HomeMy WebLinkAbout121691 PC Agenda AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
December 16, 1991 6:00 PM
VAIL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
29915 Mira Loma Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Hoagland
ROLL CALL:
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 Commission Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and
address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the
Planning Secretary before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3)
minute time limit for individual speakers.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Minutes
2.2 Approval of minutes of November 18, 1991 Planning Commission Meeting.
NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
3. Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Old Town Specific Plan Selection Committee
City of Temecula
Old Town Boundaries
Appoint Commissioner to Committee to select Old Town
Consultant for Specific Plan.
John Meyer
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
4. Case No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
5. Case:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Television/Radio Antenna Ordinance
City of Temecula
City Wide
An Ordinance establishing regulations for
Television/Radio Antennas
John Meyer
Approve
Variance No. 8
HWGA California
29760 Rancho California Road (North Side of Rancho
California Road, between Lyndie Lane and Moraga Road.
Variance to City sign code to allow 2 free-standing signs at
project location.
Saied Naaseh
Approval
6. Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
7. Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Change of Zone No. 18; and Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 2
Sam McCann/Bedford Properties
Southeast corner of Margarita Road and DePortola Road.
Amend the boundary of the Paloma Del Sol (formerly the
Meadows) Specific Plan to include Planning Area No. 36
Mark Rhoades
Recommend Approval
Tentative Tract Parcel Map No. 22515
(2nd Extension of Time)
Sam McCann
Northeast side of the southerly terminus of Front St.
Three Lot commerical Subdivision 3.86 acres.
Mark Rhoades
Approval
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Extension of Time Tentative Tract No. 22761
Coleman Homes, Inc.
West Side of Ynez Road, North of Pierce Lane,
Second Extension of Time for a 50 lot residential
subdivision on 16.7 acres within Specific Plan 180.
Mark Rhoades
Approval
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Extension of Time Tentative Tract No. 22762
Coleman Homes, Inc.
West side of Terra Vista Road, South of Ynez Road.
Second Extension of Time for an 80 lot residential
Subdivision on 28 acres within Specific Plan 180.
Mark Rhoades
Recommend Approval
10.
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Tentative Tract Map No. 26521
Guido M. and Ruth Fascia
Northeast corner of Green Tree Road and Grapevine.
10 Lot Residential Subdivision on 11 acres.
Mark Rhoades
Approval
11.
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Conditional Use Permit No. 14
Chevron U.S.A.
Northwesterly side of Winchester Road., South of Margarita
Road, Pad 7 of Plot Plan 224.
Construction of a gas station, car wash, and mini-mart.
Mark Rhoades
Approval
12.
Case No.: Amendment of Ordinance 90-19
Applicant: City of Temecula Planning Department
Location: City of Temecula City Boundaries
Proposal: The City of Temecula proposes to amend Ordinance 90-19
which established decision making authority for sub-division
and land use applications.
Presenter: Gary Thornhill, Planning Director
To be delivered under separate cover.
Planning Director Report
Planning Commission Discussion
Other Business
ADJOURNMENT
Next meeting: January 06, 1991, 6:00 p.m., Vail Elementary School,
29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California
Ib/PCAGN1216
ITEM # 2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1991
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was
called to order Monday, November 18, 1991, 6:00 P.M., at Vail
Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman John E. Hoagland.
PRESENT: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Chiniaeff,
Hoagland
ABSENT: 2
COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey
Also present were Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh, Director
of Planning Gary Thornhill, Senior Planner Debbie Ubnoske, Planner
Charles Ray, Deputy City Engineer Doug Stewart, Robert Righetti,
Department of Public Works, and Minute Clerk Gail Zigler.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
COMMISSION BUSINESS
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
GARY THORNHILL advised of the following:
Item 4, applicant has requested a continuance off calendar.
Item 5, continued to December 2, 1991.
Item 7, continued to December 2, 1991.
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Chiniaeff,
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey
Hoagland
MINUTES
2.2 Approval of minutes of November 4, 1991 Planning
Commission Meeting.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF amended Page 4, first paragraph,
seventh sentence, " ...... Rancho Highlands was sold and
the homeowners. "' Page 4, sixth paragraph, third
sentence, "December 16, 1991, per staff recommendation,";
Page 5 and Page 6, Items No. 6 and No. 7, Commissioner
Chiniaeff stepped down due to a conflict of interest;
Page 7, after motion, "Commissioner Chiniaeff rejoined
the Commission".
COMMISSIONER FORD amend his motions for Items No. 6 and
No. 7 to read, ""Prior to the issuance of grading
permits, applicant shall relocate and transplant all
specimen oak trees. Prior to issuance of grading permit,
a qualified arborist shall prepare a letter report
outlining the relocation and replanting procedures. In
the event the trees do not survive transplanting, the
applicant shall be required to replant ten, minimum 24"
box oak trees for every one lost"; and add, "landscaping
of the slopes and compatibility of materials with regards
to the grading shall be reviewed and approved by staff
prior to the issuance of a grading permit."
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey
NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEM8
3. PLOT PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE 192
3.1 Proposal for center signage/freeway sign on the west side
of Front Street, north of lower Highway 79.
CHARLES RAY summarized the staff report.
LOUIS KASHMERE, applicant, 19555 Camino De Paz, Murrieta,
stated that he needed the 45' height for the sign in
order to clear the bridge. Mr. Kashmere presented the
Commission with pictures of the proposed sign location.
Mr. Kashmere added that staff had some question about the
canopy spandrel and offered to removed the spandrel off
of the east and west side of the building.
COMMISSIONER FORD stated that although he did not want to
deny the project, he did not like the sign at the height
being proposed by the applicant and suggested that the
applicant look at the sign at a lower level, stating that
he thought the sign would be more effective below the
bridge. Commissioner Ford asked if the applicant had
contacted Cal Trans for freeway signage indicating "Gas,
Food, etc." at next off ramp.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF concurred with Mr. Ford's comments
stating that he would be in favor of the sign at it's
original proposed size and location, but at a lower
elevation. Commissioner Chiniaeff added that he agreed
with the applicant's recommendation to remove the canopy
spandrel from the west side of the project.
GARY THORNHILL asked if the Commission wanted the sign to
remain a pole sign or a monument sign.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF suggested that staff work that out
with the applicant. Commissioner Chiniaeff added that
the applicant needed to push to get the freeway signage
with logos from Cal Trans.
DOUG STEWART offered that staff would be willing to work
with the applicant and direct him to the appropriate
resources at Cal Trans to look at the freeway signs.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF moved to approve the spandrel,
removing the colored band on the west side of the
building and approve the sign as was originally proposed
with the exception of lowering it to a height visible
under the freeway bridge west bound on Highway 79 on a
pedestal mount to match the building, based on the
findings contained in the staff report and make an
additional finding that it be consistent with the future
general plan making signs set at heights that are
workable and in reasonable accordance with state law and
the sign that is being proposed not be a detriment or
interfere with the future general plan of the City,
seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD.
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Blair
ARSTAIN:I COMMISSIONERS: Fahey
Commissioner Fahey arrived at 6:25 P.M. and was no longer
considered absent.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
4. CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5598 ANDVESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 25063
Proposal to change zone classification from R-R-2 1/2 to
R-1 and subdivide 20 acres into 68 residential lots and
i open space lot.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF stepped down due to a conflict of
interest.
GARY THORNHILL advised that the applicant has requested
a continuance to February 17, 1992, and staff is
concerned with the length of time requested. He added
that staff failed to see what compelling reasons may
PCMIN11/1S/91 -3- 11/20/91
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1991
exist in that point in time that may not exist today that
would change staff's recommendation.
CHARLES RAY summarized the staff report.
CRAIRMANHOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 6:35 P.M.
LARRY MARKHAM, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester
Road, Temecula, representing the applicant, advised that
the project is having financial difficulties which has
precluded proceeding forward with the processing;
however, there were also overriding general plan issues
in the area involved. Mr. Markham added that this area
had received several approvals for R-1 type densities and
this was one of two projects in the area, the other sent
back by the council to wait for the general plan. Mr.
Markham stated that they expect the financial
difficulties to be resolved in the next three months,
which may coincide with the land use portion of the
general plan and may offer some answers to the density
questions.
STEVE DOULAMES, 39055 Liefer Road, Temecula, supported
the proposed zone change, and stated that R-1 is
consistent with what his idea of the area would be.
JOHN FLAHIFF, 39918 Amberly Circle, Temecula, pastor of
the Christ Presbyterian Church that owns the property at
the corner of Liefer and Nicolas, spoke in favor of the
project and added that Tim Timmons, pastor of Rancho
Christian Church, and pastor George Simmons, Temecula
House of Praise, also supported the project.
DENNIS FITZ, 39910 Jeffrey Heights Road, Temecula,
overlooks the parcel, and spoke in opposition to the
proposed project density. Mr. Fitz submitted a letter of
opposition.
COMMISSIONER FAHEY stated that there were enough
unanswered questions about what this area is going to
look like to support the request for continuance;
however, it is not certain that they will be answered
enough by February to address this project beyond a
denial. Commissioner Fahey moved to continue off
calendar, at the request of the applicant, to February,
seconded by CHAIRM/~N HOAGLAND.
COMMISSIONER FORD asked what were the consequences of a
continuance and a time as far as the mapping process and
being able to work out some of the questions and also as
PCMIN11/1S/91 -4- 11/2o/91
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1991
far as being able to look at the general plan.
GARY THORNHILL advised that he did not see any problem
with a continuance; however, with past history in this
area and the actions by the Commission and the Council,
this project seemed inconsistent with respect to parcel
size.
ROBERT RIGHETTI stated that in the process of reviewing
this project, staff did write-up a number of conditions
on this project and explained them as follows, to give
the Commission an idea of the magnitude of some of the
improvements that would be associated with the project:
all streets would be required to be improved fully within
the boundaries of the subdivision; on the east and west
side boundary lines, in the channel that is to traverse
the property, engineering will require that a bridge be
constructed in order to provide both primary and
secondary access. That would require that two bridges be
constructed within that subdivision; improvements to the
channel along the park site which will require some
substantial grading both on the boundary of this site and
off; the drainage course that does traverse the project,
about two thirds northerly, will require some off site
improvements as well, in order to make this site work;
the secondary access that would be provided to the east
and then come back to the north to line up with Leifer
Road would require working into the property next door;
required project to provide paving all the way to the
existing paving (Calls Medusa) that will require a
substantial amount of off site work; if they do not
provide onsite septic systems, they will have to provide
offsite facilities, a sewer line. All of these
requirements amount to a sizeable investment, which would
have to be offset by the price of the homes.
CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND stated that he would be willing to
honor the applicant's request for a continuance; however,
he added that he was reluctant making decisions on
changes of zones prior to completion of the general plan.
Chairman Hoagland added that he would support the
continuance under the condition that it is the
applicant's responsibility to bring the item back before
the Commission. Additionally, Chairman Hoagland
questioned the cost of processing the item over again.
GARY THORNHILL stated that if the applicant does not
substantially change the application, staff will process
it; however, if the application substantially changes,
then staff would look at reprocessing fees.
PCMINll/18/91 -5- nl20191
PLANNING COMMI88ION MINUTES
NOVEMBER 18, 1991
COMMISSIONER FAHEY added that if the Commission doesn't
have a clear direction on land uses in this area, she
would hesitate to address zone changes for this area.
AYES: 3
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 1
ABSTAIN:I
COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford,
COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMISSIONERS= Blair
COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff
Hoagland
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF rejoined the Commission.
TELEVISION/HADIO ANTENNA ORDINANCE
5.1 An ordinance establishing regulations for Television
Radio Antennas city wide.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to continue
Television/Radio Antenna ordinance to the meeting
December 2, 1991, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY.
AYES: 4
NOES: 0
ABSENT: I
COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford, Chlniaeff,
Hoagland
COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMISSIONERS: Blair
the
of
PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 4 (PUP NO. 4)
6.1 Proposed 3,744 square foot occupancy of existing M-SC
structure for church uses.
CHARLES RAY summarized the staff report.
CHAIRMAN NOAGLAND asked for clarification on which suite
the applicant would be occupying.
CHAIMHOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 7:00 P.M.
PASTOR ALBRECHT, 25445 Knollwood Drive, Murrieta, stated
that he did not know for sure which suite they were
leasing. Mr. Albrecht expressed concurrence with the
staff report. Mr. Albrecht introduced a representative
from the regional board of the Wisconsin Evangelical
Lutheran Senate to address the public facilities impact
fees.
PCMIN11/18/91 -6- 11/20/91
PLANNING COMMIS8ION MINUTE8
NOVEMBER 18, 1991
JIM CLAUSEN, 2002 Avenue of the Trees, Carlsbad, member
of the California Mission Board, advised that the
applicant would be leasing Suite N. Mr. Clausen stated
that he felt that the Public Facilities Fee applies to
the developer and not the tenant who is proposing to
occupy an existing development and would propose that the
applicant not be impacted by these fees.
CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND questioned Condition 6 which limits the
hours of operation.
JIM CLAUSEN stated that the applicant would also disagree
with that requirement.
GARY THORNHILL advised that Condition No. 6 could be
deleted.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF questioned the conditions
requiring proof of flood mitigation charges and proof of
underlying traffic mitigation fees and stated that he did
not feel it was a fee that should be applied to each new
tenant.
ROBERT RIGHETTI advised that the county was remiss about
collecting these fees. He added that although staff was
not conditioning the applicant to pay, the building could
not be occupied until the fee was paid.
GARY THORNHILL stated that when this condition was
drafted it did not look at tenant improvements. After
discussing the matter with the city attorneys, it was
felt that staff should think about the linkage or nexus
requirement that the state law requires be made when
imposing any conditions on a project and if a finding can
be made that there is no nexus or no linkage between the
condition being imposed and the impact the project makes,
you may not be required to impose that condition on the
project. Gary stated that it was staff's feeling that it
is very difficult to make that decision because there is
an impact, therefore, staff would recommend that the
Commission not impose the public facilities fee.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF questioned if Condition 18 applied
to this proposal.
MIKE GRAY, County Fire Department, stated that Condition
18 did not apply and could be deleted.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to close the public hearing
at 7:30 P.M. and approve Public Use Permit No. 4, subject
PCMIN11/18/91 -7- 11/20/91
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
NOVEMBER 18, 1991
to the findings in the staff report and deleting
Conditions 6, 8, 9, 10, and 18, seconded by COMMISSIONER
FORD.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF stated again, he did not feel that
the public facilities fee should be applied to tenants.
AYES:
4 COMMISSIONERS:
Fahey, Ford, chiniaeff,
Hoagland
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Blair
7. VARIANCE NO. 8
Proposal for variance to city sign code to allow 2 free
standing signs at project location, 29760 Rancho
California Road (North side of Rancho California Road,
between Lyndie Lane and Moraga Road).
CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND advised that the applicant had
submitted a letter requesting a continuance.
COMMISSIONER FORD moved to continue Variance No. 8 to the
meeting of December 2, 1991, seconded by COMMISSIONER
CHINIAEFF.
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS:
Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff,
Hoagland
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Blair
Planninq Director Report
GARY THORNHILL reported on the following:
, Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting on Monday,
November 25, 1991, 7:00 P.M. at City Hall.
, Staff is evaluating the current review process.
, Introduced newly hired City planners:
David Hogan, Advanced Planning
Saied Naaseh, Associate Planner
Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner
PCMIN11/1S/91 -8- 11/20/91
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1991
Plannin~ COmmiSSiOn Discussion
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF questioned if it was necessary to open the
public hearing on items that were to be continued.
JOHN CAVANAUGH advised that the procedure that the Commission could
do, rather than open the public hearing, the Commission could move
to continue the item to a date certain.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF expressed a concern about the findings for
their conditions and the reasons why the Commission voted a
particular way.
Other Business
None
ADJOURNMENT
COMMISSIONER FORD moved to adjourn to a special meeting of November
25, 1991, 7:00 P.M., City of Temecula City Hall, 43174 Business
Park Drive, Temecula, seconded by COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF.
Chairman John E. Hoagland
Secretary
PCMIN11/18/91 -9- 11/20/91
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
18 November
SUBJECT: ZONING ON 20 ACRE PARCEL - ~ o. 55~-
When we bought our house on Catle Grasot we checked with the ~ning departmant to
determ,ne the potential zoning for our and axrounding land, We were tdd that the cr~of
Temecula did not adopt the SWAP and that the Nicholas Road area was being reviewed to
determine if lower density was more appropriate for the area. While we bought our five acres
with the hope of further sulxivimon. we did so not knowing if we could ever change the zoning
from 2 1/2 a~es per lot. If it did not change at least the area would have its rural atmosphere
Dreserved,
We fed that the proposal to construct 68 lots on the twenty ac~e parcel behind us ~s far too
dense of housing The c]'eastest assest Temecula has is the open space and rural ~aracter of
the sLrrounding neighborhoods. We were ho~ing that our area would be zone ~Y~'qt'O
Meadowview and not the nearby housing tracts. With too many high density facts, Temecula is
likely to become another Moreno Valley. We want people to move to Temecuia for aesthetic
reasons. not lust to buy the largest house for the least amount of money, wbch seems to be the
case in Moreno Valley. We look toward the MeadowvicerOy,opa ~uch more attactive
.e. Hal, ,o ar. much mor. am.an. . ,o,ot.. NOt on,y
are the density and resultant congestion problems reduced, but theneighboG"hood. w~th a
largerdiverSty of archetechtural styles. is much more ersthetjcally pleasrig.
The zoning for this parcel, one of the largest in the area, will set the rend for the future
development of the area. As proposed it will not only ruin the rural character of the area, an area
proposed as a "buffer", it will have far reaching affect on future devdopment to the east, We
wou!d fike to keep Temecula as a ~ desi'able place to live. The proposed zoning for this
parcel wffi only lead to the continuation of high density tad housing. We fed half acre lots would
be much more dearable and would ult~mataly be as beneficial to this and fume developers.
One only needs to look at Meadowview. where comparable houses as those sold in neart}y
tracts typically cost one hund'ed thousand dollars more +~ L.r~;~ +l,~t ~-~ ~ ,_ Is r~ ,'
Dennis Fitz
Harriet Huling
3~10 Jeffrey Heights Rd
ITEM # 3
Case No.:
RECOMMENDATION:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
December 16, 1991
Appointment of Commissioner to serve on Committees
Prepared By: John R. Meyer
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission appoint a
member to serve on the following committees:
DISCUSSION
Old Town Specific Plan Selection Committee
Old Town Advisory Committee
The following is a brief description of the roles and responsibilities of each of the
proposed assignments.
Old Town Specific Plan Selection Committee
Together with a Councilmember, a member of the Old Town Local Review Board and
staff, the Planning Commissioner will review proposals and sit on an interview panel
to select the consultant for preparation of the Old Town Specific Plan. Staff has
narrowed the field to six consultants who will submit proposals to the Selection
Committee by December 23, 1991. Interviews are tentatively scheduled for the week
of January 6, 1992.
Old Town Advisory Committee
The Old Town Advisory Committee will provide direction and input to the Consultant
in the preparation of the Old Town Specific Plan. A meeting schedule has not yet
been established. Other members of this committee will include representatives from
the City Council, Local Review Board, Temecula Town Association, Old Town
Merchants Association, Economic Development Corporation, and a citizen-at-large.
vgw
S\STAFFRPT~MEYERJR\SELECT.M1 P
ITEM # 4
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill
December 16, 1991
Antenna Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION:
PROPOSAL:
BACKGROUND:
ADOPT Resolution No. P.C. 91- recommending
adoption of the Antenna Ordinance, enfi~ed:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING CHAFFER 6 TO THE
TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO
ANTENNA REGULATIONS AND ESTABLISHING
REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF ANTENNAS."
An Ordinance establishing regulations for the use of
Antennas. The purpose for preparing the proposed Antenna
Ordinance is due to the inadequacy of the County Ordinance
No. 348 as it relates to Antennas.
On October 21, 1991, the Planning Commission considered
an ordinance which establishes regulations for the installation
of commercial transmitting antennas and non-commercial
antennas, which includes satellite dish, television/radio and
H.A.M. radio antennas. At the conclusion of the public
hearing, the Commission continued this item in order to allow
the City Attorney and the Planning Staff the opportunity to
further evaluate the following issues:
I. Should all types of roof-mounted antennas be
prohibited within residential developments.
2. Are H.A.M. radio antennas exempt from all of the
standards of the proposed ordinance.
3. Provide addition legal information regarding the
regulations for H.A.M.radios.
A:DIRECTIONAL SIGN
DISCUSSION:
CONCLUSION:
Pursuant to the direction of the Planning Commission, staff
has reviewed the above issues and has prepared the following
analysis:
Common residential skeletal type radio and television
antennas used to receive UHF, VHF, AM and FM
signals of off-air broadcasts from radio and television
stations are exempt from the requirements of the
proposed Antenna Ordinance.
H.A.M.radio antennas are not totally exempt from the
requirements from the proposed Antenna Ordinance in
that the following standards have been included:
No part of any amateur radio antenna shall
exceed sixty-five (65) feet in height.
Not more than one (1) amateur radio antenna
support structure and one (1) whip antenna
structure in excess of thirty (30) feet in height
shall be permitted per parcel.
Allamateur radio antennas shall comply with the
Design and Performance Standards as set forth
in the proposed ordinance.
The legal opinion regarding the regulations for H.A.M.
radio antennas willbe presented by the City Attorney
at the Public Hearing.
The proposed Antenna 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 antennas. In addition,
the proposed ordinance provides adequate regulations in
order to comply with the FCC's Order.
The new Antenna Ordinance willserve as interim regulations
until the City's Zoning Development Code is prepared and
adopted. At that time, this ordinance willbe incorporated
and/or modified into the final Zoning Development Code.
A:DIRECTIONAL SIGN
D-SIGN-A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
ADOPT Resolution No. P.C. 91-
recommending adoption of the Antenna
Ordinance, entitled:
"ANORDINANCE OF THE CITYCOUNCILOF
THE CITYOF TEMECULA ADDING CHAFFER
6 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE
PERTAINING TO ANTENNA REGULATIONS
AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR
THE USE OF ANTENNAS."
OM:ks
Attachments:
Resolution
"Draft" Ordinance
Planning Commission Staff Report
(Dated October 21, 1991)
Planning Commission Minutes
(Dated October 21, 1991)
A:DIRECTIONAL SIGN
D-SIGN-A 3
RESOLUTION NO. P.C. 91-
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULARECOMMENDING THE CITYCOUNCIL
ADOPT THE ANTENNA 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
antennas; and
WHEREAS, the City of Temecula desires to regulate the use of antennas
and to protect the health, quality of life,and the environment of the residents of Temecula;
and
WHEREAS, public hearings were conducted on October 21, 1991 and
December 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 U.S. Post Office and the Temecula Valley
Chamber of Commerce;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby
finds that the proposed Antenna Ordinance will provide for the establishment of
regulations for antennas in a fair and equitable manner.
SECTION 2. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula further
finds that the proposed Antenna 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
finds that this ordinance does not have a potential for causing a significant affect on the
environment. Therefore, the ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act under Section 15061 (b)(3).
A:DIRECTIONAL SIGN
D-SIGN-A 4
SECTION 4. That the Planning Commission of the City ofTemecula hereby
recommends to the City Council adoption of the proposed Antenna Ordinance. The
Ordinance is incorporated into this Resolution by this reference and marked Exhibit "A"
and dated December 16, 1991, for identification.
PASSED APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of December, 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 December, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS
A:D~RECTIONAL SIGN
ORDINANCE NO. 91-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA PERTAINING TO ANTENNA REGULATIONS
AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF
ANTENNAS.
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:
1. 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 deci-
sions 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 withina reason-
able time.
(2) There is little or no probability of substan-
tial detriment to or interface with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use 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.
2. 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
1
area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the
City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the
City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of
its General Plan.
The proposed land use regulations are consistent with
the SWAP and meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of
the Government Code, to wit:
(a) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with
the preparation of the General Plan.
(b) The City Council finds, in adopting land use
regulations pursuant to this title, each of the follow-
ing:
(1) There is reasonable probability the 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 substan-
tial 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.
3. There is the need to control the location and
design of antennas, including Amateur Radio antennas, in order to
protect the public health, safety, and welfare and to maintain
community design objectives.
4. The City of Temecula desires to allow amateur radio
antennas in residential, commercial, institutional, and industri-
al areas of the City, subject to appropriate regulation to
prevent these antennas from creating a negative impact on neigh-
boring properties.
5. The City of Temecula desires to adopt antenna
regulations that provide for the regulation of both FCC licensed
Amateur Radio and all other antennas within the City in order to
minimize aesthetic blight and to ensure proper location, attach-
ment, and structural integrity thereby protecting the public
health, safety, and welfare. Accordingly, the City of Temecula
hereby adopts the following:
SECTION 2. PURPOSE. The purpose of this ordinance is
to set forth the development standards for the installation and
maintenance of antennas within all land use zones of the City.
2
The purpose of these re~ulations is to ensure that the design and
location of antennas are consistent with the health, safety, and
aesthetic objectives of the City, while providing the technical
requirements of these antennas.
DEFINITIONS. The purpose of this Ordinance, the
following words, terms, phrases, and their derivations, shall
have the meanings given herein. Then consistent with the con-
text, words used in the present tense singular include the
plural.
(a) "Antenna" means any systems of wires, poles, rods,
reflecting discs, or similar devices of various sizes,
materials and shapes including but not limited to solid
wire or wire-mesh dish, horn, spherical, or bar config-
ured arrangements, used for the transmission or recep-
tion of data, facsimile, television, voice or other
forms of telecommunications, including citizens band
(CB) antennas. Any such system is further defined to
be external to or attached to the exterior of any
building.
(b) "Antenna height or height of antenna" means the
distance from the properryes grade to the highest point
of the antenna and its associated support structure
when fully extended.
(c) "Antenna support structure" means a mast, pole,
tripod or tower utilized for the purpose of supporting
an antenna(s) as defined above.
(d) "Antenna Whip" means an antenna and its support
structure consisting of a single, slender, rod-like
element which is supported only at or near its base.
(e) "FCC licensed Amateur Radio antennas" means anten-
na array and its associated support structure, such as
a mast or tower, that is used for the purpose of trans-
mitting and receiving radio signals in conjunction with
an amateur radio station licensed by the Federal Commu-
nications Commission.
(f) "Commercial transmitting antenna/dish" means
antennas used for transmitting or transmitting televi-
sion and/or radio and/or cellular telephone communica-
tions.
(g) "Obstruction-free reception window" means the
absence of man-made or natural physical barriers that
would block the signal between a satellite and an
antenna.
(h) "Non-commercial antenna" means any satellite dish
or television/radio antenna, other than in conjunction
with an Amateur Radio station licensed by the Federal
Communications Commission.
(i) "Reception window"means the area within the direct
line between a land based antenna and an orbiting
satellite.
(j) "Satellite dish antenna" means any apparatus
capable of receiving communications from a transmittee
or a transmitter relay located in planetary orbit.
EXEMPT ANTENNAS. Antennas meeting the following
standards and specifications are exempt from the requirements of
this Ordinance:
(a) Common residential skeletal type radio and televi-
sion antenna used to receive UHF, VHF, AM and FM sig-
nals of off-air broadcasts from radio and television
stations.
LOCATION OF NON-COMMERCIAL ANTENNAS. Non-commercial
antennas may be established in all zoning districts as accessory
uses and then shall conform to the regulations contained in this
Ordinance.
PERMITTED ACCESSORY USE. The following antennas are
permitted as an accessory use in the specified zoning districts
and are subject to all applicable regulations and issuance of
appropriate permits.
(1) Satellite receiving antennas in non-residen-
tial zones on sites not contiguous to a residen-
tial zone.
(2) Amateur radio and vertical antennas that do
not exceed 30 feet in height in all zones.
(3) In all zones, amateur radio antennas that
exceed 30 feet in height and comply with Amateur
Radio Antenna Development Standards.
CONDITIONAL USES. The following antennas may be
allowed subject to Planning Director approval, in the specified
zoning districts.
(1) Satellite receiving antennas in residential
zones, and in nonresidential zones on sites con-
tiguous to a residential zone.
4
(3) Vertical antennas that exceed 30 feet in
height, in all zones.
DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR NONCOMMERCIAL
ANTENNAS.
(a) All ground-mounted antennas shall be required to
maintain their supporting structures at least five (5')
feet from any side property line; ten (10') feet from
any rear yard property line; and fifty (50) feet from
any front yard property line on lots greater than 1/2
acre in size.
(b) No antenna or its supporting structure shall be
located in the area between the front property line and
the dwelling on any lot less than 1/2 acre in size.
(c) Within residential developments, no antenna shall
be higher than thirty-five (35') feet above grade
level, except satellite antennas which shall not exceed
fifteen (15') feet in height.
(d) A maximum of two (2) antennas including exempt
antennas shall be allowed per lot, except as provided
for under regulations for FCC licensed Amateur Radio
antennas.
(e) All roof-mounted satellite dish antennas within
residential developments are prohibited.
(f) Within non-residential developments, no antenna
shall be higher than the maximum height permitted in
the zone, measured from grade level, except as provided
for under regulations for FCC licensed Amateur Radio
antennas.
(g) Within non-residential developments, no antenna
shall be roof-mounted except on a flat portion of the
roof structure with parapets, and/or architecturally
matching screening plan.
LOCATION OF COMMERCIAL TRANSMITTING ANTENNAS. Not-
withstanding any provision to the contrary in this Ordinance, no
commercial transmitting antenna shall be established or expanded
except in the M-SC, M-M and M-H zoning district, subject to the
approval of a Conditional Use Permit, and then shall conform to
the regulations contained in this Ordinance.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. No commercial transmitting
antenna shall be erected or relocated except upon the granting of
a Conditional Use Permit therefore in accordance with Section
18.28 of Ordinance No. 348 hereof. The requirements of Ordinance
No. 348 and of this Ordinance first shall be construed in a
manner to make them compatible. When there is a conflict between
the two, the provisions of this Ordinance shall control.
DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL TRANS-
MITTING ANTENNAS.
(a) All ground-mounted antennas shall be required to
maintain their supporting structures at least ten (10')
feet from any property line and ten (10) feet from any
other structure.
(b) The base of all ground-mounted antennas shall be
screened by walls fences or landscaping at least six
(6') feet in height obscuring visibility of the base of
the antenna. landscaping shall be of a type and vari-
ety capable of growing within one (1) year to a land-
scape screen which obscures the visibility of the base
of the antenna.
(c) All antennas and their supporting structures shall
be located in the rear yard or side yard, except a
street side yard.
(d) No antenna shall be higher than the maximum height
permitted in the zone, measured from grade level.
(e) A maximum of one (1) antenna shall be allowed per
lot.
(f) No antenna or its supporting structure shall be
located within 1,500 fee of Interstate 15.
(g) No antenna or its supporting structure shall be
located within 1,000 feet of any other such antenna.
AMATEUR RADIO ANTENNA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
(a) No part of any amateur radio antenna shall exceed
65 feet in height measured from the property's grade.
(b) Not more than one amateur radio antenna support
structure and one whip antenna structure in excess of
30 feet in height shall be permitted on the building
site.
(c) No portion of any amateur radio antenna, including
the array, shall be located within any front yard of
any lot of less than 1/2 acre in size, or any required
side yard. An antenna support structure and its asso-
6
ciated antenna may be located in a required rear year
area provided that it is placed as far forward as
possible from the rear property line. Antenna support
structures mounted on roofs shall be kept to the rear
of the centerline of the main structure.
(d) The development standards of amateur radio anten-
nas may be waived or modified by the Planning Director
upon approval of an Amateur Radio Antenna Permit as
described below.
(e) Replacement of an amateur radio antenna support
structure shall be subject to all applicable regula-
tions and issuance of appropriate permits. However,
the supported antenna, including the array, may be
replaced without issuance of a new building permit,
provided the replacement antenna does not exceed the
maximum weight, dimensions or wind load area specified
in the current building permit.
AMATEUR RADIO ANTENNA PERMIT.
(a) Application. Application for an Amateur Radio
Antenna Permit shall be made to the Planning Director
on forms provided. Plans and information reasonably
needed to analyze the application may be required by
the Planning Director. The application shall include a
statement of the reasons why strict conformance with
the Amateur Radio Antennas Development standards will
unreasonably interfere with the operator's ability to
receive or transmit signals or will impose unreasonable
costs on amateur radio operator when view in light of
the cost of the equipment.
(b) Issuance of Permit. The Planning Director may
issue an Amateur Radio Antenna Permit if the applicant
demonstrates that strict compliance with the Amateur
Radio Antennas Development Standards would unreasonably
interfere with the operator's ability to receive or
transmit signals or impose unreasonable costs on the
amateur radio operator when viewed in the light of the
costs of the equipment. The Planning Director may
impose conditions reasonably necessary to accomplish
the purposes of these regulations, provided those
conditions do not unreasonable interfere with the
ability of the operator to receive or transmit signals
or result in unreasonable costs on the amateur radio
operator when viewed in light of the cost of the equip-
ment.
(c) Notification. Notice of an application for an
Amateur Radio Antenna Permit shall be given to all
7
owners of real property located within 300 feet of the
parcel on which parcel on which the proposed antenna is
to be located.
(d) Fees. Fees for consideration of Amateur Radio
Antenna Permit Applications may be established by
resolution of the City Council.
OPERATIONAL CRITERIA. The following regulations shall
apply to the established, installation and operation of all
antennas in all zones:
(a) Antennas shall be installed and maintained in
compliance with the requirements of the Building Code.
Antenna installers shall obtain a building permit prior
to installation.
(b) No advertising material shall be allowed on any
antenna.
(c) All electrical wiring associated with any antenna
shall be buried underground or hidden in a manner
acceptable to the Building Official.
(d) No portion of an antenna array shall exceed beyond
the property lines or into any front yard area. Guy
wires shall not be anchored within any front yard area
but may be attached to the building.
(e) The antenna, including guy wires, supporting
structures and accessory ec/uipment, shall be located
and designed so as to minimize the visual impact on
surrounding properties and from public streets. The
materials user in constructing the antenna shall not be
unnecessarily bright, shiny, garish, or reflective.
(f) Every antenna must be adequately grounded, for
protection against a direct strike of lightning, with
an adequate ground wire. Ground wires shall be of the
type approved by the latest edition of the Electrical
Code for grounding masts and lightning artesters and
shall be installed in a mechanical manner, with as few
bends as possible, maintaining a clearance of at least
two inches from combustible materials. Lightning
arresters shall be user that are approved as safe by
the Underwriter~s Laboratories, Inc. and both sides of
the line must be adequately protected with proper
artesters to remove static charges accumulated on the
line. When lead-in conductors of polyethylene ribbon-
type are used, lightning arresters must be installed in
each conductor. When coaxial cable or shielded twin
lead is used for lead-in, suitable protection may be
8
provided without lightning arresters by grounding the
exterior metal sheath.
(g) Antenna height limitations shall not apply to
antennas which do not require building permits nor to
satellite antennas.
(h) Building permits are not required for antennas
that meet all of the following criteria:
(1) The antenna and its associated support
structure are supported primarily by attachment to
a building.
(2) The antenna, including its associated support
structure, does not weigh more than 80 pounds.
(3) The antenna, excluding its associated support
structure, does not exceed 4.4 square feet in
effective wind loading area.
(4) Attachment of the antenna and its associated
support structure to a building does not require
modification or reinforcement of load bearing
elements of the building in order to support the
antenna and its associated support structure at
wind speeds of up to 70 miles per hour.
VARIANCES. PUrsuant to the procedures of Section 18.27
of Ordinance No. 348, any person may seek a variance from the
provisions of this Ordinance. No fee shall be charged to an
applicant for a variance that is required solely for the purposes
of complying with the Ordinance. Any variance so granted is
revocable for failure by the applicant or property owner to
comply with the conditions imposed. A variance shall be issued
for an antenna if it meets the following standards:
(a) Locating the antenna in conformance with the
specification of this Ordinance would obstruct or
otherwise excessively interfere with reception, and
such obstruction or interference involves factors
beyond the applicant's control~ or, the cost of meeting
the specifications of this Ordinance is excessive,
given the cost of the proposed antenna.
(b) The variance application includes a certification
that the proposed installation is in conformance with
applicable City Building Code regulations. Further-
more, the application must contain written documenta-
tion of such conformance, including load distributions
within the building~s support structure and certified
by a registered engineer.
9
(c) If it is proposed that the antenna will be located
on the roof, where possible, the antenna shall be
located on the rear portion of the roof and be consis-
tent with neighboring improvements, uses, and architec-
tural character.
NON-CONFORMING ANTENNAS. All antennas, in any zone,
lawfully constructed and erected prior to the effective
date of this Ordinance, which do not conform to the
requirements of the provisions of this Ordinance for
the particular zone in which they are located, shall be
accepted as non-conforming uses for a period of one (1)
year from the date of the adoption of this Ordinance.
SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY. The City Council hereby
declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and
if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold
any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be
invalid, such decisions shall not affect the validity of the
remaining parts of this Ordinance.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adop-
tion of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as
required by law.
SECTION 5. 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 6. 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.
1991 .
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED This __ day of
ATTEST:
RONALDJ. PARKS
MAYOR
JUNE S. GREEK
CITY CLERK
10
RECOMMENDATION: I.
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
October 21, 1991
Case No.: Antenna Ordinance
Prepared By: OliverMujica
ADOPT Resolution No. P.C. 91-
adoption of the Antenna Ordinance.
recommending
APPLICATIONINFORMATION
APPLICANT:
City of Temecula
PROPOSAL:
An Ordinance establishing regulations for the use of Antennas.
LOCATION:
City Wide
BACKGROUND:
On January 8, 1990, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 90-01,
"a moratorium on the construction and use of commercial
transmitting antennas". Through the adoption of Ordinance No. 91-
01 in January, the City Council approved the final extension of the
moratorium, to January 8, 1992.
The purpose for preparing the proposed Antenna Ordinance is due
to the inadequacy of the County Ordinance No. 348, in which the
City Council's concerns include the following:
Non-commercial antennas (i.e. ham radio, satellite dish and
television/radio antennas) are permitted as assessory
structures without specific development standards.
Commercial transmitting antennas are permitted in zoning
districts in close proximity to the City's center and Interstate
15, which may create a significant impact to the aesthetics of
the City.
A:DIRECTIONAL SiGN
ANALYSIS:
Based on these concerns, the City Council directed the Planning
Department Staff to prepare an Antenna Ordinance which establishes
regulations for all antennas within the City of Temecula.
Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 provides the following
requirements for antennas.
Non-commercial antennas
and ham radio antennas)
as an accessory use.
(i.e. satellite dish, television/radio
are permitted in all zoning districts
Setback requirements are as follows:
Residential
Commercial
Side-yard Rear-yard
5 feet 10 feet
2 feet for each foot by which the height
exceeds 35 feet.
2 feet for each foot by which the height
exceeds 35 feet.
are as follows:
40 feet
50 feet*
50 feet*
Exceptions (Section 18.20 b) - Structures
Industrial
Height requirements
Residential:
Commercial:
Industrial:
* Height
necessary for the maintenance and operations of a
building and flagpoles, wireless masts, chimneys, or
similar structures may exceed prescribed height limits
where such structures do not provide additional floor
space.
It should be noted that antennas (both commercial and
non-commercial) fall within this category.
Height Exceptions (Section 18.34.3) - For structures
other than buildings, such as antennas, an application
for a greater height limit in accordance with the
A:DIRECTIONAL SIGN
D-SIGN-A 2
DISCUSSION:
limitations of the zoning classification may be made to
the Planning Commission pursuant to the provisions of
Section 18.30 (plot plan applications) of this Ordinance.
Ifgranted, the approved plot plan shall specifically state
the allowed height.
It should be also noted that
limitations for "other structures"
industrial zoning classifications
the maximum height
in the commercial and
is 105 feet.
· Screening Requirements:
Within commercial and industrial zoning classifications, all
roof-mounted mechanical equipment, including antennas, shall
be screened from the ground elevation view to a minimum
sight distance of 1,320 feet.
Exhibit "A" graphically presents the zoning districts that curren~y
permit commercial transmitting antennas, pursuant to Ordinance No.
348.
