposed Density:
Specific Plan Density:
37.8 Acres
6 multi-family and 2
open space
15.61 DU/ac
15.61 DU/ac
On September 6, 1988, the Riverside County Board
of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 88-470
approving Specific Plan No. 219 (Meadows). The
Meadows provided a total of 5,611 dwelling units on
1,036 acres. In addition, the Board of Supervisors
certified Environmental Impact Report No. 235 for
Specific Plan No. 219 as an accurate and objective
statement that complies with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Furthermore, a
statement of overriding findings was made for the air
quality impacts.
On November 15, 1989, the applicant filed Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 25417 to the Riverside
County Planning Department, which proposed to
subdivide the subject 37.8 acre site into 6 multi-
family residential lots and 2 open space lots.
The project was reviewed by the Riverside County
Land Division Committee (LDC) on April 2, 1990.
During these meetings the LDC indicated that
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1 must be
adopted prior to the approval of the Tentative Map.
Subsequently, this project was transferred to the
City of Temecula on April 23, 1990.
On November 15, 1990, this project was reviewed
by the Preliminary Development Review Committee
(Pre-DRC) in order to informally evaluate the project
and address any possible concerns, as well as
suggesting possible modifications. The comments
by the Pre-DRC included the following:
1. Circulation/Access.
A:TM25417 2
Subsequent to the Pre-DRC meeting, Staff met with
the applicant to discuss the required supplemental
material in order to address the Pre-DRC's concerns.
On February 27, 1991, Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 25417 was reviewed by the Formal
Development Review Committee; and, it was
determined that the project, as designed, can be
adequately conditioned to mitigate the DRC's
concerns. The DRC has forwarded a
recommendation of approval subject to the
conditions.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
On April 9, 1991, the City Council Adopted
Resolution No. 91-36 approving Change of Zone No.
5621 and Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1
amending the boundaries and land use designations
of Planning Areas 1, 2, 5 and 6 of Specific Plan No.
219. Subsequently, on April 23, 1991, the City
Council adopted Ordinance No. 91-13 amending
Zoning Ordinance No. 90-04 pertaining to Ordinance
No. 348.2919 (Specific Plan No. 219) as it relates to
zoning.
The Planning Commission May recall that Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 25417 was originally
scheduled for their public hearing meeting of March
18, 1991. However, at the request of the applicant,
this item was continued prior to the meeting "off-
calendar" in order to allow the applicant the
opportunity to further discuss the Conditions of
Approval, relative to traffic mitigation, with the
Engineering Department Staff.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25417 proposes to
subdivide the subject 37.8 acre parcel into 6 multi-
family residential lots; and 2 open space lots; as
follows:
Lot No. I - 5.9 Acres
Lot No. 2 - 5.9 Acres
A:TM25417 3
ANALYSIS:
Lot No. 3 - 6.2 Acres
Lot No. 4 - 6.1 Acres
Lot No. 5 - 5.5 Acres
Lot No. 6 - 8.2 Acres
The proposed subdivision has been designed in
accordance with the standards of Specific Plan No.
219, Amendment No. 1. Thus, the project has been
conditioned accordingly.
Traffic Impacts
The Transportation Engineering Staff has reviewed
this project; and has determined that the proposed
project is consistent with the Traffic Mitigation
Measures of EIR 235 adopted for Specific Plan No.
219.
Access and Circulation
Access is provided to lots 1-3 from proposed street
"H"; to lot 4 from Meadows Parkway; and lots 1,5
and 6 from DePortola Road. The access points are
consistent with the Circulation Plan of Specific Plan
No. 219, Amendment No. 1. (See Figure 4, Page
22; and Figure 15E, Page 91 of Specific Plan Text).
General Landscape Reauirements
Pursuant to Specific Plan No 219, Amendment No.
1, (see Landscape Design Guidelines and Community
Elements, page 223-295) all areas required to be
landscaped shall be planted with turf, ground cover,
shrub or tree materials selected from the plant
palette contained in the guidelines.
Planting shall commence as soon as slopes are
completed on any portion of the site and shall
A:TM25417 4
provide for rapid short-term coverage of the slopes
as well as long-term establishment cover per City
standards. The developer shall provide a landscape
bond to the City at the time that the landscape plan
is approved. The bond is to guarantee the
installation of interim erosion control planting in the
event that the grading operation is performed and
building construction does not commence within
ninety (90) days.
The owners of parcels which require landscape
development shall assess any existing common
landscape areas adjoining their property. Where
feasible, landscape development shall reinforce or be
compatible with such existing common area setting.
Cut slopes equal to or greater than five feet (5') in
vertical height and fill slopes equal to or greater than
three feet (3') in vertical height shall be planted with
a ground cover to protect the slope from erosion and
instability. Slopes exceeding fifteen feet (15') in
vertical height shall be planted with shrubs, spaced
not more than ten feet (10') on center or trees
spaced not to exceed twenty feet (20') on center or
a combination of shrubs and trees at equivalent
spacings, in addition to the ground cover.
The plants selected and planting methods shall be
suitable for the soil and climactic conditions. Refer
to the plant materials palette for the list of
community wide slope stabilization plants.
The Planning Department Staff has included a
Condition of Approval requiring that a final
landscaping plan must be submitted for approval by
the Planning Department, prior to the issuance of
building permits.
Grading and Landform Alteration
Grading and recontouring of this site, which includes
A:TM25417 5
12,000 c.y. of excavation and 850,000 c.y. of fill
will occur in the immediate area.
Land Use
The project site is located within Planning Area 6 of
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. I which is
designated as very high density residential. Vesting
Tentative Tract map No. 25417 is a 6 lot subdivision
only, therefore, the Planning Department Staff has
included a Condition of Approval requiring that a Plot
Plan Application for the development of lots 1-6
must be submitted for approval, prior to the issuance
of building permits.
SPECIFIC PLAN AND
GENERAL PLAN
CONSISTENCY:
The proposed project is consistent with the Land Use
Designation of Specific Plan and Specific Plan No.
219, Amendment No. 1 (Planning Area 6 - Very High
Density Residential). In addition, Staff finds it
probable that this project will be consistent with the
new General Plan when it is adopted.
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION: Pursuant to Condition of Approval No. 12 of Specific Plan
No. 219, an Initial Study was performed for this project
which determined that although the proposed project could
have a significant effect on the environment, no significant
impact would result to the natural or built environment in
the City because the mitigation measures described in EIR
235 and in the Conditions of Approval have been added to
the project, and a Negative Declaration has been
recommended for adoption.
FINDINGS: 1,
The proposed Tract Map will not have a
significant negative impact on the
environment, as determined in the Initial Study
performed for the project. A Negative
Declaration is recommended for adoption.
2. There is reasonable probability that this
A:TM25417 6
project will be consistent with the General
Plan being prepared at this time, due to the
fact that the project is consistent with
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1.
There is not a likely probability of substantial
detriment to, or interference with,the future
adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to
the fact that the project is consistent with the
Specific Plan.
The proposed use complies with State
planning and zoning law, due to the fact that
the project conforms to the current zoning for
the site and to Ordinance No. 460, Schedule
A.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configurations, access, and
density, due to the fact that the project has
access to public roads and a Specific Plan will
be implemented with this project.
The design of the subdivision or the proposed
improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or
substantially and avoidable injury to fish or
wildlife or their habitat as determined in the
Initial Study.
All lots have acceptable access to existing and
proposed dedicated rights-of-way which are
open to, and are useable by, vehicular traffic,
access is provided from DePortola Road,
Meadows Parkway, and Street "A" of the
Specific Plan.
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
A:TM25417 7
10.
conditionedo The project will not interfere
with any easements.
The lawful conditions stated in the project's
Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary
to protect the public health, safety and
general welfare.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Ptanning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
RECOMMEND ADOPTION of the Negative
Declaration for Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 25417; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending
approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
25417.
OM:mb
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
Resolution (Change of Zone No. 5631 )
Conditions of Approval
Environmental Assessment
Exhibits:
A. Vicinity Map
B. Specific Land Use Map
C. Planning Area No. 6 Map
D. Planning Area No. 6 Standards
E. Tentative Tract Map
Large Scale Plan
A:TM25417 8
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
Background
1. Name of Proponent:
2. Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
Bedford Properties
28765 Single Oak Drive, Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92390
(714) 676-7290
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
Februarv 13, 1991
4. Agency Requiring
Assessment:
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
CITY OF TEMECULA
Tentative Tract Map No. 25417
6. Location of Proposal:
Southwest corner of DePortola Road
Meadows Parkway.
II. Project Description
Tentative Tract Map No. 25417 proposes to subdivide the subject 37.8 acre site,
which is within Planning Area 6 of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1, into 6
multi-family residential lots and 2 open space lots.
Project Summary:
SP 219 TM 25417
Planning Area 5
590 D.U. 6 Lots
III. Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
A:TM25417 28
The following environmental impacts associated with Specific Plan No. 219 are
insignificant in that the design of the project as proposed includes the necessary
mitigation measures which have been adopted within EIR 235:
Water and Sewer:
The project will have an average daily consumption
of domestic water of 1,683,300 gallons at 300
gallons/d.u./day. The project will generation
between 1.81 and 3.08 million gallons per day of
sewage flow. Onsite wastewater collection facilities
will be constructed to tie into Eastern Municipal
Water District's master planned facilities being
constructed through the Rancho Villages Assessment
District. Construction of all structures within the
project will conform to state laws requiring water
efficient plumbing fixtures.
Utilities:
Gas, electricity, and telephone service will be
provided by respective purveyors of the service.
Lines for electrical and telephone services, and mains
for natural gas are located along the project
boundaries.
Energy Resources: The project will increase consumption of energy for motor
vehicle movement, space and water heating, air
conditioning, use of home appliances, and operation of
construction equipment. The project will adhere to State
Code Title 24 energy conservation standards and will
employ site design, when possible, for additional energy
conservation. Non vehicular pathways are included within,
and adjacent to, the project site. Commercial and
employment centers are in proximity to the project site.
Parks and Recreation:
Project residents will create a demand for parks and
recreation facilities, and for open space. The project
design provides 242 +/- acres of recreation areas,
parkway greenbelts, and paseo open space.
The following environmental impacts associated with Specific Plan No. 219 are
potentially significant, but will be avoided or substantially lessened by the identified
mitigation measures which have been adopted within EIR 235:
A. Seismic Safety
1. Impact:
Although faults have been previously mapped on-
site, they have been determined to be inactive and
the risk of ground rupture due to faulting on the
A:TM25417 29
2. Mitigation:
project is considered nil. Liquefaction potential
exists along the entire flat alluviated area of
Temecula Creek within the southern site boundary.
During site development, additional geologic
evaluation shall be continued in order to verify the
extent and relative age of fault activity. Mitigation
of the liquefaction potential within the southern
portion of the site will occur as a result of project
development, which will lower artificially high
groundwater levels by removal of recharge ponds, as
well as increase overburden as a result of site
grading.
Slopes and Erosion
1. Impact:
2. Mitigation:
C. Flooding
1. linDaCt:
The Meadows Specific Plan will unavoidably alter
some of the existing landforms. Owing to the
general granular nature of graded slopes, a moderate
to severe erosion potential exists if slopes are
unprotected. Removal and recompaction of portions
of alluvial/colluvial soils within fill areas and shallow
cut areas will be necessary.
Temporary groundcover shall be provided to prevent
erosion during the construction phase. Permanent
vegetation shall be planted as soon as possible after
grading. Specific requirements for alluvial/colluvial
soils removal shall be developed during tentative map
studies and incorporated into project grading. The
three small possible landslide areas shall be
investigated during design level studies and all
mitigation measures identified as a result of that
investigation will be incorporated into future
development approvals. Remedial grading
recommendations to provide for the long term
stability will be provided based upon a finalized
grading design.
Development of the Vail Meadows Specific Plan will
alter the existing drainage patterns and will increase
A:TM25417 30
2. Mitigation:
D. Noise
1, Impact:
2. Mitiaation:
E. Water Quality
1, Impact:
2. Mitiaation:
F. Wildlife/Vegetation
A:TM25417
runoff to Temecula Creek and, to a lesser extent,
Murrieta Creek.
A master drainage plan has been developed to
respond to the hydrological constraints of the site.
A more in-depth assessment of the Temecula
floodplain shall be conducted during the final design
and preparation of the tentative tract maps, and all
mitigation measures identified as a result of that
assessment will be incorporated into future
development approvals. Erosion control devices shall
be utilized in hillside development areas to mitigate
the effect of increased runoff at points of discharge.
If required, the project applicant will contribute
Drainage Improvement Fees as appropriate.
Noise generated from the project will derive from
two sources, construction and vehicular traffic, but
is not anticipated to result in unacceptable noise
levels to existing or proposed off-site uses. Onsite
areas adjacent to high volume roadways may be
subject to noise impacts.
A noise analysis shall be required in planning areas
adjacent to high volume perimeter roads. If
indicated, noise attenuation will be incorporated into
project design.
Implementation of the project will alter the
composition of surface runoff by grading the site
surfaces; by construction of impervious streets,
roofs and parking facilities; and by the irrigation of
landscaped areas. Runoff conveyed to Temecula
and Murrieta Creeks will contain minor amounts of
pollutants.
The project will employ erosion control devices
during grading, such as temporary berms, culverts,
sand bagging or desilting basins. Urban runoff will
be mitigated through implementation of a street
cleaning program.
31
1. Impact:
As a consequence of grassland and coastal sage
scrub vegetation removal, existing wildlife will either
be destroyed or displaced. Impacts upon habitat
containing a population of the Stephens Kangaroo
Rat will result.
2. Mitigation:
The project applicant will participate in any in-place
County program which provides for off-site
mitigation of impacts to the Stephens Kangaroo Rat,
or enter into a Memorandum of Understanding wit
the California Department of Fish and Game,
G. Historic and Prehistoric Sites
1. linDact:
Without proper mitigation, implementation of the Vail
Meadows Specific Plan could potentially destroy
archaeological/historical sites on the property,
2. Mitigation:
Prior to the approval of any additional implementing
processes, the applicant/developerwill meet with the
County Historical Commission to determine
appropriate measures to mitigate potential impacts to
archaeological/historicalsites; all mitigation measures
identified as a result of the meeting(s) will be
incorporated into future development approvals.
H. Circulation
1. Impact:
The Vail Meadows Specific Plan is anticipated to
generate 47,600 vehicle trips per day at project
completion. Approximately 40,000 of these trips
would be external to the site.
2. Mitigation:
Construction of the proposed circulation network will
adequately service future on-site traffic volumes.
Off-site improvements will be constructed as
required by the County Road Department and
CalTrans.
I. Fire Protection
1. linDact:
The project site would be subject to Category II
urban development requirements with regard to fire
protection services.
2. Mitigation:
The project site will be served by a proposed fire
station, to be constructed near Highway 79. The
A:TM25417 32
Sheriff
1. Imoact:
2. Mitigation:
Schools
1. linDact:
2. Mitiqation:
Solid Waste
1. Imoa~l;:
2. Mitigation:
developer will pay mitigation fees as required by the
Board of Supervisors.
Project residents will impose increased demands on
law enforcement and sheriff services.
Project design will incorporate appropriate lighting,
site design, security hardware and such design
features as will promote optimal security. The
developer will pay mitigation fees as required by the
Board of Supervisors.
The project will generate an estimated 3,109
students in grades K-8 and 1,187 students in grades
9-12, impacting the Temecula Union School District.
The project has designated four elementary school
sites and one junior high school site. The developer
will pay school mitigation fees as required.
Project residents, estimated at 14,587, will generate
approximately 58 tons per day of solid waste,
incrementally shortening the life of County landfill
sites.
The County Solid Waste Management Plan includes
programs for reducing the quantity of wastes being
landfilled, including source reduction and business
and residential separation of recoverables. These
programs may be implemented by project residents
and businesses.
M. Libraries
1. ImoaCt:
2. Mitigation:
A:TM25417
The project's population will increase demand for
library facilities and services.
The developer will pay library mitigation fees as
required by the Board of Supervisors.
33
The following environmental impact associated with Specific Plan No. 219 cannot be
fully mitigated and a statement of overriding findings has been adopted within EIR
235:
Air Quality
1. linDact:
At project build-out, daily motor vehicle emissions
for the project will total approximately 7,754
Ibs/day. Power plant emissions for electrical energy
consumed on-site will total 175 Ibs/day. Natural gas
emissions for project consumption will total 163.6
Ibs per day. Approximately 100 Ibs of dust per acre
will be generated each day of construction in
addition to an undetermined amount of motor
emissions during site preparation an construction.
2. Mitigation:
Because most of the project-related air pollution
emissions are generated by automobiles, effective
mitigation is limited. On-site provisions for schools,
shopping, and recreation has been incorporated into
project design. Sufficient acreage has been zoned
for industrial use in the Rancho California/Temecula
area to provide employment opportunities. project
design includes a circulation plan designed for
efficient and direct traffic flows and alternative
transit modes including pedestrian, bicycle, and
equestrian trails. The Rancho Villages Policy Plan, to
which this project is subject, requires pedestrian and
bus stop facilities for commercial areas. These
requirements will be implemented at the
development application stage. Particulate matter
and other pollutants generated during grading and
construction will be reduced through compliance
with County Ordinance No. 457 which specifies
watering during construction, and planting of ground
cover.
IV. Conclusion
A:TM25417
34
The Riverside County Board of Supervisors certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
No. 235 in conjunction with the approval of Specific Plan No. 219 and Change of
Zone No. 5140. The EIR included mitigation measures to reduce environmental
impacts to levels of insignificance. The Board of Supervisors also adopted statements
of overriding considerations for the air quality impacts. Tentative Tract Map No.
25417 proposes a residential development that is consistent with the guidelines and
requirements of Planning Area 6 of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1; and will
not result in impacts to the environment. The Conditions of Approval are adequate
to mitigate any potential significant impacts to levels of insignificance.
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Condition of
Approval No. 12 of Specific Plan No. 219, this Initial Study has been prepared to
demonstrate that the changes resulting from the proposed Tentative Tract Map will
not result in new or substantially increased significant impacts, that there have been
no changes in the circumstances surrounding the project that would require important
revisions to the EIR due to new significant impacts, and that no new information has
arisen which would indicate that the project will have significant effects not previously
discussed or underestimated, or that alternatives or mitigation measures not
previously considered would substantially reduce any significant impacts.
A:TM25417 35
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-
ticant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi-
ticant effect on this case because the mitigation measures
described on attached sheets, which were adopted for EIR 235
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
Februarv 13. 1991
Date
Oliver Mujica, Senior Planner
For CITY OF TEMECULA
A:TM25417 36
ITEM # 7
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Gary Thornhill, Planning Director
DATE:
September 16, 1991
SUBJECT: Parcel Map No. 26059, Minor Change No. 1
The applicant is requesting a further continuance of the above referenced project to the October 7,
1991 Planning Commission meeting. At the applicant's request, the proposal was initially continued
from the Commission's 8/19/91 hearing to the Public Hearing of 9/16/91 to address Engineering
Department conditions relative to signalization. The applicant is continuing to work with Staff on the
above referenced project and Staff concurs with the request for a further continuance.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff Recommends that the Planning Commission:
Continue Parcel Map No. 25059, Minor Change No. 1
to October 7, 1991, Planning Commission Meeting.
GT:kb
S~S\25059-1 ,MEM
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 15, 1991
Case No.: Directional Sign Ordinance
Prepared By: Oliver Mujica
Recommendation: 1.
ADOPT Resolution No. P.C.
91- recommending adoption
of the Directional Sign
Ordinance.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
BACKGROUND:
City of Temecula
An Ordinance establishing regulations for the use of
directional signs.
City Wide
The purpose for preparing the proposed Directional
Sign Ordinance is due to the inadequacy of the
County Ordinance No. 348 as it relates to Directional
Signs in which Section 19.6 - Subdivision Signs
(attached) provides the following standards and
requirements:
No sign shall exceed 100 square feet in
area.
No sign shall be within 100 feet of any
existing residence.
No more than two such signs shall be
permitted for each subdivision.
The maximum period of time a sign
may remain in place shall be two years.
A:DIRECTIONAL SIGN
DISCUSSION:
5. No sign shall be artificially lighted.
An agreement, secured by a $100 cash
bond, shall be executed with the City
for each sign, assuring the removal of
the sign within the allowed time period.
The bond and agreement shall be filed
with the Department of Building and
Safety.
In order to provide the City of Temecula with
specific and complete standards for regulating
directional signs, Staff has prepared the attached
Ordinance which includes, in summary, the following
main components:
Signs shall be limited to not more than
three (3) structures between street
intersections.
Sign structures shall be ladder type
with individual sign panels of uniform
design and color throughout the City
limits.
Sign structures shall not exceed 12 feet
in height.
The width of the sign structures and
sign panels shall not exceed five (5')
feet.
5. Sign panels shall not be illuminated.
6. The sign panel lettering for tract
identification shall be uniform.
The City Council may, by duly executed
license agreement, grant to a qualified
person the exclusive right to design,
erect and maintain directional signs and
kiosk signs within the entire City, or
any designated portion thereof.
A:DIRECTIONAL SIGN
D-SIGN-A
CONCLUSION:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS:
Staff has also included the following provision for
exemptions within Section 4 of the proposed
Ordinance:
"Not withstanding the provisions of this
Ordinance, should any party believe that they
would suffer a hardship if not permitted to
install a directional sign, they may apply to the
Planning Director for an exemption to this
Ordinance. Such application for an exemption
shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission
for a recommendation to the City Council.
Such exemption may be granted by the City
Council only after due notice and public
hearing thereon."
As noted above, the proposed Directional Sign
Ordinance provides the City with the standards to
thoroughly review an applicant's proposal as well as
providing the necessary control measures needed to
ensure the public safety; to provide organization; and
control the overall quality and number of such signs.
This Ordinance 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 15061 (b)(3).
The proposed Directional Sign Ordinance is
necessary to bring about eventual conformity
with the City's future Land Use Plan.
There is reasonable probability that the
proposed Directional Sign 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
A:DIRECTIONAL SiGN
D-SIGN-A 3
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
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.
The proposed Directional Sign 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.
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
1. ADOPT Resolution No. P.C. 91 -
recommending adoption of the Directional
Sign Ordinance.
OM:ks
Attachments:
Resolution
"Draft" Ordinance
Section 19°6 (Subdivision Signs)
A:DIRECTIONAL SIGN
RESOLUTION NO. P.C. 91-
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OFTEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL
ADOPT THE DIRECTIONAL SIGN 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 provisions for the use of
directional signs for off-site advertising; and
WHEREAS, the City of Temecula desires to regulate the use of directional
signs for off-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 September 16, 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 UoS. 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 Temecula
hereby finds that the proposed Directional Sign Ordinance will provide for the
establishment of regulations for the off-site directional signs in a fair and equitable
manner.
SECTION 2, That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula
further finds that the proposed Directional Sign Ordinance is necessary to bring about
eventual conformity with its land use plans.
SECTION 3. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula
hereby recommends to the City Council adoption of the proposed Directional Sign
Ordinance. The Ordinance is incorporated into this Resolution by this reference and
marked Exhibit "A" and dated September 16, 1991 for identification.
A:DIRECTIONAL SIGN
PASSED APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of September, 1991,
JOHN HOAGLAND
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 16th day of September, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS
A:DII~ECTIONAL SIGN
D-SIGN-A 4
ORDINANCE NO. 91-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA ADDING CHAPTER 4 TO THE TEMECULA
MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO ADVERTISING
REGULATIONS AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR
THE USE OF DIRECTIONAL SIGNS.
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:
(1) 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.
(3) The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
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.
SANDEFKM\STAFFRPT%SIGNORD 1
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.
There is an unsightly and confusing proliferation of off-
site directional signs, relating to new residential development
projects, including new rental projects (hereinafter referred to as
"development projects"), and other business. Development projects
by their very nature are most frequently located in areas where
streets and highways are newly constructed. Such thoroughfares are
seldom shown on maps available to persons seeking to purchase new
homes; and, consequently, developers use signs, to aid such persons
in locating their subdivisions. The result is a proliferation of
signs which are:(1) unsightly and damaging to the appearance of
areas such as that which is the subject of this ordinance; (2)
confusing to individuals; and, (3) unsafe in that drivers of motor
vehicles while searching for subdivisions or signs giving direction
thereto, are distracted from the operation of their vehicles.
Directional signs are needed by developers to a greater
degree than other businesses because development project sales are
ordinarily conducted for a relatively limited period of time for
any particular location, that is, only until all units in the
subdivision are sold. Thus, listings in such conventional media as
telephone yellow pages are impractical. While other media such as
broadcast media and newspapers are available, and maps could be
disseminated in only some of such media, the most efficient method
of directing prospective purchasers to development projects is the
use of directional signs posted at intersections and other critical
locations. Businesses with more permanent sales locations do not
share these problems and, thus, have less need of directional
signs.
SANDEFKM\STAFFRPT~SIGNORD 2
SECTION 2. Chapter 4 is hereby added to the Temecula
Municipal code, which shall read as follows:
Chapter 4
Directional SiGns
PURPOSE. The purpose of this ordinance is to provide a
uniform, coordinated method of offering developers a means of
providing directional signs to their projects, while minimizing
confusion among prospective purchasers who wish to inspect
development projects, while promoting traffic safety and reducing
the visual blight of the present proliferation of signs.
