HomeMy WebLinkAbout031692 PC AgendaAGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
March 16, 1992 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 vour name and
~ddress.
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 February 24, 1992, Planning Commission Meeting.
NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Outdoor Advertising Displays Ordinance
City of Temecula
City Wide
Interim Ordinance establishing regulations for Outdoor
Advertising Displays.
John Meyer
Recommendation: Recommend Approval
1
Casa:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Plot Plan No. 8839, Revised No. 1, Amend No. 2
Temecula-Sixth Street-A California Limited Partnership
41910 Sixth Street (Southwest Corner of Sixth and
Marcedes Street)
Revision to Plot Plan No. 8839, changing uses on the
second floor from 5,413 square feet of storage to a 780
Square Foot beauty shop and 2,961 square feet of office
space and 1,672 square feet of storage, and request a
reduction in required off-street parking from 44 to 40
spaces.
Matthew Fagan
Approval
Plot Plan 11001, Amd. No.3, Extension of Time
David E. Walsh Co.
South of Margarita Road, approximately 400 feet east of
Moraga Road and 550 feet north of Rancho California
Road.
Extension of time for Plot Plan No. 11001, an approved
plot plan for a 220 unit apartment complex.
Matthew Fagan
Approval
Case:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Case No.
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Public Use Permit No. 580
Rancho Temecula Bible Church, Paster Kerry Martin
Leonard C. Fowler, California Geo Tek, Inc.
South side of Santiago Road, between I-15 and Ynez Road.
A request to revise the County approved Public Use Permit
No. 580 to grant approval for existing mobile structures
used as classrooms.
Saied Naaseh
Approval
Conditional Use Permit No. 16
Car Wash Ventures
Parcel 11 of Parcel Map 28625, North side of Winchester
Road in the Costco Shopping Center.
To construct a full service car wash including an oil/lube
station.
Saied Naaseh
Approval
Plot Plan 241, Chili's Inc.
Engineering Ventures
Northwest corner of Rancho California and Ynez Roads.
To construct a 7,500 restaurant in the C-1/C-P Zone
Mark Rhoades
Approval
2
10.
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Tentative Parcel Map 23209
M. Lundin
Easterly terminus of La Serena Way
Residential Subdivision of 80 acres into 224 single family
lots.
Mark Rhoades
Recommend Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 22515, 3rd Ext. of Time
Sam McCann
East side of the southerly terminus of Front St.
Third extension of time for a 3 lot commercial parcel map
Mark Rhoades
Approval
11.
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Tentative Parcel Map 23103, Second Extension of Time
Marlborough Development Corporation
West side of Butterfield Stage Road, Northerly of Rancho
California Road
Second Extension of Time, for an 18 lot residential
subdivision on 29.2 acres, Specific Plan No. 199,
Mark Rhoades
Approval
Next meeting: April 6, 1992, 6:00 p.m., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma
Drive, Temecula, California.
Planning Director Report
Planning Commission Discussion
Other Business
ADJOURNMENT
Ib
pc/AGN3/16/92
3
ITEM
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1992
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order
Monday, February 24, 1992, 6:05 P.M., Vail Eiemem~y School, 29915 Mira Loma
Drive, Temecula, California. The meeting was called to order by Chairman John E.
Hoagland.
PRESENT: 3 COMMISSIONERS:
Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland
ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey
Commissioner Blair arrived at 6:05 P.M.
Also present were Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh, Director of Planning Gary
Thornhill, Senior Planner Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner John Meyer, Assistant
Planner Matthew Fagan, Deputy City Engineer Doug Stewart, Gary King, Community
Services Department, Robert Righetti, Department of Public Works, and Minute Clerk
Gall Zigler.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chairman Hoagland advised that Item No. 5 would be continued, Item No. 7
moved ahead of Item No. 3 and Item No. 9 continued.
It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Ford to
approve the agenda. The motion was carried unanimously with Commissioner
Fahey absent.
2. MINUTES
2.1
Approve the minutes of January 27, 1992 and February 3, 1992,
Planning Commission Meeting.
PCMIN2/24/92 -1 - 3/1/92
January 27. 1992
Commissioner Chiniaaff requested that Page 7, Item No. 8, third
paragraph, be amended to read "Chairman Hoagland", and Page 9, first
paragraph, amended to read "Commissioner Chiniaeff".
Commissioner Ford requested that Page. 10, seventh paragraph, be
amended to read "Commissioner Ford stated that he was concerned that
the improvements are to be done; however, the roads still would not
meet City standards"; and Page 15, first paragraph, be amended to read
"The Commission decided to take a roll call vote and explain their
decision for recommending denial".
It was moved by Commissioner Ford, seconded by Commissioner Blair
to approve the minutes of January 27, 1992 as amended.
AYES:
4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Fahey
February 3. 1992
Commissioner Ford requested that Page 4, sixth paragraph, be amended
to read "Commissioner Ford questioned whether the state law applied to
projects that were not graded, clarifying that the applicant's project was
not graded".
It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner
Blair, to approve the minutes of February 3, 1992 as amended.
AYES:
4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Fahey
PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 580
7.1
A request to revise the County approved Public Use Permit No. 580 to
grant approval for existing mobile structures used as classrooms.
Located on the south side of Santiago Road, between I-15 and Ynez
Road.
PCMIN2/24/92 -2- 3/1/92
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
FEBRUARY24,1992
Chief Building Official Tony Elmo presented the staff report and advised
that he has inspected the site and uncovered numerous serious health,
safety and welfare problems. Mr. Elmo reported that the State Inspector
visited the site as well; however, the City's concerns were more serious
than those reported by the State. Mr. Elmo indicated that he had met
with the church officials and explained to them the seriousness of the
violations and the importance of getting the repairs done as quickly as
possible. Mr. Elmo stated that there will be a time frame for abatement
of the repairs presented at the next public hearing.
Chairman Hoagland opened the public hearing at 6:15 P.M.
Commissioner Chiniaeff asked if there were actions the church could
take to ensure safety prior to completion of the repairs.
Tony Elmo stated that he was currently discussing decreasing the
number of attendees at the service, possibly requiring additional services,
for an interim period of time.
It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner
Blair, to continue Public Use Permit No. 580 to March 16, 1992.
AYES:
4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Fahey
NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
3. SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE NO. 22
3.1 Proposal to construct a ten foot noise attenuation wall on the east side
of the site which is adjacent to Interstate 15. Located at 27706
Jefferson Avenue.
Matthew Fagan summarized the staff report.
Larry Hansen, LLH Construction, Inc., representing the applicant, stated
that the wall was being requested to alleviate noise from the traffic along
Interstate 15.
PCMIN2/24/92 -3- 3/1/92
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 1992
Commissioner Ford stated that he objects to a ten foot wall adjacent to
the freeway.
Commissioner Chiniaeff stated that he could not support putting a ten
foot high barrier along the freeway.
Commissioner Blair stated that she could not support the proposed wall
and suggested that landscape treatment might be more suitable.
It was moved by Commissioner Ford, seconded by Commissioner Blair,
to Deny Substantial Conformance No. 22.
Commissioner Chiniaeff clarified that he did not feel it was in the
community's best interest to create a concrete barrier along the freeway
and the commercial zones. He added that if the reason for the wall was
to screen the property, then landscaping could be used.
Chairman Hoagland concurred with Commissioner Chiniaeff's comments.
Commissioner Ford stated that he made the motion with the
community's best interest in mind. He added that if the applicant had
submitted the wall with proposed landscaping, then he might have
addressed the request differently.
AYES:
4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Fahey
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
4. PLOT PLAN 11001, AMENDMENT NO. 3, EXTENSION OF TIME
4.1 Proposal for an extension of time for Plot Plan No. 11001, an approved
Plot Plan for a 220 unit apartment complex. Located south of Margarita
Road, approximately 400 feet east of Moraga Road and 550 feet north
of Rancho California Road.
Matthew Fagan summarized the staff report and advised the Commission
that Condition No. 26 had been revised as follows "Prior to the issuance
PCMIN2/24/92 -4- 3/1/92
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
FEBRUARY 24, 1992
of a building permit, a Certificate of Parcel Merger shall be approved by
the Planning Department and a Certificate of Compliance shall be
recorded". Mr. Fagan advised that staff had received two letters and
several phone calls expressing opposition to the project.
Chairman Hoagland opened the public hearing at 6:35 P.M.
David E. Walsh, David E. Walsh Company, 11777 Bernardo Plaza Court,
San Diego, gave a brief summary of the project's history. Mr. Walsh
advised the Commission that plans are to file a condominium map on the
project during the construction period.
George Prine, J.F. Davidson & Associates, expressed concurrence with
the staff report and Conditions of Approval.
Chris Martinelli, 30255 Corte Cantania, Temecula, clarified that the City
Council nor the County had approved this project and stated that the
project should be denied until current traffic studies have been done and
the condominium project can be presented.
Paul Sorrel, 31675 Lei Lane, Temecula, spoke in opposition to high
density construction and it's relation to high crime.
Roger VanDorn, 42065 Paseo Sonrisa Del Sol, Temecula, discussed the
need of a full time police officer in the area of the project if approved.
Mr. VanDorn stated that he would also like to see another traffic study
done.
Bob Coslyn, representing the Temecula Unified School District,
expressed opposition to this and any other high density projects until the
approval and implementation of the City of Temecula general plan.
David McEIroy, 42091 Paseo Sonrisa Del Sol, Temecula, expressed
opposition to additional high density.
David Walsh responded that after spending three years in the planning
process with the County, it was one of the County Planning
Commissioners who assisted in presenting the project to the Temecula
City Council, with a recommendation for approval. Mr. Walsh added
that the project will be paying close to $2,000,000 in fees to the City
of Temecula, with a majority of the funds going to the school district.
Mr. Walsh concluded by reporting on the vacancy rates for upper end
PCMIN2/24/92 -5- 3/1/92
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 1992
apartments and on the projected growth for Riverside County.
Commissioner Chiniaeff asked Mr. Walsh if he would be opposed to a
condition requiring the condominium map be in place prior to occupancy.
Mr. Walsh stated that he could not comply with that request due to the
way he was structuring ownership of the project. He added that the
bank was taking collateral one the project as an apartment development.
Mr. Walsh stated that the project would be marketed as a condominium
for rent.
Commissioner Chiniaeff stated that although he is concerned with high
density development in this area, he felt that the project is a substantial
upgrade to the area. He expressed concern about saying the project is
going to be a condominium and controlling that. Commissioner Chiniaeff
stated that he felt that providing the one year extension was appropriate.
Chairman Hoagland stated that he also was concerned that there is no
guarantee that it will be a condominium project.
Commissioner Blair stated that although the project looks acceptable,
she has some concerns about the recreational areas. She added she has
strong concerns that if the project was approved as proposed, it would
be an apartment complex, which she did not feel Temecula needed.
Commissioner Chiniaeff asked the City Attorney if the project could be
conditioned to be a condominium.
John Cavanaugh advised that the approval could be conditioned;
however, he was not sure that the condition could be enforced.
It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner
Ford to close the public hearing at 7:15 P.M. and Reaffirm the previously
adopted Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 33522;
and Adopt Resolution 92-(nextl approving the Extension of Time for Plot
Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3 based on the analysis and findings
contained in the staff report and subject to the Conditions of Approval,
amending Condition 26 as stated by staff.
PCMIN2/24/92 -6- 3/1/92
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
The motion failed due to lack of a majority vote.
FEBRUARY 24. 1992
AYES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff, Ford
NOES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Hoagland
ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Fahey
It was moved by Chairman Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Blair
to continue Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3, Extension of Time, to
have staff work with the applicant to satisfy the issue of whether the
project will be apartments or condominiums, and bring it back to the
Commission as quickly as possible.
Mr. Walsh addressed the motion by Chairman Hoagland stating that
even if he the project conditioned as a condominium project, there would
be a problem enforcing the condition due to the time required to
complete the condominium process.
Chairman Hoagland clarified that the Commission was proposing that the
condominium map be in place prior to occupancy.
The motion by Chairman Hoagland to send this item back to staff was
carried as follows:
AYES:
4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Fahey
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25338
5.1
Proposed 28 unit condominium subdivision on 2.56 acres located on the
southeast corner of Solana Way and Rycrest Drive.
It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner
Blair to continue Tentative Tract Map 25338 off calendar. The motion
carried unanimously with Commissioner Fahey absent.
PCMIN2/24/92 -7- 3/1/92
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 24. 1992
6. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23102
6.1
Proposed second Extension of Time for a 37 lot residential subdivision
on 16 acres, located northeasterly of the intersection of Butterfield Stage
Road and La Serena Way.
Matthew Fagan summarized the staff report.
Commissioner Chiniaeff questioned if there is a condition for screening
a the school parking lot on the westerly boundary of the project.
Staff indicated that there was not a condition.
Chairman Hoagland opened the public hearing at 7:30 P.M.
Brian Escak, Community Engineering, 5225 Canyon Crest, Riverside,
representing Marlborough Homes, expressed concurrence to the
Conditions of Approval and added that the applicant has already
proposed a wall along the western boundary and concurred with the
addition of that Condition.
It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner
Ford to close the public hearing at 7:35 P.M. and Adoot Resolution No.
92-(nextl approving the Second Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative
Tract Map No. 23102 based on the findings contained in the staff report
and subject to the Conditions of Approval, adding a Condition that a
decorative block wall six feet in height be installed along the westerly
boundary between the tract and the school.
AYES:
4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey
PCMIN2/24/92 -8- 3/1/92
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
8. TELEVISION/RADIO ANTENNA ORDINANCE
8.1 Proposed ordinance establishing regulations
antennas. City wide.
FEBRUARY 24,1992
for Television/Radio
John Meyer summarized the staff report.
Chairman Hoagland stated that he did not agree with the three year
amortization period applied to existing satellite dishes.
John Cavanaugh stated that the amortization period could be removed
at this time and dealt with at a later time under the zoning ordinance.
Chairman Hoagland opened the public hearing at 7:40 P.M.
Robert Berg, 42701 Via Del Campo, Temecula, representing the Amateur
Radio Community spoke in support of staff's recommendation. Mr. Berg
requested that Page 11, Section 4-D. (a) be amended to read "Antennas
in excess of sixty-five (65) feet in residential zones are subject to
approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission".
John Meyer indicated staff's concurrence with the modification.
It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner
Hoagland to close the public hearing at 7:55 P.M. and Adopt Resolution
No. 92-(nextl recommending adoption of the Antenna Ordinance,
entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ADDING CHAPTER 6 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE
PERTAINING TO ANTENNA REGULATIONS AND ESTABLISHING
REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF ANTENNAS", deleting the three year
amortization period for satellite dishes and amending Page 11, Section
4-D. (a) as previously stated.
AYES:
4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Fahey
PCMIN2/24/92 -9- 3/1/92
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
9. OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAYS ORDINANCE
FEBRUARY 24. 1992
9.1 Proposed interim ordinance establishing regulations for outdoor
advertising displays. City wide.
It was moved by Commissioner Ford, seconded by Commissioner
Chiniaeff to continue consideration of the Outdoor Advertising Displays
Ordinance to the meeting of March 16, 1992. The motion carried
unanimously, with Commissioner Fahey absent.
Chairman Hoagland advised that the regularlyscheduled Planning Commission meeting
for March 2, 1992 was cenceled. The next regular meeting of the Planning
Commission would be held on March 16, 1992, with a joint City Council/Planning
Commission meeting on February 26, 1992.
PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT
Gary Thornhill advised the Commission of the following:
* Requested confirmation from Commissioners planning to attend the Planning
Institute Seminar.
* Technical sub-committees will begin meeting in the second week of March.
* Community wide neighborhood meeting in March and a joint City
Council/Planning Commission meeting on March 25, 1992.
* City Council approved the revised boundaries for Old Town. Will be making a
suggestion to the City Council for the Old Town Specific Plan consultant.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
None
OTHER BUSINESS
None
PCMIN2/24/92 -10- 3/1/92
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 1992
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Commissioner Blair, seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff to cancel
the regular meeting of March 2 and adjourn to a joint City Council/Planning
Commission meeting on February 26, 1992, at the Temecula City Hall. The motion
carried unanimously with Commissioner Fahey absent.
Chairman John E. Hoagland
Secretary
PCMIN2/24/92 -11 - 3/1/92
ITEM#3
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
March 16, 1992
Case Ne~: Outdoor Advertising Displays Ordinance
Prepared By: John Meyer
RECOMMENDATION:
ADOPT Resolution No. 92-
ordinance entitled:
recommending adoption of an
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA PERTAINING TO SIGN REGULATIONS AND
ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF OUTDOOR
ADVERTISING DISPLAYS."
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
City of Temecula
PROPOSAL:
An Ordinance establishing regulations for the use of outdoor
advertising displays.
LOCATION: City Wide
BACKGROUND
On April 24, 1990, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 90-08, "a moratorium pertaining
to regulations for outdoor advertising displays". This moratorium was adopted in order to
prohibit the installation of "Off-Premise" Signs (Billboards) within the City of Temecula. All
other signing, as regulated under Section 19.4 (On-Site Advertising Structures and Signs),
Section 19.5 (For Sale, Lease or Rent Signs), Section 19.6 (Subdivision Signs) and Section
19.7 (Temporary Political Signs), are exempt from the moratorium.
Through the adoption of Ordinance No. 91-17, in April 1991, the City Council approved the
final extension of the moratorium to April 23, 1992.
The purpose for preparing the proposed Outdoor Advertising Displays Ordinance is due to the
inadequacy of the County Ordinance No. 348 as it relates to signage, and specifically off-
premise signs or "Billboards". Ordinance No. 348 (Attachment 5) provides the following
standards and requirements:
Outdoor advertising displays are permitted only in the C-1/C-P, M-SC, M-M and M-H
zones.
2. No outdoor advertising displays shall be located within 500 feet in any direction from
any other outdoor adverting display.
3. The maximum height of an outdoor advertising display shall not exceed 25 feet.
4. Roof-mounted outdoor advertising displays are prohibited.
5. No outdoor advertising display shall be erected within an established setback or
building line, or within road right-of-way lines. A one (1 ') foot minimum setback from
the property line is required.
6. No outdoor advertising display shall have a total surface area of more than 300 square
feet.
Exhibit "A" graphically presents the current zoning districts that permit the installation of off-
site signs, pursuant to Ordinance No. 348.
DISCUSSION
In order to provide the City of Temecula with specific and complete standards for regulating
outdoor advertising displays, Staff has prepared the attached Ordinance which includes, in
summary, the following main components:
1. Definitions:
"CommerCial Off-Premise Sign" means any sign structure advertising an
establishment, merchandise, service, or entertainment, which is not sold,
produced, manufactured, or furnished at the property on which the sign is
located.
"Non-Commercial Off-Premise/On-Premise Sign" means any sign structure
exhibiting non-commercial speech or message in lieu of commercial sign copy;
and any sign structure exhibiting non-commercial signing unrelated to the
buying or selling of commodities or anything involved and practiced.
Commercial off-premise signs and commercial signs on public property are prohibited.
The following outdoor advertising displays are exempt:
Directional Signs, as defined in Chapter 5 of the Temecula Municipal Code
(Ordinance No. 91-40).
B. On-site advertising structures and signs (Ordinance No. 348, Section 19.4).
C. For sale, lease or rent signs (Ordinance No. 348, Section 19.5).
D. Subdivision signs (Ordinance No. 348, Section 19.6).
S~STAFF~v~OUTDOOR.ADV 2
4. Non-commercial advertising structures and signs are permitted, if not illuminated,
subject to the following design and performance standards:
A. The total sign copy area is limited to twelve (12) square feet or less.
B. No more than one (1) sign is permitted per parcel.
C. The maximum height for a ground-mounted sign is six (6) feet.
D. A building mounted sign shall not extend above the eave or parapet line.
CONCLUSION
As noted above, the proposed Outdoor Advertising Displays Ordinance provides the City with
the standards to thoroughly review an applicant's proposal as well as providing the necessary
control measures needed to ensure the public safety; to provide organization; and control the
overall quality and number of such signs.
The new Outdoor Advertising Displays Ordinance will serve as interim regulations until the
City's Zoning Development Code is prepared and adopted, at which time 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 Outdoor Advertising Displays Ordinance is necessary to bring about
eventual conformity with the City's future Land Use Plan.
2. There is reasonable probability that the proposed Outdoor Advertising Displays
Ordinance will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be
completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with the goals and/or policies of the
City's future General Plan.
3. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the
future General Plan, if the proposed policies are ultimately inconsistent with the plan,
due to the fact that policies will be adopted for the new General Plan. Therefore, it is
likely that the City will consider these policies during their preparation of the General
Plan.
FUTURE GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
Staff finds it probable that the proposed Outdoor Advertising Displays Ordinance will be
consistent with the new General Plan when it is adopted since a Community Design Element
will be included in the new General Plan to address aesthetics, which includes architecture,
landscaping and signage.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
ADOPT Resolution No. P.C. 92-
adoption of an ordinance entitled:
recommending
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA PERTAINING TO SIGN REGULATIONS
AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF
OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAYS."
vgw
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Resolution page - 5
Ordinance - page 8
Exhibit "A" Current Zoning Districts- page 14
Outdoor Advertising Displays Ordinance - Summary Report - page 15
Ordinance No. 348, Article XIX (Advertising Regulations) - page 16
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. P.C. 92-
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT
THE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAYS ORDINANCE.
WHEREAS, City Ordinance No. 90-04 adopted by reference certain portions of
the non-codifiad Riverside County Ordinances, including Ordinance No. 348 ("Land Use
Code"); and
WHEREAS, such regulations do not contain adequate provisions for the use of
outdoor advertising displays; and
WHEREAS, the City of Temecula desires to regulate the use of outdoor
advertising displays and to protect the health, quality of life, and the environment of the
residents of Temecula; and
WHEREAS, public hearing was conducted on March 16, 1992, 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
Outdoor Adverting Displays Ordinance will provide for the establishment of regulations for
outdoor advertising displays in a fair and equitable manner.
SECTION 2.
That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula further finds that the proposed
Outdoor Advertising Displays Ordinance is necessary to bring about eventual conformity with
its land use plans.
SECTION 3o
That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby finds that this ordinance does
not cause a significant affect on the environment. Therefore, the proposed ordinance is
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under Section 15061 (b)(3).
S~STA~O~JTDOOR.ADV
6
SECTION 4.
That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby recommends to the City
Council adoption of the proposed Outdoor Advertising Displays Ordinance. The Ordinance is
incorporated into this Resolution by this reference and marked Exhibit "A" and dated January
27, 1992 for identification.
PASSED APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of March; 1992.
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
March, 1992 by the following vote of the Commission
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS
COMMISSIONERS
COMMISSIONERS
S%STAFFRP~OUTDOOR.ADV 7
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
ORDINANCE NO. 92---
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
ORDINANCENO. 92-__
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA PERTAINING TO SIGN REGULATIONS AND
ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF OUTDOOR
ADVERTISING DISPLAYS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following
findings:
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated City shall adopt
a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period
of time, the City is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the
following requirements are met:
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, each
of the following:
There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed
will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time.
There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference
with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
3. The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances.
The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community
Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General
Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the
boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan
guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General
Plan.
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:
The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the General
Plan.
S\STAFFRPT%OUTDOOR.ADV 9
The City Council finds, in adopting lend use regulations pursuant to this title,
each of the following:
There is reasonable probability that Ordinance No. 92-xx will be
consistent with the General Plan proposal being considered or studied
or which will be studied within a reasonable time.
There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference
with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan,
3. The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements
of state law and local ordinances.
SECTION 2. PURPOSE The purpose of this Ordinance is to set forth the development
standards for the installation-and maintenance of outdoor advertising displays within all land-
use zones of the City. The purpose of these regulations is to ensure that the design and
location of outdoor advertising displays are consistent with the health, safety, and aesthetic
objectives of the City.
It is a desire of the City that the design of this community be of the highest quality,
that new development be architecturally distinctive as well as homogeneous in design, and
that accessory facilities be compatible with the overall theme. The quality of signage plays
a very distinctive role in achieving the above desire, when abused, signs can create a visual
blight which detracts from the quality of the environment and an individuel's visual perception
of the City.
Recognizing that the primary purpose of signs is proper business identification, the
regulations of this Ordinance are enacted to:
Ensure that signs erected within the City are compatible with their surroundings
and are in keeping with the policies of the City;
Provide for the identification of business enterprises only and shall not be used
for advertising purposes;
Promote traffic safety and community identity while also enhancing the quality
of the visual environment of the City; and
d. Establish regulations which control outdoor advertising displays within the City.
DEFINITIONS For purposes of this Ordinance, the following words, terms, phrases,
and their derivations, shall have the meanings given herein. Then consistent with the context,
words used in the present tense singular include the plural.
"Commercial Off-Premise Sign" means any sign structure advertising an
establishment, merchandise, service, or entertainment, which is not sold,
produced, manufactured, or furnished at the property on which the sign is
located.
S~TA~.PI ~OUmO~DV 10
b. "Non-Commercial Off-Premise Sign" means any sign structure exhibiting non-
commercial speech or message in lieu of commercial sign copy; and any sign
structure exhibiting non-commercial signing unrelated to the buying or selling
of commodities or anything involved and practiced.
PROHIBITED SIGNS. The establishment of the following outdoor advertising displays
are hereby prohibited and no application for sign location plan, plot plan, or other application
discretionary entitlement for a outdoor advertising display shall be accepted, acted upon, or
approved:
a. Commercial off-premises signs.
b. Commercial signs on public property.
EXEMPT OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAYS The provisions of this Ordinance shall
not apply to any application for:
a. Directional Signs, as defined in Chapter 5 of the Temecula Municipal Code.
b. On-site advertising structures and signs (Ordinance 348, Section 19.5 of the
non-codified ordinances of the County of Riverside and adopted by the City of
Temecula under Ordinance No. 90-04).
c. Subdivision signs (Ordinance No. 348, Section 19.6 of the non-codified
ordinances of the County of Riverside and adopted by the City of Temecula
under ordinance No. 90-04).
d. Non-commercial advertising structures and signs, if not illuminated, subject to
the following design and performance standards:
1. Non-commercial off-premise signs are authorized subject to the
following:
i. Square footage of the sign board is limited to twelve (12) square
feet or less;
ii. There shall be no more than one (1) sign board per parcel:
iii. Total height of a ground-mounted sign and supporting structure
shall not exceed six 96) feet; and
iv. A building-mounted sign shall not extend above the eave or
parapet line.
SECTION 3. NON-CONFORMING OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAYS All outdoor
advertising displays, 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 (3) year from the initial date of the first written notice
from the Planning Director of the subject non-conformity. Such written notice shall be mailed
to the property owner.
S~STAFFRFT\OUTDOOR.ADV I 1
SECTION 4. To the extent the provisions of this Ordinance conflict with any provisions
of Article XIX of Ordinance No. 348 the provisions of this Ordinance shall apply.
SECTION 5. SEVERABILITY. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of
this Ordinance are severable and it 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 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall
cause the same to be posted as required by laws.
SECTION 7. 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 S. EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty
(30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and
cause copies of this Ordinance to be posted in three designated posting places.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of March, 1992.
PATRICIA H. BIRDSALL
MAYOR
S~ST~,r+~mOUTDOOe.~DV I 2
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, June S. Greek DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance No. 92-xx was
duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on
the 28th day of January, 1992, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and
passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 1992 by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
S%STAFFRPI~OUTDOOR.ADV 13
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
EXHIBIT "A" CURRENT ZONING DISTRICTS
S%STAFFI~T'%OtJTDOOR'ADV 14
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAYS ORDINANCE
SUMMARY REPORT
S'~;Am~OUnX~O~DV I 5
WILLDAN ASSOCIATES [] ENGINEERS & PLANNERS
Professional Consulting Services Since 1964
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Gary Thornhill (~
Oliver Mujica
October 7, 1991
Outdoor Advertising Displays Ordinance - Summary Report
As part of the proposed work program for the preparation of the Outdoor Advertising Displays
Ordinance, this memorandum is intended to summarize the preliminary findings of our
research; and present the "Draft" Outdoor Advertising Displays Ordinance for your review and
comments.
INTRODUCTION
On April 24, 1990, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 90-08, "a moratorium pertaining
to regulations for outdoor advertising displays". This moratorium was adopted in order to
prohibit the installation of "Billboards" within the City of Temecula.
Through the adoption of Ordinance No. 91-17 in April, the City Council approved the final
extension of the moratorium, to April 23, 1992.' Although the current moratorium will not
expire April 23, 1992, the City Council has expressed its desire to implement permanent
outdoor advertising display regulations by the end of this year.
The new Outdoor Advertising Displays Ordinance will serve as interim regulations until the
City's Zoning Development Code is prepared and adopted. This ordinance could be
incorporated and/or modified into the final Zoning Development Code.
Preparatory to drafting a Outdoor Advertising Displays Ordinance, we conducted background
research into a number of areas related to signs in the community, and specifically billboards,
including:
Analyzing existing conditions. This section will discuss the current moratorium
ordinance and current zoning requirements,
Analyzing recent court decisions. This section will discuss recent court
decisions about sign ordinances which could affect Temecula's future
regulations.
650 HOSPITALITY LANE · SUITE 400 · SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92408 · (714) 824-2143 · FAX (714) 888-5107
· Analyzing other ordinances. This section will discuss off-site signage
regulations adopted by other selected California cities.
Identifying key issues. This section will discuss key issues to address in the
billboard ordinance.
e
Summarizing recommendations. The conclusion of this memorandum will
summarize our recommendations for the proposed Outdoor Advertising Displays
Ordinance.
The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize our initial findings with respect to the
above areas, which will set the stage for a future zoning ordinance to permanently regulate
signage in Temecula. Based on the City Council's concerns and direction; and my previous
conversations with you and John Cavanaugh, it is our understanding that the new Outdoor
Advertising Displays Ordinance is intended to establish regulations which prohibit the typical
"freeway oriented" billboards. Therefore, this memo will make recommendations for the
Outdoor Advertising Displays Ordinance as to the nature and content of Temecula's proposed
regulations to prohibit billboards.
It is also our understanding that directional signs, as defined in to "Draft" Directional Sign
Ordinance, the future Temecula Auto Center Sign, and all other signage normally regulated
by Ordinance No. 348, Sections 19.5 and 19.6, will be exempt from this new Outdoor
Advertising Displays Ordinance.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Outdoor Advertising Disolavs Moratorium Ordinance
At the present time, new outdoor advertising displays are restricted in Temecula, pursuant to
City Ordinance No. 91-17. This moratorium ordinance was adopted by the City Council based
on the following findings:
e
The City Council is concerned about the maintenance of the visual aesthetic
quality of the City of Temecula, and with the creation of an orderly and
balanced development scheme within the City of Temecula. Accordingly, to
protect the integrity of the ultimate General Plan and to assure the continued
development stability of property within the City of Temecula, the Council
found that it is necessary to establish interim zoning policies concerning such
signage to allow staff the time necessary to investigate and formulate the
ultimate plan of development for the City of Temecula as encompassed within
the terms and provisions of the General Plan;
The City of Temecula is presently developing a General Plan for development
of the City of Temecula. The ultimate goat is to provide a balanced and unified
plan of development within the City of Temecula. A material portion of the
General Plan study will be the formulation and establishment of regulations for
signage, including primary signs, in the City of Temecula;
e
There is the potential for certain applications for the establishment of Outdoor
Advertising Displays, the approval of which would contradict the ultimate goals
and objectives of the General Plan. Moreover, pending completion of the
General Plan it is foreseeable that further such applications will be received
which may further contradict such goals and objectives of the General Plan; and
Pending approval of the General Plan, and associated Land Use Code
regulations concerning signage, the approvat of any further sign location plans,
plot plans, or other discretionary entitlement for outdoor advertising displays,
would result in immediate threat to the public health, safety or welfare of
persons and properties in the City of Temecula.
Current Zoning Reauirements
Current City zoning requirements (which have been adopted by Ordinance No. 91-17) prohibit
the establishment of Outdoor Advertising Displays (i.e. off-site signage and billboards) within
the City of Temecula. However, Section 4 of Ordinance No. 91-17 includes a provision for
an exemption should any party believe that they have a vested right to build an outdoor
advertising display or would suffer a hardship if not permitted to build such an outdoor
advertising display. Such a request for an exemption may be filed in the form of a plot plan
application, provided the the subject property is within the C-1/C-P, M-SC, M-M or M-H zoning
district. Such exemption may be granted by the City Council only after due notice and public
hearing.
It should be noted that on-site advertising structures and signs (under Ordinance No. 348,
Section 19.5); and, subdivision signs (under Ordinance No. 348, Section 19.6) are exempt
from Ordinance No. 91-17.
Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (which has been adopted by reference by City Ordinance
No. 90-04) provides the following requirements for off-site signage (i.e. billboards).
Outdoor advertising displays are permitted only in the C-1/C-P, M-SC, M-M and
M-H zones.
No outdoor advertising display shall be located within 500 feet in any direction
from any other outdoor advertising display.
· The maximum height of an outdoor advertising display shall not exceed 25 feet.
· Roof mounted outdoor advertising displays are prohibited.
No outdoor advertising display shall be erected within an established setback
or building line, or within road right-of-way lines. A one (1 ') foot minimum
setback from the property line is required.
No outdoor advertising display shall have a total surface area of more than 300
square feet.
SUMMARY OF RECENT COURT DECISIONS
Several recent court decisions directly impact the ways in which local governments can
regulate off-site signage (billboards). This section of the memorandum provides a brief
overview of our understanding of relevant cases relating to the regulations of off-site signs
(billboards). It should be noted, however, that the City Attorney should prepare an
interpretation or specific legal opinion for the City of Temecula regarding this issue.
The Guidelines Provided bv the U.S. Suoreme Court
Signs are a form of communication. Thus, the dominant legal issue confronting sign
regulation is the guarantee of freedom of speech under the First Amendment to the United
States Constitution. Therefore, the Supreme Court developed the following four-part test
used to determine the validity of restrictions on commercial speech: (1) the First Amendment
protects commercial speech only if that speech concerns lawful activity and is not misleading.
A restriction on otherwise protected commercial speech is valid only if it (2) seeks to
implement a substantial governmental interest, (3) directly advances that interest, and (4)
reaches no farther then necessary to accomplish the given objective.
Metromedia. Inc. v. City of San Dieoo (1981 ) is the leading Supreme Court case in the area
of sign regulation. In that case, the high court struck down a city ordinance that imposed
substantial restrictions on outdoor signs. The ordinance distinguished between on-premises
and off-premises signs. It ppermitted on-premises commercial signs but forbade ell off-
premises signs, with certain exceptions. As the Court noted in its opinion, most
noncommercial messages have no premises and, thus, were effectively banned. The Court
agreed that the ordinance was invalid under the First Amendment. But the ordinance was not
ruled invalid on the basis of its regualtion of commercial speech, which, according to the
justices, met constitutional requirements. Rather, it was the effective ban on noncommercial
signage that prompted the Court to invalidate the regulation. The reasoning of the decision
is complex because it involves several steps. The starting point of the justices' reasoning is
that noncommercial speech, including political, religious, social, and other forms of expression,
is entitled to a higher degree of protection under the First Amendment than commercial
speech, which advertises or identifies businesses.
SUMMARY OF OTHER ORDINANCES
Since the proposed Outdoor Advertising Displays Ordinance is intended to specifically address
billboards, we have reviewed sign ordinances of other selected California cities known to have
regulations prohibiting off-site signs (billboards). Each of the ordinances were examined in
terms of the off-site sign definitions, types of off-site signs prohibited, zoning districts in
which off-site signs are prohibited, and any other relevent reatures of the ordinance that
should be addressed and/or included in the new Outdoor Advertising Displays Ordinance. The
cities surveyed were as follows:
Agoura Hills
Palm Desert
Rancho Mirage
Cost8 Mesa Downey
Palm Springs Pittsburgh
Rancho Cucamonga San Juan Capistrano
ORDINANCE PROVISIONS
Our analysis of ordinance provisions is as follows.
Off-Site Sion Definitions
All of the cities surveyed defined off-site signs, as any signs advertising an establishment,
service, merchandise, or entertainment, which is not sold, produced, manufactured, or
furnished at the property on which the sign is located. In addition, non-commercial off-site
signs are defined as signs exhibiting non-commercial speech or message in lieu of commercial
sign copy.
Off-Site Sians Prohibited
Eight (8) of the nine (9) cities surveyed prohibited off-site signs as defined above. San Juan
Capistrano allowed off-site non-commercial signs.
Zoning Districts Prohibitino Off-Site Signs
All eight(8) of the cities surveyed that prohibited off-site signs, as defined above, in all zoning
districts within the particular city. San Juan Capistrano permitted off-site non-commercial
signs in only the General Commercial, Commercial Manufacturing and Industrial Park zoning
districts.
RECOMMENDATIONS
This section of the report will identify key issues to address in the new Outdoor Advertising
Displays Ordinance.
Tvoe of Off-Site Signaae to be Prohibited
As noted above, the purpose of the new Outdoor Advertising Displays Ordinance is to
establish regulations prohibiting off-site signage, and specifically prohibiting "billboards".
Therefore, the proposed ordinance will prohibit "commercial" off-site signs which advertises
an establishment, merchandise, service, or entertainment which is not sold, produced,
manufactured, or furnished at the property on which the sign is located. However, because
of the First Amendment issues, "non-commercial" off-site signs will be permitted subject to
specific design and performance standards, as outlined below.
Recommendation: Commercial off-site signs should be prohibited; and Non-commercial off-
site signs should be permitted with specific standards.
Identification of Aoorooriate Zonina Districts
As noted above, outdoor advertising displays (i.e. Billboards), are currently permitted in the
C-l/C-P, M-SC, M-M and M-H zoning districts. Since the proposed ordinance is intended to
prohibit commercial off-site signs, they should be prohibited in all zoning districts. However,
non-commercial off-site signs should be permitted in the C-1/C-P and M-SC zoning districts.
Recommendation:
Commercial off-site signs should be prohibited in all zoning districts; and
Non-commercial off-site signs should be permitted in the C-1/C-P and
M-SC zoning districts.
Design and Performance Standards
In order to minimize potential aesthetic impacts, design and performance standards should be
included in the proposed Outdoor Advertising Displays Ordinance.
Recommendation: 1. Square footage of the sign should be limited to twelve (12)
square feet or less.
2. No more than one (1) sign should be permitted per parcel.
Ground-mounted signs and their supporting structure should-not
exceed six (6) feet in height.
Building-mounted signs should not extend above the eave or
parapet line.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The following is a list of the recommendations made regarding the content of Temecula's
proposed Outdoor Advertising Displays Ordinance:
1. Prohibit the installation of "commercial" off-site signs in all zoning districts.
Permit "non-commercial" off-site signs in the C~I/C-P and M-SC zoning
districts.
3. Include design and performance standards for "non-commercial" off-site signs.
4. Include an exemption for the following signs:
Directional Signs as defined in Chapter 5 of the Temecula Municipal
Code (Directional Sign Ordinance No. ).
On-site advertising structures and signs (Ordinance No. 348, Section
19.5).
· Subdivision signs (Ordinance No. 348, Section 19.6).
It is anticipated that this item will be scheduled for the Planning Commission public hearing
of November 4, 1991. Therefore, I would appreciate receiving your comments prior to
October 16, 1991, in order to complete the "Draft" Planning Commission staff report and
revised "Draft" Outdoor Advertising Displays Ordinance for your review prior to October 23,
1991.
Should you have any questions regarding this memorandum, please do not hesitate to contact
me directly.
ATTACHMENT: 1. Draft Outdoor Advertising Displays Ordinance
cc: Johr~ Cavanaugh
John Meyer
Ross Geller
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
ORDINANCE NO. 348, ARTICLE XIX
(ADVERTISING REGULATIONS)
S%STAFFI~q'%OUTDOOR.ADV I 6
ARTICLE XIX
ADVERTISING REGULATIONS
SECTION 19.1. PURPOSE AND INTENT. Because Riverside County is a large,
diverse'and rapidly expanding jurisdiction the Board of Supervisors finds t~at
propeK'~'i'~control is necessary to provide for the preservation and proteCtiOn
of open space and Scenic areas, the many natural and man-~ade resources, and
established rural Communities w~thin Riverside County. It is the intent of
this OrdinanCe tO provide standards tO safeguard life, health, property ant the
public welfare, to provide the means for adequate identification of bJsinesses
ant other Sign users by prohibiting, regulating and controlling the ~esign,
loc~tion and mai ritehence of signS, and to provide for the re,novel ant
limitation of use of signs within the unincorporated area of Riverside County.
All outdoor advertising displays and on-si te adverttstng Structures and signS
in the unincorporated area of the County of Riverside shall conform tO the
applicable provisions of this article. Xf any specific zoning classification
within this ordinance shall impose more stringent requirm.~ents than are Set
forth within this article, the more stringent provisions shall prevail.
A~ended Effective:
07-16-85 (Ord. 348.2496)
SECTION 19.2. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this ordinance, the followin~
words or phrases shall have the following definitions.
"Outdoor AdvertiSing Display" means outdoor advertising StruCtureS and
OutdG;r advertising Signs used for outdoor advertising purpoSeS, not
including on-site advertising signs aS hereinafter defined. An
outdoor advertising display may be c~only known or referred to as an
"off-site" or an off-pre,~ises~' billboard.
"Outdoor Advertising Structure" means a structure of any kind or
character erected or maintained for outdoor advertising purposes, upon
which any poster, bill, printt rig, painting or other advertisenent of
any kind whatsoever may be placed, including Statuary, for outdoor
advertising purposes. Such structure shall be constructed or erect~
upon a permanent foundation or shall be attached to a Structure having
a permanent foundation.
'Outdoor Advertising Sign' means any card, cloth, paper, metal,
painted, plastic or wooden sign of any character placed for outdoor
advertising purposeS, on or tO the ground Or any tree, wall, bush,
rock, fence, buildin9, structure or thing, either privately or
publicly owned, other than an advertising structure.
The words "Outdoor Advertising Structure" and 'Outdoor Advertising
$ign" as defined in subsections (b) and (c) do not include:
1. Official notices issued by any court Or public body or officer;
he
2. Nottees posted b)' any public officer tn perromance of a pub~%c
duty or by an)' person in giving legal notice;
3. Directtonal, warning or tnfomatton structures required by or
authorized b)' law or by Federal, State or Count)' authority;
includi'ng signs necessary for the operation and safety of public
uttlit)' uses·
4. A structure erected near a city or count)' poundar)', which contains
the name of such city or count)' and the names of, or any other
tnfomat~on regarding, civic, fraternal or religious Organizations
located therein.
'On-~ite Advertising Structure and Signs" means any structure,
hods, rig, Sign device, figure, statuary, painting, display, message
placard, or other contrivance, or any part thereof, which iS desi;ned,~
ConStructed, created, engineered, intended, or used to advertise. or
to provide data or information in the nature of advertising, for any
of the.fOllowing purposes:
(1) To designate, identify, or indicate the name of the business of
the owner or occupant of the pramt$es upon ,hi ch the Structdre Or
Sign iS located.
(2) To advertise the business conducted, services available or
rendered, or the goods produced, sold, or available for sale,
upon the premises where the structure or sign is located.
"Freeway" means a divided arterial highway for throu;h traffic wi:h
full control of access and w~th grade separations at intersections.
"Hfghwa)'" means roads, streets, boulevards, lanes, courts, places,
camm,,ons, trails, ways or other rights-of-way or easements used far or
laid out and intended for the public passage of vehicles or of
vehicles and persons.
"Edge of a Right-of-way" means 8 measurement from the edge of a
right-of-way horizontally along a line normal or perpendicular to the
centerline of the freeway or highway.
'Maximum Helght" means the highest point Of the Structure or sign
measured from the average natural ground level at the base of the
supporting Structure.
"Free Stand, ng Sign" means any stgn which is supported by one or more
columns or uprights tmbedded in the 9round, and which is not attached
to any butl din9 Or StruCture.
"Surface Area" means that area of outdoor advertising signs and
on-stte advertising signs as measured by the smallest geometric form
such ms a square. rectangle. triangle. or circle. or canbarter, on
thereof. which will enc~pass the face of the sign on which the
message is ~ splayed.
243
"For Sale, Lease or Rent Sign" means a slgn adverUstng that the
property or structure upon whtch the sign ts located is for sale,
]ease, or rent.
"Shoppfng Center" means a parcel of land not less than 3 acres in
size, on which there exists 4 or more separate busthess uses that have
mutual parktrig facilities.
"Directtonal Sign" means a sign used to ·rect and control vehicular
or pedestri an traffic that ts located upon the samne parcel of land as
the use that it is intended to Serve.
'Significant Resources" means any county, state or federal si te wnich
has SIgnifiCant Or potentially significant social, cultural,
historical, archaeological, recreational or scenic resources, or which
plays or potentially could play a significant role in promoting
tourism. For the purposes Of this article, the term significant
resources shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
1. Riverside. National Cemetery. A strip, 660 feet in width, measured
from the edge of the right-of-way line on both sides of 1-215 fron
the intersection of Van Buren Boulevard southerly to Nance Road,
and on both sides of Van 6uren Boulevard from the intersection of
1-21S wasrely to Wood Road·
2. Scenic Highways·
3. A corridor 530 feet in width adjacent to both sides of all
highways within three-tenths (3/10) of a mile of any Regional,
State or Federal park or recreation area.
"Scenic Highway" means any officially designated state or county
scenic highway as defined in Streets and Highway Code Sections 154 an~
251 et seq.
"Illegal Outdoor Advertising Display' means any of the following:
(1} An outdoor advertising structure or outdoor advertising sign
erected without fi rst ccmnplying with all applicable county
ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of its
construction, erection or use.
{2} An outdoor advertising Structure or outdoor advertising Sign that
was legally erected but whose use has ceased, or the Structure
upon which the advertising ~splay is placed has been abandoned
by its owner, and not maintained or used for a period of not less
than one (1) year.
(4)
An outdoor advertising structure or outdoor advertising sign that
was legally erected which 1 ater bocane nonconfomt ng as a result
Of the adoption of an ordinance; the mnorttzatton period for the
display provided by the ordinance rendering the display
nonconforming has expired; and conformante has not been
accomplished.
An outdoor advertising Structure or outdoor advertising sign
which does not comply with the Notice Of Decision or the approved
plot plan·
244
(5) An outdoor advertising structure or outdoor advertising sign
which is a danger to the public or ts unsafe as may be detemine~
by the Dtrector of the Butldlng and Safety Department,
(6) An outdoor Idvertistng structure or outdoor advertising sign
which is a traffic hazard as may be ~etermined by the Director of
the Building and Safety Depar~nent provided said traffic hazard
was not created by the relocation of streets or highways or by
acts of the County.
"Illegal On-Site Advertising Structure or Sign" means any of the
fol 1 owt rig.
(1) An on-site advertising structure or Stgn erected without first
cmplytng with all applicable County ordinances and regulations
in effect It the time of ttS construction, erection or use.
(Z) An on-site advertising structure or stgn that was legally
erected, but whose uses has ceased, or the structure upon which
the advertising titsplay ts placed has been abanOoned by its
owner, and not maintained or used to identify or advertise an
Ongoing business for a period of not less than ninety (90) days.
(3) An on-site advertising structure or sign that was legally erected
which later bee Erie nOncOnfomtng as a result of the adoption of
an ordinance; the a~Ortizatton period for the display provided by
the ordinance rendering the display nonconforming has exptre~;
and conformante has not been accomplished,
(4) An on-site advertising structure Or sign which is a danger to the
public or is unsafe as may be determined by the Director of the
Building and Safety Department,
(5) An on-site advertising structure or sign which is a traffic
hazard as may be datemined by the Director of the Building an.~
Safety Department provided said traffic hazard was not created by
the relocation of streets or highways Or by acts of the Count.v.
"Abandoned" means either:
(1) Any outdoor advertising ~ splay that is allowed to continue for
more than one {1) year without a poster, bill, printing,
painting, or Other form of advertise~ent or message; or
(2) Any outdoor advertising display that does not appear on the
inventory required by Section 19.3.a.(15); or
(3) Any on-site advertising structure or sign that is allowed to
continue for more than ninety (gO) days without a poster, bill,
printing, painting, or other form of advertising or message for
the purposes set forth in Section 19.2.e hereof.
mended Effective:
07-16-85 (0rd. 348.2495)
06-20-89 (Ord. 348.ZgBg}
SECTION 19.3. OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAYS. No person shall erect or
maintain an outdoor advertising display in the unincorporated area of the
County of Riverside, except in accordance with the following provisions.
245
The changing of an idverttst ng message or customary mat ritehence of a
legally extsttng outdoor advertising ~splay shall not Pequtre a permit
pursuant to this sectton.
Standards.
· Z . Zone ng.
Outdoor advertiSIng cfisplly Ire permitted Only tn the
C-~/C-P, H-SC, N-N and N-H zones and providing only that the
display meets all of the other requt rments of the zontn~
class1 ftcatton end this article. Outdoor advertising dtspl aye are
expressly prohibited tn all other zones.
2. Spattrig. No Outdoor advertising o~splly shall be located within
ftve hundred (500) feet tn any direction frm any other outdoor
advertising d(splly on the see stdo of the highway; provided.
however, that tf In a particular zone a o~ fferent interval shal~
be stated. the spedrig tnterval of the partlcula~ zone shall
prevail. NO Outdoor advertSsing display shall be erected within
the bounda~ of any significant resource as defined t n Section
Zg.2.o. of this ordinance. No outd3or advertising display shall
be located ~tthin one hundred fifty (~50) feet of property, for
which the zoning does not allow advertising · splays provtded~
however, that an outdoor advertising display may be placed
one hundred (ZSO) feet of property for which zoning does no~ allow
displays, tf at the time in application for In outdoor advertist n9
display bemtt ts applied for, there Is no existing residential
structure Or an lpproved building pemtt for a restcientt a~
structure ~tthtn one hundred fifty (~50) feet of the location
the proposed out6oor advertising display.
3. Height. The maximum hetght of in outdoor advertising display
shall not exceed a height of twenty-five (25) feet frau the
roadbed of the adjacent freeway or highway to which the display
oriented, or a maximum hetght of twenty-five (25) fee~ frcrn the
grade on which ttts constructed, whichever ts
4. POleS. A maximum of t~o (2) steel poles Ire allowed for suppor~
of an outdoor advertising ~tsplay.
5. Roof Hounts. No outdoor advertising c~spl~y shall be affixed
or over the Pool of any buildtrig end no ~tsplay shall be affixed
to the wall of a butldtng so that it projects above the parapet
the ~tldlng. For the purposes of this section, a mansard s~yle
Pool shall be considered I parapet.
6. Number of Dtspla s. No more than one (Z) proposed outdoor
advertising display per application shall be pemttted.
7. Setbacks. No outdoor advertising crisplay $hall be erected
an established setback or building line, or w4thtn road
right-of-way It nes or future road right°of-way lines as shown on
any Sped ftc P1 an of Htthways. A mtntmm setback frum the
foot s a 1 be required.
property line of one (~ h 1
8. Number of Dtsplay Faces. No more than two (Z) ~tsplly faces per
outdoor advertising ~ spla shall be pemttted. Back-to-back and
V-type displays shall be a~lowed the
provided that they ire on
sme outdoor advertising structure and provided that the V-type
246
displays have a separation between dtsplay faces of not more than
twenty-five (25) feet.
9. Lighting and Z11umtnatton of Displays. An outdoor advertising
display may be t11mtnated, unless otherwise specified, provided
that the display~ ere so constructed that no light bulb, tube,
filEant, or Similar source of illumination is visible beyond the
display face, Display making use of lights to convey the effort
of movement or flashing, triterairiest, oP variable intensity snell
not be pemttted. Display shall use the most advanced methods
insure the most energy efficient methods of display tll'Jmination.
Within the Palomar Observatory Special Lighting Area, all displays
shall comply with the reclutromentS Of RIverside County Ordinan;e
NO. 655.
10. Display Novanent. NO outdoor Idverttstng d~splays shall move
rotate, to dtspl~ any moving end/or rotating parts.
propellers, flags, or Other noise creating devices, an~ no
architectural embellts~nents which utilize mechanical Or natural
forces for mOUOn, Shall be permitted. Use of daylight reflective
materials or electronic message boards using flashing,
~ntermittent or moving light or lights 1S prohibited, provided,
however, .that electronic message boards displaying onl~ time
and/or temperature for periods of not less than thirty (30)
seconds is pemitted.