Preparatory to drafting an Antenna Ordinance, Staff conducted
background research, into a number of areas related to antennas in
the community, and prepared a summary report, which is attached
for the Planning Commission's review. This summary report
analyzed the following: 1) existing conditions, such as the current
moratorium ordinance, existing commercial transmitting antennas
and current zoning requirements; 2) recent court decisions; 3)
antenna regulations adopted by other selected California cities; and
4) key issues to address in the antenna ordinance.
In order to provide the City of Temecula with specific and complete
standards for regulating antennas, Staff has prepared the attached
Ordinance which includes, in summary, the following main
components:
Non-Commercial Antennas
Non-commercial antennas may be established in all zoning
districts as assessory uses, subject to the following standards:
(a)
Five (5') foot minimum side yard setback, ten (I0') foot
minimum rear yard setback, and a ten (10') foot
minimum separation from any other structure.
A:DIRECTIONAL SIGN
D-SIGN-A 3
(b)
Within residential developments, maximum height is
thirty-five (35') feet, except satellite dishes which shall
not exceed fifteen (15') feet.
(c) Roof-mounted antennas are prohibited within
residential developments.
(d) Within non-residential developments, the maximum
height of an antenna shall not exceed the maximum
height permitted in the zone.
(e) Roof-mounted antennas are permitted within non°
residential developments subject to screening
requirements.
Commercial Transmitting Antennas
1.
Commercial transmitting antennas are permitted in the M-SC,
M-M and M-H zoning districts, subject to the approval of a
conditional use permit; and subject to the following standards:
(a) Ten (10') foot minimum setback from any properly line;
and a ten (10') foot minimum setback from any other
structure.
(b) Six (6') foot high screening around the base of the
antennas is required.
(c) The maximum height of an antenna shall not exceed
the maximum height permitted in the zone.
(d) Only one (1) antenna is permitted per parcel.
(e) A 1,500 foot mimimum setback from Interstate 15 is
required.
(f) A 1,000 foot mimimum setback from any other
commercial transmitting antenna is required.
Exhibit "B"graphically presents the Planning Staffs recommendation
regarding the zoning districts that should conditionally permit
commercial transmitting antennas.
A:DIRECTIONAL SIGN
D-SIGN-A
CONCLUSION:
As noted above, the proposed Antenna 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 antennas.
The new Antenna Ordinance willserve as interim regulations until the
City's Zoning Development Cede is prepared and adopted. This
ordinance could be incorporated and/or modified into the final
Zoning Development Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION: 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).
FINDINGS: 1.
The proposed Antenna Ordinance is necessary to bring about
eventual conformity with the City's future Land Use Plan.
There is reasonable probability that the proposed Antenna
Ordinance willbe consistent with the City's future General
Plan, which willbe completed in a reasonable time and in
accordance with the goals and/or policies of the City's future
General Plan.
There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the future General Plan, if the proposed
policies are ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the
fact that policies willbe adopted for the new General Plan.
Therefore, it is likely that the City willconsider these policies
during their preparation of the General Plan.
FUTURE GENERAL PLAN
AND SWAP
CONSISTENCY: The proposed Antenna Ordinance is consistent with SWAP. In
addition, Staff finds it probable that this Ordinance willbe consistent
with the new General Plan when it is adopted.
A:DIRECTIONAL SIGN
D-SIGN-A 5
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission:
1. ADOPT Resolution No. P.C. 91- recommending
adoption of the Antenna Ordinance.
OM/antenna
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Resolution
"Draft" Ordinance
Exhibit "A"Current Zoning Districts
Exhibit "B" Proposed Zoning Districts
Antenna Ordinance -Summary Report
A:DIRECTIONAL SIGN
D-SIGN-A 6
FEANNXN~I COMXTSB1'ON NTBr~TBS OCTOBER 23., 1991
6A, TENTATIVE TRACT 25277 AND ZONE CHANGE 5724
Proposal 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.
CHAIRMAN HOXGLRNDopened the public hearing at 7:00 P.M.
GARY CULP, 31045 Via Gilberto, Temecula,present to oppose
the Acacia Development; however, declined testimony until
the next public hearing.
FRED ~OOD, 45906 Hopactong Street, Temecula, declined
testimony until the next public hearing.
JOSEPH TERRAZAS, 31160 Lahontan Street, Temecula,
expressed opposition to the Acacia Development based on
the grading, inadequate infrastructure and flooding of
the Pechanga Creek.
DONALD WlLKENS, 31176 Washaria Court, Temecula, expressed
opposition to the Acacia Development based on the
grading, density, and inadequate infrastructure.
DON WHITE, 31109 Via Gilberto, Temecula,. expressed
opposition to the Acacia Development based on the
grading, densities, traffic and flooding of the creek.
COMMISSIONER FORD moved to close the public hearing at
7:05 P.M. and continue Tentative Tract Map No. 25277,
Change of Zone No. 5724 off calendar and re-notice the
public hearing, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY.
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey,
Ford, Chiniaeff,
Hoagland
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND declared a recess at 7:05 P.M.
reconvened at 7:15 P.M.
The meeting
6. TELEVISION/RADIO ~NTEMMA ORDINI~NCI
6.1 Proposal for an ordinance establishing regulations for
television/radio antennas, city wide.
OLIVER MUJICA presented the sta[f report.
~ler~l~91 -5 - IOF~3/91
PLAI~4ZNO COMMXBBXOM MX!i~X'E8 OCTOBLeR ZX, ~99X
COMMISSIONER CHXNXAEFF questioned if the intent of the
City Council in proposing this ordinance was to ban or
control all antennas.
OLXVER MU~XCA advised that the way Ordinance 348 is
currently written it leaves it open to roof mounted
antennas. The major intent of this ordinance is to
control roof mounted commercial transmitting antennas.
After further research the Planning Director was directed
to prepare an ordinance which addressed all types of
antennas.
COMMISSIONER CHXNIAEFF questioned if staff reviewed the
requirements for the FCC as it relates to amateur radio
operators.
OLIVERMUJICA advised that the federal regulations would
be satisfied by exempting amateur radio operators.
CHAIRMAN HOAGLANDguestioned the effect on existing roof
mounted antennas.
OLIVERMU~ICA stated that existing roof mounted antennas
would have a one year amortization and would be required
to be removed at expiration.
JOHN CAVANAUQH advised the Commission that the City
Council had decided that in order to address special
circumstances, such as the inability to receive
reception, they must provide a variance procedure to the
ordinance.
OLIVEIt MU~XCA also stated that some cities allowed for
retracting antennas; however, this creates an enforcement
problem.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF questioned who gives approval on
the variance.
JOHN CaVANAUQH recommended that the variance procedure
come before the Planning Commission.
CHAIRMAN NOAGL~alD opened the pubic hearing at 7:30 P.M.
The following individuals spoke against banning amateur
radio antennas, addressing their importance in the case
of disaster preparedness for fire, flood, earthquake,
etc.:
PC),~IIO~21/91 -- 6 -- 10/23/91
PLANNING COMMXSSXON MXNUTB8 OCTOBER 21, 1991
ROBERT BERG, 42701 Via Del Campo, Temecula.
MICHAEL TUCCI, 42325 Via Consuelo, Temecula.
MARGARET TUCCI, 42325 Via Consuelo, Temecula.
JULIE BSARO, P.O. Box 1335, Wildomar.
RICK SAVAGB, 43120 Vista Del Rancho, Temecula.
JOSEPH TERRAZl~, 31160 Lahontan Street, Temecula.
COMMISSIONER FAREY expressed a concern that there were
discrepancies in the report, as well as the ordinance,
and the Commission needed clarification on what was
exempt.
COMMISSIONER FARBY moved to continue Television/Radio
Antenna Ordinance to allow staff to answer the questions
raised by the Commission, seconded by COMMISSIONER
CHINIAEFF for discussion.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF suggested that staff look at the
legality of disallowing amateur radios and also the
technical issue of retracting antennas.
COMMISSIONER FORD added the variance procedure to that.
JOHN CAVANAUGH advised that the City Attorney's office
would prepare a full set of variances as well as review
the boundaries of exempting amateur radios. Mr.
Cavanaugh stated that the City Attorney's office would
have to research whether the ordinance can exempt amateur
radio antennas entirely and still target other antennas.
COMMISSIONER FAREY moved to continue Television/Radio
Antenna Ordinance and continue the public hearing to the
second Planning Commission meeting on November 18, 1991,
seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD.
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey,
Ford, Chiniaeff,
Hoagland
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
ADULT BUSINESS ORDINANCE
7.~ Proposal for an ordinance to regulate Adult Business
within Temecula City Limits.
OLIVER MUJICA presented the staff report.
PL"M~IO,21~91 -7 - 10~23/91
ITEM # 5
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Planning Commissioners
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
December 10, 1991
Variance No. 8
At the request of the applicant, Variance No. 8 was continued from the Planning Commission Public
Hearing of November 18, 1991 to the Commission's meeting of December 02, 1991, allowing the
proponent additional time to prepare exhibits describing the requested variance. The December 2 meeting
was canceled and the project was scheduled for the next regular meeting on December 16, 1991.
The original November 18, 1991 Planning Commission Staff Report and referenced exhibits are attached
hereto.
vgw
S\STAFFRPT~8.VAR
RECOMMENDATION:
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 18, 1991
Case No.: Variance No. 8
Prepared By: Charly Ray
ADOPT Resolution No. 91-_ approving Variance No. 8 based on the
analysis and findings contained in the staff report.
HWGA California, A California Limited Partnership
Mr. Joel Burnstine, PresidentRVestcliff Investments
Request for variance from City Ordinance No. 348, Section 19.4, 9.4
to allow construction of two free- standing entry monument signs at
the project site's Rancho California Road drive entrance.
North side of Rancho California Road, between Moraga Road and
Lyndie Lane.
C-1/C-P (General Commercial)
North:
South:
East:
West:
C-1/C-P (General Commercial)
R-3-4000 (General Residential, 4,000 square foot
minimum lot area per dwelling unit)
C-1/C-P (General Commercial)
C-1/C-P (General Commercial)
As existing, no change proposed
Shopping Center
North:
South:
East:
West:
Shopping Center
Multiple Family Residential Development
Shopping Center
Shopping Center
S\STAFFRPT\8.VAR 2
PROJECT STATISTICS
Existing Site Area
4.4 acres +/-
Existing Free Standing Signs
One monument sign; i.e. "UNOCAL" gasoline prices sign,
northeasterly of signage proposed by Variance No. 8, and an
additional menu sign west of signs proposed by this project.
Proposed Signage
per this request
Two additional monument entrance signs bordering the project site's
Rancho California Road driveway access point
Allowed signage per
City Ordinance No. 348,
Section 19.4, 9.4
"Number of Free-standing Signs-All locations: Not more than one
free-standing sign shall be permitted on a parcel of land, except that
if a shopping center has frontage on 2 or more streets, the shopping
center shall be permitted 2 free-standing signs, provided that the 2
signs 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."
BACKGROUND
Variance No. 8 was submitted to City Planning Department for consideration on September 19, 1991.
The present configuration of the signs proposed by this variance is an attempt to provide advertising
exposure requested by the applicant in compliance with the intent of applicable City Ordinance as stated
above.
ANALYSIS
Existing Signs
Staff visited the project site on September 25, 1991. Existing free-standing signs noted at that time
consisted of a wooden menu sign located west of the project site entrance; and a monument sign
displaying gasoline prices located in front of the UNOCAL service station approximately 300 feet to the
east.
Proposed Signs
Two garden wall structures, approximately 3 feet in height currently exist as project entrance definition
elements abutting the shopping center's Rancho California Road drive access. The applicant proposes
to add shopping center tenant identification to these existing structures
resulting in two monument signs bordering the project site entrance, Total height of proposed signs,
including the existing base wall structure is approximately 6 feet each. Total area of each sign face is
approximately 50 square feet.
VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS
Site Configuration/Limitations
The existing shopping center site has approximately 200 feet of frontage on Lyndie Lane to the west and
530 feet of frontage on Rancho California Road to the south. Primary access to the site is from the two-
way drive accessing Rancho California Road. As the site has frontage on two roads, two free standing
monuments signs, one per frontage are allowed by City Ordinance. The applicant proposes a
consolidation of allowed signage at the primary entrance to the site.
Visual Impacts
Signs as proposed by Variance No. 8 conform with low profile monument signage designs generally
endorsed by the City. Total height (6 feet) and area (2 single-faced signs totaling 100 square feet), are
significantly less than the maximums allowed by City code (maximum allowed height: 20 feet; maximum
allowable area is 200 square feet). Further, the location of signs proposed is a visual extension of the
low garden walls already defining the project site entrance. The overall appearance of the project's
Rancho California Road streetscape will be further enhanced by removal of the existing Moraga Plaza
wooden menu sign as required by this project's Condition of Approval No. 4.
SOUTHWEST AREA PLAN AND FUTURE GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The variance requests relief from strict application of an existing zoning ordinance based on the findings
below. As further stated in these findings, quantifiable amounts of signage requested is significantly less
than total maximums currently allowed. Further, the design and location of the signs proposed by this
variance conform with the intent of the City's existing sign code, which is to provide adequate advertising
exposure to commercial interests compatible with community aesthetic standards. The proposal for
commercial signage on the site is also consistent with the SWAP commercial land uses recommended
for the subject property. As such, Staff also finds the requested variance will likely be consistent with
goals, policies and design guidelines contained in the City's Future General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Pursuant to Section 15311 of the California Environmental Quality Act, this proposal is determined to be
categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
Signage proposed by Variance No. 8 responds to physical access limitations and existing construction
of entry features affecting the project site. Existing walls bordering and defining the primary project site
entrance provide an appropriate base for shopping center identification signs proposed. Further, it is
Staff's determination that the sign variance requested respects the intent of the City code regarding
dimensions and construction of signs, in that signs proposed are of a low profile design compatible with
existing architecture of the project site. Based on the above, Staff also finds the proposal will likely be
compatible with design guidelines incorporated in the City's Future General Plan. Approval of the
requested variance will bring the site into conformance with applicable land use ordinances.
S%STAFFRPT\8.VAR 4
FINDINGS
There are exceptional circumstances applicable to the existing size and configuration of the subject
property. The project site is afforded frontage on 2 streets, Rancho California Road to the south
and Lyndie Lane to the west. By City Ordinance, therefore, the site is allowed two free-standing
signs. However, primary access to, and visibility of the shopping center site is limited to Rancho
California Road. The applicant proposes consolidation of allowed signage at the project site's
Rancho California Road entrance.
The granting of this variance is compatible with the general welfare of the public in that signs
proposed will not unduly obstruct motorists vision, nor are signs requested by this variance
visually offensive.
The variance proposed allows the applicant to adequately identify the project site in a manner
compatible with the intent of City sign regulations. Signage proposed is consistent with design
and construction types generally endorsed by the City. Signs are to be low monuments, 6 feet
or less in height, 50 square feet or less in face area, and constructed of materials compatible with
architectural features of the affected shopping center.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Planning Commission:
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving Variance No. 8 based on the analysis and findings
contained in the Staff Report, and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
vgw
Attachments:
Resolution No. 91-_ - page 6
Conditions of Approval - page 11
Exhibits - page 13
S\STAFFRPT\8.VAR 5
A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 91-__
S\STAFFRPT\8.VAR 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 8 TO CONSTRUCT TWO FREE
STANDING SIGNS LOCATED AT THE MORAGA PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER
ON THE NORTH SIDE OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD BETWEEN LYNDIE
LANE AND MORAGA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.
921-310-019
WHEREAS, Mr. Joel Burnstine filed Variance No. 8 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 conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Variance
on December 2nd, 1991, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support
or opposition to said Variance; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report regarding the
Variance;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Findings.
That the Temecula Planning Commission 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.
Be
The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the
issuance of building permits, 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.
S\STAFFRPT%8.VAR 7
m
m
(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 complied 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.
The proposed Variance is 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 a preparation of the general plan.
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:
(1)
There is reasonable probability that Variance No. 8 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.
Pursuant to Sections 18.27(a) and 18.30 (c), no variance may be approved unless the following
findings can be made:
Special circumstances exist applicable to a parcel of property, including size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings, whereby the strict application of this ordinance
deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity that is under
the same zoning classification.
The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable
requirements of state law and City ordinances.
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.
S\STAFFRPT\8.VAR 8
The Planning Commission, in approving of the proposed Variance, makes the following findings,
to wit:
There are exceptional circumstances applicable to the existing size and configuration of the
subject property. The project site is afforded frontage on 2 streets, Rancho California Road
to the south and Lyndie Lane to the west. By City Ordinance, therefore, the site is allowed
two free-standing signs. However, primary access to, and visibility of the shopping center
site is limited to Rancho California Road. The applicant proposes consolidation of allowed
signage at the project site's Rancho California Road entrance.
The granting of this variance is compatible with the general welfare of the public in that
signs proposed will not unduly obstruct motorists vision, nor are signs requested by this
variance visually offensive.
The variance proposed allows the applicant to adequately identify the project site in a
manner compatible with the intent of City sign regulations, Signage proposed is consistent
with design and construction types generally endorsed by the City. Signs are to be low
monuments, 6 feet or less in height, 50 square feet or less in face area, and constructed
of materials compatible with architectural features of the affected shopping center.
As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Variance proposed conforms to the logical
development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future development of
the surrounding property.
SECTION II. Environmental Compliance.
The project is determined to be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to section 15311 of said act which addresses construction of minor accessory
structures, including on premises signs.
SECTION III. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Variance No. 8 to construct two free
standing signs located at the Moraga Plaza Shopping Center on the north side of Rancho California Road
between Lyndie Lane and Moraga Road, and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 921-310-019 subject to
the following conditions:
1. Attachment 2, attached hereto.
S\STAFFRPT\8,VAR 9
SECTION IV.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of December, 1991.
JOHN E. 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 2nd day of December, 1991 by the following
vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
S\STAFFRPT\8.VAR 10
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
S\STAFFRPT\8.VAR 11
ATTACHMENT 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
VARIANCE NO. 8
Commission Approval
Date:
Expiration Date:
December 2, 1991
December 2, 1992
Planning Department
1. Individual signs shall require approval Qf 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 E and F.
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.
4. The existing wooden menu identifying Moraga Plaza tenants shall be removed prior to issuance
of building permits for signs proposed by Variance No. 8.
S\STAFFRPT\8.VAR 12
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
EXHIBITS
S\STAFFRPT\8.VAR 13
CITY OF TEMECULA )
a ¢2-/0 /
' ,o,~ P/p~t/6
RA~I35/40AI Porce/ Mup 9610
r
CASE NO.~J~--
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
:JSE
~AL
?'
CASE NO.
P.C. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA )
r ~
cAsE ,o.~Hk~.. ~'~
P.C. DATE
ITEM # 6
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
December 16, 1991
Change of Zone No. 18; and Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 2
RECOMMENDATION:
RECOMMEND ADOPTION of Negative Declaration for
Change of Zone No. 18 and Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 2;
ADOPT Resolution No. 91 - recommending approval of
Change of Zone No. 18 and Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 2; and
m
RECOMMEND Adoption of Ordinance No. 91- , entitled
"An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of
Temecula, California, Amending Zoning Ordinance No. 91 -
13 Pertaining to Ordinance No. 348,2919 (Specific Plan
No. 219) as it Relates to Zoning."
PROPOSAL
Change the zoning designation of the subject property from R-A-2 1/2 to Specific Plan; and,
Amend the boundary of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. I to include Planning Area
No. 36, for the property located on the southeast corner of Margarita Road and De Portola
Road.
BACKGROUND"
On August 5, 1991, the Planning Commission considered the applicant's proposal. During
the public hearing, the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association (LRHA) expressed its
opposition regarding the rezoning of the subject property due to its inconsistency with the
Association's C,C & R's. In rebuttal to the Association's opposition, the applicant indicated
that he is willing to negotiate with the LRHA to remove his property from the Los Ranchitos
Homeowners Association boundary.
At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission continued this item, for a
period not to exceed 90 days, in order to allow the applicant the opportunity to resolve this
S\STAFFRTP~ 18CZ-2 19SP.AMD
issue with the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association. In addition, the Commission also
required that this item be renoticed.
DISCUSSION
Since the Planning Commission meeting of August 5, 1991, the applicant has discussed this
issue with the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association. Based on the applicant's and LRHA
representative's indication, it is anticipated that this issue will be resolved at the Association's
meeting of December 12, 1991. However, since the staff report needed to be finalized prior
to the Association meeting, Staff will make an oral presentation at the public hearing.
In addition, some of the surrounding property owners have expressed a concern over the
potential commercial uses permitted within the subject property (Planning Area No. 36), if the
change of zone is approved. Therefore, Staff will also make an oral presentation regarding
recommended uses to be permitted within Planning Area No. 36.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
RECOMMEND ADOPTION of Negative Declaration for
Change of Zone No. 18 and Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 2; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending approval of
Change of Zone No. 18 and Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 2; and
RECOMMEND Adoption of Ordinance No. 91 - , entitled
"An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of
Temecula, California, Amending Zoning Ordinance No. 91 -
13 Pertaining to Ordinance No. 348,2919 (Specific Plan
No. 219) as it Relates to Zoning."
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Resolution - page 3
Draft Or_d_inance - page 7
Conditions of Approval - page 10
Planning Commission Staff Report (Dated August 5, 1991) - page 15
Planning Commission Minutes (Dated August 5, 1991) page 16
Exhibits - page 17
a. Vicinity Map
b. Site Plan
c. Planning Area 35
Descriptive Summary - Planning Area 36 - page 18
Permitted Uses - Planning Areas 1, 27 and 36 - page 19
S\STAFFRTP%18CZ-219SP.AMD 2
A'!'FACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. __
S\STAFFRTF, 18CZ-2 19SP,AMD 3
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CHANGE OF
ZONE NO. 18 AND SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219, AMENDMENT NO.
2 CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY FROM R-A-2 1/2 TO SPECIFIC PLAN AND AMEND
THE BOUNDARY OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219, AMENDMENT
NO. 1 TO INCLUDE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS PLANNING
AREA NO. 36 FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MARGARITA ROAD AND DE
PORTOLA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.
926-012-006.
WHEREAS, Sam McCann filed Change of Zone No. 18 and Specific Plan No.
219, Amendment No. 2 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 and Specific Plan Amendment applications
were processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Change of Zone and
Specific Plan Amendment on August 5, 1991, and December 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 and Specific Plan Amendment;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1o Findings.
That the Temedula Planning Commission 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:
The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general
plan.
S\STAFFRTP\I 8CZ-2 19SP.AMD 4
The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, 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 complied 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.
The Planning Commission in recommending approval of the proposed Change of Zone
and Specific Plan Amendment, makes the following findings, to wit:
There is a reasonable probability that Change of Zone No. 18 and Specific Plan
No. 219, Amendment No. 2 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 Specific Plan and is consistent with SP 219, Amendment No. 1.
There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with
the future General Plan, if Change of Zone No. 18 and Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 2 are ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that
an approval of such a zone change and amendment 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
c6mpatible physical relationship with adjoining properties, due to the fact that
the adjoining properties were designed as an overall concept for Specific Plan
No. 219, Amendment No. I and the proposed project is consistent with
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because
it does not represent a significant change to the planned land use of the area,
due to the fact that the proposed land use is consistent with the overall
concept of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1.
4. The Change of Zone and Specific Plan Amendment are compatible with the health,
S\STAFFRTt~18CZ-219SP.AMO 5
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.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Change of
Zone No. 18 and Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 2 changing the zoning designation
of the subject property from R-A-2 1/2 to Specific Plan and amending the boundary of Specific
Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1 to include the subject property as Planning Area No. 36
(Neighborhood Commercial) for the subject property located on the southeast corner of
Margarita Road and De Portola Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 926-012-006.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of December, 1991.
JOHN E. 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
December, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
S\STAFFRTP~I 8CZ-2 19SP.AMD 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
ORDINANCE NO. 91-13
S\STAFFRTP%18CZ-219SP.AMD 7
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
ORDINANCE NO. 91-13
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 91-13
PERTAINING TO ORDINANCE NO. 348.2919 (SPECIFIC PLAN
NO. 219) AS IT RELATES TO ZONING.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. City Ordinance No. 90-04 adopted by reference certain Non-Codified Riverside
County Ordinances, including Ordinance No. 348, Article X, Section 10.4.b of Ordinance No.
348.
SECTION 2. Article XVIla of Ordinance No. 348 is amended by adding thereto a new Section
17.36 to read as follows:
Section 17.36. SP ZONE REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219.
SEE EXHIBIT "C"
SECTION 3. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this
Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any
sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid such decision shall not affect
the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the
same to be posted as required by law.
SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days
after its passage; and within fifteen (15) days after its passage, together with the names of
the City Council Members voting thereon, it shall be published in a newspaper published and
circulated in said City.
S\STAFFRTP~I 8CZ-2 19SP.AMD 8
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of ,1991.
ATTEST:
Ronald J. Parks, Mayor
June S, Greek
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No. 91-__ was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a
regular meeting of the City Council on the day of ,1991, and that thereafter,
said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the
day of ,1991, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
S\STAFFRTP~ 18CZ-2 19SP,AMD 9
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
S\STAFFRTP~lBCZ*219SP.AMD 10
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219, AMENDMENT NO. 2
Planning Department
1. Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 2 shall consist of the following:
A. Exhibit "A": Specific Plan Text
B. Exhibit "B": Specific Plan Conditions of Approval
C. Exhibit "C": Specific Plan Development Standards
If any of the following conditions of approval differ from the specific plan text or
exhibits, the conditions enumerated herein shall take precedence.
m
The development of the property shall be in accordance with the mandatory
requirements of all City of Temecula ordinances including Ordinance Nos. 348 and 460
and state laws; and shall conform substantially with adopted Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 2 as filed in the office of the Planning Department, unless otherwise
amended.
No portion of the specific plan which purports or proposes to change, waive or modify
any ordinance or other legal requirement for the development shall be considered to
be part of the adopted specific plan.
The project shall comply with the conditions set forth in the following agency letters
and/or the requirements set forth by these agencies at the development stage:
A. Road Department
B. Flood Control
C. Fi_re Department
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
Parks
County Administrative Offices
Water Agency
Sewer Agency
Temecula School District
Department of Health
June 2, 1988
May 26, 1988
January 8, 1988 and
February 25, 1991
May 25, 1988
April 5, 1988
May 23, 1988
May 24, 1988
January 26, 1988
July 20, 1990
m
Impacts to the Temecula Valley Unified School District shall be mitigated at the
development application stage in accordance with the District policies in effect at the
time of tract submittal.
S\STAFFRTP%18CZ-219SP.AMD 1 I
10.
11,
Common areas identified in the specific plan shall be owned and maintained as follows:
A permanent master maintenance organization shall be established for the
specific plan area, to assume ownership and maintenance responsibility for all
common recreation, open space, circulation systems and landscaped areas.
The organization may be public or private. Merger with an area-wide or regional
organization shall satisfy this condition provided that such organization is legally
and financially capable of assuming the responsibilities for ownership and
maintenance. If the organization is a private association then neighborhood
associations shall be established for each residential development, where
required, and such associations may assume ownership and maintenance
responsibility for neighborhood common areas,
Unless otherwise provided for in these conditions of approval, common areas
shall be conveyed to the maintenance organization as implementing
development is approved or any subdivision is recorded.
The maintenance organization shall be established prior to or concurrent with
the recordation of the first land division, or issuance of any building permits for
any approved development permit (use permit, plot plan, etc.)
Development applications which incorporate common areas shall be accompanied by
design plans for the common area. Such plans shall specify the location and extent
of landscaping, irrigation systems, structures, and circulation (vehicular, pedestrian
and/or equestrian).
The following special studies/reports shall accompany implementing development
applications in the planning areas listed below:
Studv/Reeort
Planning Areas
Archeological Report
Mitigation for Stephen's
Kangaroo Rat (See
Condition No. 16)
As per the County Historian's requirements
1- and 25
A land dFvision filed for the purposes of phasing or financing shall not be considered
an implementing development application; provided that if the maintenance
organization is a property owners association, the legal documentation necessary to
establish the association shall be recorded concurrently with the recordation of the
final map.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of any use contemplated
by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain clearance from the Planning
Department that all pertinent conditions of approval have been satisfied with the
specific plan for the phase of development in questions.
S\STAFFRTP\I 8CZ-2 19SP,AMD 12
12.
An environmental assessment shall be conducted for each tract, change of zone, plot
plan, specific plan amendment, or any other discretionary permit required to implement
the specific plan. At a minimum, the environmental assessment shall utilize the
evaluation of impacts addressed in the EIR prepared for Specific Plan No. 219
Amendment No. 1.
13.
Prior to the recordation of a final map, the land divider shall submit to the Planning
Department an agreement with the appropriate parks and recreation district which
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City that the land divider has provided for the
payment of fees and/or offer of dedication of lands in accordance with Section 10.35
(Parks and Recreation Fees and Dedications) of Land Division Ordinance No. 460.
14.
Prior to the recordation of any final subdivision map or issuance of building permits in
the case of use permits and plot plans, the applicant shall submit to the Planning
Department the following documents which shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of
the City that individual appropriate owners associations will be established and will
operate in accordance with the intent and purpose of the specific plan.
A. The document to convey title.
B. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions to be recorded.
Management and maintenance agreements to be entered into with the unit/lot
owner of the project.
The master property owners association, commercial property owners association, and
the business park owners association shall be charged with the unqualified right to
assess their own individual owners who own individual units for reasonable
maintenance and management costs which shall be established and continually
maintained. The individual owners association shall have the right to lien the property
of any owner who defaults in payment of their assessment fees. Such lien shall not
be subordinate to any encumbrance other than a deed of trust, provided such deed of
trust is made in good faith and for good value, and is of record prior to the lien of the
individual owners association.
15.
The applicant or its successor 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 Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 2, 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 applicant or its
successor 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 applicant or
its successor of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the
defense, the applicant or its successor shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend,
S\STAFFRTP~I 8CZ-2 19SP.AMD 13
indemnify, or hold harmless the City of TemeCula.
16.
17.
18.
Trapping studies have indicated the presence of existing habitat (occupied by
Stephen's Kangaroo Rat) for Planning Areas 10 and 25. Prior to issuance of grading
permits for this planning area, the applicant shall provide mitigation for removal of the
SKR habitat as follows:
Memorandum of Understanding between the developer and the California
Department of Fish and Game, or
Compliance with an adopted County Program for the mitigation of removal of
Stephen's Kangaroo Rat habitat.
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 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).
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.
S\STAFFRTP%18CZ-2 19SP.AMD 14
A'I'rACHMENT NO. 4
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
FOR
AUGUST 5, 1991
S\STAFFRTP~lBCZ-219SP.AMD 15
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 5, 1991
Case No.: Change of Zone No. 18; and
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 2
Prepared By: Oliver Mujica
Recommendation: 1.
RECOMMEND ADOPTION of
Negative Declaration for Change
of Zone No. 18 and Specific Plan
No. 219, Amendment No. 2;
ADOPT Resolution No. 91-
recommendin9 approval of
Change of Zone No. 18 and
Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 2; and
RECOMMEND Adoption of
Ordinance No. 91- , entitled
"An Ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Temecula,
California, Amending Zoning
Ordinance No. 91-13 Pertaining
to Ordinance No. 348.2919
ISpecific Plan No. 219) as it
Relates to Zoning."
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
Sam McCann
Turrini & Brink
Change the zoning designation of the subject
property from R-A-2 1/2 to Specific Plan; and,
Amend the boundary of Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 1 to include Planning Area No. 36.
Southeast corner of Margarita Road and De Portola
Road.
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. I
A:SP219-A 1
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
BACKGROUND:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Plannin9 Area No. 1
R-A-2 1/2
R-A-2 1/2 ( Residential Agricultural,
2 1/2 acre minimum lot size)
Plannin9 Area No. 1 I C o m m u n i t y /
Nei9hborhood
Commercial )
(Community/
Nei9hborhood
Commercial )
( Residential Agricultural,
2 112 acre minimum lot size)
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 2
Vacant
On September 6, 1988, the Riverside County Board
of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 88-470
approvin9 Specific Plan No. 219 (Paloma Del Sol,
formerly the Meadows). 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 April 9, 1991, the City Council adopted
Resolution No. 91-36 approvin9 Change of Zone No.
5621 and Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1
amendin9 the boundaries and land use designations
of Plannin9 Areas 1, 2, 5 and 6 of Specific Plan No.
219. Subsequently, on April 23, 1991, the City
Council adopted Ordinance No. 91-13 amendin9
Zoning Ordinance No. 90-04 pertainin9 to Ordinance
No. 348.2919 (Specific Plan No. 219) as it relates to
zoning.
On June 10, 1991, the applicant filed Change of
Zone No. 18 and Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment
No. 2.
On June 20, 1991, Change of Zone No. 18; and
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 2 was
reviewed by the Formal Development Review
Committee; and, it was determined that the Specific
Plan document was acceptable to proceed with the
Public Hearin9 process and 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.
A:SP219-A 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
As noted above, Change of Zone No. 18; and
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 2 proposes to
change the zoning designation of the subject 2.5
acre site from R-A-2 112 to Specific Plan; and amend
the boundary of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment
No. 1 to include the subject property as Planning
Area No. 36.
Land Use Modifications
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 2 proposes to
modify the Land Use Plan ~ see Figure 3 - Approved
and Amended - pages 17 and 18) by increasing the
total commercial acreage from 51 acres to 53.5 acres.
Circulation Plan Modifications
As illustrated on Figures 4 and 15kk (pages 20-1
and 162-3 respectively), Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 2, proposes to provide access to
Planning Area No. 36 from both Margarita and De
Portola Roads. However, it should be noted that
these access points have been identified as
"potential" access points only; and that the exact
number and location of driveways for Planning Area
No. 36 will be determined during the review of a
plot plan application.
Road Improvements
Margarita Road will be constructed by the project
developer from east of the centerline to the curb,
between Pauba Road and Highway 79.
Traffic Impacts
The Transportation Englneeri n9 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 and there will be no additional adverse
unmitigable significant traffic impacts resulting
from the development of this proposed project.
Development Standards
Pursuant tot he request of the Planning Department
Staff, the applicant has prepared detailed
Development Standards for Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 2, as opposed to referencin9 Zoning
Ordinance No. 348. These standards have been
tailored to specifically address development within
A:SP219-A 3
SPECIFIC PLAN,
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS:
the Meadows by taking into consideration the lot
sizes and adjacent land uses, within and
surrounding the Specific Plan Area.
The proposed project is consistent with the SWAP
Land Use Designation of Specific Plan; and is
consistent with the overall concept of SpeCific Plan
No. 219, Amendment No. 1, in that the total number
of commercial acreage has increased by only 2.5
acres and the adjacent Planning Area I No. 1 ) is also
Neighborhood Commercial. 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 EIR 235 and in
the Conditions of Approval have been added to the
project, and a Negative Declaration has been
recommended for adoption.
There is a reasonable probability that Change
of Zone No. 18 and Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 2 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 Specific Plan and is
consistent with SP 219, Amendment No. 1.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future General Plan, if Change of Zone
No. 18 and Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment
No. 2 are ultimately inconsistent with the
plan, due to the fact that an approval of such
a zone change and amendment may be
consistent with the goals and/or policies of
the City's future General Plan.
The project is compatible with surroundin9
land uses. The harmony creates a compatible
physical relationship with adjoining
properties, due to the fact that the adjoinin9
properties were designed as an overall
concept for Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment
A:SP219-A ~
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
No. 1 and the proposed project is consistent
with Specific Plan No. 219.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property· because it does not
represent a significant change to the planned
land use of the area, due to the fact that the
proposed land use is consistent with the
overall concept of Specific Plan No. 219·
Amendment No. 1.
The Plannin9 Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
RECOMMEND ADOPTION of Negative
Declaration for Change of Zone No. 18 and
Specific Plan No. 219· Amendment No. 2; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending
approval of Change of Zone No. 18 and
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 2; and
RECOMMEND Adoption of Ordinance No. 91-
· entitled "An Ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Temecula, California,
Amending Zoning Ordinance No. 91-13
Pertaining to Ordinance No. 3u,8.2919
(Specific Plan No. 219) as it Relates to
Zoning."
OM:ks
Attachments:
Resolution
Draft Ordinance
Conditions of Approval
Environmental Assessment
Exhibits:
A. Vicinity Map
B. Specific Land Use Map
C. Plannin9 Area No, 36 Map
D, Plannin9 Area No. 36 Standards
Specific Plan Text
A:SP219-A 5
Backqround
1.
2.
5.
6.
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
Name of Proponent:
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
Agency Requirin9
Assessment:
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Location of Proposal:
Sam McCann
43121Margarita Road
Temecula, CA 92390
1714) 676-7484
July 1, 1991
CITY OF TEMECULA
Change of Zone No. 18 and
Specific Plan No.219. Amendment No.2
Southeast corner of Marqarita Road and
De Portola Road.
II.
Project Description
Change of Zone No. 18; and Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 2 proposes
to change the zonln9 designation of the subject 2.5 acre property from R-A-2
112 to Specific Plan and Amend the boundary of Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 1 to include the subject property as Plannin9 Area No. 36.
A:SP219-A 16
Ill. Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
The followin9 environmental impacts associated with Specific Plan No. 219 are
insignificant in that the design of the project includes the necessary mitigation
measures which have been adopted within EIR 235:
Water and Sewer:
The project will have an avera9e 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
requirin9 water efficient plumbin9 fixtures.
B. 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 9as are located alon9 the project
boundaries.
Energy Resources:
The project will increase consumption of ener9y 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 2L~ 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.
D e
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 9round rupture due to fauitin9 on the
project is considered nil. Liquefaction potential
exists alon9 the entire flat a)luviated area of
Temecula Creek within the southern site boundary.
A:SP219-A 17
2. Mitiqation:
Slopes and Erosion
1. Impact:
2. Mitiqation:
C. Floodin9
1. Impact:
2. Mitiqation:
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 9roundcover shall be provided to
prevent erosion durin9 the construction phase.
Permanent vegetation shall be planted as soon as
possible after grading. Specific requirements for
alluvial/colluvial soils removal shall be developed
durln9 tentative map studies and incorporated into
project 9radln9, The three small possible landslide
areas shall be investigated durin9 design level
studies and all miti9ation measures identified as a
result of that investigation will be incorporated into
future development approvals. Remedial 9radlng
recommendations to provide for the Ion9 term
stability will be provided based upon a finalized
grading design.
Development of the Meadows Specific Plan will 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 durin9 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.
A:SP219-A 18
Noise
1. Impact:
2. Mitigation:
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.
Water Quality
1. Impact:
2. Mitiqation:
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
pol I uta nts.
The project will employ erosion control devices
during grading, such as temporary betins,
culverts, sand bagging or alesilting basins. Urban
runoff will be mitigated through implementation of a
street cleaning program.
Wildlife/Veqetation
1. impact:
2. 'Mitlqation:
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
1. Impact:
Sites
Without proper mitigation, implementation of the
Meadows Specific Plan could potentially destroy
archaeological/historical sites on the property.
A:SP219-A 19
2. Mitiqation:
Circulation
1. Impact:
2. Mitiqation:
Fire Protection
1. Impact:
2. Mitlqation:
Sheriff
1. Impact:
2. Mitiqation:
Schools
1. Impact:
2. Mitiqation:
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/historical sites; all mitigation
measures identified as a result of the meeting{ s) will
be incorporated into future development approvals.
The 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.
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.
The project site would be subject to Category I I
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 lightin9,
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, impactln9 the Temecula Valley Unified
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.
A:SP2~9-A 20
Solid Waste
1. Impact:
2. Mitigation:
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.
Libraries
1. Impact:
2. Mitiqation:
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.
The following environmental impact associated with Specific Plan No. 219 cannot be
fully mitigated and a statement of overriding findings has been adopted within
235:
Air Quality
1. Impact:
At project build-out, daily motor vehicle emissions
for the project will total approximately 7,75L~
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 undetermlned amount
of motor emissions during site preparation an
construction.
2. Mitiqation:
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. Sufficientacreage
has been zoned for industrial use in the Rancho
Californla/Temecula area to provide employment
opportunities. project design includes a circulation
plan designed for efficient and direct traffic flows
and alternative transit modes includin9 pedestrian,
bicycle, and equestrian trails. The Rancho Villa9es
Policy Plan, to which this project is subject.
requires pedestrian and bus stop facilities for
A:SP219-A 21
commercial areas. These requirements will be
implemented at the development application stage.
Particulate matter and other pollutants generated
durin9 grading and construction will be reduced
through compliance with County Ordinance No. 457
which specifies watering durin9 construction, and
planting of 9round cover.