AUTHORITY. This ordinance is adopted pursuant to the
State Planning and Zoning law, Business and Professions Code,
Section 52301 and Streets and Highways Code, Section 1460.
DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Ordinance, the
following words, terms, phrases, and their derivations, shall have
the meanings given herein. When consistent with the context, words
used in the present tense singular include the plural.
(1) "City" shall mean the City of Temecula.
(2)
"Contractor" shall mean a person, persons, firm or
corporation authorized by a license agreement to
design, erect and maintain directional and kiosk
signs within the City.
(3)
"Directional Sign" shall mean any off-site free
standing, non-flashing sign which is designed,
erected, and maintained to serve as a public
convenience in directing pedestrian and vehicular
traffic, but not used for the purpose of
advertising uses and activities on site.
(4)
"Kiosk" shall mean a free standing, multiple sided,
structure whose main purpose is to display signs or
information.
(5)
"Off-Site Sign" shall mean any sign which is not
located on the business or activity site it
identifies.
(e)
"Person" shall mean an individual, firm,
partnership, joint venture, association,
corporation, estate, trust, syndicate, district or
other political subdivision, or any other group
acting as an independent unit.
(7) "Street Intersection" shall mean where two or more
streets or roads cross at the same grade.
SANDEFKM\STAFFRPT~SIGNORD 3
(8) "Street or Road" shall mean the following:
(a)
Arterial (Urban) Highway - A six lane divided
highway with a 134 foot Right-of-Way.
(b) Arterial Highway - A six lane divided highway
with a 110 foot Right-of-Way.
(c) Major Highway - A highway with a 100 foot
Right-of-Way.
(d) Secondary Highway - A highway with an 88 foot
Right-of-Way.
REOUIREMENTS FOR DIRECTIONAL SIGNS AND KIOSK STRUCTURES.
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Section, directional
signs shall be permitted in all zone classifications subject to the
following limitations:
(i)
Directional signs shall not obstruct the use of
sidewalks, walkways, bike or hiking trails; shall
not obstruct the visibility of vehicles,
pedestrians or traffic control signs; shall, where
feasible, be combined with advance street name
signs; shall not be installed in the immediate
vicinity of street intersection; and, shall be
limited to not more than three (3) structures
between street intersections.
(2)
sign structures shall be ladder type with
individual sign panels of uniform design and color
throughout the City limits.
(3) Sign structures shall not exceed 12 feet in height.
(4) The width of sign structures and sign panels shall
not exceed 5 feet.
(5) Sign panels shall not be illuminated.
(6)
Sign structure installations
away" design features where
way areas.
shall include "break
required in right-of-
(7)
No signs, pennants, flags, other devices for visual
attention or other appurtenances shall be placed on
the directional signs.
(8)
The sign panel lettering for tract identification
shall be uniform.
SANDEFKM\STAFFRPT~SIGNORO 4
All signs erected on private property must have
written consent from the property owner with the
City to have a right to enter property to remove
any signs not in conformance.
(lo)
The City, and its officers and employees, shall be
held free and harmless of all costs, claims, and
damages levied against them.
(11) All signs must have applicable Building and Safety
and Planning Department permits.
(12) Placement of signs must be in accordance with
permit specifications.
(13) All signs within a public right-of-way must have an
encroachment permit.
DIRECTIONAL SIGNS PROHIBITED. Directional and kiosk
signs, including travel direction signs, other than those on-site,
are prohibited except as provided in this ordinance.
AUTHORITY TO GRANT LICENSE. The City Council may, by
duly executed license agreement, grant to a qualified person the
exclusive right to design, erect and maintain directional and kiosk
signs within the entire City, or any designated portion thereof.
Licensees shall be selected by soliciting request for proposals.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, any person erecting or placing
directional signs or kiosk signs on-site shall not be required to
obtain a license.
TERM. The term of each license shall be set forth in the
license agreement.
DIRECTIONAL SIGNS STRUCTURES: OPERATION. Licensee(s)
shall make directional sign panels available to all persons or
entities selling subdivisions (hereinafter referred to as
"Subdividers") on a first-come, first-service basis. No sign
panels shall be granted to any subdivider for a period of excess of
two years. However, a subdivider who is soliciting sales of more
than two subdivisions within a single planned community or a
specific plan area shall not be subject to the two-year limitation
during such solicitation. Licensee(s) shall maintain a separate
waiting list for each sign structure. Alternatively, a subdivider
may apply to licensee for a sign panel program consisting of a
single sign panel on each of a series of sign structures as needed
to guide prospective purchasers to his subdivision. A subdivider
whose time of use for a sign panel or sign space program has
expired, may reapply and shall be placed on the waiting list in the
same manner as a new applicant.
EXISTING SIGN PERMITS. No sign permit, use permit, or
other permit authorizing placement of a directional sign issued on
or before the date of adoption of this Ordinance by the City
SANDEFKM\STAI:FRPT~SIGNORD 5
Council shall be invalidated hereby, but shall remain valid for the
period for which it was issued. Any such permit issued after the
date of adoption of this Ordinance by the City Council, which would
not be permitted under this Ordinance shall be of no further force
or effect after the effective date of this Ordinance.
SECTION 3. PENALTIES. It shall be unlawful for any
person to violate any provision of this Ordinance. Any person
violating any provision of this Ordinance shall be deemed guilty of
an infraction or misdemeanor as hereinafter specified. Such person
shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day
or portion thereof during which any violation of any of the
provisions of this Ordinance is committed, continued, or permitted.
Any person so convicted shall be, (1) guilty of an
infraction offense and punished by a fine not exceeding one hundred
dollars ($100) for a first violation; and, (2) guilty of an
infraction offense and punished bya fine not exceeding two hundred
dollars ($200) for a second infraction. The third and any
additional violations shall constitute a misdemeanor offense and
shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars
($1,000) or six (6) months in jail, or both. Notwithstanding the
above, a first offense may be charged and prosecuted as a
misdemeanor. Payment of any penalty herein shall not relieve a
person from the responsibility for correcting the violation.
SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY. The City Council hereby
declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if
for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any
sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid,
such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts
of this Ordinance.
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption
of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required
by law.
SECTION 6. 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 7. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in
full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City
Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause
copies of this Ordinance to be posted in three designated posting
places.
SANDEFKM\STAFFRPT~SIGNORD 6
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this __th day of
, 1991.
RONALD J. PARKS
MAYOR
ATTEST:
JUNE S. GREEK
CITY CLERK
SANDEFKM\STAFF~T\SIGNORD 7
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )
CITY OF TEMECULA )
ss.
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 91- was duly
introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting
of the City Council on the day of
, 1991, and that thereafter, said
Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the
City Council on the day of ,
1991, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
JUNE S. GREEK
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Scott F. Field
City Attorney
SANDEFKM%STAFFRPT~SIGNOR0 8
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill
September 16, 1991
Directional Sign Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION:
ADOPT Resolution No. P.C.
91- recommending adoption
of the Directional Sign
Ordinance.
PROPOSAL:
BACKGROUND:
DISCUSSION:
An Ordinance establishing regulations for the use of
directional signs. The purpose for preparing the
proposed Directional Sign Ordinance is due to the
inadequacy of the County Ordinance No. 348 as it
relates to Directional Signs.
On July 15, 1991, the Planning Commission
considered an Ordinance which establishes
regulations for the installation of Directional Signs.
At the conclusion of the public hearing, the
Commission continued this item in order to allow the
Planning Department staff the opportunity to further
define the term "intersection.
Pursuant to the request of the Planning Commission,
staff has has included the following definitions for
"street intersection" and "Street or Road" within the
proposed ordinance:
"Street Intersection shall mean where two or
more streets or roads cross at the same
grade."; and
A:DIRIECTiONAL SIGN
CONCLUSION:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
"Street or Road shall mean the following:
(a)
Arterial (Urban) Highway - A six
lane divided highway with a 134
foot right-of-way.
(b)
Arterial Highway - A six lane
divided highway with a 110 foot
right-of-way.
(c)
Major Highway - A highway with
a 100 foot right-of-way.
(d)
Secondary Highway - A highway
with an 88 foot right-of-way.
The proposed Directional Sign Ordinance provides
the City with the standards to thoroughly review an
applicant's proposal as well as providing the
necessary control measures needed to ensure the
public safety; to provide organization; and control
the overall quality and number of such signs.
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
ADOPT Resolution No. PoC. 91 -
recommending adoption of the Directional
Sign Ordinance.
OM:ks
Attachments:
2.
3,
4-.
Resolution
"Draft" Ordinance
Planning Commission Staff Report (Dated July 15, 1991)
Planning Commission Minutes (Dated July 15, 1991)
A:DIRECTIONAL SIGN
D-SIGN-A
ITEM # 09
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Planning Director
September 16, 1991
Change of Zone No. 17 and First Extension of
Time-Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125
Change of Zone No. 17 and First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125
were presented before the Planning Commission on July 15, 1991. Both applications were
unanimously motioned to be continued to the following Planning Commission meeting in order for
both Staff and applicant to address slopes, H.O.A., and acceptability of the proposed park site for
the subject project.
In response to the Commission's direction to reduce the slopes on the subject tract map, the
applicant feels that a re-design of the project in order to reduce slopes would be an extreme
hardship, due to the tentative and final map approvals that have been obtained over the past three
years at a cost of approximately $728,000.00 for consultants and agency fees alone.
The Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) has reviewed the subject tract and has
concluded that interior slopes within Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 shall be maintained
by an established H.O.A. However, the exterior slopes may be dedicated to the City of Temecula
Community Services District (TCSD) by way of an irrevocable offer of dedication for maintenance.
In either case, the slopes proposed shall comply with existing standards as approved by the TCSD.
The propos.ed tract consists of 212 single family residential homes. The parkland dedication
requirement (Quimby) is 2.75 acres or payment of the equivalent fair market value plus 20% for
off-site improvements. The proposed tract has approximately 18 acres of open space to the east
of the project and is proposing to improve 2.75 acres for active park use. Therefore, the applicant
meets the required parkland dedication. The remaining open space will retain its natural condition
and will be maintained by the TCSD.
S\STAFFRPT~23125A.VTM
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Department Staff Recommends that the
Planning Commission Recommend to the City
Council:
ACCEPTANCE of Environmental Impact Report
No. 263 for Change of Zone No. 17 and First
Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 23125.
ADOPTION of Resolution No. 91 -
recommending approval of Change of Zone
No. 17; and
ADOPTION of Resolution No, 91o
recommending approval of First Extension of
Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
23125.
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Report (July 15, 1991)
Resolution (Change of Zone No. 17)
Resolution (First Extension of Time Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 23125)
Condition of Approval (First Extension of Time Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 23125)
Minutes (July 15, 1991)
S~STAFFRPT~23125A.VTM 2
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 15, 1991
Case No,:
Change of Zone No. 17
First Extension of Time
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125
Prepared By: Richard Ayala
Recommendation: Forward the following recommendations to the City
Council:
ACCEPT Environmental Impact Report No.
263 for Change of Zone No. 17 and First
Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 23125;
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending
approval of Change of Zone No. 17; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving First
Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 23125 based on the Analysis and
Findings contained in the Staff Report and
subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Sterling Builders, Inc.
REPRESENTATIVE:
Ranpac Engineering Corporation
PROPOSAL:
Change of Zone No. 17
Change of Zone No. 17 is a proposal to change the
zoning on 88.4 acres of land from R-A-2 1/2
(Residential Agricultural- 2 1/2 Acres Minimum) to
R-1 (One-Family Dwellings) and R-5 (Open Area
Combining Zone - Residential Developments).
S\STAFFRPT~23125A,VTM 3
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract
MaD No. 23125
First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 23125 proposes a two hundred fifteen
(215) lot residential subdivision of 88.4 acres.
Northeast Corner of De Portola and Butterfield Stage
Road.
R-A-2 1/2
(Residential Agricultural- 2 1/2 Acre
Minimum)
North:
South:
East:
West:
R-1 (One-Family Dwelling)
R-R (Rural Residential)
R-R (Rural Residential)
SP (Specific Plan)
R-1 (One-Family Dwellings) and
R-5 (Open Area Combining Zone
Developments)
Residential
Vacant
North: Vacant
South: Vacant
East: Vacant
West: Vacant
Project Area:
Proposed No. of Lots:
Proposed Minimum Lot Size:
Proposed Density:
SWAP Density:
Acreage Designated
By Proposed Zones:
R-1 (One-Family Dwellings):
R-5 (Open Area Combination Zone-
Residential Development):
88.4 acres
212 residential,
3 open space
7,200 sq.ft.
2.3 DU/AC
2-4 DU/AC
61.61 acres
22 acres
Change of Zone No. 17 and First Extension of Time
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 were
presented before the Planning Commission on July
15, 1991. Both applications were unanimously
motioned to be continued to the following Planning
Commission in order for both Staff and applicant to
address slopes, H.O.A., and acceptability of the
proposed park site for the subject project.
S\STAFFBPT~23125A.VTM 4
BACKGROUND:
The original application, Change of Zone No. 5122
was a request to change the zoning on 88°4 acres of
land from R-A-2 1/2 (Residential Agricultural- 2 1/2
Acres Minimum) to R-1 (One-Family Dwellings) and
R-5 (Open Area Combinating Zone - Residential
Development) zones. This Zone Change was
approved by the County of Riverside Board of
Supervisors on October 20, 1988, along with
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 which
proposed a 212 Residential lot subdivision on 88.4
acres.
However, due to an oversight by the County, the
Zone Change was acted upon on May 29, 1990,
after the official incorporation date of the City of
Temecula (December 1, 1989). Therefore, the Zone
Change was never officially adopted. The applicant
submitted a new application, Change of Zone No.
17, to the City of Temecula Planning Department on
May 21, 1991.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 23125 was submitted to the City of
Temecula on July 6, 1990 and was processed
through Pre-DRC (Development Review Committee)
at which time the zone change issue was identified.
The Extension was then put on hold until the Zone
Change could be resolved. Therefore, both Change
of Zone No. 17 and First Extension of Time for
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 are being
processed concurrently.
Change of Zone No. 17
The applicant is proposing to change the zone on
88.4 acres of land situated at the northeast corner of
De Portola Road and Butterfield Stage Road, which
is identical to the original Zone Change No. 5122.
The land use breakdown is as follows:
R~I, One-Family Dwellings - 61.61 acres.
This zoning permits single family dwellings.
R-5, Open Area Combining Zone Residential
Developments - 22 acres, This zone allows
for the development of parkland uses.
S\STAFFRPT~23125A.VTM 5
ANALYSIS:
The proposed zoning will be consistent with projects
approved in the area such as the Crowne Hill project
(Change of Zone No. 4814, Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 23143) located immediately adjacent to the
north. This project was approved by the Board of
Supervisors on August 16, 1988, and will ultimately
create 1,092 R-1 residential lots, 26 R-A-2 1/2 lots
and 11 open space lots for parks, a school, and open
area. The Paloma Del Sol Plan (SP 219) is located
directly to the west of the project site, across
Butterfield Stage Road. This specific plan covers
1,389 acres and will allow up to a maximum of
5,611 dwelling units. The area of this specific plan
nearest to the proposed project site calls for Medium
density residential, 2-5 dwelling units per acre.
First Extension of Time for
Vesting Tentative Tract Mao No. 23125
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 proposes to
subdivide the subject 88.4 acre site into a residential
development consisting of 212 residential lots and 3
open space lots, with an overall density of 2.3 units
per acre. The proposed development has been
designed in accordance with the standards of the R-
I zone (One-Family Dwellings).
The project site is located at the Northeast corner of
De Portola Road and Butterfield Stage Road. At
present, the site is vacant.
Change of Zone No. 17
The subject site is currently zoned R-A-2 1/2
(Residential Agricultural, 2 1/2 Acres Minimum) and
designated 2-4 DU/AC by the SWAP (Southwest
Area Community Plan) Map. Surrounding properties
adjacent to the subject site are designated by SWAP
as being 2-4 DU/AC, Commercial and Specific Plan
uses. Currently, there is an approved specific plan
(Paloma Del Sol) situated to the west, and a 1,092
residential subdivision (VTM 23143) directly to the
north of the subject site, which consists of similar
developments and densities being proposed by the
applicant,
S~STAFFP, PT~23125A.VTM 6
The applicant is proposing to zone the areas adjacent
to Butterfield Stage Road and De Portola Road R-5 in
order to provide for adequate open space between
the proposed roads and residential development.
The interior of the subject site is entirely zoned R-1.
In addition, Staff has reviewed the proposed zoning
for the subject site and has found it to be acceptable
due to the proposed density being consistent with
the SWAP and approved projects adjacent to the
subject site.
First Extension of Time
Vesting Tentative Tract MaD No. 23125
Design Considerations
The proposed subdivision has been designed in
accordance with the standards of the R-1 (One-
Family Dwellings) zone and Ordinance Nos. 348 and
460. The main access to the project is provided by
De Portola Road.
Ooen Soace/Slooes
The Temecula Community Services District (TCSD)
has reviewed that subject tract and has concluded
that Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 shall be
maintained by an established H.O.A. However, the
H.O.A. may, at a later date, elect to have the slopes
dedicated to the City of Temecula, Community
Services District (TCSD) by way of an irrevocable
offer of dedication for maintenance. In either case
the slopes proposed shall comply with existing
standards as approved by the TCSD.
Density
The proposed subdivision (Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 23125) has a density of 2.3 DU/AC. The
Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP) calls for 2-
4 DU/AC, thus, meeting the SWAP residential
Density requirement.
S~STAFFRPT\23125A.VTM 7
FUTURE GENERAL PLAN
AND SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS:
Quimbv Act
The proposed tract consists of 212 single family
residential homes, The parkland dedication
requirement (Quimby) is 2.75 acres or payment of
the equivalent fair market value plus 20% for off-site
improvements. The proposed tract has identified a
proposed 2 acre park. With the required parkland
dedication of 2.75 acres, the 2 acre park has a
shortage of .75 acres. The applicant has agreed to
increase the park to 2.75 acres in lieu of parkland
fees.
The proposed Change of Zone and density of 2.3
units per acre is consistent with the Southwest Area
Community Plan designation of 2-4 units per acre.
In addition, Staff finds it probable that this project
will be consistent with the new General Plan when
it is adopted.
In accordance with the procedures of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Environmental
Impact Report No. 263 was prepared in connection
with the proposed project. All significant effect of
the project on the environment and measures
necessary to avoid or substantially lessen such effect
was evaluated in accordance with the Riverside
County Rules to implement CEQA.
Certification of Environmental Impact Report No.
263, was approved by the Riverside Board of
Supervisors on October 25, 1988.
Change of Zone No. 17
The proposed zone change will not have a
significant adverse effect on the environment,
as determined in the Environmental Impact
Report for this project.
There is a reasonable probability that the zone
change from R-A-2 1/2 to R-1 and R-5 will be
consistent with the future General Plan.
Further, densities and uses proposed are
similar to existing densities and uses in the
vicinity of the project site.
S\STAFFRPT~23125A.VTM ~3
There is not a reasonable probability of
substantial detriment to, or interference with,
the future and adopted General Plan, if the
proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan due to the fact that
the proposal is consistent with surrounding
land uses.
The proposed change in district classification
is reasonable and beneficial at this time as it
is a logical expansion of residential uses which
exist adjacent to, and in the vicinity of, the
project site.
The proposed change in district classification
will likely be consistent with the goals,
policies and action programs which will be
contained in the General Plan when it is
ultimately adopted. The density and land use
proposed are consistent with the Southwest
Area Plan and approved and proposed
adjacent specific plans.
The site of the proposed change in district
classification is suitable to accommodate all
the land uses currently permitted in the
proposed zoning district as it is of adequate
size and shape for the proposed residential
use. Possible land use conflicts are not likely
to arise as the project proposes residential
uses similar to those existing in the general
vicinity of the subject site.
Adequate access exists for the proposed
residential land use from Butterfield Stage
Road and De Portola Road. Additional internal
access and required road improvements to
proposed lots will be designed and
constructed in conformance with Riverside
County standards.
Said findings are supported by analysis,
minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental
documents associated with this application
and herein incorporated by reference.
S~STAFFRPT~23125A.VTM 9
First Extension of Time for
Vesting Tentative Tract MaD No. 23125
There is a reasonable probability that this
project will be consistent with the City's
future General Plan, which will be completed
in a reasonable time and in accordance with
State law, due to the fact that the project is
consistent with existing site development
standards in that it proposes articulated
design features and site amenities
commensurate with existing and anticipated
residential development standards.
There is not a likely probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
and adopted general plan, if the proposed use
or action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan, due to the fact that the project is in
conformance with existing and anticipated
land use and design guidelines standards.
The proposed use or action complies with
state planning and zoning laws, due to the
fact that the proposed use conforms with
those uses listed as "allowed" within the
project site's existing land use designation.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation
patterns, access, and density, due to the fact
that; adequate area is provided for all
proposed residential structures; adequate
landscaping is provided along the project's
public and private frontages; and the internal
circulation plan should not create traffic
conflicts as design provisions are in
conformance with adopted City standards.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare, due to the fact that the conditions
stated in the approval are based on mitigation
measures necessary to reduce or eliminate
potential adverse impacts of the project.
S\STAFFRPT~23125A.VTM 10
10.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 is
compatible with surrounding land uses. The
harmony in scale, bulk, height, density and
coverage creates a compatible physical
relationship with adjoining properties, due to
the fact that the proposal is similar in
compatibility with surrounding land uses; and
adequate area and design features provide for
siting of proposed development in terms of
landscaping and internal traffic circulation.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area, due to the
fact that the proposed project is consistent
with the current zoning of the subject site,
and also consistent with the adopted
Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP)
designation.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the Negative
Declaration adopted by the County for the
project, due to the fact that impact mitigation
is realized by conformance with the project's
Conditions of Approval.
The project has acceptable access to a
dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact
that the project currently proposes two
independent access points from De Portola
Road which has been determined to be
adequate by the City Engineer.
The design of the subdivision, the type of
improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed projects, due to
the fact that this is clearly represented in the
site plan and the project analysis,
S\STAFFRPT\23125A.VTM 11
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
RA:vgw
Attachments: 1,
2.
3.
11.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applicants and herein
incorporated by reference, due to the fact that
they are referenced in the attached Staff
Report, Exhibits, Environmental Assessment,
and Conditions of Approval.
Based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the
Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions
of Approval, the Planning Department Staff
recommends that the Planning Commission forward
the following recommendations to the City Council:
ACCEPTION of Environmental Impact Report
No. 263 for Change of Zone No. 17 and First
Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 23125;
ADOPTION of Resolution No. 91 -
recommending approval of Change of Zone
No. 17; and
ADOPTION of Resolution No. 91 -
recommending approval of First Extension of
Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
23125.
Resolution (Change of Zone No. 17)
Resolution (First Extension of Time for
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125)
Conditions of Approval (First Extension
of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 23125)
Exhibits
A. Change of Zone No. 17
B. First Extension of Time for
Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 23125
S\STAFFRPT~23125A.VTM 12
ATTACHMENT II
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
CZ17
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
ZONE CHANGE NO. 17 TO CHANGE THE ZONING ON 88.4
ACRES OF LAND FROM R-A-2 1/2 (RESIDENTIAL
AGRICULTURAL - 2 1/2 ACRES MINIMUM) TO R-1 AND
R-5 ALONG THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF DE PORTOLA
ROAD AND BU I ~ ERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 926-330-004 AND 926-070-
020.
accordance
Ordinances,
WHEREAS, Sterling Builders, Inc., filed Change of Zone No. 17 in
with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision
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
September 16, 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.
S~STAFFRPT~23125A.VTM 13
CZ17
(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.
b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the
boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its
General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion
with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Change of Zone is consistent with the SWAP
and does meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the
Government Code, to wit:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects
and taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following:
a)
There is reasonable probability that Change of
Zone No. 17 proposed will be consistent with
the general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
S~STAFFRPT~23125A.VTM 14.
CZ17
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 6.5, no Change of Zone may be
approved unless the applicant demonstrates the proposed use will not be
detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community, and
further, that any Zone Change approved shall be subject to such
conditions as shall be necessary to protect the health, safety and general
welfare of the community.
(2) The Planning Commission in recommending approval
of the proposed Tentative Tract Map, makes the following findings to
wit:
a)
The proposed zone change will not have a
significant adverse effect on the environment,
as determined in the Environmental Impact
Report for this project.
b)
There is a reasonable probability that the Zone
Change from R-A-2 1/2 to R-1 and R-5 will be
consistent with the future General Plan.
Further, densities and uses proposed are
similar to existing densities and uses in the
vicinity of the project site.
c)
There is not a reasonable probability of
substantial detriment to, or interference with,
the future and adopted General Plan, if the
proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan due to the fact that
the proposal is consistent with surrounding
land uses.
d)
The proposed change in district classification
is reasonable and beneficial at this time as it
is a logical expansion of residential uses which
exist adjacent to, and in the vicinity of, the
project site.
S\STAFFR,°T~23125A.VTM 15
e)
f)
g)
CZ17
The proposed change in district classification
will likely be consistent with the goals,
policies and action programs which will be
contained in the General Plan when it is
ultimately adopted. The density and land use
proposed are consistent with the Southwest
Area Plan and approved and proposed
adjacent specific plans.
The site of the proposed change in district
classification is suitable to accommodate all
the land uses currently permitted in the
proposed zoning district as it is of adequate
size and shape for the proposed residential
use. Possible land use conflicts are not likely
to arise as the project proposes residential
uses similar to those existing in the general
vicinity of the subject site.