11. Display Face Size. NO outdoor advertising display shall have a
total surface area of more than three hundred (300) square feet.
12. Outdoor Advertising Display Permit Required. No person shall
erect, alter, repair, or relocate any outdoor advertising display
without first obtainin an outdoor advertistn display pernit
pursuant to Riverside ~ounty Ordinance No. 4Sl. No outdoor
advertising display permit shall be issued unless and until the
Bui 1 di ng Di rector betoral nes that the proposed acti vi ty i s i n
accordance with this Article and Riverside is in accoreance with
this Article and Riverside County Ordinance No. 457, and that the
applicant has obtained a valid State Outdoor Advertising pemit.
13. Identification. No person shall place, erect, or maintain an
outdoor advertising display and no outdoor advertising display
shall be placed, erect, or maintaining anywhere within the
unincorporated area of RiverSide County unless there is securely
fastened thereto and On the front display face thereof, the
of the outdoor advertising display owner in such a manner that the
nome is visible from the highway. Any display placed, erectec, or
maintained without this identification shall be dee~e~ to be
placed, e~ected, and maintained in violation of this section.
14. Mobile Displays. No person shall place maintain, or otherwise
allow a mobile vehicle, trailer, or other advertising display not
permanently affixed to the ground, as defined in Section lg.2.b.
of this ordinance, to be used as an outdoor advertising display.
15. Display Xnventory. In order to eveluat, and assess outdoor
advertising displays within the unincorporated area of Riverside
County, within one hundred eighty (18D) days of the effective date
247
of this ordinance and on each ftfth (5) anniversary after the
effective date of th~s ordinance, each crisplay c~pany ~itn
outdoor advertising displays wtth~n the untncorporated area o~
RIverside County shall submtt to the Department of Butld~ng and
Safety, a current Znventory of the outdoor advertising ~lsplays
they currently own and/Or matfitatn v(~thJn the un~ncorporated area
of RIvers(de County. Fatlure to stab, it i current or accurate
~nventory shal] be ~ed to ~ a Separate ~olat~on of this
ordl fii~ce.
Process1 ng Procedure.
I. Appl$catlon. In addition to all other applicable Federal, State,
and local laws, rules, regulations and ordinances, no outdoor
advertising crisplay shall be placed or erected until a petit
therefore has been tssued by the RIverside County Planntn9
D~rector, on the form provided by the Planning Department
acc~panted by the ftltng fee set forth tn Ordinance No. 67Z and
meeting the requtrl~ents of Section Z8.30 of thts ordinance. Said
application shall also consist of ten (ZO) cop~es of a Plot P~an
drawn to scale, containing the n~e, address or telephone n~ber
of the applicant, 4 copy of the current valid State Outdoor
Advertising Pc,it, and a general ~scrtption of the property upon
which the outdoor advertising d~splay ts proposed to be placed.
In addition, the applicant Shall provtde sufficient n~ber Of
address labels Is l¢ed appropriate by the Planning D~rector for
811 property wners ~thin ~ftve ~ndred foot (500') radius of
any proposed out~or advertis(rig display. The Plot Plan sh8~
show the prectSe location, type, and stze of the proposed
advertising displays, Ill property 1tries, zontng, and the
~imenS~onS, location of and d~stance to the nearest a~vert~s~ng
dfsplays, building, bus~ness d~stricts, significant resources 8s
datemined by the ordinance, ~bllc and prtvite roads,
r(ghtS-Of-vly, buil dtng setback lines, and sNc~flcal~y planned
future ma~ r~ght-of-way ltnes, and 8n~ End all other information
requtred b~ the P]annlng Dtrector tn Such a manner that the
proposed ~spliy may ~ readily ascertained, ~eent~fied, an~
evaluated.
2. Hearing Ind Notice of hcts~on. Upon acceptance of an application
for an out~or Idverttsing dtspl~ is cmplete, the Planning
Dtrector shall transmtt I copy of the application to the
e thin thtrty (30) da~s after acceptance of the
the Plinntng D~rector'$ ~ct$ton on the application ts to be
made. Not less than ten (~0) ~ys prior to the da~e on
the ~ctston ts to ~ made, the P1anntng Dtrector shall g~ve
notice of the proposed outdoor advertising ~tspliy, by mail
or delivery, to all Owners sho~m on the list equalized
assessment roll, and any updates, as c~n~ng real property
248
(b)
(c)
within a five hundred (500) foot radius of the exterior
boundarl es of t~e parcel upon which the proposed outdoor
advertising · splay is to be located. Notice of the propose:
outdoor advertising display shall also be given by
publication in a newspaper of general ctrculatton within
Riverside County. The Notice shall include the statement
that no public hearing will be held unless a hearing is
requested, in writing, and ~eltvered to the Planning Director
at least two (2) days before the-date scheduled for the
decision ts to be made. No public hearing on the application
for an outdoor advertising display shall be held before a
~ectsion is made by the Planning Director, unless a hearing
iS requested, in writing, by the applicant or other
interested person, or if the Planning Director ~etermines
that a public hearing should be required. If no public
hearing iS requested or required, the Planning Director shall
give the NOtice of Decision to the applicant and any Other
person who has made a written request for a copy of the
Notice of Decision. The decision of the Planning Director
shall be'considered final unless within ten (10} days of the
date of mailing of the Notice Of Decision to the applicant,
an appeal therefrom iS filed,
If a public hearing is required under the provision of this
subsection, notice of the time, date, and place of the
hearing before the Planning Director and a general
description of the location Of the real property which is the
subject of the hearing, shall be given at least ten (10} days
prior to the hearing as follows:
(1) Hailing or delivering to all owners of real property
which is located within a 5DOofoot radius of the
exterior boundaries of the parcel upon which the
proposed outdoor advertising display ts to be located
as, such owners are shown on the last equalizea
assessment roll and any updates.
(2) The Planning Director may require that additional notice
be given in any other matter the Director ~eens
necessary or desirable.
If a public hearing iS required, the Planning Director shall
hear relevant testimony from interested persons and make a
decision within a reasonable time after the close of the
public hearing. A Notice of Decision shall be filed by the
Planning Director with the Clerk of the Board of $upervisors,
not more than fifteen (15) days after the becision. A copy
of the Notice of Decision shall be mailed to the applicant
end to any person who has ma~e a written request for a copy
of the ~ecision. The Clerk of the Board of $~pervisors shall
pl ace the Notice of Decision on the next agenda of the Boar~
of Supervisors held five (5) or more days after the Clerk
receives the Notice of Decision from the Planning Director.
249
Appeals. The decision of the Planning Director shall be
considered final unless an appeal therefram is filed.
(a} Appeals to Planning Cueisston. The applicant or
-Interest person may file an appeal, acCmpanied by the fee
set forth tn Ordinance No, 671 of this ordinance, and on the
form provided by the Planning Department within ten (10) days
afte~ the Notice of hctston Is mailed for those matters
where a public hearing was not requested or required or
within ten {10) days after the Notice of Decision appears on
the Board of $upervisor's agenda. The appeal shall state the
reasons why it is believed the action of the Planning
Director iS improper. Upon receipt of a completed appeal and
fee, the Planning Director shall set the matter for hearin~
before the Planning Conm~tsston. Notice of the hearing on the
appeal shall be given in the same manner that notice was
2n ,h. sam...nn.r ,h., riotic. w.s g ,.n und. r
) The Planning Commission shall render its decision on
the appeal within ten (10) days of the closing of the
hearing. A Notice of the Decision of the Planning Commission
shall be filed by the Planning Director with the Board of
SuperviSOrS, not more than fifteen (15) days after the
decision. A copy of the Notice of Decision shall be mailed
tO the applicant, appellant and to any person who has made a
written request for a copy of the decision. The Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors, shall place the Notice of Decision on
the next agenda of the Board of Supervisors, held five (5) or
more days after the Clerk receives the NOtice of Decision
from the Planning Director. The decision of the Plannin;
Commission shall be considered final unless an appeal
therefrom is filed.
(b) Appeals to Board of Supervisors. The decision of the
Planning Commission shall be considered final unless an
appeal therefrom is filed. The applicant or an interested
person may file an appeal, accompanied by the fee set forth
in Ordinance No. 671 of this ordinance, and on the form
provided by the Planning Oeparbnent within ten (10) days
after the Notice of Decision of the Planning Commission
appears on the Board of $upervtsors's
ageride. The appeal shall state the reasons why it is
believed the action of the Planning Cm~nission is improper.
Upon receipt of a completed appeal and fee, or if the Board
Of SuperviSors assrues JurisdiCtion by ordering the matter
set for public hearth , the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
shall set the matter )or public heari Board of
ng before the
Supervisors, not less than five (5) days nor more than thirty
(30) days thereafter, and shall give notice of the time and
place of the hearing in the same manner as notice of the time
and place Of the hearing in the same manner as notice was
~io;er~ for the hearing before the Planning COmmission. The
of Supervisors Shall render its deciSiOn within thirty
250
(30) days following the close of the hearing on the a~pesl.
t Board of Supervisors shall be final.
The ~cis on of the
Revocation. Any outdoor advertising crisplay pemtt Vntch has
been issued as a result of a material misrepresentation of fact
by the applicant or his agent, w~ether or not a criminal
prosecution ts Initiated therefor, may be sunrnartly revoked by
the Planning Director who shall forthwith give written Notice of
Revoc&tion to the applicant. WiU~tn thirty (30} days after
notice is given, any outdoor advertising display authorized by
said outsSoot advertising display permit shall be remove~ at the
applicant's expense. Failure to remove the display ~thin sai~
thirty {30) days shall pe lemed a separate violation of this
ordinance. Noticing in this ordinance shall authorize the
Installation or maintenance of any Outdoor advertising display
which t$ in violation of any State or Federal law or regulation.
Enforcement. Wherever the officials responsible for the enforcement
of aentntstretion of the Land Use Ordinance or their destgnateO
agents, have cause to suspect a violation of this article, or whenever
necessary to investigate either an application for the granting,
modification, or any action to suspend or revoke an outdoor
advertising display permit, or whenever necessary to investigate a
possible violation, said agents may lawfully gain access to the
appropriate parcel of land upon which said violation is believed to
exist. The following provisions shall apply to the violations of this
article:
1. All violations of this article ca~itted by any person, whether as
agent, employee, Officer, principal, or otherwise, shall be a
~ni sdemeanor.
2. Every person who knowingly provides false information on an
outdoor advertising display permit application shall be guilty of
a misdemeanor.
3. Every person who fails to Stop work on an outdoor advertising
~isplay, when so ordered by the Director of Building an~ Safety or
the Planning Director, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
4 Every person who, having received Notice to Appear in court to
answer a related charge, willfully fails to appear, shall be guilty
of a misdemeanor.
5 A misdemeanor may be prosecuted by the County in the n~e of the
People of the State of California, or may be redresse~ by civil
action. Each violation is punishable by a fine of not more than
one thousand dollars (1,000.00), or by imprisoment in the County
jail for a term of not more than six (6) months, or by both fine
end imprt soreant.
6. Every person found guilty of a violation shall be ~leemed guilty of
a separate offense for every day during a portion of which the
violation is ca~mitted, continued, or permitted by Such person.
7. Every illegal outdoor advertising display and every abandoned
outdoor advertising display is hereby ~eclared to be a public
nuisance and shall be subject to abatement by repair,
rehabilitation, or rmoval in accordance with the procedures
contained in Section 3 of Riverside County Drdinance No. 457.
251
Nonconforming Signs. Every outdoor advertising display w~ich does not
conform tO this ordinance Shall be ~eemed to be a nonconforming
and shall be removed or altered In accordance with this ordinance as
followS:
1. Any outdoor adverttstn~ display vhtch was lawfully' ~n existence
prior to the effective date of the enactment of Ordinance
348.2496 (July 16, t985) shall be abeted or brought into
conromance with these provisions by July 17, Z990.
2. Any outdoor advertising display ~htch was lawfully in existen:e
prior to the effective date of the enactment of Ordinance
348.2856 (June 30, 1988) but after the effective date of the
enactment of Ordinance NO. 348.2496 (July 16, 1985) shall be
abeted or brought into conformante with these provisions by July
1, 1993.
3. Any outdoor advertising display which was lawfully in existence
prior to the effective date of Ordinance No. 348.ZgB9 but after
the effective date of the enacl~ent of Ordinance No. 348.2856
(June 30, 1988) shall be abeted or brought into conromance with
these provisions within eleven (11) years Of the effective date of
Ordinance No. 348.2989.
4. If federal or state law requires the County of Riverside to pay
just cc~pensation for the r~oval of any such lawfully erectec b~t
nOnconforming outdoor advertising display, it may r~ain in place
until just c=npensatton as defined in the Eminent Domain Law
(Title 7, of Part 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure) is paid.
Illegal and Abandoned Outdoor AdverUsing Displays. All illegal
outdoor advertising displays and all abandoned Outdoor advertisin;
displays shall be r~noved or brought into conformante with this
ordinance immediately.
knended Effective:
07-16-B5 (Ord. 34~.2496)
06-30-88 (Ord. 348.2856)
06-20-89 (Ord. 348 2989)
252
SECTION 19.4. ON-SITE ADVERTISING STRUCTURES NtD SIGNS.
NO perSOn shall erect an on-site advertising Structure or sign in the
unincorporated area of the County of Riverside that ~s in violation of the
prOvisionS contained within any specific zoning classification in this
ordinance or that t$ in violation Of the following provisions.
a. Free-standing Signs
1. Located within 660 feet of the nearest edge of a freeway right of
way line.
l~) The maximum height of a sign shall not exceed 45 feet.
The maximum surface area of a sign shall not exceed 150
square feet.
2. All Other Locations.
(a) The maximum height of a sign shall not exceed 2D feet.
{b) The maximum surface area Of a sign shall not exceed 50 sq~a-e
feet.
3. Shopping Centers - All Locations.
NotwithStanding the provisions of sub-paragraphs 1 and 2, an
alternate standard for free Standing on-site advertising Signs for
shopping centers is established as follows:
Ca) the maximu~ surface area of a sign shall not exceed 50 sqjare
feet of .25 percent (1/4 of 1~) of the total existing
building floor area in a shopping Center, whichever is
greater, except that in any event, no sign shall exceed 203
square feet in surface area.
b. The maximum height of a sign shall not exceed 2D feet.
4. Number of Free-standing Signs - All Locations. Not more than one
free'standing sign shall be permitted on a parcel of land, exce;t
that if a ShOpping center has frontage On 2 Or more Streets,
Shopping center shall be pennitte~ 2 free-Standing signs,
that the 2 Signs are not located on the Same street; are at least
100 feet apart and the second sign does not exceed ZOO square fe~t
in surface area and 20 feet in height.
e
Signs Affixed to buildings - All Areas
1. No on-site advertising sign Shall be affixed on, above Or over the
roof of any building, and no on-site advertising sign Shall be
affixed to the wall of a building so that it projects above the
parapet of the building. For the purposes of this section, a
manSard style roof shall be considered a parapet.
2. The maximum Surface area of Signs affixed to a building shall be
as fol 1 owe:
(a) Front wall of building -
The surface area of the Sign shall not exceed 105 of the
surface area of the front face of the building.
(b) Side walls of a building -
The surface area of the sign shall not exceed 10% of t~e
surface area of the side face of the buS)dang.
{c) Rear wall of a building -
The surface area of the sign Shall not exceed 5% of the
surface area of the rear face of the building.
253
Directforte1' Signs - Directtonal stgns' to/advtsepatrons of location,
distance or purpose shall be bemttted on 8 parcel of land as follows:
l. The maxtm~ height of Such Signs shall not exceed 3 feet.
· Z. The maximum Surface area of such signs shall not exceed 6 square
feet.
On-site Identification $tgns- On-site identification signs affixed to
the Surface Of walls, windows, and {looPs of pemanent structures,
which do not exceed 4 inches in letter height and do not exceed 4
square feet in area are pemttted In a{l{lttton to any other sign
pemitted tn this ordinance,
SECTION 19.5. FOR SALE, LEASE OR RENT SIGNS. For sale, lease or rent
signs shall be perutired to be placed in lll zone classificaUons subject to
the following regulaUons,
1. For one and two family rest{lenttal uses - one sign not ex;eeain~
square feet in surface area and not more than 4 feet in height.
2. For multtple fmtly residential uses - one sign for each separate
frontage on e street, each sign not to exceed Z5 square feet in
surface area and not more than 8 feet in height.
3. For canmarc1 al uses - one sign for each separate frontage on 8
street, each sign not to exceed 24 square feet in surface area and
not more than 8 feet in hetght.
4. For industrial uses - One Sign for each separate frontage on 8
street, each sign not to exceed 32 square feet in sjrface area and
not more than ZO feet in height,
5. For agriculture uses - one sign for each separate frontage on a
street, each sign not to exceed 16 square feet in surface area an~
no~ more than 8 feet tn height.
S[;TION lg.6 SUBDIVISION SIGNS.
On-site subdivision Signs, advertising the original sale of a
subdivision are perutired ~tthtn the boundaries of a subdivision, u~n
approval of I plot plan pursuant to Section %8,30 of this Ordinance
and subject
1. NO Stgn
2. No Sign
outside
to the folloutng m~ntmm start{ear{is:
shall exceed lO0 square feet in area.
shall ~ wtthtn lO0 feet of any existing residence that is
of the subdivision boundaries.
No more than t~o such signs shall be pemttted for each
subdi vtston.
No sign shall be artificially 11ghte{l.
off-s,t. subd visio. sig., ;i;:9 s1?i ,h. origt.., s.,e
subdlvtston, shall be parrot zone clessiftcaUons, except
the C-P-S, N-A, and ~-I Zones, provided a conditional use pem~t is
granted pursuant to the prOvtstons of Section ~8.Z8 of this ordi hence,
and subject to the following mtntm~ standards:
l. No sign shall exceed ~00 square feet J n area.
254
2. No sign shall be t~in ,OO feet of any existing residence.
3. No more than two signs shall be permitted for each
subdi vi sion.
4. The maximum period of tine a sign may remain in place shall be tw:
years. ~
5. NO Sign shall De artifi~'tally lighted.
6, An agreement, ;ecured by a $100 cash Pond, shall be executed with
the County for each sign, assuring the removal oi~ the Sign within
Added:
09-13-73 (Ord. 348.1201)
~nended Effective:
01-20-77 (Ord. 348.1540)
06-27-78 (Ord. 348.1658)
09-25-80 (Ord. 348.1855)
07-16-85 (Ord. 348.2496)
SECTION 19.7. TEMPORARY POLITICAL SIGNS.
For the purpose of this ordinance, a temporary political sign shall
mean a sign, not Other~ se pemitted by this ordinance, which
encourages a particular vote in a scheduled election.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this ordinance, tmporary
political signs are permitted in all zoning classifications subject to
the following limitations:
1. No Such Sign shall exceed 16 square feet in surface area.
2. T~o free-standing tenporary political sign shall exceed 5 feet in
height.
3. NO lotShall Contain temporary political signs having an aggregate
surface area in excess o~ 8D square feet.
4. No such Sign shall be artificially lighted.
5. NO such sign shall be erected or placed more than 99 days prior to
the scheduled election to which it pertains.
6. All such signs shall be removed wi thin 10 days after the schedul eC
election to which they pertain, except that a sign erected or
placed for a candidate who prevails in a primary election may be
maintained until 10 days after the final election.
7. No such sign shall be erected, placed or maintained uPon any
private property without the consent of the owner, lessee, or
perSOn in lawful possession of such property.
8. No temporary political sign shall be erected, placed, or maintaine~
on any publicly owned tree or shrub or upon the improved portion of
any street or highway right of way which is used for traffic or
parking.
g. NO temporary political sign shall be erected, placed or maintained
so that it does any of the following:
(a} Hars, ~lefaces, disfigures or Oamages any public building,
structure Or other property.
{b)Endangers the safety of persons or property.
255
(c) ObsCures the view of any fire hydrant, traffic sign, traffic
signal, street sign, or Public informational sign.
{d) BlOcks motorists' lines of sight to areas of vehicular or
pedestrian traffic.
Any tmmp~rary political sign erected, placed or maintained in
violation of any promsionS of this Section may be removed by the
County B days after notice of the ~ olation is given to the concerned
candidate or sponsorm and to the owner, lessee or person in lawful
possession of the property. Any tmnporary political sign which
constitutes an immediate danger to the ~afety or p~rsons or property,
or which has not been removed within 10 days after the SCheduled
election as provided in subsection {b}{6), may be r~oved by the
County summarily and without notice. The County may bring as action
to recover the reasonable cost of sign r~nov~ under this subsection.
Added Effective:
04-21-83 (Ord. 348.2126)
256
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
March 16, 1992
Case No.: Plot Plan No. 8839, Revised No. 1, Amended No. 2
Prepared By: Matthew Fagan
RECOMMENDATION:
ADOPT Resolution No. 92- approving Plot Plan No. 8839,
Revised No. 1, Amended No. 2, based on the Analysis and
Findings contained in the staff report and subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Temecula-Sixth Street - A California Limited Partnership
REPRESENTATIVE:
Ed Rabalais
PROPOSAL:
Revision to Plot Plan No. 8839, changing uses on the second
floor from 5,413 square feet of storage to a 780 square foot
beauty shop, 2961 square feet of office space and 1,672 square
feet of storage, and request a reduction in required off-street
parking from 44 to 40 spaces.
LO CAT I O N:
41910 Sixth Street (southwest corner of Sixth and Mercedes
Streets)
EXISTING ZONING:
C-1/C-P
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
C-1 (General Commercial)
C-1 (General Commercial)
R-1 (One Family Dwelling)
C-1 (General Commercial)
PROPOSED ZONING:
Not Requested
EXISTING LAND USE: Commercial Office/Retail Building
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant
Single Family Residences
Single Family Residences
Offices
S%STAFFRPT~939-REV,PP I
PROJECT STATISTICS
Site Area:
Garages Net Area:
First Floor Net Area:
Second Floor Net Area:
Parking Spaces Provided:
Parking Spaces Required:
21,000 square feet
1,746 square feet
4,362 square feet
5,413 square feet
40
BACKGROUND
Plot Plan No. 8839 was originally approved on February 21, 1986 by the Planning Director
of Riverside County. This approval was for a two-story building. First floor uses included
office and retail space. The second story was approved for storage space. Parking
calculations were based upon utilizing the first and second floors in this manner.
Plot Plan No. 8839, Revised No. 1, was submitted to the City of Temecula Planning
Department on November 6, 1991. The subject project was reviewed by Staff at
Development Review Committee meetings (DRC) on December 19, 1991 and January 9, 1992
when two amendments to the plot plan were submitted. At the January 9th meeting, Staff
directed the applicant to submit the materials necessary in order to establish a Planning
Commission hearing date.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The subject project is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Sixth Street and
Mercedes Street in Old Town Temecula. A two-story building presently exists on the site.
The applicant proposes no changes to the exterior of the building, however, Plot Plan No.
8839, Revised No. 1, Amended No. 2 proposes to convert uses on the second floor from
5,413 square feet of storage area into a 780 square foot beauty shop and 2,961 square feet
of office space while retaining 1,672 square feet of storage space. With the second floor
utilized solely for storage under Plot Plan No. 8839, the site required 22 parking spaces. The
site was in excess of the required parking by 18 spaces. Total parking provided on site is 40
spaces. The present request will increase the amount of off-street parking required for the
site from 40 to 44 spaces. The applicant submitted a request for special review of parking
under Section 18.12 of Ordinance No. 348 to allow 40 spaces instead of 44 (Reference
Attachment No. 4). In addition to the off-site parking provided in the front of the site (30
spaces), the applicant proposes to use garages in the rear of the building (on the south side
of the site) which are adjacent to the alley as additional off-street parking (10 spaces).
ANALYSIS
Reauest for Special Review of Parkine
Under Section 18.12.c. (5) of Ordinance No. 348, parking reductions or modifications
exceeding the maximum specified in Section 18.12 (el (1), (2), (3), and (4) may be granted
as part of a review of a plot plan. Further stated in this section is the requirement that the
project proponent submit with a request for special review of parking whatever evidence and
documentation necessary to demonstrate that unusual conditions warrant a parking reduction.
On December 30, 1991, the applicant submitted a letter with e request for special review of
parking along with five conditions which demonstrated unusual conditions warranting a
parking reduction. (Reference Attachment No. 4). Staff reviewed the request and the
rationale behind the request and determined that unusual conditions were in fact particular to
this site due to it's location in Old Town Temecula. Meeting the required parking per
Ordinance No. 348 would not be possible due to the small dimensions of the lots in Old Town.
The parking requirements in Section 18.12 of Ordinance No. 348 are not reflective of these
conditions, b~t instead aremore reflective of standard commercial development on larger lots.
It is, in Staff's opinion, a valid request, and therefore warrants Staff's support.
Garaoes Utilized As ParkinQ
The applicant proposes to utilize individual garage spaces (located adjacent to the alley) in
determining available parking for the site. Staff was concerned with uses which were
currently occurring in these garages which preclude the storage of automobiles. Staff
observed the garages being used as make-shift offices for businesses and storage areas for
the automobiles and vans used for the businesses. Staff has included Condition of Approval
No. 14, to assure that the garage Spaces are used solely to meet parking requirements for the
site. In addition, Condition of Approval No. 33 requires construction of full alley
improvements 20 feet in width, but not limited to, A.C. pavement, and drive approach across
the length of the property. This will assure that access to the garage parking spaces will be
feasible.
EXISTING ZONING, SWAP AND FUTURE GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The existing zoning for the site is C-1/C-P (General Commercial). The existing uses and
proposed uses are permitted uses with plot plan approval in the C-1/C-P zone. The SWAP
designation for the site is Commercial (C). The project as proposed is consistent with the
existing zoning of C-1/C-P and the SWAP designation of Commercial. Due to the consistency
with existing zoning and SWAP, and due to the nature of development in the vicinity, it is
likely that this project will be consistent with the Future General Plan upon its final adoption.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposed project is a Class I categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (a) of the
CEQA Guidelines. Class I exemptions consist of minor alterations of private structures
involving negligible or no expansion of the use beyond that previously existing including
interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and
electrical conveyances.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
Plot Plan No. 8839, Revised No. 1, Amended No. 2 is a proposal to convert uses on the
second floor from 5,413 square feet of storage area into a 780 square foot beauty shop, and
2,961 square feet of office space while retaining 1,672 square feet of storage space to an
existing building. The applicant has requested a special review of parking along with five (5)
conditions which demonstrated unusual conditions warranting a parking reduction. Staff
supports this request. The project as proposed is consistent with the existing zoning (C-1/C-
P) for the site, is consistent with SWAP designation of Commercial (C) , and therefore is likely
to be consistent with the City's future General Plan. The proposed project is a Class 1
categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines.
FINDINGS
Them is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 8839 Revised No. 1, Amended No.
2 will be consistent with the City's future adopted General Plan, which will be
completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law. Plot Plan No. 8839
Revised No. 1, Amended No. 2 is a commercial project. The proposed site is
designated commercial by SWAP, and the existing zoning is General 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. If the
proposed use is inconsistent, it will not be detrimental because of the commercial
nature of surrounding uses.
The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws. The
proposed use complies with local planning and zoning laws which are prepared in
conformance with State planning and zoning laws.
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of circulation
patterns, access, and intensity of use. Rot Plan No. 8839, Revised No. 1, Amended
No.2 as proposed is in conformance with Ordinance 348.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or
welfare. Potential impacts are mitigated to a level of non-significance through
Conditions of Approval.
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, through appropriate building mass reduction techniques and
landscape installation, and distance from planned adjacent structures.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does
not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area. The
project conforms to the existing General Commercial zoning and SWAP Commercial
designation.
The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic. The project will take access from Sixth Street.
The design of the project, 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. The project has adequate circulation throughout
the entire site.
10.
Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. This Staff
Report contains mapping, and Conditions of Approval, which support the Staff
recommendation.
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT Resolution No. 92- approving Plot Plan No. 8839,
Revised No. 1, Amended No. 2, based on the Analysis and
Findings contained in the staff report and subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval.
vgw
Attachments:
Resolution - page 6
Conditions of Approval - page 11
Exhibits - page 16
a. Vicinity Map
b. SWAP Map
c. Zone Map
d. Site Plan
e. Elevations
f. Floor Plan
Letter from applicant requesting for special review of parking
dated December 30, 1991 - page 17
A'I'rACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 92-_
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 92-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 8839 REVISED NO.
1, AMENDED NO. 2, CHANGING USES ON THESECOND FLOOR
FROM 5,413 SQUARE FEET OF STORAGE TO A 780 SQUARE
FOOT BEAUTY SHOP, 2,961 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE
AND 1,672 SQUARE FEET OF STORAGE, AND A REDUCTION
IN REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING ON PROPERTY KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 922-024-027.
WHEREAS, Temecula Sixth Street-A Limited California Partnership filed PIot Plan
No. 8839 Revised No. 1, Amended No. 2 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use,
Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing pertaining to
said Plot Plan on March 16, 1992, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify
either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said Plot Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings.
That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings:
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.
(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 Ran.
The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and meet 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 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 Plot Plan No. 8839 Revised No. 1,
Amended No. 2 as proposed will be consistent with the General Plan
proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time. The SWAP designation is Commercial, the zoning for
the site is General Commercial and it is likely that the future General
Plan will identify the subject site as commercial recognizing that other
commercial sites are proximate to the project site.
(2)
There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference
with the future adopted General Plan if the proposed use or action is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The proposed commercial uses
are consistent with the commercial uses within proximity to the site.
(3)
The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable
requirements of State law and local ordinances, The project as
proposed is consistent with SWAP and Ordinance No. 348,
Pursuant to Section 18.30(c) of Ordinance No. 348, no plot plan 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.
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.
The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the proposed Plot Plan No.
8839 Revised No. 1, Amended No. 2, makes the following findings, to wit:
There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 8839 Revised No. 1,
Amended No. 2 will be consistent with the City's future adopted General Plan,
which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law.
Plot Plan No, 8839 Revised No. 1, Amended No. 2 is a commercial project.
The proposed site is designated commercial by SWAP.
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. If the proposed use is inconsistent, it will not be detrimental because of
the commercial nature of surrounding uses.
The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning taws. The
proposed use complies with local planning and zoning laws which are prepared
in conformance with State planning and zoning laws.
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the
circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use. Plot Plan No. 8839, Revised
No. 1, Amended No.2 is in conformance with Ordinance 348.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public
health or welfare. Potential impacts are mitigated to a level of non-significance
through Conditions of Approval.
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, through appropriate building mass reduction
techniques and landscape installation, and distance from planned adjacent
structures.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because
it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of
the area. The project conforms to the existing General Commercial zoning and
SWAP Commercial designation.
The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open
to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. The project will take access from Sixth
Street.
The design of the project, 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. The project has adequate
circulation throughout the entire site.
Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental
documents associated with these applica~iu.s and herein incorporated by
reference. This Staff Report contains mapping, Conditions of Approval, and an
Initial Study which support the Staff recommendation.
As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Plot Plan proposed conforms to the logical
development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future
development of the surrounding property.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
The proposed Plot Plan No. 8839 Revised No. 1, Amended No. 2 is a Class 1 categorical
exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (e)(1) of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA} guidelines which pertains to minor alterations to existing structures.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Plot Plan No. 8839 Revised
No. 1, Amended No.2 to revise Plot Plan No. 8839, changing uses on the second floor from
storage to a 780 square foot beauty shop, 2,961 square feet of office space and 1,672
square feet of storage, and a reduction in required off-street parking from 44 to 40 spaces and
known as Assessor's Parcel No. 922-024-027 subject to the following conditions:
A. Attachment No. 2, attached hereto.
SECTION 4.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day March, 1992.
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
March, 1992 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
S~TAFF. Fr~eag~EV.F~ I 0
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan No. 8839, Revised No. 1, Amended No. 2
Project Description: Conversion of uses on tha second floor of
an existing building from 5,413 square feat of storage space into
a 780 square foot beauty shop, 2,961 square feet of office
space and 1,672 square feet of storage space.
Assessor's Parcel No. 922-024-027
Planning Department
The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for conversion of uses on the second
floor of an existing building from 5,413 square feet of storage space into a 780 square
foot beauty shop, 2,961 square feet of office space and 1,672 square feet of storage
space.
The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Tamecula, its
agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or proceeding against the City
of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul,
an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative
body concerning Plot Plan No. 8839, Revised No. 1, Amended No. 2. The City of
Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding
against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails
to promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to
cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to
defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter
diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization
contemplated by this approval. This approval shall expire on
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on
Plot Plan No, 8839, Revised No. 1, Amended No. 2 marked Exhibit "D" or as amended
by these conditions.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon
adjoining property or public rights-of-way. 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.
S~STAFF~>T~aB3~'R~/'PP 12
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
The applicant shall comply with the Public Works Department's Conditions of Approval
which are included herein.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape,
irrigation, and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. An automatic
sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be maintained in a
viable growth condition. Planting within ten (10) feet of an entry or exit driveway shall
not be permitted to grow higher than thirty (30) inches.
A minimum .of 40 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12,
Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. 40 parking spaces shall be provided as shown
on the Approved Exhibit "D'. The parking area shall be surfaced with asphaltic
concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on 4 inches of Class II base.
A minimum of 2 handicapped parking spaces shell be provided as shown on Exhibit
"D". Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a
permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text
or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be
smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the
parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the
parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the
parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a
conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17
inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or
license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be
towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be
reclaimed at or by telephone
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a
surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at
least 3 square feet in size.
Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit "E" .
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening material shall
be subject to Planning Department approval.
All trash enclosures shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits.
Each enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall be made with masonry block and
a steel gate which screens the bins from external view.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground.
All existing garage spaces shall be used for the parking of vehicles which shall utilize
the site. No other uses shall be permitted in the garage enclosure.
S~STA~S~"SV."~ 13
15. Plans for three (3) foot high railings located adjacent to the covered walk shall be
submitted to the Planning Department for review by the Old Town Temecula Local
Review Board prior to issuance of building permits for approval by the Department.
16. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT-
17. Comply with applicable provisions of the 1988 edition of the Uniform Building,
Plumbing and Mechanical; 1990 National Electrical Code; California Administrative
Code Title 24 Energy and Handicapped Regulations and the Temecuta Code.
18. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with
Ordinance Number 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
19. Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to the commencement of any
construction work.
20. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
21. Provide occupancy approval for all existing buildings (i.e. finaled building permit,
Certificate of Occupancy).
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
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 personnel of the
Department of Public Works.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and
proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their
omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT:
22. A precise onsite improvement plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public
Works for review and approval. The design shall be prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer, and shall include a final striping layout. The plan shall be drawn on 24" X
36" mylar as directed by the Department of Public Works.
23. Improvement plans per City Standards for the onsite and alleyway improvements shall
be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works.
24. All site improvements, landscape and irrigation plans, and alley improvement plans
shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects.
25. Prior to any work being performed on the alley and the onsite parking lot, fees shall be
paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works.
S~STAR=Nm~S3S~V.R' 14
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
PRIOR
31.
32.
33.
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.
The developer shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed
guaranteeing the construction of the alley improvements in conformance with
applicable City standards.
Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage
entering the property from adjacent areas.
A 3'0" high railing shall be installed as shown on the approved Plot Plan to restrict
pedestrian crossing behind parked cars.
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 f~e or district has not been finally established by the date on
which developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the
developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of
which has been provided to developer. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement,
developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount
of the bond shall be e2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000. Developer
understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those
now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By
execution of this Agreement, developer will waive any right to protest the provisions
of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district,
or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this
project; orovided that developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness
of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY:
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Department of Public Works;
Riverside County Health Department;
All driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula standards and shall be
shown on the improvement plans.
Construct full alley improvements 20' in width including, but not limited to, A.C.
pavement, and drive approach across the length of the property. A flowline of 1
percent minimum shall be constructed at the alley centerline.
S%STAFFT~T~8839-REV,I~ 15
FIRE CIilEF
TOi C:TY O~
ATTNI PLI:INNZN~ OE:PT
With respect to the conoitione QT approval FeVerdinV the above
referenced Plot Planm the Klversi~l County Fire Department ham no
comments or cond~.tions for approval. Any interior improvements
will be addressed when t~e remodel plane are reviewed.
All questions regarding the meaning of
firFed to the Planning and E:ngineering 8taff.
RAYMOND H. RE:BIB
Chief Firm Department Planner
Michael E. Bray,
Fire Captain Bpecialist
(6It) 343.11N · FAX NIl) ff~l)/2
Cams Dd~IMIm~/~ Tmuasb, CA ~0~
(I'14) ON40?0 s I~X (I|4) i
ATrACHMENT NO. 3
EXHIBITS
S\STAFFRPT%e839-1qt'V.FP 16
CITy OF TEMECULA
, ~F-TM ITu ~~ nt
CASE NO.: Plot Plan
EXHIBIT: A No. 8839, Revised No.
1992 1, Amended No. 2
VICINiTy MAp
$~TAFF~Sb39,REV,p~
CITY OF TEMECULA
Exhibit B: SWAP
Designation: Commercial
SITE
Exhibit C: ZONING
Designation: General Commercial
Case No.: Plot Plan No. 8839, Revised No. 1, Amended No. 2
~.C. Date: March 16, 1992
CITY OF TEMECULA
I
L_
CASE NO.: Plot Plan No. 8839, Revised No. 1, Amended No. 2
EXHIBIT: D
P.C. DATE: March 16, 1992
SITE PLAN
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.:
EXHIBIT: F
P.C. DATE:
Plot Plan No. 8839, Revised No. 1, Amended No. 2
March 16, 1992
FLOOR PLAN
CITY OF TEMECULA
I
'it ..... ~ J
CASE NO.: Plot Plan No. 8839, Revised No. 1, Amended No. 2
EXHIBIT: F
P.C. DATE: March 16, 1992
FLOOR PLAN
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
L,' I I ER FROM APPLICANT
DECEMBER 30, 1991
S~STAFr~PT~ee3e-~'V.~P 17
TEMECULA - SIXTH STREET,
a California Limited Partnership
2172 Dupont Dr., Suite 217 Itvine, CA 92715 714-252-2970
December 30, 1991
Mr. Gary Thomhill
Director of Planning
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Re:
Plot Plan 8839 Revised
Existing building on the SW comer
of 6th Street and Mercedes Street
Dear Mr. Thornhill:
We purchased the above referenced building and plan to make needed improvements,
take care of deferred maintenance items, generally up grade the project and provide
competent on going property management.
We have submitted a revised Plot Plan which was reviewed (review comments attached)
by the Development Review Committee on December 19, 1991. Since that meeting, we
have made revisions to the plan as suggested by the DRC and the revised plan is
scheduled to be reviewed at the January 9, 1992 DRC meeting.
The plan, as it has now been revised, needs to be granted a parking reduction pursuant
to Section 18.12.c.(5) of ordinance No. :348 due to the following conditions:
At the suggestion of the DRC, one parking space is being eliminated in order
to install a landscape island at the existing street entry to the site. Although a
parking space would be lost, the island would provide a safety buffer at the
entry.
One tenant space is proposed to be a beauty shop rather than office or retail
space. The beauty shop would require two more parking spaces than if it were
used for office or retail purposes, however there has been a demonstrated
demand for a beauty shop at the site location.
Similar buildings, with small multiple tenant spaces, very rarely exceed 90%
occupancy at any given time. t~ E C ~' 1 V L..~
CITY OF .TEMEC_.LLL~
Other buildings in the Old Town area have reduced parking.
Some of the spaces may be rented for uses which would not require as much
parking as the basic provision of one space per 200 square feet that is shown
or the Plot Plan. Fox example, one of the present tenants uses about 500
square feet of their space for assembling their merchandise ( hair dbbons &
bows), which would require less parking than is computed on the Plot Plan for
retail space.
Because of the above, and in order to make operation and maintenance of the building
feasible, we respectfully request that a parking reduction be granted for the building.
Sincerely,
Temecula - Sixth Street
~,-,~ ~/_~_~
~E. DeCrona, General Partner
ITEM # 5
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner
March 16, 1992
Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3, Extension of Time
RECOMMENDATION:
REAFFIRM the previously adopted Negative Declaration for
Environmental Assessment No. 33522; and
ADOPT Resolution 92- __ approving the Extension of Time for Plot
Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3 based on the Analysis and Findings
contained in the staff report and subject to the attached Conditions
of Approval.
This item was continued from the February 24, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. Staff was directed
ay the Planning Commission to work with the applicant to satisfy the issue of assuring that the project
is a condominium project instead of an apartment project. Staff was directed to bring the item back
before the Planning Commission at the earliest possible date, which is this meeting.
Planning Staff met with the applicant and his represehtative on March 2, 1992. The applicant agreed
to the inclusion of Condition of Approval No. 27 after his discussion with Staff. Condition of Approval
No. 27 reads:
"Prior to Certificate of Occupancy, the property owner shall file with the
City of Temecuia a tentative map for purposes of condominium conversion
together with all appropriate fees."
vgw
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
February 24, 1992
Case No.: Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3, Extension of Time
Prepared By: Matthew Fagan
RECOMMENDATION:
REAFFIRM the previously adopted Negative Declaration for
Environmental Assessment No. 33522; and
ADOPT Resolution 92-__ approving the Extension of Time for
Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3 based on the Analysis and
Findings contained in the staff report and subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
David E. Walsh Co. - A California Construction General Partner
of Rancho Racquet Club Association
REPRESENTATIVE:
J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc.
PROPOSAL:
Extension of Time for Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3 an
approved plot plan for a 220 unit apartment complex.
LOCATION:
South of Margarita Road, approximately 400 feet east of Moraga
Road and 550 feet north of Rancho California Road.
EXISTING ZONING:
R-3-2,750
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
R-1 (One-Family Dwellings)
R-3-3,000/R-3 (General Residential)
R-3-2,500 (General Residential)
R-3-3,000 (General Residential)
PROPOSED ZONING:
Not requested
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Single Family Residence
Vacant/Graded
Vacant
Apartments
8"i~TAFF:RP~11QO1'1*P~~ 1
PROJECT STATISTICS
Land Area:
Landscape Area:
Total Number of Units:
Parking Spaces Required:
Parking Spaces Provided:
13.8 acres
287,811 square feet (47% coverage)
220
503
510
BACKGROUND
Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3 was approved by the Riverside County Planning
Commission on December 6, 1989. The City of Temecula City Council approved Plot Plan No.
11001, Amended No. 3 on February 13, 1990. On December 17, 1991, an Extension of
Time was requested for Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3. A Development Review
Committee Meeting (DRC) was held on January 16, 1992.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3 Extension of Time is a request for a one year extension
to the original approval period for the project. The original application for Plot Plan No. 11001
was for a 220-unit apartment complex to be located on approximately 13.8 acres. The
proposed Extension of Time is not requesting any changes from the previously approved Plot
Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3.
ANALYSIS
Ordinance No. 91-09 amended Article 18.30 (f) of Ordinance No. 348 pertaining to extensions
of time approval periods for plot plans. Section 18.30 (f) specifies that an extension of time
may be granted by the Planning Commission upon a determination that a valid reason exists
for the applicant not using the approval within the required period of time. It is Staff's opinion
that the applicant supplied a valid reason for requesting an extension of time for Plot Plan No.
11001. With respect to Plot Plan 11001, Amended No. 3 a construction loan commitment
from their bank had expired (Reference Attachment No. 6, a letter dated December 12, 1991
from the applicant explaining their request for an extension of time). Section 18.30 (f) further
specifies that if an extension is granted, the total time allowed for use of the approval shall
not exceed a period of three (3) years, calculated from the effective date of the approval. If
the extension of time is granted, the expiration date for the approval will be February 13,
1993.
EXISTING ZONING, SWAP AND FUTURE GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
Change of Zone No. 5385 was approved concurrently with Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended
No. 3 on December 6, 1989 by the Riverside County Planning Commission. The existing
zoning of the site created by Change of Zone No. 5385 is R-3-2,750 (General Residential).
The Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP) designation for the site is 8-16 du/acre. Plot
Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3 Extension of Time, as conditioned, is consistent with
existing zoning and the SWAP designation for the site. As such, it is likely that Plot Plan No.
11001, Amended No. 3 Extension of Time will be consistent with the City's General Plan
recommendations for the property in question, upon the plan' final adoption.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Environmental Assessment No. 33522 was completed for this site in conjunction with Plot
Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3 and a Negative Declaration was adopted by the City of
Temecula City Council on February 13, 1990. At that time, environmental issues were
mitigated for the project through conditions of approval. The proposed Extension of Time
does not indicate any changes to the previously approved Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No.
3. Staff therefore recommends that the Planning Commission re-affirm the previously adopted
Negative Declaration.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3 Extension of Time was filed with City of Temecula
Planning Department on December 17, 1991. The previously a pproved Plot Plan No. 11001,
Amended No. 3 proposed a 220-unit apartment complex located on approximately 13.8 acres.
The applicant is proposing no alterations to the previously approved Plot Plan No. 11001,
Amended No. 3. Ordinance No. 91-09 amended Section 18.30 (f) of Ordinance No. 348
pertaining to Extension of Time approval periods for Plot Plans. Under Ordinance No. 91-09,
a Plot Plan's approval period may be extended one (1) year, in addition to the previous
approval period of two (2) years, for a total of three (3) years. The applicant supplied valid
reasons for their request, which is required under Ordinance No. 91-09.
The proposed Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3 Extension of Time is consistent with the
existing zoning designation of R-3-2,750 (General Residential, minimum lot size 2,750 square
feet) and the SWAP designation of 8-16 du/acre. As such, it is like)y that Plot Plan No.
11001, Amended No. 3 Extension of Time will be consistent with the future General Plan
upon its adoption. An Environmental Assessment was completed for Plot Plan No. 11001,
Amended No. 3 and a Negative Declaration was adopted by the City of Temecula City Council
on February 13, 1990.
FINDINGS
There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3 Extension
of Time will be consistent with the City's future adopted General Plan, which will be
completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law. Plot Plan No.
11001, Amended No. 3 Extension of Time is a residential project. The proposed site
is designated as residential by SWAP.
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. If the
proposed use is inconsistent, it will not be detrimental because of the residential nature
of surrounding uses. Single family residential uses are located to the north of the site,
and multi-family uses are located to the west. The existing zoning is for general
residential uses to the south and east.
The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws. The
proposed use complies with local planning and zoning laws which are prepared in
conformance with State planning and zoning laws.
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of circulation
patterns, access, and intensity of use. The proposed Plot Plan, Extension of Time is
in conformance with Ordinance No. 348.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or
welfare. Potential impacts are mitigated to a level of non-significance under the
previously completed Environmental Assessment and through Conditions of Approval.
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, through appropriate building mass reduction techniques and
landscape installation, and distance from planned adjacent structures.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does
not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area. The
project conforms to the existing R-3-2,750 zoning and. SWAP 8-16 du/ac designation.
Zoning on adjacent sites is R-l, R-3-2,500, R-3-3,000 and R-3. The SWAP
designation on adjacent sites is 8-16 du/ac.
The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic. The project wilt take access from Margarita Road.
The design of the project, 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. The project has a adequate circulation
throughout the entire site.
10.
Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. This Staff
Report contains mapping and Conditions of Approval which support the Staff
recommendation.
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
REAFFIRM the previously adopted Negative Declaration for
Environmental Assessment No. 33522; and
ADOPT Resolution 92-__ approving the Extension of Time for
Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3 based on the Analysis and
Findings contained in the staff report and subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval.
vgw
Attachments:
Resolution No. 92-__ - page 6
Conditions of Approval - page 12
Exhibits - page 21
Vicinity Map
SWAP Map
Zoning Map
Site Plan
Elevations
Floor Plans
Landscape Plan
Aerial Photo
Artist Renditions
Minutes of City Council Meeting, February 13, 1990 - page 22
Conditions of Approval for Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No.
3 - page 23
Letter requesting Extension of Time for Plot Plan No. 11001
dated December 12, 1991 - page 24
A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 92-__
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 92-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 11001, AMENDED
NO. 3, EXTENSION OF TIME TO EXTEND THE APPROVAL
PERIOD FOR PLOT PLAN NO. 11001, AMENDED NO. 3 ON A
PARCEL CONTAINING 13.8 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF
MARGARITA ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET EAST OF
MORAGA ROAD AND 550 FEET NORTH OF RANCHO
CALIFORNIA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.
921-370-002, 003.
WHEREAS, David E. Walsh Co. filed Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3
Extension of Time in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and
Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS. said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing pertaining to
said Plot Plan on February 24, 1992, at which time interested persons had opportunity to
testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said Plot Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Endings.
That the Temecula Planning Commission 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 decisions be consistent with the general plan,
if all of the following requirements are met:
A. The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general
plan.
B. The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions,
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 fie 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 Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and meet 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 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 Plot Plan No. 11001,
Amended No. 3 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. The project is
consistent with Ordinance No. 348 and SWAP and therefore it
is likely to be consistent with the future General Plan upon its
adoption.
(2)
There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed -
use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The project
is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project conforms
to existing R-3-2,750 zoning and the SWAP 8-16 du/ac
designation.
(3)
The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances. The project is
consistent with Ordinance No. 348.
4. Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan 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.
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.
The Planning Commission, in approving the proposed Plot Plan, makes the following
findings, to wit:
There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3
Extension of Time will be consistent with the City's future adopted General
Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with
State law. Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3 Extension of Time is a
residential project. The proposed site is designated as residential by SWAP.
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. If the proposed use is inconsistent, it will not be detrimental because of
the residential nature of surrounding uses.
The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws. The
proposed use complies with local planning and zoning laws which are prepared
in conformance with State planning and zoning laws.
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of
circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use. The proposed plot plan is in
conformance with Ordinance No. 348.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public
health or welfare. Potential impacts are mitigated to a level of non-significance
under the previously completed Environmental Assessment and Conditions of
Approval.
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, through appropriate building mass reduction
techniques and landscape installation, and distance from planned adjacent
structures.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because
it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of
the area. The project conforms to the existing R-3-2,750 zoning and SWAP 8-
16 du/ac designation. Zoning on adjacent sites is R-l, R-3-2,500, R-3-3,000
and R-3. The SWAP designation on adjacent sites is 8-16 du/ac.
The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open
to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. The project will take access from
Margarita Road.
The design of the project, 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. The project has adequate
circulation throughout the emirs site.
Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental
documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by
reference. This Staff Report contains mapping and Conditions of Approval
which support the Staff recommendation.
As conditioned pursuant to SECTION III, the Plot Plan proposed conforms to the logical
development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future
development of the surrounding property.
SECTION II. Environmental Compliance.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby determines that the previous
environmental determination (Adoption of Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment
No. 33522 for Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3) still applies to Plot Plan No. 11001,
Amended No. 3 Extension of Time.
SECTION III. Conditions.
That the City of Temeculs Planning Commission hereby approves Plot Plan No. 11001,
Amended No. 3 Extension of Time extending the approval period for Plot Plan No. 11001,
Amended No. 3 on a parcel containing 13.8 acres located south of Margarita Road,
approximately 400 feet east of Moraga Road and 550 feet north of Rancho California Road
and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 921-370-002, 003 subject to the following conditions:
1. Attachment No. 2, hereto.
SECTION IV.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of February, 1992.
JOHN E. HOAGLAND
CHAIRMAN
S~TAFFNm~ ~oo~-~ .FP 10
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 24th day of
February 1992 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
mSTAFr-mm~O0~-~.;~ 12
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan No: 11001, Amended No. 3, Extension of Time
Project Description: Extension of Time for Plot
Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3 an approved Plot
Plan for a 220 unit apartment complex.
Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-370-002, 003
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for Extension of Time for Plot Plan No.
11001, Amended No. 3 an approved Plot Plan for a 220 unit apartment complex.
The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its
agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or proceeding against the City
of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul,
an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative
body concerning Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3 Extension of Time. The City
of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding
against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails
to promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to
cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to
defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula.
This approval shall be used within one (1) year of approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the one (1) year period which is thereafter
diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization
contemplated by this approval. This approval shall expire on
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on
Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3 Extension of Time marked Exhibit D, or as
amended by these conditions.
Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3 Extension of Time shall comply with any and all
Conditions of Approval for Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon
adjoining property or public rights-of-way. 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. (Condition No. 6 will supersede Condition No. 6 of the Riverside
County Conditions of Approval).
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
The applicant shall comply with the Public Works Department's Conditions of Approval
which are included herein.
Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood
Control District's transmittal dated January 8, 1991, copy of which is attached.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of
Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's tra~smittal dated January 14, 1992,
a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern
Municipal Water District transmittal dated January 13, 1992, a copy of which is
attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the California
Archeology Inventory Eastern Information Center transmittal dated January 16, 1992,
a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Department of
Transportation transmittal dated January 21, 1992, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside Transit
Agency transmittal dated January 21,1992, a copy of which is attached. Design and
location of the turnout shall be as directed by the Department of Public Works.
Prior to the issuance of grading and\or approved building permits, three (3) copies of
a Parking, Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plan shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for approval. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of
the plants shall be shown. Plans shall meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 348,
Section 18.12, and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. (Condition No.
14 will supersede Condition No. 17 of the Riverside County Conditions of Approval).
A minimum of 503 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12,
Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. 503 parking spaces shall be provided as shown
on the Approved Exhibit D. The parking area shall be surfaced with asphaltic concrete
paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on 4 inches of Class II base. (Condition No.
15 will supersede Condition No. 18 of the Riverside County Conditions of Approval).
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance and/or
permits from the following agencies:
Planning Department
Public Works Department
Environmental Health
School District
Riverside County Flood Control
Fire Department
Eastern Municipal Water District
(Condition No. 16 will supersede Condition No. 20 of the Riverside County Conditions
of Approval.
S~'TAFFI'.FT~lIOOI-I.F~ 14
17.
18,
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
A Plot Plan application for a Sign Program shall be submitted and approved by the
Planning Director prior to occupancy. (Condition No. 17 will supersede Condition No.
21 of the Riverside County Conditions of Approval).
Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit E.
(Condition No. 18 will include Condition No. 23 of the Riverside County Conditions of
Approval).
Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial conformance
with that shown on Exhibit E (Color Elevations).
No building permits shall be issued by the City of Temecula for any residential lot/unit
within the project boundary until the developer, or the developer's successors-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
of Temecula Department of Building and Safety as mitigation for public library
development.
All existing specimen trees on the subject property shall be preserved wherever
feasible. Where they cannot be preserved they shall be relocatad or replaced with
specimen trees as approved by the Planning Director.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with Ordinance No.
663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance which is based on (the gross acreage
of the parcels proposed for development) (the number of single family residential units
on lots which are a minimum of one-half (1/2) gross acre in size). Should Ordinance
No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the
payment of the fees required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee
required under the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or
resolution. (Condition No. 22 will supersede Condition No. 34 of the Riverside County
Conditions of Approval).
Prior to the sale or lease of any structure as shown on Revised Exhibit D, a land
division shall be recorded in accordance with Riverside County Ordinance No. 460 and
any other pertinent ordinance.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire 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 for building permit, enter into an agreement to complete the
improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such time as the City
acquires the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement shall
provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the
off-site property interests required in connection with the project. Security for a
portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an
appraisal report obtained by the developer, at the developer's cost. The appraiser shall
have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal.
26.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a Certificate of Parcel Merger shall be fi~Gd
---.~d approved by the Planning Department and a Certificate of Compliance shall be
recorded (Revised at February 24, 1992 Planning Commission meeting).
27.
Prior to Certificate of Occupancy, the property owner shall file with the City of
Temecula a tentative map for the purposes of condominium conversion together with
the appropriate fees.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval that shall either add
to, supersede or amend the previously approved conditions 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 personnel of the Department of
Public Works.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and
proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their
omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. Developer
shall be subject to all previously approved conditions of development prior to this extension
of time unless otherwise noted.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
28.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, developer must obtain a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control
Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES permit is granted or the project
is shown to be exempt.
29.
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.
30.
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.
31.
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.
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 and approval by the Department of Public
Works.
II~I'AFF'I~v~I '1001-1.1~ I 6
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
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.
All site improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and street
improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects.
Impravement plans including parkway trees and street lights prepared by a Registered
Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works shall be required for
all public streets prior to issuance of an Encroachment Permit. Final plans and profiles
shall show the location of existing utility facilities within the right-of-way as directed
by the Department of Public Works.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter,
sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, and other traffic
control devices as appropriate.
B. Storm drain facilities.
C. Landscaping (street and parks).
D. Sewer and domestic water systems.
E. Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines.
The developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval for offsite work performed
on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works.
Drainage calculations 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.
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.
S~TAFFlUn%llOOl-l,PP 17
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT:
44.
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.
45.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the Engineering
Department a cash sum as established par acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact.
(This shall supersede Condition No. 3 of County Road Letter dated December 6, 1989).
46.
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.
47.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed
upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as
required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be paid shall
be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final
public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on
which developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the
developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of
which has been provided to developer. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement,
developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount
of the bond shall be ~2.00 per square foot, not to exceed ~10,000. Developer
understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those
now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By
execution of this Agreement, developer will waive any right to protest the provisions
of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district,
or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this
project; orovided that developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness
of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY:
48.
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 Temacula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Department of Public Works;
Riverside County Health Department;
CATV Franchise;
Parl~s and Recreation Department;
General Telephone;
Southern California Edison Company; and
Southern California Gas Company.
49. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent.
50. Improvement plans per City Standards for the private streets or drives shall be required
for review and approval by the Department of Public Works.
51. Crosswalks shall be provided onsite on private street as directed by the Department
of Public Works.
52. Construct onsite improvements including but not limited to curb and gutter, A.C.
pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights as shown on
the approved improvement plans.
53. Dedicate a 28-foot easement for public utilities and emergency vehicle access for all
private streets and drives.
54. A 28-foot wide secondary access road to Margarita Road shall be provided within a
recorded private road easement as approved by the Department of Public Works.
55. Developer shall provide proof of an acceptable means of maintenance for all parkways,
open areas, landscaping, drainage devices, drives and parking areas.
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS:
56. Condition No. 19 of the County Road Department Letter, dated December 6, 1989,
shall be deleted in its entirety.
57. A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the City Engineer for Margarita Road and shall be included in the street
improvement plans.
58. Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering for the
design requirements.
59. 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:
60. A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer
and approved by the City Engineer for any street closure and detour or other disruption
to traffic circulation as required by the City Engineer.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
61. All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and striping plan.
62. Landscaping shall be limited within corner cut-off areas of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance visibility.
S~AFFRFr%11~l-l.I~ 20
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL aND ' ' WATER CONSeRVATiON DISTRICT
January 8, 1991
1491
City of Temecula
Post Office Box 3000
Temecula, CA 92390
Gentlemen:
Re: Plot Plan 11001
(Zmprovement Plan Ck. ~4)
Zn accordance with the conditions of aDproval for Plot Plan 11001
set forth in our letter to the City dated Hatch 6, 1989, the
following plans, Drepared by J. F. Davidson Associates, Znc.,
have b~en submitted to the District for review:
Plot Plan 11001, street improvement plane, dated December
17, 1990, consisting of 2 sheets, received by the
District December 18, 1990.
Plot Plan 11001, grading plans, dated November 8, 1990,
consisting Of 4 sheets, received by the District November
9, 1990.
Plot Plan 11001, storm drain plans, dated January 3,
1991, consisting of 5 sheets, received by the District
January 3, 1991.
4. Plot Plan 11001, hydrologic and hydraulic caqculations.
The District has reviewed the plans submitted and finds them
satisfactory with respect to flood control. However, the City
should note that Plot Plan 11001.is located within the limits of
the Hum'rieta Creek/Temecula Valle~ Area Drainage Plan for which
drainage fees have been adopted. A mitigation charge for new
development will be assessed. The charge shall equal the
prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of
the new development. This new development has a total of 13.8
acres grcss. The charge is payable to the Flood Control District
prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing Area
Drainage Plan fee.
The City should check to ensure that appropriate offsite
easements have been obtained prior to work outside the road
of way.
Very truly yours,
I
·
c: J. F; Oavi~son'~'ssoc~ate~;'Z.b~:;~ DEC 17
MG:pln Nli'd ............
210 IrEST ~U~/AC~O AV~.~ · PLaZA/S, CAIJi~!~A 9~T/0
Jsnuary 14,
TOs CITY OF TEffigCULA
RTTN: PLANNING DEPT
RE! P1,QT PLAN 1~OO1 AffiENDED #~
flrf"l~ ~ ~nl ~la~n~ng 4n~ Eng~neer~ni 8%elf,
Eastern Municipal Water District
Januat3r 15, 1992
Matthe~r Fagan
Planning Depa,'hilent
City of T~rnecula
43174 Business Park Dr.
Temecula, CA 92590
RE: Plot Plan Number 11001
Dear Mr. Fagan:
As requested, we have reviewgd the subject project and offer the following comments:
DOMESTIC WATER
The subject project is not located within Eastern Municipal Water Districes water service
area.
SANITARY SEWER
The subject project is fronted by an existing 8" diameter sanitary sewer pipeline in
Margarita Road. The developer is expected to submit a proposed conceptual plan of
sanitary sewer service for the subject project,
The proposed plan of service and a $400.00 deposit are to be submitted through the
District's Customer Service Depm hnent for review and approval by District staff.
Mail To: Post Office Box 8300 · SanJacinto, California 92581-8300 · Telephone (714) 925-7676 · Fax (714) 929-0257
Main Office: 2045 S. San Jadnto Avenue, San Jr_into · Customer Sentice/Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue, Hernet, CA
Mat~ew Fagan
PP 11001
January 13, 1992
Page 2
If you have any quesl~ons regarding these comments, please call me at (714) 925-7676,
extension 409.
Very wuly yours,
Judith C. Conacher
Development Coordinator
Jcc/prs
(vap-nt-wk-pp 11001 .prs)
cc: Planning
Maps & Records
D. Crosley
Callfomla
Arohaeologlcal
Inventon/
Eastern
Information
· Center
I:astem In|ormation Canlet
Department of Anthropology
University of Cafifomia
Riverside, CA 92521
(714) 787-5745
CULTURAL RESOURCE REVIEt/
FOR THE CITY OF TEHECULA DEVELOPHENT COHHITTEE
Date: ~'c, un. tL~. tc~R ~-
TO: City of Temecula Development Revtew Committee
RE: Case Transmittal Reference Designation: P C~ (~C~ t
Records at the Eastern Information Center of the California Archaeological
Inventory have been reviewed to determine tf this project would adversely
affect prehistoric or historic cultural resources:
The pr_~-~-e~__ed project area hal not been Surveyed fee cuLturaL roseurea .rd coot·Ira or is edjKent
to kham cuttur·t receuree(e). A Phase ! study is recamerded.
Based ~ existing date the pr~%~-~-__~d project are· hat the pOtentlet far containing cuttutor
resources. A Phase i study is recemmnded.
A Ph·se i culture{ receurce study (NF- ) identified me or mere ajItural resource.
The project area centaim. or has the I~salbltity of containing. culture( receurceL Notever,
due to the nature of the project or prier date recover/studies. an adverse effect on cutrural
resources is nat entlctpeted. Further study le not recme,erded.
A Phase i cultural resource study (NF- .L,',',',',',',','~Le'~' ) identified no cultural resources. Further study
is not recoearaeded.
There is a tot, prdablllty of cultural recourcec. Further study is not recmeefded.
v/ If. during c~rtstruCtien, cuttutor resources ere er,~omtered, ecrk sheutd be hatred or diverted in
the i.m~edtete ere uhlie a qualified erchameinglst evetunics the finds and nokec recamevdetlms.
The eulxtssien of · Cutrural resource nanneat report is racemended foilwing guidetines for
Archemelogicei Resource Nonagemerit Reports 'prepared by the California Office of Historic
Preservation, Preservation Piennir~ Buttetin &(e), DecOr 1989 or those report guldei tnos adapted
by Riverside C~anty.
Nee I - Survey.
Phees It - Testing [EvaCuate resource signifiesroe and integrity of knokn resources aml/er
resources identified fr;e · field survey.]
Ph·es lit - [Prqx~e eddlti,nsl investigations If required. mimic project ilRgecte. and
propose me·cures to elttgete potentlet 8dveree effects.]
you have any questions, please give us a call.
January 21,
1992
Development Review
08-Riv-15-5.130+
Planning Department
Attention Z.~. Matthew Fagan
City of Temecula
City Hall
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Dear Mr. Fagan:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed
Plot Plan No. 11001 Extension of Time located south of Margarita
Road, approximately 400 feet east of Moraga Road and 550 feet
north of Rancho california Road.
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.
If any work is necessary within the State highway right of
way, the developer must obtain an encroachment permit from the
Caltrans District 8 Permit Office prior to beginning work.
Please be advised that this is a conceptual review only.
Final approval will be determined during the Encroachment Permit
process.
If additional information is desired, please call Mrs.
Minerva Rodriguez of our Development Review Branch at (714)
4384.
383-
Attachment
CALTRANS DEVELOPMENT
?P I I I
yOuR PaFERENC~
PLAN CNEC:ICER
WE REQUEST THAT THE ITEM~ CHECKED BELOW
APPROVAL FOR THIS PROJECT:
BE INCLUDED
NoemaL RIGHT OF VAT DEDICATION TO PROVIDE
NONHAL STRE~ IHPRCWEHENTS TO PROVIDE
CURB AND GUTTER f STATE STANDAND N8-A
I - 5
DATE
( CO RTE PM)
IN =asJ$ CONDITIOh, uF
HALF"'VIDTH CH THE STATE HIGINAY.
, TYPE A2-8 _ ALONG THE STATE HIGHVAYo
I:)ARI:IHG SHALL BE PROHIBITED ALONG THE STATE HIGI~JAT BY THE PROPER PLACEMENT OF NO PARKING SIGNS.
35 FT RADIUS CUR8 RETraiNS SHALL BE PROVIDED AT IIffERSECTIONS UITH THE STATE HIGHVAT. STATE STAND~D NB-B~
CASE-A WHEELCHAIR RAMPS SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE CU~18 RETURNS AS DEFINED IN THE HIGMWAY DESIGH MAN. UAL. t.
SECTION 105.4 (2)-
A POSITIVE VEHICULAR BARRIER ALONG THE PROPERTY FIIONTAGE SHALL BE PROVIDED TO tINIT PHYSICAL ACCESS TO THE.
STATE HIGHWAY ·
VEHICULAR ACCESS SHALL NOT BE DEVELOPED DIRECTLY TO THE STATE HIGHWAy.
VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE STATE HIGHWAY SHALL BE PROVIDED BY EXISTING PUBLIC ROAD CONNECTIONS.
VEHZCUI,~R ACCESS TO THE STATE HIGHUAY SHALL BE ~ROVIDND BY STANDARD DRIVEWAYS.
VEMI(~J,,AR ~ ~ ~ ~ t~IOVIDED WITHIN OF THE I~CTICH AT
VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE STATE HIGHWAT SHALL BE PROVIDED BY .A ROAD--TYPE CONNECTION.
VEHICULAR ACCESS CONNECTIONS SHALL BE PAVED AT =L~AST WITHIN THE STATE HIGHWAY RIGHT OF t~kT.
ACCESS POINTS TO THE STATE HIGHWAY SHALL BE DEVELD~ED IN A HAMMER THAT WILL PROVIDE SIGHT DISTANCE FOR
HPH ALONG THE STATE HIGHVAT.
__ LANDSCAPING ALONG THE STATE HIGHWAY SHALL PROVIDE FOR SAFE SIGNT OISTANCEp COMPLy WITH FIXED OBJECT SET
ANO BE TO STATE STANDARDS,
__ A LEFT--TURN LANEr INCLt/)ING SHOULDERS AND ANY ~SSART WIDEMINOr SHALL RE PROVIDED ON THE STATE RIGMWAT.
A TRAFFIC STUOT INDICATIMG ON AND OFF--SITE FLOW P&TTERNS AND VOLONE$~ PROBABLE Ih'PACT$ AND PROPOSED HITIGAT[~
MEASURES SHALL BE PREPARED.
PARKING SHALL 8E DEVELOPED IN A HAMMER THAT WILL NDT CAUSE ANY VEHICULAJt ~HENT CONFLICTSt INCLUOING PARKI~
STALL ENTRANCE AND EXITt WITHIN __ OF THE ENTRANCE FROM THE STATE MIGHk~AT.
CARE SHALL RE TAKEM WHEN DEVILBRING THIS PRONER1T TO PRESERVE AND PERPIll/ATE THE EXISTING DSAIHASE PATTE&"S
OF THE STATE HIGHWAY° PARTICULAR COliSIDE~TION SIC~JLD BE GIVER TO CIJIqUL~TI~ IRONEASED $TONH RUNOFF TO
THAT A HIGHWAY DIIAIHACE PRONLEH IS NOT ONF.&TED.
PLEASE REFER TO ATTACHED ADDITIONAL C34qENTS. FROVIDE TO APPLICANT,
PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THIS IS X CONC~FT~AL REVIEW ONLY. FINAL APpROVAX
BE DETERMINED DURING THE ENCROACHMENT FERMIT PROCESS.
CONSTRtJCTION/D Ig4OI, ITIOM WITHIN PIlESENT OR PEf/~,~ED STATE BIGHT OF gAY SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED FOR POTEBTIAL
HAZARDOUS WASTE ( I ,E ,ASgEST0S; PETRQCHEI4]CALS; ETC, ) AND MITIGATED AS PER EEOUIREMEHTS OF REGU~ATORT AGENCIES.
T~qHEN PLANS ARE SUBHITTE~r PLEASE CONFOIIM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ATTACHED IIF, ANDOUTII,, THIS &/ILL EXPEDITE
THE REVIEW PROCESS AND TIME REOU1RED FOR PLAN CHECk. PROVIDE TO APPLICANT.
~d. TNOIJGH THE TRAFFIC AMD/OR DRAINAGE GENERATED BY THIS PEfi'~AL DO NOT APPEAR TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
ON THE STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM; C,nlISIDERATIOR flUST GE GIVEN TO THE Ct,NJLATIVE EFFECT OF CONTINUED OEVELOPMENT
IN THIS ARRA. ANY NEA~S NECESr~IIY TO MITIGATE THE (IJ4ULATIVE IMPACT OF TRAFFIC AND/OR DRAINAGE SHALL 6E
PROVIDED PRIOR TO OR WITH DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA THAT NECESSITATES THEM.
CONSIDERATIOR SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE PEOVISIGEI OR FUTURE PROVISION~ OF SIGNILIZATIOR AND LIGHTING OF THE
' INTE~ECTICM OF Hi) THE STAY1 HI(MaY kMEN ~Ia~NTS ME ~.
IT APPRARS TRAT THE T~FFIC AND/OR OItJkINAG~ GENEIUkTED IY THIS PROPOSAL COULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT OR
' THE STATE NIGHT SYSTEM OF THE AREA. ~ HEASURE$ TO MITIGATE THE TRAFFIC ANO/OR DRAIHAGE IMPACTS SHALL BE
INCLUOED WITH THE DEVELOIMqENTo
THIS PORTIOR OF THE STATE HIGHgAY I$ INCLWDED IN THE ~LIFORHIA MASTER PLAN OF STATE HIGHgAYS ELIGIBLE FOR
OFFICIAL SCENIC HIGHgAY D(SIGNATIOR AND IN THE FTjIlNE YOUR AGENCY MAY WISH TO HAVE THIS ROUTE OFFICIALLY
DESIGNATED AS A STATE SCEHIC HIGMY,
THIS PORTZON OF THE STATE HIGHgAY HAS BEEN OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED AS A STATE SCENIC HIGHgAY~ AND DEV~LOI~4ENT
IN THIS CORRIDOR SHOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SCENIC NIGIG4AY CONCEPT,
IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT THERE IS C~INSZDERABLE MLIC C/)NCEHN ABOUT NOISE LEVELS ADJACENT TO HRAVILY TRAVeLLED
HIGHWAYS. ~ DEV~LOPt4ENT; 1N OROER TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THIS CONCERNf MAY REDWIRE SPECIAL NO I$~ ATTENUATION
MEASURES, D~VELQIqqEKT OF THIS IMtOPERTY S~ INCLtJOE ANY NECESSARY NOISE ATTEIG,tATIOM,
CALTRANS DISTRICT 8
DwVELQPMENT REVIEW ~IIANCH
P.O. Box 231
SAH BERHAEDINO, CA 92402
A COPY OF ANY CONOITION$ OF APPROVAL OR REVISED APPROVAL.
A coPY OF ANY D(XIJ4ENTS PROVIDING AnOITIONAL STATE HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY UPON REnTION OF TiE MAP.
ANT PROPOSALS TO F1JMTNER DEVELOP THIS pROPERTT,
COPY OF THE TRAFFIC ON ENVIIk"OI4NENTAL S~Y.
CHECE PRINT OF THE PARCEL OR TRACT MAP.
A CHECE PRINT OF THE PLANS FOR ANY IMPRMMENT$ WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO THE STATE NIGHgAY RIGHT OF gAY,
A CHECK PRINT OF THE GRADING ANO DRAINAGE PLANS FOR THIS PROPERTY WHEN AVAILABLE.
R7'A
RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY
1825 11-IIRD STRI~'T · RIVERSIDE, CA 92~07-3484 · BUS, [714) 884<)850 FAX (714) 684-1007
January21,1992
Matthew Fagan
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecuia, CA 92590
RE: PP 11001
Dear Mar~ew:
We currently provide sen/ice to the site mentioned above via Route 23 and we are requesting that
a bus turnout or a pad for a bus stop be incorporated into the general design as the size of the
planned project will negatively impact our level of SeNice unless this amenity is constmnted.
An ideal location for the bus turnout wouid be on SOuthSide comer of Margartta Road nearside the
pdrnaW gate adjacent to the proposed recreation center.
If possible, we would also like to request that pedestrian walkways and wheelchair curb be
provided near the turnout iocation specified above. I can indicate the exact location for the
turnout as the project progresses.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. Your efforts to keep us
updated on the status of this request will be veW much appreciated. Please let us know when this
project will be completed.
Should you require additional information or specirmations, please dent hesitate to contact me.
SS-.comly,
BBrjsc
PDEV #137
A'I'!'ACHMENT NO. 3
EXHIBITS
S~TAFFem~ ~OO~-~ .~ 19
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
EXHIBITS
CITY OF TEMECULA
ADMIM$ TRA }'ION
BLDG
·
CC
!0 84DG
el) I,I,.4z4
CASE NO.: Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3, Extension of Time
EXHIBIT: A VICINITY MAP
P.C. DATE: February 24, 1992
CITY OF TEMECULA
+
DUI AC
CASE NO.: Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3, Extension of Time
EXHIBIT: B SWAP MAP
P.C. DATE: February 24, 1992
CITY OF TEMECULA
0 R-3
CASE NO.:
EXHIBIT: C
P.C. DATE:
Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3, Extension of Time
ZONING MAP
February 24, 1992
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.:
EXHIBIT: D
P.C. DATE:
Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3, Extension of Time
SITE PLAN
February 24, 1992
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.:
EXHIBIT: E
P.C. DATE:
Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3, Extension of Time
ELEVATIONS
February 24, 1992
CITY OF TEMECULA
.-i
i
CASE NO.:
EXHIBIT: F
P.C. DATE:
Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3, Extension of Time
FLOOR PLAN
February 24, 1992
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3, Extension of Time
EXHIBIT: F FLOOR PLAN
P.C. DATE: February 24, 1992
CITY OF TEMECULA J
CASE NO.: Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3, Extension of Time
EXHIBIT: G -' LANDSCAPE PLAN
P.c. DATE: February 24, 1992
ATTACHMENTNO. 4
MINUTES OFCITYCOUNCIL MEETING
ON
FEBRUARY 13, 1990
8STAFFW~n~ ~ O0 ~ 4 .R, 2 1
City Council Minutes February 13. 1990
It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by
Councilmember Moore to adopt an urgency ordinance to extend
~he moratorium through January S, 1991, witha provision added
to Section 2, exempting non-commercial (Ham Radio) antennas as
follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 90-03
AN ORDIN~NC~ OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
T~!~CUIa EXTENDING ORDI!~NCE NO. 90-01 WHICH
DECIa~EB A MORATORIUM ON THE CONSTRUCTION AND USE
OF T~Lasv~BZONAIID RADIO ~d~T~
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore
Mufioz
i COUNCILMEMBERS: Parks
0 COUNCIIa~EMBERS: None
It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember
Birdsall to adopt a resolution entitled:
ItESOLCTION NO. 90-17
A PaBOLCTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA DESCRIBING MEASURES TAKEN TO
ALLeViATE 1'~'- CONDITION wn£CH LED TO THE
ADOFTION OF URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 90-01
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore
Mufioz, Parks
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Cha~Ge of Zone No. 5385 and Plot Plan 11001
Mayor Parks declared the Public Hearing open at 8:46 PM.
Hfnutes\2/13\~O -8- 03/02/~)
City council Minutes February13. 1990
City Manager F. D. Aleshire introduce~ County Planner Richard
McHott who presented the staff report. Mr. McHott stated that
this is an application for a 220 unit apartment project
located on 13.8 acres located north of Rancho California Road
and south of Margarita Road. The zone change will allow for
a slight density increase. He further advised that this
property does lie in the Stephens Kangaroo Rat preservation
area.
The Proponent David Walsh, gave the Council a report on the
project. He stated that~he project would be built for condo
conversion at a later date. He outlined the amenities to be
included in both the total project and in the individual
units.
councilmember Lindemans questioned if this is a low-cost
housing project.
Mr. McHott explained that the project is not a low-cost
project, the forms included in the Council~s packet were for
information only.
Councilmember Lindemansquestioned if the project was designed
for adult occupancy.
Mr. Walsh explained that occupancy could not be limited to
adults only, but that the design of the units did lend
themselves more to use by adults than by families with
children.
Robert Oder, 29590 Mira Loma DriVe, spoke in opposition to hhe
development of the condominium concept. He questioned if the
market for this type of development exists, stating that he
had not had any success marketing his apartments as
condominiums.
Mr. Walsh, speaking in rebuttal, stated that a market did
exist for condominiums and successful marketing depended upon
the units being properly designed.
Mayor Parks declared the public hearing closed at 9:06 PM.
Councilmember Moore questioned the impact this development
would have on traffic in this area.
Councilmember Lindemans asked if any traffic mitigation fees
have been collected for this project.
~4inutes\2/13\90 -9- 03/02/90
Citv Council Minutes February 13. 1990
Richard MacHott stated that no fees have been assessed for
freeway on/off ramps as described by Councilmember Lindemans
but all required street improvements recommended were included
in the conditions.
Councilmember Mufioz stated he would like to see this matter
continued to allow time to look at all the properties in the
area and the impact of all the high density projects on
traffic, schools and freeway access.
Councilmember Lindemansexpressed his concerns with increasing
the density in any of the projected apartment projects.
Councilmember Moore stated that the when the City Council
adopted the Southwest Area Plan the City should make any
recommended changes, but until then she felt it was only fair
to use the Riverside County standards which have been given to
the developers.
Councilmember Birdsall asked the exact number of units to be
added to the project if the zone change is approved. Mr.
Walsh replied thatthe change would allow an additional 16 to
17 units, which would allow for the installation of the
additional emenities he outlined at the beginning of the
hearing.
Mayor Parks commentedthatthe City Council is operatingunder
the Southwest Area Plan which allows for 8-16 units per acre,
that the fees have all been included, the proposal is for a
high quality development, and the issues of terrain have been
properly addressed. He also stated thatthis meets a need for
good entry level housing.
Councilmember Mu~oz asked how much high density development
can the community tolerate in the areas where traffic is
already impacted and where there is not sufficient
recreational areas for the children.
Councilmember Lindemans asked if the developer would be
amenable to a condition assessing additional fees to go toward
freeway on and off-ramp development if the City Council adopts
such a mitigation program later on.
Mar. Walsh stated that this would be acceptable, if the City
Council does adopt such a fee schedule, and if the cost of
such a condition could be defined now.
Councilm-mher Lindemans stated that he felt the City Council
is sending out the wrong signal to developers by approving
this project because of the increase in density.
Minutes\2113\90 -10- 03102190
City Council Minutes February 13. 1990
It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember
Birdsall to approve Plot Plan 11011, Exhibit A, Amended No. 3
with the addition of a condition number 35 which would read as
follows:
Prior to the issuance of individual building permits, the
applicant shall comply with any generally applicable
traffic mitigation program to pay for freeway, bridge
and/or major thoroughfare facilities which may be
established between the date of approval of this Plot
Plan and the issuance of individual building permits,
provided the fee shall not exceed $150 per unit.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Moore, Parks
NOES:
i COUNCILMEMBERS: Mufioz
ABSTAIN: i COUNCILMEMBERS:
Lindemans
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Richard MacHott advised that this matter will be brought back
to the City Council after the Planning Staff has prepared the
necessary changes to reflect the Council action, and this
should be within the next three to four weeks.
COUNCIL BUSINESS
10. Classification Titles, Salary RanGes and Initial Personnel
Policies
City Manager F. D. Aleshire said that this action carries out
City Council direction given at the budget workshop held on
January 20, 1990 and the additional direction given regarding
the position of Manager, Information Systems given on February
6, 1990. Me then introduced personnel consultant Mr. Michael
Deblieux of the firm of IEM (Ideas for Effective Management).
Mr. Deblieux outlined the methods used in the preparation of
the report and the recommendations to the City Council and
invited questions.
Councilmember Mufioz questioned if the local data on salaries
was included as requested by Council on January 20, 1990.
klinutes\2/13\90 -11- 03/02R0
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PLOT PLAN NO. 11001, AMENDED NO. 3
R/VEX:SIDE COUNTY PLMNING DEPARTI~T
CI3RDITIOIG OF NPPIK)VAL
Davtd E. lalsh & Company
11777 krnardo Plaza Ct.
San Dtego, CA 92128
Ste. 207
PLOT PLAN NO. 11001, Exh. A, knd. f3
ProSect Description: Construct a
220 untt aperment complex
Assessor's Parcel No.:
921-370-002, 003
Area: Rancho Clllfornta
1. The use hereby pemttted by thts plot plan ts for a 220 untt eparment
1
comp ex.
e
The permittee shall defend, Indemnify, and hold harmless the County of
RIverside, its agents, officers, end employees from any clatm, action, or
proceeding agatnst the County of RIverside or its agents, officers,
employees to attack, set aside, 1
void, or annu , an approval of the County
of Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal beards, or legislative body
concerning PP 11001, Exhibit A, Amended No. 3. The County of Riverside
All promptly nottry the permittee of eny such claim, action, or
proceeding against the County of Riverside and wtll cooperate fully ~n the
defense. ]f the County falls to promptly notify the permittee of any such
claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully tn the defense,
the permittee sha~l not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify,
or hold hamless the County of Riverside.
This approval shall be used vtthtn 1~o (2) years of eppreval date;
othenetse it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. By
use (s meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by
this approval vtthtn the rio (2) year pertod whtch ts thereafter
diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial
utilization contemplated by thts approval.
The development of the premtses shall conform substantially vtth that is
shown on plot plan marked Exhtbtt A, Md. f3, or Is amended by these
conditions.
S. In the event the use hereby permitted ceases operltton for a pertod of one
(1) year or mere, this appreval shall become null led votd.
6. Any outstde 119htlng sbe11 be hooded and directed so is not to shine
dlrectly upon adjoining property or publlc rights-of-ray, end shill comply
vlth Ordinance No. 655.
e
The applicant shall comply wtth the street tmprevement recoemendattons
outltned tn the County Road Oepertment transmittel dated 0-14-FJ, · copy
of which ts attached.
PLOT PLAN IlO. ~ZO01, FJch. A
Amended NO. 3
Conditions of Approval
Page 2
8. ilater and sewerage dtsposal tictittles shell be Installed tn accordance
vtth the provisions set forth t9 the RIverside County Health Department
transmittel dated 7-2l)-89, m copy of whtch tS attached.
Floocl p~otectton shall be prq. vtded ~n accordance vtth the RIverside County
Flood Control Dtstrtct transmittel dated 7-29-89, a copy of vhtch ts
attached.
lO. Ft~e p~otect~on shall be provtded tn accordance with the approprhte
section of Ordinance 546 and the County FIre Warden's transmittel dated
7-26-89, a copy of whtch ts attached.
The applicant shall crmpl}' v~th the recommendations set forth tn the
Department of Butldtng and Safet~ Land Use hct~on transmittel dated
8-4-89, a copy of vhtch ts attached.
12. The applicant shall comply vtth the recommendat(one set forth tn the
Department of Butldlng and Safety Gradtng Sectton transmittel dated
4-:Z3~89. a cop}. of vh~ch ts attached.
23. The applicant shell comply vtth the recommendations set forth tn the
RIverside County Geolog4st*s transmittel dated 9-~9-B9, a copy of ~htch ts
Ittached.
14. The applicant shall comply v4th the recommendations set forth tn the
Count}' RIverside H-qlth Depa:ment, Dlvtston of Spade1 Services
transmittel .dated 9-22-89, a copy of ~htch ts attached.
The applicant shall compl.v vtth the recGemendatton set forth tn the
Elstnore Unton Htgh $chool Dtstrlct transmittel dated 2-26-89, a cop}' of
vhfch ts attached.
'~6. All landscaped ereas shall be 1anted tn accordance vtth lpproved
' landscape, Irrigation end sbedtn pT:ns prtor to the fssuance of occupancy
mtts. An automatic sprtnkVer system sbe11 be Installed end all
Tea;dscaped Irons shall be mltntalned lo I vtlble grovth condition.
Planting krlthtn ten (~0) feet of an ent~ or extt drhevay shall not be
permitted to grme htgher than thtrty (30) Inches,
Prtor to the tssuance of grading orbefidlng peretts, the applicant shall
subwit en 38.12 Imrktn , landscaping end Irrigation plot plan to the
Pllnntn Department led s~11 be accompanied b~ a f11tn9 foe is set forth
InSectTon 28.37 of O~d~nlnce348,
' A edntmum of five hundred and kenty-ntne (529) parktog spaces sial1 be
I! prevlded tn Icco dance utah Sectton ~8.12, eherstde County OrdtMnce No.
r
348. Fhe hundred and beenay-nine (529) pa~ktn9 spaces shell be provtded
PLOT RM I0. 21001, Exh. A
Mended No. 3
Conditions of Approval
Page 3
as shwn on the Ap roved Exhtbtt A, Plot Phn 11001, Mcl. 13. The
perktng ere· sha~l be surfaced ~th (Hphalttc concrete paytrig to a
etntmum depth of 3 1riches on 4 1riches of Class iX base.) (decomposed
granite compacted to amtntmum thickness of three (3) tnches treated ~th
not less than ~ gallon per square yard of penetration coat otl, followed
vithtn stx mnths by en application of ~ gallon per square yard of seaq
coat otl.
A mtntmum of stxteen (16) handicapped par~ing spaces shall be provtded as
sho~n on Exhtbtt A, Plot Plan 11001, Amd. t3. Each parktrig space reserved
for the handicapped shell be 1denttiled by a permanently efftxed
reflectortzed stgn constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or
equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The stgn
shall not be smaller than 70 square Inches tn area and shall be centered
at the triterlot end of the parking space at a sintmum hetght of 80 1riches
fran the bettom of the stgn to the parktng space ftnlshed grade, or
centered at amtntmum
hetght of 36 tnches from the pa~ktng space ftntshed grade, g~ound, or
sidewalk, A stgn shall also be posted tn a conspicuous place, at each
entrance to the off-street parktng factlit, y, not less than 17 tnches by 22
tnches In stze ,rlth lettering not less than 11rich tn hetght, which
clearly and conspicuously states the following:
· Unauthorized vehtcles not displaying dtsttngutshtn9 placards or
11cans· plates tssued for physically handicapped persons my be toned
away at o~er's expense· To~ed vehtcles may be reclaimed at
or by telephoning ."
Zn sddttton to the above requirements, the surface of each perktn9 place
shall have a surface Identification sign duplicating the symbol of
accessibility tn blue petnt of st least 3 square feet tn stze.
Prtor to the lssuance of abulldtng penntt, the applicantshall obtatn
clearance and/or permtts from the folioring agencies:
Road Depareent
Envtromental liealth
Rherstde County Rood Control
Ftre I:)eperbaent
trttten evidence of caapllance abel1 be presented to the Land Use Dtvtston
of the Depertaent of Butlding end Safety.
Prtor to the tssuence of butldfng permtts the following additions1 end/or
revtsed phns shell be submitted for Planntng Department approval:
$fgntng Program
Lsndscsptn , Irrigation and Shadtrig Plans
Ltghtfng PTsn
PLOT PLAN I10. 11001, Exh. A
Mended No. 3
Conditions ef Approval
Page 4
Bufidtng elevations shall be tn substenets} conformrice vlth that sho~n on
Exhlbtt C.
liatertels ned tn the construction of all buildings shall be tn
substantial conformrice vtth that shmm on Exhtbtt C (Color Elevations)
end Exhtbtt B (HaterIsis Board). These ere as follows:
Hatertel Color
Rooftng Hatertel
litndows end Boors
Exposed Ttmber Tre111s
Stain/Deck Ratltngs
& Perimeter Fendng
Extertor lla11 and Roof
Fasts
Colum caps of Bolcon-
1as end &Permiter Fence
ntsston $unrtse #108
b~ "Lifetile*
Rostdenttal $ertes by
"Wlndowmster Products"
$C-65 State by "Ptttsburg
Patnt"
4004 Extertor acryllc by
· Ptttsburg Patnt"
X-g7 By LeHabra Stucco
By Davtdson Brtck Co.
Traditional Espana
Dusty Blue
Shagbark Htckory
Catus
Padftc Sand
Ross Tan
J
4 ·
Roof-munted eclutpment shall be shtelded from ground vtew. Screening
mtertal sbe11 be subject to Plenntng Department approval.
Prtor to the final Ixtldtng Inspection approval by the Butldtng and Safety
departzent, a stx foot htgh decorative block us11 or combination
landscaped earthen berm end decorative block wall shall be constructed
aloe the enttre perimeter Of the project· The requtred wall and/or berm
shale be subject to the approval of the Dtrector of the Deparbnent of
Butldtng end Safety and the Plenntng DIrector.
26. Twelve (12) trash enclosures vhtch ere adequate to enclose a total of be
(2) btns shall be centrally locatod vtthtn the project, end shall be
constructed prtor to the Issuance of OccupanCy penntea. Each enclosure
Shell be six feat tn betght end shall be made vtth masonry block end e
gate ,htch screens the btns from external vtew.
Landscaping plans abel1 Incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along
strets and ~thtn the perktng areas.
All street 11ghts and other outdoor 11ghttng shell be shmm on electrical
plans suixnttted to the Department of k!1dtng and Safety for plan check
epprevel and shill comply ~th the requireseats of Rherstde County
Ordinance BO. 655 and the Rherstde County Comprehensive beers1 Plan.
Prtor to tssuance of butldtng peratts, berformnce securities, tn emunts
to be determined by the DIrector of Botldtng and Safety to guarantee the
FLOT FLAN I10. 11001, Exh. A
Mended No. 3
Cm,!tttons of ~l~roval
Page 6
I
Installation of planttags, w11s and fences tn accordance vtth the
approved plan, and adequate mintchance of the planting for one ~ear shall
be ftled KIth the Dtrector of Butldtng end Safety.
Prtor to tssuance of occupancy per,fits, all requtred landscape planttn9
end Irrigation shall have been 1natalled and be tn a condition acceptable
to the Dtrector of Butldtng end Safety. The plants shall be healthy and
free of weds, dtsease or pests. The Irrigation system shall be properly
constructed and tn good wrktn9 order.
All utilities, except electrical 11nes rated 33kV or greatar, shall be
Installed underground'.
Prior to tssuance of grading pemtts a Paleontologtcal Study shall be
performed and submitted to the Planning Department for approval. Zf the
potential for paleontologtcal resources are identified prlor to the
tssuance of gredtn9 pemtts, a qualified paleontologist shall ha retatned
by the developer for consultat(on and comment on the proposed gradtn9 wtth
respect to potential paleontologtcal tmpacts. Should the paleontologist
find the potential ts htgh for impact to significant resources, a
pre-grade meettrig between the paleontologist and the excavation and
gradtng contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist
or representative shall have the authority to temporar(ly dtvert, redtract
or halt grading acttvtty to allow recovery of fosstls.
33. Prtor to the issuance of gradtng or butldtng permtt:
The Secretary of the Interlot must have approved the Stephens'
Kangaroo Rat Habltat Conservation Plan and anY proposed tektn9 of the
SKRmust be tn compliance wtth the epproVed plan:
b. The Secretary of the Intertot must have tssued to the County, the
1
Section loin) Penn t rtqutred by the Engangered Species Act of 1973
and sltd Permtt must be In effect; and
c. Areport, prepared by I biologist betmilled by the U.S. Ftsh and
Wtldllfe Service to trap the Stephens~ rangereo Rat for scientific
purposes, docmenting the amount and quallty of occupted Stephens
ranglroo Rat Habttet subject to disturbance or destruction must have
been submtttud to and approved by the Plenntng Dtrectur.
Prior to the tssuance ore gradlng or butldfng peradt, the applicant shall~
comply vtth the provision of Ordinance No. 663 by paytrig the appropriate
fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superceded
by the provisions of ·Habttet Conservation Plan prtor to the payment of
the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall PlY the fee
required by the Habitat Conservation Plan as Implemented by County
ordinance or resolution.
PLOT PLAN I10. 1:~001, Exh. A
~eended No. 3
Conditions of Approval
Page 6
freeway, k=iclge ara/or major t~DroucJkEare facilities, which may be
es~,,~ ~ .x~a beU~een the c~te of alxWoval of this plot plan and the issuance
(~ ,~'X:~.~I''1''=1 ~ pezmits, provi~e~ t~e fee ~11 XX~C ~ 8150.00
per unit. (/erkled ~ Tesrecq,lx City tour=j1 ~m 2-13-90).
!q~:bc
11/28/90
3/6/90
.j
December 6, 1989
RIverside County Plannlng p_,,,4 uslon
4080 Lemon Street
RIverside, Ca 92501
(Apartment Complex)
REx Plot Plan 11001 - Amend #3
Road Correction #1
Team I - S~D #9
Lot 27 of TR 3334
AP #II1-111-111-9
· As amended by P.C. 12-6-89
· Ladies and Gentlehen:
with respect
referenced item,
recmndauions s
~o ~he conditions
the Road Department
approval for the ~bove
has The following
Prior to issuance of a building t or-any use allowed by this
.peruuLt, the applicant shall c~e~etr~ete the following conditions at
no cost to any government agency,
Sufficient right of way alon~ Nar~artta Road shall be
conveyed for public use to provide for a 55 foot half width
right of way.
Sufficient right of along the mecondary entry
(northeasterly driveway) s~1 be conveyed for lmblic use
1
~o provide for a 60 foot ful width right of way
terminat2xg in a standard cul-de-sac or should ~
proponent pzovlde documents for a private shared seco~ --y
sccess with adJe=ent landowner, the alternate 'B" es
described on P~ad C~rrmctlon Map dated 8-11-89 shall be
al~,~-~d by the R~ad D~partmant.
e
Prior ~o lssuan~e of a bulldin~ permit or any use allured
by thls permlt, the developer shall deposit wt~h the
ELverslde C~unty Road DelmrCeent the mm o~ $30,800.00
towards mitigating traffic Jmpacts for signal requ/ze-
~Ls ,-~nt represents 220 m~Lts · 2140'.00 per unit -
$30,800.00.
amended at P.C. 12-8-89
Prio: to cocupanc7 o: an~ use e11~ve~ by this permit, the
ap~licant shall construct the following at no cost to any
geverrment qencTt
County Standard l to. 100.
Asphalt emmlslon (f~g seal) shall ~e ap~lie~ not less
~ f~Nn ~ys foll~ placer of ~ asphit
scfsc~ sh11 ~ a~l~ at a rate of 0.05 gallant
s~e y~. ~p~lt ~ls~n s~ll co~o~ to S~tlon 37,
39 ~d 94 of ~e S~te St~ S~lflcatloM.
The la~ivAder wall provide a left turn lane on ua-gartta
Road at the intersectAon with the primaz7 entr~ as approvej
~/the Road Department.
Six foot wl~e concrete sidewalks shall he constructed along
Xs,~gEr.'LtE Road in accordance with County St&n~Erd No. 400
and 401 (curb s dewelk).
Improvement plans shall he based upon a centerline profile
extending a minimum of 300 feet I:~syonci the project
boundaries at a gra~e 8n~ alignment as epprove~ b~ the
ELy.reAVe County Road Con=Lsstoner. Completion o£
r~ad .,'lJ~.urov, snts does not h=ply acceptance for main-
tenance b~ C~unty.
Major drainage Is involved on tJtis project and its
resolution skall be as approved by the Road Ccemissioner.
Drainage control shall he as per Or~Lr~nce 460, Sect~Lon
11.1.
All w~rk~MwlthinCountTright of way shall have an
e~cr~achawntpermit.
All driveways shell conform to the applicable Rlvm-sLde
Cmmt7 Sta~-~s and shall he shmm on the street
~w~en'c plans.
All antrE.co drlvmwr/m $h~11 he channellzed with concrete
curb end guttar to prsvm~t 'hack-on- Pe..~iclzg ~ interior
drlm l~ ~/~c~g ~l~a~ f~ a ~
~e of 50 fNt ~ f~ f~ o~ ~,
When blockwalls are r~/ulred ~o be consCructe~ on ~op of
slops, · debris retention wall shall be cons~rurced at the
sV. TeeC right of vxy l~e V~ prevent sllr/ng of sidewalks as
epp=~ed by tam P~ad
. PzoJec~s crsatlne cut or fill slopes adjacent to The
s~reeU shall igovldm ~Toslon CO~T. Tol, sight distance
control and slope easements u apl=oved by The Road
The street design and heprovement concept of this project
shall be coox-4 ~ated wITh P/P ??l-G, P/P 882-00, P.P. 8328,
MB 159/15-21,4MB 54/25-30 and any ~elated hnprovement
(CSA)
Admints~ratcr determines whether This proposal qualifies
u~er an existin; assessment district or no~. If not, the
land owner shall file, after zsceiving tentative approval,
for an application wiTh IAFCO for ennexatlon into or
crea=lon of a 'Lighting Assessment Districot' in accordance
with Governmental Code Section 56000.
All private and lmbllc entrances and/or intermectlons
opposite thlm pro:Jerc mhall be coor~Lnated with This
proJerc and shown on The street improvement plans.
19. A sUrlping plan is zmc/uired for ~rgarlra Road. The
ze~val of the existing s~riping shall * be the
responsibility of applicant. Traffic st~ning and striping
shall be dens by County forces wiTh all ~ costs
bor~s by The applicant.
Should ~hls proJerc 11o vif/ltn any usessment/beneftt
district, the applicant shall prior ~o zecordation make
appltcauton for and psy for tbetz nappcn.tcnment of Ube
ansessmen~s or pay the unit fees in tam benefit distrlc~
un/ess said fees are deferre~ t~ ho//~.- pemit.
a P.M. peak hour. The applicant shall
suhelt · derailed proposal based upon a registered
engineer's findinN for ~ Department apprc~ral. 2~Ld
plans my be .~a~orponte~ with the stzwet ~mpzom~ment
plans.
'Z'~e eecor, a,.',-,/ e~t_--",/v:i. ll be cooz'd:L.--~ted v:Lt.~. 'I'R 23211 and
v:Lll be ee .,l~:m:.red !:~ 'the !toad Cceed. ee~otm~:.
K~V'ER.SI.D,E COl;~q.kz FLA.N'NZNG DEFZ, July 20, 1989
PLOT PLAN 11001, AKZNDZD NO. 3
2nv~romnsntal Health $erv4ces h~s reviewed Amended No. 3 dated
July 18, 1989 , Our current comencs r~ll rmu~n as ftaced
4~ our memo dated February 14, 1989,
RIVE:RiiDE: COUNTY !rI,OOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRiCt
Riverside County
Planning Department
County Administrative Center
Riverside, Coltrotate
Attention: Planner ,d~=~
Regtonal eam No. /
have revte~ed this case and have the following cmments:
Except for nuisance nature local runoff ~htch my traverse portions of the
property the project ts considered free from ordtn·ry storm flood hazard.
However, e storm of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New construc-
tion should comply with all applicable ordinances.
The topography of the ·tea consists of ~ell defined ridges and natural voter-
courses ~htch it·verse the property. There ts ·dequ·te ·re· outside of the
natural watercourses for buildtrig sites. The natural watercourses should be
kept free of buildings and obstructions in order to maintain the natural
drainage parteros of the ·tea and to prevent f:iood damage to new buildings.
A note should be placed on an environmental constraint sheet startrig, 'All new
buildings shall be floodproofed by elevating the ftntshed floors · minimum
18 inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosion protection shall be provt~
for mobile home supports."
This project ts in the . Are·
1
dratnage pl·n fees she 1 be paid in accordance wtth the applicable rules and
regulations.
The proposed zoning is consistent with extstlng flood hazards. $oee flood
control facilities or floodproofing may be required to fully develop to the
fmplted denstty.
/The Dtstrtct's report dated ~' ~"~)ts St111 current for this project.
The Dtstrtct does not object to the proposed mtnor change.
This project Is · part of . The project will be
tn t fl heard when tmprovmnts have been constructed tn
fm of ord ary S orm oed
accordance with approved plans.
The attached coBwrits apply.
~'CtvllUSHU~tneer
KINN&'I'H I_ a'~VARDI
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Hatch 6, 1989
Riverside County
Planning Department
County ~tministrative Center
Riverside, Calif~rnia glS01
MAR 13 1989
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
PLANNflqG DEPARTMENT
Attention: Regional Team No. 1
David Wahlgren
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Re: Plot Plan 11001
.This is a proposal to construct an apartment complex in the
Tamecula area. The site is along the south side o~ Hargarita
Road about 800 feet east of Noraga Road.
The topography of the area consists of a well defined ridge and a
natural watercourse with a drainage area Of over 100 acres which
traverse the north portion of this property. The applicant pro-
poses to use a storm drain to collect and convey the flows in the
above natural watercourse to the siteel northwest c~rner. The
storm drain design should De compatible with the downstream
fac~lities. The south portion of the property is located on high
ground. The oneits flows ~rom this portion of the property wnuld
be concentrated to the site's south corner with perking lots. ~n
easement ~or the outletting of this concentration should be ob-
tained ~rom the affected property owner.
The ~oard of Supervisors has adopted the Hurtlets Creek/Temecula
Valley ~rea Drainage Plan ~or the purpose of collecting drainage
fees. Those ~eel ~re used to construct needed flood control
l~cilities within the particular area. The ~rea Drainage Plan
~ees apply to new land divisions and are normally not required of
other types of new devalolment.
Virtually all new develol~nent causes increased storm runoff.
These increases are particularly troublesome in those watersheds
where an ~rea Drainage Plan has been adopted. In order to miti-
gate the downstream inpects brought about by increased runoff,
the District reccn~ends that Conditional Use .Cases, Plot Plans
and Public Use Cases be required to pay a .~J. ocd mitigation
charge. ~titigation charges, where appropriate, will be similar
to the current ~rea Drainage Plan ~ee rate.
Riverside County
Planning Department
Re: Plot Plan 11001
- 2 - March 6, 1989
Following are the District's recmmnendations:
A flood mitigation charge shell De paid. The charge
shell equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan foe rate
multiplied by the area of new develolmuent. The new
development in this ease includes a total of 13.8 acres.
At the current foe rate of $932 par acre, the mitigation
charge equals ~12,862.00. The charge is payable to the
Flood C~ntrol District prior to issuance of Permits. If
Area Drainage Plan foes or mitigation charges have al-
ready been paid on this [moparty in conjunction with an
earlier land division or land use case, the developer
should contact the District to ascertain what charges are
actually due.
The 100 year offsite tributary flows should be accepted
and safely conveyed to an adequate outlet. The storm
drain design should be compatible with the downstream
facilities. Emergency escape should also be provided.