IV. Conclusion
The Riverside County Board of Supervisors certified Environmental Impact Report
(El R) 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 overridin9 considerations for the air quality impacts. Specific Plan
No. 219, Amendment No. 2 has increased the neighborhood commercial acreage by
only 2.5 acres and proposes to modify the boundaries of Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 1 to include Planning Area No. 36; and will not result in additional
impacts to the environment. The Conditions of Approval are adequate to mitigate
any potential significant impacts to levels of insignificance.
Pursuant to Section 15164 of 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 changes resultin9 from the proposed Specific Plan Amendment
will not result in new or substantially increased significant impacts, that there have
been no changes in the circumstances surroundin9 the project that would require
important revisions to the EIR due to new signiflcant impacts, and that no new
information has arisen which would indicate that the project will have si9nificant
effects not previously discussed or underestimated, or that alternatives or mitigation
measures not previously considered would substantially reduce any si9nificant
impacts.
A:SP219-A 22
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, 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 IMPA T REPORT
required.
July 1, 1991 ~'~0
nner
Date Oliver Mujica Senior
For C F TEMECULAI
X
A:SP219-A 23
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
FOR
AUGUST 5, 1991
S\STAFFRTP~I 8CZ-2 19SP.AMO 16
It was move by Commissioner Blair, seconded by Commissioner Fahey to:
9.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 91-75
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO.
3 TO PERMIT OPERATION OF A CHURCH AND RELATED
USES LOCATED AT 41743 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE NORTH,
SUITES A101 AND A102.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES
5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Fahey, Chiniaeff, Hoagland
NOES: 0 None
10o
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 18; AND SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219,
AMENDMENT NO. 2
Proposal is to amend the boundary of the Paloma Del Sol (formerly the
Meadows) Specific Plan to include p]anning area No. 36. The project is located
at the southeast corner of Margarita Road and DePortola Road.
Oliver Mujica provided staff report and reported it was consistent with the
Meadow Specific Plan and felt it would maintain the continuity of the specific
plan.
Chairman Hoagland opened the public comment at 8:00
Keith L. McCann, Jr., agent for owner gave a summary of reasons he felt that
this I~roperty should be zoned commercial, he stated that 35 acres around it
were commercial and this home backs up to that commercial. He stated that
the owner received a letter from Los Ranchitos Homeowner's Association
several years ago stating this property was not in the Association.
Mr. Donald Rohrobacker, 44281 Flowers Drive, President Los Ranchitos
Homeowner's Association. Mr. Rohrobacker stated that this property was in
the association and that they were very opposed to any zone change. He
stated that they do not want to set precedent. He also wanted the
Homeowner's Association notified of all hearings. He gave the address of the
Homeowner's Association as: P. O. Box 471, Temecula, California 92593.
Ib/PCMm/080591 8
Commissioner Chiniaeff was concerned about amount of Commercial in that
area.
Commissioner Blair was concerned about type of business that would be
allowed.
Chairman Hoagland asked if owner opposed Specific Plan 219, Mr. McCann
8nswer6d no.
Hermon Thorne, 30851 DePortola Rd., Temecula stated that this property is on
lot 25, he lives on lot 32 felt CC&R's governed and that they should be
followed as 2-1/2 acres single family residence. An approval of a
change would require by 51% of owners t: approve. He felt that there was
enough commercial in neighborhood.
Rebecca Weersing, 41775 Yorba Avenue, Los Ranchitos, opposed to violation
of CC&R's, should be kept rural.
Gary Thornhill stated that the Specific Plan designation rules apply to any
development on that property and the City can extend boundaries.
Chairman Hoagland asked city attorney if CC&R's vehicle attach to the land?
Terry Kaufmann, representative, city attorney, stated that CC&R's are with
property owners. Any problem is not problem with the City, but between
homeowners and should not affect commission decisions.
Commissioner Fahey made a motion to continue item until homeowner's issue
is researched and documents produced if property is in association or not.
Commissioner Blair seconded the motion. Commissioner Ford wanted record
to reflect homeowner's conflict.
Commissioner Chiniaeff felt issue should be reviewed by land use designation
and if it was appropriate zoning, commission should not be concerned with civil
matters.
Commissioner Hoagland restated motion to continue item ~ff calendar to
renotice item, notify Los Ranchitos Homeowner's Association and have staff
research if property was in Los Ranchitos Homeowner's association.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, Ford
NOES I COMMISSIONER: Chiniaeff
11.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 24172
Proposal is to subdivide 5 acres into 8 residential lots on the Eastside of Ynez
Road between Pauba Road and Santiago Road.
Oliver Mujica gave an overview of the project and recommended approval as
it was consistent with SWAP.
Commissioner Fahey raised concerns about drainage.
Commissioner Chiniaeff and Ford raised concern about an earthquake fault in
the area and if trenching was done.
Doug Stewart said Condition//41 could be changed to ask for a Geologist
report prior to recordation of map.
Bob Righetti answered questions of 10 ft. right of way on N~. side of "A" ·
St. informing it would be maintained after original planting by developer by
TCSD.
Chairman Hoagland opened Public Comment at 8:25.
Mike Lanni, 1907 Yachttruant, Newport Beach, applicant stated that there had
been trenching for an earthquake fault previously and that it was cleared by the
County Geologist, Steve Kupferman, after he inspected the trenches and found
no fault.
Chairman Hoagland asked if anyone else wanted to apeak on this item and
seeing none the public comment was closed at 8:30.
Commissioner Ford asked staff to address drainage and street lights.
Bob Righetti said that there was not drainage across property it was surface
drainage only and there was no substantial increase. Street lights would be in
compliance with Ord. 460.
Commissioner Chiniaeff would like staff to look at Geo. Report.
Gary Thornhill said a condition would be added to have a Geo. Report
before final map recordation.
b/PCM~/080591
10
ATrACHMENT NO. 6
EXHIBITS
S\STAFFRTP~I 8CZ-2 19SP.AMD 17
Z
.J
0
uJ
uj
D
FT1 <~'
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
FOR
PLANNING AREA 36
S\STAFFRTP~I 8CZ-2 19SP,AMD 1 ~
l
i
1
36. Planning Area 36
a. DescriPtive Summarv
Planning Area 36, as depicted on Figure 15KK, provides for
development of 2.5 acres with Neighborhood Commercial use.
A typical site plan is depicted in the Design Guidelines,
Sec. IV.
b. Land Use and Development Standards
Please refer to Zone Ordinance No. (See S.P. Zone
Ordinance Tab.)
c. Planninq Standards
Access to the Planning Area will be provided from
Margarita Road and a major roadway (DePortola Road)
to the north. Access points, as depicted, are
conceptual. Access to the individual planning areas
shall be determined when tract maps or plot plans are
submitted.
A Minor project entry statement will be provided at
the intersection of Margarita Road and DePortola Road
at the northwest boundary of the Planning Area. (See
Figures 35 and 36.)
Roadway landscape treatments, such as those depicted
on Figure 23, shall be provided along Margarita Road
and DePortola Road.
A bicycle trail will be located in DePortola Road to
the north of the Planning Area as shown on Figure 6.
Please refer to Section III.A.1. through III.A.8. for
the following Development Plans and Standards that
apply site-wide:
III.A.1.
III.A.2.
III.A.'3.
III.A.4.
III.A.5.
III.A.6.
III.A.7.
III.A.8.
Specific Land Use Plan
Circulation Plan
Drainage Plan
Water and Sewer Plans
Public Facility Sites Phasing Plan
Grading Plan
Open Space and Recreation Plan
Landscaping Plan
Please see Design Guidelines, Section IV., for related
criteria.
The commercial land uses permitted within this Plan-
ning Area are designated in the Specific Plan Zoning
Ordinance.
162-1
A Plot Plan will be required for definition form and
uses of each commercial area.
Waste disposal containers will be limited to desig-
nated, confined areas set aside for solid waste col-
lection.
A minimum of one Neighborhood entry statements will be
provided along DePortola Road (See Figure 37).
162-2
PERMITTED USES
FOR
PLANNING AREAS 1, 27 AND 36
S\STAFFRTP~lBCZ-219SP.AMD 19
Commercial/Neighborhood Commercial
Planning Areas 1, 27 and 36
Commercial/Neighborhood Commercial Zone
The following reg-ulations shall apply in all Commercial/Neighborhood Commercial Zones:
SECTION 9.1. USES PER/~IITTED.
The following uses are permitted, only in enclosed buildings with not more than 200
square feet of outside storage or display of materials appurtenant to such use, provided
a plot plan shall have been approved pursuant to provisions of Section 18.30 of Riverside
County Ordinance No. 348 (1991).
(1) Ambulance services.
(2) Antique Shops.
(3) Appliance stores, household.
(4) Art supply shops and studios.
(5) Auction houses.
(6) Auditoriums and conference rooms.
(7) Automobile repair garages, not including body and fender shops or spray painting.
(8) Automobile pans and supply stores.
(9) Bakery goods distributors.
(10) Bakery shops, including baking only when incidental to retail sales on the
premises.
(i1) Banks and f'mancial institutions.
(12) Barber and beauty shops.
(13) Bars and cocktail lounges.
(14) Billlard and pool halls.
(15) Blueprint and duplicating services.
(16) Book stores and binders.
(17) Bowling alleys.
(18) Catering services.
(19) Cleaning and dyeing shops.
(20) Clothing stores.
(21) Confectionery or candy stores.
(22) Costume design studios.
(23) Dance halls,
(24) Delicatessens.
(25) Department stores.
(26) Drug stores.
(27) Dry goods stores.
-9-
(28) Employment agencies.
(29) Escort bureaus.
(30) Feed and grain sales.
(31) Florists shops.
(32) Food markets and fi'ozen food lockers
(33) Gasoline service stations, not including the concurrent sale of beer and wine for
off-premises consumption.
(34) Gift shops.
(35) Hotels, resort hotels and motels.
(36) Household goods sales, including but not limited to, new and used appliances,
furniture, carpets, draperies, lamps, radios and television sets, including repair
thereof.
(37) Hobby shops.
(38) Ice cream shops.
(39) Ice sales, not including ice plants.
(40) Interior decorating shops.
(41) Jewelry stores, including incidental repairs.
(42) Labor temples.
(43) Laboratories, fdm, dental, medical, research or testing.
(44) Laundries and laundromats.
(45) Leather goc~Is stores.
(46) Liquor stores.
(47) Locksmith shops.
(48) Mal/order businesses.
(49) Manufacturer's agent
(50) Market, food, wholesale or jobber.
(51) Massage parlors, turkish baths, health centers and similar personal service
establishments.
(52) Meat maxkets, not including slaughtering.
(53) Mimeographing and addressograph services.
(54) Mortuaries.
(55) Music stores.
(56) News stores.
(57) Notions or novelty stores.
(58) Offices, including business, law, medical, dental chiropractic, architectural,
~ngineering, community planning and real estate.
(59) One on-site operator' s residence, which may be located in a commercial building.
(60) Paint and wallpaper stores, not including paint contractors.
(61) Pawn shops.
(62) Pet shops and pet supply shops.
(63) Photography shops and studios and photo engraving.
(6~) Plumbing shops, not including plumbing contractors.
(65) Poultry markets, not including slaughtering or live sales.
(66) Printers or publishers.
(67) Produce markets.
~10-
(68) Radio and television broadcasting studios.
(69) Recording studios.
(70) Refi'~shment stands.
(71) Restaurants and other eating establishments.
(72) Schools, business and professional, including art, barber, beauty, dance, drama,
music and swimming.
(73) Shoe stores and repair shops.
(74) Shoeshine stands.
(75) Signs, on-site advertising.
(76) Sporting goods stores.
(77) Stained glass assembly.
(78) Stationer stores.
(79) Stations, bus, railroad and taxi.
(80) TaxidermisL
(81) Tailor shops.
(82) Telephone exchanges.
(83) Theaters, not including drive-ins.
(84) Tire sales and service, not including recapping.
(85) Tobacco shops.
(86) Tourist information centers.
(87) Toy shops.
(88) Travel agencies.
(89) Typewriter sales and rental, including incidental repairs.
(90) Watch repair shops.
(91) Wholesale businesses with samples on the premises but not including storage.
(92) Car washes.
(93) Fortune telling, spiritualism, or similax activity.
(94) RecycLing collection facilities.
(95) Convenience stores, not including the sale of motor vehicle fuel.
(96) Day care centers.
The following uses are permitted provided a conditional use permit has been granted
pursuant to City Ordinance.
(I) Convenience stores, including the sale of motor vehicle fuel.
(2) Gasoline service stations with the concurrent sale of beer and wine for off-
"premises consumption.
(3) Liquid petroleum service stations with the concurrent sale of beer and wine for
off-premises consumption, provided the total capacity of all tanks shall not exceed
10,00(3 gallons.
Any use that is not specifically listed in Subsections a. and b. may be considered a
permitted or conditionally permined use provided that the Planning Director finds that the
proposed use is substantially the same in chaxacter and intensity as those listed in the
designated subsections. Such a use is subject to the permit process which governs the
category in which it falls.
-11-
SECTION 9.2. PLANNED COM~IERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS. Planned Commercial
Developments are permitted provided a land division is approved pursuant to the provision of
Riverside County Ordinance No. 460 (1991).
SECTION 9.3. (DELETED.)
SECTION9.4. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The following standards of
development are required in the Commercial/Neighborhood Commercial Zones:
There is no minimum lot area requixement, unless specifically required by zone
classification for a particular area,
There axe no yard requirements for buildings which do not exceed 35 feet in height
except as required for specific plans. Any portion of a building which exceeds 35 feet
in height shall be setback from the front, rear and side lot lines not less than 2 feet for
each foot by which the height exceeds 35 feet. The front setback shall be measured from
the existing public fight-of-way street line unless a specific plan has been adopted in
which case it will be measured from the specific plan street line. The rear setback shall
be measured from the existing rear lot line or from any recorded alley or easement; if the
rear line adjoins a street, the rear setback requirement shall be the same as required for
a front setback. Each side setback shall be measured from the side lot line, or from an
existing adjacent public fight-of-way street line unless a specific plan has been adopted,
in which case it will be measured from the specific plan street line.
c. All buildings and smactures shall not exceed 50 feet in height.
Automobile storage space shall be provided as required by Section 18.12 of Riverside
County Ordinance No. 348 (1991).
All roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from the ground elevation view
to a n~nimum sight distance of 1,320 feet.
-12-
ITEM # 7
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
December 16, 1991
Case No.: Tentative Parcel Map No. 22515 (Second Extension of Time)
Prepared By: Mark Rhoades
RECOMMENDATION: 1.
RE-AFFIRM the Negative Declaration for Environmental
Assessment No. 31724 adopted by the County of
Riverside for Tentative Parcel Map 22515.
ADOPT Resolution 91 - approving the Second
Extension of Time for Parcel Map No. 22515 based on
the Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to
the attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Sam McCann
REPRESENTATIVE:
Markham and Associates
PROPOSAL:
Second Extension of Time for a three lot commercial subdivision
on 3.86 acres.
LOCATION:
Northeast side of the southerly terminus of Front Street.
EXISTING ZONING:
C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
C-1/C-P (General Commercial)
R-R (Rural Residential)
Interstate 15 Corridor
M-SC (Manufacturing-Service Commercial)
PROPOSED ZONING: N/A
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant
Vacant
Freeway
Industrial Use
S\STAFFRPT\22515-2 ,TPM
PROJECT STATISTICS
Proposed Parcels: 3
Gross Acres: 3.86
Parcel Size Parcel 1 .91 Acre
Parcel 2 1.32 Acre
Parcel 3 1.34 Acre
BACKGROUND
This project was originally approved by Riverside County in November of 1987. Subsequently
the First Extension of Time also approved by Riverside County in September of 1989. The
current application was submitted in October of 1990.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is a request for the Second Extension of Time for Tentative Parcel Map
22515. The project is a commercial map with 3 parcels which will take access from Front
Street. The proposed map abuts the I-15 freeway to the east.
ANALYSIS
The project is currently zoned Scenic Highway Commercial, and as such the map is consistent
with Ordinance No. 348. The existing site consists of gentle terrain which has been highly
disturbed by recent grading activity.
The current status of the proposed map requires the approval of the Second Extension of Time
in order for the proposed map to remain active. At the present time the map will not be able
to record until this proposed map is again acted on by the Commission as a Third Extension
of Time.
FUTURE GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY
The current SWAP designation for the proposed project site and surrounding area is "C"
(Commercial). The current pattern of area development would suggest that the project will
likely be consistent with the City of Temecula's future adopted General Plan when it is
completed.
ENVIRONMENfAL DETERMINATION
The previous Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 31724 is still applicable
to this project.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
This application is being processed in order for the Tentative Map to remain active. The
processing time for the application was complicated by a misunderstanding relative to the
required submittal fees and the lack of the applicant's response for several months. As a
result of that time delay, the map will not be able to record until the Third Extension of Time
is approved, which would extend the map to November of 1992.
Staff is currently reviewing the Third Extension of Time. Any and all outstanding concerns
relative to the map will be incorporated into the Third Extension,
FINDINGS
The proposed Parcel Map will not have significant negative impact on the environment,
as determined in the previous Initial Study performed for the project. The previously
adopted 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 proposed 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,due to the fact that the project is consistent with surrounding proposed
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.
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configurations and access due to the fact that the project has access
to public roads and sufficient building area.
The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife
or their habitat as determined in the initial study.
m
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 with passive or active solar possibilities.
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 Front
Street.
S\STAFFRPT~22515-2 .TPM 3
10.
11.
The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed project 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.
Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference.
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: 1.
RE-AFFIRM a Negative Declaration for Environmental
Assessment No. 31724 adopted by the County of
Riverside for Tentative Parcel Map 22515.
ADOPT Resolution 91 - approving the Second
Extension of Time for Parcel Map No. 22515 based on
the Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to
the attached Conditions of Approval.
vgw
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
Resolution - page 5
Conditions of Approval - page 11
County Staff Report - page 19
Exhibits - page 20
a. Vicinity Map
b. SWAP
c. Zoning Map
d. Site Plan
S\STAFFRPT%22515-2. TPM 4
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 91_
S\STAFFRFT%22515o2,TRVl 5
RESOLUTION NO. 91-~
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OFTEMECULA APPROVING THE SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME
FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 22515 TO SUBDIVIDE A
3.86 ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 PARCELS AT THE NORTHEAST
SIDE OF THE SOUTHERLY TERMINUS OF FRONT STREET.
WHEREAS, Sam McCann, filed Parcel Map No. 22515 (2nd E.O.T.) in
accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Extension of Time application was processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Extension of Time on
December 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 Extension of Time;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY O F TEM ECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings.
That the Temecula Planning Commission 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:
T~e city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general
plan.
The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, 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.
S\STAFFRPT\22515-2.TPM 6
(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 complied 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.
The proposed Parcel Map is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set
forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit:
A. The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan.
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:
(1)
There is reasonable probability that Parcel Map No. 22515 Second
Extension of Time 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.
Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. 460, no subdivision may be
approved unless the following findings are made:
That the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and
specific plans.
That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.
That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type of
development.
S\STAFFRPT'~22515-2, TPM 7
m
That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the
proposed density of the development.
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.
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.
The Planning Commission in recommending approval of the Second Extension of Time
for proposed Tentative Parcel Map, makes the following findings, to wit:
The proposed Parcel Map will not have significant negative impact on the
environment, as determined in the previous Initial Study performed for the
project. The previously adopted 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 proposed development, zoning and SWAP.
Cm
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
proposed 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
N~. 460.
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size
and shape of the lot configurations and access due to the fact that the project
has access to public roads and sufficient building area.
The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure
fish or wildlife or their habitat as determined in the initial study.
S\STAFFRPT~22515-2.TPM 8
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 with passive or active
solar possibilities.
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 Front Street.
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.
Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental
documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by
reference.
As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Parcel Map proposed is compatible with
the health, safety and welfare of the community.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
Environmental Assessment No. 31724 was adopted by the County of Riverside for the
proposed Tentative Parcel Map No. 22515. The previous adopted Negative Declaration,
therefore, is hereby re-affirmed.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves the Second Extension of
Time for Parcel Map No. 22515 for the subdivision of a 3.86 acre parcel into 3 parcels located
at the northeast side of the southerly terminus of Front Street and subject to the following
conditions:
A. Attachment 3, attached hereto.
S\STAFFRPT\22515-2.TPf~ 9
SECTION 4.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of December, 1991.
JOHN E. 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
December, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
S\STAFFRPT\22515-2,TPM 10
A'R'ACHMENT NO. 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
S\STAFf=RPT\22515-2-TPM 11
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Parcel Map No: 22515 (2nd E.O.T.)
Project Description: The proposed project is a request for the Second Extension
of Time for Tentative Parcel Map 22515. The project is a commercial map with
3 parcels which will take access from Front Street. The proposed map abuts
the 1-15 freeway to the east.
Assessor's Parcel No.: 922-120-004
Planning Department
This conditionally approved Tentative Map will expire November 3, 1991, unless
extended as provided by Ordinance 460.
The project shall conform to the Conditions of Approval established for the original
approval.
m
Access shall be restricted along I-15 and Front Street, except for allowed openings on
Front Street.
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.
m
The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its
agents, officer, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City
of Temecula or its agents, officer, or employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul an
approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative
body concerning Tentative Parcel Map No. 22515, 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
proceedF~g 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.
m
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
S',STAFFRPT\22515-2.TPM 12
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).
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
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;
CelTrans; and
Parks and Recreation Department.
All road easements and/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication to the
public and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All
dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of
Public Works.
Front Street 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 the modified offset section for Front Street, (60'/80'). (Modified City
Standard No. 101)
10.
Vehicular access shall be restricted on Front Street and so noted on the final map with
the exception of entry points as approved by the Department of Public Works.
11.
Easemedts, 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.
S\STAFFRPT%22515-2,TPM 13
12.
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
Engineering 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 Planning, Department of Public Works, 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 common areas drainage and
related facilities.
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.
The declaration shall contain language prohibiting further subdivision of
any lots, whether they are lettered lots or numbered lots.
All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently
maintained by the association or other means acceptable to the City.
Such proof of this maintenance shall be submitted to Planning and the
Department of Public Works prior to issuance of building permits.
Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring
access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all roads, drives or parking
areas shall be provided by CC&R's or by deeds and shall be recorded
concurrent with the map, or prior to the issuance of building permit
where no map is involved.
S\STAFFRFT\22515-2 ,TFfvl 14
13.
14.
15.
16,
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed
guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance
with applicable City standards.
Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter,
sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, and other traffic
control devices as appropriate.
B. Storm drain facilities.
C. Undergrounding of 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 requirements 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.
All driveway 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.
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 subdivider shall submit two (2) prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the
Departm~ent 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
as directed by the Department of Public Works 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.
S\STAFFRPT\22515-2.TPM
23.
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.
24.
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."
25.
A drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners for the
release of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent property. A copy
of the recorded drainage easement shall be submitted to the City for review prior to
the recordation of the final map.
26.
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 for review.
27.
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.
28.
A drainage channel and/or flood protection wall will be required to protect the
structures by diverting sheet runoff to streets, or to a storm drain.
29.
A portion of the site is in an area identified on the flood hazards maps as Flood Zone
B. All structures shall be protected from this hazard.
30.
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:
31.
Prior to 9ny 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.
32.
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.
33.
No grading shall take place prior to the improvement plans being substantially
complete, appropriate clearance letters have been obtained, and approval of the
grading plan has been granted by the Department of Public works.
S\STAFFRPT\22515-2, TPM 16
34.
If grading is to take place between the months of October and April inclusive, erosion
control and runoff mitigation plans will be required. All plans shall be submitted with
appropriate notes as directed and approved by the Department of Public Works
35.
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.
36.
An encroachment permit shall be required from CaITrans for any work within their
right-of-way.
37.
A permit from the County Flood Control District is required for work within their right-
of-way.
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT:
38.
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 Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing
compaction and site conditions.
39.
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.
40.
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 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. Developer
underst~'nds 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.
S\STAFFRPT\22515-2.TFM 17
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
41.
Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C.
pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights.
42.
Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with
adequate detours during construction. Traffic control plans shall be provided as
directed by the Department of Public Works, and may be required to be prepared by
a registered Civil Engineer.
43.
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.
Transportation EnQineering
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
44.
All previous County of Riverside and CalTrans Conditions of Approval shall apply
except as modified by these conditions.
45.
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the Department of Public Works for Front Street and shall be included in
the street improvement plans.
46.
Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering for the
design requirements.
47.
Bus bays will be provided at all existing and future bus stops as determined by the
Department of Public Works.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
48.
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 Department of Public Works.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
49. All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and striping plan.
50.
Provide limited landscaping in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent
to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance.
S\STAFFRPT\22515-2.TFM 18
A'I'rACHMENT NO. 3
COUNTY STAFF REPORT
S%STAFFRPT%22515-2.TRM 19
DATE: ' _~s~",ber Sn. !'. ;7
RE: TENTATIVE TRACT flAP NO. ~2515'
E. A. N BER:"'
REGIONAL TEAM NO.
Dear Applicant:
T~e Riversi,de County Board of ~pervisors has taken the f j~. action ~ the abcv.
referenced tentative tract map a~ its regular meeting of "~,w-m~er S, 'V-,'
, .. APPROVED tentative map subject to the attached conditions.
DENIED tentative map based on attached findings.
__ APPROVED withdrawal of tentative map.
The tract map has been found to be consistent with all pertinent elements of
Riverside County General Plan and is in compliance with the California Environmenta'
Quality Act of 1970. ~lie project will not have a significant effect on the environnen~
and a Negative Declarat;ion has ~oee.n adopted
\ .
A conditionally approv'ed tentat~;~' i~'ract map shall expire 2~'nonths after the approval at
t e BoarJ of ~pervisor~ Hearing. the date of which is sho~'~above, unless within tha~
peri~ of time a final ~ shall ~'a~v~ ~eB approved and f~le %vith the County Recc '~r
Prior to the expiration date,j~e',la~jvtd~r[m~y"a~pply in"~ri~ing for an extensi~
time. ~plication shall'-' ~ ~a~'~:-~6 .the Planning 'Di'reCtoF L~i~ty (30) days prior to
expiration date of the tent~L(~gp.~ 7~ ~ ~v~sO~$~'maY extend the peri~ fc;
one ~ar and upon further ap~Catio~-a sec.~d and'a t~i~'ye~r'.'
h ' ~ Very truly y~rs
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPAR~4ENT
R~er S. Streeter, Planning Director
gob :lbnosl e, Su~.h'v: ;i,l~ 91ar,n;~r
FILE- WHITE
APPLICANT - CANARY
ENGINEER - PINK
4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 787-6181
46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201
(619) 342-827'
SUBMTTTAJ- TO THS BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FROM: The P]anning Department SUBMrTrA~DATE: October 8, 1987
SUBJECT: Notice of Decision of Tentative Parcel Maps acted on by
the Planning Contnission on September 9, 1987.
RECOMMENDED MOllON:
RECEIVE AND FILE the Notice of Decision for the following
tentative par~T maps acted on by the Planning Connission
on September g, lg87.
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO, 22515 - ROBERT BEIN, WILLXAM FROST
& ASSOCIATES - First Supervisorial District - Temecula -
Schedule E - R-R and C-1/C-P Zone: ADOPTED the Negative
Declaration for Environmental AssessmentS. 31724 and APPROVED
the tentative map.
The decision of the Planning Commission is considered final
and no action by the Board of Supervisors is required unless,
within 10 days after the Notice of Decision appears on the Board's
agenda, the applicant or an interested person files an appeal
accompanied by the fee set forth in Ordinance No. 460, unless
the Board orders the matter set for public hearing before the
appropriate appeal board.
Rog~r~.~xtreeter, F1Tn'Hi ng Di rect6r'
Prey. Agn. ref.
DepL~. Comments Dlsf.
AGENDA:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING C(IMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 1987
(AGENDA ITEM 1-4 - REEL 954 - SIDE I - 767-877)
PARCEL MAP 22515 - EA 31724 - Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates -
Temecula District - First Supervisorial District - 3 lots - 3.862 acres -
Schedule E Land Division
The hearing w~s opened at 10:27 a.m. and closed at 10:37 a.m.
STAFF.RECOI~ENOATION: Adoption of the negative declaration for EA 31724 and
approval of Parcel Map 22515 subject to the proposed conditions. Surroundin
properties were zoned C-1/C-P and M-SC, and contained residential, co~rrnerciai
and industrial land uses. Staff felt the proposed project represented an
infilling within the con~nercial corridor along 1-15.
Roy Howard, representing the applicant, accepted the conditions as presented
but questioned the need for the additional paleontological and archaeological
review {Condition lg[c]) since reports containing this information w~re
already available. There had been a full archaeological review for the
adjacent freeway. Ms. Likins explained this condition had been imposed as
result of these reports, as they had recommended that an archaeologist and
paleontoligist be present to monitor gradin activities. Mr. Howard requested
that the condition be amended to give the PVanning Director the option to
delete this requirement i f they could furnish additional information indicat-
ing this type of monitoring was not necessary. Ms. Crotinger advised that if
this type of information was submitted prior to the recordation of the hnal
map, the applicant could request a minor change to delete the condition.
Commissioner Bresson questioned the need to have the grading o eration
monitored by an archaeologist/paleontoligist but did not feel Re should delete
the condition. He suggested that the applicant make this request to the Board
of Supervisors.
Mr. Klotz asked whether there were any common open space areas within the
project. Ms. Likins advised there were none, but there would be reciprocal
easements. Mr. Klotz then suggested the deletion of Condition 18(c}, which
required CC&ILs c6ntaining provisions for ownership or the irrevocable right to
use the open space and amenities by the owners of the project.
There w~s no further testimony, and the hearing was closed at 10:33 a.m.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Parcel Map 22515 is an application to subdivide
3.36 acres into three commercial lots; surrounding land uses are vacant,
commercial, industrial, and residen ial; surrounding zoning is C-1/C-P and
M-SC; environ~ental concerns identitied by Environmental A~sessment 31724 are
liquefaction, archaeology and paleontology; and the project site falls within
the Rancho Cali fornia-Temecula subarea of the Southwest Territory Land Use
Planning Area. The project is a Cotegory I land use; represents infilling
within the conmercial corridor along. I-15; is consistent with General Plan
policies, compatible with area development, and in conformance with Ordinance
460; and all environmental concerns can be mitigated through the conditions of
approval. The proposed project will not have a significant effect on the
environment.
B
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 1987
MOTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Bresson, seconded by Commissioner
Purviance and unanimously carried, the Commission recommended to the Board of
Supervisors adoption of the negative declaration for EA 31724 and approval of
Parcel Map 22515 subject to the proposed conditions, with the deletion of
Condition 18{c), based on the above findings and conclusions and the
recoenendations of staff.
Zoning Area: Temecula
Supervisorial District:
E.A. Number 31724
Regional Team No. One
First
PARCEL MAP NO. 22515
Planning Commission:
Agenda Item No. 1-4
Sept.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
1. Applicant/Engineer:
2. Type of Request:
3. Location:
4. E~isting Land Use:
5. Surrounding Land Use:
6. Existing Zoning:
7. Surrounding Zoning:
8. Comprehensive General Plan
Designation:
9. Land Division Data:
10. Agency Recommendations:
11. Letters:
12. Sphere of Influence:
Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
Schedule E Subdivision
North of Junction of Front Street and
Interstate - 15
Vacant
Vacant, commercial and industrial
C-1/C-P and R-R
C-l/C-P, M-SC
Land Use: Category II
Total Acreage: 3.86 Acres
Total Lots: 3
Proposed Min. Lot Size: .91 Acre
See Attached Letters:
ROAD: 07-24-87
HEALTH: 06-29-87
FLOOD: 07-17-87
FIRE: 07-15-87
OTHER: Dept. of Transportation:
Mount Palomar: 06-3~-87
Opposing/Supporting: None as of
Not within a city sphere
9, 1987
07-08-87;
this wrtt.ng
ANALYSIS:
Project Description
Parcel Map No. 22515 is a Schedule "E" subdivision of 3.86 acres within the
Temecula zoning area, located northwesterly of Front Street and Interstate 15.
The commercial land division proposes three parcels ranging in size from .91
acre to 1.34 acres net.
Land Use/Zoning
The subject property is presently vacant with the northerly third of the site
zoned C-1/C-P. The remaining portion is zoned R-R. Change of Zone 4783,
approved by the County of Riverside Planning Commission on February 18, 1987
and by the Board of Supervisors on May 12, 1987, will change the subject site's
current zoning to C-P-S.
PARCEL MAP NO. 22515
Staff Report
Page -2-
The land uses and zoning that surround the property are varied. Murrieta C~eek,
which runs parallel with Front Street in a north/south direction, traverses the
mid portions of lots that line the west side of Front Street. The creek forms
a natural separation between the commercial/industrial land uses and zoning along
Front Street and the residential land uses and zoning designations along Pujol
Street.
While there are established co~uercial and industrial land uses north of the
site in the Temecula Historical District, the majority of the commercial property
surrounding the site is either vacant or under construction.
Environmental Concerns
The initial study conducted for Environmental Assessment No. 31724 identified
the following environmental concerns: 1) liquefaction; 2) archaeology; and
3) paleontology. A liquefaction report (County Geologic Report No. 431) indicated
that the potential for liquefaction at the subject site is considered low. An
archaeology study of the site (Planning Department No. 1155) indicated that no
cultural remains were found on the surface of the study area. However, the
project has been conditioned for additional monitoring at the time of grading.
All other concerns will be mitigated through conditions of approval.
General Plan
The project site is located within the Southwest Territory Land Use Planning
Area and the Rancho California - Temecula subarea. Land use policies call for
Category I and II land uses, with major industrial and commercial land uses
located within the 1-15 corridor.
In terms of infrastructure, with the commercial develoDment on Front Street and th=
proximity of the site to 1-15, the subject site might appropriately be labeled
Category II. Category II, described as "urban" land uses, is characterized by
a broad mix of land uses. It allows neighborhood commercial development, 15
acres or less, along major, arterial, or secondary highways in infilling situa-
tions. The proposed project fulfills these policies. Front Street is designated
as a major, and the parcel map represents an infilling of existing and proposed
commercia~ land uses along Front Street.
The access onto Front Street is being restricted. Two access openings will be
allowed - one between parcels I and 2 and one between parcels 2 and 3. Therefore,
reciprocal ingress and egress agreements will be required.
Based on the foregoing, Parcel Map No. 22515 is consistent with the General Plan.
Staff finds the proposed subdivision consistent with the established pattern of
commercial zoning and development in the area. The project also meets the
applicable requirements of Ordinance 460.
PARCEL MAP NO. 22515
Staff Report
Page -3-
FINDINGS:
1. Parcel Map 22515 is an application to subdivide 3.36 acres into 3 commercial
lots.
2. Surrounding land uses are vacant, co~umercial/industrial and residential.
3. Surrounding zoning is C-1/C-P and M-SC.
4. Environmental concerns identified by Environmental Assessment No. 31724 are
liquefaction, archaeology and paleontology.
5. The project site falls within the Rancho California - Temecula subarea of
the Southwest Territory Land Use Planning Area.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The project is a Category II land use.
2. The project represents infllling within the commercial corridor along 1-15.
3. All environmental concerns can be mitigated through conditions of approval.
4. The proposed subdivisfdn is consistent with General Plan Policies, compa~ibl
with area development, and in conformance with Ordinance 460.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the findings and conclusions incorporated in this staff report,
recommends the following:
staff
ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration for Envlron .ntal Assessment No. 31724; and,
APPROVAL of Parcel Map No. 22515, subject to the attached com~itions of approval.
LBL:ms
8-26-87
C) l -L~(}I {}
1 L.~
/
'-\,, / /
/ ~/
/~
VAC
VAC
'.' App. ~l~..' aEIN, WILL M ~'~4b~T ~ .ASSOC.
: I 'S;c. T~,8 S.,R.3W. ~sessor'j ak. 922 ~. 12
Rd Bk'
Circulation ~ EXCESSWAY VARIABLE
Element ~ FREEWAY VARIABLE
-
. . ,56A Dell 8/19/87 ~awn By JCW
,-A-20 _
/
43g
_R -A-;
~App. ROBERT BEIN, WILLIAM FROST 8~ ASSOC.
Use :5 LOTS.
~eo TEMECU~ Ist S~ ~st.
~$ec. T.'8 S.,R.~W. ~ess~'s Bk. 922 h. 12
Circulot~n ~ EXCESSWAY VARIABLE
E~t ~ FEEWAY VARIABLE
Rd. Bk.~.56A O{te 8/19/87 ~ By JCW vn
~E~ C~ ~NI~ DEP~T~T
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBDIV'ISION
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 22515
DATE:
EXPIRES:
STANDARD CONDITIONS
The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County of
Riverside, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or
proceeding against the County of Riverside or its agents, officers, or
employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the County
of Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body
concernin Parcel Map No. 22515, which action is brought about within the
time period provided for in California Government Code Section 66499.37.
The County of Riverside will promptly notify the subdivider of any such
claim, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside and will
cooperate fully in the defense. If the County fails to promptly notify
the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to
cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be
responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the County of
Riverside.
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California
Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule
E, unless modified by the conditions listed below.
3. This conditionaily approved tentative map will expire two years after the
County of Riverside Board of Supervisors approval date, unless extended as
provided by Ordinance 460.
4. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all
the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and
Ordinance 460.
The subdivider shall submit one copy of a soils report to the Riverside
County Surveyor's Office and two copies to the Department of Building and
Safety. The report shall address the 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 and as maybe additionally provided for in these
conditions of approval.
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 22515
Conditions of Approval
Page 2
10,
12,
13.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Department of Building and
Safety prior to commencement of any grading outside of county maintained
road right of way.
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the
final map.
The subdivider shall comply with the street improvement recommendations
outlined in the Riverside County Road Department's letter dated July 24,
1987, a copy of which is attached.
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
by the Road Commissioner. Street names shall be subject to approval of
the Road Co~mnissioner.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities,
utilities, etc., shall be show~ on the final map if they are located
within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and
conveyances shall be ~ubmitted and recorded as directed by the County
Surveyor.
Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance
with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's
letter dated June 29, 1987, a copy of which is attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommendations
outlined by the Riverside County Flood Control District's letter date~
July 17, 1987, a copy of which is attached. If the land division lies
within an adopted ~ ood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of
Ordinance 460, appro flare fees for the construction of area drainage
facilities shall be coVlected by the Road Commissioner.
The subdivider shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations
1
out ined in the County Fire Marshal's letter dated July 15, 1987, a copy
of which is attached.
Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area
improvement phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning
Department approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate
vehicular access to all lots in each phase, and shall substantially
conform to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval.
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 22515
Conditions of Approval
Page 3
17. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following:
a. All lots shall have a minimum size of .gl acres net.
b. All lot length to width ratios shall be in conformance with Section
3.8C of Ordinance 460.
Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the
developn~nt standards of the C-P-S zone.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a ~eed-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.
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 ~epartment
County Flood Control
County Health Department
County Planning Department
Prior to the recordation of the final map, Change of Zone No. 4783
shall be approved by the Board of Supervisors and shall be effective.
Lots created by this land division shall be in conformance with the
development standards of the zone ultimately applied to the property.
appreval w~ie~ sha~1 demenst~a~e (e ~he satis~ae~ien e~ (he 9epaF~d~e~
~ha~ (~e ~e-tal FFe~ee¢ w-i~q be deve~eheed a~d ma~n~a4Re~ ~n aeeerda~e
i-) :[he deewines( (e ee~vey ,,4tle
)½ £evenan(s, ~edes and res(Ne(iens (e be reee~ded
~ke apiM. eve4 deeBmen~s sha~q be Feeerded a( (he same
ameni(ies by (~e ewne~s e~ (he t~¢a~eet. ~e epp~eved de¢~mep(s
~eFmina(ed, er se~s~a~(ia~y amended wi~heu~ ~e eense~ e~
e-r 4~s s~ecesser-in-i,(e~es~. $~ea~)y~ (~e appreve4 dee,mcn~s
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 22515
Conditions of Approval
Page 4
4mee~ara(e a i~,evisie~ i~ re~i~e~a4 4MSress am~l egress,(Deletad by
Planning C~mission Septe~r 9, lg87)
If street lightinI is proposed to be installed in this subdivision, it
shall be instal ed in accordance with the standards of Ordinance 461
and the following:
'1) Concurrently with the filing of subdivision improvement plans with
the Road Department, the developer shall secure approval of the
proposed street light layout first from the Road Pepartment's
traffic engineer and then from the appropriate utility purveyor.