Adequate access exists for the proposed
residential land use from De Portola Road and
Butterfield Stage Road. Additional internal
access and required road improvements to
proposed lots will be designed and
constructed in conformance with Riverside
County standards.
h)
Said findings are supported by analysis,
minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental
documents associated with this application
and herein incorporated by reference.
SECTION 2_~. Environmental Compliance.
The Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project indicates
that the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment.
~ECTIO N 3.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends
approval of Zone Change No. 17 to change the zoning on 88.4 acres of land from
R-A-2 1/2 to R-1 and R-5 along the northeast corner of De Portola and Butterfield
Stage Roads and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 926-330-004 and 926-070-020.
S\STAFFRPl~23125A.VTM 16
cz~7
SECTION 4.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of September, 1991.
JOHN HOAGLAND
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 16th day of September, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
S\STAFFRPT~23125A.VTM 17
ATTACHMENT III
TE-VTM23125
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE
FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME FOR VESTING TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP 23125 A 215 RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ON
88.4 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
DE PORTOLA ROAD AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 926-330-004
AND 926-070-020.
WHEREAS, Sterling Builders, Inc., filed the Time Extension in accordance
with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Time Extension application was processed in the time
and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Time Extension on
September 16, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify
either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
approved said Time Extension.
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.
S\STAFFI~°T~23125A.VTM 18
TE-VTM23125
(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 Time
Extension proposed will be consistent with the
general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
c)
The proposed use or action 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.
and meets
Government
The proposed Time Extension is consistent with the SWAP
the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the
Code, to wit:
(1) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects
and taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following:
a)
There is reasonable probability that the Time
Extension proposed will be consistent with the
general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
S\STAFFRPT~23125A.VTM 19
TE-VTM23125
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.
Do ( 1 ) Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no Time Extension 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 proposed subdivision does not affect the
general health, safety, and welfare of the
public.
(2) The Planning Commission, in approving the proposed
Time Extension, makes the following findings, to wit:
a)
There is a reasonable probability that this
project will be consistent with the City's
future General Plan, which will be completed
in a reasonable time and in accordance with
State law, due to the fact that the project is
consistent with existing site development
standards in that it proposes articulated
design features and site amenities
commensurate with existing and anticipated
residential development standards.
b)
There is not a likely probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
and adopted general plan, if the proposed use
or action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan, due to the fact that the project is in
conformance with existing and anticipated
land use and design guidelines standards.
S\STAFFRPT\23125A.VTM 20
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
TE-VTM23125
The proposed use or action complies with
state planning and zoning laws, due to the
fact that the proposed use conforms with
those uses listed as "allowed" within the
project site's existing land use designation.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation
patterns, access, and density, due to the fact
that; adequate area is provided for all
proposed residential structures; adequate
landscaping is provided along the project's
public and private frontages; and the internal
circulation plan should not create traffic
conflicts as design provisions are in
conformance with adopted City standards.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare, due to the fact that the conditions
stated in the approval are based on mitigation
measures necessary to reduce or eliminate
potential adverse impacts of the project.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 is
compatible with surrounding land uses. The
harmony in scale, bulk, height, density and
coverage creates a compatible physical
relationship with adjoining properties, due to
the fact that the proposal is similar in
compatibility with surrounding land uses; and
adequate area and design features provide for
siting of proposed development in terms of
landscaping and internal traffic circulation.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area, due to the
fact that the proposed project is consistent
with the current zoning of the subject site,
and also consistent with the adopted
Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP)
designation.
S~STAFFRPT\23125A.VTM 2 1
TE-VTM23125
h)
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the Negative
Declaration adopted by the County for the
project, due to the fact that impact mitigation
is realized by conformance with the project's
Conditions of Approval.
The project has acceptable access to a
dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact
that the project currently proposes two
independent access points from De Portola
Road which has been determined to be
adequate by the City Engineer.
j)
The design of the subdivision, the type of
improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed projects, due to
the fact that this is clearly represented in the
site plan and the project analysis.
k)
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applicants and herein
incorporated by reference, due to the fact that
they are referenced in the attached Staff
Report, Exhibits, Environmental Assessment,
and Conditions of Approval.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 2, the Time Extension
proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and
is compatible with the present and future development of the
surrounding property.
SECTION 2_~. Environmental Comoliance.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby determines that
the previous environmental determination (Adoption of Environmental Impact Report
No. 263) still applies to said Tract Map (Extension of Time).
S\STAFFRPT~23125A.VTM 2 2
TE-VTM23125
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves The
First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 for a 215
residential subdivision on 88.4 acres located on the northeast corner of De Portola
Road and Butterfield Stage Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 926-330-004
and 926-070-020 subject to the following conditions:
A. Attachment III, attached hereto.
SECTION 4.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of September, 1991.
JOHN HOAGLAND
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 16th day of September, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
S~STAFFRPT\23125A.VTM 23
ATTACHMENT IV
CITY OF TEMECULA
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125
Commission Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
Planninq Department
Unless previously paid, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant
shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the
appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be
superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the
payment of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the
fee required by the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County
ordinance or resolution.
The subdivider shall provide for the dedication of park land and/or in-lieu, fees
to the satisfaction of the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) Board
of Directors PRIOR TO RECORDATION of final map, as authorized by City of
Temecula Ordinance No. 460.93.
The park land dedication requirement shall be a predetermined amount based
on the use and number of units proposed. If the park land requirement cannot
be met, the applicant shall be required to pay a predetermined Quimby Act Fee
in the amount equal to the fair market value of the required park land acreage
(Plus 20% for offsite improvements).
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 (f/100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as
mitigation for public library development.
This conditionally approved Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 23125 will expire one (1) year after the original expiration date, unless
extended as provided by Ordinance 460. The expiration date is October 20,
1991.
The subdivider shall comply with the original Conditions of Approval for
Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 (see attached) except as amended herein.
6. Prior to recordation, Change of Zone No. 17 shall be effective.
S\STAFFRPT~23125A.VTM 24
Enaineering 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. The developer shall comply with all previous Conditions of Approval
except as amended by the following conditions.
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:
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;
Parks and Recreation Department; and
Temecula Community Services District.
Any Notice of Intention to annex into the Tcmccula Community Service District,
Scrvicc Level "C" (Landscapc Maintenance), shall bc submittcd to the TCSD
prior to rccordation of the final map.. All costs involvcd in District annexation
shall bc borne by the developer.
Notice of Intention to annex into thc Tcmccula Community Service District,
Scrvicc Level "A" (Mcdians), shall bc submittcd to TCSD prior to rccordation
of the final map. All costs involved in District annexation shall bc borne by the
developer.
10.
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.
11.
Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act any Subdivision which
is part of an existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements
of said section.
S\STAFFRPT~23125A.VTM 2 5
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
12. 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.
13.
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.
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT:
14.
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.
15.
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.
16.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public
facility mitigation as required underthe 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:
17.
If construction of improvements are phased and completed prior to
development occurring on adjacent properties, a 28' wide secondary access
road shall be provided within a recorded private road easement as approved by
the City Engineer.
S\STAFFR~T\23125A.VTM 2 6
18. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all
times with adequate detours during construction,
Transportation Enaineering
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
19.
A signing plan shall be designed by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved
by the City Engineer for all internal streets with 66' of right-of-way or less and
shall be shown on the street improvement plans.
20.
Condition No. 32 of the Riverside County Road letter dated June 28, 1988,
shall be deleted.
Temecula Community Service District (TCSD) Deoartment
21.
The exterior (perimeter) slopes proposed in the Tract Map No. 23125 may be
dedicated to the TCSD by way of an irrevocable offer to dedicate for landscape
maintenance purposes, upon compliance to existing standards as approved by
the TCSD, and upon completion of the application process.
22.
The Parkland Dedication Requirement (Quimby) is 2.75 acres of improved
parkland to be dedicated to the TCSD prior to issuance of 63rd Building Permit.
23.
Approximately 10 acres of undeveloped open space contiguous with the
proposed park site, will be dedicated to the TCSD.
24. The exterior slope maintenance areas proposed to be maintained by the TCSD
shall be properly identified on the final map.
S\STAFFRPT~23125A.VTM 2 7
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBDIVISION
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23125
DATE:
AftENDED NO. 2
EXPIRES:
STANDARD CONDITIONS
The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County of
Riverside, its agents, officers, and employees iron any claim, action, or
}roceeding against the County of Riverside or its agents, officers, or
employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the County
,}f Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body
.;oncerning Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23125, which action is brought
mbout within the time period provided for in California Government Code
Section 66499.37. The County of Riverside will promptly notify the
tubdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the County of
~iverside and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the County fails to
}romptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or
'ails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not,
:hereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the
;ounty of Riverside.
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California
Subdivision Nap Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule
A, unless modified by the conditions listed below.
3. This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the
County of Riverside Board of Supervisors approval date, unless extended as
provided by Ordinance 460.
The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all
the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Nap Act and
Ordinance 460.
The subdivider shall submit one copy of e soils report to the Riverside
County $urveyor's Office end two copies to the Department of Building and
Safety. The report shell address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
If any grading is proposed, the subdivider shall submit one print of
comprehensive grading plan to the Department of Building and Safety. The
plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, as amended
by Ordinance 457 end as maybe additionally provided for in these
conditions of approval.
VESTING T1EXTATIVE TRACT RO. 23125° Amd. t2
C~nditions of Approval
Page 2
7. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Department of Building and
Safety prior to c~,.,encernent of any grading outside of county maintained
road right of way.
8. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the
final map.
The subdivider shall comply with the street improvement recommendations
outlined in the Riverside County Road Department's letter dated 6-2B-BB, a
copy of which is attached.
10. Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract
map boundary to a County maintained road.
All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall
continue in force until the governing body accepts or abandons such
offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved
,tr.et names shall be s.bject to approva of
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities,
utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are 1 ocated
within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and
conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the County
Surveyor.
13. Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance
with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's
letter dated 6-23-BB, a copy of which is attached.
14. The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommendations
.¥~ outl__iz~.d by the Riverside County Flood Control District's letter dated
~ ,/'~'6-2B-BB,x a copy of which is attached. If the land division lies within an
~,I/~a~)t~d'flood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of Ordinance
460, appro riate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities
shall be collected by the Road Commissioner.
15. The subdivider shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations
outlined in the County Fire Harshal's letter dated 6-22-BB, a copy of
which is attached.
Subdivision phasing, including any propused 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.
17. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following:
VESTIll; TENTAtiVE TRACT I10. 23125. Mind. t2
Conditions of Approval
Page 3
a. All lots shall have a minimum size of 7200 square feet net.
b. All lot length to width ratios shall be in conformante with Section
3.BC of Ordinance 460.
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.
18. Prior to RECORDATION of the final map the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
Prior to the recordation of the final map the applicant shall submit
written clearances to the Riverside County Road and Survey Department
that all pertinent requirements outlined in the attached approval
letters from the following agencies have been met:
County Fire Department County Heal th Department
County Rood Control County Planning Department
Prior to the recordation of the final map, Change of Zone No. 5122
shall be approved by the Board of Supervisors and shall be effective.
Lots created by this land division shall be in conformante with the
development standards of the zone ultimately applied to the property.
~~~-er~ordation of~_~he~ r~pr~tba~pr~Uee~-si~~
__annexed into
Prior to recordation of the final map, the subdivider shall convey to
the County fee simple title, to all common or common open space areas,
free and clear of all liens, taxes, assessment, leases (recorded and
unrecorded) and easements, except those easements which in the sole
discretion of the County are acceptable. As a conditions precedent to
the County accepting title to such areas, the subdivider shall submit
the following documents to the Planning Oeparbnent for r~view, which
documents shell be subject to the approval of that depar~nent and the
Office of the County Counsel:
1)
2)
A declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions; and
A sample document conveying title to the purchaser of an
individual lot or unit which provides that the declaration of
covenants, conditions and restrictions is incorporated therein by
reference.
YE.%'TIIE T~(TATIYETIIACTIK). 2:31Z5,/IBd. #~
Conditions of Approval
Page 4
The declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions submitted
for review shall (a) provide for a term of 60 years, (b} provide for
the establisl~ent of a property owners' association comprised of the
owners of each individual lot or unit and (c) contain the following
provisions verbatim:
"Notwithstanding any provision in this Declaration to the
contrary, the following provision shall apply:
The property owners' association established herein shall, if
dormant, be activated, by incorporation or otherwise, at the
request of the County of Riverside, and the property owners'
association shall unconditionally accept from the County of
Riverside, upon the County's demand, title to all or any part of
the 'common area', more particularly described on Exhibtt'A'
attached hereto. The decision to require activation of the
property owners' association and the decision to require that the
association unconditionally accept title to the 'common area'
shall be at the sole discretion of the County of Riverside.
In the event that the common area, or any part thereof, is
conveyed to the ropetry owners' association, the association,
thereafter shalV own such 'common area', shall manage and
continuously maintain such 'common aream, or any part thereof,
absent the prior written consent of the Planning Director of the
County of Riverside or the County's successor-in-interest. The
property ownerS' association shall have the right to assess the
owners of each individual lot or unit for the reasonable cost of
maintaining such 'common area', and shall have the right to lien
the property of any such owner who defaults in the payment of a
maintenance assessment. An assessment lien, once created, shall
be prior to all other liens recorded subsequent to the notice of
assessment or other document creating the assessment lien.
This Declaration shall not be terminated, 'substantially' amended
or property deannexed therefrom absent the prior written consent
of the Planning Director of the County of Riverside or the
County's successor-in-interest. A proposed amendment shall be
considered 'substantial' if it affects the extent, usage or
maintenance of the 'common area'.
In the event of any conflict between this Declaration and the
Articles of Incorporation, the Bylaws, or the property owners'
association Rules and Regulations, if any, this Declaration shall
control?
Once approved, the declaration of covenants, conditions and
restrictions shall be recorded at the same time that the final map is
recorded.
V~STINI; TE]ITATIVEllACT NO. 23125,
Conditions of Approval
Page 5
The develol~r shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all
slopes, landscaped areas and irri at.on systen~ until such ti~ as
those operations are the ~sponsi~ilities of other parties as approved
by the Planning Director.
Prior to recordat,on 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 .permanentl
filed with the office of the County Surveyor. A copy of the ECS shal~
be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval.
The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded final
map to the Planning Department and the Department of Building and
Safety.
The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints
Sheet: "County Environmental Impact Report No. 263 was prepared for
this property and is on file at the Riverside County Planning
Depart;nent.
Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
a. All mitigation for seismic and liquefaction hazard shall be that which
is found in Environmental Impact Report No. 263.
b. The following tree preservation guidelines shall be incorporated in
the projects approved grading, building and landscaping plans as
appropriate:
1. Every effort shall be made to prevent encroachment of structures,
grading or trenching within the dripline or twenty-five {25) feet
of the trunk of any trees, whichever is greater.
If encroachment within the dripline is unavoidable, no more than
one third of the root area shall be disturbed, grading or covered
with impervious materials. The root area is considered to extend
beyond the dripline a distance equal to one half the radius.
3. Building, grading or improvements shall not occur within ten (10)
feet of any tree trunk.
Retaining walls shall be constructed where necessary to preserve
natural rade at least one-half the distance between the trunk and
~ine. be designed with a or
shall
the drip Walls post caisson
footing rather than a continuous footing to minimize root damage.
VF3rX!IG TEIITATIVE TItACT MO. 23125, Amid. ~2
Conditions of Approval
Page 6
5. Alteration of natural drainage shall be avoided to the greatest
extent possi bl e.
Runoff channelled near trees shall not substantially change normal
soil moisture characteristics on a seasonal basis.
Runoff shall not be directed towards the base of trees so that the
base of the trees remain in wet soil for an extended period.
Where natural topography has been altered. drainage away fro~
trunks shall be provided where necessary to ensure that water will
not stand at the crown.
Sedimentat,on and siltat,on in the drainage ways shall be
controlled where necessary to avoid filling around the base of the
trees.
Land uses that would cause excessive soil compact.on within the
dripline of trees shall be avoided. If the areas are planned for
recreation. provide trails to restrict compact,on to a small area.
Heavy use under trees shall be avoided unless measures to minimize
compact,on are undertaken.
10. Landscaping or irrigation shall not be installed within ten {10)
feet of any trees.
All existing native specimen trees on the subject property shall be
preserved wherever feasible. Where they cannot be preserved they
shall be relocated or replaced with specimen trees as approved by the
Planning Director. Replacement trees shall be noted on approved
landscaping plans.
If any archaeological resources are uncovered during grading or
trenchin . all activities shall cease and an archaeologist shall be
consulted. Any recommendations of the archaeologist shall be adhered
to.
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:
1) The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the
angle of the natural terrain,
2) Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall reflect
the natural rounded terrain,
3)
The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves with
radii designed in proportion to the total height of the slopes
where drainage and stability permit such rounding.
VE:STIIIG TENTATIVE TRACT II0. 23125, dad. #2
Conditioes of Al~roYal
Page 7
4)
Where cut or fill slopes exceed 300 feet in horizontal length, the
horizontal contours of the slo~ shall be curved in a continuous,
undulating fashion.
Prior t~ the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall provide
evidence to the Director of Building and Safety that all adjacent
off-site manufactured slopes have recorded slope easements and that
slope maintenance responsibilities have been assigned as approved by
the Director of Building and Safety.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist
shall be retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the
~roposed grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts.
hould the paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to
significant resources, a pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist
and the excavation and grading contractor shall be arranged. When
necessary, the paleontologist or representative shall have the
authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to
allow recovery of fossils.
Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall
be satisfied:
No building permits shall be issued by the County of Riverside for any
residential lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer's
successor's-in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public
facility financin A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100)
per lot/unit shall measures.
be deposited with the Riverside County Department
of Building and Safety as mitigation for public library development.
C$
Prior to the submittal of building plans to the Department of Buildin
and Safety an acoustical study shall be performed by an acoustical
engineer to establish appropriate mitigation measures that shall be
ap lied to individual dwelling units within the subdivision to reduce
aPm~ient noise levels to 45 Ldn.
interior
All street lights an other outdoor 1 ighting shall be shown on
electrical plans submitted to the Oepartment of Building and Safety
for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of
Rtverside County Ordinance No. 655 and the Riverside County
Comprehensive General Plan.
Prior to issuance of building permits, detailed park site and riparian
area develo~ent lens shall be submitted to the Planning Depari;nent
for approval. T~ese plans shall conform the
with guidelines found in
approved design manual (Exhibit H). ~e park shall include active
V~[IRG TERTATIVE TRAET NO. 23125, And. ~2
Conditions of Approval
Page 8
recreational features such as picnic tables, barbecue areas, tot lots,
etc.
For the security and safety of future residents, the following crime
V.. t,:.o ig..:asures shall be consider. during site and buildi,g
a. Proper lighting in open areas;
b. Vi sibil ity of doors and windows from the street and between
buildings;
c. Fencing heights and materials;
d. Adequate off-street parking; and
e. A clearly understood method of street numbering to facilitate
emergency response.
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, and shall conform to the standards set forth
in the tract's approved Design Nanual (Exhibit
The plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall
provide for the following:
Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all
landscaped areas requiring irrigation, and shall incorporate drip
irrigation wherever possible.
2. 'Parkways and landscaped building setbacks shall be landscaped to
provide visual screening or a transition into the primary use area
of the site. Landscape elements shall include earth berming,
ground cover, shrubs and specimen trees in conjunction with
meandering sidewalks, benches and other pedestrian amenities where
appropriate as approved by the Planning Department.
3. Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent
trees at key visual focal points within the project,
Where street trees cannot be planted within ri ht-of-way of
parkways ue to insufVicient road
interior streets and project d
right-of-way, they shall be planted outside of the road
right-of-way,
VESTIIIG T~ITATIVE T~ACT I10. 2:3125, Amd. #2
Con~itioes of Approval
Page 9
5. Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and
plants where appropriate.
6. All trees shall be minimum double staked.
growing trees shall be steal staked·
7. Front and rear yard landscaping shall
trees·
drought tolerant
Weaker and/or slow
incorporate the use of shade
Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the
subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving
devices shall be permitted with P1 anning Depari;nent approval·
All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and automatic
irrigation·
A plot plan shall be submitted to the Planning Deparbnent pursuant to
Section 18.30 of Ordinance No. 348 accompanied by all applicable
filing fees, as a plot plan that is not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act and is not transmitted to any governmental
agency other than the Riverside County Planning Deparbnent. The plot
plan shall ensure the conformance of the final site development with
the tract's approved Design Panual (Exhibit H), and shall contain the
loll owing elements:
A final site plan showing the lots, building footprints, all
setbacks, fences and/or walls, and floor plan and elevation
assignments to individual lots.
One (1) color and materials sample board (maximum size of B X 13
inches by 3/8 inch thick) containing precise color, texture and
material swatches or photographs (which my be from suppliers;
brochures). Indicate on the board the name, address and phone
numbers of both the sample board preparer and the project
e pltcant, tract number, and the manufacturer and product numbers
wKere (trade also acceptable).
possible names
One (1) copy of the architectural elevations colored to represent
the selected color combinations, with symbols keyed to the color
and materials board. The written color and material descriptions
shall be located on the elevation.
Six (6) co ies of each of glossy photographic color prints (size 8
X 10 inches) of both color and materials board and colored
architectural elevations for permanent filing, hearing body review
and agency distribution. All writing must be legible·
VESTIll; TENTATIVE TItACT I10. 23125, AId.
Conditions of Approval
Page 10
Said plot plan shall require the approval of the Planing Director
~ieorp~otth~11~s. ua~: of any buildin permits for lots included within
submittal of
plot plans prior to the issuance of
building permits may be phased provided:
A separate ~ ot plan shall be submitted to the Planing Deparbnent
for each phase, which shall be accompanied by appropriate filing
fees.
2. Each individual plot ~an shall be approved by the Planning
Director prior to the issuance of building permits for lots
included within that plot plan.
Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall
be satisfied:
a. Wall and/or fence locations shall conform to approved site plan.
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.
c. Prior to occupancy, bike paths shall be installed along De Portola
Road and Butterfield Stage Road.
GN:sc
9/02/88
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with
~pproved plans and shall be verified by a Planning Department field
Inspection.
Not withstanding the preceding conditions, wherever an acoustical
study is required for noise attenuation purposes, the heights of all
required wells shall be determined by the acoustical study where
applicable.
Prior to occupancy, the park site and riparian enhancement area shall
be developed in accordance with approved plans.
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM
CO(31fEY OP Rlvra~SIDE
Road and Survey Department
May 11, 1988
RIV~,~..,,. 'dNTY
PLANNING DEI~,~/~TMENT
TO: lee Johnson, Principal Engineering Technician
FRO~: Edwin Studor, Transportation Planner
RE: Tentative Tract 23125 (Sterling Ranch) - Traffic Study
We have reviewed the Traffic Study for Tentative Tract
23125, and generally agree with the analysis relative to traffic
and circulation.
Based upon our review of this proposal, it is recommended
that the following considerations be given in developing
conditions of approval for this project.
1. The project proponent shall participate in the Traffic
Signal Mitigation Program as approved by the Board of
Supervisors.
Butterfield Stage Road and De Portola Road, adjacent to the
project, should be improved to an arterial highway (110'
foot right-of-way).
A 150 foot left turn lane pocket should be provided for
traffic on Butterfield Stage Road and De Portola desiring to
turn left into each project entrance.
ES:AE:lg
Planning Department
Subdivision file
March 8, 1988
I!AR 09 1988
RIVERS;DE COUNTY
PLANNING DE~ARTMI:NT
i/lchsnl D. Steffey
Pms~len~
James A. l:hrb)'
St. Vice P~sjdent
Ralph Dsjly
Dou2 Kulber2
Jen A. Lund~a
Jeffe, ey L Minitier
T. C. R~we
Officers:
Stau T, Mills
General Manapt
PhilUp L. Forbes
Dir~u~r d Finance -
'II~asur~r
Norman L. Thomas
Di~c~or of Engineering
Thomas R. McAliasteT
Dir~u~r of Ol~rs'ions
& Mamahence
Barbars J. R~ed
Director d Admin/strsr~on
Distria
Riverside County Planning Department
4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor
Riverside, California 92501-3657
Subject: Water Availability
Reference: Vesting Tract 23125
Gentlemen:
Please be advised that the above-referenced
property is located within the boundaries of Rancho
California Water District. Water service, therefore,
would be available upon completion of financial
arrangements between RCWD and the property owner.
Water availability would be contingent upon the
property owner signing an Agency Agreement which
assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.
Sites for additional water production facilities may
be required within the proposed development depending
upon the level of increased demand created by the
proposal.
If RCWD can be of further service to you, please
contact this office.
Very truly yours,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Senga P. Doherty
Engineering Services Representative
F011/dpt84
L
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
28061 DIAZ ROAD · POST OFFICE BOX 174 · TEMECULA. CA 92390~)174 · (714) 676-4101 · FAX 1714) 676a3615
CITY OF TEMECULA )
/!
CASE NO
LOCATION'MAP ) T;; '~/~"'
CITY OF TEMECULA )
SP ZONE
\
SP ZONE
POI
ZONE MAP )
r
CASE NO./ST.