Offsite drainage facilities should be located within
publicly dedicated drainage easements obtained from the
affected property owners. The documents should be re-
corded and a copy submitted to the District prior to the
issuance of Permits.
Oneits drainage facilities located outside of road right
of way should be contained within drainage easements.
Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and
obstructions.
Drainage focAlAt, as outlettAng sump conditions should be
designed to convey the tributary 100 year storm flows.
Additional umergency escape should also be provided.
The property's street and lot grading should be designed
in a manner that perpetuates the existing natural
drainage patterns with raspact to tributary drainage
area, outlet points and outlet c~nditions, otherwise. a
drainage easement should be obtained from the affected
property o~nere fur the release of concentrated or di-
Purred atom flows. A copy of the recorded drainage
easement should be subhAtred to the District fur review
prior to the issuance of permits.
Riverside County
Planning Department
Rex Plot Plan ll001
- 3 - March 6, 1989
A copy of the improvement plans and grading plans alon9
with supporting l~ydrologic and hydraulic calculations
should be submitted to the District ~or review and ap-
proval prior to the issuance of grading or building
CC;
J, F. Davidson
and Associates
Very trulyyours,
KENI~ZTH L- ~INARDS
~~Z~gineer
RC~seb
7-26-89
PIOT FIJ3 11001 - &HEI~D 13
gtth respect to the conditions of spproval regarding the ·boys referenced
plot plan, the Fire Departsent recommends the following fire protection
measures be provided in ·ccordncevith ~Lverside County Ordinances end/or
recognized fire protection standards:
The Fire Department is required to set ·ainUrim flre flov for the
remodel or construction of a11 c~.ercial buildings using the procedure
established in Ordinance
Provide or ahoy there exists a rarer system capable of delivering 1750
for · 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure vhich must
be avetreble before any combustible naterie1 is placed on the Job site.
A combination of on-site end off-site super fire hydrants, on a looped
system (6*'x~"x2jx2i), rill be located not less than 25 fuse .ors ore than
165 feet from any portion of the building as masonred along spproved
vehicular trs~alvays, The required fire fZon shall be available from
lay adjacent hydrant(s) in the system,
The required fire flora oF be adjusted it a later point in the permit
process to reflect changes in dasip, construction t~pe, are· separation
or built-in firs protection-ensures.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the valet system plans to
the Fire lkparrment for rwiw, exerts shall conform to the fire hydrant
tTpas, Xocstlou and sp·cinl, mud, the spices a hill most the fire fXon
requiresante. Plans shell be siped/spproved by a registered civil
engineer and the loci1 vttar coupsay vith the folloving certification=
wl certify clmt the design of the valet eTatom to in accordance with
the requirescuts prescribed by the e4vsrside County Firs Deparumnt.w
XnstaLl a complete fire spr4s~l~r systom inmlAbulldiuas requirinS a
fire flow of l~O0 GPK or granter, The post indicator valve mud fire
departsant connection shall be located to the fronts within 50 feet of
a hydrant, and a winimm of 25 feet from the buildinS(I). · statensat
that the buildinS(s) viII be automtically fire sprinklered amst be
included on the title paso of the buildins planes
I sm
/~: ~ ~OO1 ~sge 2
Insta.ll · supervised voter flov monitoring fire alarm system. Plans unit be
submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation, as per
Uniform Building Code.
Se
In lieu of fire sprinkler requiremats, building(s) unst be area separated
into square foot comparesmats, approved by the Pire Deparrment, as per
Section S05 (e) of the Uniform Building Code.
· etaanent that the buildingsill be automatically fire sprinklered
--'st appear on the title pa~e of the building plans.
Certain designated areas will be required to be uaintained as fire lanes.
3~. lastall' portable fire --tinguishsrs vith a minimum rating of 2A-10BC.
Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment,
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit
vith the R4verside County Fire lkpercment, s cash mm of $400.00 per unit
as mitigation for fi~e protection impacts.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be
responsible to subucLt a check or money order in the amount of $3~5.00 to
the R~verside County Fire Department for plan check fees.
Applicant/developer shall be responsible to.install a fire alarm system.
Plans Bust be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to
installation.
Final conditions yell be addressed v hen building plans are revieved in
Building and Safety.
16. Install a hood duct fire extinguishing system. Contact a carlifted fire
protection company for proper placement, Plans Bust be appraved by the
Fire Department prior to installation.
17. access gates to be provided ~itb key pad entry for emergency use. Access
code to be issued by the Fire bparmut,
18. a-case gates will be provided with aergency back-up system.
i~l questions regardins the mes~ln~ of the conditions sh&Lt be referred to the
Wire Department Plazming and Engineering staff,
RIYHOHDR. lEGIS
Fire Departmat Fleanor
By
Laura Cabral, Fire Safety Specialist
'-'
August 4, 1989
Administrative Center · 1777 Atlanta Avenue
Riveraide, CA 92507
RIverside County Planntng Department
Attention: Randy WtlSQn
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
RE: Plot Plan 11~1, Exhtblt A, Amendment
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety
has the following comments and conditions:
If the proposed project is to be "phased," an approved exhibit
indicating which structures and on-site improvements are
required for each "phase" should be req.uired.
An additional plot plan or an approved exhibit for on-site
signage willbe required.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, written
Is required from the following:
* Elsinore Union High School District
* Temecula Unified Schhol District
clearance
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall
provide the Land Use Division with evidence of record'atton
of a Certificate of Parcel Merger.
Engineered plans ere required for any walls or fences over st~
feet in height. An approved setback adjustment from the Planning
Department ts required for walls or fences over six feet in height
found in required setback areas.
Swimming pool to be fenced according to requirements specified
in Ordinance 421.1. Health Department approval will be re-
quired on pool plans.
Administrltion (714) 682-8840 · (714) 787-2020
Planning Department
Plot Plan 11001
August 4, 1989
Page 2
if approved elevations ere requtred from the Planning Department
the approved plans must be submitted to the Land Use Division
cOncurrently wtth submittal of structural plans for review.
Prior to acceptance of structural plans for Building and Safety
review, one complete set of epproved conditions from Planning
Department must be attached.
Prior to issuance
be tn conformante
per Ordinance 655.
of building permits, proposed lighting must
with Mount Palomsr Lighting Plan, Zone B,
Performance Securities Bond for maintenance of landscaping
.may be required. Consult your conditions of approval.
Very truly yours,
Lan se nlc an
/$n
p'/glo/, . 1.0 . ,/Tiff ev ~r
Grading Notes by:
?P Hool
APT. <~mpLct~Claments
Znitial
~ ~,il:~,~,
e-//el ' it/~) ~, a',~'
CI:3UNTY 1:3F RIVERSIDE
' ~ PLANNTNG DEPARTNENT
~uguSt 18. 1989
R[:
Randy itlson - Team 1
Steven A. ICupfenmn -'Engt.neerlng
Plot Plan 11001
Slope.Stability Report No. 124
6eologlst~
The following report has been rayteed relattve to slope stability at the
subject stte:
*Prellmtna~j Sotls Eng4~eertng Investigation, Plot Plan 11001, 13.8 Acre
Stte, Rancho California Area, County of RIverside, CA," by Geo Sotls, dated
14arch 30, 1989; and "Addendum to Preltndnary Sotls Investigation, Plot Plan
11001," dated August 4, 1989 by Geo Sotls.
Thts report daterefined that adverse ~eologtc structures are not anticipated to
adversely effect the proposed development.
This report recfommnded that:
,
Ftll slopes should be destgned at 2:1 (horizontal to verttcaq)
gradients and should not exceed 25 feet tn height, F(11 'slopes should
be properly butlt and compacted.
Cut slopes In formattore1 eqtertals should he at gradients of 2:1 or
less and should not exceed 25 feet tn height.
Cut slopes should be further evaluated by an engineering geologist
durtng stte gradtrig.
Cut and fill slopes should be provtded vtth appropriate surface
drltMge features and landscaped vtth drought tolerant vegetation as
soon as posstble after gradtrig.
krms should be p~orided at the top of ftll slopes, end b~ov dttches
should be constructed at the top of cut slopes. Lot drltnage shculd be
directeel such that surface rueoff on slope faces ts edntn~zed.
Thts report saltsties the knerel Plan requirement for a slope stability
Tort. The recoeeendettons aide tn thts report shell be adhered to tn the
estgn aM construction of thts project.
i'-. . · · ~ COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
' :*~ DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
, .. / 40I~ COUNTY ClRCi'[ bR. RIV~RSID[. CA. 11~503 (MltlteI ieerel$ - P.O.
September 22, 1989
To:
landy V~lson, Planner
Tea~ l
I~ventde County Plann~n$ Department
CAC
&080 Leon Street, 9th Floor
l~vereide, CA 92501
Division of Special Services
L~verside C~unty Realth Department
F,O. Box 7600
A065 County Circle Drive
Xivereide, CA 92513-7600
Subject:
Amended levity of an Acoustical lopore for
Racquetclub Aparcmenzs, PP 11001
Applicant:
Cary~ubols
Welsh Bulldin8 and Construction
11777 !arnardo Plus Court, Sulte 207
Saz~ DIego, CA 92128
Information Provided:
April 7, 1989
Noise assessment and Noise Control
lec~endattons, hcquetclub Apartments (YP
I1001) in the City of iancho California,
B~vers~de County by J.J. Van Routon and
Associates, Inc.
September 20, 1989
Revised ioloe losessnout and loise Control
Recmends'tious, Recquetclub l~arensnto in
the City of ~o ~~, ~vertide ~ty '
~J.J. VuR~Usoch~ea, ~.
Noise Information iequire~ents:
N~lse ~lement of liverside County General
Plan sta~es "to avoid future noise hazard,
the magnum capacity design standard
(average dally trips) for highrays and
major roads shall be used for determining
the maximum future noise level, or 20 years
in ease of freerays.
2, luteriot noise level dot dvelling units
shall not exceed 65 C~EL (dBA).
0
For future noise estimates the fR~A tD
77-108 Rigbray Traffic Prediction Model
shall be used,
The project shall comply with Califormia
Boise Insulation Standards, (CAC, Title
250 Chl, $ubch 1) as lollors:
a(d) Wall and Floor Ceiling Assemblies.
Wall and floor-ceiling assemblies
separating dvelling units or guest rooms
from each other and from public space such
as interior carrides end service areas
shall provide air-borne and impact sound
insulation for floor-ceiling assemblies.
(2) Airborne Sound Insulation, All such
separating wells and floor-ceiling
assemblies shall provide analthorns sound
insulation equal to that required to lilt
a Sound Transuission Class (STC) of 30
(&5 if field tested) as defined in UBC
Standard Be. 35-1.
Penetrations or openings in construction
asseublies for piping, electrical devices,
recessed cabinets, bathtubs, eelfits, or
heating, ventilating or exhaust ducts shall
be sueled, lined, insulated or othervise
treated to maintain the required ratings.
Dealling unit entrance doors frou interior
corridors together with their perimter
male shall have a Souud TranstissionClass
(STC) rating of not less than 30 a~d 8Mch
perluster seals shall be maintained in
good operating condition,
(3) lapact Sound Insularinn. All
supsrat4-! floor-~eiling assesbliss betyeas
separate unnits or guest room shall provide
impact sound insulation eqeal to that
required to ~eet sw Ispact Innlargos Class
(IIC) of S0 (&5 if field tested) as defined
in UBC Standard Be. 35-2, Flour coverings
Bay be included in the exleasbly to obtain
the ease sound insulation required above.n
FindiRis:
The revised acoustical report provides
ac~ep~ahla' acoustical ~uformcion for
estSmt~ni the noise impacts to hcquecclub
ApartRents and acceptable attenuation methods
for achievin$ ~5 CHEL interior noise levels.
Recommendations:
The retaindarteRs issued by the couultut abel1 be required as
toll. ova:
A. Exterior noise control to achieve an exterior CHEL Level
of 65 dR:
A perfaster yell hayinS a -4n~mm hellht of 5' should be
placed around ill patios and balconies in units of BuildloB
B ~16 and f22 facLuI MaTSsTate bad.
A barrett havens a ~LnSaum heilht of S' should be located
u shorn in TiZuTs 2, for the pool ~ tents c~Ft area.
~e ba~er he~lhc in relative to the elevation of the
~eater.
The barriers should be continuous structures v~thout Saps
or laces and should be constructed of s matsrhZ that is
impervious to uo~se (e.l*, concrete block, stucco-on-rood,
1/4" plate glass, earthen beru,°or fly combination of these
RaCeflail),
B. luterioT Noise Control level to achieve an interior CHZL Level
of &5
A~l v~ndovs and slidinS Slams doors in the project should
be yell fitted, yell veatherstripped assemblies, ud should
provide a ainiaun sound Cran~ssion class (~C) as foll~s:
OptTable
Location ginday Door
Tee abe buLldinS directly
adjacent to Naziarise load,
GlanJ"l usembs4te fatSol street 32 32
side elevation of emlma:Lts 27
Berth elevation, Cue "Cw tm4sd~zqs
directly south of the TeefourieR
i33 windova and slidin2 liars
doors not epec~fiad above
STC
F4wed
27
27
25 --' 27
22 22 22
The Party Ua~l and f~oc~/cei~inS Separation Spec~ficatione as
recounended b7 the consultant and etated in Enclosure 3 of the
report (attached) eheZl be tapleaented,
EncZoeure I (Bee J.J..Van Bou~on*s report of 9-20-89 Xscquetclub
Apartseats) provides a d~scription of the assemblies used in
the analysis. If assesbliss other then these are desired,
is racemended that the sound transmission loss test report
for the assesbliss be reviewed by a recoSnized acoustical
engineer to ensure compliance with the County mud State interior
standards. Enclosure 2 provides · Z~8~ ~f mnufac~urer~s of
s~ rated gZaz~ usURies. ~ STC ef 27 in a f~ed Window
b lanerally pr~ded by a pane of 1/~*' prate BRass in a
fitted, wll sc~ped us~ly.
2TC is per AS~( DellSunrises t-~13 and E336 or Eg0.
Bathroses which have tightly fitted doors separating them from
the adjacent living areas are not coatdared to be habitable
spaces and, therefore, do not require sound rated vindo~s.
should
thick.
doors facial or having line-of-sight to !tarSaries Road
be veil weatherstripped solid core assemblies, 1-3/4"
Exterior yells of units adjacent to Harlarita Road and directly
exposed to traffic noise should be coostrgcted with 2" x ~'*
wood studs, 1/2" &ypsum vail board interior and 7/8" thick
stucco or midlug-on-sheathing exterior, with lt-ll insulation
betueen the studs. All Joints should be well fitted and/or
caulked to form &u air tight seal.
For those units adjacent to Hergirlie load, the roo~ system
should have pl~n~ood sheathiq ~nich is wall sealed. 1~-19
issulatiou should be placed in the attic space, if any.
Forced air ventilation is required since the interior C~L
standard is to be met with windows closed. the Unifnrm Building
Code specifies that the forced air ventilation system shall
be capable of providing .~vo air changes per hour in all
habitable rooms with one-fifth of the air supply taken from
outside. This should be accomplished as follows=
a, A. forced air u~tt as chat the f~u my be operated
~d_tpendently of the heat4~_e or co014~_e functions, sad
· fresh air intake duct between the forced air =~l,t and
the exterior wall or roof, The fresh air intake duct should
also' ~-~rporate at lent six feet of flexible fiberSlass
ducttag and at Xeast one SO degree hand.
Mall rammead air conditionera, if used, should not ha placed
on an elevation facing the arterial for those units adjacent
tO MirSlritl ROede
There sheaid be no spm-4-_-l (mail slots, vents, etc.) in the
exterior walAm of units adjacent to Enrlarlta mfmd.
Enclosure 3
Sound Control S~ecifica~ons
1.0 ~3dtTY IXZ,I, AND DXVZSXON WALL I~XRATXON .XSSEHBLXZS
Double roy of 2" x 4" studs' 16" s.c. on separate plates
spaced l" apart.
2a. 5/8" type X gypsum board strayed 12" o.c. each aide.
b. 1/2'f type X gypsum board strayed 12" s.c. each side.
3. 3-1/2" thick attenuation blanket.
Sound Transmission Class (STC): a.
Test Aut~ority: a. Ovens/Coming Fiberglas,
b. Ovens/Coming Fiberglas,
Framing
'1. All studs in par~y ~alls shall be
from the o-her).
0CF448
OCF W-29-69
staggered (one wall
2. 'Studs shall 'not override pla[es o~ party or division
yells. Knot holes, warped lumber, splintered v0od,
splices, chips, and saycuts shell not be permitted at
vertical o: horizontal par~y vail connec~ions.
Framing at built-up corners and ~oists to wall connec-
tions along par~y walls shall lit ~lghtly wlthou~ air
gaps. Special cars shall be taken that dry wall mailer
blocking ale~s this condition between ~sts.
Double blocking between c~iling Joists shall be posi-
tiened to eliminate flanking of sound over party br
division.walls at the ~oists.
Ribbon caulking (e.g., Lovry's llO) shall-be used be-
tvein slab and sole plate and between doubl~ sole plates
(at second floor). it all party walls.
*'Enclosure 3, continued. , .
Concrete pour material shall not flow onto party wall
sole plates· Concrete shall not be poured onto or into
party wall separation cavities between plates.
All wail insulation shall be snugly fitted and/or
stapled between studs.
Nailboard shall be veil fitted or apply caulking to the
intersections of ell floors, ceilings and walls with
plywood and/or wallboard where the wallboard is not
snugly fitted.
Gypsum wallboard shall. continue to the r~of line on one
side of t~he wall to avoid flanking of sound through the
attic'space·
Caulking-for all party or division walls shall be used
~in strict co~formance with manu~acturer's. specifica-
tions;
F~OOR/CEILI~G 2XDARXTION XSSEI~BLIES
Yloor/Csili~g Xssembly Construction
la. 44 oz. carpet over 40 oz. hair pad.
b, Cushioned vinyl flooring.
2- 2" X lO" JOiStS, 16" O.C.
..3. 5/8" plyVDOd subfloor nailed to Joists.
4. ~-1/2" lightweight concrete, 1S psf.
5. R-11 insulation bates.
6. Resilient channels, 24" o.c.
7. 3/8" type X gypsum board screwed'IS~ o.c. to channels.
Sound Transmission Class (STC): 58
Test Au~hcrity: Gelget and Hamme, USDA-SST, lbT0.
Impact Insulation Class. (IIC): s. 6~
b. SI
Test AuthorAty: a. Gelget and Hamms, USDA-2ST, lg?O.
b. Cedar Knolls Labs, ?~I1.12, 19~7..
Fra~ing
~11 insulation shall be snugly fitted and/or stapled be-
tween the Joists.
';',~nclosure 3e
continued.
Gypsum board shall be well fitted or apply caulking to
the intersections- of plywood and/or gypsum wallboard
where the gypsum wallboard is not .snugly fitted.
assemblies shall be used
Caulking for all floor/ceiling .
In strict conformante with manufactursr's specifica-
tions.
Resilient channels, where used, shall be U.S. Gypsum
Corporation Type RC-1.
3.0 )lumbing
Waste and wats~ supply piping shali be isolated from
bul. lding construction at points of contact with not less
than 1/4' cf felt padding. (Refer to Details l, 2 and
4.)
Piping and/or ducting within floor/ceiling assemblies
shall be supported from the Joists and completely iso-
lated from the ceiling.
The stud bay or Joist cavity surrounding the supply and
waste piping shall be filled with open-faced fiberglas
cr equivalent sound absorptive mat. erial.
Common feed lines directly across party walls shall not
be permitted. (Refer to Detail 5.)
{4
The elbow below the-stool waste outlet shall be isolated
from the position blocks with carpet padding or a felt
material. The entire space around the elbow shal! be
filled with open-faced fi~ergles or equivalent sound ab-
sorptive material. (Refer to Detail
Ducting
l, Intake cr exhaust duct runs sh~ll not be positioned
within the partition walls of common units· .-
Sheet metal ducts ~n flocr/ceil~ng as,emblies of the up-
per floor units shall not be secured to the ceiling
~oists of the units below.
3. Bathroom exhaust fan housings shall be surrounded with
fib~.rVlas or equlwaXent sound absorptive material
4. Bathroom exhaust fan duct runs shall include at least-a
6 foot length of fiberglas lined ducting in the duct
run,
!'.' ..(. Enclosure 3, continued.
S.O .~Zectrical
1. Television and telephone outlets. shall not be placed in
party or division walls.
Electrical boxes (switches, outlets, wail f~xtures,
etc.) An oppcsits faces of party or division walls shall
.be separated horizontally by not ~sss than 24 inches.
Plastic sealer shall be wrapped around back, sides, top
end bottom of all electrical boxes An the party walls.
Boxes shall be backed by R-11 insulation bates.
Xnockout p~ates on electrical boxes An all party or
division walls shall not be bent or removed where con-
duits are not connected to the box.
~.0 Xitchens and Bathrooms
The party wail behind a tub and/or shower asse~l~ shall
be constructed consistent with the party wall specifica-
tions. Wallboard shall be installed behind all tubs
and/or showers which are adjacent to party walls.
Voids between the wal~ and tubZshower units shall be
completely failed with fiberglas insulation or equiv-
alent sound absorptive material.
Kitchen dishwashers and disposals shall be isolated from
the frame by resilient mounts. Flexible hose' couplings
'for inlet and outlet water connections on the dishwasher
shall be used so that no rigid connection exists.
7.0 Firaplaces
All .fireplaces shall have a tight fitting manually
operated flue damper·
R-11 bates shall be installed ~ all walls of fireplace
chimney chases to the extent permitted by the Uniform
Building Cc~e and local requirements,
F1jor-flll shell be poured around the fireplace flue
where it p4netrates the second floor,
Pipe Isolation at
Floor / Ceiling Joists
Detail I
_/
Pipe Isolation at
Stud W~lls ,.
,/
'1
I
I
I'
Waste Pipe Isolation at
Floor ! Ceiling Se:paration'
rJ~.lail 3
PLAnninG DEPAR;mEnt
'I
DATE: February 1, 1989
TO: Assessor
Building and Safety
Iieslth - Ralph Luchs
Ftre Protection
Flood Control DIstrtct
Ftsh i Game
U.S. Postal $ervtce- Ruth E. I~vtdson
U.S. Ftsh i WfidHfe Services
COl Trans. D~st. #8
Rancho CeHf. Hater
Southern Cal~f. Edison
Southern CBHf. Gas Co.
General Telephone
Temecula Union,School Dtst.
[lsfnore Union School'D~st~/
Com(ss(on&~ Jack Oresson '
Eastern Muntc(pal later Dist.
C.J. Crcttnger
CHANGE OF ZONE 5385 - (Tm-1) - E.A. 335
- David E. ~alsh & Co - d. F. Davtds
Assoc. Znc - Rancho Caltf Area -Ftr
Supervisortel Dtstrtct- N. of Ranc
R
Callf. Rd, So of Nargartta Rd - -3-30
Zone - 13.8 Acres tnto 2 Lots - $chedu
N/A - No ia~ver - CONCURRENTLY PLOT PL
11011- REQUEST Change Zone from R-3-30
to * R-3-2500 - Nod 119 - A.
921-370-002,003
Please revhw the case described above, along v(th the attached case map. ALe
Dfvtston Coffntttee meettng* has been tentatively scheduled for February 23, 1989. Zf
clears,. tt wtll then go to publ$c heartng.
C
Your can,ants and recommendations are requested prtor to February 23, 1989 (n order ~
· ,e mY tnclude the tn the staff report for this particular case.
Should you have any questions regarding thts 1tam, please do not hastrata to contact '
Dsvtd Ighlqren at 787-1363.
Planner
The Elstnore Unton Htgh School Dlstrtct facilities are
overcrowded and our educational programs seHously tmpacted
by Increasing student population caused by new residential,
cmrctal and Industrial construction. Therefore, pursuant
'to California Government Code Sectton 53080 of AB 2926 end
SB 327, thts dtstrtct levtes a fee against -all new
development projects wtthtn tts b ridartesian/.
2/16/89 SIGNATURE ~i~
PLEASE rtnt nu~ and title
4080LEI~N STREET, g~FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA g2501
(714) 787-6181
Larry Haw, Superintendent
46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 30
INDIO, CALIFORNIA 9220
(619) 342-827
A'I'rACHMENT NO. 6
L= ~ ~ ,-R REQUESTING EXTENSION OF TIME
FOR PLOT PLAN NO. 11001, AMENDED NO. 3 DATED DECEMBER 12, 1991
It~T'AFFNF~'llOOl'l.Ff~ 23
J.F. Davidson Aesociatess Inc.
ENGINEERING PLANNING SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
December 12, 1991
Project No. 88-10835
Mr. Gary Thornhill
Director of Planning
CITY OF TEMECULA
P.O. Box 3000
Temecula, CA 92593
Re: PLOT PLAN 11001
APN: 921-370-002
Dear Mr. Thornhill:
As agents for David E. Walsh Company, a California Construction
General Partner of Rancho Racquet Club Associates, the developer of
the subject Plot Plan 11001, we hereby request a time extension of
one year for the Plot Plan Approval, per City of Temcula Ordinance
No. 91-09.
Enclosed for the processing of this time extension are the following:
A check in the mount of $512.00
Two (2) copies of the application
Two (2) copies of the Conditions of Approval
Ten (10) copies of the approved Plot Plan.
Our clients request the time extension, as they had a construction
loan commitment from Sumitomo Bank, but unfortunately it expired.
They are now working diligently to reinstate this loan commitment.
Therefore, the time extension for the Plot Plan is respectively
requested.
You can see from copies of the attached correspondence that
everything was in place to obtain the Grading Permit except the
payment of the required fees.
We also want to assure you that neither the Site Plan or Building
Product is anticipated to change on this project.
Your immediate scheduling of the Design Review Committee and
advisement of the time and date will be appreciated.
27349 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 115, Ternecula, CA 92590 P.O. Box 340, Temecula, CA 92593 (714) 676-7710 FAX (714) 699-1981
Mr. Gary Thornhill
CITY OF TEMECULA
December 12, 1991
Page 2
Please send all correspondence
George E. Prine or LindaMiller
J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc.
27349 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 115
Temecula, CA 92590
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Very truly yours,
J.~IDSON
/ !
Office Man
Prin pal
GEP:cv
INC.
Engineer
cc: David E. Walsh Company
11777 Bernardo Plaza Court,
San Diego, CA 92128
Suite 207
Linda Miller, J.F.D.A.
Jobs:hhl
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
sm'Ame~,oo',-'~.~. 24
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
CASE NO.: Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3, Extension of Time
The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this project.
Fee
Habitat Conservation Plan
(K-Rat)
Parks and Recreation
(Quimby)
Public Facility
(Traffic Mitigation)
Public Facility (County of Riverside)
(Traffic Signal Mitigation)
Public Facility
(Library)
Fire Protection (County of Riverside)
Flood Control
(ADP)
Condition of Aooroval
Condition No. 22
Condition No. N/A
Condition No, 46
Condition No. 7
Condition No. 20
Condition No. 10
Condition No. 8
Consistent with Specific Plan
Consistent with Future General Plan
N/A
YES
ITEM # 6
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
March 16, 1992
Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. I
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT Resolution No. 92- approving Public Use Permit
No. 580, Revised No. 1 based on the Analysis and Findings
contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval.
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission continued this item from the February 24, 1992 hearing at
Staff's request to obtain more information for Planning Commission's review. At that
meeting the Building Official gave an overview of the deficiencies with the existing mobile
structures. A detailed outline of all deficiencies was to be presented to the Planning
Commission at this meeting; however, since the State Housing and Community
Development (HCD) has reversed its approval ruling of the mobile structures the Building
Department Staff has not been able to complete a time table for the applicant to follow.
DISCUSSION
The Chief Building Official has been meeting with the Rancho Temecula Bible Church
(RTBC) regarding the necessary improvements and alterations to the mobile structures to
bring them up to code. Currently, RTBC is preparing plans to submit to the City and the
HCD for review.
The Building Department Staff has met with RTBC's architect regarding the preparation
of these plans and will continue to do so until all structures are consistent with applicable
building codes.
Changes to Conditions of Approval
The Conditions of Approval for this project are the same as the February 24, 1992 Staff
Report with two exceptions.
First, Condition No. 13 has be eliminated since staff is not recommending a time table for
the applicant to follow because of involvement of HCD in the plan review process.
Secondly, Condition No. 6 has been modified to reflect the latest Fire Department
correspondence.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
This project has been found to be a Class 3 categorical exemption, Section 15303 of
California Environmental Quality Act.
FINDINGS
There is a reasonable probability that Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. 1 will
be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a
reasonable time and in accordance with State law. The project, contingent upon
approval of the requested Public Use Permit, conforms with existing applicable city
zoning and development ordinances.
There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with the
City's future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the
Plan. The project is of insignificant scale in the context of the broad goals and
directives anticipated in the City's General Plan. The proposal is also compatible
with existing development in its vicinity, minimizing potential for future general
p!an inconsistencies. Further, if found to be ultimately detrimental, the use is
subject to termination under City Ordinance provisions contained in Section 18.31
of City Ordinance No. 348.
The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws.
Reference local Ordinances No. 348, 460; and California Governmental Code
Sections 65000-66009 (Planning and Zoning Law).
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use.
Adequate site circulation, parking, and landscaping can be provided for the subject
site. (Reference Exhibit "D".)
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health
or welfare.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it
does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the
area. The project conforms with applicable land use and development regulations.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
ADOPT Resolution 92- approving Public Use Permit
No. 580, Revised No. I based on the Analysis and
Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to
the attached Conditions of Approval.
klb
Attachments:
Resolution - page 4
Conditions of Approval - page 9
Minutes for February 24, 1992 Planning Commission Meeting
- page 15
February 24, 1992 Planning Commission Staff Report
- page 16
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 92-__
RESOLUTION NO. 92-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO.
580 REVISED NO. I ALLOWING EXPANSION OF RANCHO
TEMECULA BIBLE CHURCH AT 29825 SANTIAGO ROAD;
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 922-130-001
WHEREAS, the Rancho Temecula Bible Church filed Public Use Permit No.
580 Revised No. 1 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning
and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Public Use Permit 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 Public Use Permit on March 16, 1992, at which time interested persons had
opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Public Use Permit and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report
regarding the Public Use Permit;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said Public Use Permit;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
Findings.
That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings:
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:
S\STAFFRPT%58OPUP-A.PC 5
(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 Public Use Permit 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 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 Public Use Permit No. 580,
Revised No. 1 proposed will be consistent with the general plan
proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within
a reasonable time.
(2)
There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use
or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The proposal is
consistent with existing development in the vicinity.
(3)
The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances. The project as
conditioned, is consistent with Ordinance No. 348.
Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no public use permit may be approved unless
the following findings can be made:
(1)
The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements
and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances.
(2)
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.
The Planning Commission, in approving of the proposed Public Use Permit makes
the following findings, to wit:
There is a reasonable probability that Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised
No. 1 will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be
completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law. The
project, contingent upon approval of the requested Public Use Permit,
conforms with existing applicable city zoning and development ordinances.
There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference
with the City's future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately
inconsistent with the Plan. The project is of insignificant scale in the
context of the broad goals and directives anticipated in the City's General
Plan. The proposal is also compatible with existing development in its
vicinity, minimizing potential for future general plan inconsistencies.
Further, if found to be ultimately detrimental, the use is subject to
termination under City Ordinance provisions contained in Section 18.31 of
City Ordinance No. 348.
The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws.
Reference local Ordinances No. 348, 460; and California Governmental
Code Sections 65000-66009 (Planning and Zoning Law).
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the
size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and
intensity of use. Adequate site circulation, parking, and landscaping will be
provided to the subject site. (Reference Exhibit "D".)
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public
health or welfare.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property,
because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned
land use of the area. The project conforms with applicable land use and
development regulations.
As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Public Use Permit proposed conforms
to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present
and future development of the surrounding property.
SECTION 2.
Environmental Compliance.
This project is determined to be categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 of said Act.
SECTION 3.
Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Public Use Permit No.
580, Revised No. 1 a resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula
approving Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. 1, allowing operation of the Rancho
Temecula Bible Church and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 922-130-001 and subject to
the following conditions:
6. Attachment 2, attached hereto.
SECTION 4.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of March, 1992.
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 March, 1992 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Public Use Permit No. 580 Revised No. 1
Project Description: Revisions to Previously AD~rOved Public
Use Permit No. 580 to grant approval for existing mobile
structures used as classrooms.
Assessor's Parcel No. 922-130-016
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
The use hereby permitted by this public use permit is for revision to previously
approved Public Use Permit No. 580, to grant approval for existing mobile
structures used as classrooms.
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 Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. 1. 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.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown
on Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. 1, Amendment No. 3 marked Exhibit
"D", or as amended by these conditions.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon
adjoining property or public rights-of-way. 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.
Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the
provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittal dated
October 10, 1991, and EMWD letter dated May 6, 1991 of which are attached.
$~$TAFFRPI'~SBOPUP-A.PC 10
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of
Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated February 24,
1991, a copy of which is attached.
One hundred two (102) parking spaces shall be provided as shown on the
Approved Exhibit E and shall be designed in accordance with Section 18.12,
Temecula City Ordinance No. 348. The parking area shall be surfaced with
asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on 4 inches of Class II
base.
A minimum of 3 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided. Each parking
space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed
reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying
the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70
square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space
at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space
finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking
space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a
conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than
17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards
or license plates issued for physically handicapped persons
may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles
may be reclaimed at __ or by telephone
10.
11.
12.
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 final building inspection approval by the Building and Safety
Department, a six foot high decorative block wall shall be constructed along the
entire length of the project site's southerly boundary consistent with Rancho
Highlands Specific Plan. The required wall shall be subject to the approval of the
Director of the Department of Building and Safety and the Planning Director.
Eight (8) Class II bicycle racks shall be provided in convenient locations as
approved by the Planning Director to facilitate bicycle access to the project area.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts to be
determined by the City Building Official, shall be filed with the Department of
Planning guaranteeing construction of the required perimeter screen wall per the
approved plans and the installation of the landscaping.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
S\STAFFRPT~580P~JP-A.PC 11
13. Skirting shall be provided around Building "A" to match the exterior of the building.
14.
Landscaping and irrigation shall be provided in all planters designated as proposed
landscaping. The plant types and number shall be subject to approval of the
Planning Director.
15.
School buses shall not be parked in the back parking area and they shall not be
visible from the adjacent residences to the south.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
16.
Comply with applicable provisions of the 1988 edition of the Uniform Building,
Plumbing and Mechanical, 1990 National Electrical Code, California Administrative
Code title 24 Energy and Handicapped Regulations and the Temecula Code.
17.
Submit at time of plan review complete exterior site lighting plans in compliance
with Ordinance No. 655 for the Regulation of Light Pollution.
18. Obtain all building permits prior to the commencement of any construction work.
19.
Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan
review.
20.
Provide occupancy approval for all existing buildings (i.e. finialed building permit,
Certificate of Occupancy).
21. All existing buildings and facilities must comply with applicable handicapped
accessibility regulations.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval that shall either
add to, supersede or amend the previously approved conditions 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 personnel of the
Department of Public Works.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing
and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses,
and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and
revision. Developer shall be subject to all previously approved conditions of development
prior to this extension of time unless otherwise noted.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
22.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, building permit or any certificate of
occupancy, as deemed timely, appropriate or necessary by the Department of
$\$TAFFRPl~580PUP-A.PC 12
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Public Works, the developer shall receive written clearance from the following
agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Department of Public Works;
Riverside County Health Department;
CATV Franchise; and
Parks and Recreation Department.
The developer shall submit four (4) prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the
Department of Public Works. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building
Code and Chapter 70 as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of
Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 24"x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil
Engineer.
The developer shall submit two (2) copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions
of the site.
A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and
submitted at the time of application for grading plan check.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the 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'and approval by the Department of Public
Works.
If grading is to take place between the months of October and April, erosion
control plans will be required. Erosion control plans and notes shall be submitted
and approved by the Department of Public Works.
All site plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and street improvement
plans shall be coordinated for consistency with approved plans.
The existing front one-way drive aisle parallel to Santiago shall be permitted to
remain as constructed. All other drive aisles shall be a minimum of 24 feet.
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.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid per original Conditions of Approval of Public
Use Permit No. 580. The charge shall ec~ual the prevailing area drainage plan fee
multiplied by the area of new development. The current fee due is $2,441.84, and
S~TAFFRPT~SBOPUP-A.PC I 3
is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits.
33.
Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage
entering the property from adjacent areas.
34. All concentrated drainage directed toward the public street shall be diverted
through the undersidewalk drains.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT:
35.
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.
36.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the
Department of Public Works a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for
traffic signal impact.
37.
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; orovided that developer is not waiving its right to protest the
reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 24, 1992
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
S~'STAFFRPI~580PUP'A.PC 15
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
FEBRUARY 24, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
S~ST~'WmSeO~P-A,.C I 6
/-
October 10, 1991
Mr. Charly Ray
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43180 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
Water Availability
Tract Map 20591
P.U.P. 580 Revision No. 1
Rancho Temecula B~le Church
Dear Mr. Ray:
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 DISTRICY
Steve Brannon, P. E.
Manager of Development Engineering
SB:SD:ajth245
cc: Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician
astern unici a
Hay 6, 1991
Hr. Charley Ray, Case Planner
City of Temecula Planning Department
43180 Business Park Drive, Suite 200
Temecula, California 92390
SUBJECT: PUP 580 - Revision No. 1
Dear Mr. Ray:
As requested, we have reviewed the subject project for the purposes of evaluating
the District's ability to provide sanitary sewer service. An existing eight
(B)-inch diameter sewerline is located in Santiago Road, fronting the subject
project. At the present time, this Santiago Road sewer has available capacity
to serve the subject project. It must be understood that the available capacity
of the District's sewer system is continually changing due to development within
the District. As such, service will be provided based on the timing of the
subject project, the service agreement from the District, and the status of
the District's permit to operate.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact the District's
Customer Service Department at (714) 766-1810.
Very truly yours,
H~'l~~~
Director of Planning
cc: dohn Fricker - EHWD Customer Service Department
6/I-tb
91-1077
Mail To: Post Office Box 8300 · San Jacinto, California 92383-1300 · Telephone (714) 925-7676 · Fax (714) 929-0257
Main Office: 2045 S. San Jacinto Sn~et, San Jacinto · Customer Sen, ice/Engineering Annex: 440 Ie Oakland Avenue, Hemet, CA
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
D
FIRE EPARTMENT
210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE · PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370
(7!4) 657-3183
GLEN ,L NEWMAN ~ 0 4 |~j
FIRE CHIEF
February 24, 1992
City of Temecula
45174 Business Park Dr
Temecula, CA ~25el
ATTN: SAIED NAASEH
RE: PUBLIC USE PERMIT 580 REV #1AMD #5
Dear Saied Naaseh
With respect to the review of the above referenced Public Use
Permit, the Amended map #5 shows a minimum 24 foot drive access
to all buildings and this will be acceptable if installed as
shown.
The Fire Department recommends approval of the Amended #5 site
plan subject to the following conditions:
1. Within 90 days of final approval the applicant shall:
A. Submit plans and specifications for existing Fire Alarm
system with a time schedule for improvements to meet [urrent
codes.
B. Submit plans for an on-site water system providing a Fire
Flow of 2000 GPM from SUPER Fire Hydrants located within
185 feet of any portion of the buildings as measured along
the driveways. The water system shall be installed and
operational within 6 months after plan approval.
PLANNING DIVISION
f=l INDIO OFFICE ~3 TD.~CULA OFFICE
79-733 Counn7 Oub D~ivc. Suite F, lmiio, CA 92201 41002 C~unt~ Cemtr l:~iv*.. S~ 225. T~ecula, CA 92390
(619) 342-8886 · FAX (619) 775-2072 (714) 694-5070, FAX (714) 694-5076
r'l RIVI~SIDE OFFICE
PUP 580 REV#1AMD #5
C. Submit grading plans to the City for any work
for the driveway improvements.
PAGE 2
necessary
All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be
ferred to the Planning and Engineering Staff.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
/
by
Michael E. Gray,
Fire Captain Specialist
re-
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 24, 1992
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
mSTAFF~qPT\51~QPUP'A-PC I 5
Janua~ 27.1992
Commissioner Chiniaeff requested that Page 7, Item No. 8, third
paragraph, be amended to read "Chairman Hoagland", and Page 9, first
paragraph, amended to read "Commissioner Chiniaeff".
Commissioner Ford requested that Page 10, seventh paragraph, be
amended to read "Commissioner Ford stated that he was concerned that
the improvements are to be done; however, the roads still would not
meet City standards"; and Page 15, first paragraph, be amended to read
"The Commission decided to take a roll call vote and explain their
decision for recommending denial".
It was moved by Commissioner Ford, seconded by Commissioner Blair
to approve the minutes of January 27, 1992 as amended.
AYES:
4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Fahey
February 3. 1992
Commissioner Ford requested that Page 4, sixth paragraph, be amended
to read "Commissioner Ford questioned whether the state law applied to
projects that were not graded, clarifying that the applicant's project was
not graded".
It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner
Blair, to approve the minutes of February 3, 1992 as amended.
AYES:
4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Fahey
PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 580
A request to revise the County approved Public Use Permit No. 580 to
grant approval for existing mobile structures used as classrooms.
Located on the south side of Santiago 'Road, between I-15 and Ynez
Road.
PCMIN2/24/92 -2- 3/1/92
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
FEBRUARY 24. 1992
Chief Building Official Tony EImo presented the staff report and advised
that ha has inspected the site and uncovered numerous serious health,
safety and welfare problems. Mr. Elmo reported that the State Inspector
visited the site as well; however, the City's concerns were more serious
than those reported by the State, Mr. Elmo indicated that he had met
with the church officials and explained to them the seriousness of the
violations and the importance of getting the repairs done as quickly as
possible. Mr. Elmo stated that there will be a time frame for abatement
of the repairs presented at the next public hearing.
Chairman Hoagiand opened the public hearing at 6:15 P.M.
Commissioner Chiniaeff asked if there were actions the church could
take to ensure safety prior to completion of the repairs.
Tony EImo stated that he was currently discussing decreasing the
number of attendees at the service, possibly requiring add itional services,
for an interim period of time.
It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner
Blair, to continue Public Use Permit No. 580 to March 16, 1992.
AYES:
4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Fahey
NON PUBLIC
HEARING ITEMS
SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE NO. 22
3.1 Proposal to construct a ten foot noise attenuation wall on the east side
of the site which is adjacent to Interstate 15. Located at 27706
Jefferson Avenue.
Matthew Fagan summarized the staff report.
Larry Hansen, LLH Construction, Inc., representing the applicant, stated
that the wall was being requested to alleviate noise from the traffic along
Interstate 15.
PCMIN2/24/92 -3- 3/1/92
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
FEBRUARY 24, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
S~STAr-~PT~SaO~P-A.~C 16
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commissioners
Gary Thornhill, Director of Plann,ng
February 24, 1992
Request to Continue Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. I
Staff is requesting the Planning Commission to continue this item to the March 16,
1992 meeting. The additional time is necessary to compile a detailed priority list for
the applicant to follow in order to meet all the requirements for the Building and
Safety, Planning and Fire Departments. The highest priority will be given to Public
Health and Safety issues.
Ib~\Staffrpt\580PUP1 .Rev
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
February 24, 1992
Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. I
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT Resolution 92- approving Public Use Permit No.
580, Revised No. I based on the Analysis and Findings
contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval.
BACKGROUND
On January 6, 1992 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on Public Use Permit
No. 580, Revised No. 1 with several people speaking in favor of the project and a few
speaking in opposition. Public testimony was heard and this item was continued to the
February 24, 1992 hearing. In the meeting the Planning Commission requested additional
information from staff prior to making a decision on the project.
The areas of discussion included buffering the church from the residences to the south,
additional landscaping, skirting of a mobile unit, increasing drive aisle widths, and
inspection of the mobile units by the Building Official,
DISCUSSION
The Planning Department Staff has been working with the applicant regarding buffering
and width of the drive aisles, Moreover, the Building Department Staff has been working
with the applicant to determine the deficiencies of the mobile structures in terms of the
Uniform Building Code and the applicable Fire Codes.
The applicant has complied with most of the Planning Department's requests by revising
the site plan. Other concerns have been addressed by conditioning the project. The
revisions include:
* Providing a six foot (6') high block wall along the southern property line.
Providing a minimum five foot (5') landscape planter along the southern property
line with the width increasing to ten feet (10') adjacent to the proposed parking
spaces and the basketball court.
Increasing the minimum drive aisle widths to twenty four feet (24') with the
exception of the drive aisle parallel and closest to Santiago Road which is at
seventeen feet (17'). This design is acceptable to the Fire Department since it
offers a complete twenty four foot (24') loop on the site. However, according to
the Fire Department representative, this width will need to be increased to twenty
four feet (24') if the permanent sanctuary, multi-purpose classroom building is built
per the original County approval (refer to Exhibit "E"). The seventeen foot (17')
drive aisle is also acceptable to the Planning Department since it is an existing
condition and is not a Public Health and Safety issue.
The project has been conditioned to provide complete skirting around Building "A" to
match the exterior of this building (refer to Condition No. 14). Additionally, Condition No.
15 requires the applicant to provide landscaping for all the planters on the site plan which
have been designated as proposed landscaping.
In response to Planning Commission direction, an inspection was made of the premises
at 29825 Santiago Road. The inspection revealed four (4) modular buildings and a
historical chapel on the premises for classroom and assembly uses. Building permits were
supplied by the applicant for modular buildings D and C and the relocation of a historical
chapel as shown on the site plan dated January 24, 1992. The above-mentioned
building permits were issued by the County of Riverside. Two (2) other buildings, building
B and A are also modular in nature with building A being a combination of seven (7)
attached units. Two (2) non-exempt storage buildings exist on the site without evidence
of required building permits and inspections being obtained. A visual inspection of the
interior and exterior of building A was performed as well as exterior inspections of building
B and the storage buildings. The findings of those inspections are as follows:
BuildinQ A
Department of Housing and Community Development inspection was made on
January 7, 1992. No determination to allow the B-2 occupancy change to A-3
was made. Request was left for plans to be submitted for review.
The building was modified by the applicant by removing exterior wall coverings and
installing electrical and insulation material. Non-bearing walls were built without
proper smoke and draftstopping to form office space, classroom, an assembly
room for an occupancy of 274, and storage rooms. Exiting does not meet basic
requirements of the Uniform Building Code, for .handicapped accessibility and fire
resistive construction of exit corridor walls and ceilings. The building lacks seismic
restraints. All disconnect switches for electrical and mechanical equipment have
locking devices installed. Handrails are missing from front deck and stairs as well
as the handicapped ramp.
S~STAFFRFT~EBOPUP-1.PC 2
Buildina B
This double-wide modular building contains three (3) classrooms, each with single
non-accessible doors. Interior partitions were built to provide classroom separation
presumably without proper smoke and draftstopping of concealed area above
ceiling. Inspection was inhibited due to classes in session.
Storaee Bulldines
Both storage buildings appeared to be resting on natural grade where foundation
construction is generally required.
This report is an overview of the findings of the inspection that was performed. Only the
major items of concern for life safety have been noted. Other concerns such as, but not
limited to, improper door latch hardware and adequate restroom facilities exist but are not
addressed in this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
This project has been found to be a Class 3 categorical exemption, Section 15303 of
California Environmental Quality Act.
FINDINGS
There is a reasonable probability that Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. 1 will
be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a
reasonable time and in accordance with State law. The project, contingent upon
approval of the requested Public Use Permit, conforms with existing applicable city
zoning and development ordinances.
There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with the
City's future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the
Plan. The project is of insignificant scale in the context of the broad goals and
directives anticipated in the City's General Plan. The proposal is also compatible
with existing development in its vicinity, minimizing potential for future general
plan inconsistencies. Further, if found to be ultimately detrimental, the use is
subject to termination under City Ordinance provisions contained in Section 18.31
of City Ordinance No. 348.
The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws.
Reference local Ordinances No. 348, 460; and California Governmental Code
Sections 65000-66009 (Planning and Zoning Law).
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation pat-terns, access, and intensity of use.
Adequate site circulation, parking, and landscaping can be provided for the subject
site. (Reference Exhibit "D".)
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health
or welfare.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it
does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the
area. The project conforms with applicable land use and development regulations.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
ADOPT Resolution 92- approving Public Use Permit
No. 580, Revised No. 1 based on the Analysis and
Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to
the attached Conditions of Approval.
vgw
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Resolution - page 5
Conditions of Approval - page 10
Minutes for January 6, 1992 Planning Commission Meeting - page 16
Building Official Memorandum - page 17
January 6, 1992 Planning Commission Staff Report - page 18
Exhibits - page 19
S%STAFFRPT~580PUP-1 .PC 4
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 92-__
S%STAFFRPT~680PU~l .PC 5
RESOLUTION NO. 92-,_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO.
580 REVISED NO. 1 ALLOWING EXPANSION OF RANCHO
TEMECULA BIBLE CHURCH AT 29825 SANTIAGO ROAD;
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 922-130-001
WHEREAS, the Rancho Temecula Bible Church filed Public Use Permit No.
580 Revised No. 1 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning
and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Public Use Permit 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 Public Use Permit on February 24, 1992, at which time interested persons had
opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Public Use Permit and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report
regarding the Public Use Permit;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said Public Use Permit;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
Findings.
That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings:
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 end taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, each of the following:
S\STAFFRPT~SBOP*JP*l.pC 6
(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 Public Use Permit 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 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 Public Use Permit No. 580,
Revised No. 1 proposed will be consistent with the general plan
proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within
a reasonable time.
(2)
There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use
or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The proposal is
consistent with existing development in the vicinity.
(3)
The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances. The project as
conditioned, is consistent with Ordinance No. 348.
Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no public use permit may be approved unless
the following findings can be made:
(1)
The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements
and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances.
(2)
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.
The Planning Commission, in approving of the proposed Public Use Permit makes
the following findings, to wit:
There is a reasonable probability that Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised
No. 1 will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be
completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law. The
project, contingent upon approval of the requested Public Use Permit,
conforms with existing applicable city zoning and development ordinances.
There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference
with the City's future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately
inconsistent with the Plan. The project is of insignificant scale in the
context of the broad goals and directires anticipated in the City's General
Plan. The proposal is also compatible with existing development in its
vicinity, minimizing potential for future general plan inconsistencies.
Further, if found to be ultimately detrimental, the use is subject to
termination under City Ordinance provisions contained in Section 18.31 of
City Ordinance No. 348.
The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws.
Reference local Ordinances No. 348, 460; and California Governmental
Code Sections 65000-66009 (Planning and Zoning Law).
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the
size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and
intensity of use. Adequate site circulation, parking, and landscaping will be
provided to the subject site. (Reference Exhibit "D".)
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public
health or welfare.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property,
because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned
land use of the area. The project conforms with applicable land use and
development regulations.
As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Public Use Permit proposed conforms
to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present
and future development of the surrounding property.
SECTION 2.
S%STAFFRFT%68OPUP-1 .PC 8
Environmental Compliance.
This project is determined to be categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 of said Act.
SECTION 3.
Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Public Use Permit No.
580, Revised No. I a resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula
approving of Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. 1, allowing operation of the Rancho
Temecula Bible Church and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 922-130-001 and subject to
the following conditions:
6. Attachment 2, attached hereto.
SECTION 4.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of February, 1992.
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 24th day
of February, 1992 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
S%STAFFRFT%EBOI~I~1.PC 9
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
S%STAFFRFT~580PUP-1 .PC 1 C)
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Public Use Permit No.: 580 Revised No. 1
Project Description: Revisions to Previously Aooroved Public
Use Permit No. 580 to grant approval for existing mobile
structures used as classrooms.
Assessor's Parcel No. 922-130-016
Planning Department
The use hereby permitted by this public use permit is for revision to previously
approved Public Use Permit No. 580, to grant approval for existing mobile
structures used as classrooms.
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 Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. 1. 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.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown
on Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. 1, Amendment No. 3 marked Exhibit
"D", or as amended by these conditions.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon
adjoining property or public rights-of-way. 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.
Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the
provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittal dated
October 10, 1991, a copy of which is attached.
S\STAFFRPT~68OPUP-1.PC 11
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of
Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated December 12,
1991, a copy of which is attached.