2)
Following approval of the street lighting layout by the Road
Department's traffic engineer, the developer shall also file an
application with LAFCO for the formation of a street lighting
district, or annexation to an existing lighting district, unless
the site is within an existing lighting d~strict.
Prior to recordation of the final n~ap, the developer shall secure
conditional approval of the street lighting application from
LAFCO, unless the site is within an existing lighting district.
Prior to recordation of the final map, a six-foot high chain link
galvanized wire fence shall be installe~ along the CALTRANS
right-of-way, unless fencing already exists.
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 County Surveyor. A copy of the ECS shall
be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval.
The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded final
n~p 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 dated June 30, 1987, a copy of which is
attached.
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 22515
Conditions of Approval
Page 5
Prior to the issuance of GRADING PER/4ITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
Grading plans shall conform ta Board adopted Hillside Development
Standards: All cut and/or fill slopes, or individual combinations
thereof, which exceed ten feet in vertical height shall be modified by
an appropriate combination of a special terracing {benching) plan,
increase slope ratio (i.e., 3:1), retaining w~lls, and/or slope
planting combined with irrigation. All driveways shall not exceed a
fifteen percent grade.
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.
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
horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved in a continuous,
undulating fashion.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified archaeologist
shall be retained by the developer to monitor grading activities with
respect to potential archaeological impacts. The archaeologist will
be required to do the following:
1) Fully document and recover any significant cultural material which
appears. If complex deposits are uncovered, the archaeologist
_ shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt
grading activity to allow sufficient time for recovery and
adequate documentation.
Any n~terial collected during the monitoring shall be donated to a
local institution which has the proper facilities for curation,
display and use by scholars and the general public.
The work shall be described in a professional report which
receives sufficient distribution to insure its availability to
future researchers and shall be submitted to the Planning
Department.
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 22515
Conditions of Approval
Page 6
0·
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a quali fled pal eontologist
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 pal eontol ogist
and the excavation and grading contractor shall be arranged. When
necessary, the pal eontologist or representative shall have the
authority to temporarily d~vert, redirect or halt grading activity to
allow recovery of fossils·
Upon the sale of any of the parcels created by this subdivision,
reciprocal ingress and egress easements shall be recorded. (A~Med at
Planning Coe~ission September 9, 1987)
LBL:ms
08-26-87
OFFICE OF ROAD COMMItS'lONER & COUNTY SURVEYOR
July 24, 1987
Riverside County Planning Commission
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
Re: Parcel Map 22515
Schedule E - Team I
Ladies and Gentlemen:
With respect to the conditions of approval for the referenceo tentative land
division map, the Road Department recommends that the landdivider provioe the
following street improvement plans and/or road dedications in accordance with
Ordinance 460 and Riverside County Road Improvement Standards (Ordinance 461}.
tt is understood that the tentative map correctly shows acceptable centerline
profiles, all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses with
appropriate O's, and that their omission or unacceptability may require the map
to be resubmitted for further consideration. These Ordinances and the following
conditions are essential parts and a requirement occurring in ONE is as binding
as though occurring in all. They are intended to be complementary and to
describe the conditions for a complete design of the improvement. All questions
regarding the true meaning df the conditions shall be referred to the
Commissioner's Office.
The landdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages
caused by alteration of the drainage patterns, i.e., concentra-
tion of diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by
constructing adequate drainage facilities including enlarging
existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement or by
both. All drainage easements shall be shown on the final map
and noted as follows: "Drainage Easement - no building,
obstructions, or encroachments by land fills are allowed". The
protection shall be as approved by the Road Department.
~'he landdivider shall accept and properly dispose of all offsite
drainage flowing onto or through the site. In the event the
Road Commissioner 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 the use of streets be prohibited for drainage
purposes, the subdivider shall provide adequate drainage
facili ties as approved by the Road Department.
Parcel M~p 22515
July 24, 1987
Page 2
3. Major drainage is involved on this landdivision and its resolution
shall be as approved by the Road Department.
4. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed throughout the landdivision
in accordance with County Standard No. 400 and 401 (curb sidewalk).
Front Street shall be improved with concrete curb and gutter
located 40 feet from centerline and match up asphalt concrete
paving; reconstruction or resurfacing of existing paving as deter-
mined by the Road Commissioner within a 50 foot half width
dedicated right of w~y in accordance with County Standard No. 101,
(Modified 60'/80').
Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall
deposit with the Riverside County Road Departmen t, a cash sum of
$2,500.00 per gross acre as mitigation for traffic signal impacts.
Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment, he may
enter into a written agreement with the County deferring said
payment to the time of issuance of a building permit.
Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile
extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at
a grade and alignment as approved by the Riverside County Road
Commissioner. Completion of road improvements does not imply
acceptance for maintenance by County.
Electrical and communications trenches shall be provided in
accordance with Ordinance 461, Standard 817.
Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than
fourteen days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and
shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard.
Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Sections 37, 39 and 94 of the
State Standard Specifications.
Lot access shall be restricted on Front Street and so noted on the
final map with the exception of one 4D' opening between parcels 1
and 2 and one 40' opening between parcels 2 and 3.
Landdivisions creating cut or fill slopes adjacent to the streets
shall provide erosion control, sight distance control and slope
easements as approved by the Road Department.
parcel'Map 22515
July 24, 1987
Page 3
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
The landdivider shall comply with the Caltrans recom~nendations as
outlined in their letter dated July 8, 1987 (a copy of which is
attached}, prior to the recordation of the final map.
The landdivider shall provide utility clearance from Rancho Calif.
Water District prior to the recordation of the final map.
A copy of the final map'shall be submitted to Caltrans, District
08, Post Office Box 231, San Bernardino, California 92403;
Attention: Project Development for review and approval prior to
recordation.
The minimum centerline radii shall be as approved by the Road
Department.
All driveways shall conform to the applicable Riverside County
Standards.
The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be
coordinated with PM 21390 and PP 9164.
GH:lh
ery truly your?,~ 'C~'~
usHugUhes' P'~ , ~'
Road Division Enginee~
3ur~e 29, 1987
HEALTH
RIverside County Planning Commission
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92502
RE; PARCEL MAP 22515: That.portion of the Rancho Temecula
granted by the government of the United States of America to
LuIs Vignes by patent dated January 18, 1860 and recorded In
Book I. Page 37 of the Patents. Records of San DIego County
California
(3 Lots)
Gentlemen:
The Department of Public Health has reviewed Tentative Map
No. 22515 and recommends that:
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 3unction 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 18, and General
Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of the
State of California,when applicable. The plans shall
be signed by a registered engineer and water company
'with the following certification: "I certify that the
design of the water system in Parcel Map 22515 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 parcel. This
certification does not constitute a guarantee that it
will supply water to such tract at any specific
quantities, flows or pressures for fire protect]on or
any other purpose".
Riverside County Planning Commission
Page Two
June 29. 1987
This certification shall be signed by a responsible
official of the water company. _T~_~_~!~O~_~_~~
This'Department 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 the financial arrangements to be
made prior ~o the recordation of the final map.
This Department has a statement from the Eastern Municipal
Water District agreeing [o allow the subdivision sewage
system to 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 pr6files, pipe and 3oint specifications
and the size of the sewers at the junction of the new system
to the existing system. A single plat indicating locatlo~l
of se~er lines and water lines shall be a portlon of the
sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall be signed by a
registered engineer and the sewer district with the
following certification: "I certify that the design of the
sewer system in Parcel Map 22515 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 p~oposed
parcel." The_~!~_~U~_b~_~gb~i~_~_~b~_~k~
Rzversids Planning Commission
Page Three
June ~g, 1987
It ~ill be necessary for the rxnancial arrangements to be
made prior to the recordation or the final map.
It will be necessary for the annexation proceedings to be
completely finalized prior to the recordatlon of the r~nal
map.
Sincerely,
Environmental Health Services Division
SM:tac
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
July 17, 1987
Riverside Cot~lty
planning Depa~ U,ent
Cbunty A~ministrative Center
Riverside, c~] ifornia
Attention: Ragional Team No. 1
Te-~ley Likins
TadieS and Gentlemen:
Re: Farcel Map 22515
Parcel Map 22515 is a prol~Dsal to divide 3.86 acres into 3 lots in the Tem~cu-
la Valley are, between Front Street and Interstate 15.
Stormwater discharged frcm a double box culvert beneath Interstate 15 tra-
verses the southern portion of the site. The exhibit indicates a direct con-
nection to the Caltrans culvert. Flow~ %4Duld be oonveyed through th~ property
in a 108-inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe and discharged into Murrieta
Creek. However, the proposed pipe may not adequately convey the double k~Dx
culvert' s discharge.
Following are the District's rec~i,nendation~:
This ~n~rcel map is located within the limits of the Murrieta Creek/
Temecula Valley Are Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been
adopted by the Board. Drainage fees shall be paid as set forth under
the provisions of the "Rules and Regulations for Administration of
Are Drainage Plans", amended July 3, 1984:
Drainage fees shall be paid to the Road Connlssioner as part of
the filing for record of th~ sukdivision final map or parcel map,
Or if the recording of a final parcel map is w-a/red, drainage fees
shall be paid as a condition of t]~ waiver prior to recr."ling a
certificate of cc~npliance evidencing t~e waiver of the i eel map;
or
At the o~tion of f3~ land divider, upoa filing a required af-
fidavit requesting defermerit of the payment of fees, the drainage
fees shall be paid to the Building Director at t]qe time of is-
suance Of a grading permit or building permit for each approved
parcel, whichever may be first obtained afcer the recording of the
subdivisign final map or parcel map; kDwever,
Drainage fees shall be paid to the Road Ch,,rJssioOer as a part of
the filing fDr record of the sul~ivision final map or p~rcel map,
or before receiving a waiver to record a land division, for each
lot within the land division where oonstructlon activity as evi-
denced by one of the following actions has occurred since May 26,
1981:
Riverside Oounty
Planning. Department
Re: Parcel Map 22515
- 2 - July 17, 1987
(a) A ~ading permit or building permit b~s been cbtained.
(b) Grading or structures have been initiated.
The p~uposed pipe should be designed tD ul~,vey the tributary 100 year
peak flow rate or the flow rate required by Ca] trans, whichever is
. greater. Th~ pipe shDuld be ~ovided with an adequate outlet.
C~site drainage facilities located outside of road right of ~ay should
be oDn~nad within drainage easements shDwn ~n the final map. A note
should be added t~ t~e fj_nal map stating, "Drainage easements shell be
kept free of buildings and obstructions".
Offsite drainage facilities should be located within publicly
dedicated drainage easements obtained frc~ the affected property
owners. The documents should be recorded and a copy sukrnitted to
District prior to recordation of the final map.
Drainage facilities outletting sump conditions should be designed to
convey the tributary 100 year storm flows. Additional emergency
escape should also be provided.
A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final map along
with sl~pporting bydrolcgic and hydraulic calculations should be
sutmitted to the District for review prior to recordation of the final
map. A registered engineer must sign, seal and note his expiration
date on plans and calculations sulmtitted.
Questions concerning this matter may be referred to Stuart McKibbin of this
office at 714/787-2333.
Very truly yours,
~obert Be]a, William Frost
& Associates
C~oHr' Civil% ineer
SS~:bjp
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
IN COOPERATION WITH THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
RAY HEBRARD
FIRE CHIEF
7-15-87
PLANNING DEP~
RE: PM 22515
Plannlnl & EnllneerlnI Office
4080 Lemon Street. ~lle I I
Rivehide, CA 91501
(714) 787-~
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land division,
the Fire Department reconu~ends the following fire protection measures be provided
in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection
standards:
FIRE PROTECTION
The water mains shall be capable of providing a potential fire fZow of 4000 GPM
and an actual fire flow available from any one hydrant shall be 2000 GPM for 2
hours duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure.
Approved super fire hydrants, {6"x4"x2~x2%) shall be located at each street
intersection and spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction, with
no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a fire hydrant.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire
Department for review. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and
spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be
signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with
the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is
in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire
Department".
The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and
accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustibe building
material being placed on an individual lot.
All ques~tions regarding the meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the
Fire Department Planning and Engineering staff.
MICHAEL E. GRAY, Planning Officer
S'[,A~E OF CALIFOIINIA - BUSINE.~, T]RANSPOIr~A~'ION AND HOUSING AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT l, PO. IOX 23 )
SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA ~2402
July 8, 1987
Plann.ing Department
County of Riverside
~080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
08-Riv-15-3,438
Your Reference:
TPH 22515
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed Tentative
Parcel Map 22515 located adjacent to the southbound off-ramp of
1-15 to Highway 79 (Front Street) in Temecula.
Please refer to the attached material on which our comments have
been indicated by the items checked and/or by those items noted
under additional comments.
It should be noted that if any work is necessary within the state
highway right of way, the developer must obtain an encroachment
permit from the District 8 Office of the State Department of
Transportation prior to beginning the work.
If additional information is desired, please call Mr. Patrick M.
Connally at (714) 383-4384.
R. G. P~TE
District Permits Engineer
Att.
cc: Lee Johnson, Riverside County Road Department
.our ~e~eren~e)
WE WOOLD LIKE TO NOTE:
Although the traffic and drainage generated by this proposal do not appear to have
a siEmiflcant effect on the state highway system, conaideration must be given to
the cun~lative effect of continued development in this area. Any m~asures
necessary to mitigate the cumulative impact of traffic and drainage should be
provided prior to or with development of the area that necessitates them.
It appears that the traffic and drainage generated by ~;his proposal could have a
si~ifioant effect on the state highway system of the area. An~ m~asures necessary
to mitigate the traffic and drainage impacts should be Included with the
development.
This portion of state highway is included in the Califorhla Master Plan of State
Highways Eligible for Official Scenic Highway Deaignation, ~nd in the future your
agency may wish to have this route officially designated as a state scenic highway.
This portion of state highway has been officially designated as a state scenic
highway, and development in this corridor should be eol~oatible with the scenic
highway concept,
It is recognized that there is considerable public concern about noise levels
adjacent to heavily traveled highways. Land development, in order to be compatible.
with this concern, may require special noise attenuation measures. Development of
property should include any necessary noise attenuation.
WE RECOMMEND:
Normal right of way dedication to provide
~alf-width on the state highway.
Normal street improvements to provide
half-~rldth on the state highway,
Curb and gutter, State Standard __ along the state highway.
Parking be prohibited along the state highway by painting the curb red
and/or by the proper placement of "no parking" sirens.
radius curb returns be provided at intersections with the state highway.
A Standard wheelchair ramp must be provided in the?eturns.
A positive vehicular bar. tier along the property' frontage be provided to limit
ph~sical access to the state highway. ~
Ve4~icular access not be developed directly to the state highway.
¥~hicular access to the state highway be provided by existing public road
connections.
Vehicular access to the state hlg1~ay be provided by standard
driveways. /
¥ 'cular cess hall n be ded.yithin
Fo/m 8-PD19 (Rev. 5/87) (Continued on reverse)
08-Riv-15-3.438
(Co-Rte-PM)
TPM 22515
(Your Reference)
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
Access 'restrictions should be indicated on the parcel map along the righ
of way of 1-15. An additional 50' of access restriction along th
southern end of the Front Street right of way Is also requested.
It appears the proposed 108" R.C.P. may reduce capacity of our system
We would like to see appropriate hydraulic calculations when available.
DATE: june g, 1987
TO: Assessor
Building and Safety
Surveyor Dave Duda
Road Department
Health
Fire Protection
Flood Control District
Fish & Game
LAFCO Doug Vierra
:IiVE:I)iDE COUni:,u
PLArI!lifiG DEP,. :IEITIEIlC
JUL 0 G )987
RIVERS!L~E COUNTy
PLANNING DEPARTMEZ;,qT
RECEIVED
JUN 3 0 1987
FALl)MAR OBSDr.'AIO~Y
Rancho Calif. Water Dist.
Southern Calif. Edison
Southern'Catif. Gas
General Telephone
Dept. of Transportation ~8
Temecula Chamber of Con~nerce
Regional Water Quality Cpntrol W9
E tern Municipal Water
Commissioner 8resson
PARCEL MAP 22515 - (Tm-1) - E.A. 317;
Robert Bein, William Frost & Assoc..
Temecula District - First Supervisor
District - North of Junction of Fron!
and 1-15 - R-R & C-1/C~P Zone - Sche~
E - No Waiver - 3.86 acres into 3 lo'
Related Case 4783 - Mod 119 - A.P.
922-120-004
Please review the case described above, along with the attached case map. ALan<
Division Committee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for July 16, 1987. If it cl~
it will then go to public hearing.
Your comments and recommendations are requested prior to July 2, 1987 in order that we
include them in the staff report for this particular case.
Should you have any questions regarding this item, please do not hesitate to contact
Lesley Liking at 787-1363
Planner
COMMENTS:
PLEASE SEE ATTACHED
DATE: 6/30/87 SIGNATURE ~~/~uc~a~--~'c-~
PLEASE print nan and title Dr. Robert to/Assistant Director/Palomar
4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 787-6181
46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOk1 304
INDIO, CALIFORNtA 92201
(619) 342.8277
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
This.case is within 30 miles of the Palomar Observatory and is therefore
within the zone requiring the use of low-pressure sodium vapor lamps for
street lighting, as stipulated by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors.
We request that the design for other types of outdoor lighting that may be
employed on this property be made consistent with the spirit of the decision
of the Board of Supervisors which is intended to mitigate the adverse effects
such facilities have on £heastronomical research at Palomar. Beneficial
steps to that end include:
1. Use the minimum amount of light needed for the ~ask.
Orient and shield light to prevent direct upward illumination.
Turn off lights at ll:0O"p.m. (or earlier) unless, in commercial
applications, the associated business is open past that time, in which
case the lights shouId be turned off at closing.
Use low-pressure sodium lamps for roadways, walkways, equipment yards,
parking lots, security and other similar applications. These lights
need not be turned off at 11:00 p.m.
For further information, call (818) 356-4035.
Robert J. Brucato
Assistant Director
Other:
¥1.
(o,)
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER, NIt~H FLOOR
4080 LEMON STREET
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501-3657
Roger S. Streeter, Planning Director
A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the PLANNING COFIMISSION to consider
the application(s) described below. The Planning Department has tentativel
found that the pro osed pro ect s) will have no si nificant environmenta~
effect and has tentatVvely comptete~ negative declarationCs}. The Planning
Caenisston will consider whether or not to adopt the negative declaration along
with the proposed project at this hearing.
Place of Hearing: Board Room, 14th Floor, m~)BO Le~non Street, Riversidem CA
Date of Hearing: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9o 1987
The time of hearing is indicated with each application listed below.
Any person may submit written convnents to the Planning Department before the
hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the adoption
of the negative declaration and/or a proval of this project at the time of
hearing. If you challenge any of t~e projects in court, you ~ay be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the
Planning Conmission at, or prior to, the public hearing. The environmental
finding along with the proposed project application may be viewed at the public
information counter Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m.
PARCEL MAP 22515, EA 31724 is an application submitted by Robert Bein, William
Frost & Associates for property located in the Temecula District and
First Supervisorial District which proposes to divide 3.B6~ acres into
3 lots on property generally described as north of junction of Front
Street and 1-15
TIME OF HEARING: 9:30 a.m.
~ ~l't
"'
.....
I
/
E
4'; ~ /'
iF /
q, /,
.e
BL K
- ' 'B Z K ~2
./
%,
C/O RAYROND $RZTH
278.4~ DEL RIO ST[ E
T~AECULAt CA
KAC(~ DEVELI~REk'I' CO
BOX ?55
TERE~CULAe CA
TOIAL LABELS pRENTED 8
,12.390
92,.t90
RC CGR LIN NO I LANO
44927 .f:0Nl ST
1cR~CuLA CA 92390
pENEoiD LADD L
pENFOLD RARGE
4440~ L.A PAZ
1,:RECULAt CA 92390
9ZZll00C~-5
PHARRIS CHLELL
pNARRIS GENEVIEVE
2854 N SANTIAGO BLV NO 200
ORANGEe CA 92667
R~D
e C BOX 54~3
LOS AhGELESe CA 9005~
9221100CI-b
92Z~l. OOZ;-9
RANCHO SPACE CENTER LTD
28999 FRONT ST
TE~ECULA CA
92390
RANCHG SPACE CENTER LTD
28999 FRONT ST
TEA~CULA CA
92390
92211002; '2
PM 22515
~ ~ APTS
VAC ~
H ILLS \\\
~. 4.311 AC__~
{U I151l,
'% / / '~'~
VAC
- VAC
\
App. ROBERT BEIN, WILLIAM FROST 8~ ASSOC, Loc TIONAL M~.P
i~ Ule ,~ LOTS. ~,~ //~.
Araa TEMECULA lie Sup. Dist.
Sec, T. 8 S.oR.SW. Assessor's Bk. 922 Pg. 12
Circulotion {~ EXPRESSWAY VARIABLE
Element (~ FREEWAY VARIABLE
Rd, Bk. Pg. 56A Date 8/19/87 Drown By JCW
~l', ~(~' R~/ERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT No ~C'LE .__
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
S\STAFFRPT\22515-2.TPM 20
CITY OF TEMECULA )
VICINITY MAP
r ~
CASE NO. ~,-~.0.~.
P.C. DATE i~-ffo---q.l
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
SWAP MAP
SP. 180
k
CASE NO
.
P.C. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
/~
~//
/
/
ZONE MAP
L
CASE NO-~:~.o-T:.
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
L
CASE NO.
P.C. DATE
ITEM # 8
MEMORANDUM
TO;
Planning Commission
FROM:
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
DATE:
December 16, 1991
SUBJECT: Tentative Tract Map No. 22761-Second Extension of Time
Pursuant to the attached memorandum from the Department of Public Works, the applicant
has complied with run-off and erosion control requirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission: ADOPT Resolution 91-_ RECOMMENDING THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE the Second Extension of Time for
Tentative Tract No. 22761 based on the Analysis and Findings
contained in the staff report and subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval.
vgw
S\STAFFRPT\22761-2,TTM
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning Department
Douglas M. Stewart, Deputy City Engineer
December 9, 1991
Tract Map No. 22761, Second Extension of Time
The developer for Tentative Tract Map No. 22761, Coleman Homes, has complied with the
City's requirements for erosion and runoff control in conformance with the terms of their
permits and with City ordinances. The Department of Public Works therefore has no objection
to this project proceeding forward for Planning Commission action.
DMS/RR:ks
S\STAFFRPT~22761-2.TTM 2
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning Commission
Douglas M. Stewart, Deputy City Engineer
November 4, 1991
Tract Map No. 22761, Second Extension of Time
On August 13, 1991, the Department of Public Works sent letters to all developers with
active and inactive subdivisions within the City of Temecula. Said letter requested that all
erosion and run-off control be in place no later than October 15th of this year.
The developer for Tract Map No. 22761 and Tract Map No. 22762 has failed to comply with
the established deadline in conformance with the conditions of their grading permit and the
subdivision conditions of approval. Therefore, the Department of Public Works respectfully
requests that both Second Extensions of Time for Tract 22761 and Tract 22762 be continued
to the December 16, 1991, Planning Commission meeting to allow time for staff to resolve
the issue with the developer.
vgw
S\STAFFRPTL22761 o2.TTM 3
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Douglas M. Stewart, Deputy City Engineer
October 21, 1991
Tract Map No. 22761, Second Extension of Time
On August 13, 1991, the Department of Public Works sent letters to all developers with
active and inactive subdivisions within the City of Temecula. Said letter requested that all
erosion and runoff control be in place no later than October 15th of this year.
The developer for Tract Map No. 22761 and Tract Map No. 22762 has failed to comply with
the established deadline in conformance with the conditions of their grading permit and the
subdivision conditions of approval. Therefore, the Department of Public Works respectfully
requests that both Second Extensions of Time for Tract 22761 and Tract 22762 be continued
to the November 18, 1991, Planning Commission meeting to allow time for staff to resolve
the issue with the developer.
vgw
S%STAFFRPT~22761-2.TTM 4
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
October 21, 1991
Case No.: Second Extension of Time-Tentative Tract Map No. 22761
Prepared By: Mark Rhoades
RECOMMENDATION:
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Coleman Homes
REPRESENTATIVE:
Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
PROPOSAL:
Eighty (80) lot residential subdivision on 28 acres.
Second Extension of Time.
LOCATION:
Between Rancho California Road and Santiago Road, west
of Ynez Road.
EXISTING ZONING:
Specific Plan 180 (Rancho Highlands)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North: R-A-5 (Residential Agricultural, 5 acre
minimum)
SP 180 (Rancho Highlands)
R-1 (One-Family Dwellings)
I-15 (Interstate 15)
South:
East:
West:
PROPOSED ZONING:
Not requested
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING'LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Multi-Family Residential
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
Interstate 15
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Total Acreage:
No. of Lots:
Open Space Lots:
Proposed DU/Acre
Proposed Minimum Lot Size:
28
80
1
2.8
7,200 sq.ft.
S\STAFFRPT~22761-2,TTM 5
BACKGROUND
Tentative Tract No. 22761 was originally approved by Riverside County in July of 1988. The
first time extension was approved by the City of Temecula in October 1990.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Tract Map No. 22761, is a proposal to subdivide approximately 28 acres into eighty (80)
single family residential lots with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. The subject site
is located south of Rancho California Road, west of Ynez Road and easterly of I-15. The
project is consistent with the approved Specific Plan No. 180.
FUTURE GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY
The proposed density of 2.8 units per acre is consistent with the Southwest Area Community
Plan. In addition, Staff finds it probable that this project will be consistent with the new
General Plan when it is adopted, because of the existing pattern of area development.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission re-affirm the Environmental Impact Report
No. 177 completed for Specific Plan No. 180.
FINDINGS
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 pro~'osed 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
zoning designation of Specific Plan 180.
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\STAFFRFT\22761-2.TTM 6
Tentative Tract Map No. 22761 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.
m
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.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the FIR 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 access
points from Ynez Road which have been determined to be adequate by the City
Engineer.
10.
The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed projects, due to the fact that this is clearly represented
in the site plan and the project analysis.
11.
Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with is application and herein incorporated by reference, due to the fact
that they are referenced in the attached Staff Report, Exhibits, and Conditions of
Approval.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
ADOPT Resolution 91-__ RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVE The Second Extension of Time
for Tentative Tract No. 22761 based on the Analysis and
Findings contained in the staff report and subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval.
vgw
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
Resolution - page 8
Conditions of Approval - page 13
Staff Report-First Extension of Time - page 19
Exhibits - page 20
S\STAFFRFT\22761-2.TTM 7
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 91-__
S\STAFFRPT%22781-2.TTM 8
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 91-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE SECOND EXTENSION OF
TIME FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 22761, An 80 LOT RESIDENTIAL
SUBDIVISION ON 28 ACRES AND KNOWN AS A PORTION OF ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 923-020-038.
WHEREAS, Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates 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
November 4, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in
support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said Time Extension.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Findings
That the Temecula Planning Commission 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 t~e following requirements are met:
The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general
plan.
The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, each of the following:
(1)
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.
(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.
S\STAFFRPT\22761-2,TTM 9
(3) The proposed use or action complied 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.
The proposed Time Extension is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements
set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit:
The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general
plan.
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:
(1)
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.
(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.
Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no Time Extension may be approved unless the following
findings can be made:
The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with
all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances.
TEe proposed subdivision does not affect the general health, safety, and
welfare of the public.
The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the proposed Time
Extension, makes the following findings, to wit:
(1)
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.
S\STAFFRPT\22781-2,TTM 10
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
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 zoning designation of Specific Plan 180.
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.
Tentative Tract Map No. 22761 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.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the
built or natural environment as determined in the EIR 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 access points from Ynez Road which have
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\STAFFRFT%22761-2.TTM 11
(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, and Conditions of Approval.
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 II. Environmental Compliance.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby determines that the previous
environmental determination Adoption of EIR No. 177 still applies to said Tract Map
(Extension of Time),
SECTION III. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council
approve the Second Extension of Time for Tentative Tract Map No. 22761 for a 80 Lot
residential subdivision on 28 acres and known as a portion of Assessor's Parcel No. subject
to the following conditions:
1. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
SECTION IV.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of November, 1991.
JOHN E. 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 4th
day of November, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONER
S\STAFFRPT\22781-2.TTM 12
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
S\STAFFRFT\22761-2.TTM 13
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Tract Map No. 22761
Second Extension of Time
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 appropriate staff person of the Department
of Public Works.
It is understood that the Developer has correctly shown on the tentative map all existing
easements, traveled ways, and drainage' courses, and their omission may require the project
to be resubmitted for further review.
The Developer shall comply with all Conditions of Approval as previously imposed or amended
and with the Conditions noted below.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
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.
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.
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT:
A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review
and appFoval. 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 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.
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.
S\STAFFRPT~22761-2.TTM 14
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 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. 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.
Condition No. 12 of the Engineering Department Conditions of the First Extension of
Time, approved by Planning Commission on October 1, 1990, shall be deleted.
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
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.
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT:
Prior to RECORDATION of the final map the applicant or his assignee shall pay the fair
market value of 1.04 acres of required parkland to comply with City Ordinance No.
460.93 (Quimby). The amount to be paid shall be determined by TCSD staff within
thirty (30) days prior to recordation of said map.
10.
Exterior slopes bordering an arterial street may be dedicated to the TCSD for
mainten~'nce following compliance to TCSD standards and completion of the
application process.
S\STAFFRPT~22761-2.TTM 15
CITY OF TEMECULA
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Tract Map No. 22761
First Extension of Time
Commission Approval Date: October 1, 1990
Expiration Date: July 18, 1991
Planning 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. (Amended per Planning Commission
October 1, 1990.)
The subdivider shall submit to the Planning Director verification that Section 10.35 of
Ordinance No. 460 has been previously satisfied or an agreement with CSA 143 which
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City that the land divider has provided for the
payment of parks and recreation fees in accordance with Section 10.35 of Ordinance
No. 460. The agreement shall be approved by the City Council prior to the recordation
of the final map. (Amended per Planning Commission October 1, 1990.)
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
(9100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library
development.
Engineering Department
The following ~ie the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this project, and
shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true
meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled ways, and
drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further
consideration.
The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act, and all
applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions.
S\STAFFRPT\22761-2.TTM 16
PRIOR
8.
PRIOR
9.
10.
11.
12.
The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Flood Control district;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department; and
CATV Franchise.
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 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, in addition to
any other permits required.
TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT:
The subdivider shall submit four prints of a precise 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. (Amended per Planning
Commission October 1, 1990.)
TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C.
pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior
public streets.
All street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Pavement striping, marking, traffic and street name signing shall be installed per
requirements of the City Traffic Engineer.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed
upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as
required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project, in the amount in effect at
the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or
district has not been finally established by the date on which Developer requests its
building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the
Agreement for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to
Developer. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of
fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount
of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such increase.
S\STAFFRPT\22761*2,TTM 17
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
13.
Traffic striping, marking and street name signing plans shall be designed as directed
by the Department of Public Works.
14.
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.
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT:
15.
Prior to RECORDATION of the final map the applicant or his assignee shall pay the fair
market value of 1.04 acres of required parkland to comply with City Ordinance No.
460.93 (Quimby). The amount to be paid shall be determined by TCSD staff within
thirty (30) days prior to recordation of said map.
16.
Exterior slopes bordering an arterial street may be dedicated to the TCSD for
maintenance following compliance to TCSD standards and completion of the
application process.
S~STAFFRFT\22761-2.TTM 18
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBDIVISION
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22761
MINOR CHANGE NO. 1
DATE: August 16, 1989
STANDARD CONDITIONS
The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold hamless the County of
Riverside, its agents, officers, end employees from any claim, action, or
proceeding against the County of Riverside or its agents, officers, or
employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the County
of Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body
concerning Tract No. 22761, Minor Change No. 1, which action is brought
about within the time period provided for in California Government Code
Section 66499.37. The County of Riverside will promptly notify the
subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the County of
Riverside and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the County fails to
promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or
fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not,
thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold hamless the
County of Riverside.
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California
Subdivision Hap Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule
A, unless modified by the conditions listed below.
This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the
County of Riverside Board of Supervisors approval date, unless extended as
provided by Ordinance 460.
4. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all
the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Hap Act and
Ordinance 460.
5. The subdivider shall submit one copy of a soils report to the Riverside
County Sarveyor's Office and two copies to the Department of Building and
Safety. The re oft shall address the soils Stability and geological
conditions of ~ site.
6. If any grading is proposed, the subdivider shall submit one print of
comprehensive grading plan to the Depari~ent of Building and Safety. The
plan shall cemply with the Uniform Building Code, C~aptar 70, as amended
by Ordinance 457 and as amybe additionally provided for in these
conditions of approval.
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22761, Minor Change No. 1
Page 2
7. A grading permit shall be obtained fro~ the Depar)ent of Building and
Safety prior to commencement of any grading outside of county maintained
road right of way.
8. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordarSon of the
final map.
The subdivider shall c~mply with the street improvement recommendations
outlined in the Riverside County Road Department's letter dated June 13,
1989, 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
by the Road Commissioner. Street names shall be subject to approval of
the Road Commissioner.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities,
utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located
within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and
conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the County
Surveyor.
Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance
with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's
letter dated Nay 12, 1989, a copy of which is attached.
14. The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommendations
outlined by the Riverside County Flood Control Dtstrict's letter dated
June 7, 1989, a copy of which is attached. If the land division lies
within an adopted flood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of
Ordinance 460, Ippro tilt. fees for the construction of area drainage
facilities 1 be coVlected by the Road Cmmtsstoner. she 1
The subdivider shall comply with the fire Improvement recoeeendattons
outltned tn the County Fire Marsh~l's letter dated May 11, 1989, a copy of
which ts attached.
16. The subdivider shall comply wtth the conditions set forth In the
f t n otter date
Depurtment of Building and Sae y La d Use Dhtsion's 1 d May 17,
1989, a copy of which is attached.
17. The subdivider shall comply with the conditions set forth in the
Department of Butldlng and Safety Grading Dtviston's letter dated July
1989, a copy of which ts attached.
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22761, Hinor Change No. 1
Page 3
18. The subdivider shall comply with Caltran's letter dated Nay 12, Zg89, a
copy of which ts attached.
19. Subdivision phasing, Including any proposed common open space area
improvement phastn , tf applicable, shall be subject to Plannine
Depar~ent approval, Any proposed phastng shall provide for adequat~
vehicular access to all lots tn each phase, and shall substantially
confom to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval,
20. The subdivider and all successors in tnterest shall comply with the
provisions of Development Agreement No, 3 and Specific Plan No, Z80.
2Z. Lots created by thts subdivision shall comply with the following:
a. All lots shall have a mtnlmum size of 7200 square feet net.
b. All lot length to wtdth ratios shall be In conformance with Sectton
3.8C of Ordinance 460.
Corner lots and through lots, tf any, shall be provided wtth
additional area pursuant to Section 3.88 of Ordinance 460 and so as
not to contatn less net area than the least amount of net area tn
non-corner and through lots,
d. Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformante with the
development standards of the $.P. zone.
When lots are crossed by major public utility easements, each lot
shall have a net usable area of not less than 3,600 square feet,
exclusive of the uttltty easement,
f. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained In a ~eed-free
condition and shall be etaher planted with the, rim landscaping or
r~vtded wtth other erosion control measures is epproved by the
~trector of Butldtng end Safety,
22. Prior to RECORDATiON of the final map the following conditions shall be
sattsftech
elf
Prtor to the recordeaton of the ftnal mp the applicant shall submit
t~ttton clearances to the RIverside County Road end Survey Department
that ell pertinent requireBanes outltned tn the attached approval
letters frofit the follmrlng egenctes have been met,
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22761, Hinor Change No. 1
Page 4
County Fire DeparlTnent County Health DepartFRont
County Flood Control County Planning Department
Building and Safety, Land Use and Grading Divisions
Caltrans
b. The common open space area shall be shown as a nunt~ered lot on the
final map and shall be managed by a masl~r property owners'
association.
c. A prepare owner's association ~th ~e unqualified right to assess
the owners of the individual units for reasonable mtntenance costs
shall be established and continuously maintained. The association
shall have the right to lien f~e property of the owners who default in
the peyTnent of their assessments. Such lien shall not be subordinate
to any encumbrance other than a first deed of trust provided such deed
of trust is made in good faith and for value and is of record prior to
the lien of the association.
d, P~ie~ ~e ~ese~datien e( the ~iea~ map~ the sebdivide~ sha~ aeevey te
(he gewm(y fee simple (i(Se, 4e aSS maNeaR or semeM open sNse areas,
vtreserded~ and eaaemeM(h eMsep( (~ese ellennil wkilk tM (he se~e
diasre(ien ef Ibm Geen~y are assep(abSe, ~, Ilndi(iens presedem~ 4e
She lOSSOWing dlSemen~a a ~e Paine(MS DeFeradmiRe( hF reviews whisk
deeemeMSs lhI;S be sables( 4e She IpprevaS of (hat dOpes(uRn( and
OffiRe of 4ke Gevnly GeRMseaR (Deleted by Planning Commission 8-16-8g)
a~ A ssw~Se dosemen( sonveyieg U(Se (o ~e Imrehsaer o( aM 4ndividaa~
(Deleted b7 Planntng ~tsston ~X6-89)
FewiRa shams 403 pRy(de ~er · lemnn of 66 yeare, 4b~ pev4de ~o~ 4he
~v4mionm woesibm (blend by Planntng C~sston ~1~89)
mNo(kwitkm40Rd4e may FFewiSiOn 4n Ibis hasteS(on 40 She
IOn(Fam~ys Slim ;:~ ew4el FeIViSiIR IllaSS IppSyt (Deleted by Planning
Camtsston 8-16-89)
The poperiy ewRers~ aSSMiSUSe esimbSished kers4R skimS, 4;
deFTAIR(, lie el(4veled, by 4nlePperlSiOn elm e~kePwish 64 She
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22761, Minor Change No. 1
Page 5
· sseetatten ·ke~; uRe·ndtttena~y ·oseFt l~em the goanty ef
Rtvewgtde, upen the geuRlytg dumafib t~t~e te g~ e~ any Im~t ef
the 4tommen ·weat~ I!l~e lllFtteu~lF~y deaewtbed on enktbtt ~A~
· t. eked hawaii, The dictator el weealoe ilttvat4en of 4he
p~ope~ty ow~e~a~ eesee4atten cod the deote4en to Hqut~e the the
· eseetet4en uoeeed~ttena~y useeFt tt4~e to the Ionnon a,ea4 skit;
be ·t these~e dtae~etten of 4ke geuRty of R4ve;etde, (Deleted by
Plgnntng Commisston 8-Z6-89)
the event that the lowfen ierli~ ew lay IMFt thewee4 46 conveyed
4e the IPopeFty mmeFa4 assentcOach the assentnOtch theweefteF
ike~ own lush leeon ·wants ·ba~3 lieage god eent4nueays~y
lie4ntgte seek 4fencer a~ea~, e~ any nPt thePeet~ absent the ;F4eF
th. ,..o,. ;4,...,. th. ,..., .4 R4v...,.,
osseEtet4en skeW; have the rtght to assess 4he evneFs of fish
~oemmen iFeo~s end shi~ have the ~tght to ~ten the pFepl~{y e~ any
assessment ~teh enee eFeatedT oha~ be ptoF to a~ etheF ~tens
Iweet4ng the ·esessment ~4en, (Deleted by Planning Commission
8-~6-89)
;h4e Be¢3aFet4on oka~ net he teFmtnateds ~oubstant4at~y~ amended
the PtlRR4Ng 94;elte~ o4 the Gaiety et~ R4vewg4de ev the GeaRRyes
evlelglew-4e-tnteweat~ A pFepeeed Imeedment the~ be leastduPed
Aeolian ·~eoA, (Deleted by Planntng C~tsston
the event e4 any SORt;tit between th4s Designation end the
sslee4·ttoe Rubes ·od Rege;et4enos 44 ·RYv 046 DegasFatten okaY3
eentFe;,a el)allied b7 PIInntng Commission 8-~6-89)
Once ippw~vedv the da;lFit4ee of leveRReally eend4t4ena end
FlltF4lt4enl Ihl;; be meFded It the sali t4li that the 44Ra~ Rip 4s
POSeFlledw el)elated by Planntng CountsstaR 8-~6-89)
Prtor to recordeRIon of the ftn·l subdtvfston alp, the sulxlivtder
shall submtt the following docuBents to the PIBnntng bepartoent for
revfow, whfch documents shell be sub3ect to the approve1 of that
deparlanent end the Office of the County Counsel: (Added b7 Pl·nntng
Ccmrisston 8-16-89)
1) A declaration of covenants, conditions end restrictions; end
TENTATZVE TRACT NO. 22761, Minor Change No. 1
Page 6
2)
A sample document conveying title to the purchaser of an
individual lot or unit which provides that the declaration of
covenants, conditions and restrictions is incorporated therein by
reference.