P,C, DATE ~_/~--~/,,~
CITY OF TEMECULA )
DU/;AC'
THE MEADOWS
SP 219,' '
VAI~'~qANCH
SP 22,,3
SWAP MAP
r
CASE NO.
P.C. DATE
/ ,~ ~'xT.
STERLr, IG RANCH
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. /
~m~a~B~,~.~,.., LCE DE PORTOLA RD
R-I
PARCEL"E"
R-5
PARCEL"C"
DETAIL
R-5
PARCEL "A"
'R-5
pARCEL"B~
SEE DETAJL
R-5
CAIEI ~' ~'
RANPAC
3
ion of Chairman and Vice Chairman
It was
by Commissioner Blair, seconded by Commissioner
John Hoagland for the office of Chairperson.
to nominate
Commissioner
Commissioner
the name of
the nomination.
Chiniaeff in nomination.
The motion was unanimousl
Chairman Hoagland entertained n~
moved by Commissioner
Commissioner Linda the office
unanimously carrie
4 Quimb,y~
_//~ontinued to the meeting of August 19, 1991.
5
person. It was
by Commissioner Blair to nominate
Chairperson. The motion was
Change of Zone No. 17 and First Extension of Time Vestino Tentative Tract Mao No.
The staff report was presented by Steve Jianrdno.
Commissioner Chiniaeff questioned the maximum height of the slopes proposed and
asked who would have maintenance responsibility for these slopes. Staff advised that
the slopes range from 30 to 60 feet and that ultimate maintenance responsibility has
not been determined.
Commissioner Ford expressed concern with the lack of information regarding the parks
dedications proposed.
Chairman Hoagland opened the public hearing at 6:22 PM.
Dave James, representing Ranpac Engineering, 24727 Enterprise Circle West,
representing the applicant stated that the applicant agrees with the conditions of
approval and advised that the map is conditioned to allow for the Quimby fees to be
negotiated at the time the design development guidelines are addressed prior to
recordation of the final map.
Commissioner Chirdaeff again outlined his concerns regarding the maintenance of the
slopes which are shown to be on private residential parcels. Planning Director Thornhill
suggested that a homeowners association be required for this purpose.
Mike Gray, Riverside County Fire Department, stated that the County's slope
maintenance program is very difficult to administer where individual private parcels are
involved. He advised that in some instances the problems have been unsolvable,
2/PCMini/071591 2
In response to a question from Commissioner Fahey, Assistant City Attorney John
Cavanaugh advised that if a homeowners association is in place and is given the
responsibility to properly maintain the slopes, the association should require that an
easement be granted which allows them access to the private property.
It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Blair to continue
the public hearing on this matter to the meeting of August 19, 1991, with direction
given to staff to 1 ) work with the developer on the design with the goal of reducing
the severe slopes, 2) to condition the project to require a homeowners association, and
3) to work with the Community Services Department on the matter of slopes
dedications and the acceptability of the proposed park site.
unanimously carried.
ADDeel NO. 15
The motion was
presented the staff report outlining the proposed sign Iocati(
adjoining suite.
Hoegland opened the public hearing at 6:45 PM.
It
Public Hearin
by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by
6:45 PM and to adopt a resolut
A RESOLUTI~
TO INSTALL AN
EXISTING ROOF
AVENUE AND
AVENUE.
Ford to close the
RESOLUTION NO. 91-68
THE PLANNING OF THE CITY OF
APPEAL NO. 15, AI
MATELY SQUARE FOOT SIGN ABOVE AN
~RTHWEST CORNER OF JEFFERSON
~,ND KNOWN AS 27425 JEFFERSON
The motion carried by the foilowir
AYES: 5 COMMI,~ INERS:
· NOES: 0 COl ;lONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 )MMISSIONERS: None
Ford, Chinieeff, Hoagland
7
Chanee
The staff
Chai
16
was presented by Steve Jiannino.
Hoagland opened the public hearing at 6:51 PM.
/~71591
ITEM # 12
ITEM # 10
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 16, 1991
Case No.: Plot Plan No. 232 (PP 232)
Prepared By: Charles Ray
Recommendation:
The Planning Department Staff
recommends that the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration
for Plot Plan No. 232; and
ADOPT Resolution 91-
approving Plot Plan No. 232;
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:
Bay City Services Inc. (Owner)
Krommenhoek/McKeown & Associates (KMA)
Request to construct a two-story
office/warehouse/refuse vehicle servicing facility
totaling 6,900 sq.ft. +/- acre on a 6.04 acre site;
developed portion of site equals 1.9 +/- acre.
Rancho California Business Park, Phase II, west
frontage of Business Park Drive Loop, East;
approximately 3/4 mile north of Rancho California
Road.
Manufacturing-Service-Commercial (M-S-C)
STAFFRPT\232 .PP
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
BACKGROUND:
North: M-SoC
South: M-S-C
East: M-S-C
West: M-S-C
As existing-no change proposed
Vacant
North:
South:
East:
West:
Manufacturing service-commercial uses
(under construction)
Vacant, graded
Existing manufacturing uses
Existing manufacturing uses
Site Area:
Total of 6.04 acres; developed portion
of site per this request equals 1.9 +/-
acres.
Building
Area:
First Floor:
Second Floor:
Total sq.ft.:
5,350 sq.ft.
1,556 sa.ft.
6,906 sq.ft.
Floor Area
Ratio
(F.A.R.):
,082 (Building area proposed
constitutes 8.2 % of developed portion
of site).
Parking
Provided:
Automobile spaces 30
Refuse truck 20
Bicycle racks
(required) 2
Plot Plan No. 232 was submitted to the City of
Temecula Planning Department on May 6, 1991.
The project was subsequently considered by the
City's Development Review Committee (DRC) on
June 6, 1991 (preliminary review), and again on July
18, 1991 (formal review and discussion of project
Conditions of Approval).
STAFFRPT\232.PP 2
ANALYSIS:
As initially submitted, Plot Plan 232 required only
nominal additional information clarifying the
proposed use, and minor design modifications as
discussed below in the 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 Manufacturing Service-Commercial
(M-S-C) (Reference Exhibit B). Surrounding
properties are currently developed with similar light
industrial projects, recently construction within the
Rancho California Business Park area. Project
materials and design elements proposed by the
applicant are considered compatible with the design
guidelines currently observed by the City. The
proposal has also been reviewed by the Rancho
California Business Park Architectural Review
Committee, a private review board charged with the
responsibility of assuring development compatibility
within the Business Park. The Review Committee
considers this project appropriate in terms of its
architectural design and use.
Landscaping
Landscaping proposed by the applicant included
streetscape plans conforming with design(s)
previously approved for the Rancho California
Business Park Development. As evidenced by
existing construction within the Business Park, these
landscape provisions will provide aesthetic
enhancement of the project site street frontage in a
functional and cost-effective manner.
On-site planting and irrigation schemes are in keeping
with current City policies regarding water
conservation and use of drought-tolerant vegetative
species. The southerly portion of the site beyond
the limits of construction of the facility proper will be
hydroseeded with drought-tolerant groundcover(s)
pending its ultimate development. (Reference the
attached project Conditions of Approval.)
STAFFRPT\232.PP 3
Installation of proposed landscaping will be secured
by means of bonding adequate to cover costs of
landscape installation plus one (1) year maintenance.
Actual installation time (s) of proposed landscaping
is contingent upon weather conditions and irrigation
water availability.
Site Access
The site is currently accessible by Business Park
Drive Loop, East which is currently developed to its
full design width. Adequate access into the site
proper is provided by a single two-way commercial-
width drive as indicated on the project site plan,
(reference Exhibit "D"). The location and design of
the drive entrance, as well as internal drive aisles
have been reviewed by City Staff and the Riverside
County Fire Department and are considered
appropriate.
Traffic
Project related traffic impacts, as documented by the
traffic study submitted by the applicant, are
mitigated by signalization and public facilities fees,
specified in the attached Conditions of Approval.
(Reference also Attachment No. 5 - "Fee Checklist".)
Parking and On-Site Circulation
The proposal as designed, is user-specific, with
parking facilities designed specifically to
accommodate refuse vehicle maintenance activities.
Employee/visitor parking exceeds the minimum of 20
spaces required by ordinance; 30 spaces are
provided. Parking for refuse vehicles undergoing or
awaiting maintenance is proposed at 20 spaces
based on peak anticipated demands.
As noted previously, on-site circulation
pattern(s)/drive aisles design(s) are considered
adequate to support the project as currently
designed.
STAFFRPT\232.PP 4
Grading and Drainage
The existing site is essentially level, having been
rough graded previously as allowed by approval of
the underlying Parcel Map No. 19580. As such,
proposed grading and related drainage improvements
required of this project posed no special design
considerations. As currently designed, and as
specified in the attached project Conditions of
Approval, proposed site drainage improvements are
considered adequate to convey 100 year storm
discharge volumes.
Seismic Hazards Potential
As indicated on attached Exhibit "D", the site is
underlain by the Murrieta Creek Fault. This fault,
however, is not currently considered to be active.
Further, siting of the service facility proposed is
beyond the 100' clear zone bisected by the fault.
The applicant is also required to document specific
earth shaking hazards potentially affecting this
project, (Reference the attached Conditions of
Approval), and where hazard of faulting or ground
shaking is determined to exist, appropriate mitigation
measures must be demonstrated prior to issuance of
building permits.
Toxic/Hazardous Materials Use & Storage
The applicant proposes on-site storage of petroleum
products as follows:
7,500 gallon diesel fuel tank (underground)
1,000 gallon unleaded fuel tank (underground)
500 gallon hydraulic oil tank (underground)
500 gallon transmission oil tank (underground)
Location and construction type(s) of these proposed
tanks are as indicated on the project site plan
(Reference Exhibit "D").
STAFFI~T~232 .PP 5
EXISTING ZONING/SWAP AND
FUTURE GENERAL PLAN
CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS:
Fuel and oil dispensed will be solely for consumption
by vehicles serviced at the project site. Waste oil
generated in the course of vehicle servicing will be
temporarily stored on-site in a 1,000 gallon
underground tank, also indicated on the project site
plan. Waste oil will be removed periodically by a
licensed vendor for recycling off-site.
Proposed plans for temporary holding and recycling
of used petroleum products as described above have
been reviewed and approved by the County Fire and
Health Departments as mitigated by the attached
project Conditions of Approval.
The project, as conditioned, 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. 232 will likely be consistent with
the City's General Plan recommendations for the
property in question, upon the Plan's final adoption.
Pursuant to applicable portions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial
Environmental Assessment was prepared for Plot
Plan No. 232. 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. 232 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
STAFFRPT~232.PP 6
and development ordinances. Further, the
proposal is characteristic of similar
development approved by the City to date, as
well as existing adjacent development within
the Rancho California Business Park
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 proposal is also
consistent with existing development in its
vicinity, minimizing potentials for future
general plan inconsistencies.
The proposed use or action complies with
State planning and zoning laws. Reference
local Ordinances No. 348, 460; 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 proposal's Initial
Environmental Assessment, (Attachment No.
3), and project Conditions of Approval
(Attachment No. 2).
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
STAFFRPT%232,PP 7
10,
development regulations and reflects design
elements currently existing within the City.
The proposed design and use have also been
reviewed and approved by the governing
Rancho California Business Park Architectural
Review Committee.
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 Business Park Drive Loop,
East; a dedicated City right-of-way, currently
improved to it's ultimate design configuration.
Project access, as designed and conditioned,
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. 232.)
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.)
Said findings are supported by minutes, maps,
exhibits and environmental documents
associated with this application and herein
incorporated by reference. Supporting
documentation is attached.
STAFFRPT~232.PP 8
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for
Plot Plan No. 232, and
CR:vgw
Attachments:
ADOPT Resolution 91- approving
Plot Plan No. 232; based on the
analysis and findings contained in
the Staff Report and subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval.
2.
3.
4.
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. 19580
I. 1. Color Exterior
2. Materials Samples
Fee Check List
STAFFRPT\232.PP 9
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 91-71
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 232 TO
CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY OFFICE/WAREHOUSE/TRUCK
SERVICING FACILITY TOTALING 6,900 +/- SQUARE FEET
ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 6.04 ACRES (DEVELOPED
PORTION PER THIS PLOT PLAN EQUALS 1.9 +/- ACRE)
LOCATED ON THE WEST FRONTAGE OF BUSINESS PARK
DRIVE, EAST; APPROXIMATELY 3/4 MILE NORTH OF
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-020-067.
WHEREAS, Bay City Services, Inc. filed Plot Plan No. 232 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 September 16, 1991, at which time interested persons
had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report
regarding the Plot Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findines. 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:
STAFFRPl~232.PP I 0
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
(a)
There is a reasonable probability that the land
use or action proposed will be consistent with
the general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
(b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
(c)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the
boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its
General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion
with the preparation of its General Plan.
C, The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and
meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government
Code, to wit:
(1) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The 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. 232 proposed will be consistent with the
STAFFRPT~232.PP 11
general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
D. (1) Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan may be
approved unless the following findings can be made:
a)
The proposed use must conform to all the
General Plan requirements and with all
applicable requirements of state law and City
ordinances.
b)
The overall development of the land is
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. 232 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,as
well as existing adiacent development within
the Rancho California Business Park
Development.
STAFFRPT\232,PP 12
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. 348, 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
structures. (Reference Exhibits "D" and "E".)
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
(Attachment 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
elements currently existing within the City.
The proposed design and use have also been
reviewed and approved by the governing
Rancho California Business Park Architectural
Review Committee.
STAFFRPT~232.PP 13
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 Business Park Drive, East,
a dedicated City right-of-way, currently
improved to it's ultimate design configuration.
Project access, as designed and conditioned,
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. 232.
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, Exhibits "D" and "H"
respectively.
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.
STAFFRPT~232.PP 14
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. 232 to construct a two-story office/warehouse/truck servicing facility
totaling 6,900 +/- square feet located on the west frontage of Business Park Drive,
East; approximately 3/4 mile north of Rancho California Road known as Assessor's
Parcel No. 921-020-067 subject to the following conditions:
A. Attachment No. 2, attached hereto.
SECTIQN 4o
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of September, 1991.
JOHN HOAGLAND
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 16th day of September, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFFRPT~232.pp I 5
Plot Plan No:
Project Description:
Assessor's Parcel No.:
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
232
Construction of a two-story
office/warehouse/truck
servicing facility totaling
6,900+/- sauare feet on a 6.04
acre site develooed oortion of
site = 1.9+/-acre.
921-020-067
Planning DePartment
The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for construction of a two-story
office/warehouse/truck servicing facility totaling 6,900+/- square feet on a
6.04 acre site; developed portion of site equals 1.9+/- acre.
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. 232. 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
STAFFRPT~232.PP 16
10.
11.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as
shown on Plot Plan No. 232 marked Exhibit "D", or as amended by these
conditions.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
The applicant shall comply with the Engineering Department's Conditions of
Approval which are included herein.
The applicant shall comply with the City Department of Building and Safety
Conditions of Approval contained 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 contained herein. Hazardous materials and waste management
plans/programs shall also be implemented as specified in the Health
Departments attached conditions.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of
Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden'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 to the
Planning Department of approval. The location, number, genus, species, and
container size of the plants shall be shown. Plans shall meet all requirements
of Ordinance No. 348, Section 18.12, and shall be accompanied by the
appropriate filing fee.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape,
irrigation, and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, or
within the time frame specified by the City Planning Director and City Building
Official as referenced in Condition No. 27 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.
12. A minimum of 50 parking spaces shall be provided as follows:
7 compact automobile spaces (8.5' x 16' each)
23 full size automobile spaces (9' x 18' each)
20 truck stalls (12' x 25' each)
STAFFRPT~232.PP I 7
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Parking shall be in conformance with the design as shown on the approved
Exhibit "D". Parking lot design shall also comply with the provisions of Section
18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. The parking area shall be
surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on 4
inches of Class II Base parking shall be provided.
A minimum of one (1) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown
on Exhibit "D". Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be
identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain
on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of
Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and
shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height
if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade,
or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished
grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place,
at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by
22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing
placards or license plates issued for physically handicapped
persons may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed
vehicles may be reclaimed at ~ or
by telephone "
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall
have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue
paint of at least 3 square feet in size.
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
Exhibit "F".
Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial
conformance with that shown on Exhibit 1.1 (color perspective) and Exhibit 1,2
(materials sample board).
STAFFRPT~232,Pp 18
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening
material shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
Prior to the final building inspection approval by the Building and Safety
Department, screen walls as shown in Exhibits D (site plan) and "1.2" (materials
sample board) shall be constructed around the project site "refuse truck parking
area". The required walls shall be subject to the approval of the Director of the
Department of Building and Safety and the Planning Director, Screen walls
shall also comply with the Architectural and Structural requirements of the
Rancho California Business Park.
All trash enclosures shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy
permits. As a minimum, enclosures shall be six feet in height and shall be
constructed of materials architecturally compatible with the primary facility and
provided a solid steel gate which screens bins from external view.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along
streets and within the parking areas. Streetscape shall be as per Rancho
California Business Park Streetscape Plans for Parcel Map 19580.
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.
The primary facility is located adjacent to a potentially active fault zone (the
Murrieta Creek Fault). Prior to issuance of any building permit by the
Department of Building and Safety, a California Licensed Soils Engineer or
Geologist shall submit a report to the Building and Safety Department
identifying the potential for earthquake faulting and groundshaking. Where
hazard of faulting or groundshaking is determined to exist, appropriate
mitigation measures must be demonstrated.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with
Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance which is based
on the gross acreage of the parcel 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.
Two (2) Class II bicycle racks shall be provided in convenient locations as
approved by the Planning Director to facilitate bicycle access to the project
area.
STAFFRPT~232.PP 19
26.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts to
be determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the
installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved
plan, and adequate maintenance of the planting for one year, shall be filed with
the Department of Building and Safety.
27.
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. 25 above, and installed at such times as irrigation water is in
adequate supply as determined by RCWD and the City Planning Director.
28. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
29.
Weekday and weekend hours of operation of the proposed maintenance facility
shall be limited to between 7:00 AM and 8:00 PMo
30.
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 A8
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 (48) hour
period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the
check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void
by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
31. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any
use allowed by this permit.
Engineering 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.
STAFFRPT~232.PP 20
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:
32.
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;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department;
CATV Franchise; and
Parks and Recreation Department.
33.
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 24"x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil
Engineer.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
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 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.
STAFFRPT~232.PP 2 1
39. All site plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and street
improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency with approved plans.
40.
41.
42.
43.
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.
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, sidewalks, drive approaches, and traffic control devices as
appropriate.
b. Storm drain facilities.
c. Landscaping (street and parks).
Undergrounding of existing and proposed utility distribution lines if
needed.
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 grading
permits. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already
credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
44.
45.
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.
46. All concentrated drainage directed toward the public street shall be diverted
through the under sidewalk drains.
STAFFRPT\232.PP 22
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT:
47.
A precise grading plan and site improvement 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.
48.
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.
49.
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.
50.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or proiect, 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; orovided that developer is not
waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the
amount thereof.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY:
51. A minimum flowline grade shall be 0.50 percent.
52, Onsite improvement plans per City Standards for the private streets or drives
shall be required for review and approval by the City Engineer.
STAFFF~T%232-PP 23
53.
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). The primary access entry point shall
be a minimum width of 35 feet, with commercial curb return approach.
Riverside County Fire Department
With respect to the Conditions of Approval regarding the above referenced plot plan,
the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided
in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection
standards:
54.
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.
55.
Applicant/developer shall 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.
56.
Applicant/developer shall provide a combination of on-site and offsite super fire
hydrants (6" x 4" x 2~ x 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.
57.
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."
58.
Applicant/developer shall install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings.
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.
STAFFRPT%232.PP 24
59.
Applicant/developer shall install a supervised waterflow monitoring fire alarm
system. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to
installation, as per UBC requirements.
60.
Applicant/developer shall install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum
rating of 2A-10BC. Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper
placement of equipment.
61.
Applicant/developer shall be responsible for obtaining underground or above
ground permits from both the County Health and Fire Department.
62.
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¢ per
square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts. This amount must be
submitted seoaratelv from the plan check review fees.
63.
Crankcase drainings (Waste Oil) is classified as a Class I Flammable Liquid and
any amount over 10 gallons must be stored in either an underground or 2 Hour
Fire Rated aboveground tank with an appropriate storage permit issued by the
Fire Department.
64.
Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the
Building and Safety Office.
All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to the Planning and
Engineering Staff.
Riverside County Department Of Health
The environmental Health Services has reviewed Plot Plan No. 232 and has no
objections. Sanitary sewer and water services should be available in this area. Prior
to any building plan review for Health clearance, the following items are required:
65. "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies.
66.
A clearance letter from the Hazardous Services Materials Management Branch
(Jon Mohoroski, 358-5055), will be required indicating that the project has
been cleared for:
Underground storage tanks
Hazardous Waste Generator Services
Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with AB 2185)
Waste reduction management
STAFFRPT\232 .PP 2 5
67. Waste Regulation Branch (Waste Collection/LEA approvals).
Note: Any current additional requirements not covered, can be applicable at time of
Building Plan review for final Environmental Health Service clearance.
City of Temecula Department of Building and Safety
68.
Request for street addressing must be made prior to submittal Building Plan
Review.
69.
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 24 Handicapped and Energy Regulations and the
Temecula City Code.
70.
Lighting on site and located on structures shall comply with Mount Palomar
Lighting Ordinance No, 655.
STAFFRPT~232,PP 2 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
Background
Name of Proponent:
Bay City Services, Inc.
represented by: Krommenhoek/Mckeown and
Associates (KMA)
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
P.O. Box 13707 San Diego, CA
92113 (619) 477-2200 (KMA-
1515 Morena Blvd. San Diego, CA 92110
(619) 275-7421 )
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
August 12, 1991
4. Agency Requiring
Assessment:
CITY OF TEMECULA
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Location of Proposal:
Plot Plan 232 (PP232)-Bay City Services Bldg-
Rancho CA Business Park
Rancho CA Business Park, Phase II, Parcel No.
10; west frontage of Business Park Drive
Loop, East; approximately 3/4 miles north of
Rancho California Road
Environmental ImDaCtS
(Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets.)
YeS
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
Maybe NO
Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
X
Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil?
X
STAFFRPT~232.PP 27
Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features?
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on
or off site?
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?
Yes Maybe NQ
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRP~232.PP 28
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
Plant
8.
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?
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?
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFI~T~232.PP 29
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?
Ce
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
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?
Yq~ Maybe NQ
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT~232.PP 30
10.
il.
12.
13.
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
Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking?
Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic?
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPl~232.PP 3 1
14.
Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
Public Services. Will the proposal have
substantial effect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
Parks or other recreational
facilities?
Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
f. Other governmental services:
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
16.
Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy?
Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy?
Utilities, Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
Ye~ Maybe NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT~232.PP 32
17.
18.
19.
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
STAFFRPT~232.PP 33
Yq~ Maybe NQ
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environ-
mental goals? (A short-term
impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief,
definitive period of time while long-
term impacts will endure well into
the future.)
Does the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but cumu-
latively considerable? (A project's
impact on two or more separate
resources may be relatively small,
but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment
is significant.)
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substan-
tial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X
X
X
X
STAFFI~T~232.PP 34
III Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
Earth
1.a.
1.b.
1.C.
1.d.
1.e.
1.f.
1.g.
Ai_/r
2.a,b,c.
NO. Construction is not proposed at depths sufficient to adversely affect
geologic substructures of the site. Similarly significant grading/fill activities are
not proposed - no significant impacts.
Y~t. Compaction and overcovering of soil is necessary to effect the
construction proposed. The limited scale of this project precludes any
significant impacts on regional topography or soil characteristics.
NO. Reference Items 1 .a and 1 .b. The subject site is essentially level. Further,
fill activities of significance are not proposed.
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
likely reduce erosion at the project site, resulting in additional off-site drainage
discharge volumes. Impacts on regional drainage patterns are nominal as
mitigated by properly designed and constructed drainage conveyances.
(Reference City of Temecula Engineering Department Conditions of Approval.)
NO. Construction is not proposed that would logically affect beach sands; nor
should the project produce deposition/erosion which would modify stream
channels or lake beds.
Maybe. The Murrieta Creek fault traverses the subject property in a roughly
east-west orientation. Proposed structures are sited beyond the "100' non-
buildable area" bisected by the fault line, thereby mitigating potential seismic
hazards. Transient vehicles utilizing the proposed parking lot may be subject
to earth quake events and related hazards, impacts of which are not considered
significant.
N0. Nominal addition of localized air pollutants may result from increased auto
traffic accessing the project site with little or no noticeable impacts. Regional
effects are considered insignificant. Short term increases in localized pollutants
and associated noxious odors are likely during construction activities. Impacts
are not considered significant regionally. Fueling activities shall comply with
applicable state laws regarding point source control of fumes at fuel pumps and
storage tanks.
STAFFP~T\232.PP 35
W6tqr
3.a.
3.b.
3,c,
3.d,e.
3.f,g.
3.h.
3.i.
No. The proposed structure is not located within defined marine or fresh water
flows. No effect on these environmental assets is anticipated.
N0. Currently permeable ground will be rendered impervious as a result of this
proposal. Consequently, surface runoff and absorption rates on the project site
itself will 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 attached drainage plans and project conditions of approval.
No significant impacts on drainage patterns are anticipated. Reference also
Item 1 .e.