One hundred two (102} parking spaces shall be provided as shown on the
Approved Exhibit E and shall be designed in accordance with Section 18.12,
Temecula City Ordinance No. 348. The parking area shall be surfaced with
asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on 4 inches of Class II
base.
A minimum of 3 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided. Each parking
space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed
reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying
the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70
square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space
at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space
finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking
space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a
conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than
17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards
or license plates issued for physically handicapped persons
may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles
may be reclaimed at or by telephone
10.
11.
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 final building inspection approval by the Building and Safety
Department, a six foot high decorative block wall shall be constructed along the
entire length of the project site's southerly boundary consistent with Rancho
Highlands Specific Plan. The required wall shall be subject to the approval of the
Director of the Department of Building and Safety and the Planning Director.
Eight (8) Class II bicycle racks shall be provided in convenient locations as
approved by the Planning Director to facilitate bicycle access to the project area.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts to be
determined by the City Building Official, shall be filed with the Department of
Planning guaranteeing construction of the required perimeter screen wall per the
approved plans and the installation of the landscaping.
12.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
S\STAFFRFT~580PUP-1 .PC 12
13.
The applicant shall comply with Conditions 9, 17 through 22, and item No. 2 of
the December 12, 1991 Fire Department correspondence within ninety (90) days
following this approval. If the applicant fails to comply with this deadline and/or
the applicant does not demonstrate a good faith effort in meeting this deadline as
determined by the Building Official, the Building Official shall start the revocation
process for Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No, 1, (Section 18.31 of Ordinance
No. 348).
14, Skirting shall be provided around Building "A" to match the exterior of the building.
15.
Landscaping and irrigation shall be provided in all planters designated as proposed
landscaping. The plant types and number shall be subject to approval of the
Planning Director.
16.
School buses shall not be parked in the back parking area and they shall not be
visible from the adjacent residences to the south.
Building and Safety Department
17.
Comply with applicable provisions of the 1988 edition of the Uniform Building,
Plumbing and Mechanical, 1990 National Electrical Code, California Administrative
Code title 24 Energy and Handicapped Regulations and the Temecula Code.
18.
Submit at time of plan review complete exterior site lighting plans in compliance
with Ordinance No. 655 for the Regulation of Light Pollution.
19. Obtain all building permits prior to the commencement of any construction work.
20.
Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan
review.
21.
Provide occupancy approval for all existing buildings (i.e. finialed building permit,
Certificate of Occupancy).
22.
All existing buildings and facilities must comply with applicable handicapped
accessibility regulations.
Engineering Department
The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval that shall either
add to, supersede or amend the previously approved conditions 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 personnel of the
Department of Public Works.
S%STAFFRFT~SBOPUP-1 .PC 13
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing
and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses,
and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and
revision. Developer shall be subject to all previously approved conditions of development
prior to this extension of time unless otherwise noted.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
23.
As determined by the City Engineer, the developer shall receive written clearance
from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Flood Control district;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department;
CATV Franchise; and
Parks and Recreation Department.
24.
The developer shall submit four (4) prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the
Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code
and Chapter 70 as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of
Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 24"x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil
Engineer.
25.
The developer shall submit two (2) copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions
of the site.
26.
A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and
submitted at the time of application for grading plan check.
27.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to
commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way.
28.
29.
30.
No grading shall take place prior to the improvement plans being substantially
complete, appropriate clearance letters and approval by the City Engineer.
If grading is to take place between the months of October and April, erosion
control plans will be required. Erosion control plans and notes shall be submitted
and approved by the Engineering Department.
All site plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and street improvement
plans shall be coordinated for consistency with approved plans.
31. The existing front drive aisle parallel to Santiago shall be permitted to remain as
constructed. All other drive aisles shall be a minimum of 24 feet.
32.
33.
34.
35.
PRIOR
36.
37.
PRIOR
38.
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.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid per original Conditions of Approval of Public
Use Permit No. 580. The charge shall equal the prevailing area drainage plan fee
multiplied by the area of new development. The current fee due is 92,441.84, and
is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits.
Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage
entering the property from adjacent areas.
All concentrated drainage directed toward the public street shall be diverted
through the undersidewalk drains.
TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT:
A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review
and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for
location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report
addressing compaction and site conditions.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the
Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for traffic
signal impact.
TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY:
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;STAFFRF'r%BBOPUP-1.PC 15
General Manager
J, Andrew Schlange
L~gal Counsel
Redwine and Shetrill
Director of The Metropolitan Water
D~stricl of Southern California
Doyie K Boen
Treasurer
Rogers M. Cox
May 6, 1991
Mr. Charley Ray, Case Planner
City of Temecula Planning Department
43180 Business Park Drive, Suite 200
Temecula, California 92390
SUBJECT: PUP 580 - Revision No. I
Dear Mr. Ray:
As requested, we have reviewed the subject project for the purposes of evaluating
the District's ability to provide sanitary sewer service. An existing eight
{8)-inch diameter sewerline is located in Santiago Road, fronting the subject
project. At the present time, this Santiago Road sewer has available capacity
to serve the subject project. It must be understood that the available capacity
of the District's sewer system is continually changing due to development within
the District. As such, service will be provided based on the timing of the
subject project, the service agreement from the District, and the status of
the District's permit to operate.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact the District's
Customer Service Department at {714} 766-1810.
Very truly yours,
Director of Planning
HAs/Dc:ib
cc: John Fricker - EMWD Customer Service Department
6/I-ib
91-1077
Mail To: Post Office Box 8300 · SanJacinto, California 92383-1300 ® Telephone (714) 925-7676 · Fax (714) 929-0257
Main Office: 2045 S. San Jacinto Street, San Jacinto · Customer Service/Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue, Hernet, CA
t'
Officers:
October 10, 1991
Mr. C'harly Ray
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43180 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
Water Availability
Tract Map 20591
P.U.P. 580 Revision No. 1
Rancho Temecula B~le Church
Dear Mr. Ray:
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 CALFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P. E.
Manager of Development En~needng
SB:SD:ajth245
cc: Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
-,- FIRE DEPARTMENT
210 WI~ST SAN ~ AVHNUB · PERRES, CAL/FORNIA 923'~
(714) 6S7-3t83
GLEN J. NEWldAN
F1EBCHIBF December 12 1991
CITY OF T~MICULA
PI~e, NNZI~G DEFT
PUBLIC =S~ ~IT ~80 Revise ~ Amended
The desiln of the site improvements and use of the various 5utldings currently
on the property, were apparently done without any regard to the epproved site
plan or gonditiolls of approval. The FIre Department is raques=i~g the following
~. DriveweTs redesiine~ co provl~e 2~* two w~y tra~fl~ around =~e builain~e.
2. On-site rarer system with fire flow and fiYe hydrant spacing according
to aperoved conditions.
3, extstln~ mobile Unltl m~e'C be certified by a~proprlaCe a~enc), for
construction type eccordln$ CO use,
the ~lannin$ and Engineering staf£.
RAYliOND R. KEGX5
Chief Fire DaparCmsnc Planner
. Hitheal E. Gray, Fire Captsin Speci,lis=
(~19} 3Q..lM6, FAX (619} 77M0~2
4t0OZ CmnvyC4:rd~DH~,SstmZZS, TmemiaCA Fi3~
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
MINUTES FOR JANUARY 6, 1992
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
S~,STAFFRFT%SBOPJP-1 .PC 16
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: 0
JANUARY 6, 1992
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Chiniaeff,
Hoegland
COMMISSIONERS: None
CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND declared a recess at 7:35 P.M.
reconvened at 7:45 P.M.
The meeting
PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 580, Rsv~SED NO. I
.1
Request to revise the County approved Public Use Permit
No. 580 togrant approval for existing mobile structures
used as classrooms. Located on the south side of
Santiago Road, between 1-15 and Ynez Road.
SAIED N/%ASER summarized the staff report.
CHAIRMAN BOAGLAND requested comments from the Chief
Building Official.
TONY ELMO, Chief Building Official, City of Temecula,
stated that staff had no approvals and had not given any
approvals for any of the portable classroom structures on
the site or for occupancy, nor had the County of
Riverside approved any.
GARY THORNHILL advised that staff has been working with
the applicant trying to get compliance on the structures;
however, staff was having a difficult time getting some
of the information needed and is still lacking some
information.
MIKE GRAY, representing the County of RiVerside Fire
Department, stated that they also had been requesting
information from the applicant. Mr. Gray advised that
the improvements that were done at the site were sub-
standard and none of them approved by any of the County
agencies. Mr. Gray stated that some of the internal
drive aisles were too tight for a fire truck, which
presented a health and safety risk. Mr. Gray advised
that he also had requested serial numbers for the
portable structures; however, those he received did not
match up with the portable units.
CHAIRMAN NOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 8:00 P.M.
PCMIN1/6/92 -9- January 7, 1992
PLI~ININ~ COI~ZOBION ~EETIN~
~TI~uR, RY 6, 1992
K~PaY M~RTIN, pastor of Rancho Temecula Bible Church,
advised the Commission that he and the church had every
intention of cooperating with staff and abiding by the
. laws of the City. Mr. Martin questioned the accuracy of
some of the findings as stated in the staff report. Mr.
Martin concurred that the internal drive aisles were not
the standard 24' in width; however, he pointed out that
they had been that way since 1986 and they were given
occupancy of the building. Mr. Martin also advised the
Commission that the church had already agreed to build
the block wall to screen the church from the adjacent
residential. Mr. Martin advised the Commission that they
had applied for the proper permits for the County and
shortlythhereaftertheir case was transferred to the City
of Temecula. Pastor Martin concluded by saying that he
was present to cooperate with staff and make these
buildings as safe as possible.
COMMISalONERFAHEY asked if the applicant was aware that
they needed permits in order to occupy the building.
PASTOR MARTIN stated that while working with the County
they had received a stamped "land use" approval from the
County, which staff said the applicant had
misinterpreted.
LEONARD FOWLER, California Geo Tek, 42030 Avenida
Alverado, Temecula, representing the applicant, stated
that they did not concur with the findings as contained
in the staff report, and discussed the following findings
made in the staff report:
Item No. 5 - this is a subjective comment and the
applicant has been cooperative and asked that it be
omitted.
Item No. 4 - the chain link fence should not be an issue
because the applicant has agreed to build a block wall.
Item No. 3 - have never been advised that we did not meet
the design guidelines of SP180.
Item No. 2 - we are being asked to comply with something
we have no access to, the future General Plan of the
City.
Item No. I - there is currently a minimum of 16' drive
aisles; however, we are proposing 20' with one-way
movement. On September 10, 1991, met with Laura Cabral
of the County Fire Department, she instructed us to only
P N1/e/92
-10- January 7, 1992
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JI~NUARY 6, 1992
reconstruct a curb
approval of the 16'
Captain Mike Gray.
section and gave us her verbal
aisle, which was later rescinded by
COMMISSIONERBLAIR asked how the applicant would mitigate
the situation of the basketballs going Over the fence
without the current 10' chain link fence.
COMMISSlONER FORDasked if the applicant would be willing
to condition to one way in and one way out access.
LARRY FOWLER stated that they would accept that condition
and that the parking lot currently is set up as one way
only.
The following individuals spoke in favor of the proposal
and expressed their strong support of the church:
LEONARD ROTH, 29605 Solana Way, N 10, Temecula.
ROBERT Bi%DDORF, 41399 Avenida Barca, Temecula.
CHRISTOPHER ALLEN, 47280 Rainbow Oaks Drive, Temecula.
JESUS ZAMORA, 42700 Moraga, 41 "D", Temecula.
C~d~LOS RAMIREZ, 42200 Moraga, 20 "E", Temecula.
DEREK THOMAS, 30962 Via Norte, Temecula.
BLURRY LATTIE, 45547 Tournament, Temecula.
uULIE LATTIE, 45547 Tournament, Temecula, secretary to
Pastor Martin, stated that he has been more than
cooperative with the City and their requests. Ms. Lattie
indicated that she had received notification that the
State Department of Housing has accepted their requests
for inspection and is currently waiting for an inspector
to contact them. Ms. Lattie also stated that she was
never made aware that the County Fire Department did not
have the correct serial numbers on the portable
structures; however, she had them and would make them
available to them immediately.
ROBERT CARLSON, 31019 Corte Arroyo Vista, Temecula.
FRED TANTZER, 29738 Vail Brook Drive, Temecula.
WILLIAM RENCH, 30624 E. Loma Linda, Temecula.
RUDY MENDOZA, 31155 Camino Verde, Temecula.
The following individuals spoke in opposition to the
proposal:
BARBARA HUGHES, 44278 Caba Street, Temecula, adjacent to
the church site, opposed the proposal because the church
has failed to comply with original property use, which
required 6' high dense screening. She added that the
church constructed a black-top, basketball court between
her property line and the church, with a 6' high chain
PCMIN1/6/92
-11- January 7, 1992
pL2~I~TIN~ CO!,~ISSION ~EETIN~
~NUI~Y 6, 1992
link fence (a 10' portion behind the basketball court to
keep the balls coming,over the fence) and no room for
landscape irrigation, and buses are being parked behind
the church. Ms. Hughes said that due to the revisions
the applicant has made, she should be afforded at the
minimum, a 6' high stone/stucco wall that would afford
her property privacy, noise reduction, a trespassing
deterrent, protect property values and restrict lighting
situations that may be required of the church so that it
does not illuminate her property, the 10' fence removed
and the buses parked in the front, not the rear, of the
property.
BOB HIN2E, 44264 Caba Street, Temecula, stated that he
had no objections to the church or school; however, when
he moved to his property, he had understood that the
church was going to put up a block wall between the
adjacent properties. Mr. Hinze also stated that he felt
there should be some skirting around the portable
structures.
CHAIRMAN BOaGLaND asked what needed to be done by the
applicant before the Planning Commission could give an
approval.
GARY THORNHILL stated the following issues needed to be
addressed: deciding what type of buffering would be
adequate; conditioning the project to protect adjacent
property owners from the church site; look at the wall
and accompanying landscaping; relocation of the
basketball court; prohibiting parking of any vehicles and
no additional paving at the rear of the project; comply
with standards and satisfy the Fire Department
requirements for internal driveways; and get public use
permit approved in order to get permits for the temporary
structures.
COMMISSIONER FAHEY stated that in addition to the many
issues as stated bythe Planning Director there were also
the issues of skirting and meeting the landscape code
requirements around the temporary structures; and time
frames for the conditions, which perhaps would satisfy
the nearby residents and the church members. In lieu of
all of the unresolved issues, Commissioner Fahey felt
that a continuance would be necessary and moved to
Continue Public Use Permit No. 580 to the meeting of
February 24, 1992, to have staff address these particular
issues with proposed conditions, which would deal with
the concerns that were voiced at the meeting.
PCMIN1/6/92 -12- January 7, 1992
PLKN~IN~ C01~IBSION HEETING
~iI~NUledl. Y 6, 1992
JOHN CAVANAUGH reminded the Commission that the Chief
Building Official, Teny Elmo, stated that it was
uncertain if there were any other violations, just that
they structures were constructed without permits. Mr.
Cavanaugh suggested that an inspection could be made,
withthe consent of the property owner allowing the Chief
Building Official to inspect the structures and see if
there is anything Wrong with them, or get a inspection
warrant from the courts, in order for staff to get a list
of what needs to be done to the structures.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF seconded Commissioner Fahey's
motion for discussion.
MIKE GRAY, Riverside County Fire Department, stated that
the portable structures were built under the authority of
the State Housing Authority. The applicant has indicated
that they have applied for an inspection of the portable
structures to the State. That inspection will tell
whether these structures were constructed properly, and
if not, what needs to be done to bring them up to code.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF stated that although the
Commission was not saying that the church should not be
where it is, there are some issues that need to be
addressed. The block wall and the landscaping are very
important issues, and the basketball court should not be
where it is. Mr. Chiniaeff also stated that the permit
process was set up to address adjacent land uses;
however, the church was here first. Mr. Chiniaeff asked
that the maker of the motion consider that if the
inspection report is not made available by 2/24/92, the
item will be continued again.
KERRY MARTIN indicated to the Planning Commission and
staff that he would be more than willing to have the
Chief Building Official inspect the portable structures
and bring them up to code.
COMMISSIONER FAHEY amended her motion to continue Public
Use Permit No. 580 to February 24, 1992, subject to staff
having the results of City Staff inspections and State
Department of Housing inspections of the portable
structures.
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Chiniaeff,
Hoagland
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
PCMIN1/6/92 -13- January 7, 1992
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
BUILDING OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM
S~STAFFRFT~EBOPUP*l .PC 17
CITY OF TEMECULA
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBIECT:
Planning Commlnsion/Planning DirecWr
Anthony Elmo/~
Chief Building Official
February 7, 1992
Public Use Permit No. 580
In response to Planning Commission direction, an inspection was made of the premises at 29825
Santiago Road. The inspection revealed four (4) modular buildings and a historical chapel on
the premises for classroom and assembly uses. Building permits were supplied by the applicant
for modular buildings D and C and the relocation of a historical chapel as shown on the site plan
dated January 24, 1992. The above-mentioned building permits were issued by the County of
Riverside. Two (2) other buildings, building B and A are also modular in nature with building
A being a combination of seven (7) attached units. Along with two (2) non-exempt storage
buildings existing on the site without evidence of required building permits and inspections being
obtained. A visual inspection of the interior and exterior of building A was performed as well
as exterior inspections of building B and the storage buildings. The findings of those inspections
are as follows:
Building A
Department of Housing and Community Development inspection was made on January
7, 1992. No determination to flow the B-2 occupancy change to A-3 was made.
Request was left for plans to be submitted for review.
The building was modified by the applicant by removing exterior wall coverings and
inst~lling electrical and insulation material. Non-bearing walls were built without proper
smoke and draftstopping to form office space, classroom, an assembly room for an
occupancy of 274, and storage rooms. Exiting does not meet basic requirements of the
Uniform Building Code, for handicapped accessibility and fire resistire constraction of
exit corridor walls and ceilings. The building lacks seismic restraints. All disconnect
switches for electrical and mechanical equipment have locking devices installed.
Handrails are missing from front deck and staLrs as well as the handicapped ramp.
Planning Commission/Planning Director
February 7, 1992
Page 2
This ~louble-wide modular building contains three (3) classrooms each with single non-
accessible doors. Interior paxtilions were built to provide classroom separation
presumably without proper smoke nnd draftstopping of concealed area above ceiling.
Inspection was inhibited due to classes in session.
Storage Buildings
Both storage buildings appeared to be resting on natural grade where foundation
construction is generally required.
This report is an overview of the Findings of the inspection that was performed. Only the major
items of concern for life safety have been noted. Other concerns such as, but not limited to,
improper door latch hardware and adequate restroom facilities exist but are not addressed in this
mpon.
AJF/sf
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
JANUARY 6, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
S~$TAFFRPT~SBOPUP-1 .PC I 8
RECOMMENDATION:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
January 6, 1992
Case No.: Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No.1
Prepared By: Saied Naaseh
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
ADOPT Resolution 92- denying Public Use Permit No. 580,
Revised No. I based on the Analysis and Findings contained in
the Staff Report.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
Rancho Temecula Bible Church
California Geo Tek, Inc.
A request to revise the County approved Public Use Permit No.
580 to grant approval for existing mobile structures used as
classrooms.
29825 Santiago Road
Specific Plan 180, Rancho Highlands
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Specific Plan 180
Specific Plan 180
Specific Plan 180
Specific Plan 180
Not Requested
Church/School
North:
South:
East:
West:
Single Family Dwellings
Single Family Dwellings
Vacant
Church
S%STAFFI~T%580-1 .PUP
PROJECT STATISTICS
Gross Area 3.92 Acres
Number of Buildings 5
Assembly Area 1930 Square Feet
Number of Classrooms 10
Number of Existing Parking Spaces 44
Number of Proposed Parking Spaces 58
Number of Faculty/Employees 13
Number of High School Students 13
BACKGROUND
On December 4, 1986 the Riverside County Board of Supervisors approved Public Use Permit
Number 580. This permit allowed the applicant to build a Sanctuary, to relocate an existing
church building to the site to be used as a multi-purpose building and to locate two mobile
units to be used as classrooms for the school for a total of four structures.
The project, as constructed, is not consistent with the County approval. In addition, mobile
structures were placed on the site without proper permits and approvals. These structures
are used as classrooms. Exhibits "D" and "E" show the original site plan approval by the
County and the existing site plan, respectively.
On July 5, 1990 the residents complained to the City regarding the noise from the increased
number of students and the ineffectiveness of the chain link fence as a buffer between the
school and the residents (refer to Exhibit I). At that time the City became aware of the
inconsistencies of the built project with the approved exhibits. The City indicated these
inconsistencies to the applicant in the October 10, 1990 correspondence from the City
Attorney and requested the applicant to file for a Revision to Public Use Permit No. 580 (refer
to Exhibit H). On February 26, 1991 the applicant filed for this revision.
At the March 28, 1991 Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting and two subsequent
DRC meetings the following issues were identified:
Uncertified and unapproved mobile structures used as classrooms are existing on site.
Substandard parking aisle widths exist on site.
The chain link fence on the southern property line is not a sufficient buffer between
the church playground and the existing residences.
The applicant has been aware of these issues; however, they all remain unresolved.
Therefore, Staff has brought the matter before the Planning Commission for action.
ANALYSIS
This project was approved over five years ago by Riverside County and it has always been in
violation of the approved Public Use Permit No. 580. The facility is in violation of several
building and fire codes; therefore, Staff is not supportive of expanding the operation.
S~STAFFF~T~SBO-1 .PUP 2
It is staff's opinion that the request to expand this operation should be denied. Additionally,
the existing facilities should be made to conform with the building and fire codes. As an
option the Planning Commission may allow the applicant thirty (30) days to comply with all
the City requirements. If the property is not brought into compliance within that period then
the Planning Commission may direct the Building Official to start the revocation process on
the Public Use Permit Number 580. This option is available to the Planning Commission
through Ordinance 348, Section 18.31, Findings and Procedure for Revocation of Variances
and Permits (refer to Exhibit "F"). According to this Section the Building Official has the
authority to revoke this permit if one or more of the following findings are made:
That the use is detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or is a public
nuisance.
2. That the permit was obtained by fraud or perjured testimony.
3. That the use is being conducted in violation of the terms and conditions of the permit.
That the use for which the I~ermit was granted has ceased or has been suspended for
one year or more.
Clearly, in Staff's opinion, findings No. I and No. 3 could be made for this project in that the
mobile structures have been deemed unsafe by the Department of Building and Safety and are
not approved as classrooms and the Conditions of Approval for Public Use Permit Number 580
have not been fully complied with (i .e., the project was never built per the approved site plan).
ZONING, FUTURE GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY
The SWAP and zoning designation is Specific Plan. The project is not consistent with the
Rancho Highlands Specific Plan Design Guidelines. The objective of these guidelines is to
establish a unique community identity. The mobile structures and the landscaping do not
create this unique community identity and are not consistent with the rest of the Specific Plan
~ architecture and landscape design. Therefore, the project is not consistent with
SWAP and the zoning.
The project will not be consistent with the future General Plan as it will jeopardize the public
health and welfare with unapproved structures that are used as classrooms.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
Staff has concluded that these structures are not safe to be used as classrooms and they
need to be certified by the Building and Safety Department and the Fire Department. The
project is not consistent with existing zoning, the SWAP and it is anticipated the project will
be inconsistent with the future General Plan as discussed in the Analysis section.
The structures have been in violation of several codes and standards for over five years.
Therefore, Staff recommends denial of this request.
S\STAFFI~T~SeO-1 .PUP
FINDINGS
The approval of this project is detrimental to the public health, safety and general
welfare, in that the drive aisles do not meet the minimum 24 feet required by
Ordinance No. 348 and the Fire Department, and in that the existing structures are not
approved to be used as classrooms.
There is a reasonable probability that Public Use Permit No. 580 Revised No. 1, will not
be consistent with the City's future General Plan, in that it will be detrimental to the
public health, safety and general welfare for the reasons mentioned in Finding Number
1.
The project is inconsistent with the approved Specific Plan No. 180, Rancho Highlands,
in that the mobile units do not meet the Design Guidelines.
The project has been a nuisance to the adjoining property owners, in that the chain link
fence does not provide an effective buffer between the school playgrounds and the
existing residences.
The project applicant has been uncooperative with Staff in correcting the mentioned
deficiencies in the Staff Report in that the structures remain unapproved and present
a danger to the students using the facilities.
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT Resolution No. 92-_denying Public Use Permit No. 580
Revised No. 1, based on the analysis and findings contained the
Staff Report.
vgw
Attachments:
Resolution No. 92-_- page 6
Conditions of Approval - 9
Exhibits - page 14
A. Vicinity Map
B. SWAP Map
C. Zone Map
D. County Approved Site Plan
E. Proposed Site Plan
F. Section 18-31, Ordinance 348
G. County Conditions of Approval
H. Misc. City Correspondence
I. Neighborhood Complaints
Development Fee Checklist - page 19
S\STAFFF~T~SBO- 1 .PUP
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
S\STAFFRPT~SB0-1 .PUP 5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA DENYING PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 580
REVISED NO. I ALLOWING EXPANSION OF RANCHO
TEMECULA BIBLE CHURCH AT 29825 SANTIAGO ROAD; AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 922-130-001
WHEREAS, the Rancho Temecula Bible Church filed Public Use Permit No. 580
Revised No. 1 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and
Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Public Use Permit 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 Public Use Permit on January 6, 1992, at which time interested persons had opportunity
to testify either in support or opposition to said Public Use Permit and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report
regarding the Public Use Permit;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
Findings.
That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings:
The approval of this project is detrimental to the public health, safety and general
welfare, in that the drive aisles do not meet the minimum 24 feet required by
Ordinance No. 348 and the Fire Department, and in that the existing structures are not
approved to be used as classrooms.
There is a reasonable probability that Public Use Permit No. 580 Revised No. 1, will not
be consistent with the City's future General Plan, in that it will be detrimental to the
public health, safety and general welfare for the reasons mentioned in Finding Number
1.
The project is inconsistent with the approved Specific Plan No. 180, Rancho Highlands,
in that the mobile units do not meet the Design Guidelines.
S\STAFFRPT~580-1 .PUP 6
The project has been a nuisance to the adjoining property owners, in that the chain link
fence does not provide an effective buffer between the school playgrounds and the
existing residences.
The project applicant has been uncooperative with Staff in correcting the mentioned
deficiencies in the Staff Report in that the structures remain unapproved and present
a danger to the students using the facilities.
SECTION 2.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby denies Public Use Permit No. 580
Revised No. I a resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula denying Public
Use Permit No. 580 Revised No. 1 allowing operation of the Rancho Temecula Bible Church
and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 922-130-001.
SECTION 3.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of January, 1992.
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 6th day of
January, 1992 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
S%STAFFRoT~580-1 .PUP
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
S\STAFFRPT~580-1 .PUP
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Public Use Permit No.: 580 Revised No. 1
Project Description: Revisions to Previously ADDroved Public Use
Permit No. 580 to grant approval for existing mobile structures
used as classrooms.
Assessor's Parcel No. 922-130-016
Planning Department
The use hereby permitted 'by this public use permit is for revision to previously
approved Public Use Permit No. 580, to grant approval for existing mobile structures
used as classrooms.
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 Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. 1. The City of Temecula will
promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City
of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify
the permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the
defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or
hold harmless the City of Temecula.
This approval shall be used within one (1) year of approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the one (1) year period which is thereafter
diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization
contemplated by this approval. This approval shall expire on
In the event the use hereby permitted cease operation for a period of one year or
move, this approval shall become null and void.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on
Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. I marked Exhibit E, or as amended by these
conditions.
S\STAFFRPT%SeO-1.PUP 9
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon
adjoining property or public rights-of-way. 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.
Wa~er and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the
provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittal dated
October 10, 1991, a copy of which is attached.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of
Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated December 12,
1991, a copy of which is attached.
One hundred thirteen (113) parking spaces shall be provided as shown on the
Approved Exhibit E and shall be designed in accordance with Section 18.12, Temecula
City Ordinance No. 348. The parking area shall be surfaced with asphaltic concrete
paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on 4 inches of Class II base.
A minimum of 3 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on Exhibit D.
Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal,
displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than
70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space
at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space
finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space
finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous
place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22
inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or
license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be
towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be
reclaimed at or by telephone
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a
surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at
least 3 square feet in size.
10.
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening material shall
be subject to Planning Department approval.
11.
Prior to the final building inspection approval by the Building and Safety Department,
a six foot high decorative block wall shall be constructed along the entire length of the
project site's southerly boundary consistent with Rancho Highlands Specific Plan. The
required wall shall be subject to the approval of the Director of the Department of
Building and Safety and the Planning Director.
S\STAFFRPT~580-1 ,PUP 10
12.
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.
13. Eight (8) Class II bicycle racks shall be provided in convenient locations as approved
by the Planning Director to facilitate bicycle access to the project area.
14. Prior to the issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts to be
determined by the City Building Official, shall be filed with the Department of Building
and Safety guaranteeing construction of the required perimeter screen wall per the
approved plans.
15. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground.
16.
Within forty-eight (48) hours of the approval of the project, the applicant/developer
shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or money order payable to
the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand, Two Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars
(~)1,275.00), which includes the One Thousand, Two Hundred, Fifty Dollars
(~1,250.00) fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code
Section 711.4(d)(2) plus the Twenty-Five Dollar (~25.00) County administrative fee
to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources
Code Section 21152 and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-
eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning
Department the check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall
be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
17.
A landscape plan shall be submitted in accordance with the Rancho Highlands Specific
Plan subject to the Planning Director approval prior to issuance of building permits.
18.
The applicant shall submit all the information requested by the Building Official and the
Fire Department within thirty (30) days following this approval. Furthermore, the
applicant shall comply with all the conditions of approval for Building Department, Fire
Department and condition No's. 11 and 18 for the Planning Department, within ninety
(90) days. If the applicant fails to comply with any of the above deadlines, the
Building Official shall start the Public Use Permit revocation per Ordinance No. 348,
Section 18.31.
Building and Safety Department
19.
Comply with applicable provisions of the 1988 edition of the Uniform Building,
Plumbing and Mechanical, 1990 National Electrical Code, California Administrative
Code title 24 Energy and Handicapped Regulations and the Temecula Code.
20. Submit at time of plan review complete exterior site lighting plans in compliance with
Ordinance No. 655 for the Regulation of Light Pollution.
21. Obtain all building permits prior to the commencement of any construction work.
S\STAFFRPT%580-1 .PUP 11
22. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
23.
Provide occupancy approval for all existing buildings (i.e. finialed building permit,
Certificate of Occupancy).
24. All existing buildings and facilities must comply with applicable handicapped
accessibil_ity r~gulations.
Engineerir~g D~partment
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
25.
As determined by the City Engineer, the developer shall receive written clearance from
the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Flood Control district;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department;
CATV Franchise; and
Parks and Recreation Department.
26.
The developer shall submit four (4) prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the
Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code and
Chapter 70 as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The
plan shall be drawn on 24"x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer.
27.
The developer shall submit two (2) copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of
the site.
28.
A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and
submitted at the time of application for grading plan check.
29.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to
commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way.
30.
No grading shall take place prior to the improvement plans being substantially
complete, appropriate clearance letters and approval by the City Engineer.
31.
If grading is to take place between the months of October and April, erosion control
plans will be required. Erosion control plans and notes shall be submitted and
approved by the Engineering Department.
S\STAFFRPT%S80-1 .PUP 12
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
PRIOR
38.
39.
PRIOR
40.
All site plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and street improvement
plans shall be coordinated for consistency with approved plans.
All driveways shall be a minimum width of 24 feet. Existing parking areas and
driveways shall be brought into conformance with Ordinance No. 348, Section 18.12.
Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an
encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid per original Conditions of Approval of Public Use
Permit No. 580. The charge shall equal the prevailing area drainage plan fee multiplied
by the area of new development. The current fee due is 82,441.84, and is payable
to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits.
Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage
entering the property from adjacent areas.
All concentrated drainage directed toward the public street shall be diverted through
the undersidewalk drains.
TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT:
A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and
approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location
and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing
compaction and site conditions.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the Engineering
Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact.
TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY:
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%SBO-1 .PUP 13
General Manager
J, Andrew Schlange
Lelal Counsel
Redwine and Sherrill
Director of The Metropolitan ~ter
District of Southern Cal(fornia
Doyle F. Boen
May 6, 1991
Mr. Charley Ray, Case Planner
City of Temecula Planning Department
43180 Business Park Drive, Suite 200
Temecula, California 92390
SUBJECT: PUP 580 - Revision No. 1
Dear Mr. Ray:
As requested, we have reviewed the subject project for the purposes of evaluating
the District's ability to provide sanitary sewer service. An existing eight
(8)-inch diameter sewerline is located in Santiago Road, fronting the subject
project. At the present time, this Santiago Road sewer has available capacity
to serve the subject project. It must be understood that the available capacity
of the District's sewer system is continually changing due to development within
the District. As such, service will be provided based on the timing of the
subject project, the service agreement from the District, and the status of
the District's permit to operate.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact the District's
Customer Service Department at (714) 766-1810.
Very truly yours,
H. A1 Spence/
Director of Planning
HAS/DC: i b ,TO ~T _:
cc: John Fricker - EMWD Customer Service Department
6/I-ib
91-1077
Mail To: Post Office Box 8300 · SanJacinto, California 92583-1300 · Telephone (714) 925-7676 · Fax (714) 929-0257
Main Office: 2045 S. SanJacinto Street, San Jacinto · Customer Service/Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue, Hemet, CA
f
Wa r
October 10, 1991
Mr. Charly Ray
City of Tcmccula
Planning Department
43180 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
Water Availability
Tract Map 20591
P.U,P. 580 Revision No. 1
Rancho Temecula B~le Church
Dear Mr. Ray:
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
RCWDo
If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Senga Doherly.
Sincerely,
RANCHO C.~LIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P. E.
Manager of Development Engineering
SB:SD:ajth245
cc: Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician
,/
FIRE DEPARTMENT
210 WBST SAN ~ACIN'rO AVI~N'U~ · PER~-~, CALFFORNIA 923~
(714) t557-3t,,3
OLE~ J. NI~WMAN
FIRE CHIBF December 12 1991
The desiin of the site improvemeets and use of the various buildings currencly
on che property. were apparent17 done without e~y regard to the approved sic·
plan or :ondit~ons of &pproval. The Fire Departurea Is raquescin$ the fall·win8
items prior to a Certificate of Couformancaz
L. Driverays redssigned co provlde 24~ gwo we7 traffic around =he bui~din~e.
2. On-sire rarer system with fire flow and fire hydrant specie2 accordinS
=o appreved conditions.
3. axleale& mobile u~lts mue~ be certified by appropriate agency for
construe=lee =y~s aCcordi~g EO use.
All questions regardin~ the meanlag of coneirises mhall be referred to
~he Planning and Ensinearin{
RAYMOND K, KEG~5
Chief Plre Department Planner
SF /
Hicheal E. Gray, Fire Captain Specialist
PLANNING DPaSlON
(7|4) 27~4T?~ · PAX (714)
C]TEh~EULAOIrPIC~
41002 Camty Gmt~De~w, Suh-2~5. Temanis. CA p'l~0
A'I'rACHMENT NO. 3
EXHIBITS
S\STAFFI~:~'T~SBO~I .PUP
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.:
EXHIBIT: A
P.C. DATE:
Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. 1
February 24, 1992
VICINITY MAP
CITY OF TEMECULA
SP 180
COMMUNIT'
-;ITE
CASE NO.: Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. 1
EXHIBIT: B
P.C. DATE: February 24, 1992
SWAP MAP
CITY OF TEMECULA
I/
CASE NO.:
EXHIBIT: C
P.C. DATE: February 24, 1992
Public Use Permit 580, Revised No. 1
ZONING MAP
S~STAFFRPT~ORM-1
CITY OF TEMECULA
? Y\.
CASE NO.: Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. 1
EXHIBIT: D PROPOSED SITE PLAN AMENDED t13
P.C. DATE: February 24, 1992
CITY OF TEMECULA
~-~-...~' ,.0.. ~ .,., ,~.,,: '~ '/.~
:~ .. ~ : . ..'--..: =.,...,., "~"'-"----~.,.~.,,,~~,.
CASE NO.: Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. 1
EXHIBIT: E COUNTY APPROVED SITE PLAN
P.C. DATE: Februa~ 24, 1992
EXHIBIT F
S\STAFFRPT~500-1 .PUP
SECTION 18.31. FXNDZNGS AND PROCE/)URE FOR REVOCATXON OF VARIANCES AHD
PERmiTS.
a. Any conditional use permtt, publJc use ;emit, variance, cemmerclal
k~CS pemtt, or accessor7 VECS permit mRy be revoked by the Dtrector of
Butld~ng and Safety upon finding that one or more of the following
cond~tlons for revocatJon extst.
(1) That the use ts detrimental to the publtc health, safeV or
hera1 elfere, or ts · Publlc nuisance.
~hat the permtt ~as ebtatned by freud or perSure test mony.
That the use ts betrig conducted tn v~olatton of the eros and
conditions of the permit.
(4) That the use for ~hJch the pefi~tt ms granted has ceased or has
been suspended for one ~ear or Bore.
he
Upon detemtnatton by the D~rector of Butldtng and Safety that grounds
for revocation extst, the following procedure shall take effect:
(1) NOTICE OF REVOCATION. Nottce of revocation and a copy of the
findings of the Dtrector of Butld~ng and Safety shal~ be mailed
by the Dtrector by certified mat1 to the owner of the property to
which the permtt or variance appltes, as shown by the records of
f
the Assessor of Riverside County. The decision o the Dtrector
of Building and Safety shall be ftnal unless a nottce of appeal
~s ttmely ftled,
NOTICE OF APPEAJ., ifithtn 10 days following the matltn9 of the
not(ca of revocation, the owner of the property to which the
permtt or variance appltes may file v~th the Plannln Dtrector a
notice of appeal frun the dectston of the Dtrector o~ Building
and Safety. A not(ca of appeal shall be accanpanled by the
ftltn9 fee set forth tn Ordinance No, 671, A not(ce of appea~
not accempanted by such fee shall be deened null and void and
shall not be processed.
SETTZNG HEARING; COSTS, Appeals ~qthln the area Jurisdiction of
the East Area Planning Counctl, wtth the exception of appeals
concerning commercial IIECS pemtts, shall be beard by the Coundl
or, tf the Council so elects, shall be heard by a County Hearing
Officer pursuant to and tn accordance w~th Ordinance No. 643.
All other appeals, Including appeals concerning cam,,erclal k/ECS
permtts, shall be heard by the Planntng Ceffntsston, of tf the
Cemtsslon so elects, shall be heard by a County Hearing Officer
pursuant to and tn accordance ~th Ordinance No, 643, , Nottee
of the t(me, date and place of the hearing shall be given as
protided In Section 18,26(c), In the event that an appeal ts
heard by a County Heartng Offtcer and the owner of the property
to whtch the permit or variance a pltes does not prevail tn the
appeal, the owner shall not be ob~(gated to PaY Iny hearing
costs. In the event that an appeal ts beard by a County Hearing
Officer end the owner of the property to vhtch the pemtt or
variance appltes prevatls tn the appeal, the owner shell not be
obligated to paY all heartng costs.
199
(4)
(s)
(B)
(9)
TESTZHONY UNDEIL OATH. All testimony at the heart rig shall be
taken under Oath.
NOTICE OF DECISION. Notice of the Planntng Cemtsston or
Planning Count11 's dectston and a report of the proceedings shall
be filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors not later
than Z5 days follo~ng the dote the doctston is adopted. A copy
of the nottce and the report shall he matled to the applicant and
proof of such matltng shall he indicated on the or1 tnal notice .
filed with the Clerk of the Board of $uporvisors. Yf the
Planntng Castsalon or Planning Counctl does not reach a decision
dee to a tie vote, such fact shall be reported to the Board of
Supervisors in the same manner and withtn the same ttme for
reporting decisions and such a fatlure to reach a dectston shall
constitute afft nnance of the Butl dtng Director's revocation of
the benntt or variance.
PLACENENT OF MATTER ON BOARD'S AGENDA. The Clerk of the Board of
$ubervisors shall place the Nottce of bectston on the Board's
agenda for the next regular meeting to be held following the
lapse of 5 da~s after the Notice is filed with the Board.
TRANSFER TO BOARD OF SUPERVZBOR$ ON ~PPE~. The revocation or
non-revocation of a benntt or variance by the Planntng Commission
or Planntng Count11 shall be ftnal unless, within ten (ZO)days
following the matter at which the Nottce of Decision was on the
ageride of the Board of Supervisors, the following occurs:
a. An apbeal to the Board of Subervisors is made by the owner of
the property which is the subject of the revocation
proceedings, or
b, The Board of Supervisors orders the matter transferred to tt
for further proceedings.
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. If either
of the acttons mentioned in paragraphs a. and b. of Subsection 7
above are taken, the Board of Supervisors may:
a. Refuse to review the Planni'ng Commission or Planntng
Council's decision, in which case the dectston shall be
final, or
b. Review a transcript or recording of the testimony and all
other evidence introduced before the Planning C;metsston or
reverse the decision of the n o 1 ntng
Counctl or refer the matter back to the Planntng Cantsalon '
or Planntng Counctl for the takt of further evidence
hearing additional argment in ~hnVch case notice shall or
given to the owner of the proberry which is the subject of
the preceedt ngs, or
c, Set the matter for heartrig before itself, At such hearing
the Board of Supervisors shall hear and decide the matter de
novo as if no prior hearing had been held, Notice of the
time, date and place of the public hearing shall be given as
provided in Section 18.26(c).
ACTION BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. The decision of the Board of
Supervisors on revocation of a permit or variance is final.
200
EXHIBIT G
S\STAFFRrt'~580-1 .PUP
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FUBLIC USE PEEMIT NO. 580
Project Description: Church and school
Assessores Parcel No. 922-130-001
Area: Rancho CalifOrnia
This approval shall be used within =wo (2) years of approval date; otherwise
it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. By use is meant
=he beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within
the ~wo_(2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion,
or the beginning of substantial utilize=ion contemplated by this approval.
1. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as
shown on plot plan marked Revised Exhibit A-#I.
2. In the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period of one
(1) year or more, =his approval shall become null and void.
Any outside lightinS shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
The applicant shall comply with the street improvement rec~endaEions
outlined in the County Road Department transmi~tal dated 7-29-86, a copy
of which is attached.
Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance
with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department
transmittal dated 7-23-86, a copy of which is attached.
Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County
Flood Control District transmittal dated 7-18-86, a copy of which is attached.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section
of Ordinance 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittel dated 7-21-86, a
copy of which is attached.
All landscaitJ~!et~l~aNlbeplante[lhaecerdancewith hhibi~ B (with the
exception of Nerium Oleander, which shall be replaced with any one of the
following plants: Pittosportm Tobira, Dodonaea Viscosa, Nandine Domestica,
or Euonymus Kiautschovica, and shall be 5 gallon containers) prior to the
issuance of occupancy permits. An automatic sprinkler system shall be
installed and all landscaped areas shall be maintained in a viable growth
condition. PlantinS within ten (10) feet of an entry or exit driveway shall
not he permitted to grow higher than thirty (30) inches.
PUBLIC USE PEI~IT NO. 580
Conditions of Approval
Page -2-
10.
13.
1,~.
109 perkinS spaces shall be provided as shown on the lpproved Revised
Exhibit A-el. The perkinS area shall be surfaced with asphaltic concrete
pavinS ~o · minimum depth of 3 inches on 4 inches of Class II base.
A minimum of 3 handicapped parkinS spaces shall be provided as shown on
Revised Exhibit A-#1. Each perkinS 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 siSn shall not be smaller than 70 square
inches in area and shall be centered at ~he interior end of the parking
space at a minimum height of 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the
parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches
from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall
also be posted in a conspicuous place, at' each entrance to the off-street
parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches in size with letter-
sting not less than 1 inch in height, which clearly and conspicuously states
the follo~rlng:
"Unauthorized vehicles not displayinS distinguishinS placards or
license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be
towed away at ovner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed
at or by telephoning
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parkinS place
shall have a surface identification sign duplicatinS the s!~nbol of
accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size·
Prior to the issuance of a buildinS permit for the sanctuary, the applicant
shall obtain clearance and/or permits from the following agencies:
Road Department
Fire Department
Planning Departtent
Environmental Health
Written evidence of compliance shall be presented to the Land Use Division
of the Department of Building and Safety.
Prior to the issuance of building permits for the sanctuary, a liquefaction
and soils study shall be submitted and approved by the County Geologist.
All permanent structures shall be constructed in accordance with the
reco~mnendations of the approved report.
Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that sho~n on
Exhibit C.
Floor plans shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on
Exhibit D.
PUBLIC USE PEI~IT NO. 580
Conditions of Approval
Page -3-
parktn~ beglns on the east slde o~the project.
O~ ~:0 the fiU b~i'fld4ne' 4neas~s~ts~approval by ~he Building and Sa~e~~~
~ee~ ~n haigh~ and s~ll be mde vi~h ~son~ block and a ga~e which
scree~ ~he bins fr~ ~te~l vi~.
18. All 1-~ecapin2 ,,a ix~igstion .shall be .installed in accordance rlth
approved plans pz~or to the issuance ~f occupancy'petlita.
The property is located within thirty (30) miles of Hount Palomar Observator~y.
Light and glare may adversely impact operations at the observatory. Outdoor
lighting shall be minimized, especially during the late night and early
morni~ng hours. All outdoor lighting shall be from lo~ pressure sodium lamps
theare oriented and shielded to prevent direct illumination above the
h~rizontal plane passin~ through the lominare. All lighting shall be in
~onformance with the Lamp T~pe and Shielding Requirements Per Fixture, a
copy of which is attached.
20. All existin~ structures on the subject property shall conform to all of ~he
applicable requirements of Ordinance 3~8.
21. Three Class II bicycle racks shall be provided.in convenient locations to
facilitate bike access to the project area.
Prior co!~m~e,-~ll~~ pendts, all required landscape plantinS and
irrigatio~'Sball~bSV~.bsen installed ~ be ~n a ~iCi~ acceptable to
~ Direc~?~~ Safety. ~e plan~s shall be healthy and free
of weeds, disease or pes~s. ~e irrigation 'sysu~ shall be properly
constructed and in good working order.
23. Brior to occupancy or. any use allowed by this permit, all of the foregoing
conditions of this conditional use permit shall be complied with.
PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 580
Conditions of Approval
Page
26.
27.
The development of =he property shall be in accordance with the mandatory
requirements of all Riverside County Ordinance and State Laws, and shell
conform substantially with approved Specific Plan 1~0. as filed in the
office of the Riverside County Planning Department.
Prior to the issuance of building permits for the sanctuary the developer
shell submit an Energy Resource Conservation Plan to the Department of
Building and Safety for approval. The plan shall include but not be
limited to the following:
a. Building construction designs shall incorporate site orientation and
product design that max~m~zes solar access potential.
b. Architectural features and landscaping shall be used to reduce s,m~er
heat to the greatest extent possible.
Class II bike lanes shall be constructed on Santiago Road, along the church
si~e, as approved by 'the Road Deparment.
The use of outdoor lighting shall be minimized; recreational, parking lot
and decorative lighting shall be turned off when the associated facilities
are not in use.
28. Grading shall be performed in accordance with the following criteria:
~here cut and fill slopes are created in excess of ten (10) feet in
vertical height, detailed landscaping and irrigation plans shall be
submitted to the Planning Department prior to approval of grading
plans. The plans shall be reviewed for type and density of ground
cover, shrubs and trees.
Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall reflect the
natural rounded terrain.
Graded slopes shall be oriented to minimize visual impacts to surround-
ing areas.
The overall shape, height and grade of any cut and fill slope shall be
developed in concert with the existing natural contours and scale of
the natural terrain of a particular site.
The toes and tops of all slopes in excess of ~en (10) feet in vertical
height shall be rounded vith curves with radii designed in proportion
to the total height of the slope vhere drainage and stability permit
such rounding.
PUBLIC USE PERI4IT NO. 580
Conditions of Approval
Pa2e -5-
CuE or fill slopes exceedin$ one hundred (100) feec in horizontal
lengch, shell be 2faded co meander che ~oe and Cop of the slope.
Brov dicches, ~e:race drains and other minor evalee shall. be lined
with nacural erosion control meCerials or concrete.
Gradin2 work shall be balanced on site.
~ CrJded bu~ undeveloped land shall be meinCained in aweed-free
condiCion and planCed viCh incerim landscaping.
~'~'7/10-31-86
EXHIBIT H
S\STAFFRPT~S80-1 .PUP
CERTIFIED MAIL
Ronald / Parks
Mayor
Patrlcla H, Birdsall
Mayor Pro T~m
Karel F. Llndemans
Councilmember
P~ M~'~
Councilmember
J. SiI Nlu~o~
Councilmemi~r
David F. DIxon
City Manager
(714) 694-1989
FAX (714) 694-I~
R~-'URN RECEIPT
REOUESTED
AugUSt 23, 1991
Rancho Temecula Bible "Church
Pastor Kerry Martin
29825 Santiago Road
TemecUla, CA 92591
Subject: Public Use Permit (P.U.P.)
580-Revision No. I
Dear Pastor Martin:
Please be advised that the City of Temcula will initiate
Public Use Permit (P.U.P.) revocation procedures pursuant
to section 18.29.F of the City Development Code (enclosed),
if the above referenced application remains incomplete,
thereby preventin~ further processing of the proposal and
subseqUent review by the City Planning Commission.
UpQn your receipt of this notice, you are provided 10 days
to submit all previously reqUested information as indicated
by the attached Development Review Committee comments dated
March 28, 1991; and the initial project Notice of
Determination of Application Completeness dated March 11,
1991. Should the application remain incomplete after 10
days, revocation proceedings will ensue.
Please contact me @ (714) 694-6400, should you have any
gUestions regarding this correspondence.
Sincerely,
Charly
Planning Assistant
Gary Thornhill
Planning Director
of Temecula
43174 Business lagtic Drive · Tamcain. California 92590
Iiotwld J, Plrks
Pittloire H. Iinlsmll
Ma-~or Pro Tem
lOBtel F. Lindaromas
C;cxjncilrn~mber
Coundlmeml:;ef
J. S~I Illlufloz
Councilmember
D~'M F. DI~
r/14j 694-19~9
FAX (7141 694-1999
"~September 4, 1991
Mr. Leonard Fowler
California Geo Tek, Inc.
42030 Avenida Alvaredo Suite A
Temecula, CA 92590
Subject: Public Use Permit No. 580 (P.U.P. 580) Revision No. I
Dear Mr. Fowler:
Pursuant to our phone conversation of September 3, 1991, I am forwarding
this correspondence confirming the City Planning Director's decision to
allow an additional 2 weeks to complete the application P.U.P. 580,
Revision No. 1 prior to the City's initiation of P.U .P. revocation proceedings.
(Reference correspondence to Pastor Kerry Martin, Dated August 23, 1991,
copy to California Geo-Tek). The decision to allow this delay in revocation
proceedings recognizes your unfamiliarity with the background of the
proposal in question, and your stated willingness to act in good faith
towards its completion. The extended deadline for application completion
is September 23, 1991. Should the application for P.U.P. 580, Revision No.
I remain incomplete beyond September 23, 1991, revocation procedures
previously noted will be immediately forthcoming.
Please contact me at (714) 694-6400, should you require further
information or clarification of this correspondence.
Charly Ray
-~aa~Thornhill
Planning Director
CR\GT:vgw
CC:
Tony Elmo-Building & Safety
Rancho Temecula Bible Church
Mayor
Ron Parks
Mayor Pro Tem
Karel F. Lindemans
CITY OF TEMECULA
P.O. Box 3000
Temecula, California 92390
(714) 694-1989
FAX (714) 694-1999
Conference Notice
October 10, 1990
Councilmembers
Patricia H. Bird~l
Peg Moore
J. Sal Mu1~oz
CERTIFIED MAIL -
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Pastor Kerry Martin
29825 Santiago Road
Temecula, CA 92390
Re: Buildlnq and Land Use
Dear Pastor Martin:
It has come to the attention of the City Attorney~s Office that you are in
violation of the following provisions of Riverside County Ordinances Nos. 30,8 and
L~57; an adopted reference of City of Temecula Ordinance No. 90.00,.