The dec]aration of covenants, conditions and restrictions submitted for
review shall (a) provide for a minimum term of 60years, (b) provide
for the establishment of a ropetry owners' association comprised of the
Owners Of each individual Vet or uni t, (c) provide for ownership of the
common area by either the property owners' association or the owners of
each individual lot or unit as tenants in common and (d) contain the
following provisions Verbatim: (Added by Planningg Commission B-16~89}
'Notwithstanding any provision in this Declaration to the contrary,
the following provision shall apply: (Added by Planning Commission
8-16-89)
The property owners' association established hereln shall manage and
continuously maintain the 'common area', more particularly described
On Exhibit ' ' attached hereto, and shall not sell or transfer the
'common are'i'rT',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. (Added by Planning Commission 8-16-89}
The property owners' association shall have the right to assesf the
owners of each individual lot or unit for the reasonable cost of
maintaining the 'common area' and shall have the right to lien the
property of any such owner who defaults tn 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. (Added by
Planning Commission 8-16-89)
This Declaration shall not be terminated, 'substantially' amended or
p~perty 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
t
'substent el' tf it affects the extent, usage or maintenance of the
'camon area'. (Added by Planning Commission 6-16-89)
In the event of any conflict between this Declaration end the Articles
of Incorporation, the Bylaws or the property owners' association Rules
and Regulations. if Iny. this Declaration sbe11 control." (Added by
Planntng Co,mission 8-16-89)
Once approved, the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions
shall be recorded at the same time that the final map is recorded. (Added
by Planntng Commission 8-16-89)
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22761, Hinor Change NO. 1
Page 7
fe
The developer shall comply with the following parkway landscaping
conditions:
1)
Prior to the issuance of buildin permits, the developer shall
secure approval of propose landscaping and irrt atton plans from
the County Road and Planning Depari~ent. AV1 landscaping and
irrigation plans end specifications shall be prepared in a
reproducible format suitable for per~mnent filing with the County
Road Department.
2)
The developer shall post a landscape performance bond which shall
be released concurrently with the release of subdivision
performance bonds, uaranteeing the vtabtllty of all landscaping
which will be lnsta?led prior to the assumption of the maintenance
responsibility by the district.
3)
The developer, the developer's successors-in-interest or
assignees, shall be responsible for all parkway landscaping
maintenance until such time as maintenance is taken over by the
district.
The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all
slopes, landscaped areas and irrigation system until such time as
those operations are the responsibilities of other parties as approved
by the Planning Director,
Street lights shall be provided within the subdivision in accordance
with the standards of Ordinance 461 and the following:
1)
2)
Concurrently with the filing of subdivision improvement plans with
the Road Departmwnt, the developer shall secure approval of the
proposed street ltght layout first from the Road Deparl~ent's
traffic engineer and then from the appropriate utility purveyor.
Following approval of the street lighting layout by the Road
Depertment'S traffic engineer, the developer shall also file an
Ippltcatton with LAFCO for the formtton of a street lighting
district, or lnnexatton to In 1
existing tghtlng district, unless
the site Is within an mxtsttng lighting district.
3)
4)
Prior to recorderton of the final lip, the developer shall secure
conditional ipprovel of the street ltghting application from
LAFCO, unless the site is within an exlsttng ltghttng district.
All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on
electrical pllns Submitted to the Department of Building and
Safety for plan check approve1 Ind shell comply with the
Riverside County PlushinS Department
PaSsive
October S, lg8?
This certificition chill be sig~ed by a responsible
offic~ll of the vitsr conpiny,
S&_Atll~,_~,_vS.~tt~l_gL~eg_~OJ, bt.£tgatl~,_£O~_~bt
This Department has a statement from the Rancho California
Vater D~strict agreeing to serve domestic water to each and
every lot in the subdivision on demand providing
Satisfactory finincial arringements are completed v~th the
Iv~bgivider. It viII be necessary for the financial
arrangements to.he made prior to the recordation of the
final map.
This Department has I statement from the F, astern Mtn~cipal
Valet District agreeing to slier the subdivision serifs
system to be connected to the levers of the DIstrict. The
sever system shall be instilled according to plans knd
specifications as approved by the District, the Cotn~ty
Surveyor and the Health Department. Perninent prints o~P the
;lane Of the sever system shall be submitted in triplecats.
along with the griStnil drawing. to the County Surveyor. The
prints shall show the ~nternal pipe diameter, locatSon of
annholes. complete profiles, pipe and Joint specifications
and the size of the severs at the Jlanction of the new system
to the existing system. A s~ngle plat indicating location
of sever lines and water lines shall be a portion of the
Sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall be signed by a
regSstered engineer end the sever district with the
foliovinE eertifXcatien: el certify that the design ef the
sever lyetea in Tract ~p 22~21 is in accordenos with the
sever system mc~tncion plans of the ~acte~s Ntmicipal Vator
District aful that the waste disposal eyetea is adequate at
this time to treat the anticipated vietee free the proposed
tract,' lbt_alns_eua ,btJubuitttdte, bt,Gea&x
lv~xtxe~:a,O~txst.~a_~txitx_s~,Itsz&_~e,xttks'u~ie~_te_tbt
ztgvtt&_b, tbt_ct~e:di&~eu,oMbt-f-tuuL,asB-
11 will be necessary for the financial arrangements to be
Bade prier to the recordalien of the final asp.
m:I~INrTH I,, mT~IAR~I sees
County Administrative Center "
tv,r, td,. tfo t, :"
Hi, or
have reviewed this case and have the following countries:
Except for nuisance nature local runoff ~hIch may traverse portions of the
property the project Is considered free from ordinary sto~m flood hazard.
However, a storm of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New construc-
tion should comply with all applicable ordinances.
The topography of the area consists of well defined ridges and natural water-
courses vhtch traverse the property. There ts adequate area outstde of the
natural watercourses for building sites. The natural watercourses should be
kept free of buildings end obstructions tn order to maintain the natural
drainage patterns of the area and to prevent flood damage to new buildings.
A note should be placed on an environmental constraint sheet stating, "All new
buildings shall be floodproofed by elevating the finished floors a mintmum of
18 Inches above a{LJlcent tround surface. Erosion protection shall be provided
for mobile home supports,
Thts project ts tn the . Area
I accordance with the applicable rules and
drainage plan fees she 1 be paid in
regulations.
The proposed zoning fs consistent With existtrig flood hazards. So~e flood
contre] facilities or floodproofing m~ be required to fully develop to the
implied density.
The Dtztrtct's report dated ts still current for this project.
The Dtstrtct does not object to the proposed liner change.
This project tsa plrt of . The project will be
fi .hen Improvements have been constructed in
free of ordinary ~tore oed hazard
accordance with rapproved plus.
The attached cooedants mpply.
NVt-_RSIDF, COU/~rY
IN COOtSRATION WTrH THE
GAUFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FOfrESTRY
5-11-89
2PECZFIC PI,M~ ~
22761 -!ffJe0RCIRNGE I I
Wt~h respec~ tc r, he conditions of ~proval for the shove referenced la~d division,
the F~re Departneat reco~ends the following fire protection measures he provided
in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances ~Ad/or recognized fire pro~ection
e~andards:
FIi~E PROTECTION
Schedule an' fire protection approved standard fire hydrants (6'x4"xeJ'), located
one at each street intersection and spaced no more thxn 330 feet apart in any
direction, with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a hydrant.
Itinisuzm ~ire flow shall be 1000 G~4 for 2 hours d~ratton st 20 PSI.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one nopy of the water system plans to the Fire
Department ~or review. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and
Spacing, and, the systm~ shall meet the firm flow requireashes. Plane shall be
signed/Spproved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company w~th
the following certification= °l clrtl~/that the design of the water system is
in ecmrdance with the regulrsments 9resezibed by the Riverside County Fire
Departaent",
The required water SyStem, lncln~Lng 21r~ hydrants, 2all N ins~alled and
I~ep~ed ~ ~e ~prllte vat~ Ig~ ~rlor ~ ~y ~s~e ~ldin9
all b~Lldlngs shall be cons~ed vith firm re~rdant ~ring tutorial a~
e:~ ~ I~n 3203 of ~e g~foa ~1~ ~e. ~y ~ ~les
or ~ll ~1 ~ I C~l elm ra~ ud ~11 b ~ ~ ~ Fire
~t ;~ ~
!~lor to the rsaacdstion of the fiasl ss~, the developer shall d~olit with the
liverside Caunty Fits Delmrts~nt a assh mm of $400.00 Issz lot/~nit ms mitigation
for firm l~otsction imps~ts. lho~d ths dawsleper abeass to defer the t~e of
Imyssnt, be/she may cater into · r/ittea eg~s~ent vith the County deferring
said i~uent to the tbm of lsmmnce of · building paxtit.
questions regarding the ueaning of the conditions shall be referred ~o the
F~re ~mnt Planning and Engineering I~aff.
JelCHAZL X. GRAY. Plannir~ Officer
Riverside z~i,y-~J,Lan .Z~a;artment
Attention: ellcti lraj~leld
County Admn~strattve Center
4080 Lemon Street
RIverside, CA 92501
gAY 18
RE: Tract 22761 - Htnor Change ll
Ladtes and Gentlemen:
The Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety
has the following comments and conditions:
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall
obtain Planning Department approval for all on-site and off-
site signage advertising the sale of the subdivision pursuant
to Section 19.6 of Ordinance 348.
Fireplaces may encroach 1' into required minimum S' side yard
setback.
Mechanical equipment may not be located tn required minimum 5'
side ymrd setback.
Site located in m Special Studies Zone -- G-19g.
Developer Agreement #3 fees due prior to building permit
tssushce.
t~..truTy yOUram · ~
klminMration t7141 682-8840 · (7141 787-2020
Department of Building and Safety
PLANI s
~Please sake the follosiq a Ci~ltiO~ Of ~rovS/s .
from the Department of
NEXT
yar~t.
Prior to approval Of this use/subdiviSion · grac~in~ Dermi~
and IpprOval of the rough gridand shall be obtained from
the l~ilbing and Safety Department.
Owner shall Otmtain · gridand permit Ond approval to
COnStruCt from the Building and Safety Departmen:.
material is placed or movec~, requires · grading pewmiX.
Prior to occupancy oedlor beginning actual use of t~s
be oltaine~ from the Soildang and Safety Department.
Provide verification
permittag am~ &pbrOval
i~ildi,g afd Safety,
to construct was OUtaimed from
__S- ,he 8radihg leglion ham ~ comment an thio airs·
For the final Iredl~ File - Please provide the applicable
inforsatio~ from ~u,ty Iradlng Farms llo-lb
I
Roy.
See ,,;:'/mc/,.J
PZease refer f.o dipattach1: fo~ 284-86, 284-120, 284-21
and 1~-46' ~or applicable ~om~ion to include on y~ur
~ad~g plus. . . . .
In o~s: to Ls~l a-~g p~, ~e ~ollov~g
V ll be needed 'at ~s ~lu review s~ga.
. 'ObU~ I ~1~ ~viev ~e~- ' ': '
. ):crUde 3 cop~es'o~ ~e ~:el~a~ 2o~ls
~:ov~de a up~ o~ ~e hy~clog~c-h~uI~c
A
s~udy, ~P APPUC 5~
):crUde clear~ce letters ~ ~e ~ollov~g
dspa~ - ~Pla~V
· · Flood Control
Road Depa~en~
·. !~ov~de · a let o~ ~la~nV Depa~eA:
· ' conditions of approval on the approvsd case·
Provide an erosion Con~.Tol plan, prepared by
a licensed landscape. architect, for plan
review, perml=, and bonding.
/ubmi= S copies of the gra. d~ng p.lan for dis=ribu~icn and
~sview. :
Islet ~,m any specific plan rslaCsd to this pro~ect.
This proper=y is located in the Rancho California
Po=en~ial Subsidence area· ~er Board Resolu~ion 88-61,
addi=ional geo=schnical ~nformaCion is rs~uired.
Observe slope leabacks from per·it It·as and s~ruc=ures
per lec=~on 7011 and figure 29-1 of the Uniform. lulldin. g
Code as modified b~ Ordinance 427. '-
Driveway ~Tades shall be 3J% Or less.'
Show s=ree= and pad elevations. Znsuze tha~ · 1% grads
[mi .} can be la~Jtta~ed from back of pad to S~Tee=-
n
tee refer to the following c~mments when ~ubmiCCing a grading
for plan review by the Grading Section.
DEPARTM, ENT OF TRANSPORTATION
~ I, t~. IDI 9~1
1~O C~14:J Zl~idCe
May Z2, 1989
MAYlt 9
Development Raylay
08-laZY-IS-4.83
Your Reference:
TTM 22761
Mancho HtVhlands
Planning Department
Attention )is. Feltcla Bradfield
County of Riverside
4080 Lemon Street
RIverside, CA 92501
DearSis. Bradfield:
Thank you for the opportunity to revtev the proposed Tentative
Tract Map No. 22761 located southvesterly of Mancho California
Road and Ynez Road, east of 1-15 in Mancho California.
Please refer to the attached Development ieviev Foravhich
documents Caltrans' requirements for this pro~ect. Conformance
vtth these conditions is required for issuance of an Encroacl~ent
If any york is necessary within the s~ete highray right of ray,
the developer must obtalnenancroaclment perair front he
Caltrans District I Penit Office prior to b~airmlng vo:k.
If additional information Is desired, please call Kr. Thomas
levilie at (714) 313-4384.
Vary tFuly laura,
District hralts ~ngineer
&at.
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22761, Minor Change No. 1
Page 8
28
requi'rements of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655 and the
Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan.
Prior to recordatton of the ftnal map, an Environmental Constraints
Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared tn conjunction wtth the ftnal map to
delineate 1denttried environmental concerns and shall be permanently
f11ed with the offtce of the County Surveyor. A copy of the ECS shall
be transmitted to the Planntng Deparl~ent for revtew and approve].
The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded final
map to the Planntng Deparl~ent and the Departant of Building and
Safety.
The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints
Sheet: "County Geologic Report No. 199 & G.R. 199 (update) was
prepared for this property and is on file at the Riverside County
Planning Department. Specific items of concern in the report are as
follows: The following note shall be placed on the Environmental
Constraints sheet: "Structure for human occupancy she13 not be
allowed within the 50 foot setback associated with the Wildcat
Fault."
A copy of the final map and Environmental Constraints sheet shall be
submitted to the Planning Department Engineering Geologist for review
and appoval.
The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints
Sheet: "This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount
Palomar Observatory."
Prior to the recordat·on of the final nap, the subdivider shall
provide a ftnal geologic report for Planntng Department approval. The
report shall be performed by a ~ualtfied geologist ustng standard
scientific methodology. Any mitigation measures proposed shall be
incorporated into the design of the final map and directed by the
Plinntn Director. This report shall be noted on an Environmental
ConstraTnts Sheet, ~herever necessary.
Prtor to recordatton of the ftnal map, the subdtviper shall prepare
end submtt a wrttten repOrt to the Planntng Director of the County of
Riverside demonstrating compliance wtth those conditions of approval
and .rlttgatton measures of thts mep end Envtromental Assessment Nos.
3Z943 and 31084 which must he satisfied prtor to recordatton of the
ftnal mep. The Planntng Otrector may reclutre inspection or other
monitoring to assure such compliance.
Prior to the tssuance of 6RADING PERt4ZTS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
TENTATIVE TRACT NO.. 22761, Minor Change No, 1
Page 9
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: (Amended by Planning
Commission 8-16-89)
Permanent automatic Irrigation systems shall be installed on all
landscaped areas requiring irrigation. (Amended by Planning
Cornmission 8-16-89)
Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be opaque
up tO a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity, (Amended by
Planning Commission 8-16-89)
All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from
view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle
tree)ants, as approved b the Planning Director. Utilities shall
be placed underground. (~n;nded by Planning Commission 8-16-B9)
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 beming,
ground cover, shrubs and specimen trees in conjunction with
meandering sidewalks, benches and other pedestrian amen,ties where
appropriate as approved by the Planning Department. (Amended by
Planning Commission 8-16-89)
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent
,re.s .t k.y visu.l loin,s wit,i. the proj.ct. < nd.d by
Commt sslon 9
Planning 8
6. ~ere 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. (Amended by Planning Commission 8-16-89)
Landscaping plans shell Incorporate native and drought tolerant
plants where appropriate, (Amended by Planning Commission
8-16-89)
8. All exlsttng spedmen trees and significant rock outcroppings on
the subject property shell be shown on the pro3ect's gradtrig plans
end shall note those to be moved, rolocated and/or retained.
(Amended by Planntng Commission 8-16-8g)
9, All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow
rowing trees shall be steel staked. '(Amended by Planning
Tommission 8-16-89)
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22761, Htnor Change No. 1
Page 10
All approved gradtn and butldtng plans shall reflect the utilization
of post and beam ~oundations or of
combination
the appropriate split
level pads end post and beam foundations when development is proposed
o. slop. of f,,....rc.nt hori.ont. 1
distance of thirty (30~ feet.orCommission
8-16-89)
Zf the project is to be phased, prior to the approval of gradtng
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: (Amended by Planntng
Commission 8-Z6-89)
Techniques which w111 be utilized to prevent erosion and
sedtmentatton during end after the gradtng process. (Amended by
Planning Commission 8-Z6-89)
2) Approximate time frames for gradin~ and identification of areas
which may be graded during the higher probability rain months of
January through ~arch. (Amended by Planning Commission 8-%6-89)
3) Prellmtnary pad and roadway elevations. (Amended by Planning
Commission 8-Z6-89)
4) Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase.
(Amended by Planning Commission 8-~6-89)
c. Driveways shall be designed so as not to exceed a fifteen (15) percent
i
grade. (Amended by Planning Comm sston 8-16-89)
d. Gradtng plans shall conform to Board adopted Hillstde Development
Standards: All cut and/or ftll slopes, or Individual combinations
thereof, ~hlch exceed ten feet tn vertical hetght shall be modtfted by
an appropriate combination of a$pactal terracing (benchtng) plan,
tncrease slope ratto it.e,, 3:Z), retaining walls, ind/or slope
planttng combtried vtth Irrigation. All drtvetmys sbe11 not exceed a
6
fifteen percent grade. (kneaded by Plann4ng Comtsston 8-Z -89)
e. All cut slopes located ad4acent to uegrsded natural terratn and
exceeding ten (X0) feet tn verttcal be ght shall' be contour-graded
Incorporating the following Fading techniques: (kneaded by Planning
Commission 8-Z6-89)
Z) The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the
angle of the natural terratn.
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22761, Hlnor Change No. 1
Page 11
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 end stability permit such rounding.
4)
Where cut or fill slopes exceed 300 feet in horizontal length, the
horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved in a continuous,
undulattng fashion.
Natural features such as water courses, specimen trees and significant
rock outcrops shall be protected in the siting of Individual building
pads on final grading plans. (Amended by Planning Commission 8-16-89)
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. (Amended by Planning Commission
8-16-89)
he
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 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, redtract or halt grading
activity to allow recovery of fossils. (Amended by Planning
Commission 8-16-8g)
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a drainage study indicating
on- end off-site flow patterns end volumes, probable impacts, and
Camfission 8-16-89)
All dwellings shall be located e minimum of tan feet from the top end
tops of lll slo s over tan feet in vertical hat ht unless otherwise
epproved by the P~nntng DIrector. (Amended by ~lenntng Commission
8-16-89)
k. Nmturel dretnege courses shell be retained in their Mtural state
wherever possible. (Amended by Planning Commission 8-16-89)
TEI~ATIVE TRACT NO. 22761, Htnor Change No. 1
Page 12
All brow ditches, terrace drains and other minor swales where required
shall be lined with natural erosion control materials or concrete, as
approved by the Planning Director and Building and Safety. (Amended
by Planning Commission 8-16-89)
ne
Any import or export of materials shall be in accordance with County
Ordinances No. 457 and No. 565 respectively. (A~ended by Planning
Commission 8-16-B9)
Prior to the issuance of grading permit, the subdivider shall prepare
and submit a written report to the Planning Director of the County of
Riverside demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval
and mitigation measures of this map and Environmental Assessment Nos.
31943 and 31084 which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a
grading permit. The Planning Director may require Inspection or other
monitoring to assure such compliance. (Amended by Planning Commission
8-16-89)
Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERNITS 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 financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100)
per lot/unit shall be deposited with the Riverside County Department
of Building and Safer as mitigation for public library development.
(Amended by Planning ~omm salon 8-16-89) i
be
Prior to the submittal of building plans to the Department of Buildin
and Safety an acoustical study shall be performed by. an acousticaV
.ngin.r ,o .tab,,sh. p.opr,.,. :l tion ..sur.s ,h,t sh. ll be
applied to individual dwel~tng units the subdivision to reduce
ambient interior noise levels to 45 CNEL and exterior noise levels to
65-CNEL. (~nended by Planning Coemtsston 8-16-89)
c. Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and
Irrigation plans shall he su~tttad for Planning Depariaent approval·
The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requiring
landscaping and Irrigation to be installed including, but not limited
to, parkway plantin , street trees, slope planting, and individual
front ymrd landscapVng, (Mended by Plmnntng Cmmntsston 8-16-8g)
All dwellings to be constructed within this subdivision shall be
destgned and constructed with fire retardant (Class A) roofs as
approved by the County Fire Mmrshal. (Mended by Planning Cc~isston
8-16-89)
TENTATIVE TRACT NC. 22761, Ninor Change No. 1
Page 13
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 Deparl3nent approval.
(Amended by Planning Commission 8-16-89)
8-16-89)
between all buildings excluding fireplaces shall
n
(10) feet. (Amended by Pla ning Commission
g. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet.
(Amended by Planning C~nmission B-15-B9}
h. All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and automatic
irrigation. (Amended by Planning Commission 8-16-89)
i. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the subdivider shall
prepare and submit a written report to the Planning Director of the
County of Riverside demonstrating compliance with those conditions of
approval and mitigation measures of this map and Environmental
Assessment Nos. 31943 and 31084 which must be satisfied prior to the
issuance of a building permit. The Planning Director may require
inspection or other monitoring to assure such compliance. (Amended by
Planning Commission 8-16-89)
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: (Amended by Planning
Commission 8-16-89)
1. 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.
3. All uttltty service areas and enclosures shall be screened from
vtmv wtth landsclptn end decorative barriers or baffle
trea~e ts, Is approved ~/the Planning DIrector, Utilities shall
n
be placed underground.
Parkwys and landscaped butldtng 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,
h specimen in conjunction with
ground Coverm S rubs end trees
meandering sidewalks, benches and other pedestrian amentries where
appropriate as approved by the Planning Departanent,
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22761, Minor Change No. 1
Page 14
5. 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.
7. Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant
plants where appropriate.
All existing spectmen 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.
9. All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow
growing trees shall be steel staked.
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 pemits. If
seasonal conditions do not pemit planting, interim landscaping and
erosion control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning
Director and the Director of Building and Safety.
Notwtthstandtng 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.
c. Concrete stdevalks shall be constructed throughout the subdivision in
accordance wtth the standards of Ordinance 461,
d. Sireat trees shall be planted throughout the subdivision in accordance
with the standards of Ordinance 460.
Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the subdivider shall
prepare and submit · written report to the Planning Director of the
COunty of Riverside demonstrating compliance ~th all mining
conditions of approval and .Httgatton measures of this map and
Envtroreental Assessment Nos. 31943 and 31084. The Planning Director
my requtre Inspection or other monitoring to assure such compliance.
FB:mp
August 14, 1989
DDUNTY OF RIVERBIDE
PLANNZNG DEPARTHENT
T0: Felicia Bradfield o Spectflc Plans
FROM: Steve A. Kupfeman - Engineering Geologist
RE: Tentative Tract 22761
Slope Stability Report No. 14 (update)
The following reports have been revtewed relattve to slope stability at the
subject stte:
· Slope Stability Evaluation for the Proposed Residential Development,
Tentative Tract 22761, Rancho California, R~versida County, CA," by
Letghton end Associates, dated July 19, 1989.
2. "Response to County of RIverside Review Letter,' by Leighton and
Associates, dated August 9, 1989.
These reports datemined that:
1. The proposed ftll slope adjacent to Ynez Road w~11 be stable against
both deep-seated farlure end surftctal fatlure.
2. The proposed fill slope should be stabh against both the deep-seated
acd the suffices1 slope failure under setsmac conditions.
These reports recommended that:
1. The recmmendettons tncluded tn the General Earthwork and Grading
Specifications (Appondtx D) of the Letghton gastechnical report dated
June 16s 1989, should he Incorporated tnto destgn and construction.
A1:1 cut slopes should be observed b~ an engineering geologist during
grad1 fig.
Cut and ftll slopes should he protided with mpp rtate surface
clrstnege features led landscaped (v4th drought-~r°~erent vegetation) as
soon as posstble after grsdtng to mtntlltZe the potanttal for eroston.
Bees should he provtded st the top of ftll slopes, and brow ditches
should he constructed It the top of cut slopes. Lot dratnage should be
dtrected such that surface runoff on the slope face ts minimized.
Felteta Bradfield - Z - August
The other portion of fi]] slopes should be either overbuilt by 2 feet
(mtntmm) and trimmed back to the finished slope or Compacted tn
Increments of 5 feet (maximum) by a sheepsfoot roller as the fill ts
placed and then trackwalked to achieve the ftnal configuration.
These reports settsfy the Genera] P]an requ~reent for a slope stability
report. The reconwnendattons made tn these reports shall be adhered to tn the
design end construction of this project.
SAK:al
OFFICE OF ROAD COMMG3JONER & COUNTY JURVEYOR
June 13, 1989
Riverside County Planning Commission
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 8250I
R[:
Tract Knp 22761
Ntnor Chsn~e fZ
Schedule A - Team SP
Lad/el and Gentlemen:
With respect to the conditions o~ approval for the re~erenced tentative
land division map, the Road D~partmenc recommends Chic the landdivide=
provlde the following street improvement plans and/or road dedications in
accordance with Ordinance 460 and RIverside County Road improvement
Standards (Ordinance 461). It is understood chic the tentative map
correctZy Ihovl acceptable centerZinc profiles, ell existing easements,
traveZed ways, and drainage courses with appropriate O's, and Chat tr"':
omission or unacceptabA1Aty may require the map to be resubmitced .jr
further consideration. These Ordinances and the following conditions are
essential parts and a requirement occurring Ln ONE is as binding as
though Occurring in a11, ~hey ate intended to be complementary and to
describe the conditions for a con;late design of the/mprovement. All
questions regarding the true sensing of the conditions shall be telerred
to the Road Co~mtssioner*s Of Zice.
1, The landdivider shall protect downstream properties ~rom
damages caused b alteration of the drainage patterns,
i,e., concentration of diversion of flow. Protection
Shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage
facilities including enlarging existing facilities and/
or by securi · drainage easesent. All drainage
easemats s~an~l be shoe on the final map and noted as
follows: eDrainaVe gelssent - no building, obstructions,
or ensroachsents by land fllls are silowed". The
~rotectios lksll be el approved by the load Department.
The landdivider shall accept and properly dispose of
all offsite drainage flowing onto or through the site.
Zn the event the Road Camissioner permits the use of
streets for drainage Imrpases, the provisions of Article
ZZ Of Ordinance no. 460 viII apply. Should the
quantities exceed the street capacity or the use of
streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the
subdivider abel1 provide adequate drainage facilities
ee approvedby thaRoadDepartmnt.
COUNTYADIV~TAATA~CDfiTRo4OIOI/MONSTRIZF,RIVIXS~LCAIWOijeAelSOI
~ract~p 22761 - H4nor Change
June 13, 1989
Pegs 2
0
,00
Major drainage is involved on this landdivision and its
resolution shall be as approved by the Road Department.
am" and *C* Itreets shall be improved within the dedicated
right Of way in accordance with County Standard No. 104,
Section &. (40'/60')
"D" lares· shall be improved within the dedicated right of
Way in accordance with County Standard No. 105, Section A.
(36'/60')
Preece Lens and el" ltreet shall be improved with 34 feet
of asphalt concrete pavement within · 45 foot part width
dedicated right of way in eccordance with County Standard
No. 103, Section A. (22'/33')
Concrete lidswalks shall be constructed throughout the
3,enddivision in accordance with County Standard No. 400 and
401 (curb sidewalks).
Ynez Road (northerly of Rancho Vista Road) shall be
improved with concrete curb and gutter located 38 feet from
centerline and match up asphalt concrete paving:
reconstruction; or resurfscing of existing paving as
determined by the load Commissioner within · S0 foot hal~
width dedicated right of way in accordance with County
Standard No. 101.
Ynez Road (southerly of Ranthe Vista Road) shall be
improved with concrete curb end gutter located 32 feet from
centerline and match up asphalt concrete paving:
reconstruction· or r·surfscing of existing paving as
determined by the Road Commissioner viabin a 44 foot half
width dedicated right of way in accordance with County
Standard No. 102,
Jr secondary access rood to the nearest paved road
i n
ms ntained by the Cou t:~ shall be constructed vAtbin the
blic right of way in accordance with County Standard ~o.
~06, Section l, (3 '/0') St · grade end alignment as
2 6
· roved by the Road Cmsaissioner. ~his is necessary for
purpose .
trior to the record··ion of the final mp, the developer
shall depOsit with the Riverside Count Road De risen·, a
cash sum of SIS0.00 r lot as mitigation ~ traffic
signal lapacts. Sbcul~e~e developer to defer the tim of
payment, · written ·grewsent my be entered into with the
Count deferring said payment to the ties of issuance of a
building permit,
Tract ~p 22761 - N4nor Change
~une 13, 1989
P~ge 3
16.
18.
22.
Improvement pZans shall be based upon a centerline profile
extending a minimum o~ 300 ~eet beyond the project
boundaries at a grade
· l v.r.ida unty Reed".ppro, d by
Completion of
road lsprovuents does not ~Zy acceptance for ~in-
teunce by ~unty.
Electrical and communications trenches shall be provided in
accordance vlth Ordinance 461, Standard 817.
AspbaltiC emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less
than fourteen days relieving placement o~ the asphalt
surfacing and shall be'applied at s rate of 0;05 gallon per
square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section 37,
39 and 94 of the State Standard Specifications.
Standard cul-de-sacs shall be constructed throughout the
landdivision.
Corner cutbacks in conZoruance vith County Standard No. 805
shall be shown on the final map and oZfered for dedication.
Lot access shall be restricted on Ynez Road and so noted on
the final sap.
Landdivisions creating cut or fill slopes adjacent to the
streets shall provide erosion control, sight distance
control and slope easements is approved by the Road
Department.
The landdivider shall provide utility clearance from Rancho
California Mater DIstrict prior to the retardation o~ the
final sap.
The minimum centerline radii shell be 300 feet or as
approved by the Road Departant,
~e minimum lot frontages along the knuckles shall be 35
feat.
~he minimum garage setback shall be 30 feet measured from
the feoe of curb,
M1 centerline intersections shall be at gO* eith a minimum
SO' tangent measured from flow line or as approved by the
Road Commissioner.
Tract J~ap 22761 - Ntnor Change
J~ne 13, 1989
Page 4
The street design and improvement concept of this project
Shill be coordinated with SP 180, Pm 22708, TR 22204, TR
21760 and TR 22762.
Very truly yours,
· County of Riverside
0~. I,~XSIDE COUNT~ PLANNING
FROY~IIt0NHENTAL
DATE: May 12, 1989
ffALTH SPECIALIST IV
IIACTMAP 22761° Mile0R CRANGE ~ I
Environmental N,alth Service, has reviewed N~nor Chan2e No. I dazed
May 50 1989 . Our current cmmtntswill rmin as stated
i~ our letter dated~tmbmrg,'le87.,
fit:tat
OCTO
!liverlids County PainainU COnmiSttoA
4080 Lemon It. RIVERSIDE COL
Riverside, CA g2SO~ PLANNING DEPAI:i
lqj:; TAA~MAP 22761: Being · subdiYlslon or i portion of
Lots ~, 2. · & g B~ock 18 BAd i portion DiP Lots ~ · ZS Block
:g Of PaLsbe LL-td 8jld Water Co. is shovA by Nip f~ed Ln Book
~. Pigs 507 t~ ~pe. Records or E~ Diego C~ty
California.
(SO Lo~s)
The Department of hblSc Health has revieved Tentative Nip
KO..~76~ BAd recommends th, t:
A water eyetam she21 be installed according to
plans BAd tpecificetion is approved by the water
compBAy &rid the Heilth Department. PerisheAt
print, of the p],n, of the water sy,tom
be lubmitted in triplicate. w~th , mlniau~ scale
not ill, than one inch equlX, 200 feet, axerig v~th
the ortgi~,~ ·raving to the County ]~rveyor.
prints eh,]~ show the internal p~pe
]ocatio~ of w, Jve, BAd ~re hydr~t,:
at the ~t~o~ o~ the ~ew ,y, tn to the
ex~mt$~g lyeLee. ~e p]~, ,h,]~ c~p~y
· X] roepact, with Dlv. S. Pitt ~. ~,pter
the C&]irornt, No&lib ud S, rety C~o.
AdminiEtr,tive Cede. Title ~2. ~,pter
Order No. 10J or ~e ~lic Ut~]itie, emission of the
ILiLo st ~Xi[om~,.~ 8FpXSc~Lo.
be 8i~ed ~l registered figinset ud uter cupsay
with ~e..foliwing certificsti~: el certiipy thlt the
de, i~ of ~e uter ~,tem in Tr,=t ~p
· c=ord~ce with ~e uter oy, tem ~,i~ p]~, or the
bcho hliromi, V, ter District ~d ~t ~e w&ter
service, otor,ge ~d dietri~tim ~,tawi]] be
~te to pr~ideuter ee~iee to n~ tract.
~Se eertSrte,t,~ does sot emitirate e p,r~tee th,t
it viii mpiy,ter to sLsch tr,ct at
~tttie8. fie, or pre,sure, for ftre. protect,~ or
~y other ~rpoee".
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
STAFF REPORT
FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME
S\STAFFRFT%22781*2.TTM 19
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
October 1, 1990
Case No.: First Extension of Tim
Tentative Tract Map No. 22761
Minor Change No. 1
Prepared By: Richard Ayala
Recommendation: Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUN~NG LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Coleman Homes
Robert Rein, William Frost & Associates
Eighty 180) lot residential subdivision of 28 acres.
First Extension of Time.
Between Rancho California Road and Santiago Road,
west of Ynez Road.
Specific Plan 180 ( Rancho Highlands)
North: R-A-5
South: SP 180
East: R - 1
West: 1-15
( ResidentialAgricultural,
5 acre minimum)
( Rancho Hi9hlands)
( One-Family Dwellings)
( Interstate 15)
Not requested.
Vacant
North:
South:
East:
West:
Multi-Family Residential
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
Interstate 15
Total Acreage:
No. of Lots:
Open Space Lots:
Proposed DU/Acre
Proposed Minimum Lot Size:
28
80
1
2.8
7,200 sq.ft.
STAFFRPT\TM22761 1
ANALYSIS
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
Specific Plan No. 180, Rancho Highlands, was
adopted by the Riverside County Board of
Supervisors on June 5, 1984. Amendment No. 1 to
this Specific Plan, Change of Zone No. 5105, and
Tract No. 22761 were adopted by the Board on July
18, 1988. The Amendment switched Planning Area
Nos. 8 and 9 (Tract No. 22761) from the very low
residential category of 0-2 DU/AC to the low
residential density category of 2-5 DU/AC.
Minor Change No. 1 to Tentative Tract No. 22761
was originally approved by the Riverside Board of
Supervisors on November 14, 1989. The application
was submitted for the reconfiguration of streets and
adjoining lot layouts to increase land use and
circulation efficiency.
Tract Map No. 22761, Minor Change No. 1 is a
proposal to subdivide approximately 28 acres into
eighty 180) single family residential lots with a
minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. The subject
site is located south of Rancho California Road, west
of Ynez Road and easterly of 1-15.
Desiqn Considerations
The proposed subdivision has been designed in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance Nos.
348,460 and Specific Plan No. 180. The main access
to the project is Preece Lane. The project has been
designed to provide increase land use and
circulation efficiency.
Density
The proposed subdivision ITract No. 22761, Minor
Change No. 1) according to Specific Plan 180,
requires proposed subdivisions to range from 2-5
DU/AC. The proposed subdivision consists of 2.8
DU/AC. Thus, meeting Specific Plan No. 180
density requirement for residential development.
The proposed density of 2.8 units per acre is
consistent with the Southwest Area Community Plan.
In addition, Staff finds it probable that this project
will be consistent with the new General Plan when it
is adopted.
STAFFRPT\TM22761 2
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINCS:
On July 18, 1988, the Riverside County Board of
Supervisors adopted a Negative Declaration for
Environmental Assessment Nos. 31943 and 3108~, to
be applied to Tract Nos. 22761, 22762, and 21760,
Amended No. 2, at which time determined that the
Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract No.
22761, Minor Change No. 1 will mitigate any
envlronemtnaJ concerns.
There is a reasonable probability that
Tentative Tract No. 22761, Minor Change
No. 1 will be consistent with the City's future
General Plan, which will be completed within
a reasonable time in accordance with State
Law.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future and adopted General Plan, if the
proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan.
The proposed use or action complies with
State planning and zoning laws.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the circulation
patterns, access, and density.
The project as designed and conditloned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare.
Tentative Tract No. 22761, Minor Change
No. 1 is compatible with surrounding land
uses. The harmony in scale; bulk, height,
density, and coverage is likely to create a
compatible physical relationship with
adjoining properties.
The proposal will not have an adverse affect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the Initial
Study for this project.
STAFFRPT\TM22761 3
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with this application are hereln
incorporated by reference.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
APPROVE Tentative Tract Map No. 22761,
Minor Change No. 1, based on the analysis
and findings contained in the Staff Report
and subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
RA:ks
Attachments:
1. Conditions of Approval
STAFFRPT\TM22761 4
A'I'rACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
S\STAFFRPT~22761*2,TTM 2{2)
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
Location Map
r
CASE NO.V'TI~
EXHIBIT NO.
~P.C. DATE tt-t't'ql ,,/
CITY OF TEMECULA )
180
r z2_l~l~
CASE NO,VlqH
CITY OF TEMECULA )
,C
/~ ASE No.VTffi ZZ76~
EXHIBIT NO.
~P.C, DATEtI'--tJc'4~I /
VAr_,A~T
CITY OF TEMECULA )
CASE
EXHIBIT NO,
k,P.C. DATE II-q-ql
ITEM # 09
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
December 16, 1991
Tentative Tract Map No. 22762-Second Extension of Time
Pursuant to the attached memorandum from the Department of Public Works, the applicant
has complied with run-off and erosion control requirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission: ADOPT Resolution 91-_ APPROVING the Second
Extension of Time for Tentative Tract No. 22761 based on the
Analysis and Findings contained in the staff report and subject to
the attached Conditions of Approval.
vgw
S%STAFFRPT\22762-2.TTM
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Department
Douglas M. Stewart, Deputy City Engineer
December 9, 1991
Tract Map No. 22762, Second Extension of Time
The developer for Tentative Tract Map No. 22762, Coleman Homes, has complied with the
City's requirements for erosion and runoff control in conformance with the terms of their
permits and with City ordinances. The Department of Public Works therefore has no objection
to this project proceeding forward for Planning Commission action.
DMS/RR:ks
S\STAFFRPT~22762-2.TTM 2
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning Commission
Douglas M. Stewart, Deputy City Engineer
November 4, 1991
Tract Map No. 22762, Second Extension of Time
On August 13, 1991, the Department of Public Works sent letters to all developers with
active and inactive subdivisions within the City of Temecula. Said letter requested that all
erosion and runoff control be in place no later than October 15th of this year.