N0. Plans proposed at this time indicate no potential 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 with no impacts of significance.
N0. Reduced permeation at the project site may eventually affect underlying
groundwater. Impacts of this project individually are considered insignificant.
N0. Water consumption rates typical of small commercial/industrial 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.
Plant Life
4.a-d.
Animal Life
5.a-c.
N~. No quantities of native plants are currently present on, or in the vicinity of
the subject site, including those species identified as "rare or endangered".
Further, new plant species which may be introduced as a result of required site
landscaping cannot be considered invasive because of the referenced lack of
existing on-site native varieties. Similarly, no impacts are anticipated on
agricultural assets.
N0. Minor losses of common urban species, e.g., small lizards, insects,
rodents, and their habitats may result from this project. Numerically and
qualitatively, these losses are considered environmentally insignificant. Further,
if not previously paid, the applicant is required to submit Stephen's Kangaroo
STAFR%~T~232*P~ 36
Rat habitat procurement fees in the 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 proposal contributes incrementally to regional displacement of the
Kangaroo Rat.
Noise
6.a.
Maybe. Minor increases in ambient noise levels may occur
NO. subsequent to project implementation and commercial/industrial occupancy
of the project site. Long term noise impacts will be insignificant. Proposed
hours of operation shall conform with normal business hours of operations,
generally considered to be between 7:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. Short term
construction noise levels generated may result in temporary localized
disturbances.
Light and Glare
N0. While the project could potentially impact night skies, the proposal is
required to comply with applicable City/Palomar Observatory lighting policies
and ordinance(s). 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 in conjunction with this project;
no anticipated impacts. Further, this proposal has been reviewed and approved
by representatives of the Rancho California Business Park Association in terms
of the use proposed as well as its design.
Natural Resources
9.a,b.
NO. The proposal is of limited scale and will not logically deplete substantial
renewable or non-renewable natural resources.
Risk of Uoset
lO.a,b.
NO. Use and storage of hazardous substances proposed has been reviewed and
approved in concept by the Riverside County Fire Department and the Riverside
County Department of Environmental Health Services. Potential risk of upset
involving hazardous substances e.g. fuel, oil, petroleum wastes, is reduced to
insignificance through compliance with the attached project Conditions of
Approval.
STAFFI!~T~232.PP 37
Population
11. NO. The project does not contain population relocation elements.
HOUSinG
12.
NO. No housing is proposed to be added nor deleted.
Transportation/Circulation
13.a,c.
NO. Commercial/industrial construction of relatively limited scale is proposed,
generating similarly limited amounts of destination traffic. Traffic generated will
consist primarily of daily use by trash trucks requiring service and commuting
employees. Nominal amounts of visitor traffic can also be expected.
Regionally, traffic impacts of this individual project are determined to be
insignificant. 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 as determined by the City
Public Works Department.
13.b.
YeS. In compliance with City ordinance and project specific requirements,the
project provides a total of 50 additional off-street, improved parking spaces as
referenced in the proposal's Conditions of Approval (attached), and as indicated
on Staff Report Exhibit D.
13.d.
NO. The project will attract nominal amounts of additional traffic, primarily
employees' and service vehicles, to the subject site upon its implementation.
Impacts are expected to be insignificant given the proposal's limited scale.
Reference also Item 13.a.
13.e.
N0. The project is not in a location which will logically affect waterborne, rail
or air traffic, nor does it propose addition or deletion of such facilities.
13.f.
Maybe. Increases in traffic which may be generated by this proposal may
consequently increase the possibility of traffic accidents. Impacts are likely to
be unnoticeable in view of the proposal's limited scope and proposed
infrastructure improvements supporting the project.
Public Services
14.a-c.
Maybe. New commercial/industrial development may generate at least nominal
increased demands for police and fire protection services, utility provisions and,
indirectly, schools. Mitigation is realized through building permit fees,
assessment districts, property taxes, and similar funding mechanisms.
STAFFRPT~232.pp 38
14.d.
Mavbq. Construction is not proposed which will 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 the commercial/industrial development proposed.
14.e.
Maybe. Increases in road maintenance activities in the immediate vicinity of
the proposal may be required due to proportionate increases in traffic generated
locally. Mitigation of such impacts are as specified by the City Public Works
Department in the project's Conditions of Approval, attached.
14.f.
NO. Impacts on other governmental services have not been identified at this
time.
Enerov
15.a,b. N0. Reference Item Nos. 9.a. and b.
Utilitiql
16.a-f.
NO. Nominal service line extensions/increased demands can be expected for
the utilities referenced. The facility itself supports solid refuse disposal
activitities regionally. No significant impacts are anticipated.
Human Health
17.a,b.
No. The project does not include introduction of potential health hazards of
significance to the region; nor are there existing identified health hazards at the
project site.
Aesthetics
18.
N0. The application has been reviewed for architectural compatibility by the
Rancho California Business Park Architectural Review Committee as well as the
City, and is considered appropriate in the context of existing and proposed
development in its vicinity.
Recreation
19.
NQ. 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.
STAFFh°T%232*PP 39
20.b.
21 .a,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.
N0. Reference Item Nos. 1-20.
STAFFF~°T~232'PP 40
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
August 12. 1991
Date
For CITY OF TEMECULA
STAFFRPT%232.PP 41
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
STAFF~T\232.PP 42
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
PROJECT
SITE · ·
o
CASE NO.
CITY OF TEMECULA )- "
:: CALiFORNiA
ZONE MAP ~
CASE NO.pt~Z~Z,
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
SWAP MAP
\\
CASE NO. ~
P.C. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
PLAN
/'~ASE NO. ~Z~Z
EXHIBIT NO.
~,P.C. DATE
LEGEND
CP,~,,.RELIMINARY LANDSCAPIN0 ,PIejAN
r
CASE NO.
EXHIBIT NO.
~P.C. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
NORTH ELEVATION
SOUTH ELEVATION
EAST ELEVATION
WEST ELEVATION
EXHIBIT NO.
~,P.C. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA )
/-
CASE NO.~:~7~}~,
EXHIBIT NO. (,~
~p.c. OATS
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
j rl
II
PARCEL NAP ~9580
CASE NO.~L
EXHIBIT NO. ~" -
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
CASE NO.: Plot Plan No. 232
The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this project.
Fee
Habitat Conservation Plan
(K-Rat)
Condition of ApProval
Condition No. 24
Parks and Recreation N/A
(Quimby)
Public Facility
(Traffic Mitigation)
Public Facility
(Traffic Signal Mitigation)
Condition No. 50
Condition No. 48
Public Facility N/A
(Library)
Fire Protection
Flood Control
(ADP)
Condition No. 62
Condition No. 43
STAFFRPT~232,PP 43
ITEM # 11
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Planning Commissioners
Gary Thornhill, Planning Director
Tim Serlet, Public Works/City Engineer Director
September 16, 1991
Plot Plan No. 239 - Proposed Rancho California Water District Headquarters;
Request for Case Continuance
The City Planning and Public Works Departments request continuance of Plot Plan No. 239, from the
originally scheduled Commission heating date of September 16, 1991 to the next available City Planning
Commission public hearing of October 7, 1991. Continuance of the case will provide the time
necessary to adequately evaluate recently submitted traffic impact analyses and proposed lot line
adjustments affecting the project site.
GT:kb
SXM~C~239.PP
Case No.:
Recommendation: 1.
STAFF REPORT- PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 16, 1991
Tentative Tract Map No. 25892
Prepared By: Oliver Mujica
RECOMMEND ADOPTION of the
Negative Declaration for
Tentative Tract Map No. 25892; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 91-
recommending approval of
Tentative Tract Map No. 25892.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SWAP DESIGNATION:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
David Pearson
Richard Masyczek
Subdivide approximately 20 acres into 34 single family
residential lots.
South side of Pauba Road,
Margarita Road.
R-R (Rural Residential)
2-5 DU/AC
North: R-R
South: R-1
R-R
East: R-R
West:
between Ynez Road and
(Rural Residential)
(One-Family Dwelling) and
(Rural Residential)
(Rural Residential)
R-1 (One-Family Dwelling)
STAFFRPT\VTM25320 I
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
BACKGROUND:
Not Applicable
Vacant
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
Total Land Area: 20 acres
No. of Proposed Lots: 34
Min. Residential Lot Size: 21,780 sq.ft.
Avg. Residential Lot Size: 25,650 sq.ft.
Proposed Density: 1.7 DU/AC
SWAP Designation: 2-5 DU/AC
On March 1, 1990, the applicant filed Tentative
Tract Map No. 25892 and Change of Zone No. 5736
to the Riverside County Planning Department.
Change of Zone No. 5736 was a request to change
the zoning designation of the subject property from
R-R (Rural Residential - 20,000 sq. ft. minimum) to
R-1 (Single Family Residential 7,200 sq. ft.
minimum); and, Tentative Tract Map No. 25892
proposed to subdivide the subject 20 acre property
in 37 single family residential lots.
The project was reviewed by the Riverside County
Land Division Committee (LDC) March 29, 1990.
The LDC requested the following items:
2,
3.
4.
5,
6.
7.
Paleontological Survey
Biological Survey
Slope Stability Report
Traffic Study
Design Manual
Archaeological Survey
Slope Analysis
Subsequently, this project was transferred to the
City of Temecula on April 24, 1990.
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
On April 24, 1991, this project was reviewed by the
Preliminary Development Review Committee (Pre-
DRC) in order to informally evaluate the project and
address any possible concerns, as well as suggest
possible modifications. The issues raised by the Pre-
DRC included the following:
1. Density
2. Erosion Control
3. Grading
4. Drainage
5. Slope Stability
Subsequent to the Pre-DRC meeting, Staff met with
the applicant to discuss the Planning staff's concerns
and the required supplemental material in order to
address the Pre-DRC's concerns.
After dicussing the project with the staff, the
applicant decided to withdraw the application for
Change of Zone No. 5736; reduce the number of
residential lots from 37 to 34; provide a minimum lot
size of 21,780 square feet; eliminate an interior loop
street design; and reduce the amount of grading.
On July 18, 1991, Tentative Tract Map No. 25892
was reviewed by the Formal Development Review
Committee; and, it was determined that the project,
as designed, can be adequately conditioned to
mitigate the DRC's concerns. The DRC has
forwarded a recommendation of approval subject to
conditions.
As noted above, Tentative Tract Map No. 25892
proposes to subdivide the subject 20 acre parcel into
34 single family residential lots. The proposed
subdivision has been designed in accordance with
the standards of the R-R (Rural Residential - 20,000
square foot minimum) zone, as well as Ordinance
Nos. 348 and 460.
Traffic Impacts
STAFFRP~VTM25320 3
The Transportation Engineering Staff has reviewed
this project and has determined that the proposed
project will have a minimal impact to the existing
road system and there will be no adverse unmitigable
significant traffic impacts resulting from the
development of this proposed project.
Land Use and Zoning
The subject site is currently vacant. Surrounding
land uses include single family residential homes to
the west and south (1/2 and I acre lots); to the
north is Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320,
which is proposing 7,200 square foot minimum lot
sizes; and to the east is the Paloma Del Sol Specific
Plan area.
Access and Circulation
Pauba Road will be improved along the subject site
with a half width street. Access from Pauba Road
will be provided by Streets "A" and "B", which have
a sixty (60') foot right-of-way; and are cul-deosac
streets. The circulation design has been approved by
both the Traffic Engineering Department and the
Riverside County Fire Department.
Grading and Landform Alteration
The project site is located within a fairly prominent
natural hillside area of Temecula. However, the
mass grading effort was designed to adhere to the
gross natural topography of the site in its original
condition. While substantial grading and
recontouring of this site, which includes 171,898
cubic yards of excavation and 171,532 cubic yards
of fill will occur in the immediate area, the overall
plan is intended to promote preservation of site
topography. It should be noted that a recommended
condition of approval has been included to require
that all slopes over five (5') feet in height shall be
landscaped immediately upon the completion of
STAFFRPT\VTM25320 4
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
grading and shall be maintained by the homeowner's
association.
Slooes
Planting shall commence as soon as slopes are
completed on any portion of the site and shall
provide for rapid short term coverage of the slope as
well as long-term establishment cover per City of
Temecula standards.
Cut slopes equal to or greater than five (5') feet in
vertical height and fill slopes equal to or greater than
three (3') feet in vertical height will be planted with
a ground cover to provide stability and protect the
slope from erosion. Slopes exceeding fifteen (15')
feet in vertical height will be planted with shrubs,
spaced not more than ten (10') feet on center or
trees spaced not to exceed twenty (20') feet on
center or a combination of shrubs and trees at
equivalent spacings, in addition to the ground cover.
Special consideration will be given to the slopes
along the southern side of the tract where a variety
of plant types and sizes will be provided for visual
and aesthetic purposes.
The plants selected and planting methods employed
shall be suitable for the soil and climatic conditions.
All areas required to be landscaped shall be planted
with turf, ground cover, shrub or tree materials
selected from the plant palette contained in the
guidelines.
Drainaoe
The existing surface run-off currently flows towards
the south. The proposed drainage plan has been
designed to maintain the existing flows through the
use of catch basins and terrace drains.
The proposed project density of 1.7 DU/AC is
consistent with the SWAP Land Use
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 5
Designation of 2-5 DU/AC. In addition, Staff
finds it probable that this project will be
consistent with the new General Plan when it
is adopted since the proposed subdivision is
consistent with the existing zoning and
surrounding developments.
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION: An Initial Study was performed for this project which
determined that although the proposed project could have
a significant effect on the environment, no significant
impact would result to the natural or built environment in
the City because the mitigation measures described in the
Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and
a Negative Declaration has been recommended for
adoption.
FINDINGS: 1.
The proposed Tract Map will not have a
significant negative impact on the
environment, as determined in the Initial Study
performed for the project. A Negative
Declaration is recommended for adoption.
There is a reasonable probability that this
project will be consistent with the General
Plan being prepared at this time, due to the
fact that the project is consistent with the
surrounding residential developments.
There is not a likely probability of substantial
detriment to, or interference with, the future
adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to
the fact that the project is consistent with
surrounding developments.
The proposed use complies with State
planning and zoning law, due to the fact that
the project conforms to the current zoning for
the site and to Ordinance No. 460, Schedule
A.
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 6
10.
11.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configurations, access, and
density, due to the fact that the project has
access to public roads and the subdivision has
been designed to the standards of the R-R
(Rural Residential) zone.
The design of the subdivision or the proposed
improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or
substantially and unavoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat as determined in the
initial study.
The design of the subdivision is consistent
with the State Map Act in regard to future
passive energy control opportunities due to
the fact that the lots are large enough to
provide sufficient southern exposure.
All lots have acceptable access to existing and
proposed dedicated rights-of-way which are
open to, and are useable by, vehicular traffic,
access is provided from Pauba Road.
The design of the subdivision, the type of
improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed project as
conditioned.
The lawful conditions stated in the project's
Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary
to protect the public health, safety and
general welfare.
Said findings are supported by minutes, maps,
exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 7
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
RECOMMEND ADOPTION of the Negative
Declaration for Tentative Tract Map No.
25892; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending
approval of Tentative Tract Map No, 25892.
OM:ks
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
Resolution
Conditions of Approval
Environmental Assessment
Exhibits:
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C, SWAP Map
D. Tentative Tract Map
Large Scale Plans
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 8
RESOLUTION NO, 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 25892 TO SUBDIVIDE A 20
ACRE PARCEL INTO 34 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
LOTS LOCATED ON PAUBA ROAD AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 945-090-004 AND 005.
WHEREAS, David Pearson filed Tentative Tract Map No. 25892 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 September 16, 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 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
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 9
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.
(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 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 recommending
approval 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 Tentative
Tract Map No. 25892 proposed will be
consistent with the general plan proposal
being considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
STAFFRPT\VTM25320 10
(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.
460, 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
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 11
within the proposed land division. A land
division may be approved if it is found that
alternate easements for access or for use will
be provided and that they will be substantially
equivalent to ones previously acquired by the
public. This subsection shall apply only to
easements of record or to easements
established by judgment of a court of
competent jurisdiction.
(2) The Planning Commission in recommending approval
of the proposed Tentative Tract Map, makes the following findings, to
wit:
a)
The proposed Tract Map will not have a
significant negative impact on the
environment, as determined in the Initial Study
performed for the project. A Negative
Declaration is recommended for adoption.
b)
c)
d)
e)
There is a reasonable probability that this
project will be consistent with the General
Plan being prepared at this time, due to the
fact that the project is consistent with the
surrounding residential developments.
There is not a likely probability of substantial
detriment to, or interference with, the future
adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to
the fact that the project is consistent with
surrounding developments.
The proposed use complies with State
planning and zoning law, due to the fact that
the project conforms to the current zoning for
the site and to Ordinance No. 460, Schedule
A.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
STAFFRP~VTM25320 12
shape of the lot configurations, access, and
density, due to the fact that the project has
access to public roads and the subdivision has
been design to the standards of the R-R (Rural
Residential) zone.
f)
The design of the subdivision or the proposed
improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or
substantially and unavoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat as determined in the
initial study.
g)
The design of the subdivision is consistent
with the State Map Act in regard to future
passive energy control opportunities due to
the fact that the lots are large enough to
provide sufficient southern exposure.
h)
All lots have acceptable access to existing and
proposed dedicated rights-of-way which are
open to, and are useable by, vehicular traffic,
access is provided from Pauba Road.
i)
The design of the subdivision, the type of
improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed project as
conditioned.
j)
The lawful conditions stated in the project's
Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary
to protect the public health, safety and
general welfare.
k)
Said findings are supported by minutes, maps,
exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Tentative Tract
STAFFRP~ VTM25320 13
Map is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
SECTION 2,_~. Environmental Comoliance.
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 recommended for adoption.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends
approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 25892 for the subdivision of a 20 acre parcel
into 34 single family residential lots located on Pauba Road and known as Assessor's
Parcel No. 945-090-004 and 005 subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
SECTION 4_.=.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of September, 1991.
JOHN HOAGLAND
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duty adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held
on the 16th day of September, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
STAFFRPT\VTM25320 14
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
STAFFRPT\VTM25320 15
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Tract Map No:
25892
Project Description: Subdivide 20 Acres
into 34 Single Family Residential Lots.
Assessor's Parcel No.: 945-090-004 and 005
Planning DePartment
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision
Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule A, unless
modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in
accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request,
if made 30 days prior to the expiration date.
This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the
approval date by the City Council, unless extended as provided by Ordinance
460.
The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all the
requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance
460.
The subdivider shall submit one copy of a soils report to the City Engineer and
two copies to the Department of Building and Safety. The report shall address
the soils stability and geological conditions of the site.
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final
map.
Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract map
boundary to a City maintained road.
7. All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 16
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.
10.
11.
12.
13.
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 copy of the final grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and Public Works Department for review and approval. All on-site cut and fill
slopes shall:
Be limited to a maximum slope ratio of 2 to I or as approved by the City
Engineer.
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. An erosion control landscaping plan
demonstrating methods of erosion protection for these slopes shall be prepared
by a qualified professional; and 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 April 29, 1991,
a copy of which is attached.
All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of
Technology, Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as outlined in the
Southwest Area Plan.
14. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following:
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 17
15.
16.
Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the
development standards of the R-R (Rural Residential - 20,000 square
foot minimum) zone.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free
condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided
with other erosion control measures as approved by the Director of
Building and Safety.
The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes,
landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations are
the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director.
Prior to 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.
17. The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet:
18.
"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
recommendations."
Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
If the project is to be phased, prior to the issuance of grading
permits, an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to
the Planning Director for approval, The plan shall be used as a
guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual
phases of development and shall include the following:
Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and
sedimentation during and after the grading process.
Approximate time frames for grading and identification of
areas which may be graded during the higher probability
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 18
19.
20.
rain months of January through March.
3. Preliminary pad and roadway elevations.
4. Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase.
All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded natural terrain and
exceeding ten (10) feet in vertical height shall be contour-graded
incorporating the following grading techniques:
The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to
the angle of the natural terrain.
Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall
reflect the natural rounded terrain.
The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves
with radii designed in proportion to the total height of the
· slopes where drainage and stability permit such rounding.
Where cut or fill slopes exceed 300 feet in horizontal
length, the horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved
in a continuous, undulating fashion.
The developer shall provide evidence to the Director of Building
and Safety that all adjacent off-site manufactured slopes have
recorded slope easements and that slope maintenance
responsibilities have been assigned as approved by the Director of
Building and Safety.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be
retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed
grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. Should the
paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a
pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading
contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or
representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt
grading activity to allow recovery of fossils.
Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
STAFFRP~VTM25320 19
Detailed common open space area landscaping and irrigation plans shall
be submitted for Planning Department approval for the phase of
development in process. The plans shall be certified by a landscape
architect, and shall provide for the following:
Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all
landscaped areas requiring irrigation.
Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be
opaque up to a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity.
All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from
view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle
treatments, as approved by the Planning Director. Utilities shall
be placed underground.
Parkways shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a
transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscape
elements shall include earth berming, ground cover, shrubs and
specimen trees. Front yards shall be landscaped and street trees
planted.
Wall plans shall be submitted for the project perimeter and along
Pauba Road. Wooden fencing shall not be allowed on the
perimeter of the project. All lots with slopes leading down from
the lot shall be provided with gates in the wall for maintenance
access,
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent
trees at key visual focal points within the project. The focal
points shall be identified on the plans submitted for approval by
the Planning Department.
Where street trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of
interior streets and project parkways due to insufficient road right-
of-way, they shall be planted outside of the road right-of-way.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant
plants where appropriate.
All existing specimen trees and significant rock outcroppings on
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 20
the subject property shall be shown on the project's grading plans
and shall note those to be removed, relocated and/or retained.
10. All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow
growing trees shall be steel staked.
No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit
within the project boundary until the developer's successor's-in-interest
provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures.
A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) per lot/unit shall be deposited
with the City as mitigation for public library development.
Prior to the submittal of building plans to the Department of Building and
Safety an acoustical study shall be performed by an acoustical engineer
to establish appropriate mitigation measures that shall be applied to
individual dwelling units within the subdivision to reduce ambient interior
noise levels to 45 Ldn.
All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate all required
elements from the subdivision's approved fire protection plan as
approved by the County Fire Marshal.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and
irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval.
The plans shall address all areas and aspects of 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 be ten
(10') foot minimum.
All street side yard setbacks shall be ten (10') foot minimum.
All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and a manually
operated permanent underground irrigation system.
If the project is master developed, prior to the issuance of building
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 21
permits, a plot plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department
pursuant to Section 18,30 of Ordinance No. 348 accompanied by all
applicable filing fees, as a plot plan that is not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act and is not transmitted to any governmental
agency other than the City Planning Department. The plot plan shall
ensure the conformance of Ordinances No. 348 and No. 460, and shall
contain the following elements:
A final site plan showing the lots, building footprints, all setbacks,
and floor plan and elevation assignments to individual lots.
One (1) color and materials sample board (maximum size of 8 x
13 inches by 3/8 inch thick) containing precise color, texture and
material swatches or photographs (which may be from suppliers'
brochures). Indicate on the board the name, address and phone
numbers of both the sample board preparer and the project
applicant, tract number, and the manufacturer and product
numbers where possible (trade names also acceptable).
One (1) copy of the architectural elevations colored to represent
the selected color combinations, with symbols keyed to the color
and materials board. The written color and material descriptions
shall be located on the elevation.
Six (6) copies of each of glossy photographic color prints (size 8
x 10 inches) of both color and materials board and colored
architectural elevations for permanent filing, hearing body review
and agency distribution, All writing must be legible,
Said plot plan shall require the approval of the Planning Director prior to
the issuance of any building permits for lots included within the plot
plan. The submittal of plot plans prior to the issuance of building permits
may be phased provided:
A separate plot plan shall
Department for each phase,
appropriate filing fees.
be submitted to the Planning
which shall be accompanied by
Each individual plot plan shall be approved by the Planning
Director prior to the issuance of building permits for lots included
within that plot plan.
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 22
21. Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall
be satisfied:
22.
23.
24.
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with
approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal
conditions do not permit planting, interim landscaping and erosion
control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning Director
and the Director of Building and Safety.
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with
approved plans and shall be verified by City field inspection.
Not withstanding the preceding conditions, wherever an acoustical study
is required for noise attenuation purposes, the heights of all required
walls shall be determined by the acoustical study where applicable.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the
provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that
ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a
Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance
No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation
Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
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. 25892, which action is brought within the time period provided for in
California Government Code Section 66499.37. 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.
The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site
property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the developer shall at
least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an
agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code
Section 66462 at such time as the City acquires the property interests required
for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the
STAFFRP~VTM25320 23
developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property
interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of
these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an
appraisal report obtained by the developer, at the developer's cost. The
appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the
appraisal.
25.
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
provided. Telephone, cable TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in
the residence.
26.
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.
27.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
28.
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 (48) hour
period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the
check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void
by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
Riverside County Fire DePartment
34.
Schedule "A" fire protection approved standard fire hydrants, (6"x4"x2 1/2")
located one at each street intersection and spaced no more than 330 feet apart
in any direction, with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from
a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for 2 hours duration at 20
PSI.
35. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 24
Department for review. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer,
containing a Fire Department approval signature block, and shall conform to
hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow. Once plans are signed
by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire
Department for signature.
36.
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.
37.