- One mobile office and one mobile classroom without a Public Use Permit.
- Modular office ( "Temporary Assembly" ).
Blacktop with playground equipment, basketball court without Public
Use Permit.
10~ chainlink fence with gate in violation of existing Public Use Permit.
Trespassing on neighbor property.
Storage shed without a building permit.
Lack of approved landscaping plan and landscaping screen per Public
Use Permit No. 580.
Building permits for all structures on site. and,
Pastor Martin
October 10, 1990
Page 2
The following Public Use Permit No. 580 Conditions:
Condition No. 1: The development of the premises shall confo~-m substantially
with that as shown on plot plan marked Revised Exhibit A-#1.
Condition No. 13: Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with
that shown on Exhibit C.
Condition No. lu,: Floor plans shall be in substantial conformance with that
shown on Exhibit D.
Condition No. 15: Prior to final building inspection a six foot high chain link
fence shall be installed along the southwest and southeast project boundaries,
that is, along the parking area at the southwest corner all the way around the
play field to where the parking begins on the east side of the project.
Condition No. 16: Prior to the final building inspection approval by the
Building and Safety Department, an addendum to the landscaping plan shall
be approved by the Planning Department. This plan shall provide for dense
six foot high landscaping screen along the chain link fence.
Condition No, 18: All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in
accordance with the approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy
permits.
Condition No. 20: All existing structures on subject property shall conform
to all of the applicable requirements of Ordinance No. 3b,8.
Condition No. 22: Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, all required
landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and in a condition
acceptable to the Director of Building and Safety.
Condition No 23: Prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit, all of
the foregoing conditions of this conditional use permit shall be complied with.
Conditions of Approval also include payment of required development mitigation fees,
including but not limited to the following:
Signal mitigation fees.
- Fire mitigation fees.
- Flood mitigation fees. and,
School fees or an exemption letter from Temecula Unified School
District.
Pastor Martin
October 10, 1990
Page 3
Please be advised that this/these violation(s) can be remedied by court order
throuqh civil in/unction or prosecuted as a criminal misdemeanor with a maximum fine
of one-thousand dollars ($1,000.00) or a six month jail sentence for each criminal
violation charqed. Please be further notified that this/these violations(s) can also
be prosecuted as a nuisance, and that failure to remedy the violation(s) within a
reasonable time, will result in a special assessment on your property taxes of all
costs of enforcement, including attorney~s fees,
However, before any legal action is begun, an office conference has been set
up to discuss this/these matter(s). The purpose of the office conference is to
provide an opportunity to resolve this/these code violation (s) without the necessity
of formal legal action, The time established for the office conference is Tuesday,
October 16, 1990 at 10:00 a.m., p.m. at Temecula City Hall located at ~,3180 Business
Park Drive, Suite 200, ~emecula, California.
If you fail to appear at this conference, this office will be forced to assume
that the above charge(s) is/are correct and shall act accordingly. However, you
may wish to avoid the office conference date and by having the correction confirmed
through a personal inspection by the Building Official, Mr. Anthony Elmo. He may
be reached at (71Ll) 691~-6L~00. The violation(s) may be corrected in the following
manFief:
File a revised Public Use Permit application with the City of Temecula
Planning Department, along with appropriate fees.
Obtain, or provide documentation of, required Building and Safety
permits for all existing structures on site including play equipment and
fencing.
Comply with Conditions of Approval Nos. 1, 13, 1~,, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22,
and 23.
Pay appropriate development mitigation fees required by Public Use
Permit No. 580.
Pastor Martin
October 10, 1990
Page u,
Please note that my office is not at City Hall. Should you need to contact me,
I may be reached at (710,) 50,5-5559.
Sincerely,
Scott F. Field
City Attorney
City of Temecula
copy: Dave Dixon, City Manager
Gary Thornhill, Planning Director
Anthony EImo, Building Official
Gibbs ~, Craze Co., L.P.A.
[other]
[other-not certified]
BS: CNotice
MVviol {3/23/90)
CERTIFIED MAIL - P-35u, 135 656
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
EXHIBIT I
S\STAFFRPT%S80-1 ,PUP
LOCAL 'REPORT
TEMECULA -- A 10-foot high wire ' t~.t's no good," she said.
Dinners are a problem. too.
"Whenever we sit down to sat dinner, the
kids are playing ball over at the church and
invariably, as soon as we get started on the
meal, a ball comes flying over into our yard.
Of course, the kids can't climb a ten-foot
high fence, so one of us always gets up and
gives them beck the ball. Ifs just continual
annoyances,' Hughes sai~L
The family wants the fencing removed
and replaced by a wall.
"If it won't block out the sound, at least it
will give us a litfie privacy,' Hughes said.
Neighbors Ray and Elllien Colbert agree.
"Nobody likes that fence," said Effiien
Colbert. "It's not exactly attractive and our
neighbon are really having a hard time
selling their house because peopis take one
look at the fence and what's behind it --
{the mobile unite that make Up many of the
church's buildings) and they don't want to
move in there. It's mnldng our property
values go down.'
Together, the families of Cobe Street '
have hrn.~ht comnlnints to the city
Pastor Kerry Martin of Rancho
Temecula said he wants to be able to save
money for perm~nent buildings at the
church.
"We have almost all temporary buildings
and our church is very active and Srowlng,'
he said. ~/e don't want to have problems
with our neighbors here, but if I am going
to spend money, it's going to be on
permanent buildings, not a wall.~
Martin said that his public-use-permit
from the city only requires a chain-link
fence.
"If she (Hughes) wants a wall, msybe she
ought to pay for it, ' he eskL "Otherwise, we
can't seem to make her happy.'
Church officials are now talking to the
city Planning Department and may be
required to put up a whll, Martin said.
'That would be an expensive
proposition. We would be willing to split
the cost with the neighbnr~ if they wanted
fence marks the property line between
Rancho Temecula Bi~e Church and
. School and Barbara Hughes' back yard.
: And she is sick of looking at iL
'My family has absolutely no privacy
· with that thing," said Hughes. ~Are can't
have a barbecue, we cma't have anything
without facing a lot of people in our
, backyard.*
Hughes' teen-aged daughter does not
like to sun-tan in thehackyard any more,
. becgusa she lass been heckled by the
schoors teen-aged boys so many times.
"My daughter goes out to sun herself and
there's 20-some boys running around for
P.E. (physical educatien) class. 8he should
beabletogooutintheysxdandueeit
whenever she wants tin, we all should.'
, Her husband, Robe-t, who commutes
from Temecula to his job in Costa Mesa, is
' awakened at 10 p.m. daily to the sounds of
, starting cars and bridat lights shining
through the bedroomwindow. Hu~he~
.nmoowno,..o,bo...gh., fo..,o..d, ..d .ey ..d .,...o,..e..e.,li.,.f
Colbert, behind the Rancho Tem~ula Blbli ~u~h a~ ~h~l is a 1 O-foot hl~fence eere now, but ~1 ents say ~e
complex. ~e chu~school lot sbu. ~lr ~mes and neigh- fencing is ugiy.~' "~ .,~;~ ~ :
~ ,-,:, ' .,. ,¢:,' ' ... ~
Chumh's fence d sturbs Tem ula
~en you have ~ w~e up at 4 a. ,~( :~ e;. not .mm~ bn ,'
Temecula City Planning
P. O. Box 3000
Temecula, California
August 15,1990
Dear Mr. Mareha!l:
As per your request yesterday, I am writing the city another letter in
regards to Permit Use *580 Rancho Temecula Bible Church on Santiago.
You should now be in receipt of a complaint form filed in June 1990, a
neighborhood petition signed in July 1990, and a memo from Gary Thornhilt,
to David Dixon dated August 30, 1990. Also, I have spoken numerous times
to Karen Castre, Chadie Ray, two times to you, once to Dave Dixon, twice
to Gary Thornhill end other employees whose name I do not remember.
However, by now I would think the entire department remembers my name
and most of the employees have told me not to call them anymore as the
case is out of their hands. Most recently, Charlie Ray has redirected me to
you....you tell me however the problem is being discussed once again by the
City Manager and the City Attorney. Both the City Manager and the City
Attorney were discussing this same problem last August to no avail
for me.
It seems entirely redundant to repeat my concerns about the property on
Santiago...the Church. Quickly outlined, the once small historical church
has grown and also became a school from grades K to 12. There is no solid
screening between our properties. I am subjected to not only constant
weekend Church activities including Wednesday night youth group meetings
and other Church related meetings which involves automobile headlights,
people talking, general activity noise and loss of pdvacy but now I have to
deal with daily school activities with an enrollment over 200 plus
students. This includes a school bell, physical education classes, traffic
and general noise and activity appropriate to any school situation. I do not
feel comforl. able using my backyard. I feel exposed, vunerable to theft,
trespassing persists, headlights illuminate our house, sleep is lost and our
teenage daughter gets heckled by students everyday. She cannot work on a
tan like other teens. We have no backyard yet pay hearty taxes for one.
To make matters worse, last year the church poured black top end erected
e I0 foot chain !ink fence without e permit along our property line. They
put up e basketball pole, end hoops. Kids love to play volleyball, hockey
end othar sports daily in this area. Bells ere always coming into our yard.
They yell to us to retrieve the bells or some come into the yard to get the
bells. This fence is ugly Seriously affecting the value of my property. It
needs to come down. The church put that fence uD knowino full well theu
HU newest concerns seem to be with our Tememcula Planning Department.
~.~r lt is mg understanding this propertg has nine violations pending. Why
action has not be taken against the pastor is beyond me. No one at the
Department seems to know either. Everyone empathizes with my problem
end agrees I have a point but then refers me to someone eises phone
number or asked me to write another letter.
I'm done with writing letters. A SOLID WALL needs to divide my property
from the church/schools. The planning department needs to get me that
wall by enforcing building codes or they can shut down this church/school
for violations. It has been three years of waiting patiently and being put
on hold by from one employee to the next. Let's get the job done or get
someone in the Department who can do the work effectively.
Sl~cer
Temecula, California 92592
cc: California, News
city
Temecula City Planning
P.O. Box 3000
Temecul a, Cali forni a 92390
July 5, 1990
Dear Karen Castro:
We the adjacent property homeowners and neighborhood interested parties
want to voice our objection to the land useof property '~560o Bible Temecula
Church.
Their land use permit which was obtained in 1986 provided for a little
Bible Church (historical building) along Santiago Blvd. Since that time the
congregation has Increased dramatically and a daily school program begun.
The school enrollment is projected to be 200 students in September 1990.
The oMginal permit use as we understand it is in serious violation at'this
time. There is now a blacktop basketball court that runs along the rear end
of their property line and 10 foot poles in preparation for chain link fencing.
(Nughes backyard).
Recently, seven more mobile units were brought onto the property to create
a temporary sanctuary. These buildings are also along the rear of the
property. (Heinz backyard). There appear to be 14 mobile units to date plus
one shed.
Not only do we have school noise during daytime hours but the Church is
used in the evening hours. We are affected by car headlights and general
traffic noise. Plus, we have typical Sunday morning activities noise.
The chain link fence is no longer a sufficient property screen/divider. The
permit called for a six foot dense landscape screen also which is now
virtually impossible to plant because of the blacktop poured directly along
the dividing Property line.
We feel an attractive block wall will be the only solution to this problem.
It would decrease some noise, block headlights at night, provide some
privacy during the day, Protect our property from stray students and overall
improve the esthetic view of this piece of property.
We also hope the city puts time limitations on the use of these temporary
buildings as they are nonconforming, mixmatched group of mol~iles which is
very unsightly.
hank you for your consideration of this matter.
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
EXHIBITS
$~STAFFRFT~SBOPUP-1 .PC 19
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.:
EXHIBIT: A
P.C. DATE:
Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. 1
February 24, 1992
VICINITY MAP
CITY OF TEMECULA
SP 180
COMMUNIT~
,SITE
CASE NO.: Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. 1
EXHIBIT: B
P.C. DATE: February 24, 1992
SWAP MAP
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.:
EXHIBIT: C
P.C. DATE:
Public Use Permit 580, Revised No. 1
February 24, 1992
ZONING MAP
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.:
EXHIBIT: D
P.C. DATE:
Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. 1
PROPOSED SITE PLAN AMENDED #3
February 24, 1992
CITY OF TEMECULA
~, ,~...t--- ~..~' .~.~'.
CASE NO.: Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. 1
EXHIBIT: E
P.C. DATE: Februa~ 24, 1992
COUNTY APPROVED SITE PLAN
ITEM # 7
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
March 16, 1992
Case No.: Conditional Use Permit No. 16
Prepared By: Saied Naaseh
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT The Negative Declaration for Conditional Use
Permit No. 16; and
'ADOPT Resolution No. 92-__ approving Conditional Use
Permit No. 16 based on the Analysis and Findings
contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Car Wash Ventures
REPRESENTATIVE:
The Ballatore Group
PROPOSAL:
A request to construct a full service car wash including a
polishing building and an oil/lube building.
LOCATION:
Parcel 11 of Parcel Map 26852, located on the north side of
Winchester Road in the COSTCO shopping center.
EXISTING ZONING:
C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial)
A-2-20 (Heavy Archculture-20 acre minimum lot)
C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial)
C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial)
PROPOSED ZONING: N/A
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
COSTCO
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
S~STAFFRPT~16. CUp 1
PROJECT STATISTICS
Site Area Calculation
Use Square feet
% of site
Building Area
Oil/Lube Building 1,067
Vacuuming Area 2,945
Storage, Mechanical,
Viewing & Cashier 3,285
Car Wash Tunnel 2,333
Polishing Building 1,170
21%
Total Building Area 10,800
Landscaping 14,406 28%
Paving Area 26,630 51%
TOTAL 51,836 100%
Parking Soaces Reouired
Standard Parking Spaces 12
Car Wash Tunnel Reserve Drying
Lane Spaces 10
Total 22
Parkino Soaces Provided
Standard Parking Spaces 12
Car Wash Tunnel Reserve Drying
Lane Spaces 16
Total 28
BACKGROUND
The proposed project is located on lot 11 of Parcel Map No. 26852. Only two other lots
within this parcel map have received approvals. The COSTCO site has been approved and
constructed on lot 13 and the Chevron Service Station was recently approved by the Planning
Commission for lot 6.
This project was submitted to the Planning Department on December 2, 1991. It was
subsequently scheduled for Development Review Committee (DRC) on January 9, 1992.
Minor changes have been made to the site plan, the landscape plan and the elevations to the
satisfaction of Staff. The final project has been brought forward for Planning Commission
consideration.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project consists of a full service car wash with two (2) car capacity, a vacuum
and preparation area, sixteen (16) drying spaces, twelve (12) parking spaces, a polishing
building and an oil/lube building. The building pad has already been graded as a part of mass
grading for Parcel Map No. 26852.
Circulation
The ingress and egress to the site is provided on the northerly property line with three
driveway openings on a drive aisle that is connected to Winchester Road via an existing a
driveway. A twenty five foot (25') wide transportation corridor easement has been provided
along Winchester Road consistent with City policies.
Landscaoina
Street landscaping is already available on both Winchester Road and the existing driveway.
The proposed on-site landscaping scheme is designed to screen the car wash from public
streets and adjoining properties with the exception of the driveway openings to the north.
Architecture
The materials used in the proposed buildings consist of mixed orange and brown "S" tile for
roofing materials, silver gray stucco for the walls, light blue/teal for the trims and teal for the
decorative wrought-iron grills and the window frames.
ANALYSIS
The site design, architecture and landscaping meet or exceed the minimum standards set by
Ordinance No. 348 and Ordinance No. 460. Proper circulation has been provided to the site
and within the site. The architecture is consistent with both surrounding and approved
projects within close proximity. The landscaping is designed to screen the site from
Winchester Road and adjacent properties and in Staff's opinion, it is successful in doing so.
ZONING, FUTURE GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY
The project site is zoned C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) and all the adjacent parcels are
also zoned C-P-S with the exception of the parcel across the street on Winchester Road which
is zoned A-2-20 (Heavy Agriculture). There is a Change of Zone application filed with the City
to change the zoning designation on this parcel to Specific Plan. The proposed project is
consistent with the requirements of the C-P-S Zone, Ordinance 348 and Ordinance 460.
The current SWAP designation for the proposed site is "C", Commercial. The project is
located within the COSTCO shopping center, and will likely be consistent with the City's
future adopted General Plan.
S~STAFFRFT~I6.CUP 3
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Study has been prepared 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 Parcel Map No. 26852. Environmental concerns
relative to this parcel map were mitigated under the previously adopted Negative Declaration.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The proposed car wash facility has been designed with sensitivity relative to its visibility from
Winchester Road. The project conforms with Ordinance No. 348 and 460 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. 16 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 car wash and lube/oil
station 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 existing developments in 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.
S~STAFFRP~ 16, CUP 4
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 to the north, east and west 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.
10.
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.
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT The Negative Declaration for Conditional Use
Permit No. 16; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 92--- approving Conditional Use
Permit No. 16 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 6
Conditions of Approval - page 11
Initial Study - page 20
Exhibits - page 21
a. Vicinity Map
b. SWAP Map
c. Zoning Map
d. Site Plan
e. Landscape Plan
f. Floor Plan
g. Elevations
h. Parcel Map No. 26852
i. COSTCO Site Plan
j. Grading Plan
S~STAFFRF~t 6.CUP 5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 92-_
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 92-__
A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 16
TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A CARWASH AND OIL/LUBE
STATION LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WINCHESTER
ROAD IN THE COSTCO SHOPPING CENTER; PARCEL NUMBER
11 OF PARCEL MAP 26852.
WHEREAS, Car Wash Ventures filed Conditional Use Permit No. 16 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 March 16, 1992 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 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:
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.
{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 Ran, 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. 16
proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time
due to the current SWAP designation of "C", Commercial.
(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 because the project is surrounded
with commercially designated parcels and is located within the COSTCO
Commercial Center.
(3)
The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances, in that the project is
consistent with Ordinance Nos. 348 and 460.
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.
The Planning Commission, in approving the proposed Conditional Use Permit, makes
the following findings, to wit:
S'~STAFFRPT~ 16. CUP 8
There is a reasonable probability that Conditional Use Permit No. 16 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 car wash, and oil/lube station 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.
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~STAFF~PT~16.CUP 9
6. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION III, 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 III. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No.
16 for the operation of a carwash, and oil/lube station located on the north side of Winchester
Road and in the COSTCO Shopping Center; Parcel Number 11 of Parcel Map No. 26852.
1. Attachment No. 2, attached hereto.
SECTION IV.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of March, 1992.
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
March, 1992 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
s~sTA~w~r~e.cuP 10
ATrACHMENT NO. 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
S~'STAFFRPl~16'CUP 11
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Conditional Use Permit No. 16
Project Description: Construction of a full service car wash and oil/lube station.
Assessor's Parcel No.: 911-180-026
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for operation of a full service car wash
and an oil/lube station.
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. 16. 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 falls to cooperate fully in the
defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or
hold harmless the City of Temecula.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter
diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization
contemplated by this approval. This approval shall expire on
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on
Conditional Use Permit No. 16 marked Exhibit "D" , or as amended by these conditions.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon
adjoining property or public rights-of-way. All street lights and other outdoor lighting
shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety
for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County
Ordinance No. 655.
The applicant shall comply with the Public Works 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
January 14, 1992 a copy of which is attached.
S~STA~16, CUP I 2
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of
Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated January 9, 1992
a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Geologist's
transmittal dated April 23, 1991 a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Department of
Transportation transmittal dated January 6, 1992 a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho Water
transmittal dated January 20, 1992 a copy of which is attached.
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, three (3) copies of a Parking,
Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for approval. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of
the plants shall be shown. Plans shall meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 348,
Section 18.12, and shall be' accompanied by the appropriate filing fee.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape,
irrigation, and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. An automatic
sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be maintained in a
viable growth condition. Planting within ten (10) feet of an entry or exit driveway shall
not be permitted to grow higher than thirty (30) inches.
A minimum of twelve (12) parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section
18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. Additionally, sixteen (16) drying spaces
shall be provided. These parking spaces shall be provided as shown on the Approved
site plan Exhibit D. 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 handicapped parking space shall be provided as shown on Exhibit
D. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a
permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text
or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be
smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the
parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the
parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the
parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a
conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17
inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or
license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be
towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be
reclaimed at or by telephone
S%STAFFRPT~te. CUP 13
16.
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
County Rood Control
Environmental Health
Engineering Department
Rancho Water District
Fire Department
A Plot Plan application for a Sign Program shall be submitted and approved by the
Planning Director prior to occupancy.
Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit G.
Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial conformance
with that shown on Exhibit K (Materials Board).
Roof-mounted equipment shall be architecturally shielded from ground view. Screening
material shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
All trash enclosures shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits.
Each enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall be made with masonry block and
a steel gate which screens the bins from external view.
All existing specimen trees on the subject property shall be preserved wherever
feasible. Where they cannot be preserved they shall be relocated or replaced with
specimen trees as approved by the Planning Director.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with Ordinance No.
663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance which is based on the gross acreage
of the parcels proposed for development. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded
by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fees
required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required under the
Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
Four (4) Class II bicycle racks shall be provided in convenient locations as approved by
the Planning Director to facilitate bicycle access to the project area. These racks shall
be shown on the landscape plans.
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.
26. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground.
s~sT~r~q~r, 6.cu. 14
27.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
28.
Within forty-eight (48) hours of the approval of the project, the applicant/developer
shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or money order payable to
the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand, Two Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars
(~1,275.00), which includes the One Thousand, Two Hundred, Fifty Dollars
(~1,250.00) fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code
Section 711.4(d)(2) plus the Twenty-Five Dollar (~25.00) County administrative fee
to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources
Code Section 21152 and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-
eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning
Department the check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall
be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
29.
Comply with applicable provisions of the 1988 edition of the Uniform Building,
Plumbing and Mechanical; 1990 National Electrical Code; California Administrative
Code Title 24 Energy and Handicapped Regulations and the Temecuia Code.
30.
Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with
Ordinance Number 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
31.
Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to the commencement of any
construction work.
32. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
33.
Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior
lighting, fire alarm systems.
34.
Polish canopy must have I hour construction on exterior wall parallel to property line
in accordance with provisions of table 5A, 1988 edition of the Uniform Building Code.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
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 personnel of the
Department of Public Works.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and
proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their
omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
S\STAFFP~6,CUP 15
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
35.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, building permit or any certificate of
occupancy, as deemed timely, appropriate or necessary by the Department of Public
Works, the developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Rood Control District;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Department of Public Works;
Riverside County Health Department;
CATV Franchise;
CalTrans;
General Telephone;
Southern California Edison Company; and
Southern California Gas Company.
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.
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.
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.
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 and approval by the Department of Public
Works.
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.
All site improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be
coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects.
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.
S%STAR:P, PT~16,CUp I 6
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
PRIOR
54.
55.
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.
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.
An encroachment permit shall be required from CalTrans for any work within their
right-of-way.
The developer shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed
guaranteeing the completion of the grading, landscaping (parkway) and drainage
improvements and the maintenance of erosion control in conformance with applicable
City standards.
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Department of Public Works
and any recommendations of the Riverside County Flood Control District.
The developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval for offsite work performed
on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works.
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.
Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage
entering the property from adjacent areas.
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.
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.
TO ISSUANCE OF 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 Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing
compaction and site conditions.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the Engineering
Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact.
S\STAFFRPT~16. CUP I 7
56.
Access to the site shall be taken from the approved primary entry points as shown on
Parcel Map No. 26852.
57.
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.
58.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed
upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as
required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be paid shall
be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final
public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on
which developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the
developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of
which has been provided to developer. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement,
developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount
of the bond shall be ~2.00 per square foot, not to exceed ~10,000. Developer
understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those
now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By
execution of this Agreement, developer will waive any right to protest the provisions
of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district,
or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this
project; orovided that developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness
of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY:
59. Minimum flowline grades shall be 0.50 percent.
60.
Improvement plans per City Standards for the private streets or drives shall be required
for review and approval by the Department of Public Works.
61.
All site improvement work shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula standards
and ordinances and shall be shown and referenced on the improvement plans.
62.
Dedicate a 25-foot easement for the future transportation corridor adjacent to
Winchester Road (Hwy. 79) right-of-way.
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS:
63.
Onsite signing and striping shall be designed and shown on the site improvement plan
and approved by the City Engineer for all directionalized driveways per the approved
site plan and as directed by the Department of Public Works.
64.
Prior to designing the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering for the design
requirements.
S~TAFF~m~ e. CUP I 8
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
65. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, a construction area traffic
control plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City
Engineer and Caltrans for any work within public right-of-way or other disruption to
traffic circulation as required by the City Engineer.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OCCUPANCY:
66. All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and striping plan.
67. Provide limited landscaping in the median island adjacent to driveway intersections and
adjacent to parking spaces to provide for minimum sight distance visibility.
S~STAFF.Fr~ 6.CU. I 9
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
INITIAL STUDY
$\STAF~RFi~I e. CU. 20
A'I'rACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
S\STAFFRP'P, 11t. CUp 2 1
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
TO: CITY OF TEMECULA
~7:~ Sai~d Naaseh
FROM~M~~,~vironmental
RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO,
DATE:
Health SpeCialist IV
16
01-14-92
The Environmental Health Services has reviewed Conditional
Use Permit No. 16 and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and
water services should be available in this area. Prior to
any building plan review for health clearance, the following
items are required:
"Will-serve" letters from the appropriate
water and sewsring agencies.
A clearance letter from the Hazardous Services
Materials Management Branch, (Mike Shelter,
358-5055), will be required indicating that the
project has been cleared for:
Underground storage tanks
b. Hazardous Waste Generator Services
Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance
with AB 2185.)
d. Waste reduction management
SM:dr
co: Mike Shelter, Hazardous Materials Branch
NOTE: Any current addxtional requirements not covered,
be applicable at tlme of Building Plan review for final
Environmental Health Servlce clearance.
can
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE EPAIrMENT
D
GLEN J, NEWMAN
~E CHZ~P
January 9, ~992
TO: CITY OF TEMECULA
ArTN: PLANNING DEPT
P,E: COA~ITi0NAL USE PEEMIT 16
With respect uo nhe conditious of approval ra2axding the above referenced
ploc plan, the Firs Deparman: recommends the followinS fire proCecCion
measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or
;ecognizsd firs precaution a~audards:
The Fire Department is required ~o ear a minimum fire flow for
=ha remodel cr construction of all c,.,iarcial buildi~Ss usin~ the
procedure established in Ordinance 546.
Provide or eho~ =½aye exists s re=aT eyeCam capable of de!ivarin~ 1500
which mum= he available before an~ c~bueEibla mater/A1 is placed
on =he Job at=e.
A'~e required ~ire flow shell be available from a SUPER FXR~ ~YDRANT
(6"a4"x1½x2~), located no~ less Chart 25 feeg ~= more than 165 fee~
from ecF poT:let of :he ~ui!din~ ae measured alsn~ vehicular cravelwa~c.
The required firm flo~ may be adjusted at a later point in the pemit
process to reflect chamSee in desiSn, construction =~e, area separation
or built-in fire protection measures.
Applicant/developS: shall furnish one cc~y of :he vats: system plans :o
=he [ire DeFer:mane for review. Plans shall conform =o the fire hydrant
types, location an~ spacing, and, =he system shell meet =he fire flow
requirements. Plane shall ~a si~me~/appr~vs~ bF a rs~istered civil
anSinear ~nd nhe lo~al water company with =he foll~wir4 certification:
"I certify ~ha= Bhc design ~ =he wa~cr eyeCam is in accordance with
the =c~ui=emen=s prescribed by =he Riverside County Fire Department."
79.7~-Cmm~Cbb l~Sobe p. b~tlo. C~92201
CONDITIONAL USa PEE~IT 16
PaSs 2
Install i complete fire sprinkler eyecam in all buildings. The post
Indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the
front, viEbin 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum o~ 2S feet from the
buildinS(e). A snaremane ~har the building(a) will be aut~maeicallF
fire sprinklered mus~ be included on the C~tla ~a~e of the bu~!din~
plans.
Install a supervised waferfew monitorhi2 fire alarm eyeram. Plans
must be submitted co the Fire Dsp~rcmen= ~or approval pr~r ~o
~ne=alletion~ as per UBC.
In lieu ef fire mprinklez rmquirmmm~em builain~(m) ~m= 5c ares aspsfeted
in=o equate ~00~ 2cmpaz~mentm, approved b~ ~he ~lrm Deper~men~ am per
Sectian 505 Ca) of the Uniform ~uildir~ Co~a.
~. Ins=all portable firs ex=ingu£she=s w~.th s minimum rating of 2A-10~C.
Contact s certified ex=in~ishar ~ompsny for proper placement of equipment.
Prior =c =he lseuance-~f buildinl ~mr=uL=s~ the 'developer shall deposit,
with =he City uf T~mecula~ a chmck or money order equalin2 ~he sum of
Z~c pa: square fooc as Estimation ~or fire protection $mpac=s. This
amo~c must be submitted separately from the plan check roylay fees.
AIL quesn~ons reSardinS =he mean~.nj oZ conditions shall be referred
~he Tlannln2 ant EnSlneerln~
FaYF~ND R. REGIS
Chief Fire Depar:men~ Planner
Michell B, G=&l~ F~re Cepca~ Specielis~
April 23, 1991
Ranpac Soils, Inc.
41710 Enterprise Circle South
Temecula, CA 92390
"RiV[ 3iD[ COUR
r I
Attention: Christopher Kra11
WOn S. Yoo
subject:
Liquefaction Hazard
Work Order No. 690-161
Plot Plan 224
A.P.N.: 910-110-029
County Geologic Report No.
city of Tomecola
793
Gentlemen:
we have reviewed the liquefaction aspects of your report entitled
"Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Margarita Meadows
Commercial Center, wfnchester and Margarita Road, Temecula, CA,"
dated November 1, 1990.
Your report determined that:
The potentlal for liquefaction Of the subsurface soils at
this site during a seismic event is considered to be
moderate.
The most significant effect of !lquefactiCn at the site
would be settlement of the ground surface. Indicated
settlement on the order of one inch would be possible or
localized areas of the site. Differentia~ settlement at
the site from zero to one inch is likely to occur acros:
distances of 300 feet or more.
other effects of liquefaction including loss of bearinl
capacity, sand boils ·nd lateral spreading are considers
unlikely.
Your report recommended that:
All foundations shall be constructed entirely
compacted fill. The depth of fil~ shall extend · minim~
of recompaotion shall
foundaticn,per.lmeter.
of two footing widths beneath the base of the footix
witha minimum of 2 feet and maximum of 8 feet. The
ex~end five feet' outside
LEMON STREET, ~TN FLOOR
~OR::', 97~'
'~drj3 COUNTRY CLUB' bravE,
BERMUDA DUNES, C, ALIF-C~RNIA
Y
Fill s1~pea '~all b~ ~ro;erl~ keyea. belsch,~
Apputdt~ g a% your fepor~,
Calitorfila ',zviror,~ontaX Q. 4Tity &at tevl,-d. Final II~IJL'OV!I O~ ~v
· he rocos~mndation$ ~dm iA your report tot
co~tt~Jr, n O~ the pto~ct. :
GC,' ~,,~n rand
STATE OF CALIFORNIA.--~JSINES$, TRAN~PO~TATIO~ AND HOUSING AGENCY
DEPARTh~ENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 8, P.O. BOX 231
SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92402
TDD (714) 3~3..4~O9
January 6, 1992
PETE WILSON, Go~wmor
Development Review
08-Riv-79-R3.07/R3.13
Your Reference:
CUP 16
Planning Department
City Hall
Attention Mr. Saied Naaseh
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Dear Mr. Naaseh:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed
Conditional Use Permit 16 for Parcel 11 of Parcel Map 28652
located adjacent to the north side of Winchester Road (SR-79)
west of Margarita Road in Temecula.
and
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.
If any work is necessary within the State highway right of
way, the developer must obtain an encroachment permit from the
Caltrans District 8 Permit Office prior to beginning work.
If additional information is desired, please call Mr. Steven
Wisniewski of our Development Review Section at (714) 383-4384.
Very truly yours,
Attachment
AHMAD SALAH
/~Development Review Engineer
Riverside County
CALTRANS DEV~ELOPMENT REVIEW FORM
Y~UR R~FERENCE DATE
STEVEN WISNIEWSKI
PLAN CHECKER
( Co RTE ' P~ '
WE REQUEST THAT THE ITEMS CHECKED BELOW BE INCLUDED IN THE CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL FOR THIS PROJECT:
NORHAL RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION TO PROVIDE LF--WIDTH ON THE STATE HIGHWAY.
NORHAL STREET IMPROVEMENTS TO PROVIDE HALF--WIDTH ON THE STATE HIGHWAY.
CUR8 AND GUTTERt STATE STANDARD NG-A # TYPE A2-G ALONG THE STATE HIGHk~AYo
PARKING SHALL BE PROHIBITED ALONG THE STATE HIGHWAY BY THE PROPER PLACEMENT OF NO PARKING SIGNS,
35 FT RADIUS CURB RETURNS SHALL BE PROVIDED AT INTERSECTIONS WITH THE STATE HIGHWAY, STATE STANDARD
CASE--A WHEELCHAIR RAMPS SHALL DE PROVIDED IN THE CURB RETURNS AS DEFINED IN THE HIGHUAY DESIGN MANUALt
SECTION 105.4 (2),
A POSITIVE VEHICULAR BARRIER ALONG :rile PROPERTY FRONTAGE SHALL 8E PROVIDED TO LIMIT PHYSICAL ACCESS TO THE
STATE HIGHWAY ·
VEHICULAR ACCESS SHALL NOT BE DEVELOPED DIRECTLY TO THE STATE HIGHWAY.
VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE STATE HIGHWAY SHALL BE PROVIDED BY EXISTING PUBLIC ROAD CONNECTIONS,
/ """"' $r '
VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE STATE HIGHWAY SHALL BE PROVIDED BY ;T-';;;-;;-;, DRIVE~AY,E-('Vq'~V'4P~P'Y'd~/
THE INTERSECTfill AT
VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE STATE HIGHWAY SHALL BE PROVIDED BY A ROAD--TYPE CONNECTION,
VEHICULAR ACCESS CONNECTIONS SHALL BE PAVED AT LEAST WITHIN THE STATE HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY.
ACCESS POINTS TO THE STATE HIGHWAY SHALL BE DEVELOPED IN A MANNER THAT WILL PROVIDE SIGHT DISTANCE FOR ~
NPH ALONG THE STATE HIGHWAY.
ZjANDSCAPING ALONG THE STATE HIGHWAY SHALL PROVIDE FOR SAFE SIGHT DISTANCEt CONPLY WITH FIXED OBJECT SET BACK
AND BE TO STATE STANDARDS,
__ A LEFT-TURN LANE~ INCLUDING SHOULDERS AND ANY NECESSARY UIDENINGr SHALL BE PROVIDED ON THE STATE HIGHWAY,
A TRAFFIC STUDY INDICATING ON AND OFF--SITE FLOW PATTERNS AND VOLUMESr PROBABLE IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION
MEASURES SHALL BE PREPARED,
PARKING SHALL 8E DEVELOPED IN A MANNER THAT WILL NOT CAUSE ANY VEHICULAR HQVENENT COHFLICTSt INCLUDING PARKING
STALL ENTRANCE AND EXIT~ WITHIN __ OF THE ENTRANCE FROM THE STATE HIGHWAY,
CARE SHALL BE TAKEN WHEN DEVELOPING THIS PROPERTY TO PRESERVE AND PERPETUATE THE EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERN
OF THE STATE HIGHWAY, PARTICULAR CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO CUHULATIVE INCREASED STORM RUNOFF TO INSURE
THAT A HIGHWAY DRAINAGE PROBLEM iS NOT CREATED ·
PLEASE REFER TO ATTACHED ADDITIONAL CONHINTS. PROVIDE TO APPLICANT.
PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THIS IS A CONCEPTUAL REVIEW ONLY. FINAL APPROVAL WILL
BE DETERMINED DURING THE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT PROCESS.
CONSTRUCTION/DENOLITION VITHIN PRESENT OR PROeOSED STATE EIGHT OF UAY SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED FOR POTENTIAL
HAZARDOUS WASTE ( I · E ,ASBESTOS# PETROCHEHIGALSt ETC. ) AND MITIGATED AS PER REOUIREMEHTG OF REGULATQRY AGENCIES,
/T~HEN PLANS ARE SUSMITTEDt PLEASE CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ATTACHED I;}'ZANDOUTff, THIS UILL EXPEDITE
THE EEVIEU PROCESS AND TIME REQUIRED FOR PLAN CNECIC,
ALTHOUGH THE TRAFFIC AND/OR DRAINAGE GENERATED BY THIS PROPOSAL DO NOT APPEAR TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
ON THE STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEMt CONSIDERATION MUST HE GIVEN TO THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT
IN THIS AREA, bY HEASURE$ NECESSARY TO NIT]GATE THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF TRAFFIC AND/OR DRAINAGE SHALL BE
PROVIDED PRIOR TO ON UITH DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA THAT NECESSITATES THEN,
CONSIDERATION SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE PROVISION ~ OR FUTURE PROVISION # OF $1GNILIZATION AND LIGHTING OF THE
INTERSI"CTICI4 OF kq) THE STATE HIGHWAy ~JHEN ~ARRANTS ARE It=T,
TT APPEARS THAT THE TRAFFIC AND/OR DRAINAGE GENERATED BY THIS PROPOSAL COULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON
THE STATE HIGHUAY SYSTEN OF TEE AREA, 2~NY MEASURES TO NIT/GATE THE TRAFFIC AND/OR DRAINAGE IMPACTS SHALL BE
I NCLUOED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT ,
THIS PORTION OF THE STATE HIGHUAY IS IHCLUOED IN THE CALIFORHIA MASTER PLAN OF STATE HIGH%4AYS ELIGIBLE
OFFICIAL SCENIC HIGHWAY DESIGNATION AND IN THE FUTURE YOUR AGENCY HAY WISH TO HAVE THIS ROUTE OFFICIALLY
DESIGNATED AS A STATE SCENIC FhGHWAY,
THIS PORTION OF THE STATE HIGNUAY HAS BEEN OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED AS A STATE SCENIC HIGHUAY# AND DEVELOPMENT
IN THIS CONRIDOR SHOULD BE COMPATIBLE UITN THE SCENIC HIGHWAy CONCEPT ·
ZT IS RECOGNIZED THAT THERE IS CONSIDERABLE PUBLIC CONCERN AI~OUT NOISE LEVELS ADJACENT TO HEAVILY TRAVELLED
HIGHWAYS, IANO DEVELOPMENTt IN ORDER TO BE CQNPAT/BLE WITH THIS CONCERNt HAY REQUIRE SPECIAL NOISE ATTENUATION
MEASURES° DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY SHOULD INCLUOE ANY NECESSARY NOISE ATTENUATION,
CALTRANS DISTRICT 8
DEVELOPMENT REVIEU ]~tANCH
P.O, Box 231
SAN BERNARDINOt C,~ 92402
A COPy OF ANY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OR REVISED APPROVAL,
A COPY OF ANY DOCUMENTS PROVIDING ADDITIONAL STATE HIGH~4AY RIGHT OF ~JAY UPON RECORDATION OF THE MAP,
W//,ZU4Y PRCPOSALS TO FURTHER DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY,
COPY OF THE TRAFFIC OR ENVIRONMENTAL STt/)Y.
CHECK PRINT OF THE PARCEL OR TRACT HAP.
CHECK PRINT OF THE PLANS FOR ANY INPROVEMENTS %4]THIN ON ADJACENT TO THE STATE HIGHWAY RIGHT OF IJAT.
CHECK PRINT OF THE GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANS FOR THiS PROPEETT UNEN AVAILABLE.
January 20, 1992
Mr. Saied Naaseh
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43180 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
Water Availability, APN 911-180-026
Conditional Use Permit No. 16
Dear Mr. Naaseh:
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 washes that have a 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
~B:aj2~/FEG
cc: Senga Doherty., Engineering Technician
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
Background
1. Name of Proponent:
Car Wash Ventures
2. Address and Phone 42690 Rio Nedo
Number of Proponent: Temecula, CA 92590
II
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
February 10, 1992
4. Agency Requiring
Assessment:
CITY OF TEMECULA
5. Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Location of Proposal:
Parcel 11 of Parcel MaD 28652, north side of
Winchester Road in the Costco Shoooino
Center.
Environmental Impacts
(Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets.)
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
Yes Maybe No
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?
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on
or off site?
S\STAFFRPT~2MS2PM. IES
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 merine 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?
Ye~ Maybe No
X
X
X
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct addi-
tions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flood-
ing or tidal waves?
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or number of any native species of
plants (including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare, or endangered species
of plants?
Introduction of new species of
plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
Substantial reduction in acreage
of any agricultural crop?
Animal Life. Will the proposal result
in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
(birds, land animals including rep-
tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms or insects)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered Species
of animals?
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
Yq~ Maybe N__~o
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
10.
11.
12.
13.
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and Glare. Will the proposal
produce substantial new light or glare?
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
Substantial increase in the rate of
use of any natural resources?
Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource?
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal
involve:
A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including,
but not limited to, oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
Possible interference with an emerg-
ency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan?
Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing or create a demand for
additional housing?
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
14.
Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking?
Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic?
Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
Public Services. Will the proposal have
substantial effect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
Parks or other recreational
facilities?
Maintenance of p~blic 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
X
X
X
X
X
S\$TAFFRPT~28652PM, IES
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
fo 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?
Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object?
Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S~STAFFI:FT~8652N.IES
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 smatl,
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?
Ye~ Maybe No
X
S\STAFFRPT',28652PMJES
III
Earth
1.
Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
Air
2. a.
Water
3.
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
proiect 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~28652FM.IES
b-c,g.
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.
f. No. The proposed project will not interfere with the direction or rate of flow
· of ground waters.
4. a-d.
Animal Life
5. a,c.
Noise
6. a.
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 habitates 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%28652PM. IES
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 Ran designates the subject site for General
Commercial. The surrounding land uses are also General Commercial.
Natural Resources
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 araa'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~28652PM,IES
No. The proposed project's traffic study identified no substantial impacts on
existing transportation systems.
No. Street improvements are currently being completed for Plot Plan No. 224
which will serve this site.
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.
Utilities
16. a-f.
No. The proposed project will not result in the substantial use or increase in
demand of fuel or energy.
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~TAFFRP~28652PM.IES
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.
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 TEMECULA
X
S~STAFFRPT'~28t152PM.IES
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: Conditional Use Permit No. 16
EXHIBIT: A
P.C. DATE: March 16, 1992
VICINITY MAP
CITY OF TEMECULA
SITE
LI
CASE NO.: Conditional Use Permit No. 16
EXHIBIT: B
P,C. DATE: March 16, 1992
SWAP MAP
S\STAFFRPT~I O. CUP
CITY OF TEMECULA
SITE
A-2-20
I/
II
II
/I 1
1/
I~ II
II
,,
C-P-S
CASE NO.:
EXHIBIT: C
P.C. DATE:
Conditional Use Permit No. 16
March 16, 1992
ZONING MAP
S\STAFFFiPT~I 6.CUP
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: Conditional Use Permit No. 16
EXHIBIT: D
P.C. DATE: March 16, 1992
SITE PLAN
S%STAFFRP~16.CUP
CITY OF TEMECULA
L ~
CASE NO.: Conditional Use Permit
EXHIBIT: E
P.C. DATE: March 16, 1992
LANDSCAPE PLAN
S%STAFFRPT'~16,CUP
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: Conditional Use Permit No. 16
EXHIBIT: F
P.C. DATE: March 16, 1992
FLOOR PLAN
S\STAFFRPT~I 6.CUP
CITY OF TEMECULA
F~AST_ELI~VA'rIf)N
N.QRTII ELI".VATION
CASE NO.:
EXHIBIT: G
P.C. DATE:
Conditional Use Permit No. 16
March 16, 1992
ELEVATIONS
S~STAFFRPT~I 8.CUP
CITY OF TEMECULA
PARCEL MAP 21,~6t
CASE NO.: Conditional Use Permit No. 16
EXHIBIT: H
P.C. DATE: March 16, 1992
PARCEL MAP NO. 26852
S\STAFFRPT~I 6.CUP
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN
SITE
CASE NO.: Conditional Use Permit No. 16
EXHIBIT: I
P.C. DATE: March 16, 1992
COSTCO SITE PLAN
S\$TAFFRPT~I 6,CUP
CITY OF TEMECULA
/' ,.:.:.~./~ ~""":'~-. ~...
~:.'Z:~:-~;,~. :"~ .;:':'~.~"~,. b";.. ~. '::". "...:.
.. """"' ,' .' ;:. ;~ ,".:..'~ :'; ~L:'>:~"~,~.'.:..''~ ~RECISE GRADING PLAN
CASE NO.:
EXHIBIT: J
P.C. DATE:
Conditional Use Permit No. 16
March 16, 1992
GRADING PLAN
S\STAFFRPT~I 6,CUP
ITEM# 8
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
March 16, 1992
Case No.: Plot Plan No. 241
Prepared By: Mark Rhoades
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
ADOPT The Negative Declaration prepared for Plot Plan No. 241,
and;
ADOPT Resolution 92-_ approving Plot Plan No. 241 based on
the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Chili's Inc./Brinker International
REPRESENTATIVE: Engineering Ventures
PROPOSAL: To construct a 7,500 square foot restaurant on a 1.09 acre
parcel
Northwest corner of Rancho California and Ynez Roads
C-1/C-P (General Commercial)
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
N/A
Vacant
C-1/C-P (General Commercial)
SP 180 (Rancho Highlands Specific Plan)
C-1/C-P (General Commercial)
C-1/C-P (General Commercial)
North:
South:
East:
West:
Retail Commercial
Hotel
Retail Commercial
Office Commercial
mSTAFFII;I~241 .PP
PROJECT STATISTICS
Parcel Size:
Building Size:
Parking Provided:
Landscape Area:
1.09 acres
7,500 square feet
73 spaces
6,000 square feet
BACKGROUND
Plot Plan No. 241 was submitted to the City of Temecula on October 16, 1991. The project
was reviewed by the Development Review Committee on three occasions. Changes were
incorporated into the current design relative to parking, public right of way screening for
portions of the project, and landscaping.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is an application to construct a 7,500 square foot restaurant on a 1.09
acre parcel. The proposed Chili's restaurant will contain dining and bar/lounge facilities. The
parcel is located on the northwest corner of Rancho California and Ynez Roads. The
restaurant pad site is located at the southeasterly portion of the existing Tower Plaza site.
The subject parcel is located adjacent to two vacant parcels. The two vacant parcels are
located between the subject site and Ynez Road.
ANALYSIS
Architecture
The proposed project will consist of the standard Chili's architecture. Building walls and
parapets are beige stucco with off white trim. Doors and windows are paned glass with
white wood trim. The proposed roof is a dark grey concrete tile. The project will have red,
white, and green striped awnings over some doors and windows.
The rear of the building has been treated architecturally to preclude views of the service and
loading areas from adjacent public rights of ways.
Sianaae
The proposed signs include one wall sign for each of the front, left side, and right side
elevations. The signs consist of red channel letters in the form of the restaurant logo. The
proposed sign areas are less than the maximum allowed by Ordinance No. 348. Each sign is
approximately 40 square feet in area. The proposed signs are submitted under a separate
Administrative Plot Plan.
Site Layout
The parcel proposed for development is located on the southeast corner of the existing Tower
Plaza site. The project is directly east of the existing pond area. The proposed restaurant is
situated so that the main entrance is orientated to the center (north). The rear of the building
faces Rancho California Road to the south.
The loading area is to the rear of the building. A five foot high decorative block screen wall
and landscape treatment will obstruct views of the loading and service areas from Rancho
California Road.
Parking for the restaurant will be situated to the north and east of the restaurant pad.
Landscaping
The proposed landscaping is in excess of the requirements of Ordinance No. 348. The
specimen trees will consist of California Pepper and London Plane. Turf has been minimized
with the use of groundcover end shrubs. Existing parking on the north end of the parcel will
incorporate existing Oak trees planted previously by the property owner.
Circulation
Circulation for the proposed project will consist of reciprocal access with the existing center.
Main access will convey vehicles from the existing southerly drive aisle off Ynez Road. The
restaurant access will be taken from that drive aisle. Parking has been configured to provide
through access for all drive aisles.
Area Compatibility
The proposed project is compatible with area development patterns. The project site is
surrounded by suburban commercial development. All of the surrounding uses are currently
commercial oriented. The project is commercial in nature and in that regard the intensity of
the proposed use will not be significant.
ZONING, FUTURE GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY
The existing zoning on the subject site is C-l/C-P, (General Commercial). The proposed
project is a use that is permitted in that zone provided a plot plan is approved pursuant to the
provisions of Ordinance No. 348. The project site is surrounded by existing commercial
zoning.
The proposed project is in conformance with the C-1/C-P zone. In addition, the project is
consistent with all relevant standards of Ordinance No. 348.
The current SWAP designation for the subject site is "C" Commercial. The proposed use is
commercial and therefore is consistent with the SWAP land use designation. The project is
likely to be consistent with the future adopted General Plan because of the existing land use
designation of the project site and surrounding the site as well. If the project is not consistent
with the plan, it will not be a substantial detriment to the plan because of the existing land
uses in the vicinity of the site.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The initial study completed for this site identified potential impacts relative to topsoil
contamination, light and glare, and liquefaction potential.
Soil Contamination
The proposed project site is proximal to an existing soil remediation site to the north and east.
The soil cleanup plan has been approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The
applicant will be required to notify the soil remediation firm prior to any ground disturbance
to be sure that no impacts will arise. Soil monitoring will occur as the project progresses.
The only continuing impact on the proposed site from the soil remediation will be a monitoring
well located in the northerly portion of the parking area.
Lioht and Glare
The proposed project will add to the existing light impact of area night skies. The project
however is conditioned to conform with Palomar Observatory Lighting Ordinance which will
reduce the impact of this project.
Liouefaction
A soils report was conducted for the underlying plot plan which identified the potential for
liquefaction. In order to mitigate the impacts of this situation, construction will be required
to adhere to the building recommendations outlined in that report.
No other potentially significant environmental concerns are evident on the subject site. The
area is experiencing increasing urbanization, and all potential impacts have been mitigated to
a level of non-significance. Therefore Staff recommends that a negative declaration be
adopted.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The proposed project is surrounded by existing commercial development. The proposal is
consistent with Ordinance No. 348 and the current SWAP land use designation. All potential
environmental impacts will be mitigated to a level of non-significance via the mitigation
measures proposed in the environmental assessment and the attached Conditions of Approval.
FINDINGS
There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 241 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 restaurant is consistent
with the existing zoning and the SWAP land use designation of Commercial.
There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the
future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan due to
the fact that the proposed 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.
10.
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 C-1/C-P (General Commercial
which is 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 Ynez 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.
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
ADOPT The Negative Declaration prepared for Plot Plan No. 241,
and;
ADOPT Resolution 92-_ approvsng Plot Plan No. 241 based on
the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
vgw
S%STAFF~241 .PP 5
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
Resolution - page 7
Conditions of Approval - page 12
Initial Study -page 21
Exhibits - page 35
A. Vicinity Map
B. SWAP Map
C, Zoning Map
D. Site Plan
E. Landscape Plan
F. Colored Elevations
G. Colored Materials
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 92---
S',STAFFRF~241 .PP 7
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 241 TO
CONSTRUCT A 7,500 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT ON A
PARCEL CONTAINING 1.09 ACRES LOCATED ON THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA AND YNEZ
ROADS AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL 921-270-035.
WHEREAS, Chili's Incorporated filed Plot Plan No. 241 in accordance with the
Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has
adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Pldt Plan application was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing pertaining to
said Plot Plan on March 16, 1992, st which time interested persons had opportunity to testify
either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission epproved said Plot Plan;
NOW,THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE 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~241.PP 8
(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 Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and meet 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 of projects end taking other
actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each
of the following:
(1)
There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 241 proposed
will be consistent with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time, because the project is consistent with the
existing SWAP and Zoning Designations.