The developer for Tract Map No. 22761 and Tract Map No. 22762 has failed to comply with
the established deadline in conformance with the conditions of their grading permit and the
subdivision conditions of approval. Therefore, the Department of Public Works respectfully
requests that both Second Extensions of Time for Tract 22761 and Tract 22762 be continued
to the December 16, 1991, Planning Commission meeting to allow time for staff to resolve
the issue with the developer.
vgw
TO;
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning Commission
Douglas M. Stewart, Deputy City Engineer
October 21, 1991
Tract Map No. 22762, Second Extension of Time
On August 13, 1991, the Department of Public Works sent letters to all developers with
active and inactive subdivisions within the City of Temecula. Said letter requested that all
erosion and runoff control be in place no later than October 15th of this year.
The developer for Tract Map No. 22761 and Tract Map No. 22762 has failed to comply with
the established deadline in conformance with the conditions of their grading permit and the
subdivision conditions of approval. Therefore, the Department of Public Works respectfully
requests that both Second Extensions of Time for Tract 22761 and Tract 22762 be continued
to the November 18, 1991, Planning Commission meeting to allow time for staff to resolve
the issue with the developer.
vgw
S~STAFFRPT~22762-2 .TTM 4
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
October 21, 1991
Case No.: Second Extension of Time Tentative Tract Map No. 22762
Prepared By: Mark Rhoades
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission: ADOPT Resolution 91- recommending
APPROVING The Second Extension of Time for Tentative Tract
No. 22762 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the
staff report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Coleman Homes
REPRESENTATIVE:
Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
PROPOSAL:
Fifty (50) lot residential subdivision on 16.86 acres. First
Extension of Time.
LOCATION:
Between Rancho California Road and Santiago Road, west
of Ynez Road.
EXISTING ZONING:
Specific Plan 180 (Rancho Highlands)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North: R-A-5 (Residential Agricultural, 5 acre
minimum)
SP 180 (Rancho Highlands)
R-1 (One-Family Dwellings)
I-15 (Interstate 15)
South:
East:
West:
PROPOSED ZONING:
Not requested
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Multiple Family Residential
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
1-15
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Total Acreage:
No. of Lots:
Open Space Lots:
Proposed Density:
Proposed Minimum
Lot Size:
16.86
50
1
3.1 D.U,/AC.
7,200 sq.ft.
S\STAFFRPT\22762-2,TTM 5
ANALYSIS
Background
Tentative Tract No. 22762 was originally approved by Riverside County in July of 1988. The
first time extension was approved by the City of Temecula in October 1990.
Project Description
Tract Map No. 22762 is a proposal to subdivide approximately 16.86 acres into fifty (50)
single family residential lots with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. The subject site
is located south of Rancho California Road, west of Ynez Road and easterly of I-15. The
project is consistent with the approved Specific Plan No. 180.
FUTURE GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY
The proposed density of 3,1 units per acre is consistent with the Southwest Area Community
Plan. In addition, Staff finds it probable that this project will be consistent with the new
General Plan when it is adopted, because of the nature of existing area development.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission re-affirm the Environmental Impact Report
No. 177 completed for Specific Plan No. 180.
FINDINGS
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
anticipa~d land use and design guidelines standards.
m
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
zoning designation of Specific Plan 180.
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.
S\STAFFRPT\22762-2.TTM 6
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or
welfare, due to the fact that the conditions stated in the approval are based on
mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts of the
project.
Tentative Tract Map No. 22762 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.
m
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.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the EIR 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 access
points from Ynez Road which have been determined to be adequate by the City
Engineer.
10.
The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed projects, due to the fact that this is clearly represented
in the site plan and the project analysis.
11.
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, and Conditions of
Approval.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
vgw
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution 91 -
recommending APPROVING The Second Extension of
Time for Tentative Tract No. 22762 based on the
Analysis and Findings contained in the staff report and
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
Resolution - page 8
Conditions of Approval - page 13
Staff Report-First Extension of Time - page 18
Exhibits - page 22
S\STAFFRPT~22782-2 .TTM 7
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 91-__
S\STAFFRPT~22762-2 .T'I'M 8
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 91-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING OF THE SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME FOR
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 22762-A 50 RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ON 16.86
ACRES AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 923-020-038.
WHEREAS, Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates 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
November 4, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in
support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said Time Extension.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Findings
That the Temecula Planning Commission 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. Duringthat 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:
The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general
plan.
The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, each of the following:
(1)
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.
(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.
S\STAFFRFT~22782-2,TTM 9
(3) The proposed use or action complied 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.
The proposed Time Extension is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements
set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit:
The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general
plan.
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:
(1)
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.
(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.
Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no Time Extension may be approved unless the following
findings can be made:
The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with
all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances.
T~e proposed subdivision does not affect the general health, safety, and
welfare of the public.
The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the proposed Time
Extension, makes the following findings, to wit:
(1)
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.
S\STAFFRPT\22762*2.Ti'M 10
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
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 zoning designation of Specific Plan 180.
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.
Tentative Tract Map No. 22762 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.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the
built or natural environment as determined in the EIR 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 access points from Ynez Road which have
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%22762-2,TTM 11
(11)
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, and Conditions of Approval.
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 II. Environmental Compliance.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby determines that the previous
environmental determination EIR No. 177 still applies to said Tract Map (Extension of Time).
SECTION III. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves the Second Extension of
Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map N0. 22762 a 50 residential subdivision on 16.86 acres
and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 923-020-038 subject to the following conditions:
1. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
SECTION IV.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of November, 1991.
JOHN E. 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 4th
day of November, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONER
S\STAFFRPT~22762-2.TTM 12
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
S\STAFFRFT\22762-2.TTM 13
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Tract Map No. 22762
Second Extension of Time
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 appropriate staff person of the Department
of Public Works.
It is understood that the Developer has correctly shown on the tentative map all existing
easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project
to be resubmitted for further review.
The Developer shall comply with all Conditions of Approval as previously imposed or amended
and with the Conditions noted below.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
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.
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.
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT:
A precisegrading 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 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.
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.
S~STAFFRPT~22762-2,TTM 14
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 security to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount
of the security shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed el0,000. 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.
Condition No. __ of the Engineering Department Conditions of the First Extension
of Time, approved by Planning Commission on , shall be deleted.
Transportation Engineering
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
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.
Temecula Community Services District
Prior to RECORDATION of the final map the applicant or his assignee shall pay the fair
market value of 0.65 acres of required parkland to comply with City Ordinance No.
460.93 (Quimby). The amount to be paid shall be determined by TCSD staff within
thirty (30) days prior to recordation of said map.
10.
Exterior slopes bordering an arterial street may be dedicated to the TCSD for
maintengnce following compliance to TCSD standards and completion of the
application process.
S%STAFFRPT~22762-2.TTM 15
CITY OF TEMECULA
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Tract Map No. 22762
First Extension of Time
Commission Approval Date: October 1, 1990
Expiration Date: July 18, 1991
Planning 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. (Amended per Planning Commission
October 1, 1990.)
The subdivider shall submit to the Planning Director verification that Section 10.35 of
Ordinance No. 460 has been previously satisfied or an agreement with CSA 143 which
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City that the land divider has provided for the
payment of parks and recreation fees in accordance with Section 10.35 of Ordinance
No. 460. The agreement shall be approved by the City Council prior to the recordation
of the final map. (Amended per Planning Commission October 1, 1990.)
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
($1 00) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library
development.
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.
The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act, and all
applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions.
S~STAFFRPT\22762-2.TTM 16
The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Flood Control district;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department; and
CATV Franchise.
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 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, in addition to
any other permits required.
PRIOR
8.
TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT:
The subdivider shall submit four prints of a precise 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. (Amended per Planning
Commission October 1, 1990.)
PRIOR
9.
10.
11.
12.
TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C.
pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior
public streets.
All street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Paveme~'t striping, marking, traffic and street name signing shall be installed per
requirements of the City Traffic Engineer.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed
upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as
required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project, in the amount in effect at
the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or
district has not been finally established by the date on which Developer requests its
building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the
Agreement for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to
Developer. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of
fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount
of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such increase.
S\STAFFRPT\22762-2.TTM 17
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTHINT
SUBDIVISION
CONDITIONS OF ~PROVAL
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22762
DATE: 5-25-88
EXPIRES:
STANgARD CO~ITIONS
from say elitin, actton, or
proceedlng against the County of Riverside or Its agents, officers, Or
employees* to 'attack," set astde, vettit or annul an ipp~oval of the County
of Riverside, tts advisory agencies, apoeal boards or legislative body
concerning Tract No. 22762, which action* !s brought about wathtn the t~me
pertod provided for ~n CsllfornTa Govennent Code Section 66499.37. The
County of RIvers~de wfil promptly notify the sutxltv~der of any such claim,
qa:nst the Cou ~y of Riverside and Ylll cooperate
action, or proceeding n f
fl
u ly In the defense. if the County afls to promptly notify the
subdtrider of any such cla m, actton, or proceeding or rafts to cooperate
fully tn the defense, the sutxltvtder shall not, thereafter, be responsible
to defend, Indemntf~, or ho~d hamless the County of Riverside.
2. The tentative subd4vtston shall comply ~th the State of California
Subd¶vtslon Hap Act and to all the roqutrements of Ordinance 460, Schedule
4 1
A, unless modified by the cond tlons (stud below.
Thts Condlttonally approved tentative.map.will expire two years after the
County of Riverside Board of SuperfiSors approval date, unhss extended as
provided by Ordinance 460.
The final map shall be prepared by a l(censed land surveyor subject to 811
the requ(rements of the State of Coltfornta Subdivision Hap Act and
Ordfnince 460.
S. The subdivider shall subntt one copy of a soils report to the Riverside
Count~ Surve,vor's Office end t~ocopies to the Department of Building and
Safety. The report shill address the soils stability sad geological
conditions oft he site.
6. If Iny grading 4s proposed, the ~ubdtvtder shall subnit one print of
comprehensive redleg plan to the Depsrtaent of Bufidfng end Safety. The
plan shall cemp~y with the Unafom Bu¶ldtn9 Code, Chapter 70, as mended
b~ Ordinance 457 end as ma~fbe addttlona11~ provided for in these
conditions of approval.
Conditions of Approval
Tract Xo. 22762
Page 2
A 9redtag permit shall be obta¶ned frm the I)epart~ent of Buildtag and
Safety prior to cannoncement of a~y grad(rig outs(de of county maintained
road Hght of way.
8. Any delinquent p~opert~y taxes shall be paid prior to recordat(on of the
final map.
9. The subdlvtder. sha31 comply w(th the street improvement reco~nendattons
outlined tn the Riverside County Road Department's letter dated 11-13-87 a
cow of~hich ts attached.
Legal access as requtred by 0rdtnance 460. shall be provided f~om the tract
map boundary to a County maintained r~ad.
Atl road easements shall be offered for ded(catlon to the public and shall
continue tn force until the governing body accepts or abandons such
h
offers. ~11 dedications s all be f~ee from all encumbrances is approved
by the Road Comm(ss(oner. Street names shall be sub3ect to approval of
the Road Commissioner.
Eas~nts, ~hen requt~ed for md~ay slopes, drainage facilities,
h
ut(1(ttes, etc., shall be s o~n on the f(nal map if they ·re located
M(th(n the land dtv(s(on boundary. &11 offers of dad(cat(on and
conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as dtrected by the County
Surveyor.
Water and seqerage disposal factllths shall be installed in accordance
with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Heatth Department's
letter dated 10-5-87 · copy Of Nh(ch (s attached.
The s~bdhtder shall comply ~Hth the flood control reca~mendat(ons
outltned b~ the Riverside County flood Control Otstr(ct's letter dated
30-7-87 · copy of Mh~ch is attached. If the land d(vtstoo lies within an
adopted flood control drainage ·Pea pursuant to Section 10.25 of Ordinance
460, appropriate fees for the construction of are· drainage facilities
d
shall be collected b~ the Re· Comtssioner.
The subdh¶der $hall comply Mtth the fire improvement recommendations
outlined In the Count~ Fire IMrshal~s letter dated 10o6o87 · copy Of Mh~ch
Is attached,
The subdivider $hall comply ~tth the recommendations outlined tn the
Celttans htter dated ~0-20-87~ · copy of Mhtch ts attached.
Subdivision phasing, Including any proposed cocoon open space area
Improvement phasing, tf applicable, shall be subject to Planning
Deparl~ent approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate
Conditions of Approval
Tract No. 22762
Page 3
nhtcular access to all iota In each phase, and shall substantially
conform to the tateat and purpose of the subdivision approval.
28. Lots'created by this subdivision sha11.cvmvly with the following:
I. &11 lots shall have a minimum size of 7200 square feet net.
· . b. M11ot, length to width.ret~os sha11..be (e conformonce with Sectton
3.aCofOrdinance 460.
c. Corner lot$ and through lots, if any. shall be provided with
additional area pursuant to Section 3.88 o Ordinance 460 and so as
f f
not to coatate less net area than the tenet maount o net area in
non-corner and through Tots. ...
d. Lots created by this subdivision shall be tn conformonce wtth the
development standards of the $.P, zone.
e. ~hen lots Ire crossed by ma~or publlc utility easements, each lot
shall have a net usable area of not less than 3,600 square feet,
excleshe of the uttltty easement.
f. Graded but undeveloped lend shall be maintained (n a vend-free
conditIon end shall be either pleated with interin landscaping' or
provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the
Director of Building and Sefety~:
The subdivider shall comply with the Rancho Mater Dtstrict recmndattons
dated 10-6-87. i copy of which (s attached.
Prior to RECDRDRTTON of the final mp the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
Prior to the recordatton of the final map the applicant shall submit
written clearances to the Riverside County Road and Survey Department
that all pertinent requirements outlined tn the attached approval
letters from the following agencies have hen met.
County F(re Department
d
County Irloo Control
County Health Departdent
County Planetag Department
Prior to the recorderIon of the f¶nal asp, Change of Zone No. StOS-
shall be approved by the Board of Supervisors led shell be effective.
Lots created by thts Tend division shell be in conromance v(th the
development standards of the zone ultlmatel~ applhd to the property.
Conditions of Approval
Tract No. 22762
Page 4
Ce
The camon open space Ire· shall be shown as a numbered lot on the
ftnal mp lad shall be managed by · master property o~ners
association.
A master property ovaera association or appropriate publlc maintenance
agency shall be established by the developer encompassing the entire
specific plan. for the ownership, maintenance and mane ement of the
natural open space, end all camnon open space lots ~andscaptng and
lrrt eaton systems along publlc roads, ma3or pro~ect entry potnt
facilities, stgntng end 11ghtlng as necessary as defined through the
specific plan and conditions of approval.
A property owner's assoCIation v~th the unqualified rlght to assess
the owners of the Individual untts for reasonable mint·hence costs
shall be established and continuously maintained. The association
shall have the right to lien the property of the owners who default tn
the pa3~ent of their assessments. Such lien shall not be subordinate
to any encumbrance other than a first deed of trust provided such deed
of trust ts made tn good faith end for value and ts of record prior to
the lien of the association.
Prior to recordation of the final subdivision map. the applicant shall
submit to the Planning Department the following documents for County
approval which shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Department
that the total pro~ect wtll be developed and maintained tn accordance
with the intent and purpose of the approval.
1) The document to convey title
2) Covenants, codes and restrictions to be recorded
3) Panegem·ha and maintenance agreement to be entered into with the
_ unttllot owners oft he proaect.
The approved documents shall be recorded st the same ttme that the
subdivision map is recorded. $ald documents shall contatn provisions
for ownership or the irrevocable right to use the open space and
amenfates by the omers of the pro3ect. The approved documents shall
· 1so contain · provision vhtch preyides that the CC & R's my not be
terminated, or substantially amended vtthout the consent of the County
or tts successor-In-Interest.
Conditions of ~pp~oval
Tract No. 22762
Page 5
The daveleper shall cosply ~tth the relieving parkway landscaping
conditions:
x)
2}
PrTor to the tssuance of butldtng permtta, the developer Shall
secure appreval of proposed landscaping end Irrt salon plans from
the' County Bed End Plenntng DepArtment. Zll 1Andscaptn end
Irrigation plans and spoctflcettons shall be prepared ?n a
reproducible format suttable for permanent .filing ~th the County
Road Deparl:eent.
The developer shell post e landscape performance bend ~htch shall
be rehased concurrently vtth the release of subdivision
performance bonds, guaranteetng the vtAbtltty Of Ill landscaping
~ntch v111 be Installed prtor to the Assumption of the maintenance
responsibility by the district.
3) The deveqoper, the developer's successors-In-interest or
ess(gnees, shall be responsible for All parkway landscAplng
maintenance until Such time As maintenance ts taken over by the
district,
The developer shall be responsible for maintenance And upkeep of
slopes, landscaped ereas and Irrigation system until such time as
those operations ere the responsibilities of other parties as approved
by the Planning DIrector.
Street ltghts shall 5e provided ~tthtn the subdivision tn Accordance
vtth the standards of Ordinance 46] and the following:
~) Concurrently ~th the filing of suhdhtslon Improvement plans ~tth
the Road Department, the daveToper sha11 secure approval of the
proposed street ltght layout first from the Road Department's
traffic engtneer and then frem the appropriate utility purveyor.
2)
Following approval of the street lighting lsyout by the Road
Department'S traffic engineer, the developer shall Also ftle An
AppltcatlonNtth LKFCO for the formation of a street ltghttn9
district, o~ annexation to an existing lighting district, unless
the stte (s within an existing 11ghting district.
3)
Prior to recorderIon of the ftnA1 map, the developer shell secure
conditions1 app~ovel of the street ltghttng AppliCAtIOn from
LAFCO, unless the stte Is ~thin an existing 11ghttng district.
Prtor to recordsalon of the ftnal map, an [nvlronmental Constraints
Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared In con3unctton wtth the ftnal map to
delineate Identified environmental concerns and shall be pe~nanently
II
Conditions of Approval
Tract No. 22762
Page 6
filed with the ~ftce of the County Surveyor. A copy of the ECS shall
be transmitted to the Planntng Department for revted and approval.
The rapproved 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 Geologic Report No. 199 & 6.R. No. 199 (update) ms
prepared for this proporty and is on file mt the Riverside County
Planning Department.
The follwtng note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints
Sheet: "This proport is located within thirty (30) miles of Nouns
Polomar Observatory. X~l proposed .outdoor lighttrig systems shall
comply with the California Znstttute of Technology, Polomar
Observatory recommendations dated 10-6-87 m copy of which' is attached.
Prior to the tssuance of GPJ~OING PERHITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
Prior to the tssuance of gradtng pemtts detailed common open space
area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be subqttted for Planning
Departsant mpproval for the phase of developant in process. The
plans shall be certified by m landscape architect, and shall provide
for the following.
1. Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all
landscaped areas requiring irrigation.
2. Landscape screening vhere required shall be designed to be opaque
up to m minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity.
3. _M1 uttllty service areas and enclosures shall be screened from
view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle
treatments, ms mpproved by the Planning Director, Utilities shall
be placed underground.
ParkNays and landscaped building setbacks shall be landscaped to
provide dsual screening or a transition into the primary use area
of the site. Landscape elements shall include earth .berming,
ground cover, shrubs and spectmen trees tn conjunction with
meandering aidcaulks, benches and other pedestrian amentiles where
appropriate as Ipproved by the Planning Departrjent,
5. Landscaping plans shall Incorporate the use of specimen accent
trees it key visual focal points within the pro~ect.
Conditions of Approval
Tract No. 22762
Page 7
6. Where street trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of
interior streets end roJect arkways due to
,ght-of.y. t,.y , V1 be pV..t.d ou,tde
· rl ght-of-way.
7. Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant
plants where lppropriate.
8. &ll extstlng specimen trees end significant rock outcroppings on
the sub3ect property abel1 be show on the pro3ect's grading plans
end she1'1 note those to be removed,.relocated and/or retained.
9. All trees shall be minimum double staked.
growing trees shall be steel staked.
Weaker and/or slow
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a drainage study indicating
on-and off site flow patterns end volume, probable impacts, and
proposed mitigation measures shall be prepared and shall be approved
by County Flood Control District end Colttans,
c. M1 approved grading and building plans shall reflect the utilization
f
o post and beam foundations or the appropriate combination of split
level pads and post and beam foundations when development ts proposed
on slopes of fifteen percent or greater measured over a horizontal
t feat,
distance of th rty (30)
de
If the pro3ect is'to' be phased, 'prior to the approval of grading
permits, an overall conceptual gradin plan shall be submitted to the
Planning Director for approval, The Van shall be used as a guideline
for subsequent detailed grading ~ans for individual phases of
develoFment and shall include the following:
Techniques which will be uttllzed to prevent erosion and
sedtmentatton during led after the grading process.
Approximate time frames for rading and identification of areas
which my be graded during the ~lgher probability rain months of
January through March
3) Preliminary pad and roadway elevations
4) Areas of temporary grading outside of m particular phase
e. Driveways shall be designed so Is not to exceed e fifteen (IS) percent
grade.
Conditions of Approval
Tract No. 22762
Page 8
GrAd¶rig plm shall conform to Board adopted Hillside Develolment
StandArds: Rl1 cut and/or 1tll slopes, or 1ndhtdual combinations
thereof, which exceed ten feet In vertical height shall be modifted by
an Ippropriate combination Of · specie1 terracing (benching) plan,
increase slope ratto (i.e., 3:Z), retaining ~alls, and/or slope
~lanting combined ~lth irrigation, &11 drtvedys shall not exceed a
tfteen percent grade.
g. M1 cut slopes located adjacent to ung~ded natural terrain and
exceeding ten (tO) feet in vertical height shall be contour-graded
IncorporAting the fellertrig grading techniques:
2) The angle of the graded slope shell be grnduAlly adjusted to the
angle of the natural terrain.
2) Angular fom shall be discouraged. The graded fom shall reflect
the natural rounded terrAtn.
3) The toes end tops of slopes shall be rounded ~tth curves wtth
4)
red11 designed In proportion to the total betght of the slopes
where drainage And stabiT(ty pem(t such rounding.
Mhe~e cut or fill slopes exceed 300 feet in horizontal hngth, the
horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved in a continuous,
undulAttng fashion.
h. Nature1 features such As ~ater courses, spectmen trees and significant
rock outcro s shall be protected in the siting of tnd(v(dual butld~ng
pads on f~nA~ grading plans.
Prtor to the tssuAnce of grad(rig pemtts, the developer shall provide
eYtdence to the Dtrector of Butlding and Safety that all adjacent
off-stte manufactured slopes have recorded slope easements end that
slope mintchance responsibilities have been assigned as applered by
the Director of Botldtng and Safety,
Prtor to the lssuAnce of grading permtts,· qualified p·leontologtst
shall be retained by the developer for consultation And comment on the
~opesed gredtng ~tth respect to petenatAl pAleontelogtcA1 'impacts.
~hOuld the paleontologist find the potential ts high for impact impact
to significant resources, A pre-grade marttrig between the
pAleeetolo~fst end the excavation And grading contractor shall be
a~anged. When necessa~, the paleontologist or representative shall
d halt gradtng
have the authority to temporarily dtvert, re trect or
acttvity to a11o~ recovery of fossils.
Conditions of Approval
Tract No. 22762
Page 9
2e
~11 ~well¶ngs shall be located a mtn~mum of ten feet frm the ~oes and
tops Of sll slopes over ten feet in vertical height unles othe~se
approved by the Planning Director.
1. Natural drainage courses shall be retained in thetr natural state
vherever possible.
Al1 brow dltches, terrace dretns and other mtnor s~ales 'where required
shall be loned ~th natural ereston control materials or concrete, as
spproved by the Planntng Director and Butldtng and Safety.
Any lmpoPt or export of meterIsis shall be tn accordance ~tth County
Ordinances No. 457 Ind No. 565 respectively.
Prtor to the Issuance of BUILOING PERHITS the following conditions shall
be satisfied:
No botldtng pemlts shall be tssued b~ the County of Riverside for any
residential lot/un$t ~tthtn the project boundary unit1 the developer's
successor'sotn-tnterest provtdes evidence of compliance ~th publtc
factllty financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100)
per lot/untt shall be deposited wtth the Rherstde County Department
of Building and Safety as mitigation for public library development.
Prior to the subntttal of botlding plans to the Deparment of Butldtng
and Safety an acoustical study shall be performed by an acoust(cal
engtneer to establ$sh appropriate mitigation measures that shall be
applied to ~ndhtdual dwelling units wtthtn the subdhiston to reduce
ambient interior ou~se levels to 45 CNEL and extertor noise levels to
65 CNEL.
Prtor to the Issuance of butldtng pemtts, coepos4te landscaping and
Irrigation plans shall be submitted for Plann4ng Department approval.
The plans shall Iddress all areas and aspects the tract requiring
landscaping and Irrigation to be Installed Including, bJt not 11mtted
to, parkwa planting, street trees, slope planting, and tndhtdusl
front yard ~andsclptng.
&11 dwellfngs to be constructed' vtthtn this subdivision shall be
desfg~N! and constr~cted ~th fire retardant (Class A) reofs as
spproved by the County Fire Parshal. ·
Roof-mounted machart¶ca1 equipment shall not be permitted Vlthtn the'
subdivision, however solar equti~ent or any other energy saving
devices shall be permitted ~tth Planntng Department approval.
Conditions of Approval
Tract No. 22762
Page :~0
f. 8utTdtng separation between e11 bu~Td~ngs ~nclud~ng fireplaces shall
· or be less t/e. tea (:0) feet.
g. All street side ~d setbacks shall be · s~n~mum of ten (10) feet.
'h. All front yards shall be provided vfth landscaping and automatic-
trHgatton.
Prlor to the lssuance.of..OCCUPANCY PL:RHTTS the follmrt.ng conditions shall
be satisfied: "
I. Al1' 'lendscaplng and Irrigation shall be' Installed'In accordance v~th
ipproved plans prior' to the tssuance of occupancy pemtts.
seasonal conditions do not permtt planting, tntertm landscaping and
erosion control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning
Director and the Director of Building-and Safety.
b. Rot ~thstandtng the preceding conditions, ~herever an acoustical
study ts required for notse attenuation rposes, the he hts of all
requlred valls shall be detem(ned ~ the acoustic·? study ~here
applfcable.
c. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed throughout the subdivision
accordance with the standards of Ordinance 46Z.
d. Street trees shalq be planted throughout the subdtvts4on tn accordance
~lth the standards of Ordinance 460.
OFFICE OF ROAD CONNI$$1ONER · COUNTY SURVEYOR
LeRoy D. $moot
November 13, 1987
· Riverside County Irlanntng Cbmm;SStOn
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
RO: Tract Nap 22762 ..
Schedule A - Tee $P
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Vtth respect to the conditions of approval for the referenced tentative land
division map, the ROad Department recmmends thjt the landdivider provtde the
following street Improvement plans and/or road dedications tn eccordance wtth
-Ordinance 460 and RIverside County ROad Improvement Standards (Ordinance 461).
Xt ts · understood that the tentative map correctly Shows acceptable centerline
profiles, all ex(sttng easements, traveled ~ys, and drainage courses ~lth
appropriate q's, and that thetr mission or unacceptabtllty my require the mp
to be resubmttted for further consideration. These O~ltnances end the follo~ng
conditions are essential parts and e requirement occurring in OllE Is as binding
as though occurring tn a11. They are tntended to be complementary and to
describe the conditions for a complete design of the Improvement. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Road
CommIsstoner's Office.
The landdtvtdershai1 protect dmmstream properties from dN~ages
caused by alteration of the drainage patterns, t.e., concentra-
tion of diversion of flow. Protection shall be provtded by
constroctIng adequate dratnage facilities Including enlarging
map
ind-noted as lollova: *Drainage Easement - no INildtng,
ebstructlons, or encroaclvmnta by land fills are siloHad'. The
prOtoCtSO9 Shall be aS apprevedb~theROa~Delartment.
1he lamldtvIder 'shall accept and properl~ dispose of all offsite
drltnage flowing onto or through the site. In the event the
ROad Cemtssto~er permits the use of streets for dratnege
pu oses, the provisions of Article iX of Ordinance RO. 460
elffappl~, Should the quantities exceed the street
capacity or the use of streets be prohibited for drainage
purposes, the sulxlSvSder shell provide adequate dratnage
facilities as app~oved by the Road Department.
'- ...
-. Tra~t' Nap 22762
NOvenber 13, 1987
Page 2
3. Na~or dratnage tS tnvolved on this landdhtston and tts resolution
shall be ·s approved by the Road Deparment;
4, Streets °B", 'D' shall be tmproved within the dedicated right of
my tn accordance with County Standard Ro. 104, Section A. (40'/
6o').
5, Street 'C" shall be Improved withtn the dedicated rtght of way In
A
accordance with County Standard No, 105, Section , (36'/60').
Street 'A' shall be Improved ~lth 34 feet of asphalt concrete
pavement within a 45 foot part-width dedicated right of way in
accordance wtth County Standard No. 103, Section A. (22'/33').
7. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed throughout the landd~vtsfon
tn accordance with County Standard Ro, 400 and 401 (curb sidewalk).
A primary and secondary access road to the nearest paved road
maintained by the County shall be constructed within the public
right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 106, Sectton
8, {32'/60') at a grade and alignment as approved by the Road
Commissioner. This ts necessar~ for circulation purposes.
Prior to the recordeaton of the ftnal mp, the developer shall
depostt with the Riverside County Road Departmentt a cash sum of
$150.00 per lot as mitigation for traffic signal tmpacts. Should
the developer choose to defer the time of pa~n~entt he may enter
tnto a written agreement with the County deferring said painnent to
the time of Issuance of a building permit.
Zmprovement plans shall be based upon a centarltneroflle
extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the pro~ect ~undartes at
· grade and alignment as approved by the Riverside County Road
Cmntsstoner, Completion of road Improvements does not imply
acceptance for maintenance by County,
Electrical end commntcetions trenches shall be provided tn
accordance with Ordinance 461, Standard 817,
Asphalt(c emulston (fog see1) shall be applied not less than
fourteen days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and
shall be ap lied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard.
Asphalt emu~ston shall confom to Sections 37, 39 and 94 of the
State Standard $pedficatton$.
.., * T.r-.,~c !~p 22762
liov. ember 13. 1987
· " Page '3.
%3. Standa~ cul-de-sacs shall I~ const~cted throughout the land
division.
14. Comer cutbacks tn conformance w~th County Standard No. 805 shall
be shown on the flail map end offered for dedication.
The landdivider shall comply w~th the Caltrans recommendations as
outltned in their lettar dated October 20, 1987 copy of ~htch ts
attached), prior to the recordatton of the final map.
16. The landdtvfder shall provtde utlltty clearance from Pancho Calif-
ornia ~ter District prior to the recordatton Of the ftnal map.
A copy of the ftnal map shall be submitted to Caltrans, Dtstrict
08, Post Office Box 231, ~n Bornardtno, California 92403;
Attention: ProJect Development for review and approval prtor to
recordatton.
The minimum centerline redtt shall be 300' or as approved by the
Road Cemmtsstoner.
19. The minimum lot frontages along the cul-de-sacs and knuckles shall
be 35 feet.
20. All driveways shall conform to the applicable Riverside County
Standards.
21. The minimum garage setback shall be 30 feet measured from the face
Of curb.
22. All centerline Intersections shall be at 90°wtth a mtn~mum 50'
tangent measured from flow 1the.
23. The street design and improvement concept of this project $hall be
'coordinated ~lth TR 22761, TR 21760 and $P 180,
GH:lh
hry truly Yours,
Road Digvision Engineer
Riverside C~u~ty Planning Commission
4QbD Lemon St.
Riverside. CA 92501
OCT 0 5 1987
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE; TRACT HJ~P 22762: Being k subdivision or portions of Lots
1, 2o · S B Block IS and i portion of LOtS I & 15 Block 19
of Pauba Land a~d rarer Co. as shorn by Map filed in Book
II. Page SO/of M~pl, Records of San Diego Cotmay
(80 Lots)
Gentlemen:
The Department of J~tblic Health h,s revieved Tent,tire H,p
~No.'22162 ,nd recomnends that:
A rarer system shall be installed according to
plans and specification as approved by the vater
company and the Health Department. Permanent
prints of the plans of the vater system shall
be submitted in triplicate. vith a minimum scale
not less tha~ one inch equals 200 feet. along vzth
the original drawing to the County Surveyor. The
prints shall show the internal pipe diameter.
location of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and
3oint specifications. and the size of the main
at the ~unctio~ 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 ot the Public Utilities Commission ot the
State of California,when applicable. The plans shall
be signed by · registered engineer and water company
vith the following certifications 'I certify that the
design of the rarer system i~ Tract Hap 22762 is in
accordance vi~h the rarer system expansion plans of the
Rancho California eater District and that the rarer
service, storage m~d distribution system will be
adequate to provide water service to such tract.
This certification does not constitute a guarantee that
it will supply rarer to such tract at any specific
quantities. flows or pressures for fire protection or
any other purpose'.
Riverside County Planning Department
Page Two
0cLober 5, 1987
This certification shall be signed by a responsible
official ot the v&ter coml~y.
This Department' has · statement fromthe Rancho California
Water District agreeing to serve domestic water to each end
every lot ~n the lubdiv~sion on demand providing
satisfactory ftnanc~al arrangesones are completed with the.
subdivider. It viII be necessary for the financial
arrangements to be made-prior to the recordation of the
f~nal map.
This. Department has a statement from the Eastern Nunicipal
Water District agreeing to all~v the subdivision sewage
system to be connected tc the severs of the' District. The
sewer system shall be installed according to plans and
specifications as approved by the District, the County
Surveyor and the Health Department. Permanent prints or the
plans of the sever system shall be submitted in triplicate.
along with the original drawing, to the County Surveyor. The
prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of
manholes, complete profiles, pipe and joint specifications
and the size:of the severs.at the junction .of the hey system
tO the existing system. A single plat indicating location
of sever lines e~d water lines shall be I portion of the
sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall be signed by a
registered engineer and the sever district with the
following certtficaticn~: 'I certify that the design o~ the
sewer ey~tem in Tract Map 22?62 is in accordance with the
sewer system expansion plans of the Eastern Municipal Water
District and this the waste disposal system is adequate at
this time to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed
tract.' tbt_nlaoa__ a!_b _a sitt g_t _ibt_ gR x
2~£~exg£Z~_OI~l~t_tL£tYXt~_iLltiai_i~9_!ttSl_~£ln£_i~_tb~
It viII be necessary for the financial arrangements to be
made prior to the recordsStun el the final map.
Sincerely,
Division
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Octz)ber 7, lg87
Xiverside County
Planning Department
County Administrative Center
Riverside, CaliZorniu
Attentions Specific Plans
Jeff We~nste~n
ladies and Gentlemet
Pet Tract 22762
This is a proposal to' divide about 16' acres in the Tamsouls valley
area.. The property is between Interstate 15 end Ynez Road about
1100 feet south of Rancbo California Road.
Well defined ridges end vatercourses are the main geographical fea-
tures in this area, Storm runoff both ~rom Tract 22761 to the east
and on this property is designed to be carrAed by interior street
system end outletted st the southwest corner to · culvert under-
neath the freeway,' .According to the tentative map, storm runoff
generated by a part of tl~ northwest portion of this tract would be
d~vertedo
Following are the DistrAct's recommendationms
This tract is located within the limits of the Murrieta
Creek/Temecula Valley Area Drainage. Plan for which drainage
fees have been adopted by the Board. Drainage'fees shell
be paid as set forth under the provisions of the 'Rules end
Regulations for Administration of Area Drainage Plans',
mnended ;uly 3, 1984s
Drainage fees shell he paid to the Road C~-missioner as
part of the filing for record of t~m.subdivision final
map or parcel map, or if the recording of a final per-
eel map Is waived, drainage fees shell be paid as a
condition of the waiver prior to recording · certifi-
cate of compliance evidencing t~ waiver of the parcel
map~ .or
At the option of the land divider, u~on filing a re-
quired affidavit requesting deformant of t~J payment of
fees, the drainage fees shall be paid to the Building
Director st the time of issuance of · grading permit or
building permit for each approved parcel, whichever may
be first obtained after the recording of the subdivi-
sion final map or parcel map~ bowever,
!ttverside Cottory
Planning Department
Ret Tract 22762
- 2 -
October 70 1987
Drainege fees s~all be paid to the Road Com~issioner as
· part of the filing f~r record of the sub~ivision
final map or paroel map, or before receiving · waiver
to record · land division, for each lot within the land
division where construction activity as evidenced by
one of the following actions has occurred since May 26,
1981s
(a) A grading permit or building permit has been
obtained.
(b) Grading or structures have been initiated.
Oneire drainage facilities located outside of road right of
way should be contained within drainage easements shown on
the final map. A note should be added to the final map
stating, 'Drainage easements shell be kept free of build-
ings and obstructions'.
Offsite drainage facilities should be located within
publicly dedicated drainage easements obtained from the
affected property owner(s). The doc~nent(s) should be
recorded and a copy submitted to the District prior to
recordat~on of the final map.
All lots should be graded to drain to the adjacent street
or an adequate outlet.
The 10 year storm flow should be contained within the curb
and the 100 year storm flow should be contained within the
s_treet right of way. When either of these criteria are
exceeded, additional drainage facilities should be
installed.
The propart~'s street and lot grading should be designed in
a manner that perpetuates the existing natural drainage
patterns with respect to tributary drainage area and outlet
points.
Temporary erosion control measures should be implemented
immediately following rough grading to prevent deposition
of debris onto downstream properties or drainage
facilities.
l~Lverside County
Planning Depart~nent
Rez Tract 22762
- 3 - October 7, 1987
Development c~ this property sl~ould be coordinated with the
development of adjacent properties t~ ensure that
~atercoureee remain unobstructed. and st~rm~aters are not
diverted ~rcm one watershed to another, This may require
the construction of temperarT drainage ~cilities or
offsite construction ~d grading.
Drainage l~cilities outletting sump conditions should be
designed to convey the tributaryl00 year storm flows.
Additional mergency escape should also be provided.
A col~of the improvement plans, grading plans and final
map along vith s~pporting hydrologic and hydraulic
calculations sl~uld be submitted to the District for review
and approval prior to recordaticn of the final map.
Grading plans should be approved prior to issuance of
grading permits.
Guestions concerning this matter may be referred to Robert Chiang
of this office at 714/787-2333.
Ver~ truly yours,
cc. xss/x aT
g'ne~S
HNH. KASHUBA
enior Civil Engineer
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
GALl F~ D~A~M E~ ~ ~E~Y
PlAN 1ram
.10-6-87
Tit 22762
With respect t~ the c~ndit~tons of sppxwal for the ibove' referenced land division-,
the Fire Department zoosmends the following fin protection measures be provided'
in accordance with liversLat County Ordinances and/or recognized fire pratecain.,
·tandaxdsz
Schedule waft fin protection aleroved standard fin hTdrsAts (6"x4"i2J'), l~csted
One at mecb street intersection &ud spaced no more then 330 feet. apart in any
direction, with no portion of any lot f~ntsge more than 165 feet f,~ · hydrant.
HXnbmm Zire f~oe shaJ~ be ZOO0 GFH for 2 hours duration at 20 PSZ.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water s~stem plans to the Tire
Departant for revise. Plans sh~ll conform to fin hydzant t~pes, location and
· pacing, end, the system shall meet the fize flow requireants. Plans shall be '
signed/mirrored by s registered civil engineer and the local water cc~pa~y.vith ...
the followlAg earair/cat. ions el certify that the'design 6f the voter system is
~n accordance with the requirements prescrfi~ed by the Riverside County Fire
Departante.
The ze4~lred water s~stem, inclodf~g fife h~d~ants, shall be installed and
accepted by the sl~ropriate vats: agency prior to any condmst~be building
referral being ~laced on &n individual lot.
M1 buildings shall be constructed with fire retard~nt xwfing material as
desaibed in Section 3203 of the Uniform Building Code. Any M~d shingles
shakes shall have · Class "So zatiaV and shall be aleroved b~ the rLre
Depantw, nt prior to inet~llat~Dn.