All buildings shall be constructed with fire retardant roofing material as
described in Section 3203 of the Uniform Building Code. Any wood shingles
or shakes shall have a Class "B" rating and shall be approved by the Fire
Department prior to installation.
38.
Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the
Riverside County Fire Department, a cash sum of $400.00 per lot/unit as
mitigation for fire protection impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the
time of payment, he/she may enter into a written agreement with the County
deferring said payment to the time of issuance of the first building permit.
Riverside County Department of Public Health
39.
A water system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as
approved by the water company and the Health Department. Permanent prints
of the plans of the water system shall be submitted in triplicate, with a
minimum scale not less than one inch equals 200 feet, along with the original
drawing to the County surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe
diameter, location of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and joint specifications, and
the size of the main at the junction of the new system to the existing system.
The plans shall comply in all respects with Div. 5, Part 1, Chapter 7 of the
California Health and Safety Code, California Administrative Code, Title 22,
Chapter 16, and General Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of
the State of California, when applicable. The plans shall be signed by a
registered engineer and water company with the following certification: "1
certify that the design of the water system in Tract Map 25892 is in
accordance with the water system expansion plans of the Rancho California
Water District and that the water service, storage, and distribution system will
be adequate to provide water service to such Tract Map." This certification
does not constitute a guarantee that it will supply water to such tract map at
any specific quantities, flows or pressures for fire protection or any other
purpose". This certification shall be signed by a responsible official of the
STAFFRPT~VTM 25320 25
water company. The plans must be submitted to the County Surveyor's Office
to review at least two weeks prior to the request for the recordation of the final
map.
40.
This subdivision has a statement from Rancho California Water District agreeing
to serve domestic water to each and every lot in the subdivision on demand
providing satisfactory financial arrangements are completed with the subdivider.
It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be made prior to the
recordation of the final map.
41.
This subdivision is within the Eastern Municipal Water District and shall be
connected to the sewers of the District. The sewer system shall be installed
according to plans and specifications as approved by the District, the County
Surveyor and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the
sewer system shall be submitted in triplicate, along with the original drawing,
to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter,
location of manholes, complete profiles, pipe and joint specifications and the
size of the sewers at the junction of the new system to the existing system.
A single plat indicating location of sewer lines and water lines shall be a portion
of the sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall be signed by a registered
engineer and the sewer district with the following certification: "1 certify that
the design of the sewer system in Tract Map 25892 is in accordance with the
sewer system expansion plans of the Eastern Municipal Water District and that
the waste disposal system is adequate at this time to treat the anticipated
wastes from the proposed tract map."
42. The plans must be submitted to the County Surveyor's Office to review at least
two weeks prior to the request for the recordation of the final map.
TransPortation Engineering
PRIOR TO RECORDATION:
43.
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the City Engineer for Pauba Road along the project frontage
including any transitions. Signing plans only shall be required for internal
Streets A and B, These plans shall be included with the street improvement
plans.
44.
Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering
for the design requirements.
STAFFRPT\VTM25320 26
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
45.
A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Civil
Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for any street closure and detour
or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the City Engineer.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
46.
All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and striping
plan.
Engineering 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:
47. 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;
Parks and Recreation Department;
US Department of Fish and Wildlife; and
Metropolitan Water District
48.
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
STAFFRPT\VTM25320 27
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
City Engineer.
Pauba Road shall be improved with 32 feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or
bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-
of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 102 (64'/88').
Street "A" and "B" shall be 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 (40'/60').
Cul-de-sac geometrics shall be installed per Riverside County Standard No. 800.
Vehicular access shall be restricted on Pauba Road and so noted on the final
map with the exception of street intersections as approved by the City
Engineer.
Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No.
805.
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 CC&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 CC&R's and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owner's
Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering
Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent with
the final map. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City.
The CC&R's shall provide for the effective establishment, operation,
management, use, repair and maintenance of slope and drainage areas
STAFFRPT\VTM25320 28
55.
56.
57.
within the subdivision.
The CC&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 CC&R's, then the City, after making due
demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and
perform, at the owner's sole expense, any maintenance required thereon
by the 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.
All parkways, open areas, drainage 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.
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 along Pauba Road, drive approaches, street
lights, signing, striping, and other traffic control devices as appropriate.
b. Storm drain facilities.
c, Landscaping (street).
d. Sewer and domestic water systems.
Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. 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
agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 29
58.
building permit.
The minimum centerline radii shall be 300 feet or as approved by the City
Engineer.
59.
60.
61.
62,
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
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 be located a minimum of two (2) feet from the property line.
The subdivider shall submit two 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.
The subdivider shall submit two 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."
If required after approval of the final drainage report, a drainage easement shall
be obtained from the affected property owners for the release or concentrated
or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent property.
All lots containing storm drains carrying water from public streets shall contain
a dedicated easement for storm drain purposes and provide for an access road
to the storm drain outlet.
STAFFRPT\VTM25320 30
69.
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.
70.
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:
71.
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.
72.
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.
73.
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.
74.
If subsurface septic tank systems are to be constructed, the developer shall
submit grading plan and required support data to the Riverside County Health
Department for review and approval.
75.
If any work is to be performed within the Metropolitan Water District Right-of-
Way, the developer shall submit a copy of the grading plan to the MWD for
review and approval.
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT:
76.
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.
77.
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
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 31
grading plan.
78.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for, or install, 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:
79.
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.
80.
Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than 14 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
94 of the State Standard Specifications.
STAFFRP~VTM25320 32
II
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
Background
1. Name of Proponent:
2. Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
David Pearson
41593 Winchester Road, Suite 101
Temecula. CA 92390
(714) 694-1111
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
August 20, 1991
Agency Requiring
Assessment:
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Location. of Proposal:
CITY OF TEMECULA
Tentative Tract MaD No. 25892
South Side of Pauba Road, between
Ynez and MarQarita Roads
Environmental Impacts
(Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets.)
Yes Maybe
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures? __ __
b. Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil? X
c. Substantial change in topography
X
N0
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 33
or ground surface relief features?
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on
or off site?
X
X
X
Yq~ Maybe No
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? X
Exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards such as earth
quakes, landslides, mudslides,
ground failure, or similar hazards?
X
Air. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air
quality?
X
The creation of objectionable
odors?
X
Alteration of air movement,
moisture, or temperature, or any
change in climate, whether locally
or regionally?
X
Water. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial changes in currents, or
the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or
STAFFRP'I'~VTM25320 34
Plant
a.
fresh waters?
X
Substantial changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
X
X
Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
X
Discharge into surface waters, or
in any alteration of surface water
quality, including, but not limited
to, temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity? X
Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow or ground waters?
X
Yes Maybe No
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct addi-
tions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
X
Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
X
Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flood-
ing or tidal waves?
X
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)?
X
Reduction of the numbers of any
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 35
unique, rare, or endangered species
of plants?
Introduction of new species of
plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
Substantial reduction in acreage
of any agricultural crop? __
Animal Life. Will the proposal result
in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
(birds, land animals including rep-
tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms or insects)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals?
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
X
X
X
X
X
X
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?
Yes Maybe
X
NO
X
X
X
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 36
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
10.
11.
12.
13.
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?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking?
Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
Yqi Maybe
N0
X
X
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 37
14.
Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic?
Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
Public Services. Will the proposal have
substantial effect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
Parks or other recreational
facilities?
Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
f. Other governmental services:
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
16.
Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy?
Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy?
Utilities, Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 38
17.
18.
19.
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
Human Health. Will the proposal
result in:
Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health)?
Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result
in the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to
public view?
Recreation. Will the proposal result in
an impact upon the quality or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities? __
X
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?
Yqi Maybe NQ
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 39
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?
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.)
d. Does the project have environmental
Yq~ Maybe
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 40
effects which will cause substan-
tial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X
STAFFRP'I'~VTM25320 41
III Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
Earth
1.a.
1.b.
1 .c-d.
1,e.
No. The project site will be graded as part of a mass grading effort.
There will be substantial grading for this project, which includes
171,898 cubic yards of excavation and 171,532 cubic yards of fill.
However, a conceptual mass grading plan for the project was reviewed
and approved by the City Engineer and designed in accordance with
Temecula's standards and the Conditions of Approval include mitigation
measures in regards to grading. Therefore, the proposed project will not
create an unstable earth condition or change the geologic substructure.
Yes. The proposed development disrupts the soil profile and results in
soil displacement, compaction, and overcovering. However, a slope
stability report was prepared for this project, in which specific
recommendation were made in order to develop the project. Therefore,
this impact is not considered significant, due to the fact that the
Conditions of Approval include mitigation measures in regards to all
grading.
Yes. The project site is located within a fairly prominent natural hillside
of Temecula. However, the mass grading effort was designed to adhere
to the gross natural topography of the site in its original condition. While
substantial grading and recontouring of this site, which includes 171,898
c.y, of excavation and 171,532 c,y. of fill, will occur in the immediate
area, the overall plan is intended to promote preservation of site
topography. Therefore, this impact is not considered significant.
Maybe. Wind and water erosion potentials will increase during the
construction phase and remain high until disturbed areas are replanted
and the proposed drainage facilities are constructed. The wind erosion
impact is considered significant but will be mitigated through the use of
watering trucks and erosion control planting of disturbed areas after
grading. After the project is completed, water will be channeled to
drainage easements. Appropriate drainage control devices will have to
be approved by the City Engineer and designed in accordance with
Temecula's standards and the Conditions of Approval. Therefore, this
impact is not considered to be significant, due to the fact that
appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented with the project.
STAFFRP~VTM25320 42
1.f.
1.g.
Air
2.a.
2.b,c.
Water
3.a,d.
3.b.
3.c.
No. The project site is not adjacent to any creek or stream bed,
Therefore, a significant impact will not occur,
Maybe. The subject site is not located within a subsidence or
liquefaction zone and is not subject to liquefaction and subsidence by the
Riverside County General Plan. However, to mitigate any potential
hazards, a geological report will be prepared prior to any construction of
the property. The report will include mitigation measures. Therefore,
this impact is not considered to be significant.
Maybe. The proposed project consisting of 34 residential units will
generate an increase in vehicle trips to the site. The increased vehicle
trips will increase the carbon monoxide emissions and particulates in the
area. However, since the ambient air quality in the project vicinity is
currently very good due to the local wind patterns, this potential impact
is not considered significant. The proposed project will not by itself
deteriorate the local area's or regional air quality, but will add to the
cumulative impact on air quality due to the substantial growth in the
area.
No, The proposed project will not create any objectionable odors or alter
the area's climate.
No. The proposed project will not impact any body of water.
Yes. The proposed project will increase the amount of impermeable
surfaces on the site and the existing drainage pattern will be altered.
However, water will be channeled to drainage easements and streets
through drainage facilities and control devices which will have to be
approved by the City Engineer and designed in accordance with
Temecula's Standards and the Conditions of Approval. Therefore, this
impact is not considered to be significant since appropriate mitigation
measures have been implemented with the project.
No. Flood waters will continue to be directed to the streets and flood
channels. However, in order to mitigate the downstream impacts
brought about by runoff and the proposed drainage facilities, the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (the
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 43
3.e.
3.f.
3.g.
3.h.
3.i.
Vegetation
4.a,c.
4.b.
District) has indicated that the project will be required to pay a flood
mitigation charge (Area Drainage Plan fee), which has been included as
a Condition of Approval. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be
significant since appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented
with the project. Drainage plans for the site will have to meet the
requirements of the City's Engineer.
Yes. During construction, the proposed project will increase turbidity in
local surface waters. This impact is temporary and is not considered
significant. After the project is completed, water will be channeled to
drainage easements and streets, which will have to be approved by the
City Engineer. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant
since appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented with the
project,
No. The proposed project will not alter the rate of flow of ground water.
No. Although the proposed project will increase the amount of
impermeable surfaces on the site, the addition of irrigation for the
landscape areas will help to off-set any loss of water absorbed into the
ground. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant.
No. The proposed project will not significantly affect the public water
supply.
Maybe. Conditions of Approval are included for this project which
require proper design and installation of drainage conveyance devices.
Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant since
appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented with the project.
Yes. The proposed project involves a mass grading of the subject site
which will eliminate all of the existing native plants; and the proposal
includes landscaping and erosion control which will be designed to City
standards, Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant
since appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented with the
project.
No. No sensitive vegetational associations or species were identified on-
site,
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 44
4.d. No. No agricultural production occurred on-site.
Wildlife
5.8,C.
5.b.
No.
Maybe.
A survey for Stephen's Kangaroo Rat prepared for this
project analyzed biologic resources on-site. In that no
individuals of the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat were found there
is no occupied habitat within the bounds of the tract map.
Implementation of the tract as proposed will not result in a
taking nor would it result in any adverse effect on the
species or on the species' habitat. In that surrounding
lands to the north, south, east and west have previously
been developed at urban levels of use or are presently being
developed at such levels of use, preservation of this site as
a reserve is inappropriate. In addition, the site is now
isolated from all other known colonies by impassable
residential and other barriers and reinvasion of the site is
virtually impossible. Implementation of the project as
proposed will not have a significant effect and no mitigation
other than payment of fees under the Stephen's Kangaroo
Rat Fee Ordinance is required.
NOiSe
6.a-b.
No. A noise assessment was prepared for this project.
Analysis indicates that the project site is exposed to significant levels of
noise as a result of traffic on Pauba and Margarita Roads. However, it
is concluded that the project design, as recommended herein, will
comply with the interior noise exposure standard placed on residential
construction by the County of Riverside and the State's noise insulation
standards.
It is further recommended that the final engineering design of the project
be reviewed by a recognized acoustical engineer to ensure compliance
with the County's noise standards.
Light and Glare
Yes. However, the project has been conditioned to comply with
applicable lighting standards. Therefore, this impact is not considered
STAFFRPT\VTM25320 45
to be significant since appropriate mitigation measures have been
implemented with the project.
Land Use
No. Project is consistent with both the zoning designation and the
Southwest Area Community Plan.
Natural Resources
9.a-b.
No. This project itself will not significantly increase the rate of use of
natural resources. Construction materials and petroleum products will
be used extensively to support the specific plan project overall.
Risk of Upset
10.a-b.
No. The proposed project will not promote a risk of explosion or release
hazardous substances nor will it interfere with emergency response plan
or an emergency evaluation plan.
PoDulation
11.
Yes. Although the project proposes to increase the density to 102 lots,
the proposed project is consistent with the City Land Use Designation
which allows a maximum of 283 lots (according to SWAP). Therefore,
this impact is not considered to be significant.
HouSing
12.
No. Since the proposed project creates housing, the proposed land use
will not create a demand for additional housing.
Transoortation/Circulation
13.a. Yes.
13.b-e. No.
13.f. Maybe.
The Traffic Study which was prepared for the proposed
project has addressed potential traffic impacts and has
concluded that the cumulative impacts will not be
significant. In addition, appropriate mitigation measures
have been implemented through the Conditions of
Approval.
Public Services
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 46
14.aoe.
14.f.
Yes.
No.
The proposed project will have significant adverse effect
effect on public services. However, these impacts are not
considered to be significant since appropriate mitigation
measures have been implemented through the Conditions
of Approval.
Enerqy
15.a-b.
No. The proposed project will not result in the substantial use or
increase in demand of fuel or energy.
Utilities
16.a-f.
No. The proposed project might require the use of utilities but will not
require substantial alteration to the existing system.
Human Health
17.a-b.
No. The proposed project will not have significant adverse effect on
human health.
Aesthetics
18.
No. Because the proposed project has been designed to be compatible
with the surrounding neighborhood, there will be no significant impact
oR aesthetics.
Recreation
19.
Yes. The proposed project will result in an impact upon existing
recreational opportunities. However, the proposed project provides
adequate recreational facilities for the subject residents and appropriate
Quimby fees will be paid. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be
significant since appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented
with the project.
Cultural Resources
20.a-d. No impact.
Mandatory Findinas of Siqnificance
STAFFRPT\VTM25320 47
21 .a.
21 .b.
21 .c.
21 .d.
Maybe. The proposed project may have a significant impact on plant or
wildlife species. However, the project is located within an area
designated by the Riverside County as habitat for the endangered
Stephen's Kangaroo Rat, the project will be subject to mitigation fees for
the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan. In addition,
during grading activities, a qualified paleontologist shall be present.
Maybe. The proposed project may have the potential to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals. However,
no significant impacts will occur if the mitigation measures are followed.
Maybe. The proposed project may have impacts which are individually
limited or cumulatively considerable which may have environmental
effects. However, no significant impacts will occur if the mitigation
measures are followed.
No. The proposed project will not have impacts which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
STAFFRPT~VTM25320
48
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.
August 20, 1991 jic/~, ~U
Date Oliver Mu Senior P nner
For CITY OF T LA
X
STAFFRPT\VTM25320 49
73.
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:
74.
During all stages of grading, the subdivider shall provide an updated and current
erosion control and interim drainage plan to the Department of Public Works.
This plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and shall show the
methods of erosion control and slope protection being employed.
75.
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.
76.
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.
77°
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:
78.
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.
79.
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.
80.
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, copy of which has been provided
S\STAFFRPT\25320-A.VTM 3 1
ITEM # 13
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
The Planning Department
The Planning Commission
September 16, 1991
Tentative Tract 25277 and Change of Zone 5724
On July 1, 1991 the Planning Commission continued Tentative Tract 25277, a proposal to create 102
single family lots on 47.7 acres adjacent to Pechanga Creek, to the hearing of September 9, 1991 for
redesign of the Tentative Tract Map. The hearing of September 9 was cancelled and staff rescheduled
the item for September 16, 1991. The applicant's representative has informed staff that the map
revision is still in progress and requested a continuance to the hearing of October 21, 1991. Tentative
Tract 25277 and Change of Zone 5724 will be re-advertised for the hearing of October 21, 1991.
SW:kb
ITEM # 14
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Planning Director
September 16, 1991
Change of Zone No. 5631; and
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320
RECOMMENDATION:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
BACKGROUND:
RECOMMEND ADOPTION of the Negative
Declaration for Change of Zone No. 5631 and
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320;
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending
approval of Change of Zone No. 5631; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending
approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
25320.
Change of Zone No. 5631 is a request to
change the zoning designation of the subject
property from R-R (Rural Residential - 20,000
square foot minimum lot size) to R-1 (One-
Family Residential 7,200 square foot
minimum lot size).
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 proposes to
subdivide the subject 56.6 acre parcel into 102
single family residential lots and 4 open space lot.
On January 28, 1991, the Planning Commission
reviewed the proposal for Change of Zone No. 5631
and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320. At the
conclusion of the public hearing the Planning
Commission continued this item in order to allow the
Planning Staff the opportunity to address the
following issues:
S~STAFFRPT~25320-A.VTM 1
Potential environmental impacts to the
lake within the Lake Village
Community;
Site distance requirements on Pauba
Road;
Effects of lighting from the Sports Park
on proposed project;
Existing easements on the southside of
Pauba Road; and
The quality of water that will flow into
the storm drain system.
ANALYSIS:
In response to the concerns expressed by the
Planning Commission at their meeting of January 28,
1991, the Planning Department Staff has analyzed
the following issues.
Potential Environmental Impacts - The Lake Village
Community Association (LVCA) identified a concern
regarding the potential environmental impacts, to the
existing habitat of their lake, caused by the surface
run-off from the proposed subdivision. The LVCA
indicated the this concern was due to the types of
chemicals (i.e. motor oil, pesticides, fertilizers, etc.)
that may run-off into their lake. Based on this input
by the LVCA, the Planning Commission directed the
Planning Staff to forward a copy of the project
information to the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE),
Pursuant to this direction, staff transmitted the
following material to the ACOE: 1 ) Vesting Tentative
Tract Map No. 25320; 2) Vicinity Map; 3) Aerial
Photograph; 4) Drainage/Hydrology Study; and 5)
An Exhibit Identifying the "Ordinary Highwater
Mark"/20-year Floodplain.
In a letter from the Army Corps of Engineers (Dated
August 14, 1991), it was determined that the
proposed project does not discharge dredged or fill
material into a water of the United States or adjacent
wetland. Therefore the project as designed is not
S\STAFFRPT~25320-A,VTM 2
CONCLUSION:
subject to their jurisdiction under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act and no Section 404 permit is
required from their office.
Run-off Water Quality - Based on the concerns
regarding the quality of water that would flow from
the proposed project, staff transmitted the following
material to the California Water Quality Control
Board (CWQCB): 1 ) Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
25320; 2) Vicinity Map; and 3) Drainage/Hydrology
Study.
It was determined by the CWQCB that the proposed
project would not impact the adjacent and/or
surrounding areas, nor will it impact the existing
storm drainage system.
Liqhting from the Sports Park - The Community
Services Department has indicated that the lighting
from the Sports Park should not impact the subject
development due to the type of lighting installed,
which is designed to minimize to glare and complies
with the Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance No. 655.
Sight Distance on Pauba Road The Traffic
Engineering Department has reviewed the traffic
study submitted with the proposal and has
determined that adequate sight distances are
provided.
Existing Easements on Southside of Pauba Road -
After reviewing the properties along the southside of
Pauba Road, across from the subject property, Staff
has determined that the proposed subdivision does
not interfere with any existing easements on the
southside of Pauba Road.
Based on our additional review of the project and
those issues identified, the Planning Department
Staff supports this project as designed.
S\STAFFRPT~25320-A,VTM 3
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
RECOMMEND ADOPTION of the Negative
Declaration for Change of Zone No. 5631 and
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320;
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending
approval of Change of Zone No. 5631; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending
approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
25320.
OM:vgw
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Resolution (Change of Zone No. 5631 )
Resolution (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320)
Conditions of Approval
(Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320)
Exhibits:
A. Tentative Tract Map
Planning Commission Staff Report
(Dated January 28, 1991)
Planning Commission Minutes
(Dated January 28, 1991)
Large Scale Plans
S\STAFFRPT~25320-A.VTM 4
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5631 TO CHANGE THE ZONING
DESIGNATION FROM R-R (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) TO R-1
(ONE-FAMILY DWELLING) FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
LOCATED ON PAUBA ROAD AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 945-050-004.
WHEREAS, Bedford Properties filed Change of Zone No. 5631 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
January 28, 1991 and September 16, 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:
S\STAFFRPT\25320-A.VTM 5
a)
There is a reasonable probability that the land
use or action proposed will be consistent with
the general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
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 Ternecula 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. 5631 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
SWAP designation of 2-5 DU/AC.
b)
There is not a likely probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
General Plan, if Change of Zone No. 5631 is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to
the fact that an approval of such a change
from Rural Residential to One-Family
Dwellings may be consistent with the goals
and/or policies of the City's future General
Plan.
S\STAFFRPT~25320-A.VTM 6
c)
The project is compatible with surrounding
land uses. The harmony creates a compatible
physical relationship with adjoining properties,
due to the fact that the adjoining
developments are also single family in nature
and 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.
D. The Change of Zone is compatible with the health, safety
and welfare of the community.
SECTION 2. Environmental Comoliance.
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 recommended for adoption.
SECTION 3.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends
approval of Change of Zone No. 5631 to change the zoning designation from R-R
(Rural Residential) to R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) for the subject property located on
Pauba Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 945-050-004.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of September, 1991.
JOHN HOAGLAND
CHAIRMAN
S~STAFFRPT~25320-A.VTM 7
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 16th day of September, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
S\STAFFRPT~25320-A.VTM 8
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 25320 TO
SUBDIVIDE A 56.6 ACRE PARCEL INTO 102 SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 4 OPEN SPACE LOTS
LOCATED ON PAUBA ROAD AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 945-050-004.
WHEREAS, Bedford Properties filed Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
25320 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 January 28, 1991 and September 16, 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 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 Temecuia Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (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
S\STAFFRPT~25320-A.VTM 9
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.
(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 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 recommending
approval 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 Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 proposed will
be consistent with the general plan proposal
being considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
S\STAFFRPT~25320-A.VTM 10
(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.
460, 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
S\STAFFRPT~25320-A.VTM 11
alternate easements for access or for use will
be provided and that they will be substantially
equivalent to ones previously acquired by the
public. This subsection shall apply only to
easements of record or to easements
established by judgment of a court of
competent jurisdiction.
(2) The Planning Commission in recommending approval
of the proposed Tentative Tract Map, makes the following findings, to
wit:
a)
The proposed Tract Map will not have a
significant negative impact on the
environment, as determined in the Initial Study
performed for the project. A Negative
Declaration is recommended for adoption.
b)
c)
d)
e)
There is a reasonable probability that this
project will be consistent with the General
Plan being prepared at this time, due to the
fact that the project is consistent with the
surrounding current residential development.
There is not a likely probability of substantial
detriment to, or interference with, the future
adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to
the fact that the project is consistent with
surrounding development.
The proposed use complies with State
planning and zoning law, due to the fact that
the project conforms to the current zoning for
the site and to Ordinance No. 460, Schedule
A.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configurations, access, and
density, due to the fact that the project has
access to public roads and a design manual
will be implemented with this project.
S\STAFFRPT~25320-A.VTM 12
f)
The design of the subdivision or the proposed
improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or
substantially and avoidable injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat as determined in the
initial study.
g)
The design of the subdivision is consistent
with the State Map Act in regard to future
passive energy control opportunities due to
the fact that the lots are large enough to
provide sufficient southern exposure.
h)
All lots have acceptable access to existing and
proposed dedicated rights-of-way which are
open to, and are useable by, vehicular traffic,
access is provided from Pauba Road.