(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, because the
project is similar in use and intensity to adjacent development.
(3)
The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances, because it is
consistent with the development standards of Ordinance No.
348, which conforms with State Laws.
Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan 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.
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.
The Planning Commission, in approving of the proposed Plot Plan, makes the following
findings, to wit:
There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 241 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 restaurant is
consistent with the existing zoning and the SWAP land use designation of
Commercial.
There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with
the future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan due to the fact that the proposed 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 C-1/C-P
(General Commercial which is consistent with the project zoning and proposed
Usa,
The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open
to, and useable by, vehicular traffic due to the fact that the interior circulation
is suitable and connects with Ynez Road.
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~,STAFFtIPT~241-PP 10
The design of the project end 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 III, the Plot Plan proposed conforms to the logical
development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future
development of the surrounding property.
SECTION II. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could
have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case
because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to
the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted.
SECTION III. Condjtjoll/.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Plot Plan No. 241 to
construct a 7,500 square foot restaurant on 1.09 acres located on the northwest corner of
Rancho California and Ynez Roads end known as Assessor's Parcel No. 921-270-035 subject
to the following conditions:
1. Attachment 2, attached hereto.
SECTION IV.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of March, 1992.
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
March, 1992 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
S%STAFFl!~T~241.PP 1 I
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
S%STAFF~v~241 -PP 12
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan No. 241
Project Description: Construction of a full service restaurant
Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-270-035
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for operation of a full service restaurant
located on the northwest corner of Rancho California and Ynez Roads.
The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its
agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or proceeding against the City
of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul,
an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative
body concerning Plot Plan No. 241. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the
permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and
will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of
any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the
permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless
the City of Temecula.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meaht the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter
diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization
contemplated by this approval. This approval shall expire on
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on -
Plot Plan No. 241 marked Exhibit "D", or as amended by these conditions.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon
adjoining property or public rights-of-way. All street lights and other outdoor lighting
shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety
for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County
Ordinance No. 655.
The applicant shall comply with the Public Works 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
January 14. 1992 a copy of which is attached.
S~STAFFF~m24~... 13
11.
12.
13.
14.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of
Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittel dated January 30, 1992
a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho Water
District transmittal dated 3-11-92 a copy of which is attached.
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, three (3) copies of a Parking,
Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for approval. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of
the plants shall be shown. Plans shall meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 348,
Section 18.12, and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape,
irrigation, and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. An automatic
sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be maintained in a
viable growth condition. Planting within ten (10) feet of an entry or exit driveway shall
not be permitted to grow higher than thirty (30) inches.
A minimum of 73 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12,
Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. These parking spaces shall be provided as
shown on the Approved site plan Exhibit D. The parking area shall be surfaced with
asphaltic concrete paving to · minimum depth of 3 inches on 4 inches of Class II base.
A minimum of three handicapped parking space shall be provided as shown on Exhibit
D. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a
permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text
or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be
smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the
parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the
parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the
parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a
conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17
inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or
license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be
towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be
reclaimed at or by telephone
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a
surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at
least 3 square feet in size.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance and/or
permits from the following agencies:
Planning Department Engineering Department
County Flood Control Rancho Water District
Environmental Health Fire Department
15. A Plot Plan application for a Sign Program shall be submitted end approved by the
Planning Director prior to occupancy.
16. Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit G.
17.
Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial conformance
with that shown on Exhibit K (Materials Board).
18. Roof-mounted equipment shall be architecturally shielded from ground view. Screening
material shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
19.
All trash enclosures shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits.
Each enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall be made with masonry block and
· steel gate which screens the bins from external view.
20.
All existing specimen trees on the subject property shall be preserved wherever
feasible. Where they cannot be preserved they shall be relocated or replaced with
specimen trees as approved by the Planning Director.
21.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with Ordinance No.
663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance which is based on the gross acreage
of the parcels proposed for development. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded
by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fees
required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required under the
Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
22.
Four (4) Class II bicycle racks shall be provided in convenient locations as approved by
the Planning Director to facilitate bicycle access to the project area. These racks shall
be shown on the landscape plans.
23.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts to be
determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the installation of
plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved plan, and adequate
maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed with the Department of Building
and Safety.
24. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits the applicant shall comply with the recommendations
outlined in the Liquefaction Hazard Report No. G.R. 415, which was prepared for the under-
lying plot plan.
25.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
26.
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
S~STAFFPe~T~241.FP 15
($1,275.00), which includes the One Thousand, Two Hundred, Fifty Dollars
($1,250.00) fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish end 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 the applicant shall obtain all necessary clearances
from the Riverside County Health Department and the Regional Water Quality Control Board,
relevant to on-site soil remediation.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
27.
Comply with applicable provisions of the 1988 edition of the Uniform Building,
Plumbing and Mechanical; 1990 National Electrical Code; California Administrative
Code Title 24 Energy and Handicapped Regulations and the Temecula Code.
28.
Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with
Ordinance Number 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
29. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
30.
Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior
lighting, fire alarm systems.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
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 personnel of the
Department of Public Works.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and
proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their
omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
31.
Prior to issuance of grading permits, building permits, or certificates of occupancy, 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;
S~STAFI:I~Fr~41 ,Iq) I 6
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Department of Public Works;
Riverside County Health Department;
CATV Franchise;
General Telephone;
Southern California Edison Company; and
Southern California Gas Company.
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.
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.
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.
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 and approval by the Department of Public
Works.
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.
All site improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, shall be
coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects.
Prior to any work being performed on the private drives and parking areas, fees shall
be paid end a construction permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public
Works.
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.
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.
An encroachment permit shall be required from CalTrans for any work within their
right-of-way.
S%STAFFRPT%241.PP 17
43.
The developer shall post security and an agreement shall be executed guaranteeing the
completion of the grading and drainage improvements in conformance with applicable
City standards.
44.
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Department of Public Works
in the preparation of all site improvement plans.
45.
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.
46,
The developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval for offsite work performed
on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works.
47.
Drainage calculations 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.
48.
Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage
entering the property from adjacent areas.
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.
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.
53.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed
upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as
required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be paid shall
be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final
public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on
which developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the
developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of
which has been provided to developer. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement,
developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount
S~$TAFFtIPT~241 ,IFP I 8
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; ~ 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:
54. A minimum flowline grade shall be 0.50 percent.
55.
Improvement plans per City Standards for the private streets or drives shall be required
for review and approval by the Department of Public Works.
56.
Improvement plans shall extend approximately 300 feet beyond the project boundaries
to show integration to existing improvements as approved and deemed necessary by
the Department of Public Works.
57.
All driveway aisle centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS:
58.
An interim signing and striping plan to limit ingress and egress movements shall be
designed by · registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for Ynez
Road and shall be included in the improvement plans. This condition shall be
superseded by the completion of construction of CFD 88-12 and as directed by the
Department of Public Works.
59.
Access to Ynez Road from the existing driveway approach approximately 400 feet
northwesterly of Rancho California Road shall be restricted to right-in/right-out
movements only. Type K-4 Markers (surface mount) per Caltrans standard drawing
No. A-73 shall be installed as directed by the Department of Public Works.
60.
Prior to designing the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering for the design
requirements.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
61.
A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer
and approved by the City Engineer for any disruption to traffic circulation as required
by the City Engineer.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
62. All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and striping plan.
S~STAFFWm24~ ..e I 9
63. Provide limited landscaping in the median islands at driveway aisle intersections and
adjacent to parking spaces to provide for minimum sight distance visibility.
S',STAR=Wn',~4'~ .R" 20
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
CITY OF T~MECULA
TO: DATE:
AllN: Mark Rhoades
FROM:~F~~ironmental Health Specialist IV
RE: PLOT PLAN NO. 241
01-14-92
The Environmental Health Services has reviewed Plot Plan No.
241 and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water
services should be available in this area. Prior to any
building plan review for health clearance, the following
items are required:
"Will-serve" letters from the appropriate
water and sewering agencies.
Three complete sets of plans for each food
establishment will be submitted, including a
fixture schedule. a finish schedule, and a
plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance
with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities
Law. For specific reference. please contact
Food Facility Plan examiners at (714) 358-5172.
SM:dr
NOTE: Any current additional requirements not covered,
be applicable at time of Building Plan review for final
Environmental Health Service clearance.
can
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE · PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370
(714) 657-3183
GLEN J. NEWMAN
FIRE CHIEF
January 50, 1992
TO: CITY OF TEMECULA
ATTN: PLANNING DEPT
RE: Plot Plan 241 AMENDED #1
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above refer-
enced plot plan, the Fire Department recommends the following
fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Riverside
Coutnty Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards:
1. The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire
flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial
buildings using the procedure established in Ordinance 546.
2. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of
delivering 2000 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual
operating pressure, which must be available before any
combustible material is placed on the job site.
3. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hy-
drants, on a looped system (6"x4"x2 1/2"x2 1/2"), will be
located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any
portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular
travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from
any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system.
4. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water
system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall
conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and
the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans
shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and
the local water company with the following certification: "I
certify that the design of the water system is in accordance
with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County
Fire Department".
5. Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all build-
ings. The post indicator valve and fire department connec-
tion shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a
hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A
statement that the building(s) will be automatically fire
sprinkled must be included on the title page of the building
plans.
0 INDIO OFFICE
79-733 Country Club Ddve, Suiee F. lnd~, CA 92201
(619) 342~886 · FAX (619) 77~-2072
PLANNING DIVISION
3760 12th ~ Riveni&, CA 9250~
(714) 275-4777 · FAX (714) 369-7451
I'~ TEMECULA OFRCE
41002 County Center Dtlve, Suit~ 225, Temeada, CA 92390
(714) 694-5070 · FAX (714) 694-5076
All
ferred
PLOT PLAN 241
PAGE 2
6. Install a supervised waterflow monitoring fire alarm
system. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for
approval prior to installation, as per UBC.
7. A statement that the building will be automatically fire
sprinklered must apprear on the title page of the building
plans.
8. Install panic hardware and exit signs as per Chapter 55
of the Uniform Building code. Low level Exit Signs, where
exit signs are required by Section 3~14 (a).
9. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating
of 2A1OBC. Contact a certified extinguisher company for
proper placement of equipment.
10. Install a hood duct fire extinguishing system. Contact a
certified fire protection company for proper placement.
Plans must be approved by the Fire Department prior to
installation.
11. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer
shall deposit, with the City of Temecula, a check or money
order equaling the sum of $.25 per square foot as mitigation
for fire protection impacts. This amount must be submitted
separately from the plan check fees.
12. Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets
and driveways to indicate location of fire hydrants. They
shall be mounted in the middle of the street directly in
line with fire hydrants.
13. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans
are reviewed in the building and Safety Office.
questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be re-
to the Planning and Engineering Staff.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
by
Michael E. Gray,
Fire Captain Specialist
5F. LNT BY:TE~CULA ; ~-11-D2; 1t:.,3~; RAi~CHO ~ATF. R'. ~lLH)A~,-IF_~Cbb%,;; 2/2
March 11, 1~
Mr. Mark Rhoades
Ctl~ c~ Tem~ula
Piannin~ D~partment
43180 Bus~..as Park Dtiv~
Temecu~n, CA 92390
Wau:r Avntlab~ily, APN 021-270,'!35
Ranelm Phum - Chili's Restaurant
Dear Mr. ghoades:
Plense be nfiviscd that the above-re~cp,-_sJ property is located within the
boundaries of Raneho Californin Water Distri~ (I~C'WD). Water sexyice,
therefore, would be avnihblc uFon completion of firmnclal arrangements
between RCWD and th~ property owner.
Water avai~.bility would he contingent upon the property o~mer ~ an
A~ency Agreement whi~ signs writer manl~eu~ figbin, if any, to RCWD,
you have any questions, please contact ~ ~enga Doherty.
Sincerely,
RANCHO C-ALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon~ P. E.
Manager of i~-v~lopmcnt Engineering
cc: Senga DohcrW, En~ineerinR Technician
J
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
S~STAF~PT,24~,F~ 21
II
ATI'ACHMENT NO. 3
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
BACKGROUND
Name of Proponent:
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
Chili's Inc.. Brinker International
6820 L.B.J. Freeway Dallas. TX 75240
(214)770-9433
3. Date of Environmental
Assessment:
4. Agency Requiring
Assessment:
Februarv 13, 1992
CITY OF TEMECULA
5. Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Chili's Restaurant. Plot Plan No. 241
Location of Proposal:
Northwest Corner of Rancho California and Ynez
Roads
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets.)
Yq5 Maybe No
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
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?
X
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
X
S~STAFFRP'i'~41 ,lap 22
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 regionally7
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?
Y~ Maybe N__o
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S%STAFFRPT%241 ,PP 23
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
X
X
S~STAm~'~,~ .e, 24
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 N__o
X
X
S~STAer-.PT~4~..' 25
11.
12.
13.
14.
Possible interference with an emerg-
ency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan?
Popula~on. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
8n 8roe?
Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing or create a demand for
additional housing?
TransportationlCircula~on. Will the
proposal result in:
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?
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?
Y/i Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S~S;AFFW'T~4~ ... 26
Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
f. Other governmental services:
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
16.
17.
18.
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 gas7
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
Human Health. Will the proposal
result in:
Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health)?
Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result
in the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to
public view?
Yes Maybe NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S~AFFPe~2~,~' 27
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
S\STAFFP~a~241.PP 28
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?
Yq~ Maybe N__o
X
X
S\STAFFRPT%241 .FP 29
III DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Earth
1.a.
1.b.
1 .c,d ,f.
1.e.
1.g.
Ai__r
2.a-c.
W;ter
3.a,d-I.
3.b.
Maybe. This project site was determined by a previous geotechnical
investigation to have some potential for liquefaction. However, proper
mitigation measures will be enforced in order to bring liquefaction to a level of
insignificance.
Yes. All development disrupts the soil profile to some degree and results in soil
displacement, compaction and over-covering. However, the site has been
highly disturbed and is surrounded by urban development. Soil disruption on the
site is not considered a significant impact.
No. The proposed project will not create any significant impacts regarding
geologic features or conditions. No evidence of faulting was found and
indications of mass movement or major landsliding have not been observed or
reported on the site.
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 hydroseeding disturbed areas after grading.
Yes. The project site has some potential for liquefaction. However,
liquefaction mitigations will be adhered through the design and construction of
this project.
No. The proposed project will not result in any substantial changes in air
quality or movement.
No. The proposed project will not have a substantial impact on any water
courses or supplies and the project lies outside of all 100 year flood zones.
Furthermore, the project will be free of ordinary storm flood hazard when
improvements have been constructed in accordance with the approval plans.
Maybe. The proposed pro)ect will be composed of approximately 63% of
impermeable surface area. Thus, possibly allowing for changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff on the
subject site. However, the amount of runoff water will not be significant
drainage and will be conveyed through approved facilities.
S\STAFFRPT'~241 .PP 30
3.c.
Maybe. 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 offset the water absorption rate.
Drainage patterns will continue to flow to the streets and channels.
Plant Lifq
4.a-d.
No. The proposed project will not have a su~,~i. antial impact regarding plant
life.
Animal Life
No. Presently, the proposed project site is vacant and native animal species
have been displaced. Thus, no substantial impacts will be imposed on any
animal life.
Noise
6.a,b.
No. The proposed project will not have significant impact on noise nor expose
people to severe noise levels.
Light and Glare
Yes. The proposed project is located within the Mr. Palomar Observatory
Street Lighting Policy Area which recommends the use of low pressure sodium
vapor (LPSV) lights to help avoid interference with the Mt. Palomar telescope
known as "Skyglow". The use of LPSV lights will reduce the light and glare
produced by the proposed project.
Land U~
8.
No. The proposed project will not result in a substantial alteration of the
present or planned land use of the area.
Natural Resources
9.a,b.
No. The proposal will not increase the consumption rate of any natural or non-
renewable natural resource.
Risk of UDset
10.a.
Maybe. The project site is currently undergoing soil and ground water
remediation, due to impacts from a previous use the clean-up has been
organized with the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Appropriate
mitigation will be completed which will mitigate any potential impact to a level
of non-significance.
5%STAFFRPT~41 .PP 3 1
lO.b.
Pooulation
11.
Maybe. During construction, it should not be necessary to close any streets
which would interfere with emergency vehicles. However, in any event, if
street or land closure is necessary, it shall be coordinated with the City and
Police Department.
No. The proposal will not alter the location, distribution, density or growth rate
of the human population in the area.
Housina
12. No. The proposal will not affect existing housing or create additional demand.
Transoortation/Circulation
13.a,c-e. No. The proposed project will not result in a substantial impact on vehicular
movement, parking, or existing transportation systems.
13.b. Maybe. The proposed use will require new parking facilities which will be
provided on-site.
13.f. Maybe. Increased traffic hazards may result due to the proposed development.
Mitigation measures will be utilized to reduce this hazard to a level of non-
significance.
Public Services
14.a,b,e. Yes. The proposed restaurant 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 will be evaluated and the
appropriate fees assessed. Property taxes should mitigate the impact and
continuing need for services over the long term.
No. The proposed project should not have a substantial effect upon, or result
in 8 need for new or altered governmental services.
14.c,d,f.
Energy
15.a,b.
Utilities
16.a-f.
No. The proposal will not result in the use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy or increase demand of existing sources of energy.
No. The proposed project will not result in a need for new systems or
substantial alteration to utility services.
S%STAFFRPT~41.PP 32
Human Health
17.a,b.
Ok. hazardous substances are used on site, then that may create a potential
health hazard. If hazardous materials will be used at the site, a plan for their
use and disposal will be submitted to and approved by the City, and the
Riverside County Hazardous Materials Division.
Aesthetics
18.
No. The proposal will not result in the obstruction of any scenic view open to
the public.
Recreation
19.
No. The subject site is not currently used for recreational uses.
Cultural Resources
20.a-d.
No. The proposal will not result in adverse effects to historic structures,
cultural values, or restrict religious or sacred uses in the area.
Mandatory Findings of Sianificance
21 .a.
No. This project will not substantially degrade the quality of the environment
or reduce the habitat for a plant or animal species due to the fact that the
project is in an existing urbanized area. However, if a project is located within
an area designated by the Riverside County as habitat for the endangered
Stephen's Kangaroo Rat. The project will be subject to mitigation fees for the
Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan.
21 .b.
No. The proposed restaurant will not have the potential to achieve short-term,
to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals.
21 .c.
No. The project does have individually limited impacts, however, if these
impacts are cumulatively considered, they do not have a significant impact on
the overall environment.
21 .d.
No. This project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings
either directly or indirectly. All regulations and standards will be imposed and
maintained on the project so that adverse effects are minimized or eliminated.
S',,STAFFRPT%241,PP 33
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 ;ITY OF TEMECULA
S~TAFF"P~24~."~ 34
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
35
S%$TAR:RPT~241 .PP
CITY OF TEMECULA
L
VICINITY MAP
N.T.S.
CASE NO.: PLOT PLAN NO. 241
EXHIBIT: A
P.C. DATE: MARCH 16, 1992
VICINITY MAP
CITY OF TEMECULA
~0
SWAP
EXHIBIT B
SP- 180
Oesigeation:S. P.
ZONING
Case No.: PLOT PLAN NO, 241
P.C. Date: MARCH 16, 1992
Designation:C'P
EXHIBIT C
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: PLOT PLAN NO. 241
EXHIBIT: D
P.C. DATE: MARCH 16, 1992
SITE PLAN
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: PLOT PLAN NO. 241
EXHIBIT: E
P.C. DATE: MARCH 16, 1992
LANDSCAPE PLAN
ITEM # 09
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
March 16, 1992
Case No.: Tentative Tract Map No. 23209
Prepared By: Mark A. Rhoades
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
RE-AFFIRM the Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract Map No.
23209, and;
ADOPT Resolution No. 92- recommending that the Planning
Commission approve Tentative Tract Map No. 23209 based on
the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Michael Lundin/Laverda Edmond
REPRESENTATIVE:
Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates
PROPOSAL:
A 221 lot single family residential subdivision on 80 acres
LOCATION:
Easterly terminus of La Serena Way, west of Butterfield Stage
Road.
EXISTING ZONING:
R-T (Mobile Home Subdivision, Mobile Home Park)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
R-A-5 (Residential Agricultural, 5 acre minimum)
S.P. 199 (Margarita Village Specific Plan)
A-I-10-/R-R (Light Agricultural, 10 acre
minimum/Rural Residential)
R-T (Mobile Home Park, Mobile Home Subdivision)
PROPOSED ZONING: N/A
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Low Density Residential
Vacant
Vineyard/Low Density Residential
Single Family Residential
S~STAFFRPT~232Og.TTM 1
PROJECT STATISTICS
Gross Area
Total Proposed Lots
Total Density
Minimum Lot Size
Park Site Area
80 acres
221 (220 single family residential lots, and I park site}
2.75 units/acre
7,200 square feet
2.9 acres
BACKGROUND
The proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 23209 was originally submitted to the County of
Riverside on October 19, 1988 with 304 residential lots. The project was approved by the
Riverside County Planning Commission on February 7, 1990 with 257 lots. The project was
transferred to the City of Temecula in April of 1990. On July 24, 1990, the City Council set
the project for Planning Commission hearing. At the Planning Commission meeting of August
6, 1990 the project was continued off-calendar in order to be redesigned relative to the issues
expressed by Staff. Those issues included: the quantity of proposed earthwork, the need for
a traffic study, land use intensity, and the presence of the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposal is to subdivide an 80 acre site into 220 single family residential lots and a 2.9
acre park site. The minimum lot size is 7,200 square feet. Lot sizes range from 7,200 square
feet to 16,000 square feet.
The project is located west of Butterfield Stage Road and east of the existing westerly
terminus of La Serene Way. A 2.9 acre public park is also proposed on the west side of the
project, north of La Serene Way.
ANALYSIS
Area SettinQ
The 80 acre site lies in hilly terrain containing steep slopes in several areas and is traversed
by several well-defined washes. There is an existing single family residential development
west of the site. There are vineyards east of the site south of La Serene Way. Seven of the -
proposed lots adjacent to the future alignment of Butterfield Stage Road are directly across
from the vineyards. The rest of the site south of La Serene is separated from the vineyards
by a wedge shaped portion of Tentative Tract 23103. The area east of the site and north of
La Serena Way is vacant land zoned Rural Residential. There are scattered residences on large
lots north of the site, and the Margarita Village Specific Plan is south of the site.
Land Use/Area Compatibility
The project site is currently vacant. Surrounding land uses include vineyards and low density
residential to the east, low density residential to the no~th, existing medium density (7,200
square feet) to the west and proposed low density residential to the south. The area to the
south is a portion of the Margarita Village Specific Plan.
The proposed project is zoned R-T which allows for mobile home parks and single family
subdivisions. The proposed subdivision proposes lots which are a minimum of 7,200 square
feet, at an overall density which is lower than the adjacent tract to the west.
The project is compatible with area development. The proposal is a logical extension of the
tracts to the west, with large lots of approximately % acre on the eastern side to buffer the
vineyards and low density residential. Low density residential to the north will be buffered
by substantial slope and drainage easements.
Vineyard Impacts
Existing vineyards lie to the east of the project site and south of the future alignment of La
Serena Way. When this project was initially presented to the Commission, the adjacent
vintners opposed the projects approval. Representatives of the Callaway and Cilurzo wineries
indicated that proposed grading and lot elevations would disrupt air flow and drainage. This
air circulation is necessary for the successful cultivation of existing crop.
Since the initial Planning Commission meeting, the project has been redesigned to allow for
the air flow required by the vineyards. The Callaway winery has submitted a letter to the City
accepting the proposed subdivision design.
Park Site
The proposed park site includes the vacation of the existing Walcott Lane right of way.
Walcott Lane has been realigned to the east of the park site.
The 2.9 acre park site will be fully improved by the developer with active park site amenities.
Staff has included a condition of approval which will require the park to be completed prior
to the issuance of the 75th occupancy permit of the proposed development.
The park will be improved.
Stephens Kanaaroo Rat (SKR)
A biology study was conducted for the site in 1989. At that time SKR habitat was identified
throughout the site. Based on conversations with Brian Loew of the Riverside County Habitat
Conservation Agency, an SKR study is only valid for one year. The applicant stated that they
did not wish to complete a new study at this time because that study would probably expire
before grading commenced. Staff has included a Condition of Approval which will require a
new SKR study prior to the issuance of any grading permits. As a part of that condition, the
developer will be required to take whatever action is necessary to secure an allocation of take
for the endangered species.
Gradina/Slones
The original County approval for the proposed map would have required approximately
2,150,000 cubic yards of earth movement. Of that total quantity, approximately 120,000
cubic yards would have been hauled off site. As a result of the total reconfiguration of the
map, the total earthwork has been reduced to approximately 980,000 cubic yards. The
reason for the reduction is that the proposed product more closely resembles the existing
natural topography. The street alignments and lot configurations have been redesigned to
more closely approximate the natural drainage courses and hill sides located on site.
As mentioned previously, approximately 980,000 cubic yards of earth will be moved on site.
Some substantial 2:1 slopes will be created, especially along the proposed Butterfield Stage
Road alignment. The majority of the highest slopes will eventually be maintained by the
Temecula Community Services District. These areas include the slopes adjacent to La Serena
Way and Butterfield Stage Road. The balance of on site 2:1 slopes will be maintained by a
homeowners associetion.
Drainaae
Several drainage courses traverse the property, and the site is subject to storm run-off from
several small watersheds. The developer proposes to intercept off-site runoff and convey it
through the site in a storm drain system. The tract is located within the Murrieta Creek/Santa
Gertrudis Valley and Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan. Drainage fees must be paid at the
time of recordation of the final map. Drainage easements must be obtained from affected
property owners for off-site drainage facilities. Said easements must be recorded prior to
recordation of the final map.
Traffic/Circulation
After the project was continued for redesign staff requested that the applicant conduct a
traffic study. The traffic study was subsequently submitted and found to be acceptable by
the City's Department of Public Works. The proposed site improvements will mitigate project
traffic impacts.
The circulation pattern of the proposed subdivision trends north/south and east/west. The
major north/south pattern includes Walcott Lane, the proposed Street "O" and the proposed
Street "B". The major east/west corridor will be provided through the improvement and
extension of La Serena Way. La Serena Way will extend to Butterfield Stage Road, a portion
of which will be improved by this development.
ZONING, SWAP, AND FUTURE GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The proposed project is zoned R-T which allows mobile home subdivisions and mobile home
parks as well as single family residential development. Zoning to the west of the proposed
project is also R-T, and includes an existing single family subdivision. The northern boundary
and the northwest corner of the proposed project are bounded by land zoned R-A-5 and R-A-2
1/2. The design criteria of the R-T zone calls for a 15 feet common area buffer along
adjoining boundaries with land zoned R-A and a 20 foot common area buffer along streets
which are adjacent to land zoned R-A.
S\STAFFRPT'~3209.TTM 4
Specific Plan No. 199 (Margarita Village) lies adjacent to the proposed project to the south,
southwest and southeast. Portions of this Specific Plan are adjacent to the vineyards to the
east. These areas have density designations of I dwelling unit per acre and .7 dwelling unit
per acre.
The SWAP designation for the project site is 2-4 dwelling units per acre, as is the designation
for the area west of the site. South of the project site is Specific Plan designation, and east
of the site is 2 1/2 acre minimum and citrus/vineyard/rural policy area. The SWAP designation
north of the site is 1-2 dwelling units per acre.
The proposed density of Tentative Tract Map No. 23209 is consistent with the current SWAP
designation. In addition, the project is likely to be consistent with the future adopted General
Plan. The lot sizes on the western portion of the site are consistent with or greater than the
existing home sites adjacent. Further, the lots which would be adjacent to the vineyards are
a minimum of 32,000 square feet. These lots are to act as a buffer for the vineyards.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The environmental concerns posed by staff in August of 1990 included the proposed grading,
traffic, the existence of the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat, a Federally listed endangered species,
and land use intensity.
Since that meeting the proposed grading has been substantially reduced through the redesign
of the project. The overall earthwork quantities have been reduced from 2,150,000 cubic
yards to 980,000 (balanced cut/fill) cubic yards. Traffic impacts have been identified and
mitigated. The Department of Public Works has found the traffic study submitted by the
applicant to be acceptable. The recommendations from that report have been incorporated
into the appropriate Conditions of Approval. Questions and mitigation relative to the
Stephen's Kangaroo Rat have also been addressed. Conditions of Approval mandate that a
new SKR Study and appropriate mitigation will be completed prior to the issuance of any
grading permits. Finally the land use intensity of the overall site has been significantly
reduced. Total lot count has decreased from the original 304 to the County approved 257,
and further, down to 220 with the current proposal.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The proposed project has been adequately re-designed to mitigate the concerns originally
expressed by Staff. The right-of-way elevations of the future extension of Butterfield Stage
Road and the elevations of the areas west are acceptable to the vineyard operators to the
east.
The project as designed is consistent with the current zoning and SWAP designations on site.
In addition, the project will likely be consistent with the City's future General Plan. All
potential environmental impacts have been or will be mitigated to a level of non-significance
through the Conditions of Approval. Staff therefore recommends that the negative declaration
be re-affirmed and that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Tentative Tract Map
No. 23209.
S\STAFFRPTL23209.TrM 5
FINDINGS
The proposed Tract Map will not have significant negative impact on the environment,
as determined in the Initial Environmental Assessment prepared for Tentative Tract
Map No. 23209. A Negative Declaration is recommended to be reaffirmed.
There is a reasonable probability that this proposal will be consistent with the General
Plan being prepared at this time. The map is consistentwith applicable subdivision and
land use ordinances, and conforms with the City's Southwest Area Plan (SWAP)
guidelines affecting the subject property.
There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with, the
future adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan. The project is consistent with surrounding development, and does not logically
have the potential to generate significant adverse environmental impacts.
The proposed use or action complies with City and State planning and zoning laws.
Reference local Ordinances No. 348, 460, California Governmental Code Sections
65000-66009 (Planning Zoning Law}, and Government Code Title 7, Division 2.
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of parcel configurations, access, and density. The project has access to public
rights-of-way, and is designed with sufficient pad areas allowing appropriate building
pad sites.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the initial study prepared for this project. Reference the
attached Initial Environmental Study and Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract
Map No. 23209.
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 site for the proposed use is provided legal access via La Serena and Butterfield
Stage Road public rights-of-way. Development of these roads shall comply with City
Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval contained herein.
The proposed project will not inhibit or restrict future ability to use active or passive
solar energy systems. Adequate lot areas and exposures are provided for these
alternatives.
10.
The proposed use will not have a substantial adverse affect on abutting properties or
the permitted use thereof. The proposed map provides for residential development
similar in character and densities evident on vicinity properties. Land use incongruities
and associated adverse affects arising from implementation of this proposal are
unlikely.
S~TAFFRFT'~3209.TTM 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 92-__
S',~TAFFRPT~3209.TTM
8
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP NO. 23209 TO SUBDIVIDE 80 ACRES INTO 220
SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND · 2.9 ACRE PARK SITE IN THE R-T
ZONE LOCATED AT THE EASTERN TERMINUS OF LA SERENA
WAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S TRACT NO. 914-310-018
THROUGH 032.
WHEREAS, Michael Lundin/Laverda Edmond filed Tentative Tract Map No.
23209 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
March 16, 1992, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in
support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said Tentative Tract Map;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 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~STAFr'RIv~23209-TTM 9
(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.
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.
23209 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal
being considered or studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time, because the project is consistent with current
SWAP and zoning designations.
(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, because it
is adjacent to uses which are similar in intensity.
(3)
The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances, because the
project conforms with Ordinance No. 348 which conforms with
State Laws.
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~3209.TTM 10
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 proposed Tentative Tract
Map, makes the following findings, to wit:
The proposed Tract Map will not have significant negative impact on the
environment, as determined in the Initial Environmental Assessment prepared
for Tentative Tract Map No. 23209. A Negative Declaration is recommended
to be reaffirmed.
There is a reasonable probability that this proposal will be consistent with the
General Plan being prepared at this time. The map is consistent with applicable
subdivision and land use ordinances, and conforms with the City's Southwest
Area Plan (SWAP) guidelines affecting the subject property.
There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with,
the future adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent
with the plan. The project is consistent with surrounding development, and
does not logically have the potential to generate significant adverse
environmental impacts.
The proposed use or action complies with City and State planning and zoning
laws. Reference local Ordinances No. 348,460, California Governmental Code
Sections 65000-66009 (Planning Zoning Law), and Government Code Title 7,
Division 2.
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size
and shape of parcel configurations, access, and density. The project has
access to public rights-of-way, and is designed with sufficient pad areas
allowing appropriate building pad sites.
S%STAFFRFT~3209,TTM 11
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or
natural environment as determined in the initial study prepared for this project.
Reference the attached Initial Environmental Study and Conditions of Approval
for Tentative Tract Map No. 23209.
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 site for the proposed use is provided legal access via La Serena and
Butterfield Stage Road public rights-of-way. Development of these roads shall
comply with City Engineering Conditions of Approval contained herein.
The proposed project will not inhibit or restrict future ability to use active or
passive solar energy systems. Adequate lot areas and exposures are provided
for these alternatives.
The proposed use Will not have a substantial adverse affect on abutting
properties or the permitted use thereof. The proposed map provides for
residential development similar in character and densities evident on vicinity
properties. Land use incongruities and associated adverse affects arising from
implementation of this proposal are unlikely.
As conditioned pursuant to SECTION III, 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
have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case
because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to
the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted.
SECTION III. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Tentative Tract Map No.
23209 for the subdivision of 80 acres into 220 residential lots and a 2.9 acre park site in the
R-T zone located at the easterly terminus of La Serena Way and known as Assessor's Tract
No. 914-310-016, 914-310-018 through 032 subject to the following conditions:
1. Attachment 2, attached hereto.
S\STAFFRPT~23209.TTM 12
SECTION IV.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of March, 1992.
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
March, 1992 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
S%STAFFRPT%23209.TrM 13
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
S\STAFFP-PT%23209.TTM 14
ATFACHMENT NO. 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Tract Map No: 23209
Project Description: 221 Lot residential subdivision
on 80 acres, R-T zone.
Assessor's Parcel No.: 914-310-018 through 032
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act
and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule A, unless modified by the
conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the
State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the
expiration date.
This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the approval date,
unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. The expiration date is
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map.
Legal paved access as required by Ordinance 460 and the Department of Public Works
shall be provided from the tract map boundary to a City maintained road.
Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area improvement
phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Any proposed
phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access to all lots in each phase, and shall
substantially conform to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval.
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 January 7, 1992 a copy of which
is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined in the
County Fire Department's letter dated October 9, 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.
S%STAFFRPT~3209.TTM 15
10.
11.
12.
13.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Rancho California
Water District transmittal dated December 19, 1991, a copy of which is attached.
Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following:
Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development
standards of the R-T zone.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free condition and
shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion
control measures as approved by the 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 fi~nal 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.
14. Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied:
Prior to the issuance of grading permits detailed common open space area
landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department
approval for the phase of development in process. The plans shall be certified
by a landscape architect, and shall provide for the following:
Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all
landscaped areas requiring irrigation.
Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be opaque up
to a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity.
All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from view with
landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle treatments, as approved by
the Planning Director. Utilities shall be placed underground.
Parkways shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a transition
into the primary use area of the site. Landscape elements shall include
earth berming, ground cover, shrubs and specimen trees. Front yards
shall be landscaped and street trees planted.
S~STAFFRPT~232Og. TTM 16
Wall plans shall be submitted for the project perimeter and along La
Serena Way. Wooden fencing shall not be allowed on the perimeter of
the project. All lots with slopes leading down from the lot shall be
provided with gates in the wall for maintenance access.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent trees at
key visual focal points within the project.
Where street trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of interior
streets and project parkways due to insufficient road right-of-way, they
shall be planted outside of the road right-of-way.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant plants
where appropriate.
All existing specimen trees and significant rock outcroppings on the
subject property shall be shown on the project's grading plans and shall
note those to be removed, relocated and/or retained.
All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow growing
trees shall be steel staked.
Any oak trees removed with four (4) inches or larger trunk diameters
shall be replaced on a ten (10) to one (1) basis as approved by the
Planning Director. Replacement tress shall be noted on approved
landscaping plans.
If the project is to be phased, prior to the approval of grading permits,
an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning
Director for approval. The plan shall be used as a guideline for
subsequent detailed grading plans for individual phases of development
and shall include the following:
Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and
sedimentation during and after the grading process.
Approximate time frames for grading and identification of areas
which may be graded during the higher probability rain months
of January through March.
3. Preliminary pad and roadway elevations.
4. Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase.
All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded natural terrain and exceeding
ten (10) feet in vertical height shall be contour-graded incorporating the
following grading techniques:
$~TAFFRPT%23209.TTI~ 17
1. The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the
angle of the natural terrain.
15.
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 te the total height of the slopes
where drainage and stability permit such rounding.
Where cut or fill slopes exceed 300 feet in horizontal length, the
horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved in a continuous,
undulating fashion.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall provide
evidence to the Department of Public Works that all adjacent off-site
manufactured slopes have recorded slope easements and that slope
maintenance responsibilities have been assigned as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with
the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set
forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by
the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the
fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee
required by the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County
ordinance or resolution.
Prior to 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.
16. Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied:
No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit within
the project boundary until the developer's successor's-in-interest provides
evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures. A cash sum of
one-hundred dollars ($100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as
mitigation for public library development.
Prior to the submittal of building plans to the Department of Building and Safety
an acoustical study shall be performed by an acoustical engineer to establish
appropriate mitigation measures that shall be applied to individual dwelling units
within the subdivision to reduce ambient interior noise levels to 45 Ldn.
S%STAFFRPT%23209.TTM 18
17.
18.
All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required elements
from the subdivision's approved fire protection plan as approved by the County
Fire Marshal.
All dwellings to be constructed within this subdivision shall be designed and
constructed with fire retardant (Class A) 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.
F. Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from view of surrounding property.
Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall not be less
than ten (10) feet.
H. All street side yard setbacks shell be a minimum of ten (10) feet.
I. All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and automatic irrigation.
Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved
plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal conditions do not
permit planting, interim landscaping and erosion control measures shall be
utilized as approved by the Planning Director and the Director of Building and
Safety.
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved
plans and shall be verified by City field inspection.
Not withstanding the preceding conditions, wherever an acoustical study is
required for noise attenuation purposes, the heights of all required walls shall
be determined by the acoustical study where applicable.
Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the applicant shall enter into an
agreement with Inland Disposal, Inc., for the refuse service to include the
utilization of a small pick-up truck equipped with a lift mechanism in order to
move the containers out and back into the project; thus, prohibiting the entering
of large refuse trucks into the project. Said agreement shall be submitted to
the Planning Director for approval.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, or any use allowed by this entitlement, the
developer shall submit to the Planning Department for review a biology study focusing
on the Stephens Kangaroo Rat, a Federaliy listed endangered species. Said report shall
be prepared by one of the state certified biologists licensed to handle the SKR. Said
report shall contain but not be limited to information relative to quality, density, and
extent of occupied habitat. In addition, the developer shall comply with any processes
in effect to mitigate the potential disturbance of SKR habitat.
$%STAFFF~3209,TTM 19
19.
The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its
agents, officer, and eml~loyees 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. 23209, 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.
20.
The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property
interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the developer shall at least 120 days
prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an agreement to complete
the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such time as the
City acquires the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement
shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire
the off-site property
interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these
costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report
obtained by the developer, at the developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been
approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal.
21.
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.
22. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground.
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions/Reciprocal Access Easements:
23.
The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be reviewed and approved
by the Planning Department prior to final approval of the tract maps. The CC&R's shall
include liability insurance and methods of maintaining the open space, recreation areas,
parking areas, private roads, and exterior of all buildings.
24.
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
S\$TAFFRPT~232Og. TTM 20
25.
26,
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
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.
Maintenance for all landscaped and open areas, including parkways, shall be provided
for in the CC&R's.
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.
All existing specimen trees on the subject property shall be preserved wherever
feasible. Where they cannot be preserved they shall be relocated or replaced with
specimen trees as approved by the Planning Director.
Any oak trees removed with four (4) inch or larger trunk diameters shall be replaced
on a ten (10) to one (1) basis as approved by the Planning Director.
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 (9875.00)
which includes the Eight Hundred, Fifty Dollar (9850.00) fee, in compliance with AB
3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) 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 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).
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
(91,275.00), which includes the One Thousand, Two Hundred, Fifty Dollars
(91,250.00) fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code
Section 711.4(d)(2) plus the Twenty-Five Dollar (925.00) County administrative fee
to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources
Code Section 21152 and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-
eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning
Department the check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall
be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
Prior to the issuance of the 75th certificate of occupancy for the entire project area,
the applicant shall have completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services
Director all park site improvements relevant to Lot No. 221 of Tentative Tract Map No.
23209.
S\STAFFRPT~3209.TTM 2 1
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 Subdivider has correctly shown or~ the tentative map all existing and
proposed easements, traveled ways, improvements constraints and drainage courses, and
their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
32.
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;
Parks and Recreation Department; and
Metropolitan Water District.
33.
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.
34.
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.
35.
The existing Walcott Lane alignment shall be vacated as a public street and rededicated
to TCSD as a public park site as directed by the Department of Public Works. Said
vacation and rededication shall be applied for by the applicant and approved by the
City Council prior to recordation of the final map. Provision shall also be made for
right-of-way dedication to provide for the remainder of the cul-de-sac bulb for Leigh
Lane.
36.
Streets "A", "B", "C", "D", "E", "G", "H", "J", "K", "L", "M", "N" and "0" 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
City Standard No. 104, Section A (60'/40').
37.
Streets "F" and "1" shall be improved with 36 feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or
bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-of-way
in accordance with City Standard No. 105, Section A (60'/36').
S\STAFFRPT~23209,TTM 22
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
Ahem Lane and Walcott lane shall be improved with 44 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. 103, Section A (66'/44').
La Serena Way shall be improved with 64 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'). Full width improvements shall
extend westerly to connect to existing roadway improvements.
Butterfield Stage Road shall be improved with 43 feet of half street improvement plus
a raised median and one 12' lane, or bonds for the street improvements may be
posted, within a 110' dedicated right-of-way in accordance with City Standard No.
100, (110'/86'). The design shall conform to the vertical alignment approved by City
Council on November 12, 1991.
Standard cul-de-sacs and knuckles and offset cul-de-sacs shall be constructed
throughout the land division.
The subdivider shall provide/acquire sufficient public offsite rights-of-way to provide
for primary and secondary access road(s) to a paved and maintained road. Said access
road(s) shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard No. 106, Section B.
(32'/60') at a grade and alignment approved by the Department of Public Works. Said
offsite access roads shall include, but not be limited to, the southerly and easterly
extensions of Butterfield Stage Road to Rancho California Road or as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
East and west bound left turn lanes shall be provided on La Serena Way at the
intersections with Walcott Lane, Street "B" and Butterfield Stage Road as approved
by the Department of Public Works.
Vehicular access shall be restricted on Butterfield Stage Road and La Serena Way and
so noted on the final map with the exception of street intersections and driveways as
approved by the Department of Public Works.
Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805.
Minimum lot frontages along the cul-de-sacs and knuckles shall be 35 feet.
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.
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:
S%STAFFItFr~3209.TTM 23
49.
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 no~ 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,
The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed
guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance
with applicable City standards.
Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter,
medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, and other
traffic control devices as appropriate.
B. Storm drain facilities.
S~,STAFFRPT~23209,TTM 24
50.
51.
52.
D.
E.
F.
Landscaping (street and parks).
Sewer and domestic water systems.
All trails, as required by the City's Master Plans.
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.
53. Street names shall be subject to the approval of the Building and Safety Department.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
The minimum centerline radii shall be 300 feet or as approved by the Department of
Public Works.
All street and 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.
A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent.
All driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula standards and shall be
shown on the street improvement plans in accordance with City Standard 207 and
401 (curb sidewalk).
All driveways shall be located a minimum of two (2) feet from the side property line.
A minimum of 4 feet of full height curb shall be constructed between driveways.
The minimum garage setback shall be 30 feet measured from the face of curb.
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. Letters of
permission from adjacent owners shall be provided for all offsite grading work.
S\STAFFRPT~32Og. TTM 25
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
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. All work shall be in conformance with the County Geologist's letter dated
April 28, 1989, and any subsequent amendments.
The subdivider shall submit two (2) copies of a soils report to the Department of Public
Works. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site.
A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public
Works. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Department of Public
Works.
On-site drainage facilities, located outside of road right-of-way, shall be contained
within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final
map stating "Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions."
A 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.
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.
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.
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.
The developer shall record an Environmental Constraint Sheet delineating areas of
identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed with the Department
of Public Works.
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.
S%STAFFRFT~3209.T'rM 26
PRIOR
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
PRIOR
81.
82.
83.
TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, developer must obtain a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control
Board. No grading shall be permitted until a NPDES permit is granted or the project is
shown to be exempt.
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.
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.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area
Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is
payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If the full Area
Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to this property, no new
charge needs to be paid.
A permit from the County Flood Control District is required for work within their right-
of-way.
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
S\STAFFRPT~3209,TI'M 27
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; orovided that developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness
of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
84.
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.
85.
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.
86.
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:
87.
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the Department of Public Works for Butterfield Stage Road and La Serena
Way and shall be included in the street improvement plans.
88.
Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering for the
design requirements.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
89.
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~STAFFRPT~.3209.TTM 28
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
90. All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and striping plan.
91. The subdivider shall provide "stop" controls at the intersection of local streets with
arterial streets as directed by the Department of Public Works.
92. Provide limited landscaping in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent
to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance.
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
93. Tract No. 23209 consists of 220 proposed residential dwellings. The required Park
Land dedication as per City Ordinance No. 460.93 (Quimby) is 2.9 acres of IMPROVED
park land. Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant or his assignee, shall
offer for dedication 2.9 acres of land and execute and agreement with the Community
Services Department, stating that the applicant agrees to improve the proposed 2.9
acre property in accordance with Community Services Department standards at the
time of execution, for park purposes.
94. The proposed park site shall be identified on the final map by lot number, and indexed
to identify said lot number as the proposed park land site.
95. A Square foot breakdown of all proposed "Arterial" slopes shall be submitted to the
Community Services Department for review prior to the Community Services
Department conditioning the arterial slopes for required maintenance (Homeowners
Association (HOA) vs. Community Services Department).
S'~STAFFRPT/23209.TTM 29
County of Riverside.
DATE: 01-07-92
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
1'0: CITY OF~CULA
FROM: onmental Health Specialist IV
RE: 'r~NTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 23209. AMENDED N0. 6
EnvXronmental Health Services has reviewed Tentative Tract
Map No. 23209, Amended No. 6, dated 12-12-91. Our current
comments will remain as stated in our letter dated 10-01-91.
SM:dr
attachment
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
4065 COUNTY CIRCL¢' OR. RIVIrRSID¢', CA. 92503 CMIIling Address - P.O. Bex 7600 9Z51,%-3'6005
October 1, 1991
CITY OF 1EMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
43~74 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
TEMECULA, CA 92590
RE: i~;NTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 23209, AMENDED N0.5: ALL THAT
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUA~JJ IN THE UNINCORPORAI~u AREA OF
THE COUNTY OF RI~r.~SIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS
PARCELS 1, 2, 6, 19, 20, 31 AND 50 AS SHOWN IN DOCUMENT
RECORDED JUNE 27, 1986 AS INSTRUMENT N0. 15005 OF RIVERSIDE
COUNTY RECORDS, ALL IN THEMURRIETA PORTION OFT HE ~P, MECULA
RANCHO, AS SHOWN BY MAP OF THE ~P.~/ECULA LAND AND WAzr.~
COMPANY, ON FILE IN BOOK 8, PAGE 359 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAN
DII~30 COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
(224 lots)
Dear Gentlemen:
The Department of Public Health has reviewed Tentative Tract
Map No. 23209, Amended No. 5 and recommends:
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 plane 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 City of Temecula. The
prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of
valves and fire hydrants; pipe and joint specifications, and
the size of the main at the junction of the new system to
the existing system. The plans shall comply in all respects
with Div. 5, Part l, Chapter 7 of the California Health and
Safety Code, California Administrative Code, Title 11,
Chapter 16, and General Order No. 103 of the Public
Utilities Commission of the State of California, when
applicable. The plans shall be signed by a registered
engineer and water company with the following certification:
"I certify that the design of the water system in Tract Map
23209, is in accordance with the water system expansion
plans of the Rancho California Water District and that the
water services, storage, and distribution system will be
adequate to provide water service to such Tract Map."
ACTIN(;
H~AI. TH ClENTE~S
City of Temecula
Page Two
Attn=
October 1, 1991
This certification does not constitute a guarantee that it
will supply water to such Tract Map at any specific
quantities. flows or pressures for fire protection or any
other purpose". %'n is certification shall be signed by a
responsible official of the water company. The plans must
be submitted to The City of Temecul~ Office to review ~t
least two weeks prior to the reouest for the record~ion_QUL
the final map,
This subdivision has a statement from Rancho California
Water District agreeing to serve domestic water to each and
every lot in the subdivision on demand providing
satisfactory financial arrangements are completed with the
subdivider. It will be necessary for financial arrangements
to be made prior to the recordation of the final map.
This subdivision is within the Eastern Municipal Water
District and shall be connected to the sewers of the
District. The sewer system shall be installed according to
plans and specifications as approved by the District, the
City of Temecula 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 City
of Temecula. The prints shall show the internal pipe
diameter, location of manholes, complete profiles. pipe and
joint specifications and the size of the sewers at the
junctlon of the new system to the existing system. A single
plat indicating location of sewer lines and water lines
shall be a portion of the sewage plans and profiles. The
plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and the sewer
district with the following certification: "I certify that
the design of the sewer system in Tract Map No. 23209 is in
accordance with the sewer system expansion plans of the
Eastern Municipal Water District and that the waste disposal
system is adequate at this time to treat the anticipated
wastes from the proposed Tract Map."
City of Temecula
Page Three
Attn:
October 1. 1991
The plans must be submitted to the City of Temecula Office
to review at least two weeks prior to the request for the
recordation of the final map.
It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be
completely finalized prior to recordation of the final map.
Sincerely,
Environmental Health Services
SM:dr
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE · PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370
(714) 657-3183
GLEN J. NEWMAN
FIRE CHIEF
TO: CITY OF TEMECULA
ATTN: PLANNING DEPT
RE: TRACT 23209
October 9, lggI
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land
division, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection
measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or
recognized fire protection standards:
Schedule "A" fire protection approved standard fire hydrants, (6"x4"x2~")
located one at each street intersection and spaced no more than 330 feet
apart in any direction, with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165
feet from a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for 2 hours
duration at 20 PSI.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans
to the Fire De?artment for review. Plans shall be signed by a registered
civil engineer, containing a Fire Department approval signature block,
and shall conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire
flow. Once plans are signed by the local water company, the originals
shall be presented to the Fire Department for signature..
The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed
and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible
building material being placed on an individual lot.
MITIGATION
Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with
the City of Temecula, a cash sum of $400.00 per lot/unit as mitigation for
fire protection impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of
payment, he/she may enter into a written agreement with the County deferring
said payment to the time of issuance of the first building permit.
All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to
the Planning and Engineering staff.
U1 INDIO OFFICE
79-733 Country Club Dr~w., Suite F. lndio, CA 92201
(619) 342-88~6 · FAX (619) 775-2072
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
Laura Cabral, Fire Safety Specialist
PLAba~ING DIVISION
UI RIVERSIDE OFF1CE
3760 12th S~ff,. Riverside. CA 92501
Wmr
December 19, 1991
Mr. Mark Rhoades
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43]80 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
Water Availability
Tract Map 23209, Amended No. 6
Dear Mr. Rhoades:
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:~O:ajth3Z9
cc: Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
CITY STAFF REPORT
S~STAFFRPT~2. S209.TTM 30
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 6, 1990
Case No.: Tentative Tract No. 23209
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council DENY Tentative Tract No. 23209, based on
the analysis and findings contained in this staff report.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Owner:
Applicant:
Engineer:
Proposal:
Location:
Area Plan:
Zoning:
Surrounding
Zoning:
Laverda Edmond
Alba Engineering, Inc.