MXTXGXTI~H/~e
l~fio~ to the retardation of the final sm~, the deyelcFer shall deposit vith the
Riverside County Fire Deplrtment · cash sea of 1400.00 pet lot/unit as mitigation
for fire pcotect~on luimcts. Should the developer cbo~se to defer the tim of
payment, he/she may astor into a v~ltten agreement with the County deferring
maid payment to the tam of issuance oZ a building ~emit.
All q~estLons regarding the meaning of the ocndit~ons shall be referred to the
Fire Department Planning and Engineerin9 sta~.
DATE: September 1, 1987
RiVERSiDE COUnC,
PLAnninG DEPARCmERC
kfidfng end Smfety
Surveyor - Dave Dude
Road Department ' . ·
Health - Ralph Lug;
Ftre Protection 0~,1 ~9 ~ RECEIVED
Flood Contro] DIstrict
fish &Same OCT 6 1987 **
U.$. Po .pALOMAR OBS~:.%TORY
Rancho Callf.
Southern Callf. Edtson
Southern Callf. Gas
General Telephone
Dept. of Transportation
Harriers $chool
.Tametale Un(on
Temecula Chamber of Comerce
fit. Palomar.
County L~brary
Com~ss~oner aresson
TRACT 22762 - (SP) - E.A. 31943 -Katser
Development - NIS/Lom7 - Rancho
California Dtstr~ct - F~rst Supervtsorta*
DTstrtct - Southwest corner of Rancho
California Road and Ynez Road - R-R Zone
- 16 acres tnto 51 lots - (Related ~es
TR 21760/TR 22761 & CZ 5007) - Nod ~9 -
A.P. 923-020-038
Please.review the case described above, along with the attached case map. A Land
- DSvlston Co~tttee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for October 8, 1987. If
clears, ~t rill then go to publlc heartrig.
Your co~ents and reconxaendatlons are requested prtor to October 1, 1987 tn order that we
a~y tnclude the In the staff report for this particular case.
Should you have anyquestions regar. dlng this 1tam, please do not hesttate to contact
Jeff Wetnstetn-et 787-1363
Planner
Tm'LT, Jq, ST; ~
DATE: 10/6187 SIGNATURE
PLEASE prft t name and tttle
Dr, bbe 3. Brucato/Uslmtant Dlrector/Yaloaar
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
the z~e req~ t~ ~e of Z~pzeomute m~ vapor ~: f~r
request the the desiBm for. other types of outdoor l~htinK that my be
employed un ~b p~ptr~ he u~e c~sis~enc ~th ~e spirit of the decisi~
the Board of Superbors ~ich in intended to ~i~ste ~he adverse effects
mu~ faciZittes have ~ ~he utr~cal rAsear~ at P~T. hneficial
szeps co t~c end ~clude:
Use the m~,,4Jn~n amount of tight needed for the tAsk.
2. Orient and shield light to pre~eut direct upvard illumination.
Tun off lights at ll:00 p.u. (or earlier) unless, in co~netct-3
mpplicstiums, the abscessed business is sues past that time, in v~ich
me the 3~Shts should he tuned off a~
~se lay-pressure sodium lmn~s for roadrays, val~vays, equi~ment yards,
parking lots, security and other similar appZications, These lights
need not be tuned off at 13:00 p.m.
For further infonatium, e~tll (818) 356-&035.
Robert J. BFucato
iJsistunC Director
Boedd!Jmaa~
k, vksPmmm
Jm &Dsd~
Deaf Kun~S
Tom~Lm~n
Jm~Lasb
October 7~ Z987
OCT 13 1987
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
P~Lverside County Planning Depaz~Jnent
4080 ion Street, 9th Floor
Riverside, Call~ornia 92501-3657
Subject: Water Availability
Reference: Tract 22762
Gentlehen:
Please be advised that the above-referenced
property is located vithin the boundaries o~ nancho
California Water District. Water service, therefore,
vould be available upon completion of financial
arrangements between RCWD and the property ovner.
Water availability vould be contingent upon the
property owner -signing an Agency Agreement vhtch
assigns water management rights, if any, to RC~D.
If RCWD can be of further service to you, please
-contact'this office.
Very truly yours,
RANCliO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
~enga P. Doherty ~
Zngineer~ng Services Representative
,.,,,
DATE: $eptmuber 1, 1987
RiVER)iDE COUnCY
PLAnninG DEPARCITIEnC
Assessor
Butldtng and hfety
Surveyor - Dave Dude
Itoad Deparlaent
lieulab - Ralph Lechs
Fire Protecttoo
Flood Contrel District
Fish & 6area
LAF~ Dou Vierra
UoS, Posta~ Servtce, Ruth L Davidson
· 'RunchoCallf, "
Southern Callf. Edison
Southern Callf. Gas
General Telephone
Dept. of Trans rtatton t8
14urntara Schoo~°
.Temecula Union
TeMcula Chamber of Comerce
fit. Palomar
Country Ltbrery
Co~atsstoner 8resson
OCT 0 9 1987
RIVERSI DE COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TRACT 22762 - (SP) - E.A. 31943 -Katser
Development - ES/Lovn~ - Rancho
California Dtstrtct- First Supe~vtsorfa
Dfstrtct - Southwest corner of Rancho
California Road and Ynez Road - R-R Zone
- 16 acres tnto 51 lots - (Related cases
TR 21760/TR 22761 & CZ S007) - Hod 119 -
A.P, 9230020'038
tlease revh~ the case described above, along vtth the attached case map. A Land
'DIvision Committee mating has been tentatively scheduled for October 8, 1987. If tt
clears, tt ~111 then go to pub11c hearing,
Your comments and recemenda~fons are requested prior to October i, 1987 tn order that we
m~y lncTude thma tn the staff report for thts porttcular use.
Should you have any questions regarding thts 'Irene please do not hesitate to contact
Jeff W einstein at 787-1363
Planner-
Node of future delivery: centrelized, Contsct vith U.S.P.S. Grovth
Coord~nmtor required before construction for delivery locilions,
oxTE:/ - 2 SZ6RATURr
PLEASE prfnt nanm aM title
4080 LEMON STREET, P FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
f714) 787-618,I
46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201
DATE: September 1, 1987
qEVE )iDE COUnC-
PLAnninG DEPA CITtEnC
TO: Assessor
Butldtng end Safety
Surveyor - Dave Duds
Road Department
.Health - Ralph Luchs
FI re Protection
flood Control Dtstrict
Ftsh& Game ..
U,S, Po Service - Ruth E, IMvfdson
Rancho b11f.
Seuthe~n Callf. Edtson
Southern Cellf. Gas
General Telephone
Dept.. of TransporUttoe #8
Hurtteas Scbool
.Tamecub Unton
Tenetale Chamber of Ccmnerce
fit. Palomar
County Ltbrary
Cml~Ssstoner Bressoo
OCT 0 ? 1987
,- RIVERSIDECOUNTY '*.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
~RACT 22762 - (SP).- E,A, 3D43 - ratset
DeveTopment - RBS/Low~y.- Rancho
California Dtstrtct- FIrst Supe~vtsorta
Dtstrtct- Southvest corner of Rancho
California Road and Ynez Road - R-R Zone
- 26 acres tnto S1 lots - (Related cases
TR 21760/TR 2276Z & CZ 5007) - Hod '9 -
A.P. 923'020'038
?lease raYtaw the case descrfhed above, along vith the attached case map. A Land
Dtvtston Coattree meettng has boen tootnaively scheduled for October.8, 1987. If
'cleare, It vll] then go to public hearing. .. :. .' ..
Your conhenri and recmmmndatlons are requested prtor to October 1, 1987 tn order that
amy include them In the staff report for this particular use.
Should you have any qvestlons regarding thts ftemo please do not hasttale to contact
Jeff W einstein It 787-1363
Planner -
· PLEASE print nsmm end tttle
4~,O,8,,O,,L,E._M_C)N_ .S.T.R_E__Eq:, .g.'m_F_L_O_pR 46'209 OASIS STREET ROOM 304
D~'PARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTSdENT
Development Review
08-Rlv-15-q. 83
Tour hference:
tl'H22761 end
TTH 22762 _
PlmnnZni Department
County of Riverside
Attention Hr. Jeff Veinstele'
.q080 Lemon Street
'livers~de, CA 92501
Dear Hr. Veinstein:
Thank you for the opportunity to review proposed rrH 22761 end
TTH 22762 located southwesterly of Xanoho California Road and Tnez
load, east of Interstate 15 1n Rancho California.
Please refer to the attached material on which our comments have
been lndicate~ by the items checked and/or by those items noted
under additional comments. .:
If any work is neoessary'withinthe State highway right of way,
the developer must obtain an encroachment permit from the
District 8 Office of the State Department Of Transportation prior
to beginning the work.
Zf additional information is desired,
'Cormally ~t (71q) 383-q38q-
Very truly yours, .-
· G. POTs.
Dlstr~ct Permits gaSSneer
please call Mr. Patrick H.
I
(Co Rte pJ~) -
Llt2gmSh t~e ~rafflc and draLnage ~nerat~cl by this proposal do not appear t~ hav~ '
· significant etTeet on the st~e btgt~ray sys~en, onnstcleratlon mu~t be glven to
t~e ~malattv~ effect of eonr, lnued deve~__~,-e~t In t2~*ts area. Any masurea
~eeesar7 to mttlpte the --.,letlye impact el' trafflc and drslnage should be
~ Zt appears tha~ the traffic and drainage genretad ~ ~ p~l ~ld ~ve a
* ~~
This ~-~lm cf state hLghray Is tncluded tn t. he Callfornis Heater Plan c~ State
HZglwrya EMllble for OffLclsl Seerile Hl~ay Deslptlcn, ~nd in the future yc~r
s&eney my. vtah ~o have this route officially ..d~slpted ms · state scenic highNay.
~ It is ~co2nlzed that there is considerable public concern about noise levels
IK~Jaoent to besvtly traveled highrays. Lend davelopmen~,, In order to be cc~pattb
right o~ vl:y dedtcati~ ~o provlde*
ball-width on the state
Normal street isprovem~ts to prmide
half-width on the stat~ highny,
Curb and g~ctr, State Stan.d~rd i2ong the rote ~l~ay,
Yrklq ~ pr~bl~ alq ~ sh~ Mg~y ~ N1nt~ ~e ~ r~
.m~ ~ ~ ~ p~c~t ~ ~ ~k~2"
~di~ m~ re~ ~ p~ at lnte~io~ ~ ~ s~ ~sy.
~d ~~ ~ ut ~ ~d~ ~ ~ re~.
l p~itive ~mhr ~ir alq ~ pr~ ~ge ~ pr~td~ ~ ~t'
TehScu2ar seem to the state kips{ be provided by existing public road
ecrunotions,
t
Tedcular access to the state highway be provided by. standard
driveware,
Tehiculmr roetess shal3 not be provided withln
, of the lntersectt~.' st
access to the state highway be provided by · road-type connection.
Vefiloular e~-~ noonanti·as be psved st least wl.thSn. the stste highly right or"
/~eess points to the state bl2~nsay be developed in · mrmer that ~111 Provide sight
distance tel- ~ along the 8t. at.e hi2~Nay.
Ccnslderstlc~ be given to the provial·n, cr ~ provisO·, of' slgnaltzstlon and
ltghtlng of the inters~ctica of snd
the state hip·y,
Farking lot be developed in a runner t~st will not cause any vehlralar movement
conflicts, including psrklng stall ~trance snd exit, wltJ~n of the
~tr~ce fra~ t~e state highway,
PandXcap ~arkin2 not be ~evalope~ in the busy driveway entnnce ares,
Care be taken k~en developing this pr~erty to preserve snd perpetuate the existing
.drainage pattern or t~e state highway. Fsrttculsr considersOlon should be given to
cxa~latlve increased storm runoff to insure that s ~lghway drainage problem is not
crested.
1fleas· refer to attached additional
~Y
Any lrc~esals to firt~er develop this
a ~Y ~ ~ ~ar~c ~ ~n~l stay, If r~r~.
I ~ ~t of ~ Parcel ~ ~sct ~p, if r~l~.
I ~ ~lnt of ~ Y~ fr uy 4~v~ ~ ~ s~te ~y rt~t of
~y, ~
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
STAFF REPORT-FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME
S%STAFFRPT%22762-2.TrM 18
Case No.:
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
October 1, 1990
First Extension of Time
Tentative Tract Map No. 22762
Prepared By: Richard Ayala
Recommendation: Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Coleman Homes
REPRESENTATIVE:
Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
PROPOSAL:
Fifty (50) lot residential subdivision of 16.86 acres. First
Extension of Time.
LOCATION:
Between Rancho California Road and Santiago Road, west of
Ynez Road.
EXISTING ZONING:
Specific Plan 180 (Rancho Highlands)
SURROUNDING ZONING: North:
R-A-5 (Residential Agricultural, 5 acre minimum)
South: SP 180 (Rancho Highlands)
East: R-1 (One-Family Dwellings)
West: I-15 (Interstate 15)
PROPOSED ZONING:
Not requested.
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vecerlt
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North: Multiple Residential
South: Single Family Residential
East: Single Family Residential
West: I-15
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Total Acreage:
No. of Lots: 50
Open Space Lots:
Proposed DU/Acre 3.1
Proposed Minimum Lot Size:
16.86
1
7,200 sq.ft.
S\STAFFRPT\22762-2,TTM 19
ANALYSIS
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
Specific Plan No. 180, Rancho Highlands, was adopted by
the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on June 5,
1984. Amendment No. 1 to this specific plan, Change of
Zone No. 5105, and Tract No. 22761 were adopted by
the Board on July 18, 1988. The Amendment switched
Planning Area No. 12 (Tract No. 22762) from the medium
residential category of 4-10 DU/AC to the low residential
density category of 2-5 DU/AC.
Tract Map No. 22762 is a proposal to subdivide
approximately 16.86 acres into fifty (50) single family
residential lots with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square
feet. The subject site is located south of Rancho
California Road, west of Ynez Road and easterly of I-15.
Desion Considerations
The proposed subdivision has been designed in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance Nos. 348,
460 and Specific Plan No. 180. The main access to the
project is Terra Vista Road. The project has been
designed to provide increase land use and circulation
efficiency.
Density
The proposed subdivision (Tract No, 22762) according to
Specific Plan 180, requires proposed subdivisions to
range from 2-5 DU/AC. The proposed subdivision
consists of 3.1 DU/AC. Thus, meeting Specific Plan No.
180 density requirement for residential development.
The proposed density of 3.1 units per acre is consistent
with the Southwest Area Community Plan. In addition,
Staff finds it probable that this project will be consistent
with the new General Plan when it is adopted.
On July 18, 1988, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors
adopted a Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment
Nos. 31943 and 31084 to be applied to Tract Nos. 22761,
22762, and 21760, Amended No. 2, at which time determined
that the Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract No. 22762
will mitigate any environmental concerns.
S\STAFFRFT\22762-2 ,TTM 20
FINDINGS:
There is a reasonable probability that Tentative
Tract No. 22762 will be consistent with the City's
future General Plan, which will be completed
within a reasonable time in accordance with State
Law.
There is not a likely probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future and
adopted General Plan, if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
The proposed use or action complies with State
planning and zoning laws.
The site is suitab)e to accommodate the proposed
land use in terms of the circulation patterns,
access, and density.
The project as designed and conditioned will not
adversely affect the public health or welfare.
Tentative Tract No. 22762 is compatible with
surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale,
bulk, height, density, and coverage is likely to
create a compatible physical relationship with
adjoining properties.
The proposal will not have an adverse affect on
surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present or
planned land use of the area.
The project as designed and conditioned will not
adversely affect the built or natural environment as
determined in the Initial Study for this project.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with this application are herein
incorporated by reference.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission:
APPROVE Tentative Tract Map No. 22762, based
on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff
Report and subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval,
1. Conditions of Approval
21
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
S\STAFFRPT%22762-2.TTM 22
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
Location Map
~'V'tctUtTY tv~,AP )
r As No.VIH2ZT~7-~
C E
EXHIBIT NO,
~,P.C. DATEI.~'I't'ql ,,~
CITY OF TEMECULA )
180
r ~-~
CASE NO.~'fi~*Z7
CITY OF TEMECULA )
(~8o)
CASE NO.
EXHIBIT NO.
~P.C. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA )
~_P.C. DATE
ITEM # 10
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
December 16, 1991
Case No.: Tentative Tract Map No. 26521
Prepared By: Mark Rhoades
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- adopting the Negative
Declaration for Tentative Tract Map No. 26521; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 91-
Map No. 26521.
approving Tentative Tract
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Guido M. and Ruth Fascia
REPRESENTATIVE:
Kenneth A. Wilch and Associates
PROPOSAL:
Proposed 10 lot residential subdivision on 10.8 gross acres.
LOCATION:
North side of the intersection of Green Tree Road and Grapevine
Road.
EXISTING ZONING:
R-R (Rural Residential)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
R-1-10,000 (Single Family Residential, 10,000
square foot lot size minimum) S.P. 199
R-R (Rural Residential, ~ acre minimu lot size)
R-1-10,000 (Single Family Residential, 10,000
square foot lot size minimum) S.P. 199
R-R (Rural Residential, ~ acre minimum lot size)
PROPOSED ZONING:
Not Requested
EXISTING LAND USE: Single Family Residence
S\STAFFRPT~26521 ,TTM
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant
Single Family Residential, 1 + acre lot sizes
Vacant
Single Family Residential, 3 + acre lot sizes
PROJECT STATISTICS
Gross Acres:
Number of Proposed Lots:
Minimum Net Lot Size:
Average Lot Size:
Total Earthwork:
10.80
10
.78 Acres
1 Acre
20,000 Cubic Yards (Balance)
BACKGROUND
The proposed Tentative Tract was submitted to the City of Temecula Planning Department
in February of 1991. The project was heard at the March 14 preliminary Development Review
Committee where it was deemed incomplete. In July, the project was again taken to the
Development Review Committee where some outstanding issues remained. The applicant
resubmitted the current map in November, where it was subsequently scheduled for public
hearing.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project's bounded on the north and east by Specific Plan No. 199. To the south and
west are large lot residential homes.
Tentative Tract Map No. 26521 proposes to subdivide the subject 10.80 acre parcel into 10
single family residential lots, with three of the proposed lots fronting on Rancho Vista Road,
while the remainder will take access from the proposed private street of Green Tree Road.
The proposed subdivision has been designed in accordance with the standards of the R-R
Rural Residential zone, as well as Ordinance Nos. 348 and 460.
ANALYSIS
Slopes
Previous on-site grading has resulted in some substantial 2:1 slopes. However, the existing
and proposed slopes are not a typical of single family lot development in the area. As a result
of the impending rainy season, erosion control for the existing conditions will be mitigated to
the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. Prior to the issuance of any future grading
permits, erosion control plans must be approved by the City's Public Works Department. The
future permanent planting and irrigation of all 2:1 slopes will be required as a condition for
single-family residential development.
Traffic Impacts
S\STAFFRPT\26521 .TTM 2
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 unmitiable significant traffic impacts resulting from the development of this proposed
project.
Land Use and Zoning
The subject site currently has a single-family home in the northwest corner of the site.
Surrounding includes single family residential to the north and east (10,000 sq.ft. minimum
lot size) and south and west of the site are single-family homes with lots ranging in size from
1 to 3 + acres. The properties to the south and west of the subject site are zoned R-R. The
proposed Tentative Tract is in conforrnance with the development standards of the R-R zone,
which requires 20,000 square foot lot sizes.
Access and Circulation
Rancho Vista Road will be improved along the north boundary of the site. One access point
will be provided for lots 1, 2, and 3 with a reciprocal access agreement. Lots 4 through 10
will take access via a private gated road off of Green Tree Road. The project has been
conditioned to provide paved access to the lower portion of the tract.
FUTURE GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY
The project is consistent with the current SWAP designation of 1-2 dwelling units per acre.
The proposed map will likely be consistent with the future General Plan because it provides
a buffer between the 10,000 square foot lots to the north and east, and 1 to 3 + acre lots
to the south and west.
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.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The proposed project is in conformance with Ordinance Nos. 348 and 460 of the City of
Temecula. The proposed Tentative Tract Map will be required to provide CC&R's for the
maintenance of all common access ways private roads, and shared facilities. Individual slope
maintenance will be the responsibility of individual property owners.
FINDINGS
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 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.
10.
11.
The proposed use complies with State planning and zoning law, due to the fact that
the project conforms to the current zoning for the site and to Ordinance No. 460.
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.
The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidable injure fish or wildlife
or their habitat as determined in the initial study.
The design of the subdivision is consistent with the State Map Act in regard to future
passive energy control opportunities due to the fact that the lots are large enough to
provide sufficient southern exposure.
All lots have acceptable access to existing and proposed dedicated rights-of-way which
are open to, and are useable by, vehicular traffic, access is provided from Rancho Vista
and Green Tree 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.
Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference.
S\STAFFRPT\26521 .TTM 4
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
ADOPT Resolution No. 91o
Map No. 26521; and
adopting the Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract
2. ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving Tentative Tract Map No. 26521.
vgw
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
Resolution (Tentative Tract Map No. 26521} - page 6
Conditions of Approval-Tentative Tract Map No. 26521 - page 11
Environmental Assessment - page 25
Exhibits - page 39
a. Vicinity Map
b. SWAP Map
c. Zoning Map
d. Surrounding Uses
e. Site Plan
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
S\STAFFRPT%26521 ,TTM 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.
26521 TO SUBDIVIDE A 10.80 ACRE PARCEL INTO 10 SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS LOCATED ON RANCHO VISTA
ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 946-009-
007.
WHEREAS, Guido M. and Ruth Fascia filed Tentative Tract Map No. 26521 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
December 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 COMMISS ION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Findings.
That the Temecula Planning Commission 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:
The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general
plan.
The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, 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.
S\STAFFRPT~26521.TTM 7
(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 complied 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.
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:
A. The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan.
Be
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:
(1)
There is reasonable probability that Tentative Tract Map No. 26521
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.
Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. 460, no subdivision may be
approved unless the following findings are made:
Am
That the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and
specific plans.
Be
That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.
Cm
That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type of
development.
De
That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the
proposed density of the development.
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.
That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are
not likely to cause serious public health problems.
G. That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will
not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through,
or use of, property within the proposed land division. A land division may be
approved if it is found that alternate easements for access or for use will be
provided and that they will be substantially equivalent to ones previously
acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record
or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction.
The Planning Commission in recommending approval of the proposed Tentative Tract
Map, makes the following findings, to wit:
As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Tentative Tract Map is compatible with
the health, safety and welfare of the community.
SECTION II. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could
not have a significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is
hereby granted.
SECTION III. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Tentative Tract Map No.
26521 for the subdivision of a 10.80 acre parcel into 10 single family residential lots located
on Green Tree Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 946-009-007 and subject to the
following conditions:
1. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
S\STAFFRPT~26521 .TTM 9
SECTION IV.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of December, 1991.
JOHN E. 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
December, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
S\STAFFRPT\26521,TTM
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
S%STAFFRPT\26521 .TTM 11
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Tract Map No.: 26521 Project Description: 10 lot
residential subdivision on 10.80 acres
Assessor's Parcel No.: 946-009-007
Planning 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.
2. This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the approval date,
unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. The expiration date is
3. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map.
Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract map
boundary to a City maintained road.
All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall continue in
force until the governing body accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall
be free from all encumbrances as approved by the City Engineer. Street names shall
be subject to approval of the City Engineer.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall
be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All
offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by
the City Engineer.
A copy of the final grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for
review and approval. All on-site cut and fill slopes shall:
Be limited to a maximum slope ratio of 2 to 1 and a maximum vertical height
of thirty (30) feet. Setbacks from top and bottom of slopes shall be a minimum
of one-half the slope height.
B. Be contour-graded to blend with existing natural contours.
C. Be a part of the downhill lot when within or between individual lots.
S~STAFFRPT~26521 ,TTM 12
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
All slopes over three (3) feet in height shall be landscaped and irrigated according to
the City Development Code. A detailed landscaping and irrigation plan, prepared by
a qualified professional, shall be submitted to the City Planning Department for review
and approval prior to issuance of grading permits.
The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations outlined
in the County Health Department's transmittal dated March 12, 1991, a copy of which
is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined in the
County Fire Department's letter dated December 10, 1991, a copy of which is
attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Rancho Water
District's transmittal dated August 12, 1991, a copy of which is attached.
All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of Technology,
Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as outlined in the Southwest Area Plan.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern Municipal
Water District transmittal dated March 21, 1991, a copy of which is attached.
Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following:
Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development
standards of the Rural Residential zone.
Be
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, and the
Department of Public Works.
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 of Ordinance 655.
S\STAFFRPT\26521 .TTM 13
18.
19.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained by
the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to
potential paleontological impacts. Should the paleontologist find the potential is high
for impact to significant resources, a pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and
the excavation and grading contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the
paleontologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect
or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils.
Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied:
No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit within
the project boundary until the developer's successor's-in-interest provides
evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures. A cash sum of
one-hundred dollars (~100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as
mitigation for public library development.
Prior to the submittal of building plans tothe 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.
All dwellings to be constructed within this subdivision shall be designed and
constructed with fire retardant (Class A) roofs as approved by the Fire Marshal.
Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the
subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall
be permitted with Planning Department approval.
Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall not be less
than ten (10) feet.
All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet.
S\STAFFRFr~26521 ,TTM 14
20.
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.
21.
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.
22.
The subdivider shall submit to the Planning Director an agreement with the Temecula
Community Services District (TCSD) which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
TCSD Board of Directors, and the City that upon the request of BUILDING PERMIT for
construction of RESIDENTIAL structures on one or more of the parcels WITHIN FOUR
YEARS following approval of a tentative map, parcel map, or planned development,
real estate development, stock cooperative community apartment project and
condominium for which a tentative map or parcel map is filed, a predetermined Quimby
Act fee in the amount equal to the fair market value of required acreage (Plus 20% for
offsite improvements) shall be paid by the owner of each such parcel(s) as a condition
to the issuance of such permit as authorized by City of Temecula Ordinance No.
460.93.
23.
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. 26521, 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.
24.
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
S\STAFFRPT\26521,TTM 16
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.
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 provider. Telephone, cable
TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in the residence.
26. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground.
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions/Reciprocal Access Easements:
27.
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.
28.
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.
29.
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.
30.
Within forty-eight (48) hours of the approval of this project, the applicant/developer
shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or money order payable to
the County Clerk in the amount of Eight Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars ($875.00)
which includes the Eight Hundred, Fifty Dollar ($850.00) fee, in compliance with AB
3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Twenty-Five
Dollar ($25.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of
Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 Cal. Code
of Regulations 15094. 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).
S\STAFFRPT\26521 ,TTM 16
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 (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).
32.
Prior to issuance of grading permits that applicant shall submit a slope stability report
to the Riverside County Engineering Geologist. All proposed grading shall conform
with the conditions and recommendations set forth by said geologist.
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
The Community Services Department staff has reviewed the Conditions of Approval for
Tentative Tract Map No. 26521 and conditions this map as follows:
33°
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 the 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 the fair market value of the required park land acreage
(Plus 20% for offsite improvements).
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
34.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
San Diego Regional Water Quality;
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Flood Control district;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Department of Public Works;
Riverside County Health Department;
CATV Franchise; and
Parks and Recreation Department.
S\STAFFRPT%26521.TTM 17
35.
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.
36.
Rancho Vista 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 City Standard No. 102, (88'/64').
37.
The private street within the subdivision shall be improved with 36 feet of asphalt
concrete pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within a
private easement in accordance with City Standard No. 105, Section B (60'/36').
Gated entry shall be located a minimum of 80' from the centerline of Green Tree Road.
38.
Green Tree Road shall be improved with 20 feet of half street improvement plus one
8' lane, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within a 60' dedicated
right-of-way in accordance with City Standard No. 104, Section B (60'/40').
39.
The private street shall terminate in a cul-de-sac turn-around to comply with City
Standard No. 600.
40.
Green Tree Road east of Grape Vine shall be vacated as directed by the Department
of Public Works. Developer shall be responsible for any and all costs incurred.
41.
In the event road or off-site right-of-way are required to comply with these conditions,
such easements shall be obtained by the developer; or, in the event the City is required
to condemn the easement or right-of-way, as provided in the Subdivision Map Act, the
developer shall enter into an agreement with the City for the acquisition of such
easement at the developer's cost pursuant to Government Code Section 66462.5,
which shall be at no cost to the City.
42.
Vehicular access shall be restricted on Rancho Vista Road and so noted on the final
map with the exception of one 24' minimum width entry point as approved by the
Department of Public Works. This entry point shall not be a gated access.
43.
Dedicate a 60 foot easement for public utilities and emergency vehicles access for all
private streets and drives.
44.
Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be
delineated or noticed on the final map.
45.
An easement for a joint use driveway shall be provided for access to Lots 1, 2 and 3
prior to approval of the Final Map.
46.
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.
S\STAFFRFT\26521 ,TFM 18
47.
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
Engineering 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 Planning, Department of Public Works, and the
City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent with the final map. A
recorded copy shall be provided to the City.
De
The CC&R's shall provide for the effective establishment, operation,
management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas, drainage and
related facilities, and private streets.
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.
The declaration shall contain language prohibiting further subdivision of
any lots, whether they are lettered lots or numbered lots.
All parkways, private streets, and landscaping shall be permanently
maintained by the association or other means acceptable to the City.
Such proof of this maintenance shall be submitted to Planning and the
Department of Public Works prior to issuance of building permits.
Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring
access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all roads, drives or parking
areas shall be provided by CC&R's or by deeds and shall be recorded
concurrent with the map, or prior to the issuance of building permit
where no map is involved.
S\STAFFRPT~26521.TTM 19
48.
The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed
guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance
with applicable City standards.
Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter,
sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, and other traffic
control devices as appropriate.
B. Drainage facilities.
C. Landscaping (street).
D. Sewer and domestic water systems.
E. Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines.
49.
The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with
adjoining developments.
50.
Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in accordance
with the requirements of Ordinance No. 461 and as approved by the Department of
Public Works.
51.
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.
52. Street names shall be subject to the approval of the Building and Safety Department.
53.
All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved
by the Department of Public Works.
54.
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.
55. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent.
56.
Improvement plans per City Standards for the private streets or drives shall be required
for review and approval by the Department of Public Works.
57.
All driveways within public right-of-way shall conform to the applicable City standards
and shall be shown on the street improvement plans in accordance with City Standard
207 and 401 (curb sidewalk).
58. All driveways shall be located a minimum of two (2) feet from the side property line.
S~STAFFRPT\26521 .TTM 20
59.
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.
60.
A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted
as directed by the Department of Public Works at the time of application for grading
plan check.
61.
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.
62.
A drainage analysis 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.
63.
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."
64.
If necessary, a drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners
for the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent property. A
copy of the recorded drainage easement shall be submitted to the City for review prior
to the recordation of the final map.
65.
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.
66. Drainage culverts will be required to provide all-weather access at all crossings.
67.
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.
68.
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:
69.
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.
S\STAFFRPT~28521.TTM 2 1
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
PRIOR
76.
77.
78.
Prior to any work being performed on the private streets or drives, fees shall be paid
and a construction permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works.
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.
No grading shall take place prior to the improvement plans being substantially
complete, appropriate clearance letters have been obtained, and approval of the
grading plan has been granted by the Department of Public works.
If grading is to take place between the months of October and April inclusive, erosion
control and runoff mitigation plans will be required. All plans shall be submitted with
appropriate notes as directed and approved by the Department of Public Works
All lot drainage shall be to the street by side yard drainage swales independent of any
other lot, unless otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works.
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.
TO BUILDING PERMIT:
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 Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing
compaction and site conditions.
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code,
City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall
be in substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan.
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 security to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount
S\STAFFRPT\26521 .TTM 2 2
of the security 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.
A 28' wide secondary access road to the nearest paved road via Green Tree Road shall
be provided within a recorded road easement as approved by the Department of Public
Works. A turn-around bulb with a 38' minimum radius shall be provided at the
intersection of Green Tree Road and Grape Vine.
81.
Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with
adequate detours during construction. Traffic control plans shall be provided as
directed by the Department of Public Works, and may be required to be prepared by
a registered Civil Engineer.
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.
Transportation Engineering
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
83.
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the Department of Public Works for Rancho Vista Road and shall be
included in the street improvement plans.
84.
PRIOR
85.
Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering for the
design requirements.
TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
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 Department of Public Works.
S\STAFFRFT~26521 .TTM 23
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
86. All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and striping plan.
87. All landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance.
S%STAFFRPT~26521 .TTM 24
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
LAND DIVISION FORM
DATE: N ',,: t . 8 al j~'/'~{ PARCELS/LOTS
RE: SUBDIVISION NO. .~ ~-~"Z. I ZONING IP-,- P-..
PARCEL MAP NO. MAP SCHEDULE
MOBILEHOME, '171"., R.V., PARK OTHER
THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH APPROVES:
DOMESTIC SEWAGE DISPOSAL FOR THE INDIVIDUAL LOTS OF THIS SUBDIVISION, PARCEL MAR ETC. BY
MEANSOF: ~ '~"~ -
[~ CONNECTION TO ~. r-~ .,,3. ,~
SEWER SYSTEM AS PER LETTER DATED I-~--L' ~'1
[] SEPTIC TANKS WIT.,,.~ SOILS FEASIBILITY TEST BY <:~
JOBIPROJECT~ # I ~ rl ~ ~' - P DATED I -'2.,
d~. LEACHLINESWITH L-]Ct..h;~,-%L..~-SQ. FT. OF BOTTOM AREA /100 GAL. OFSER'ICTANK
CAPACITY,
2. SEEPAGE PITS WITH GALI SQ. FT, I DAY OR VERT. FT.
(5 ' DIA.), VERT. FT. (6' DIA_) PER 100 GALS_ OF SEPTIC TANK CAPACITY.
MAXIMUM DEPTH FOR SEEPAGE PITS
[] DRY SEWERS SHALL BE INSTALLED FOR THIS PROJECT
(SEC, 12.1, ART. XII, ORD 460)
c
~ . WATER DISTRICT HAS AGREED IN WRITING TO FURNISH
DOMESTIC WATER TO EACH AND EVERY LOT WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION AS PER LETTER
DATED ?- t,* ':'
AN ACCEPTABLE APPLICATION IS ON FILE WITH THIS DEPARTMENT TO FORM THE
WATER COMPANY.
NO WATER SYSTEM IS PROVIDED FOR THIS LAND DIVISION
(CLASS C, CLASS D, OTHER SUBDIVISION.)
3, CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
REGION: APPROVAL LETTER DATED
INITIAL / FINAL CLEARANCE.
GRADING:
GRADING PLAN SHALL BE PROVIDED. SOILS PERCOLATION ENGINEER SHALL ADDRESS:
1. THE PROPOSED CUTS AND / OR FILLS IN THE AREA OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM
2. THE SEWAGE SYSTEM AND ITS 100o/o EXPANSION AREA IN NATURAL UNDISTURBED SOIL.
3. THE ELEVATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL BUILDING PADS IN REFERENCE TO THE ELEVATION OF
THE SEWAGE SYSTEM
5. SUPPLEMENTAL WATER / SEWER DATA
[] REQUIRED
6. REMARKS '
DOH-SAN-053 (Rev 5/89)
~IRC:~'~N "AL~HEAL~T)f~RVICES DIVISION
OISI'RIBUTION WHIT¢:,APPLICANT CANARY. FILl= PINK-WATER (:)LIALITY CONTROL E~OARD
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
210 WEST 5AN JACINTO AVENUE · PI~RRIS, ~LIF~RNIA 92370
(71~,) 657-3183
GLEN J. NEWMAN
FIRE CHIEF ~eeembs~ 10, 1~91
TO: CZ~Y OF TF~CULA
ATTN: PLANNING DEFT
RE-' TRACT NO; 26521 AMEFDZD ~2
WACh respec~ to ohm conditions of approval ~or ~he above referenced land
dlvlslOn~ the Fire Department eacormnends the following fire protection
measures bS provida~ In accoedanc= with Kivsrside County Ordinance, and/or
recognized elre protection starCards,
Schedule "A" fire protection approved standard fir= hydrants, (6"x4"x2t")
located one at each arrest lncerseCulon and space~ no more than 330 ~ee~
apart in any direction, w~th no portion of any loc frontage ~ore than
feet ~rcm a hFdrant. ,~lnXmum fire flow shall be lO0O GT~ ~or 2 hours
duration at Z0 PSI.
Applicant/developer shall ~urnlsh one copy of the water system plans
:e the Fire Departneat for review. Flats shall be signed by a registered
civil engineer, con=string a Flre Department approval signature block,
and shall conform to hydran~ =ype, location, spacing and minimum fire
~low. Once plans are signed by the local water tompony, =he originals
shall be presented to the Fire Department ~or signature.
The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed
and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible
building material bein~ placed on an individual lot.
Prior uo the rsccrda:ion of the final map, the applicant/developer shall
provide alternate or secondary access as approved by the Temecula City
Engineer. '
All buildings shall be constructed with fire retardant roofing material
as described in Section 3203 of the Uniform Building Code. Any wood
shingles cr shakes shall have a Class "B" rating and shall be approved
by =he Fire Department prior to installation.
Prior to the recorderich of the final map, the developer shall deposit with
~he City o~ Temecula, a cash sum of $~00.00 pen lo=/unit as mitigation for
fire protection impacts. ~hould the developer choose to defer the time of
payment. he/she may enner into a written agreement with the City deferring
said payment eo the time of issuance of the first building permit.
{2 INDIO
1~,133 ~ CIt~ Dg~, ~h F, hdb, CA
TRACT NOI 26521 AMENDED #2
?A~E 2
Lo~e 1,2,& 3 shell have inalvlduml assess driveways =o Rancho Vlsga Rd with
separate house numbers as assigned by Bu$1din~ ~ eftsty.
The private street shall have a mSnimu~ 36' paved Section wi:h 45' radius
=urn-around e= the Cul Be Sac. The design, ~rand and alignment shall be
approved by =he City ~neineer.
All questions feB&rain8 the meaninl o£ ccn~i=:one shell be referred
the Plannin~ ana EnStneer~n~ Staff.
RAYMOND H. REGI~
Chief FIre Department Planner
Mtcheal E. GYay, Fire Captain Specialist
january 22, 1991
(Date)
Riverside County Health Department
c/o Kenneth A. Wilch & Associates
2440 South Hacienda Boulevard, Suite 124
Hacienda Iteiqhts, CA 91745
Gentlemen:
Re: Availability of Sanitary Sewer Service for
Assessor's Parcel Number
946-009--007
We hereby advise you relative to the availability of sanitary sewer service
for the above referenced proposed development as follows:
The property to be occupied by the subject proposed development:
IS PRESENTLY LOCAllED within the boundary lines of this District's
/XX/ Improvement District No. U-8 and is eligible to receive sanitary
sewer service,
NUST BE ANNEXED to this District's Improvement District No.
/ / following which it will be eligible to receive sanitary sewe~
service,
/ /
MUST BE INCLUDED in a new District improvement district, assess-
ment district or other program to be formed and implemented for
the purpose of providing sanitary sewer facilities and service
for the general area within which this proposed development is
located, following which it will be eligible to receive sanitary
sewer service,
provided:
1) The developer completes all necessary financial and other
arrangements therefore, as determined by the District, with the
District by July 1992 ;
2) That no LIMITING CONDITIONS exist which ARE BEYOND this DISTRICT'S
CONTROL or CANNOT BE COST EFFECTIVELY and/or reasonably satisfied
by the District, which conditions may include but are not limited
to, acts of God, REGULATORY AGENCY REQUIRENEN[S or decisions,
or legal actions initiated by others;
If you have any questions or con~nents regarding the foregoing, do not hesitate
to contact this office.
Manager of New Business
Moil To: Post Office B~x 8~00 · Sun .l~cinco. C~lifornia 92&~t-I t00 · l~lepl.lnc. (Tl.i) ~2S-7(,7~ t I::,x (71 I) ').!~) ()257
Nl:~hl Of/iCe'. 2~15 S. Sun J~mcinu~ Street. S~m~ J.dnf. · Custtnncr ~.rvkc/lh~glncl'rim~g Artist'x: 11() F ( ):,kl;m J Av,.muj~.. I h.mcf. CA
s,
FOR DZSTRZCT USE ONL~
1."! Names and Addresses of Involved Parties:
Involvement Name
Owner of Property
6uido & Ruth Fascia
Address
860~guth Myrtle Avenue
Monrov:ia, CA 91016
Developer
Developer's Engineer
Kenneth Wilch & Assoc.