The design of the subdivision, the type of
improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed project as
conditioned. The project will not interfere
with any easements.
j)
The lawful conditions stated in the project's
Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary
to protect the public health, safety and
general welfare.
k)
Said findings are supported by minutes, maps,
exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Tentative Tract
Map is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
S~STAFFRPT~25320-A.VTM 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 recommended for adoption.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 for the subdivision of a 56.6 acre parcel into 102
single family residential lots and 4 open space lots located on Pauba Road and known
as Assessor's Parcel No. 945-050-004 subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
SECTION 4.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of September, 1991.
JOHN HOAGLAND
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 16th day of September, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
S~STAFFRPT~25320-A.VTM 14
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Tract Map No:
25320
Project Description: Subdivide 56,6 Acres
into 102 Residential Lots and 40oen Seace
Lots
Assessor's Parcel No.: 945-050-004
Planning Department
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision
Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule A, unless
modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in
accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request,
if made 30 days prior to the expiration date.
This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the
approval date by the City Council, unless extended as provided by Ordinance
460.
The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all the
requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance
460.
The subdivider shall submit one copy of a soils report to the City Engineer and
two copies to the Department of Building and Safety. The report shall address
the soils stability and geological conditions of the site.
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final
map.
Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract map
boundary to a City maintained road.
S~STAFFRPT~25320*A.VTM 15
10.
11.
12,
13.
14,
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 Homeowners Association shall be established for maintenance of Lots 103
through 106. 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:
a. Be limited to a maximum slope ratio of 2 to 1.
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. An erosion control landscaping plan
demonstrating methods of erosion protection for these slopes shall be prepared
by a qualified professional; and 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 December 4,
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.
S~STAFFRPT~25320-A.VTM 16
15. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following:
16.
17.
18.
19.
Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the
development standards of the R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) zone as
provided in the tract's approved Development Design Manual.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free
condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided
with other erosion control measures as approved by the Director of
Building and Safety.
The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes,
landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations are
the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director.
Prior to 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.
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 recommendations.
Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
If the project is to be phased, prior to the issuance of grading
permits, an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to
the Planning Director for approval. The plan shall be used as a
guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual
phases of development and shall include the following:
Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and
sedimentation during and after the grading process.
Approximate time frames for grading and identification of
areas which may be graded during the higher probability
rain months of January through March.
S\STAFFRPT~25320-A,VTM 17
20.
21.
3. Preliminary pad and roadway elevations.
4. Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase.
All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded natural terrain and
exceeding ten (10) feet in vertical height shall be contour-graded
incorporating the following grading techniques:
The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to
the angle of the natural terrain.
Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall
reflect the natural rounded terrain.
The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves
with radii designed in proportion to the total height of the
slopes where drainage and stability permit such rounding.
Where cut or fill slopes exceed 300 feet in horizontal
length, the horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved
in a continuous, undulating fashion.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall
provide evidence to the Director of Building and Safety that all
adjacent off-site manufactured slopes have recorded slope
easements and that slope maintenance responsibilities have been
assigned as approved by the Director of Building and Safety.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be
retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed
grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts, Should the
paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a
pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading
contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or
representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt
grading activity to allow recovery of fossils.
Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
S~STAFFRPT%25320-A.VTM 1 E~
Prior to the issuance of building permits detailed common open space
area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning
Department approval for the phase of development in process. The
plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for the
following:
Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all
landscaped areas requiring irrigation.
Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be
opaque up to a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity.
All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from
view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle
treatments, as approved by the Planning Director. Utilities shall
be placed underground.
Parkways shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a
transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscape
elements shall include earth berming, ground cover, shrubs and
specimen trees. Front yards shall be landscaped and street trees
planted.
Wall plans shall be submitted for the project perimeter and along
Pauba Road. Wooden fencing shall not be allowed on the
perimeter of the project. All lots with slopes leading down from
the lot shall be provided with gates in the wall for maintenance
access,
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent
trees at key visual focal points within the project,
Where street trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of
interior streets and project parkways due to insufficient road right-
of-way, they shall be planted outside of the road right-of-way.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant
plants where appropriate.
All 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.
S\STAFFRPT~25320-A,VTM 19
10.
All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow
growing trees shall be steel staked.
No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit
within the project boundary until the developer's successor's-in-interest
provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures.
A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) per lot/unit shall be deposited
with the City as mitigation for public library development.
Prior to the submittal of building plans to the Department of Building and
Safety an acoustical study shall be performed by an acoustical engineer
to establish appropriate mitigation measures that shall be applied to
individual dwelling units within the subdivision to reduce ambient interior
noise levels to 45 Ldn.
All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required
elements from the subdivision's approved fire protection plan as
approved by the County Fire Marshal.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and
irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval.
The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requiring
landscaping and irrigation to be installed including, but not limited to,
parkway planting, street trees, slope planting, and individual front yard
landscaping.
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 comply
with the tract's approved Design Manual.
All street side yard setbacks shall comply with the tract's approved
design manual.
All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and a manually
operated permanent underground irrigation system.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, a plot plan shall be submitted
to the Planning Department pursuant to Section 18.30 of Ordinance No.
348 accompanied by all applicable filing fees, as a plot plan that is not
subject to the California Environmental Quality Act and is not transmitted
to any governmental agency other than the Riverside County Planning
S\STAFFP, PT~25320-A.VTM 20
Department. The plot plan shall ensure the conformance of the final site
development with the tract's approved Design manual, and shall contain
the following elements:
A final site plan showing the lots, building footprints, all setback,
and floor plan and elevation assignments to individual lots.
One (1) color and materials sample board (maximum size of 8 x
13 inches by 3/8 inch thick) containing precise color, texture and
material swatches or photographs (which may be from suppliers'
brochures). Indicate on the board the name, address and phone
numbers of both the sample board preparer and the project
applicant, tract number, and the manufacturer and product
numbers where possible (trade names also acceptable).
One (1) copy of the architectural elevations colored to represent
the selected color combinations, with symbols keyed to the color
and materials board. The written color and material descriptions
shall be located on the elevation.
Six (6) copies of each of glossy photographic color prints (size 8
x 10 inches) of both color and materials board and colored
architectural elevations for permanent filing, hearing body review
and agency distribution. All writing must be legible.
Said plot plan shall require the approval of the Planning Director prior to
the issuance of any building permits for lots included within the plot
plan. The submittal of plot plans prior to the issuance of building permits
may be phased provided:
A separate plot plan shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for each phase, which shall be accompanied by
appropriate filing fees.
Each individual plot plan shall be approved by the Planning
Director prior to the issuance of building permits for lots included
within that plot plan.
S\STAFFRPT\25320-A,VTM 2 1
22.
23.
24.
25.
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 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. 25320, which action is brought within the time period provided for in
California Government Code Section 66499.37. 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.
The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site
property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the developer shall at
'least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an
agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code
Section 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 subdivision. Security of a portion of
these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an
appraisal report obtained by the developer, at the developer's cost. The
appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the
appraisal.
S\STAFFR~T~25320-A,VTM 22
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
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
provided. Telephone, cable TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in
the residence.
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.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Department prior to final approval of the tract maps.
The CC&R's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining the
open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, and exterior of all
buildings.
No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation,
association, property owner's group, or similar entity has been formed with the
right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have
any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in
the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses
of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of
said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate
under recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsory membership of all
owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meet
changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&R's shall
permit enforcement by the City of Provisions required by the City as Conditions
of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this
requirement to, and receive approval of, the City prior to making any such sale.
This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes.
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.
Maintenance for all landscaped and open areas, including parkways, shall be
provided for in the CC&R's.
S~STAFFRPT~25320-A.VTM 23
33.
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 (91,250.00) fee in compliance with AB
3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(2) plus the Twenty-
Five Dollar (925.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the
Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152
and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight (48) hour
period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the
check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void
by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
Riverside County Fire Department
34.
Schedule "A" fire protection approved standard fire hydrants, (6"x 4"x 2 1/2")
located one at each street intersection and spaced no more than 330 feet apart
in any direction, with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from
a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for 2 hours duration at 20
PSI.
35.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire
Department for review, Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer,
containing a Fire Department approval signature block, and shall conform to
hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow. Once plans are signed
by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire
Department for signature.
36.
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.
37.
All buildings shall be constructed with fire retardant roofing material as
described in Section 3203 of the Uniform Building Code. Any wood shingles
or shakes shall have a Class "B" rating and shall be approved by the Fire
Department prior to installation.
38.
Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the
Riverside County Fire Department, a cash sum of 9400.00 per lot/unit as
mitigation for fire protection impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the
time of payment, he/she may enter into a written agreement with the County
deferring said payment to the time of issuance of the first building permit.
S\STAFFRPT\25320-A.VTM 24
Riverside County Department of Public Health
39.
A water system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as
approved by the water company and the Health Department. Permanent prints
of the plans of the water system shall be submitted in triplicate, with a
minimum scale not less than one inch equals 200 feet, along with the original
drawing to the County surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe
diameter, location of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and joint specifications, and
the size of the main at the junction of the new system to the existing system.
The plans shall comply in all respects with Div. 5, Part 1, Chapter 7 of the
California Health and Safety Code, California Administrative Code, Title 22,
Chapter 16, and General Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of
the State of California, when applicable. The plans shall be signed by a
registered engineer and water company with the following certification: "1
certify that the design of the water system in Tract Map 25320 is in
accordance with the water system expansion plans of the Rancho California
Water District and that the water service, storage, and distribution system will
be adequate to provide water service to such Tract Map."
40.
This certification does not constitute a guarantee that it will supply water to
such tract map at any specific quantities, flows or pressures for fire protection
or any other purpose". This certification shall be signed by a responsible
official of the water company. The plans must be submitted to the County
Surveyor's Office to review at least two weeks prior to the request for the
recordation of the final map.
41.
This subdivision has a statement from Rancho California Water District agreeing
to serve domestic water to each and every lot in the subdivision on demand
providing satisfactory financial arrangements are completed with the subdivider.
It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be made prior to the
recordation of the final map.
42.
This subdivision is within the Eastern Municipal Water District and shall be
connected to the sewers of the District. The sewer system shall be installed
according to plans and specifications as approved by the District, the County
Surveyor and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the
sewer system shall be submitted in triplicate, along with the original drawing,
to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter,
location of manholes, complete profiles, pipe and joint specifications and the
size of the sewers at the junction of the new system to the existing system.
S\STAFFRPT\25320-A.VTM 2 5
A single plat indicating location of sewer lines and water lines shall be a portion
of the sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall be signed by a registered
engineer and the sewer district with the following certification: "1 certify that
the design of the sewer system in Tract Map 25320 is in accordance with the
sewer system expansion plans of the Eastern Municipal Water District and that
the waste disposal system is adequate at this time to treat the anticipated
wastes from the proposed tract map."
43.
The plans must be submitted to the County Surveyor's Office to review at least
two weeks prior to the request for the recordation of the final map.
Transportation Enaineering
PRIOR TO RECORDATION:
44.
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the City Engineer for Pauba Road along the project frontage
including any transitions. Signing plans only shall be required for internal
Streets A through G. These plans shall be included with the street
improvement plans.
45.
Advanced intersectional warning s~gns shall be included in the signing and
striping plan for both approach directions on Pauba Road for the Street E
intersection.
46.
Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering
for the design requirements.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
47°
A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Civil
Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for any street closure and detour
or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the City Engineer.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
48.
All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and striping
plan.
S\STAFFRPT\25320-A.VTM 26
Engineering 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:
49.
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;
Parks and Recreation Department; and
California Water Quality Control Board.
50.
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.
51.
Pauba Road shall be improved with 32 feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or
bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-
of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 102 (64'/88').
52.
Street "A" from Pauba Road to Street "B", Streets "B", "E", and "F" shall be
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 (40'/60').
53.
Street "A" east of Street "B", Streets "C", "D", and "G" shall be improved with
36 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. 105, Section A (36'/60').
S\STAFFRPT\25320-A,VTM 2 7
54,
55.
56.
57.
Curb return radii of 35' feet shall be installed at the intersection of Street "F"
and Street "G".
Vehicular access shall be restricted on Pauba Road and so noted on the final
map with the exception of street intersections as approved by the City
Engineer.
Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No.
805.
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 CC&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 CC&R's and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owner's
Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering
Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent with
the final map. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City.
The CC&R's shall provide for the effective establishment, operation,
management, use, repair and maintenance of all slope areas within the
subdivision.
All slopes exceeding 5' in height shall be maintained by the homeowners
association.
The CC&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 CC&R's, then the City, after making due
demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and
perform, at the owner's sole expense, any maintenance required thereon
S\STAFFRPT~25320-A.VTM 28
58.
59.
61.
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.
All parkways, open areas, onsite drainage facilities, 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.
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.
c. Landscaping (street and parks).
d. Sewer and domestic water systems.
Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. 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
agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a
building permit.
The minimum centerline radii shall be 300 feet or as approved by the City
Engineer.
62.
All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the
City Engineer.
S\STAFFRPT~25320-A.VTM 29
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
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 be located a minimum of two (2) feet from the property line.
The subdivider shall submit four prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the
Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building
Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions
of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 24" x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil
Engineer.
The subdivider shall submit four copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
A drainage 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."
If required after approval of the final drainage report, a drainage easement shall
be obtained from the affected property owners for the release or concentrated
or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent property. If a drainage easement
cannot be obtained from the property owners adjacent to Lot 20, then the
storm drain system shall be designed to outlet north of Lot 30 into the existing
drainage basin.
All lots containing storm drains for public use shall contain a dedicated
easement for storm drain purposes and provide for an access road to the storm
drain outlet.
The subdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by
alteration of the drainage patterns and erosion; i.e., concentration or diversion
of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage
facilities including, but not limited to, enlarging existing facilities, desilting
basins or by securing drainage easements.
S\STAFFRPT\25320*A.VTM 30
Case No.:
Recommendation: 1.
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
January 28, 1991
Change of Zone No. 5631
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320
Prepared By: Oliver Mujica
ADOPT Resolution No, 91-
recommending adoption of the
Negative Declaration for
Change of Zone No. 5631 and
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320;
ADOPT Resolution No. 91-
recommending approval of
Change of Zone No. 5631; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 91-
recommending approval of
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Bedford Properties
REPRESENTATIVE: Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
PROPOSAL: Change the zoning designation of the subject property from
R-R (Rural Residential) to R-1 (One-Family Dwelling); and
subdivide approximately 56.6 acres into 102 single family
residential lots and 4 open space lots.
LOCATION: North side of Pauba Road, between Ynez Road and
Margarita Road.
EXISTING ZONING: R-R (Rural Residential)
STAFFRPT\VTM25320 I
SWAP DESIGNATION:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
BACKGROUND:
2-5 DU/AC
North: R-R (Rural Residential)
South: R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) and
R-R (Rural Residential)
East: R-R (Rural Residential)
West: R-1 (One-Family Dwelling)
R-1 (One-Family Dwellings)
Vacant
North:
South:
East:
West:
Sports Park
Single Family Residential
Sports Park
Single Family Residential
Total Land Area:
No. of Proposed Lots:
Min. Residential Lot Size:
Proposed Density:
SWAP Designation:
56.6 acres
102 residential
4 open space
7,200 sq.ft.
1.8 DU/AC
2-5 DU/AC
On November 14, 1989, the applicant filed Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 to the Riverside
County Planning Department, which proposed to
subdivide the subject 56.6 acre site into 103
residential lots and 4 open space lots; and Change of
Zone No. 5631.
The project was reviewed by the Riverside County
Land Division Committee (LDC) on December 14,
1989; February 1, 1990; and March 29, 1990.
During these meetings the LDC requested and
reviewed the following items:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Paleontological Survey
Biological Survey
Slope Stability Report
Traffic Study
Design Manual
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 2
6. Archaeological Survey
7. Slope Analysis
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Subsequently, this project was transferred to the
City of Temecula on April 24, 1990.
On September 13, 1990, this project was reviewed
by the Preliminary Development Review Committee
(Pre-DRC) in order to informally evaluate the project
and address any possible concerns, as well as
suggesting possible modifications. The comments
by the Pre-DRC included the following:
1. Park Site Considerations
2. Maintenance of Slope Areas
3. Grading
4. Drainage
5. Slope Stability
6. Design Manual
7. Traffic
8. Density
Subsequent to the Pre-DRC meeting, Staff met with
the applicant to discuss the required supplemental
material in order to address the Pre-DRC's concerns.
On January 3, 1991, Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 25320 was reviewed by the Formal
Development Review Committee; and, it was
determined that the project, as designed, can be
adequately conditioned to mitigate the DRC's
concerns. The DRC has forwarded a
recommendation of approval subject to conditions.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No, 25320 proposes to
subdivide the subject 56.6 acre parcel into 102
single family residential lots, as follows:
Minimum Lot Size:
Average Lot Size:
Minimum Pad Size:
Average Pad Size:
7,200 sq.ft.
13,233 sq.ft.
6,000 sq.ft.
7,822 sq.ft.
STAFFRPT VTM25320 3
ANALYSIS:
In addition, the following open space lots are
provided:
Lot 103:
Lot 104:
Lot 105 (Slope)
Lot 106 (Accessway)
0.6 acres
0.4 acres
12.6 acres
0.3 acres
The proposed subdivision has been designed in
accordance with the standards of the proposed R-1
(One-Family Dwelling) zone, as well as Ordinance
Nos. 348 and 460.
Traffic Imoacts
The Transportation Engineering Staff has reviewed
this project; and has determined that the proposed
project will have a minimal impact to the existing
road system and there will be no adverse unmitigable
significant traffic impacts resulting from the
development of this proposed project.
Land Use and Zoning
The subject site is currently vacant. Surrounding
land uses include single family residential homes to
the west (approximately 10,000 sq.ft. average lot
size) and south (1/2 and 1 acre lots) and the City
sports park along the north and east. The proposed
zoning (Change of Zone No. 5631) is R-1 as are the
adjacent properties to the west (Lake Village
Community). The properties to the south of the
subject site are zoned R-R and R-1.
Design Considerations
As noted above, the proposed subdivision has been
designed in accordance with the standards of the R-
I (One-Family Dwelling) zone. Due to the tracts
"vesting" status, a Development Design Manual was
submitted with this project. The design manual will
be implemented through the Conditions of Approval.
STAFFRPT\VTM25320 4
Design Manual
As noted above, a development design manual will
be implemented with Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 25320° These guidelines have been created to
specifically address the development of this
subdivision, in order to ensure appropriate sizing and
massing of the homes in relation to the size of the
proposed lots. For example, the building height will
not exceed two-stories, with a maximum height of
35 feet; building will consist of one and two-story
elevations with staggering provided to create visual
interest and a varied street scene; and placement of
one story elements at front setbacks and corner lots.
Access and Circulation
Pauba Road will be improved along the subject site
with a half width street.
Access from Pauba Road will be provided by Streets
"A" and "B" (Lots 1-65); Street "E" (Lots 66-84);
and Street "F" (Lots 85-102). Internal circulation
will be provided by Street "A" (Lots 14-57); Street
"B" (Lots 1-13); Street "C" (Lots 58-65); Street "D"
(Lots 66-84); and Street "G" (Lots 85-102).
Grading and Landform Alteration
The project site is located within a fairly prominent
natural ridgeline and hillside of Temecula. However,
the mass grading effort was designed to adhere to
the gross natural topography of the site in its original
condition. While substantial grading and
recontouring of this site, which includes 540,000
c.y. of excavation and 540,000 c.y. of fill will occur
in the immediate area, the overall plan is intended to
promote preservation of site topography. The
terraced landform creates view lots for a majority of
the lots within the proposed subdivision, in which
the slopes range from 25 to 85 feet in height. It
should be noted that a recommended Condition of
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 5
Approval has been included to require that all slopes
over five (5') feet in height shall be landscaped
immediately upon the completion of grading and shall
be maintained by the homeowner's association.
SlOPeS
Planting shall commence as soon as slopes are
completed on any portion of the site and shall
provide for rapid short term coverage of the slope as
well as long-term establishment cover per City of
Temecula standards.
Cut slopes equal to or greater than five (5') feet in
vertical height and fill slopes equal to or greater than
three (3') feet in vertical height will be planted with
a ground cover to provide stability and protect the
slope from erosion. Slopes exceeding fifteen (15')
feet in vertical height will be planted with shrubs,
spaced not more than ten (10') feet on center or
trees spaced not to exceed twenty (20') feet on
center or a combination of shrubs and trees at
equivalent spacings, in addition to the ground cover.
Special consideration will be given to the slopes
along the northern side of the tract where a variety
of plant types and sizes will be provided for visual
and aesthetic purposes.
The plants selected and planting methods shall be
suitable for the soil and climatic conditions, All areas
required to be landscaped shall be planted with turf,
ground cover, shrub or tree materials selected from
the plant palette contained in the guidelines.
Drainaae
The existing surface run-off currently flows towards
the west, along Pauba Road, and drains into the lake
of the Lake Village Community; and towards the
north onto the sports park and into the existing
desalination basin to the northwest of the subject
property.
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 6
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
The proposed drainage plan has been designed to
maintain the existing flows through the use of
terrace drains that will drain onto the sports park;
and a storm drain structure will be constructed from
Pauba Road along the westerly property line and into
the desalination basin, which in turn will flow into
the Lake Village Lake.
The Planning Department Staff has been contacted
by the Lake Village Community Association (letter
dated January 16, 1991) regarding their concerns
with potential affects of drainage and run-off from
the proposed project; and the potential impact on the
wildlife and migratory bird population residents in
Lake Village. In response to these concerns, Staff
has contacted the US Department of Fish and
Wildlife and has learned that the Lake Village Lake is
within their jurisdiction and all developments that
may impact this lake must be reviewed and approved
by their agency. Therefor, Staff has included a
Condition of Approval that requires the clearance
from the US Department of Fish and Wildlife, prior to
the recordation of the final map.
The proposed project is consistent with the SWAP
Land Use Designation of 2-5 DU/AC. In addition,
Staff finds it probable that this project will be
consistent with the new General Plan when it is
adopted.
An Initial Study was performed for this project which
determined that although the proposed project could
have a significant effect on the environment, no
significant impact would result to the natural or built
environment in the City because the mitigation
measures described in the Conditions of Approval
have been added to the project, and a Negative
Declaration has been recommended for adoption.
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 7
In order to ensure the implementation of the
mitigation measures adopted through the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process, which in
this case is the Negative Declaration per the
Environmental Assessment, the Planning Department
Staff has included the following Condition (See
Condition No. 25) within the recommended
Conditions of Approval:
"Prior to the issuance of grading permits
and/or building permit, the developer or his
successor's interest shall submit a mitigation
monitoring program to the Planning
Department for approval, which shall describe
how compliance with required mitigation
measures will be met and the appropriate
monitoring timing of the mitigation."
In addition, pursuant to the requirements of
Assembly Bill 3158 (Chapter 1706) which authorizes
the charging of certain fees for the filing of Negative
Declarations which provide funding for the
Department of Fish and Game, the Planning
Department Staff has included the following
Condition (See Condition No. 28) within the
recommended Conditions of Approval:
"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
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 8
FINDINGS:
forty-eight (48) hour period the
applicant/developer has not delivered to the
Planning Department the check required
above, the approval for the project granted
herein shall be void by reason of failure of
condition, Fish and Game Code Section
711.4(c)."
Change of Zone No. 5631
There is a reasonable probability that Change
of Zone No. 5631 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
SWAP designation of 2-5 DU/AC.
There is not a likely probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
General Plan, if Change of Zone No. 5631 is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to
the fact that an approval of such a change
from Rural Residential to One-Family
Dwellings may be consistent with the goals
and/or policies of the City's future General
Plan.
The project is compatible with surrounding
land uses, The harmony creates a compatible
physical relationship with adjoining properties,
due to the fact that the adjoining
developments are also single family in nature
and 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.
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 9
Vesting Tentative Tract Mao No. 25320
The proposed Tract Map will not have a
significant negative impact on the
environment, as determined in the Initial Study
performed for the project. A Negative
Declaration is recommended for adoption,
There is a reasonable probability that this
project will be consistent with the General
Plan being prepared at this time, due to the
fact that the project is consistent with the
surrounding current residential develop-merit.
There is not a likely probability of substantial
detriment to, or interference with, the future
adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to
the fact that the project is consistent with
surrounding development,
The proposed use complies with State
planning and zoning law, due to the fact that
the project conforms to the current zoning for
the site and to Ordinance No. 460, Schedule
A.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configurations, access, and
density, due to the fact that the project has
access to public roads and a design manual
will be implemented with this project.
The design of the subdivision or the proposed
improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or
substantially and avoidable injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat as determined in the
initial study.
STAFFRPT~ VTM25320 10
10.
11.
The design of the subdivision is consistent
with the State Map Act in regard to future
passive energy control opportunities due to
the fact that the lots are large enough to
provide sufficient southern exposure.
All lots have acceptable access to existing and
proposed dedicated rights-of-way which are
open to, and are useable by, vehicular traffic,
access is provided from Pauba Road.
The design of the subdivision, the type of
improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed project as
conditioned. The project will not interfere
with any easements.
The lawful conditions stated in the project's
Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary
to protect the public health, safety and
general welfare.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 11
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending
adoption of the Negative Declaration for
Change of Zone No. 5631 and Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 25320;
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending
approval of Change of Zone No. 5631; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending
approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
25320.
OM:ks
Attachments:
Resolution (Change of Zone No, 5631)
Resolution (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320)
Conditions of Approval
(Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320)
Environmental Assessment
Lake Village Community Association Letter
Exhibits:
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. SWAP Map
D. Tract Map
Eo Building Envelope Plan
F, Cross Sections Base Map
G. Cross Sections
H. Design Manual
Large Scale Plans
STAFFRPT\VTM25320 12
II
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
Background
1. Name of Proponent:
2. Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
Bedford Properties
28765 Single Oak Drive
Temecula. CA 92390
(714) 676-5641
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
January 7. 1991
4. Agency Requiring
Assessment:
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
CITY OF TEMECULA
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320
6. Location of Proposal:
North Side of Pauba Road, between
Ynez and Margarita Roads
Maybe
Environmental linDacts
(Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets.)
Ye~
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures? __
b. Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil? X
X
No
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 42
Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features?
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on
or off site?
X
X
X
YeS Maybe N__o
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? X
Exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards such as earth
quakes, landslides, mudslides,
ground failure, or similar hazards?
X
Air. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air
quality?
X
The creation of objectionable
odors?
X
Alteration of air movement,
moisture, or temperature, or any
change in climate, whether locally
or regionally?
X
Water. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial changes in currents, or
the course or direction of water
STAFFRP'I'~VTM25320 43
movements, in either marine or
fresh waters?
Substantial changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
X
X
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? X
Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow or ground waters?
Yes Maybe
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct addi-
tions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
X
Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
X
Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flood-
ing or tidal waves?
X
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)?
X
X
No
X
X
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 44
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare, or endangered species
of plants?
Introduction of new species of
plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
Substantial reduction in acreage
of any agricultural crop? _
Animal Life. Will the proposal result
in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
(birds, land animals including rep-
tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms or insects)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals?
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
X
X
X
X
X
X
Yes Maybe
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? _
b. Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and Glare. Will the proposal
produce substantial new light or glare? X
Land Use, Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
No
X
X
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 45
planned land use of an area? __ __ X
10.
11.
12.
13.
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?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking?
Yes Maybe
N_9o
X
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 46
14.
Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic?
Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
Public Services. Will the proposal have
substantial effect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
Parks or other recreational
facilities?
Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
f. Other governmental services:
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
16.
Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy?
Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy?
Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 47
a. Power or natural gas? _ _ X
17.
18.
19.
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
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? __
X
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
Maybe
NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRP'i~VTM25320 48
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?
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
X
X
X
Yes Maybe N__9o
X
X
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 49
is significant.)
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substan-
tial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X
X
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 50
III Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
Earth
1.a.
1.b.
1 .c-d.
1.e.
No. The project site will be graded as part of a mass grading effort.
There will be substantial grading for this project, which includes
540,000 cubic yards of excavation and 540,000 cubic yards of fill.
However, a conceptual mass grading plan for the project was reviewed
and approved by the City Engineer and designed in accordance with
Temecula's standards and the Conditions of Approval include mitigation
measures in regards to grading. Therefore, the proposed project will not
create an unstable earth condition or change the geologic substructure.
Yes. The proposed development disrupts the soil profile and results in
soil displacement, compaction, and overcovering. However, a slope
stability report was prepared for this project, in which specific
recommendation were made in order to develop the project. Therefore,
this impact is not considered significant, due to the fact that the
Conditions of Approval include mitigation measures in regards to all
grading.
Yes. The project site is located within a fairly prominent natural ridgeline
and hillside of Temecula. However, the mass grading effort was
designed to adhere to the gross natural topography of the site in its
original condition, While substantial grading and recontouring of this
site, which includes 540,000 c.y. of excavation and 540,000 c.y, of fill,
will occur in the immediate area, the overall plan is intended to promote
preservation of site topography, Therefore, this impact is not considered
significant.
Maybe, Wind and water erosion potentials will increase during the
construction phase and remain high until disturbed areas are replanted
and the proposed drainage facilities are constructed. The wind erosion
impact is considered significant but will be mitigated through the use of
watering trucks and erosion control planting of disturbed areas after
grading. After the project is completed, water will be channeled to
drainage easements and streets. Appropriate drainage control devices
will have to be approved by the City Engineer and designed in
accordance with Temecula's standards and the Conditions of Approval.
Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant, due to the fact
that appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented with the
STAFFRP'~VTM25320 51
1.f.
1.g.
Air
2.a.
2.b,c.
Water
3.a,d.
3.b.
project.
Yes, Although the project site is not adjacent to any creek or stream
bed, the lake for Lake Village is located to the west of the project which
may be impacted by the development of this project, However, in order
to mitigate the downstream impacts brought about by runoff and the
proposed drainage facilities, the Riverside County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District has indicated that Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 25320 will be required to pay a flood mitigation charge, which
has been included as a Condition of Approval. Therefore, this impact is
not considered to be significant.
Maybe. The subject site is not located within a subsidence or
liquefaction zone and is not subject to liquefaction and subsidence by the
Riverside County General Plan. However, to mitigate any potential
hazards, a geological report will be prepared prior to any construction of
the property. The report will include mitigation measures. Therefore,
this impact is not considered to be significant.
Maybe. The proposed project consisting of 102 residential units will
generate an increase in vehicle trips to the site. The increased vehicle
trips will increase the carbon monoxide emissions and particulates in the
area. However, since the ambient air quality in the project vicinity is
currently very good due to the local wind patterns, this potential impact
is not considered significant. The proposed project will not by itself
deteriorate the local area's or regional air quality, but will add to the
cumulative impact on air quality due to the substantial growth in the
area,
No. The proposed project will not create any objectionable odors or alter
the area's climate.
No. The proposed project will not impact any body of water.
Yes. The proposed project will increase the amount of impermeable
surfaces on the site and the existing drainage pattern will be altered,
especially along the northern property line. However, water will be
channeled to drainage easements and streets through drainage facilities
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 52
3.c.
3.e.
3.f.
3,g.
and control devices which will have to be approved by the City Engineer
and designed in accordance with Temecula's Standards and the
Conditions of Approval. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be
significant since appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented
with the project.
Yes. Flood waters will continue to be directed to the streets and flood
channels. The lake within the Lake Village Community may be impacted
by the development of this project. However, in order to mitigate the
downstream impacts brought about by runoff and the proposed drainage
facilities, the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District (the District) has indicated that the project will be required to pay
a flood mitigation charge (Area Drainage Plan fee), which has been
included as a Condition of Approval. In addition, the Department of Fish
and Game has indicated that the project must be reviewed by their Staff.
Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant since
appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented with the project.
Drainage plans for the site will have to meet the requirements of the
City's Engineer.
Yes. During construction, the proposed project will increase turbidity in
local surface waters. This impact is temporary and is not considered
significant. After the project is completed, water will be channeled to
drainage easements and streets, which will have to be approved by the
City Engineer. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant
since appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented with the
project.
No. The proposed project will not alter the rate of flow of ground water.
No. Although the proposed project will increase the amount of
impermeable surfaces on the site, the addition of irrigation for the
landscape areas will help to off-set any loss of water absorbed into the
ground. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant.
3.h.
3.i.
No. The proposed project will not significantly affect the public water
supply.
Maybe. Conditions of Approval are included for this project which
require proper design and installation of drainage conveyance devices.
Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant since
STAFFRPT\VTM25320 53
appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented with the project.
Vegetation
4.a,c.
4.b.
4.d.
Yes. The proposed project involves a mass grading of the subject site
which will eliminate all of the existing native plants; and the proposal
includes landscaping and erosion control which will be designed to City
standards. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant
since appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented with the
project.
No. No sensitive vegetational associations or species were identified on-
site.
No. No agricultural production occurred on-site.
Wildlife
5.a,C. No.
5.b. Maybe.
A survey for Stephen's Kangaroo Rat prepared for this
project analyzed biologic resources on-site. In that no
individuals of the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat were found there
is no occupied habitat within the bounds of the tract map.
Implementation of the tract as proposed will not result in a
taking nor would it result in any adverse effect on the
species or on the species' habitat. In that surrounding
lands to the north, south, east and west have previously
been developed at urban levels of use or are presently being
developed at such levels of use, preservation of this site as
a reserve is inappropriate. In addition, the site is now
isolated from all other known colonies by impassable
residential and other barriers and reinvasion of the site is
virtually impossible. Implementation of the project as
proposed will not have a significant effect and no mitigation
other than payment of fees under the Stephen's Kangaroo
Rat Fee Ordinance is required.
STAFFRPT\VTM25320 54
Noise
6.a-b.
No. A noise assessment was prepared for this project.
Analysis indicates that the project site is exposed to significant levels of
noise as a result of traffic on Rancho California Road. However, it is
concluded that the project design, as recommended herein, will comply
with the interior noise exposure standard placed on residential
construction by the County of Riverside and the State's noise insulation
standards.
It is further recommended that the final engineering design of the project
be reviewed by a recognized acoustical engineer to ensure compliance
with the County's noise standards.
Light and Glare
Yes. However, the project has been conditioned to comply with
applicable lighting standards. Therefore, this impact is not considered
to be significant since appropriate mitigation measures have been
implemented with the project.
Land Usq
No. Project is consistent with both the zoning designation and the
Southwest Area Community Plan,
Natural Resources
9.a-b. No. This project itself will not significantly increase the rate of use of
natural resources. Construction materials and petroleum products will
be used extensively to support the specific plan project overall.
Risk of Upset
lO.a-b.
Population
No. The proposed project will not promote a risk of explosion or release
hazardous substances nor will it interfere with emergency response plan
or an emergency evaluation plan.
STAFFRPT\VTM25320 55
11.
Housina
12.
Yes. Although the project proposes to increase the density to 102 lots,
the proposed project is consistent with the City Land Use Designation
which allows a maximum of 283 lots (according to SWAP). Therefore,
this impact is not considered to be significant.
No. Since the proposed project creates housing, the proposed land use
will not create a demand for additional housing.
Transportation/Circulation
13. a. Yes.
13.b-e. No.
13.f. Maybe,
The Traffic Study which was prepared for the proposed
project has addressed potential traffic impacts and has
concluded that the cumulative impacts will not be
significant. In addition, appropriate mitigation measures
have been implemented through the Conditions of
Approval.
Public Services
14.a-e.
14.f.
Yes.
No.
The proposed project will have significant adverse effect
effect on public services. However, these impacts are not
considered to be significant since appropriate mitigation
measures have been implemented through the Conditions
of Approval.
Enerav
15.a-b.
No. The proposed project will not result in the substantial use or
increase in demand of fuel or energy.
Utilities
16.a-f.
No. The proposed project might require the use of utilities but will not
require substantial alteration to the existing system,
Human Health
STAFFRPT\VTM25320 56
17,a-b, No. The proposed project will not have significant adverse effect on
human health.
Aesthetics
18.
No. Because the proposed project has been designed to be compatible
with the surrounding neighborhood, there will be no significant impact
on aesthetics.
Recreation
19.
Yes. The proposed project will result in an impact upon existing
recreational opportunities. However, the proposed project provides
adequate recreational facilities for the subject residents and appropriate
Quimby fees will be paid. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be
significant since appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented
with the project.
Cultural Resources
20.a-d. No impact.
Mandatory Findings of Significance
21 .a.
Maybe. The proposed project may have a significant impact on plant or
wildlife species. However, the project is located within an area
designated by the Riverside County as habitat for the endangered
Stephen's Kangaroo Rat, the project will be subject to mitigation fees for
the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan. In addition,
during grading activities, a qualified paleontologist shall be present.
21 .b.
Maybe. The proposed project may have the potential to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals, However,
no significant impacts will occur if the mitigation measures are followed.
21 .c.
Maybe. The proposed project may have impacts which are individually
limited or cumulatively considerable which may have environmental
effects, However, no significant impacts will occur if the mitigation
measures are followed.
21 .d.
No. The proposed project will not have impacts which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
STAFFRP~ VTM25320 57
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.
X
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required.
January 7, 1991
Date
For CITY OF TEMECULA
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 58
F:FrF: '.
LAKE VILLAGE
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
P.O. Box 907 / Temecula, California 92390
January 16, 1991
Planning Commission
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 3000
Temecula, CA 92390
Attention: Oliver Mujica
Dear Sirs,
Please be advised that myself and other homeowners wish to
address the Commission regarding the Tentative Tract Map
No. 25320.
Our concer~s are:
Affects of drainage and runoff from this development into the
Lake Village lakes.
The environmental impact on the wildlife and migratory bird
population resident in Lake Village.
Our increasing liability due to unauthorized entrance to
Association property by surrounding neighbors.
Recommendation:
Deny request to change zone from R-R to R-1.
Strongly recommend to the City to purchase
this land for additional park facilities to
allow additional activity for families along
with the sports program.
I would like to request an opportunity to speak to the Planning
Commission on January 28, 1991 at their meeting to be held at
6:00 PM.
Thank you for your consideration of our concerns.
On behalf of the
Marcia Slaven
Secretary/Treas urer
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
Project Site
C,4 Z /
t~/GHVJAY
VICINITY MAP
r ~
CASE NO.TH~
P.C. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
~::)R-I
R-R
CZ 911
ZONE MAP )
r
CASE
CITY OF TEMECULA )
.'10
;ARGARITA .~/ILLAGI
SP 19!
//
SWAP MAP
r ~
CASE NO."T/"f~j~2,~
P.C. DATE I' ~' '~l
~ . /
#
(/)m
~oZCO
~do
v
~ 0
n-On-
to developer. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, developer shall
post security to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of the
security shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000.00. 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; orovided 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:
81.
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,
82.
Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than 14 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
94 of the State Standard Specifications.
S\STAFFRPT~25320-A.VTM 3 2
ITE~VI # 15
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
September 16, 1991
PPA 184, Revision No. 1; Revised Landscape Plans
for Winchester and Margarita Road Frontage and Costco.
The applicant has submitted revised landscape plans for the Costco site for review. The Planning
Commission required the plans be submitted for their review prior to approval when they approved Plot
Plan No. 224 June 17, 1991.
Staff is continuing to work with Bedford on the Winchester and Margarita Road frontage.
Recommendations:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
Approve PPA No. 184 for the portion of the site for the Costco project and
continue the remainder of the site to the October 7, 1991 Planning Commission
meeting, to allow staff to continue to work with Bedford on this proposal.
DU:Ib
WIMBERVG\PLAN\PPA184
August 22, 1991
BEDFORD PROPERTIES
Mr. Gary Thornhill
Director of Planning
CITY OF TEMECULA
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
RE: PALMS ALONG WINCHESTER ROAD
Dear Gary:
Some of the members of the Planning Commission have expressed a
dislike for palm trees. The streetscape theme of using palm
trees in this area of Temecula as a feature has been established
with Palm Plaza. Our goal is to present a unified, attractive
and consistent theme on Winchester Road from Ynez to Margarita
and from Ynez down to Overland.
It is Bedford's desire to see a planned streetscape theme instead
of a variety of concepts, materials etc. We plan to implement
this plan through design review, CC&Rs and the Specific Plan.
A change in the Costco project would make Costco landscaping
inconsistent with Palm Plaza and our Specific Plan for the
Regional Center across the street. Palms are a drought tolerant
plant and tend to give a formal look to a street scape. Many
people find palms to be very attractive trees. The cost for
palms is also higher than most other trees.
The City does not have a specific criteria. Bedford Properties
would like to obtain the Planning Commission's support for the
streetscape theme. However, we wish to adhere to the plan that
has been presented for the above outlined reasons. Thank you.
Please pass this letter on to the Planning Commission.
Sincerely,
Gregory A. Erickson
Area Manager
GAE/dh
cc: Steve Jiannino
Bedford Properties, Inc
A Diversified Real Estate
Development and
Management Company
Mailing Address
P.O. Box 9016
Iemecula, California
92590-0736
28765 Single Oak Drive
Suite 200
Ternecula, California
92590
Telephone
714.676.5641
Facsimile
714.676.3385
ITEM # 16
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 16, 1991
Case No.: Variance No. 6
Prepared By: Richard Ayala
Recommendation: 1.
ADOPT Resolution No.91-
approving Variance No. 6 based
on the analysis and findings
contained in the staff report.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Superior Electrical Advertising, Inc.
REPRESENTATIVE:
Stan Janocha
PROPOSAL:
The applicant requests a variance from the
requirements of Ordinance 348, Section 19.4 (a.4)
in order to allow two additional free-standing
monument signs at a 12 acre shopping center.
LOCATION:
Northwest corner of Jefferson Avenue and Overland
Drive.
EXISTING ZONING:
Col/C-P (General Commercial)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
C-1/C-P (General Commercial)
C-1/C/P (General Commercial)
C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial)
M-SC (Manufacturing-Service
Commercial)
PROPOSED ZONING:
Not Requested
EXISTING LAND USE:
Shopping Center (Winchester Square)
S\STAFFRPT~e.VAR
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North: Shopping Center
South: Shopping Center
East: Commercial
West: Industrial
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Number of acres: 12
Number of proposed free-standing signs: 2
BACKGROUND:
Administrative Plot Plan No. 57, the proposed
monument signage for the Winchester Square Center
was submitted on January 4, 1991. The Planning
Department notified the applicant in a letter dated
January 15, 1991, that the proposed signage did not
comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 348
and the Southwest Area Community Plan standards
for outdoor advertising. The proposed signs did not
comply with the permitted number of free-standing
signs allowed per code and therefore, the applicant
filed a Variance on February 26, 1991, in order to
obtain approval of the proposed signage.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is seeking approval through the
variance process, to erect two (2) free-standing
monument signs for the Winchester Square Center
located on the northwest corner of Jefferson Avenue
and Overland Drive. The two proposed monument
signs are 16 feet high and 10 feet wide with a depth
of 2 feet. They are proposed to be situated along
Jefferson Avenue at the northern entrance of the
subject site and the southern corner of Jefferson
Avenue and Overland Drive.
ANALYSIS:
Maximum Number of Free-Standing Signs Allowed
Section 19.4 (a.4) of Ordinance 348 permits a
shopping center with more than one street frontage
to have two free-standing signs provided that they
are not located on the same street, are at least 100
feet apart, and the second sign does not exceed 100
square feet in surface area and 20 feet in height.
Section 19.2(m) of Ordinance 348 defines a
shopping center as a parcel of land not less than
three acres in size on which there are four or more
separate businesses that have mutual parking
S\STAFFRPT\6,VAR 2
does not include a maximum area or number of
separate businesses. Therefore, according to the
ordinance the proposed signage is not in compliance
with section 19.4(a.4) in that it ultimately proposes
a total of four free-standing signs.
Currently there a total of four free standing signs
existing on the center site. The proposed signs will
replace two of the existing signs. Staff requested
that the other two signs (Stater Brothers and Del
Taco) be removed; however, according to the
applicant, they are located on separate parcels under
the control of the underlying property owner and the
owners are not willing to remove them and place the
signs on the proposed monument signs.
Height of Free-Standing Signs
Section 19.4 (a.1,2) of Ordinance 348 stipulates a
maximum height of 45 feet for signs within 660 feet
of the freeway right-of-way and 20 feet for other
locations. The proposed signs comply with the
height restrictions as stipulated in Ordinance No.
348.
Size and Location of Site
The Winchester Square Center encompasses
approximately 12 acres and abuts two streets,
Jefferson Avenue and Overland Drive. The site has
approximately 957 feet of frontage along Jefferson
Avenue and approximately 516 feet of frontage
along Overland Drive. The center provides access
through three driveways, two off Jefferson Avenue
and one off Overland Drive.
Visual Impact of ProPosed Signs
All two proposed signs are monolith shaped
monument signs with the name, logo and major
tenants of the center at the top and articulate
sections which will contain the names of the other
tenants of the center. In addition, the applicant has
agreed to provide substantial landscape planting
S\STAFFI~oT~S'VAR 3
around the base of the proposed monument signs
and existing pole signs on the subject site in order to
enhance the overall appearance of the center. (see
exhibit B).
FUTURE GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
Face Area of Free-Standing Signs
According to section 19.4 (a.3.a) of Ordinance 348
regarding shopping centers, the maximum surface
area of a sign can not exceed 50 square feet or
.25% of the total existing building floor area in a
shopping center, but in no case can exceed 200
square feet in surface area. The applicant is
proposing two signs each approximately with 100
square feet of surface area, therefore, meeting the
allowable face area per Ordinance 348.
Conclusion
Planning staff has reviewed the proposed monument
signage for the Winchester Square Center and has
determined that the proposal is acceptable due to the
necessary preservation of the applicant's ability to
adequately identify the subject's 12 acre shopping
center.
A portion of the subject site is within the 660 feet of
the nearest edge of Interstate 15 which is an eligible
state scenic highway. General Land Use Policy 8(f)
in the Southwest Area Community Plan states that
the size, height, and type of on-site outdoor
advertising displays within scenic corridors shall be
the minimum necessary for identification.
Pursuant to Section 15311 of the California
Environmental Quality Act, the proposed signs are
categorically exempt from the requirement for
environmental review.
S\STAFFRPT~6.VAR 4
FINDINGS:
There are exceptional circumstances
applicable to the subject property in that the
site encompasses 12 acres, and takes access
through three driveways on an urban arterial
roadway.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
RA:vgw
Exhibits
Attachments: 1.
2.
The variance is necessary for preservation of
the applicant's ability to adequately identify
the subject 12 acre shopping center, a right
which other shopping centers in the City
enjoy.
The granting of the variance will not be
detrimental to the public welfare or to
adjacent properties in that the signs will not
obstruct the line of sight of motorists exiting
the driveway and will have an attractive
appearanceenhanced bysubstantial landscape
planting treatment.
The granting of the variance will not be
contrary to the Southwest Area Plan Scenic
Highway Policy in that the freeway oriented
sign is substantially shorter than the maximum
height permitted by the ordinance.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
ADOPT Resolution 91- approving Variance
No. 6 based on the analysis and findings
contained in the staff report.
Resolution
Conditions of Approval
Exhibits
A. Signage
B. Site Plan
S\STAFFRPT~e. VAR 5
ATTACHMENT I
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 6 TO
PERMIT TWO ADDITIONAL FREE STANDING SIGNS AT
THE WINCHESTER SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER LOCATED
ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF JEFFERSON AVENUE
AND OVERLAND DRIVE.
WHEREAS, Superior Electrical Advertising, Inc. filed Variance No. 6 in
accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision
Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Variance application was processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Variance on
September 16, 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 Variance;
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.
S\STAFFRPT~6 .VAR 6
(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.
(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 Variance is consistent with the SWAP, and
meets the requirements set forth in section 65360 of the Government
Code.
(1) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects
and taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following:
(a)
There is reasonable probability that Variance
No. 6 proposed will be consistent with the
general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
S~STAFFRPT~6 .VAR 7
(b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
(c)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
D. Pursuant to Section 18.26(e), no Variance may be approved
unless the applicant demonstrates the proposed use will not be
detrimental to the health safety and welfare of the community, and
further, that any Variance approved shall be subject to such conditions
as shall be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare
of the community.
E. The Commission in recommending approval of the
proposed variance, makes the following findings:
a)
There are exceptional circumstances
applicable to the subject property in that the
site encompasses 12 acres, and takes access
through three driveways on an urban arterial
roadway.
The variance is necessary for preservation of
the applicant's ability to adequately identify
the subject 12 acre shopping center, a right
which other shopping centers in the City
enjoy.
The granting of the variance will not be
detrimental to the public welfare or to
adjacent properties in that the signs will not
obstruct the line of sight of motorists exiting
the driveway and will have an attractive
appearanceenhanced bysubstantial landscape
planting treatment.
The granting of the variance will not be
contrary to the Southwest Area Plan Scenic
Highway Policy in that the freeway oriented
sign is substantially shorter than the maximum
height permitted by the ordinance.
S\STAFFRPT~6,VAR 8
The granting of the variance will not be
contrary to the Southwest Area Plan Scenic
Highway Policy in that the freeway oriented
sign is substantially shorter than the maximum
height permitted by the ordinance.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
Pursuant to Section 15311 of the California Environmental Quality Act,
on-site advertising signs are categorically exempt from environmental review.
SECTION 3.
That the city of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Variance No. 6 for two free-standing signs located on the northeast corner of
Jefferson Avenue and Overland Drive, based on the above findings.
SECTION 4_.
PASSED, DENIED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of September, 1991.
JOHN HOAGLAND
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 16TH day of September, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
~STAFFRPT~6.VAR 9
ATTACHMENT II
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
VARIANCE NO, 6
Commission Approval
Date:
Expiration Date:
Planning Department
1. Individual signs shall require approval of a Plot Plan application and issuance of
a building permit.
2. The appearance and location of the free-standing signs and landscaping shall
conform substantially with that shown in Exhibits A and B.
3. This approval shall be used within one year of the approval date; otherwise it
shall become null and void, and a new application will be required.
S\STAFFRPT~8,VAR 10
CITY OF TEMECULA )
LOCATION 'MAP )
CASE NO.
P.C. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
M-SC
cz4.13.~
CZ 3173
'CZ 915
ZONE MAP
CASE NO.
P.C. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA )
/
\
/
.;;,..,,..,.""/"
SWAP MAP
-,~
r
CASE NO./_/"--~,'~"'~
P.C. DATE ~/~'~j )
EXHIBIT
CASEI