2440 S. tlacienda BI., Ste. 124
Hacienda HeiQhts, CA 91745
General Location of the involved property:
South side of Rancho Vista Road, West of Green Tree RoaSl
5
Brief legal description of the involved property:
Assessor's Parcel Number 946-009-007
Number of proposed lots/parcels
Estimated number of dwelling units (or equivalent)
Other pertinent information
Area
acres)
7.' Small scale map of the subject proposed development
August 12, 1991
Mr. Robert Righetti
City of Temecula
Engineering Department
43180 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
Water Availability
Tract Map 26521
Dear Sir or Madam:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service,
therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements
between RCWD and the property owner.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an
Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.
If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Senga Doherty.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P. E.
Manager of Development Engineering
SB:SD:ajm149
cc: Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician
Rancho California Water District
astern unicipa er strict ....
General ~Janaeer
J. Andrew Schlangc
Director q/The ~4etropolitun IIater
March 21, 1991
Mark Rhoades, Case Planner
Planning Department
City of Temecula
Post Office Box 3000
Temecula, CA 92390
Subject:'Tract No. 265217'
Dear Mr. Rhoades:
As requested, we have reviewed the subject tract and offer the following
comments:
The subject tract is located in the sanitary sewer service area of the District.
However, no available sanitary sewerlines exist in close proximity to the subject
tract. If it is required that the subject tract connect to a sanitary sewer
system, offsite sewer improvements will be necessary. The developer's engineer
is advised to contact the District's Customer Service Department in this regard.
Very truly yours,
Director of Planning
HAS:DC:lp .[~ ?~,~
cc: Customer Service
91-784
37/M
Mail To: Post Office Box 8300 ® SanJacinto, California 9258%1300 · Telephone (71.i> 925-7676 · Fax (714) 929-0257
Main Office: 2045 S. San Jacintn Street, San Jacinto · Customer Service/Engineering Annex: 440 E, Oakland Avenue, Hemet, CA
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
S~STAFFRPT\26521.TTM 25
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
BACKGROUND
1. Name of Proponent:
2. Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
3. Date of Environmental
Assessment:
4. Agency Requiring
Assessment:
5. Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Location of Proposal:
Guido and Ruth M. Fascia
860 Myrtle Ave. Monrovia CA 91016
(818) 358-1885
November 25, 1991
CITY OF TEMECULA
Tentative Tract No. 26521
North side of the intersection of GraDe Vine and
Green Tree Roads.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets.)
Earth.
8.
b.
C.
d.
Will the proposal result in:
Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil?
Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features?
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
Yes Maybe No
X
S\STAFFRPT~28521.TTM 26
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?
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?
Yes Maybe N__o
X
X
X
S\STAFFRPT\26521 .TTM 27
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?
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or number of any native species of
plants (including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare, or endangered species
of plants?
Introduction of new species of
plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
Substantial reduction in acreage
of any agricultural crop?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
S%STAFFRPT\26521.TTM 28
10.
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?
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and Glare. Will the proposal
produce substantial new light or glare?
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
Substantial increase in the rate of
use of any natural resources?
Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource?
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal
involve:
A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including,
but not limited to, oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S\STAFFRPT\26521.TTM 29
11.
12.
13.
14.
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.
proposal result in:
a.
b.
c.
d.
Will the
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
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?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
Public $en~ices. 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 protection7
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational
facilities?
Yes Maybe N__o
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S\STAFFRFT~28521 .TTM 30
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
f. Other governmental services:
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy?
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b, Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
17. Human Health. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health)?
b. Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
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?
Yes Maybe N__Qo
X
X
X
X
S\STAFFRPT\26521 .TTM 3 1
19.
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?
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.)
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
S\STAFFRPT\26521 ,TTM 32
Does the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but cumu-
latively considerable? (A project's
impact on two or more separate
resources may be relatively small,
but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment
is significant.)
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substan-
tial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Yes Maybe N__o
X
X
S\STAFFRPT\26521.TTM 33
III
Earth
1.a.
1.b.
1 .c-d.
1,e.
1.f.
1.g.
Ai~r
2.
Water
3.a,
d-e.
Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
No. The project site will be graded as part of a mass grading effort. There will be
substantial grading for this project. However, a conceptual mass grading plan for the
project was approved by the City Engineer and designed in accordance with
Temecula's standards and the Conditions of Approval.
Maybe. The potential development could disrupt the soil profile to some degree and
result in soil displacement, compaction, and overcovering. This impact is not
considered significant.
No. The 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 will
occur in the immediate area, the overall plan is intended to promote general
preservation of site topography.
Maybe. Wind and water erosion potentials will increase during potential construction
phases and remain high until disturbed areas are replanted. The wind erosion impact
is considered significant but will be mitigated through retention of natural vegetation
whenever feasible, and use of watering trucks and hydro-seeding of disturbed areas
after grading. After the project is completed, increased water run-off during floods
may occur. Water will be channeled to drainage easements and streets. Appropriate
drainage control devices will have to be approved by the City Engineer and designed
in accordance with Temecula's standards and the Conditions of Approval.
No. Since the project site is not adjacent to any creek or stream bed, the proposed
project will not cause erosion of or deposition into any creek or stream bed.
No. The subject site is not designated as subject to liquefaction or subsidence by the
Riverside County General Plan.
No. The proposed project will not significantly impact the area's air quality.
No. The proposed project will not impact any marine or fresh water bodies. The
proposed project will incrementally affect the quantity and quality of run-off water in
the City, however, the individual impact is not considered significant.
S\STAFFRPT\26521 .TTM 34
3.b.
Maybe. The proposed project will inhibit the absorption of water into the ground
through the construction of impermeable surfaces on the site. Run-off will increase
but not substantially. The impact will be mitigated to a level of nonsignificance
through the conditions of approval.
3.c. No. Flood waters will continue to be diverted to the streets and flood channels.
3.f-g. No. The proposed project will not significantly affect the flow or quantity of ground
waters.
3.h. No. The proposed project will not significantly impact the public water supply.
3.i.
No. Conditions of Approval are included for this project which require proper design
and installation of drainage conveyance devices.
Veuetation
4.a-c. No. Existing vegetation is generally limited to non-native grasses. No endangered
species of flora were identified on site.
4.d. No. No agricultural production occurred on-site,
Wildlife
5.a-c. Maybe. A survey for the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat prepared for this project identified
no individuals of the species on the subject site. As a result of this projects
incremental impact on potential S.K.R. habitat. fees will be required in accordance with
Ordinance 663 and the Habitat Conservation Plan adopted by the City of Temecula.
Conformance with these procedures will mitigate the impact to a level of non-
significance.
Noise
6.a-b. No. Some noise may occur during potential grading and/or construction. The impact
is not considered significant.
Liaht and Glare
Maybe. However, the project has been conditioned to comply with applicable lighting
standards, specifically Ordinance No. 655, Palomar Lighting Standards. The impact
will be mitigated to a level of non-significance.
Land Use
8. No. The project is consistent with current zoning and Southwest Area Plan
designations.
S\STAFFRPT\26521 ,TTM 35
Natural Resources
9.a-b. No. This project in itself will not significantly increase the rate of use of natural
resources.
Risk of Ul~set
10.
a-b.
No. The proposed project will not promote a risk of explosion or release hazardous
substances. Construction materials and petroleum products may be used extensively
to support the project during future potential construction, however this impact is
temporary and not considered significant. It will not interfere with emergency
response plan or an emergency evaluation plan.
Population
11.
Maybe. Although the project proposes to increase the density from one dwelling unit
to a potential of 10 units, the proposed project is consistent with the City Land Use
Designation (according to SWAP), and existing zoning.
Housinq
12.
No. Since the proposed project will create housing, the proposed land use will not
create a demand for additional housing.
Transportation/Circulation
13.
No. Staff has determined that the project will not have a significant impact on vehicle
movement, parking, transportation, circulation, or water, rail, or air traffic.
13.f. Maybe. Potential development could increase traffic hazards, however, street and
sidewalk improvements will mitigate the impact to a level of non-significance.
Public Services
14.
a-f.
Maybe. The proposed project may have an effect on public services, however,
appropriate fees are required as conditioned to mitigate impacts to a level of non-
significance.
Enerqy
15.
a-b.
No. The proposed project will not result in the substantial use or increase in demand
of fuel or energy.
S\STAFFRPT\26521.TTM 36
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 is consistent with low density and medium density
housing which will surround the site neighborhood, there will be no significant impact
on aesthetics.
Recreation
19.
Maybe. The proposed project will have the potential to increase the population, and
impact City of Temecula recreation opportunities which are currently limited.
However, Quimby fees are required of this project which will provide funds for the
acquisition of future recreational facilities, mitigating the effect of this individual tract
to a level of non-significance.
Cultural Resources
20.
a-d. No. The project site is not located in an archaeologically sensitive area.
Mandatory Findinns of Significance
21 .a.
No. The proposed project will not have a significant impact on plant or wildlife
species. However, if a project is located within an area designated by the Riverside
County as potential 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.
21 .b. No. The proposed project will not have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals.
21.
c-d.
No. The proposed project will not have impacts which are individually limited or
cumulatively considerable, nor will they have environmental affects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
S%STAFFRPT\26521 ,Ti'M 37
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a signi-
ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi-
ficant effect on this case because the mitigation measures
described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval
have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is requires
Date
For CITY OF TEMECULA
X
sxs'r~,~eyrx2es2~ .rr~ 38
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
S\STAFFRPT\26521,TTM 39
VICINITy MAP
CASE
P. Co DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA )
~-4'
U/AC
AI:iGARITA
SP
SWAP MAP ) CASE NO.
P.C. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA )
II
ZONE MAP )
CASE NO.TTYt
P.C. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA )
CASE NO.
~P.C. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA )
r
~t
CASE NO.
P.C. DATE
jl
ITEM it 11
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
December 16, 1991
Case No.: Conditional Use Permit No. 14
Prepared By: Mark Rhoades
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff Recommends that the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Conditional Use
Permit No. 14; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving Conditional Use
Permit No. 14 based on the Findings contained in the
Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Chevron U.S.A./Bedford Properties
REPRESENTATIVE:
Robert H. Lee and Associates
PROPOSAL:
To construct a 24-hour gasoline station with a car wash and
mini-mart facility.
LOCATION:
Northwesterly side of Winchester Road, southeast of Margarita
Road. Pad 7 of Plot Plan No. 224.
EXISTING ZONING:
C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial)
A-2-20 (Heavy Agriculture-
20 acre lot size minimum)
C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial)
C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial)
PROPOSED ZONING: N/A
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
S~STAFFRPT\I 4.CUP
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North: COSTCO
South: Vacant
East: Vacant
West: Vacant
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Site Area:
Total Building Area:
Total Landscape Area:
46,016 square feet
6,914 square feet
7,650 square feet
BACKGROUND
Conditional Use Permit No. 14 was submitted to the City of Temecula on September 4, 1991.
The project was reviewed by the Pre-liminary Development Review Committee on September
26, 1991. The project was subsequently scheduled for public hearing.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Conditional Use Permit is for a 1,300 square foot mini-mart, 1,173 square foot
car wash and 4,750 square foot of canopy area which covers gasoline dispensers. The
project is located on the existing COSTCO wholesale site. The project is on the northwest
corner of the main entry and Winchester Road, and 1,000 feet west of Margarita Road. The
approved commercial center will contain ten free standing commercial pads as shown in Plot
Plan No. 224.
ARCHITECTURE
The proposed building materials consist of dark grey clay "S" tile for roof elements, stucco
coated walls and smooth fascia. The stucco portions of the buildings will be light and dark
grey with off-white fascia. The fascia of the proposed canopy will be blue and white. The
gasoline pump islands will consist of white overhead spans and posts, with grey pumps.
The architecture has been softened with the use of pitched roofs over the canopy and car
wash. The mini market includes a tower and arch which are key elements of COSTCO's
architecture. The arch elevation will face Winchester Road.
CIRCULATION
Site access will be provided via drive aisles which are internal to the commercial center. No
direct access for the subject site will be taken from Winchester Road.
Internal site circulation has been designed to provide adequate access and space for
automobiles, emergency vehicles and fuel trucks. Parking has been provided in accordance
with Ordinance No. 348.
S\STAFFRPT\14.CUP 2
LANDSCAPING
The proposed landscaping meets the requirements of Ordinance No, 348, Additionally,
plantinge have been concentrated at the car-wash exit which faces Winchester Road. The
parkway strip on the south and east sides of the project site will be landscaped as a portion
of the retail center.
ZONING
The proposed project meets the requirements of Ordinance No. 438, and specifically the
Scenic Highway Commercial zone, The proposal also provides adequate access, parking, and
landscaping.
FUTURE GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY
The current SWAP designation for the proposed site is "C", Commercial. The project is
located within an approved commercial center, and will likely be consistent with the City's
future adopted General Plan.
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.
The project has been mass graded under the Tentative Parcel Map No. 26852. Environmental
concerns relative to Tentative Parcel Map No. 26852 were mitigated under the ~reviously
adopted Negative Declaration.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The proposed gasoline facility has been designed with sensitivity relative to wews from
Winchester Road. The project conforms with Ordinance No. 348 and is consistent with the
current SWAP designation of commercial.
All potential environmental impacts have been mitigated to a level of non-significance by the
project's design and conditions of approval.
FINDINGS
There is a reasonable probability that Conditional Use Permit No. 14 will be consistent
with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and
in accordance with State law due to the fact that the proposed gasoline station, car
wash, and mini-mart are consistent with the existing zoning and the SWAP land use
designation of Commercial,
S\STAFFRPT\14.CUP 3
10.
There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the
future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan due to
the fact that the proposed use is consistent with the existing zoning, the SWAP land
use designation of Commercial, and the existing developments of the surrounding area.
The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws due to the
fact that the proposed use complies with Ordinance No. 348 and the action complies
with State Planning Laws.
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use due
to the fact that the proposed development complies with the standards of Ordinance
No. 348.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or
welfare due to the fact that the Conditions of Approval include measures which will
ensure that public health and welfare will be maintained.
The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk,
height, intensity, and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship with
adjoining properties due to the fact that the proposed development is consistent with
current surrounding development and Ordinance No. 348.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does
not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area due
to the fact that the surrounding properties are zoned Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-
S) which are consistent with the project zoning and proposed use.
The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic due to the fact that the interior circulation is suitable and
connects with Winchester Road.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the initial study performed for this project due to the fact
that the Conditions of Approval provide for the necessary mitigations for the project,
The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they are not in
conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed
project as represented on the site plan.
S~STAFFRPT\14.CUP 4
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff Recommends that the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT Negative Declaration for Conditional Use Permit
No. 14; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving Conditional Use
Permit No, 14 based on the Findings contained in the
Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
vgw
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
Resolution - page 6
Conditions of Approval - page 11
Initial Study - page 19
Exhibits - page 33
a. Vicinity Map
b. Swap Map
c. Zoning map
d. Site Plan
e. Elevations
S\STAFFRPT\I 4.CUP 5
A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 91-__
S%STAFFRPT\14.CUP 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 14
TO PERMIT OPERATION OF A CARWASH, GASOLINE
STATION,AND MINI MARKET LOCATED NORTHWESTERLY OF
WINCHESTER ROAD,AND SOUTHEAST OF MARGARITA ROAD,
PARCEL NUMBER 6 OF PARCEL MAP 26852.
WHEREAS, Chevron U.S.A. filed Conditional Use Permit No. 14 in accordance
with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the
City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Conditional Use Permit application was processed in the time
and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Conditional Use Permit
on December 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 Conditional Use Permit;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISS ION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Findings.
That the Temecula Planning Commission 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:
The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general
plan.
S\STAFFRPT%14.CUP 7
m
The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, 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 complied 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.
The proposed Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the SWAP and meets the
requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit:
A. The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan.
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:
(1)
There is reasonable probability that Conditional Use Permit No. 14
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.
Pursuant to Section 18.26(e), no Conditional Use Permit 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 Conditional Use Permit approved
shall be subject to such conditions as shall be necessary to protect the health, safety
and general welfare of the community.
S\STAFFRPT%14.CUP 8
The Planning commission, in approving the proposed Conditional Use Permit, makes
the following findings, to wit:
There is a reasonable probability that Conditional Use Permit No. 14 will be
consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a
reasonable time and in accordance with State law due to the fact that the
proposed gasoline station, car wash, and mini-mart are consistent with the
existing zoning and the SWAP land use designation of Commercial.
There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with
the future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan due to the fact that the proposed use is consistent with the existing
zoning, the SWAP land use designation of Commercial, and the existing
developments of the surrounding area.
The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws due
to the fact that the proposed use complies with Ordinance No. 348 and the
action complies with State Planning Laws.
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size
and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity
of use due to the fact that the proposed development complies with the
standards of Ordinance No. 348.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public
health or welfare due to the fact that the Conditions of Approval include
measures which will ensure that public health and welfare will be maintained.
Fm
The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale,
bulk, height, intensity, and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship
with adjoining properties due to the fact that the proposed development is
consistent with current surrounding development and Ordinance No. 348.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because
it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of
the area due to the fact that the surrounding properties are zoned Scenic
Highway Commercial (C-P-S) which are consistent with the project zoning and
proposed use.
He
The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open
to, and useable by, vehicular traffic due to the fact that the interior circulation
is suitable and connects with Winchester Road.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or
natural environment as determined in the initial study performed for this project
due to the fact that the Conditions of Approval provide for the necessary
mitigations for the project.
S\STAFFRPT\14,CUP 9
The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they are
not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within
the proposed project as represented on the site plan.
As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Conditional Use Permit proposed is
compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
SECTION II. Environmental Compliance.
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 impacts will be mitigated by adherence
to the attached Conditions of Approval which have been added to the project, and a Negative
Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted.
SECTION II1. Conditions.
That the city of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No.
14 for the operation of a carwash, gasoline station and mini market located northwesterly of
Winchester Road and southeast of Margarita Road, Parcel Number 6 of Parcel Map No.
26852.
1. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
SECTION IV.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of December, 1991.
JOHN E. 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
December, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
S\STAFFRPT%14.CUP 10
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
S%STAFFRPT\14.CUP 11
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Conditional Use Permit No. 14
Project Description: Carwash, Service Station and Market
Assessor's Parcel No.: Parcel 6 of Parcel Map NO. 26852
Planning Department
The use hereby permitted by this conditional use permit is for the development of a
gasoline dispensing facility, car wash, and mini market located on Parcel 6 of Parcel
Map No. 26852 and known as Assessods Parcel No. 910-110-031.
The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its
agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or proceeding against the City
of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul,
an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative
body concerning Conditional Use Permit No. 14. 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.
m
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter
diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization
contemplated by this approval. This approval shall expire on
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on
Conditional Use Permit No. 14 marked Exhibit A, or as amended by these conditions.
The conditional use shall be permitted to operate until such time as the project is found
to be inconsistent with the Conditions of Approval. If the City of Temecula finds that
the approved use is not in conformance, the permit may be revoked pursuant to
Section 18.31 of Ordinance No. 348.
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.
S\STAFFRPT\14.CUP 12
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
The applicant shall comply with the street improvement recommendations outlined in
the Traffic Engineering Department's Conditions of Approval, which are included
herein.
Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the
provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittal dated
February 12, 1991, a copy of which is attached.
Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood
Control District's transmittal dated April 15, 1991, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County
Fire Department transmittal dated October 10, 1991, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho Water
District transmittal dated September 27, 1990, a copy of which is attached.
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, three (3) copies of a Parking,
Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plan 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 on site and adjacent right-of-way landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance
with approved landscape, irrigation, and shading plans prior to the issuance of
occupancy permits, including that to be planted by "others". 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. The landscaping and irrigation
shall be inspected by a State of California Landscape Architect in order to guarantee
conformance with the approved landscape plan.
A minimum of 11 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12,
Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. Eleven (11 ) parking spaces shall be provided as
shown on the Approved Exhibit A. The parking area shall be surfaced with asphaltic
concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on 4 inches of Class II base.
A minimum of one (1) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on
Exhibit A. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a
permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text
or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be
smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the
parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the
parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the
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:
S\STAFFRPT\I ~,.CUP 13
"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
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a
surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at
least 3 square feet in size.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance and/or
permits from the following agencies:
Planning Department
Engineering Department
Environmental Health
Rancho Water District
Caltrans
School District
Riverside County Flood Control
Fire Department
Eastern Municipal Water District
An Administrative Plot Plan application for signage shall be submitted separately to the
Planning Department for review and approval.
Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit B.
Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial conformance
with that shown on Exhibit "B" (Color Elevations) and Exhibit "C" (Materials Board}.
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening material shall
be subject to Planning Department approval.
All trash enclosures shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits.
Each enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall be made with decorative masonry
block and a steel gate which screens the bins from external view.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along streets
and within the parking areas.
All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted
to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply
with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No, 655.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with Ordinance No.
663 by paying the 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 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.
S\STAFFRPT~14,CUP 14
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.
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.
28. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground.
29.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
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 AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code
Section 711.4(d)(2) plus the Twenty-Five Dollar (825.00) 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).
Engineering Department
31.
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
CalTrans.
32.
The developer 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.
S\STAFFRP~14.CUP 15
33.
The developer 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.
34.
A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and
submitted as directed by the Department of Public Works at the time of application for
grading plan check.
35.
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,
36.
No grading shall take place prior to the improvement plans being substantially
complete, appropriate clearance letters and approval by the Department of Public
Works.
37.
If grading is to take place between the months of October and April inclusive, erosion
control runoff mitigation plans will be required. All plans shall be submitted with
appropriate notes as directed and approved by the Department of Public Works.
38.
All site improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be
coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects.
39.
Prior to any work being performed on the private streets or drives, fees shall be paid
and a construction permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works.
40.
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.
41.
Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with
adequate detours during construction. Traffic control plans shall be provided as
directed by the Department of Public Works and shall be prepared by a Registered Civil
Engineer.
42.
An encroachment permit shall be required from CalTrans for any work within their
right-of-way.
43.
The developer 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.
A. Landscaping (street and parks).
44.
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Department of Public Works
and any recommendations of the Riverside County Flood Control District.
45.
The developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval for offsite work performed
on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works.
S\STAFFRPT~14.CUP I 6
46.
Drainage and flood protection facilities will be required to protect all structures by
diverting sheet runoff to streets, or to a storm drain, as directed by the Department of
Public Works and/or Riverside County Flood Control.
47.
Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage
entering the property from adjacent areas.
48.
The site is in an area identified on the Flood Hazard Maps as Flood Zone A subject to
flooding of undetermined depths. Prior to the approval of any plans, this project shall
comply with Ordinance 91-12 of the City of Temecula and with the rules and
regulations of FEMA for development within a Flood Zone "A" which may include
obtaining a letter of map revision from FEMA.
49.
The developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the
subject property.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT:
50.
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.
51.
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.
52.
Access to the site shall be taken from the approved primary entry points as shown on
Parcel Map No. 26852.
53.
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.
54.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed
upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as
required under the Negative Declaration for the project. 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
S%STAFFRPT~14.CUP 17
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 CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY:
55. Minimum flowline grades shall be 0.50 percent.
56.
Improvement plans per City Standards for the private streets or drives shall be required
for review and approval by the Department of Public Works.
57.
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along all public street frontages in accordance
with Riverside County Standard Nos. 400 and 401.
58.
Dedicate a 25 foot easement for the future transportation corridor adjacent to
Winchester Road right-of-way.
S\STAFFRPT%14,CUP 18
Rivers(de County ffealt~ ~epartment
c/oj. F. ~avids~n AsSociates. Inc.
~7349 JeffersOn S,.ite
Temecul~, CA 923~ '
~e: AvaHa~illty of !iqttary Sewer S~nv~ce f~r Tentative Part)! ~aD
~e h~r~by advis~ yo~ relative to (h~ availability ~f ~.Fn(tary ~ewer )ervic~
for the ~bove r~ference~ proposa~ ~eveicpmen: as follows;
The property to be oc~u~iei ~y the subject proposeQ devel:;pmen~:
/Y,"7 XS P~E~ENTL'r ~OCATEP .'(thin the boundary lines of this
-. j~Dr~vemlnt :~O. U-8 and is eligible :o rsceive sanitary
/---" f:))¢~ing ~n~cn Iz wi)) ~e eligible tD receive sanlt&ry ~)w~
2)
~JST )g INC~.UO~D in a ~ew ~is:rict improve~i,:t district, :ssess-
men: ~iS~rlCt ~r o:rer program t? be formed and implemented for
t~e ;,'rpOse of providing Sanit)ry sawe~ fac!)iti~e and s~rvice
for t~e general ire~ within whfck. th~ pr~p:>sed d~velopm~nt IS
loc~re~, following which it will ~e eltgi~l~ t~ receive 5~qltary
sewer servi:e,
:; you have any Questions
to :~nuct this office.
v~./trulj(
Manoger of New ~usi~es~
The developer ¢~mpletes all necessary fi,anclel and ~ther
arrange..-,:n(S therefore. a~ ~ater~ine~ by the DistriCt, wit~ the
~tS~rlCt Dy Auqust 1)~2
ih~ no ~IMiTI~8 CD~i?iO~S exist which
CONTROL or CANNOT ~E CGST EFFECTIVELY and/or r~onably
~y t~ DistriCt, wnicn conditions may include ~ut are not limiteQ
to, ecU of ~Cd, RE~LATO~Y AGENCY ~EQUXR~I:~T~ or decisions,
;r legal actions init:ate~. ~y others;
r~r~in dO not hesltat~
~ g ~e foregoing,,
%1:;~ ~i,/i(e.' :C,'i~ $. ~:n JZC2:|:~. ~¢:~et ~_~e ;n~,~,,, · C~.~!,.,,':'.'r -~',", ,~C,'~r/,F,nc.~rmg A.~l:e/t: '~0 ~ '):;itkqnj/I,'rnue, Hcm¢.,L CA
RECEIVED
OCT U2 I991
September 27, 1991
Scott Wright
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43172 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Water Availability
APN 910-110-031
C.U.P. No. 14
Chevron Station
Dear Mr. Wright:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service,
therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements
between RCWD and the property owner.
RCWD currently has in effect a water conservation program. Under the
guidelines of this program, Stage II - Water Alert, water service would only
be allowed for commercial car washes that have a water recycling system.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an
Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to
RCWD.
If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Senga Doherty.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P. E.
Manager of Development Engineering
SB:SD:ajf136
cc: Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician
Rancho California Water District
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
210 WEST $AN IACINTO AVENUE s PERRIS. CALIFORNIA
(714) 657-3183
GLeN I NEWMAN
PIlE CHIEF
December 10, 19~1
TO| CITY OF TEMECULA
ATTN| FIANNING DEPT
XE| CO~DXTIONAL USE PERMIT
With respect to =he conditions of approval :eaardin$ the above referenced
plot plan. the Fire Department recot~aende the following fire protection
measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or
reoc~nize~ ~ire protection standards:
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire Elow for
the remodel cr construction of all comasreid1 buildings usin$ the
procedure established in Ordinance 546.
Provide or show there exists a water system capable o{ delivering 2500
CPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operatiDE pressure,
which mus= be available beeore any combustible material is placed
on the Job site.
The required fire flew shall be availshie from a SUPER
(6"xh"x2x2~), located not lass than 25 fee~ or more than 165 feet
from any portion c~ the building as measured alone vehicular travelwa~s.
The ~?plioenc/developer shall be responsible to submit written
certification from the water company noting the location of the
existing fire hydrant and chat the existing water system is capable
of deliverins CPM fire ~low for a hour duration at 20 PSI
residual operating pressure. Zf a water eyetom currently does
noc exist, =he applicant/developer shall be responsible to provide
written certification that finencial arrangements have been made
Uo provide them.
OCcupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform Building Code.
Section 503.
6, Car=sin deeiinated areas will be requires tO be maintained as {ira hoes.
7. Ins=all portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rac~n8 c{ 2A-ZOBC.
COntact a certified extinguisher company ~or proper placement of equi~raent.
CONDITIONAL USE PEI4~IT 14 PAGE 2
$. Applica~t/devalnper shall be responsible for obtltnin2 uuder2:cund or
aboveground permits ~r~m both the County ~ealth and FAre Departments.
Pri~E to cha i~suance aE Building permits, the applicanC/devel0par shall
ha respon~ible to ~ubmit a check or money or~eX in the amount of $558.00
co cha Riverside County Fi:a D~partment ~or plan check ~ees.
i0.
Prior to the issuance of ~uildi~ permits, the developer shall deposit,
with ~he City c~ Tamsouls, a c~eck or money o~dar equalin~ the a~ c~
2~c per e~ua:e ~eot as miti~a~ien ~: ~Ira pro~ecCion impacts. This
amount mus~ be eubmicue~ 5epa:acal~ ~:om ~ha plan check review fees,
Final conditions will be addressed ~han buildln~ plane a:e reviewea in
~he Duilding and Sa~e=y O~fice.
All questions re8arding the meaning of conditions shall
the Planning and Engineerins staff,
LC/tm
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
April 15, 1991
"J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc.
Post Offtce Box 340
TemeCUla, CA 92390
AttentiOn: David S, Smari
Ladies end Gentlemen:
Parcel Map 26852
Plot Plan 224
City of lemecula
You have sent us material regarding these cases for our 'review
as a Land USe case and as a land subdivision". We do not make
flOodproofing recommendations or write flood hazard reports for
projects in incorporated cities. But it is appropriate that we
comment on Santa Gertrudta Creek Channel since we are involved
with the flood control aspects of Assessment District 161.
We have recently approved the plans for Santa Gertrudis Creek
Channel. The channel will capture and safely Convey the 100 year
storm runoff in that errsam when tt has been constructed in its
entirety according to plane, and when surrounding land
developments have been brought up to 9reds as proposed. If the
project is ConStructed in stages, as we understand ts now being
considered, additional study would be necessary to determine its
p~rformance.
%t should also be noted that AsSessment District 161 has not yet
made application for a Conditional Letter of Hap Revision (CLOMR)
from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). ProPertieS
within the FEMA mapped floodplain will remain subject to flood
insurance requirements until FEMA has issued a letter of Nap
Revision (LO~R), and the District cannot guarantee that FENA will
find the proposed improvements acceptable. The District will not
accept the Santa Gertrudis Channel for operation end maintenance
until it has been completed, all necessary grading adjacent to
the channel has been completed, end the improvements have been
approval by FEMA.
City of Temecula
Engineering Department
Bedford Properties
Attn: Greg Erickson
RANPAC
Attn: Chuck Collins
rYe~n~~j~uF~' N H. KASHUBA
r CIvil Engineer
JNK:pln
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
S\STAFFRPT%14.CUP 19
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
Background
1. Name of Proponent:
Chevron U.S.A.
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
1300 S. Beach Blvd., Bldg. 4516
La Habra, CA 90632-2833
(213)694 7554
m
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
December 2, 1991
4. Agency Requiring
Assessment:
CITY OF TEMECULA
5. Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Conditional Use Permit No. 14
6. Location of Proposal:
Northwesterly of Winchester Road, Southeast of
Maraarita Road
Environmental Impacts
(Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets.)
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
Yes Maybe N._Q_o
Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil?
X
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
S\STAFFRFT\14.CUp 20
m
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?
Cm
Alteration of air movement,
moisture, or temperature, or any
change in climate, whether locally
or regionally?
Water. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial changes in currents, or
the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or
fresh waters?
Substantial changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
Discharge into surface waters, or
in any alteration of surface water
quality, including, but not limited
to, temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity?
Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow or ground waters?
Yes Maybe N__o
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S\STAFFRPT\14.CUP 21
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct addi-
tions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations7
Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flood-
ing or tidal waves?
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or number of any native species of
plants (including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare, or endangered species
of plants?
Introduction of new species of
plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
Substantial reduction in acreage
of any agricultural crop?
Animal Life. Will the proposal result
in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
(birds, land animals including rep-
tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms or insects)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals?
Ce
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
Yes Maybe N,_9o
X
X
X
X
X
S\STAFFRPT\I 4-, CUP 2 2
10.
11.
12.
13.
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and Glare. Will the proposal
produce substantial new light or glare?
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
Substantial increase in the rate of
use of any natural resources?
Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource?
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal
involve:
A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including,
but not limited to, oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
Possible interference with an emerg-
ency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan?
Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing or create a demand for
additional housing?
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
Yes Maybe N__9
X
X
X
S%STAFFRPT\I4,CUP 23
14.
Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking?
Cm
Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic?
Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
Public Services. Will the proposal have
substantial effect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
Parks or other recreational
facilities?
Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
f. Other governmental services:
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
16.
Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy?
Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy?
Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
Yes Maybe
X
X
N__o
X
S\STAFFRPT\14,CUP 24
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
18.
19.
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?
be
Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object?
Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
Yes Maybe N__o
_ _ __x
_ _ x__
_ _ __x
_ _ __x
_ _ __x
X
X
S\STAFFRPT%14.CUP 25
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance
Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environ-
mental goals? (A short-term
impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief,
definitive period of time while long-
term impacts will endure well into
the future.)
Does the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but cumu-
latively considerable? (A project's
impact on two or more separate
resources may be relatively small,
but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment
is significant.)
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substan-
tial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Yes Maybe No
X
S\STAFFRPT\14CUP 26
III
Earth
1.
Air
2.
Water
3.
Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
Ce
No. Although the proposed project will result in minimal grading there will not
be changes in the base geologic substructures.
Yes. All development disrupts the soil profile to some degree and results in soil
displacement, compaction and over-covering. A grading plan will be certified
by the Engineering Department which will mitigate all impacts.
No. The proposed site is currently graded and further development of the
proposed project will not require substantial grading and as a result will not
alter the existing topography.
No. There are no unique geologic or physical features on the site.
Yes. Wind and water erosion potentials will increase during the construction
phase and remain high until disturbed areas are replanted. The wind erosion
impact is considered high and significant but will be mitigated through minimal
grading, retention of natural vegetation whenever feasible, and use of watering
trucks and hydro-seeding disturbed areas after grading,
No. There is no body of water near the project site which could be affected by
the proposed project.
Maybe. The project site is located within the Alquist-Priolo special studies
zone. A Geotechnical Report was prepared for the underlying parcel map. The
project is conditioned to comply with the recommendations set forth in that
report.
b-c,
Maybe. Depending upon the amount of traffic generated by the project, an
increase in carbon monoxide and particulate emissions will occur. This impact
is not considered significant since the air emissions from this project is only an
incremental impact to the area's air quality.
No. The proposed project should not create any objectionable odors or alter the
area's climate.
a,d-e. No. The proposed project will not affect any body of water. The closest body
of water to the site is Santa Gertrudis Creek which is approximately one mile
away.
S\STAFFRPT%14.CUP 27
b-c ,g.
4. a-d.
Animal Life
5. a,c.
Noise
6. a.
No. The proposed project will increase the amount of impermeable surfaces on
the site which will reduce the amount of water absorption. However, the
introduction of irrigation to the site will off-set the water absorption rate.
Drainage patterns will continue to flow to the streets and channels.
No. The proposed project will not interfere with the direction or rate of flow
of ground waters.
No. The proposed project will not affect the public water supply or system.
Maybe. The proposed project is within the Murrieta Creek/Temecula Valley
Area Drainage Plan and watershed area. To help mitigate the project's impact,
a flood mitigation charge shall be paid.
No. Although the development of the site will remove any of the plant species
that currently exist on the site, no unique, rare or endangered species should
be affected. New species of plants will be introduced to the site as par of the
landscape requirements for the project. The addition of the new species is not
considered a negative impact.
The site is not currently used for agricultural purposes.
No. The proposed project is in an area that has been experiencing urbanization
for a number of years. The site is currently rough graded and it is highly
unlikely that an endangered specie habitares the site.
Maybe. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat
Fee Area. Prior to the issuance of grading permits for this project, Habitat
Conservation fees shall be paid to mitigate the effect of cumulative impacts.
Yes. On-site noise levels will increase temporarily during construction. Long-
term noise impacts will occur due to increased traffic volumes. This impact is
not considered to be significant since the surrounding land uses are not noise
sensitive.
No. Severe noise will not be generated by the proposed project.
S\STAFFRPT\I 4,CUP 28
Light and Glare
Maybe. The proposed project is located within the Mt. Palomar Observatory
Street Lighting Policy Area which recommends the use of low pressure sodium
vapor (LPSV) lights to help avoid interference known as "Skyglow" the Mr.
Palomar telescope. The use of LPSV lights will reduce the light and glare
produced by the proposed project.
Land Use
No. The Southwest Area Plan designates the subject site for General
Commercial. The surrounding land uses are also General Commercial.
Natural Resources
9. a-b.
No. The proposed use will not increase the consumption rate of any natural or
non-renewable natural resource.
Risk of Upset
10. a.
Maybe. Prior to the onsite storage of any hazardous substances clearance shall
be obtained from the Riverside County Health Department.
No. During construction, it should not be necessary to close any streets which
would interfere with emergency vehicles. If street or land closure is necessary,
it shall be coordinated with the City and Police Department.
Population
11.
No. The proposed commercial building will generate some jobs but not a
significant amount to alter the area's population.
Housing
12.
No. The proposed commercial building will not generate a significant number
of jobs to create a demand for additional housing.
Transportation/Circulation
13. a.
Maybe. The proposed project will generate additional traffic to and from the
site. However, it is not anticipated that this increase will be significant. The
traffic that is generated by the project may add an incremental impact to the
I-15 Interchanges which are currently operating at capacity during peak hours.
This potential impact may be mitigated by a transportation improvement
mitigation fee.
Yes, The proposed project will require parking to support the use. The project
has provided the required parking spaces. The proposed plan illustrates spaces.
S\STAFFRPT\14.CUP 29
c. No. The proposed project's traffic study identified no substantial impacts on
existing transportation systems.
de
No. Street improvements are currently being completed for Plot Plan No. 224
which will serve this site.
e. No. The proposed project will not affect waterborne, rail or air traffic.
Yes. Any increase in traffic will increase the potential hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians, however street and signal improvements will
reduce the impact to a level of non-significance.
Public Services
14.
a,b,e. Yes. The proposed automotive use will require public services in the areas of
police, fire, maintenance of roads, and public facilities. This impact is not
considered significant. The incremental impact should be evaluated and the
appropriate fees assessed. Property taxes should mitigate the impact and
continuing need for services over the long term.
c,d,f. No. The project should not have a substantial effect on these public services.
Energy
15.
a-b.
No. The proposed project will not result in the substantial use or increase in
demand of fuel or energy.
Utilities
16. a-f.
No. The proposed project requires the use of utilities but will not require
substantial alteration to the exiting systems.
Human Health
17 a-b.
Maybe. Prior to the storage of hazardous materials at the site, a plan for their
use and disposal should be submitted to the City, County Health and County
Fire Departments.
Aesthetics
18.
No. The proposed project will not obstruct any scenic vista open to the public.
The elevations of the proposed project are consistent in architectural materials
to the surrounding buildings.
Recreation
19.
No. The subject site is not currently used for recreational uses.
S\STAFFRPT\14.CUP 30
Cultural Resources
20. a-d.
No. The subject site has previously been mass graded and it is unlikely that the
project will result in the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological
site. If a site is discovered, an archaeologist or paleontologist should be called
on site to supervise the digging and determine if the site is significant. The
proposed project will not impact any building of historic significance, affect
unique ethnic cultural values or restrict sacred uses.
Mandatory Findings of Significance
21.
a-d. No. The proposed project will not significantly affect the natural environment,
have long term environmental impacts or have considerable cumulative impacts.
S%STAFFRPT~14.CUP 3 1
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.
Date
For/~CITY OF TEME~ULA
X
S\STAFFRPT\14.CUP 32
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
S\STAFFRPT\14.CUP :3,~
CITY OF TEMECULA )
SITE
, N.T.S.
VICINITY MAP
CASE NO,L.U..~.k~,~H
P.C, DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA )
L!
DU
SWAP MAP
P.C. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA )
/
/-p
,2-20
//
tl //
I/ /i
// /
// i/I/
h /
~ //
\\
C-P-S
ZONE MAP
f_ "~
CASE NO,(-..-.L~.~'P-t~
P.C, DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
f-
CASE NO. c.~.~,
P.C. DATE
./
CITY OF TEMECULA )
ELEVATIONS
r
CASE NO. ~.u~'~'l~
kp.C. DATE