Alba Engineering, Inc.
To subdivide an 80 acre site into 257 parcels with a minimum lot
size of 8,000 square feet.
West of Butterfield Stage Road, east of Walcott Lane, and
approximately 1.25 miles north of Rancho California Road.
2-4 dwelling units per acre
RT-Mobile Home Subdivision (also permits conventional dwelling
units)
North: RA-5 and RA-2 1/2, Residential Agricultural
South: S-P, Specific Plan (Margarita Village)
Surrounding
Land Uses:
East:
West:
North:
South:
East:
West:
A-1-10, Light Agriculture and R-R, Rural Residential
R-T, Mobile Home Subdivisions and Mobile
Home Parts
Scattered single family residential
Vacant - Masterplan undergoing grading
Vineyards and vacant land
Single family residential, undergoing grading
with some construction underway.
Project
Information: Density: 3.21 dwelling units per acre
Acreage: 80 acres
No. of Units: 257
STAFFRPT~TT23209
ANALYSIS
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Tentative Tract Map No. 23209 was continued from the County Planning Commission
Hearing of December 20, 1989, at the request of the applicant and the City of
Temecula. The County Planning staff was concerned that the proposed subdivision
was incompatible with the vineyards east of the site and was not consistent with the
Southwest Area Community Plan design policy; requiring buffers to minimize land use
conflicts between agricultural land uses and other land uses.
County staff pointed out that the Margarita Village Specific Plan south of the site
stipulates densities of one (1) dwelling unit per acre and 0.7 dwelling units per acre
adjacent to the vineyards. County staff also requested that the applicant redesign the
project with lots of at least 10,000 square feet, gradually transitioning to 20,000
square feet adjacent to the vineyards east of the site. The applicant refused to
redesign the project, and County staff prepared a recommendation of denial.
Subsequent to the continuance from the hearing of December 20, 1989, the applicant
met with County planning staff. The applicant agreed to incorporate sloped
landscaped buffers 20 to 40 feet wide along Butterfield Road and 20 to 50 feet wide
along the portion of La Serena way which is visible from Butterfield Stage Road.
Block walls are included at the tops of the landscaped slopes. These provisions
satisfied the County staff, and a recommendation was made at the Planning
2
Commission hearing of February 7, 1990, to adopt the Negative Declaration, to
approve a waiver of the required lot length to width ratio for Lots 76, 102, 103, 136,
137, and 141, and to approve Tentative Tract No. 23209, Amendment No. 4. The
County Planning Commission recommended that the City of Temecula adopt the
Negative Declaration, approve the waiver of lot length to width ratio, and approve the
Tentative Tract.
AREA SETTING
The 80 acre site lies in hilly terrain containing steep slopes in several areas and is
traversed by several well-defined washes. There is an existing single family residential
development and another development under construction west of the site. There are
vineyards east of the site south of La Serena Way. Seven of the proposed lots are
directly across the future alignment of Butterfield Stage Road from the vineyards. The
rest of the site south of La Serena is separated from the vineyards by a wedge shaped
portion of Tentative Tract 23103. The area east of the site and north of La Serena
Way is vacant land zoned Rural Residential. There are scattered residences on large
lots north of the site, and the Margarita Village Specific Plan is south of the site. The
site is near a designated Stephen's Kangaroo Rat habitat and areas of sensitivity for
archaeological and paleontological resources.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposal is to subdivide an 80 acre site into 257 single family residential lots.
The minimum lot size is 8,000 square feet. Lot sizes range from 8,000 square feet
to 16,000 square feet.
As a buffer between the proposed project and the vineyards east of the project site,
the proposed map shows landscaped slopes 20 to 40 feet wide along Butterfield
Stage Road and 20 to 50 feet wide on both sides of La Serena Way. The map
indicates a six foot block wall at the top of the landscaped slopes. Portions of 43 of
the proposed lots are contained in the landscaped slopes which are to become a
landscape easement maintained by a homeowner's association.
A waiver from the subdivision design standard that lot depth shall not exceed 2 1/2
times the lot width for lots of 18,000 square feet or less is requested for six of the
proposed lots. One of the six lots is located on a cui-de-sac. The others abut straight
or slightly curved streets.
SITE AND AREA CONDITIONS
ACCESS
3
Access to the site from paved and maintained streets is taken from La Serena Way
on the westerly side of the site, and from Butterfield Stage Road on the easterly side
of the site. The nearest major arterial street with freeway access is Rancho California
Road.
TRAFFIC IMPACT
A traffic study was not submitted to the County for the project in question.
Therefore, information is not available regarding estimates of project generated traffic
and traffic impacts on the levels of service of streets in the vicinity. The Southwest
Area Community Plan suggests a target Level of Service C and a target peak level of
Service D. The project could be inconsistent with the Area Community Plan on the
basis of project generated peak hour traffic impacts on Rancho California Road at
Highway 15. The County Road Department specified a fee of $150 per lot for traffic
signal improvements. A traffic study is still needed in order to determine the
distribution and volumes of existing traffic, projected future traffic, and traffic
generated by the proposed subdivision.
GRADING
Tentative Tract Map No. 23209, Amendment No. 4, indicates that the project as
designed would require over two million cubic yards of excavation on the site. There
would be 2,158,759 cubic yards of cut, 2,037,969 cubic yards of fill, and 120,790
cubic yards of earth exported from the site. An average of approximately 7,900 cubic
yards of earth per lot would be moved on the site, and an average of approximately
470 cubic yards of earth per lot would be exported from the site. This amount of
excavation constitutes a substantial alteration of the existing terrain. Staff suggests
that topographic alteration to this extent substantially alters the character of the site
and diminishes the character and flavor of the community as a whole.
It should be noted that a substantial amount of grading will occur in conjunction with
the construction of Butterfield Stage Road regardless of how the subject property is
developed.
DRAINAGE
Several drainage courses traverse the property, and the site is subject to storm run-off
from several small watersheds. The developer proposes to intercept off-site runoff
and convey it through the site in a storm drain system. The tract is located within the
Murrieta Creek/Santa Gertrudis Valley and Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan.
Drainage fees must be paid to the County Road Commissioner at the time of
recordation of the final map. Drainage easements must be obtained from affected
property owners for off-site drainage facilities. Said easements must be recorded prior
to recordation of the final map.
4
Proposed parcels 160 through 171 are shown on the map as being located downslope
from several parcels of Tract No. 22148. The slopes shown do not reflect the
existing grading of the parcels in Tract 22148 or the proposed pad elevations of
Parcels 160 through 171 on the subject Tentative Tract Map. The non-existent slopes
shown on the map in Tract 22148 should be deleted in order to avoid raising
unnecessary concerns regarding drainage.
KANGAROO RAT HABITAT
A biological survey revealed that the Stephens Kangaroo Rat occupies parts of the
site. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits for the site, the secretary of the
interior must have approved the Stephens Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan and
issued a Section 10 (a) permit for incidental taking of Stephens Kangaroo rats. A
report documenting the amount and quality of the species habitat subject to
disturbance or destruction by the proposed tract must be submitted and approved by
the Planning Director. Any disturbance to the site requires appropriate federal permits,
including grading, disking, clearing, and construction.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
INTENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT
The proposed density of 3.2 units per acre is consistent with the Southwest Area
Community Plan (S.W.A.P.) designation of 2-4 residential units per acre. All of the
proposed lots contain at least 8,000 square feet of total area and conform to the
minimum lot width and depth requirements of the RT zone. However, the usable area
of 43 of the proposed lots is reduced by the landscaped slope easement and the block
wall. Fifteen of the lots have less than 7,200 square feet of usable area. Some
parcels have as little as 6,000 square feet of usable area. Eight of the proposed lots
do not have 100 feet of usable lot depth. Lots with less than 7,200 square feet of
usable lot area are not consistent with the intent of the SWACP designation of 2-4
units per acre. This intensity of development may not be consistent with the Future
General Plan given the natural topography and adjacent vineyard.
PROJECT NOT CONSISTENT WITH SWACP POLICIES
SWACP General Design Policy states that adequate buffers shall be encouraged in
order to minimize land use conflicts between agricultural operations and other land
uses. The vineyards east of the site are part of the citrus/vineyard/rural policy area.
One of SWACP goals for this policy area is to preserve the rural lifestyle and wine
making atmosphere of the area. A landscaped slope 20 to 40 feet wide and a block
wall are inadequate as a buffer between a rural vineyard area and the proposed 257
lot subdivision. A development of lesser intensity would be more compatible for a site
in proximity to a vineyard and adjacent to areas zoned for 1/2 acre lots and the
5
portion of the Margarita Specific Plan containing one acre lots abutting the
southeasterly side of the subject property.
PROJECT NOT COMPATIBLE WITH MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN
The proposed tract is not compatible with the Margarita Village Specific Plan south
of the site. The Margarita Village Specific Plan stipulat~-~ densities of 0.7 to 1.0 unit
per acre adjacent to the vineyards.
LAND USE
The proposed intensity of residential development is inappropriate for the property in
question. The hilly terrain of the site and the proposed amount of excavation in
excess of two million cubic yards of cut and fill indicate that residential development
of a substantially lower density than that proposed would be more appropriate. The
location of the site adjacent to a vineyard also suggests a lower intensity of
development pursuant to SWACP policies encouraging buffers between agricultural
operations and other land uses and preservation of the rural life style and wine making
atmosphere of the vineyard areas.
FINDINGS
Due to its hilly terrain and the adjacent agricultural use, the site is not
physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
The proposed intensity of development is inconsistent with Southwest Area
Community Plan (SWACP) policies encouraging adequate buffers between
agricultural uses and other land uses and preservation of the rural lifestyle and
wine making atmosphere of the adjacent vineyard area.
The proposed tract is not compatible with the Margarita Village Specific Plan
south of the site in that the specific plan stipulates densities of 0.7 to 1.0
dwelling unit per acre adjacent to the vineyards.
The proposed subdivision is technically consistent with the requirements of the
R-T zone regarding lot area and dimensions and conforms to the density of 2-4
units per acre as designated in the SWACP. However, the landscape easement
along Butterfield Stage Road and La Serena Way reduces the usable lot area of
fifteen lots to less than 7,200 square feet of lot area and the usable depth of
eight lots to less than 1 O0 feet. A total of 18 lots do not have adequate usable
lot area and/or usable lot depth to satisfy the minimum requirements for lot area
and dimensions in the R-T zone. Said 18 lots are not in conformance with the
6
intent of the SWACP land use designation of 2-4 unite per acre.
Six of the proposed lots do not conform to subdivision design standard that lot
depth shall not exceed 2 1/2 times lot width.
There is a possibility that the proposed subdivision will be inconsistent with the
policies and land use designations of the City's General Plan when it is adopted.
The City has 30 months from the date of incorporation to adopt a General Plan.
There is a possibility that the proposed subdivision could constitute a
substantial detriment to or interfere with the City's General Plan.
Since no traffic study was conducted for the project, the volumes, distribution,
and impacts of project generated traffic on the streets in the vicinity are
undetermined. It is possible that cumulative traffic impacts could result in
levels of service inconsistent with the requirements of the Southwest Area
Community Plan and/or the new City General Plan when it is adopted. It would
be inappropriate to adopt a Negative Declaration and approve Tentative Tract
No. 23209 in the absence of a traffic study.
Tentative Tract No. 23209 is consistent with the State Subdivision Map Act
regarding passive use of solar energy that the proposed lots have significant
southern exposure which allows for passive heating opportunities.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council DENY Tentative Tract No. 23209 based on
the analysis and findings contained in this staff report.
7
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23209
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council SET FOR HEARING Tentative Tract No. 23209, Amendment No.
4 on July 24, 1990.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Request Filed:
Case No.:
Representative:
Proposal:
Location:
Zoning:
Surrounding
Zoning:
Surrounding
Land Uses:
Project
Statistics:
County Planning, April 6, 1990
Tentative Tract No. 23209, Amendment No. 4
Alba Engineering, Inc.
To subdivide an 80 acre site into 257 single family residential lots
with a minimum area of 8,000 square feet per lot.
West of Butterfield Stage Road, east of Walcott Lane,
approximately 1.25 miles north of Rancho California Road.
RT
North: RA-5 and RA-2 1/2
South: S-P
East: A-1-10 and R-R
West: RT
North:
South:
East:
West:
Scattered single family residential
Vacant
Vineyards
Single family residential existing and under
construction.
Tentative Tract Map for 257 lots on 80 acres. The minimum
proposed lot size is 8,000 square feet.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Tentative Tract No. 23209, Amendment No. 4 was tentatively approved by the
Riverside County Planning Commission on February 7, 1990. The case was
transferred to the City of Temecula with a RECEIVE and FILE recommendation.
AREA SETTING
The site which is currently vacant is located in hilly terrain primarily characterized by
steep slopes. The site is traversed by several westerly trending washes. A biological
field survey has identified Stephen's Kangaroo Rat habitat on the site. There are
scattered single family residences on large lots north of the site. The land east of the
site is a vineyard. There are single family residences west of the site, both existing
and under construction. The currently vacant land south of the site is part of the
Margarita Village Specific Plan.
TENTATIVE TRACT NO 23209
STAFF CONCERNS
Staff recommends that the project be set for public hearing because of concerns
which include the following issues:
The intensity of the proposed grading over two million cubic yards of cut and
fill on 80 acres is severe. Staff requests policy direction on earth movement
of this intensity.
A traffic study was not conducted for this project. There is no information
available regarding traffic impacts and projected levels of service of streets in
the vicinity.
There is a possible land use intensity conflict with the future General Plan
regarding appropriate development in this hilly area adjacent to the
citrus/vineyard agricultural area. Appropriate buffer densities are in question.
The apparent presence of the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat raises questions not yet
addressed by the City.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council SET FOR HEARING Tentative Tract No. 23209, Amendment No.
4 on July 24, 1990.
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
COUNTY STAFF REPORT
S~STAFFIqPT~23209,TTM 31
SUBMITTAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF TEHECULA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FROM: R~verside County Planning Department SUBMITTAL DATE:April 6,
SUBJECT: iENTATZVE TRACT NO. 23209; AHENDED NO. 4 - ~3ba Co~qtin9 -
First Supervisorion District - Skinner Lake Area - ~ AE~eS -
257 Lots -Schedule A - R-T Zoning.
RECOHHEND'ED MOTION:
RECEIVE AND FILE the above referenced case acted on ~y the P~ann~ng
Commission on February 7, 1990.
THE PLANNING COMHISSION
ADOPTED the Negative Declaration for Environ~enta
33254 based on the findings incorporated i~ %he e~iro~me~taq
assessment and the cGnclusion that the proposed prD~ct w~ll not
have a s~gn~ficant'effect on the environment; and
APPROVED TENTATIVE TRACT NO, 23209, AMENDED NO. 4 sub3e:t to the
attached conditions and based on the f~nd'ng~ an~ conclusqons
Ircorpcrated in the Planning Commiss:on minutes dated February 7,
!89C.
Jpseph~A. R~char~"s,
P~annlng DqreGtDr
PROJECT LOCATION:
The project is located west o~ Butterfield Stage
Road and north of RanCho California road in the City
of Temecbla.
BACKGROUND: Tentative Tract No. 23209, Amended No. 4 ~s a proposal tc
subdivide 80 acres into 257 lots. The property in question is zoned P-
T. Surrounding zoning is A-1-10, R-R, R-A-5, R-A-2 1/2, R-T. and
Specific Plan No. 194 (Margarita Village). The property in question is
currently vacant. Surrounding land uses include vineyards, scattered
large lot residential, residential under construction, end Specific Plan
No. 194. The proposed project design is compatible with the existing
vineyards adjacent to the east, and the project design is consistent
with the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan Land Use Policies
and the General Design Considerations of the Southwest Area Community
Plan which call for adequate buffering between agricultural land uses
and residential land uses. All environmental concerns outlined in the
environmental assessment can be mitigated through the conditions of
approval.
R/VERSZDE COUNTY PLANNING CQHNISSION MINUTES
FEBRUARY 7, 1990
/N~_p/RECTOR'S REPORT
Mr, Richerda a brief report on various matters ~hich he felt would be of
Intorest to the C nets. He announced that Ketth Dons had been chosen
Assistant Pllnning Dtrecto Jotted dmm som ideas and asked for input on
f~ the CogtsslOrmr$ ~gardtng trig calendars. He noted that the
Plannlng Comisston end Recording Secre will be alternating in order to
heqp wtth the work load, end suggested that dr inures be sent to the Board.
Cometssloner Donmhoe said that sHe had no probllm t Suggestion, as the
Chart s usually are not subStanthe. Coaetsstoner Beedltng any real
(AGENDA ZT94 1 - Tape No. 1A)
TRACT NAP NO. 23209, ENDED NO. 3 - EA 33254 - Albe Consulting - Skinner Lake
Area - First Supervtsorlal'Dtstrtct - west of Butterfield Stage Rd and La
Serene Hay, north of Rancho California Rd - 257 lots - 80= acres - R*T Zone -
Schedule A (Cone. from 12/20/89)
Hearing was opened at 9:16 a.m. and was closed at 9:26 a.m.
STAFF RECORqENDAT/ON: Adoption of the Negative Declaration for EA 33254 and
approval of Tentative Tract No. 23209, Amended No. 4, based on the findings and
conclusions listed in the staff report. The applicant proposed to subdivide 80
acres into 256 lots on property located west of ButterField Stage Road and
northerly of Rancho California Road. The site is presently zoned R-T.
Surrounding zoning is R-A-5, R-A-2~, R-R, A-1-10, and R-T. The site is hilly,
vacant land traversed by several washes. Surrounding land uses are vineyards,
an approved tract under construction, and vacant land. Specific Plan. No. 194
(Nargartte Villa e) is located to the south, southeast and southwest of the
stte. The stte Vies the incorporated of within
within newly City Timcull Ind
the approved Southwest Area Coemunlty Plan. The proJect's proposed density of
3,8 dwelltng units per acre is consistent w~th the 2 to 4 d~elltng units per
mcre of the SWAP. Staff originally hmd concerns about the slte's compatibility
with the vtneymrds to the emst. After discussions with the applicant, the
proJect's design will include a lmndscaped, buffer zone end m block wmll along .
Butterfield Stage Road. Staff edged the following three eddietonal findings:
13. The ·
11, There tsa reasonable probability that the project will be consistent
with the General Plmn proposal being considered or studied by the City
of Th~ulm, or which will he studied within I reasonable ttme by the
City of Tmculm.
12. There is little or no probability of substantial detrlmmnt to or
Interference with the City of Timculm°s future adopted Genarol Plan if
inconsistent with the Plan.
all other applicable riquirmnts of State
law and local ordinances.
Ms. Llnd advised that these ftndtqs are required because the Planning
Commission is mctin9 ms the planning mgency for tl~ city, The City of
R/VERSZDE COUNTY PLANNZNG C01eq/SSZON HZNUTES FEBRUARY 7, 1990
Timecull does not have a general plan, and has 30 months tn whtch to form one.
ProJects are allowed to be Ipproved withtn that time, however, providing that
the above ftndtngs are ode.
Cmmtsstoner Beadltng asked where the ctty's boundary ms, and ms advised that
tt ms along the edge of the fineyard area. Zn answer to Connlsstoner
Bedltng, Mr. klys sold that he wee not evare that sl~ff had any conversations
with the ct~y regarding protection of the vineyards, but the intent of the wall
end landscaping was to buffer the vineyard area from the project. They could
tatpress upon the City Nanager the Importance of buffering the vineyard area.
COnntSStoner Turner said that from what he has seen, the City tends to be more
conservative than the County.
TEST/MONY OF. PROPONENT:
Richard Cruzen (Alba Engineering, 41890 Enterprise Circle South, Timetulip said
that they concur with the recommendations of staff and the conditions of
approval.
Staff amended Condition No. 21.b. by adding: '.,,with the exception of Lots
76, 102,103, 136, 137 and 141." Commissioner Donshoe asked if the right to
farm ordinance was in the conditions of approval. Nr. RicHoat said no, and
that it should be. Due to the A-1-10 zoning, staff recam~ended adding a
requirement for an ECS to include the language from the right to farm
ordinance, which would affect all lots within 300 feet of the A-1-10 zoning.
The hearing was closed at 9:26 a,m.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Tentative Tract No. 23209, Amended No. 4, is a
proposal to subdivide 80 acres into 257 lots; the property in question is zoned
R-T; surrounding zoning is A-1-10, R-R, R-A-5, R-A-2~ and R-T; the property in
question ts currently vacant; surrounding land uses include vineyards,
scattered large lot residential, residential under construction and Specific
Plan No, lg4; the project lies within the newly incorporated City of Temecula;
the proposed pro3ect density of 3.8 dwel ling units per acre is consistent with
the Southwest Area Cmmmnlty Plan designation of 2-4 dwelling units per acre;
the proposed project design is compatible with the existing vineyards adjacent
to the east; the proposed project design is consistent with the General Plan
Land Use Policies and General Design Considerations of the Southwest Area
Commmntty Plan which calls for adequate buffering between agricultural land
uses and residential land uses; and all eevirn~ntal concerns can be mitigated
throMgh the condition of approval; there is a reasonable probability that the
pro~ect will be consistent with the General Plan proposal being considered or
studled by the City of Tamecult, or ~tch will be studted within s reasonable
tim by the Ctty of Tlnecula; there tsllttle or ne btltty of substantial
deartruant to or interference with the City of Tmmmcu m~r°b~'s futore adopted General
Plan tf the project ta ulttmtoly inconsistent with the Plan; and, the project
cameltea with all other applicable requirements of State lmw and local
ordinances. Tentative Tract Ms. 23209, banded No. 4, iS com table with area
develoiment; is consistent with the Southwest Am Coneunity ~11an end the
Comprehensive General Plan; lnd, mnvtrorm~ntal concerns can be mitigated
through the conditions of approval.
RXVERSZDE COUNTY PLANNING CONHISSZON HINUTES FEBRUARY 7, 1990
MOTION: Upon mtlon by Cammtssioner Turner, seconded by Commissioner Wolf, and
unanimously carried, the Commission recommended to the City of Tamecola
· doption of the Negative Declar·tion for EA 33254, ·pproval of the mayer of
the lot length-to-width ratio for Lots 76, 102, 103, 136, 137, and 141, and
· proval of Tentative Tract Map No. 23209, Mended No. 4o in ·ccordance with
~condtttons of approval as amended this date, and based on the above listed
findings and conclusions.
ITE~ 2-1 - Tape 1A)
ITIONAL USE PEI~IT 3036, A~ENDED NO. 1 - EA 33805 - Chevron U.S.A., Inc. -
la Area - First Supervisoreel District - 0.75~ acre, north of Rancho
Cal da Rd, east of Front St - To replace existing service station with new
__ tatton (ConS. from 2/20/89)
Hearing
at 9:26 a.m. and was closed at 9:36 a.m.
STAFF RE FIONS: Adoption of the Negative Declaration for EA 33805 and
approval of Ional Use Permit No. 3036, Amended No. 1, Planning Correction
No. 1, based on findings and conclusions in the staff report. This item
was continued in to allow staff, County Counsel and the City Attorney
time to determine .r the County or the City of Tamecola would be the legal
hearing body. The ant proposes to replace an ext sting service station
with a new service Dn 0.75 acre located north of Rancho California Road
and east of Front Street. irroundtng land uses are commercially developed
properties. Zoning on site C-l/C-P, and surrounding zoning is H-N and
h
C-1/C-P. T e project lies the Southwest Territory Land Use Planning
Area and fits the requirements II land uses at this time.. Staff
added the following findings:
4. There ts s reasonable
with the General Pl·n pro osal
of Tamecola, or which WIlV be
that the project will be consistent
considered or studied by the City
within a reasonable time by the
City of Tmcula.
There is ltttle or no
interference with the City of
the proSect is ulttmotaly inconsistent
6. The Ject camplies with ·11 other
ind O~Jl ordinances.
istantlal detriment to ov
· doptM Generml Pl·n if
the Plmn.
requirements of State law
Staff edded the foll~ng Condition 35 (renumi~ertng 35 ·rid 36 to
remd 36 ·rid 37): 'This permit will ·llow the sale of wine only and no
hard ltquor will be ·1load to be sold o~ the premises,"
Commmlsstoner Tutor noted that the geologist hid quite a btt tO my about
liquefaction ·he mitemaShes or mitigation, primarily rqardt lace·ant o
advised that the elevation ~s referencing the 100 ye·r flood, Co·sis oner
Turner Mid that the mter lt~s on s__*~e.__ ;f the old butldtngs~
4
Zontng Area: Sktnner Lake
Supervlsorlal District: FIrst
E.A. NUmber: 33254
Ragtonal Team No.: One
TENTATZVE TRACT NAP NO. 23209
NqENDEDNO. 4
Plenntng Commission: 2-7-90
Continued from 12-20-89
Ageride Ztem No.: I
RZVERSZDE COUNTY PLANNZNG DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
Applicant:
Engineer/Rap,:
Type of Request:
Location:
Exlstlng Zontng:
Surrounding Zoning:
Stte Characteristics:
Area Characteristics:
Comprehensive General Plan
Designation:
10. Land Division Data:
11. Agency Recommendations:
12. Letters:
13. Sphere of Znfluence:
Alba Consulting
Alba Consulting
Subdivide 80 acres tnto 257 lots
West of Butterfield Stage Road and northerly
of Rancho California Road
R-T
R-A-5, R-A-2 1/2, R-R, A-1-10, R-T, and SP
199
Hilly vacant land traversed by several
washes.
VIneyards, vacant land and an approved tract
under construction
Land Use: Category ZZ
Denstry: 3,8 dwelling untts per acre
Total Acreage: 80
Total Lots: 257
DU Per Acre: 3.8 d~elltngunttsperacre
Road: 01-24-90
Health: 01-22-90
Flood: 01-22-90
FIre: 01-22-90
Bldg. & Safety:
Land Use: 01-24-90
Gradtng: 01-23-90
Opposing/Supporting: None
Not wtthtn a ctty sphere
ANALYSZS:
Pro~ect Description:
Tract Nap No. 23209, Amended No. 3 proposes to subdivide 80 acres In 257 lots. The
proposed pro3ect Is located west of Butterfield Stage Road end north of Ranch
California Road tn the nevly Incorporated CIty of Temecula,
Land Use/ZontnQ:
The pro3ect stte ts presently vacant· Surrounding land uses tnclude vineyards ed3acent
to the east, scattered large lot residential to the north, residential under
construction to the west, and Spectflc Plan No. 194, Hargartta VIllage, to the south,
southeast and sourfeast.
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23209, AND. NO. 4
Staff Report
Page ~2-
The stte ts currently zoned R-T. Surrounding zontng to the east ts A-1-10 and R-R,
to the north R-A-5 and R-A-2 1/2, to the west R-T, and SP zoning to the south,
southeast, and southwest.
General Plan Consistency and Area Comoettbtlttv:
The pro3ect stte as of December 1, 1989 lies wtthln the newly incorporated CIty of
Temecula. The project also 1tee wtthtn the approved Southwest Area Community Plan.
The SWAP designation for this stte ts 2 to 4 dwelltng untts per acre. The project's
proposed density ts 3.8 dwelling untts per acre ts consistent wtth the SWAP designated
denstry for the site.
The proposed project ts zoned R-T whtch allows mobilehome subdivisions and mobilehome
parks as well as single family residential development. The project site Is adjacent
to vineyards to the east whtch are designated a Cttrus/V~neyard/Rural Poltcy Area on
the Southwest Area Community Plan, The northern boundary and the northwest corner of
the proposed project are bounded by land zoned R~A-5 and R-A-2 1/2. Specific Plan No.
194, Nargartta Vtllage, 1tee adjacent to the proposed project to the south, southwest
and southeast, Elements of thts Speclftc Plan are adjacent to the vineyards to the
east. These elements have denslty designations of one (1) dwelling untt per acre and
(,7) dwelling units per acre, Clearly, these lo~ density designations tn Spectftc
Plan No. 194 are designed to buffer the higher density elements of SP No, 194 from the
vineyards to the east,
The General Design Considerations sectton of the Southwest Area Community Plan states
that, "Adequate buffers shall be encouraged In order to mlnlmtza land use conflicts
between agricultural operations and other land uses." Staff has requested that the
project be deslgned with buffers along the boundary adjacent to the vineyards. Staff
has also requested the project be designed with larger lots of 10,000 square feet In
the western portions of the project, transittoning to 20,000 square feet on theeastern'
boundary of the project adjacent to the vineyards and the low denstry eleamnt of SP
No. 194. The project applicant has refused to daslgn the proposed project to meet
these concerns and as such the proposed project ts incompatible wtth the exlsttng
vineyards adjacent to.the east.
Staff ftnds that the proposed project has a density uhtch ts consistent utth the Land
Use Eleemnt of the Southwest Area Comesunity Plan, but the desten of the project ts not
consistent wtth the element of the Southwest Area Community Plan whtch calls for
adequate buffering between agricultural land uses and reeldenttal land uses, and that
the proposed project as designed Is inconsistent with the compatibility requtre~nts
of the Southwest Area Community Plan. Therefore, Staff ftnds thts project to be
Inconsistent with the Comprehensive General Plan end tncoekoattble wtth area
development.
TENTATIVE TRACT NAP NO.
Staff Report
Page 3
23209, AND, NO. 4
Environmental Analysts:
An tntttel study for Environments1 Assessment No. 33254 was done for the project,
The Environmental Assessment 1dentilted the following concerns: Stephens' Kangaroo
Rat Habttat (SKR), slopes, vegetation, energy resources, peleontologtcal resources,
and schools.
BIological report No, 361 was prepared for the project site, This report Identified
Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habttat on the project site, Conditions have been drafted end
approved by County Counsel for cases where Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat has been
identified tn areas outside established Stephens' Kangaroo Rat study areas. The
conditions of approval for thts case tnclude the applicable SKR conditions. These SKR
conditions require a habitat conservation plan be established prtor to the tssuance
of butldtng or grading permits, and that the project comply wtth the provisions of this
habttat conservation plan. Exhlbtt D 1denttries the areas of the proposed project
whtch has Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat.
The project proposes significant cut and fill slopes. This concern can he addressed
through the recommendations outlined in the County Geologtst's letter. All other
environmental concerns will be mitigated through the conditions of approval.
FINDINGS:
Tentative Tract No. 23209, Amended No. 3 Is a proposal to subdivide 80 acres tnto
257 lots.
2. The property in question is zoned R-T.
Surrounding zoning Is A-1-10, R-R, R-A~5, R-A-2 1/2, R-T, end Spectflc Plan No.
194.
4. The property tn ;uestton ts currently vacant.
5. Surrounding land uses tnclude vineyards, scattered large lot restdentlel,
residential under construction, and Spectftc Plan No, 194,
6. The project 1tea wlthin the newly Incorporated Ctty of Temecula.
The proposed project denstry of 3.8 dwe111ng untts per acre ts consistent wtth
the Southwest Area Community Plan designation of 2-4 d~e111ng untts per acre.
8. The proposes project destgn ts Incompatible wlth the extstin9 vineyards adjacent
to the east.
TENTATIVE TRACT NAP NO.
Staff Report
Page 4
23209, AMD. NO, 4
9. The proPosed project design Is inconsistent wtth the General Land Use Policies
and General Design Considerations of the Southwest Area Community Plan which c811
for adequate buffering between agricultural land uses and residential land uses.
10. All environmental concerns can be mitigated through the conditions of approval.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. Tentative Tract No. 23209, Amended No. 3 iS Incompatible with Area Development.
2. Tentative Tract No. 23209, Amended No. 3 is inconsistent with the compatibility
requirements of the Southwest Area Community Plan and therefore is inconsistent
with the Comprehensive General Plan.
RECOMMENDATIONS;
DENIA~ OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23209, AMENDED
conclusions as found in the staff report.
NO. 3 based on the findings and
RW:]gg
12-11-89
FURTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
Date: Februarv 7. 1990
Tentative Tract Map No.23209 was continued from the December 20, 1989 Planning
Commission Hearing at the request of the City of Temecula. The applicant had met with
staff prior to the December 20, 1989 Planning Commission Hearing to request a
continuance and a meeting with staff to address staff's concern about the project
design. Staff and the applicant have met, and as a result, the applicant has
Incorporated landscape buffers and block walls into the project design to address
staff's concerns about project compatibility with the vineyard area adjacent to the
east. Staff finds that the project design now meets tts concern about compatibility
with area development. The redesigned tract (Tract No. 23209, Amd, No. 4) reflects
these changes.
Therefore, staff now finds the project to be consistent with the compatibility
requirements of the Southwest Area Coa~nunlty Plan. The deslgn of the project ls
consistent with the element of the Southwest Area Community Plan calling for adequate
buffers between agricultural uses and residential land uses, end that the project Is
consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan and compatible with area development.
The conditions of approval have been amended In order to reflect amended project
design.
TENTATIVE TRACT HAP NO. 23209, AND. NO. 4
,tall Report
)age 5
FINDINGS:
Tentative Tract Hap NO. 23209, Amended No. 4 ts a proposal to subdivide 80 acres
into 257 Tots.
2. The property in question is zoned R-T.
Surrounding zoning is A-1-10, R-R, R-A-5, R-A-2 1/2, R-T and Specific Plan No.
194.
4. The property in question is currently vacant.
5. Surrounding land uses include vineyards, scattered lar9e lot residsntlal,
residential under construction, and Specific Plan No. 194,
6. The project lies within the newly incorporated City of Temecu:a.
The proposed project density of 3.8 dwelling units per a;re is corsistent with
the Southwest Area Community Plan designation of 2-4 dwelling u~its per acre.
The proposed project design is compatible with the existing vineyards adjacent
tc the east.
The proposed project design is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Policies
and General Design Considerations of the Southwest Area Community Plan which call
for adequate buffering between agricultural land uses and residential land uses.
10. All environmental concerns can be mitigated through the conditions of approval.
11.
There is a reasonable probability that the project will be consistent with the
General Plan proposal being considered or studied by the City of Temecula, or
which will be studied within a reasonable time by the City of Temecula. {Addec
by Staff 2-7-90)
12.
There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference
with the City of Temecula's future adopted General Plan if the project is
ultimately inconsistent with the Plan. (Added by Staff 2-?-90)
13.
The project complies with all other applicable requirements of State Law and
local ordinances. (Added by Staff 2-7-90)
CONCLUSIONS:
1, Tentative Tract No. 23209, Amd. No.4 is compatible with area development.
Tentative Tract No. 23209, Amd. No. 4 is consistent with the Southwest Area
Community Plan, and the Comprehensive General Plan.
3, The environmental concerns can be mitigated through the conditions of approval.
.ENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23209, AMD. NO. 4
Staff Report
Page 6
RECOMMENDATIONS:
AOOPTION cf a Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 33254 ~ased on the
conclusion that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; and.
APPROVA~ of the waiver of the lot length-to-width ratio for Lots ?6, 102, 1G3, 136,
137, and 141; (Added by Staff 2-?-90]; and
APPROVAL of TENTATIVE TRACT 23209. AMD. NO. 4, subject to the condit~ons of approval.
RW:~gg;csf
1124/90
23209
~ LAND USE ~ 1
.~,_.'L--
Ir
SCA'I'rERED ' 'i
·: -iL.. 1 ,RESlDENTL
r GRA'DED "' ' ~' ~' !t~ ,VINEYAR)SHILLY
-.,~ / ,,i~
,,- : oI_--L-'_-'~'="=": .....
~ -:'-', VINEYARDS \
:', ~---" HILLY
· It :
.-,i:;. ,,i,~,%,~.,/.7vI.L-N_..,,
::~ .. ~ EYAR DS
VAC
~', ~~~'E//<, VAC ~ ~ ~ G "~
\~"'~ARK .'
~ ' 't' ~,,~, ~. :~;"~,~ HILL~
~,~~:' GRADED ~ ~'
~ ~AC. ~ 257 LOTS
~ SKINNER L~E
~ LA ~ ~ --SECONDA~-- ee'
.,~EXIBIT D
ROAC
· DISTRIBUTION OF STEPHENS' [NIPAltO0 RAT (SKIt)
ON TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23209
RZVERSZDE CCXJNTY PLANNZNG DEPARTNENT
SUBDZVZSZON
CONDZTZONS OF APPROVAL
TENTATZVE TRACT NO. 23209 DATE:
AMENDED NO. 4 EXPZRES:
STANDARD (~NDZTZOt~q:
The following conditions of approval are for Tentative Tract No. 23209, Amended
No. 4.
The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold hemless the County of
Riverside, tts agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or
proceeding agatnst the County of RIverside, Its agents, officers, or employees
to attack, set astde, void, or annul an approval of the COUnty of RIverside, its
advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Tentative Tract
No. 23209, Amended No. 4, which action is brought wtthtn the time periodprovided
for In California Government Code, Section 66499.37. The County of Riverside
will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, actton, or proceeding
agethat the County of Riverside and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the
County fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such clatm, 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
Nap Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance No. 460, Schedule A, unless
modifted by the conditions listed below.
This condlttonally approved tentative map will exptre two years after the County
of Riverside Board of Supervisors approval date, unless extended as provtded by
Ordinance No. 46~.
The ftnal map shall be prepared by a 11cansad land surveyor subject to all the -
requirements of the State of California SubdIvision Hap Act and Ordinance No.
460.
The subdivider shall submit one copy of e soils report to the RIverside County
Surveyor's Offtce and two coptes to the Departamnt of Buildtrig and Safety. The
report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site.
If any gradtng tf proposed, the subdivider shall submit one prtnt of
comprehensive gradtng plan to the Department of Sulldtng and Safety. The plan
shall comply wtth the Uniform Butldlng Code, Chapter 70, as amended by Ordinance
No. 457 and as may be additionally provtded for tn these conditions of approval.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Department of Butldlng and Safety
prtor to c~mmencement of any gradtn9 outstde of County maintained road right-
of-way.
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23209
AHENDED NO. 4
Conditions of Approval
Page 2
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
17.
16.
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prtor to recordatton of the ftnal
map.
The subdivtder shall comDly with the street Improvement recommendations outlined
tn the Riverside County Road I)epartment's letter dated Septem~ef-e~-l;;;,
January 24, 1990, a copy of which ts attached. (Amended by Staff 2-7-90)
Legal access as required by Ordinance No. 460 shall be provtded from the tract
map boundary to a County maintained road.
Ali road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall
continue In force unttl the governing body accepts or abandons such offers.
All dedications shaq1 be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Road
Commissioner. Street names shall be sublect to the 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 sewage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the
provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health 0epartment's letter dated
A~g~s~-H~-t~J~i January 22, 1990, a copy of which is attached. (Amended by Staff
2-7-90)
The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommndatlons outlined by
the Riverside County Flood Control Dlstrtct's letter dated Sel~!mmbee-))r-l~egT,
January 22, 1990, a copy of which ts attached. Zf the land dtvlston lies within
an adopted flood control drainage area pursuant to Sectton 10.25 of Ordinance
No. 460, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities shall
be collected by the Road Commissioner. (Amended by Staff 2-7-90)
The subdivider shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined
tn the County Fire Marshal's letter dated A~t~St-tST-4HeT, January 22, 1990, a
copy of which ts attached. (Amended by Staff 2-7-90)
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building
end Safety Department - Land Use Sectton's transmittel dated Sel~ember-eT-~eeeT,
January 24, 1990, a copy of which ts attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building
and Safety Department - Gradtrig Sectton's transmittel dated Sel~embef-)T-4eBeT
January 23, 1990, a copy of which ts attached. (Amended by Stiff 2-7-90)
'ENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23209
^HENDED NO, 4
;ondttions of Approval
Page 3
19.
20.
21.
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the County
Geologist's transmittel dated April 28, 1989, a copy of which is attached.
Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area improvement
phasing, if applicable, shall be sub3ect to Planning Department approval. Any
proposed phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access to all lots ~n each
phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and purposs of the
subdivision approval.
Lcts created by this subdivision shall comply with the following:
All lots shall have a minimum s~ze of 8,000 square feet groSS.
All lot length to width ratios shall be in conformonce with Sectic~ 3.8C
of Ordinance No. 460 with the exception of lots ?6, 102, 103, 136, 137,
and 141. (Amended at Planning Commission 2~7-g0)
Corner lots and through lots, if any, shall be prowded with additional
area pursuant to Section 3.SB of Ordinance No. 460 and so as not to Contain
less net area than the least amount of net area in non-co-nor and through
lGts.
D. Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformonce with the
development standards of the R~T zone.
E. 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 utility easement.
Graded but undeveloped land shell 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.
Trash bins, loading areas, and incidental storage areas shall be located
away and visually screened from surrounding areas with the use of block
walls and landscaping.
'ENTATIVE TRACT NO, 23209
~NENDED NO, 4
Conditions of Approval
Page 4
22.
24.
Prior to the RECORDATION of the final map, the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
Prior to the recordation of the final map, the applicant shall subm. it
written clearances to the Riverside County Road and Survey Department that
all pertinent requirements outlined in the attached approval letters fro~
the following agencies have been met:
County Fire Department County Health Department
County Flood Control County Planning Department
County Parks Department County Airports Department
Santa Aria Regional Water Quality Control Board
Prior to the 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 map to the Plannqng Department and the Department
of Building and Safety.
The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet:
"County Slope Stability Report NO. 115 was prepared for this property and
is on file at the Riverside County Planning Department." (Ranumbered by
Staff 2-7-g0)
The landscape easements shown on Tentative Tract Map No. 23209, Amd. No.
4 shall be delineated on the environmental ;onstraints sheet. {Added by
Staff 2-7-90)
The notice appearing in Section 6.a of Ordinance No. 625, the Riverside'
County Right-to-Farm Ordinance, shall be placed on the Environmental
Constraints Sheet, with Lots No 110-134, 242-255, and 6-10 identified
therein, In the manner provided in said Section 6.a., as being located
partly or wholly wtthin, or within 300 feet of, land zoned for primarily
agricultural purposes by the County of RIverside. (Added by Planning
Commission 2-7-90)
If the project is to be phased, prior to the approval of grading permits, an
overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for
approval. The plan shall be used as a guideline for subsequent detailed grading
plans for individual phases of development and shall include the following:
1. Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and
sedimentation during Rnd after the grading process.
'ENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23209
AMENDED NO, 4
Conditions of Approval
Page 5
Approximate time frames for grading and identification of areas
which may be graded durin9 the higher probability rain months o~
January through Hatch.
Preliminary pad and roadway elevations,
Areas of temporary 9rading outslde of a particular phase.
25.
26.
27.
All cut slopes located ad3acent to ungraded natural terrain and exceed ten (10)
feet in vertical height shall be contour-graded incorporating the fo'lowirg
grading techniques:
The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted tc the
angle of the natural terrain.
2. Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graOed form shall reflect
the natural rounded terrain.
The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves w~th, radii
designed in proportion to the total height of the slopes where
drainage and stability permit such rounding.
Where cut and/or fill slopes exceed 300 feet in horizontal length,
the horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved in a continuous,
undulating fashior,.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall provide evidence
to the Director of Building and Safety that all adjacent off-site manufacture~
slopes have recorded slope easements and that slope maintenance responsibilities
have been assigned as approved by the Director of Buildin9 and Safety.
Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS, the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and
irrigation. plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval.
The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requiring
landscaping and irrigation to be installed including, but not limited to,
parkway planting, street trees, slope planting, and individual front yard
landscaping.
Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall' not be permitted within the
subdivision, however, solar equipment or any other energy saving devices
shall be permitted with Planning Department approval.
All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and automatic
'irrigation.
TENTATZVE TRACT NO. 23209
ANENDED NO, 4
Ccmdtttons of Approval
Page 6
28.
29.
0e
Prior to the Issuance of OCCUPANCY PERNZTS, the folioring conditions shall be
satisfied:
Prior to the final building Inspection approval by the Building and Safety
Department a 6 feet htgh block wall shall De constructed along the
landscape easement as shown on Tentative Tract Map No. 23209, Amd. No. 4,
and a 6 feet htgh block wall shall be constructed along the perimeter of
the project on all lots and perttons of lots along the perimeter of the
pro3ect not covered by the landscape easements. (Amended by Staff
2-7-90)
B. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with
approved plans and shall be vettried by a Planning Department field
Inspection,
C. Development Mitigation fees shall be patd in accordance with County
Ordinance No. 659.
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed throughout the subdivision in
accordance wtth the standards of Ordinance No. 461.
Street trees shall peplanted throughout the subdivision in accordance with
the standards of Ordinance No. 460.
Prior to issuance of gradtng permtts a Paleontologtcal Study shall be performed
and submitted to the Planntng Department for approval. Zf the potential for
peleontologlcal resource are 1denttried prior to the Issuance of grading permits,
a qualified paleontologist shall be ratatnad by the developer for consultation
and coaw~nt on the proposed gradtng wtth respect to potential peleontologlcal
Impacts. Should the paleontologist find the potential is high for tmpact to
significant resources, a pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the
excavation and grading contractor shall be arranged. tfhen necessary, the
paleontologist or representative shall have the authority to t~mporartly dtvert,
redlrect or helt grading activity to a11o~ recovery of fosstls.
Prior to the issuance of gradtng or building permit:
The Secretary of the Interior must have approved the Stephens' Kangaroo
Rat Habttat Conservation Plan and any proposed taktnQ of the SKR must be
In compliance with the approved plan.
be
The Secretary of the Interior must have tssued to the County, the Section
lO(a) Permtt re(lutred by the Endangered Species Act of 1913 end said Permtt
must be In effect; and
TENTATZVE TRACT NO. 23209
N~ENDED NO. 4
Conditions of Approval
Page 7
31o
32.
A report, prepared by a biologist permitted by the U.S. Ftsh and Wildltfe
Servtce to trap the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat for scientific purposes,
documenting the amount and qualtty of occupted Stephens' Kangaroo Rat
Habttat subject to disturbance or destruction most have been submitted to
and approved by the Planning DIrector.
Prior to the Issuance of a grading or buildtng bennit, the applicant shall compty
wtth the provision of Ordinance No. 663 by peytn9 the appropriate fee set forth
tn that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of
a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance
No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation
Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
Prior to the recordation of the final subdivision map, the subdivider shall
submit the following documents to the Planning Department for review, which
documents shall be subject to the approval of that department and the Office of
the County Counsel:
1. A declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions; and,
A sample document conveying title to the purchaser of an individual
lot or unit which provides that the declaration of covenants,
conditions, and restrictions ts incorporated therein by reference.
The declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions submitted for
review shall (a) provide for a mt~imum term of 60 years, (b) provide for
the establishment of a property owners' association comprised of the o~ners
of each individual lot or unit as tenants In common, and (c) contatn the
following provisions verbatim:
"Notwithstanding any provision in this Declaration to the contrary,
the following provision shall apply:
The property o~ners' association establlshedhereln shall manage and
continuously maintain the 'common area', more particularly described
On "Tentative Tract Hap No, 23209, Amd, NO, 4", attached hereto, and
shall not sell or transfer the 'comon area' or any part thereof,
absent the prior wrttten consent of the Planntng Dtrector of the
County of Riverside or the County's successor-In-Interest,
The property offnets' association shall have the rtght to assess the
ovners of each Individual lot or unit for the reasonable cost of
maintaining the 'common area' and shall have the rtght to 1ten the
property of any such o~ner who defaults In the pe~q~ent of a
maintenance assessment. As assessment lien, once create<i, shall be
prtor to all other liens recorded subsequent to the notice of
assessment or other document creattng the assessment 1ten.
TENTATZVE TRACT NO. 23209
ANENDED NO. 4
Conditions of Approval
Page 8
Thts Declaration shall not be terminated, 'substantially' amended, or property
deannexed therefrom absent the prior written consent of the Planntn9 Dtrector
of the County of Riverside or the County's successor-in-interest. A proposed
amendment shall be considered 'substantial' tf tt affects the extent, usage, or
maintenance of the 'common area'.
Zn the event of any conflict between this Declaration and the Articles of
Incorporation, the Bylaws, or the property o~ners' association Rules and
Regulations, tf any, this Declaration shall control."
Once approved, the declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be
recorded at the same time that the final map ts recorded. (Added by Staff 2-7-90)
RW:csf,lg9
12/11/89
1/25/90
OFFICE OF ROAD COMMISSIONER & COUNTY SURVEYOR
January 24, 1990
Riverside County Planning C~mnission
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
Ladies and Gentlemen=
Tract 23209 - Amend #4
Schedule A - Team i - SMD #9
AP #111-111-111-9
With respect to the conditions of approval for the
referenced tentative land division map, the Road Department
recommends that the landdivider provide the following street
improvements, street improvement plans and/or road dedications in
accordance with Ordinance 460 and Riverside County Road
Improvement Standards (Ordinance 461). It is understood that the
tentative map correctly shows acceptable centerline elevations,
all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses with
appropriate Q'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. The~ are intended to be complementar~ and to
describe the conditions for a complete design of the improvement.
All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shell
be referred to the Road Cc~enissioner's Office·
The landdivider shall protect downstream properties from
damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns,
i.e., concentration of diversion of flow· Protection
shell be provided by constructing adequate drainage
facilities including enlarging existing facilities and/
or by securing a drainage easement. All drainage
easements shall be shown on the final map and noted as
followsz "Drainage Easement - no building, obstructions,
or encroachments by land fills are allowed". The
protection shall be as approvedby the Road Department.
The landdivider shell accept and properly dispose of all
offsite drainage flowing onto or through the site· In the
event the Road Ccm~nissioner permits T_he use of streets for
drainage purposes, the provisions of Article XI of
Ordinance No. 460 will apply. Should the quantities exceed
the street capacity or the use of streets be prohibited for
drainage purposes, the subdivider shall provide adequate
drainage facilities as approved by the Road Dep~nt.
COUNTY ADMINISTR&TIVE CEN'rF,~ · 4(3SO LF~ON $11tEET * NVE~SIDE. GILIK)ItNIA 92SO1
lract ZJ~UV - Amena ~
Oanua~y 24, lg90
Page 2
1·
3e
Major drainage is involved on this landdivision and its
resolution shall be as approved by the B~ad Department.
Streets 'A', 'B', 'C"t "D', 'E", *G", 'H', "J", "L" and
shall be ~mproved within the dedicated right of way in
accordance with County 8ta~a*r~ No. 104, Section A.
(40'/60')
Streets 'F" and 'I" shall be lmpz~ved within the d~dicated
right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 105,
Section A. (36'/60')
La Serena Way shall be improved within the dedicated right
of way in accordance with County Standard No. 102, Section
A. (66'/88', including 32'/44' along APN 914-310-006)
Butterfield Stage Road shall be
dedicated right of way in accordance
No. 100, Section A. (43'/55')
improved within the
with County Standard
Walcott lane shall be improved with 32 feet of asphalt
concrete pavement within a 45 foot part width dedicated
right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 103,
Section A. (22'/33')
Corner cutbacks in conformance with County Standard No. 805
shall be shown on the final map and offered for dedication.
In~rovement 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 Conmnissioner. Completion of road
improvements does not imply acceptance for maintenance by
County.
Standard cul-de-sacs and knuckles and offset cul-de-sacs
shall be constructed throughout the landdivision.
Asphaltic e~ulsion (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 Section 37,
39 and 94 of the State St~a*~d Specifications.
The landdivider will p~,vide east and west bound left turn
lanes on la Serena Way at the intersections with Street
"B", Street "a" and Butterfield Stage Road as approvedby
the Road Department.
Tract 23209 - Amend #4
'aanuary 24, 1990
Page 3
4.
6e
7.
21a.
22.
The landdivider shall provide utility clearance from Rancho
California Water District prior to the recordation of the
final map.
The maximum centerline gradient and the auLn/mum centerline
radii shall be in conformance with County Standard #114 of
Ordinance 461.
All centerline intersections shall be at 90° with a minimum
50' tangent measured from flow line or as approved by the
Road Comeissioner.
Concrete sidewalks shall he constructed throughout the
landdivision in accordance with County Standard No. 400 and
401 (curb sidewalks).
The minimum lot frontages along the cul-de-sacs and
knuckles shall be 35 feet.
All driveways shall conform to the applicable Riverside
County Standards. A minimum of four feet of full height
curb shall be constructed between driveways.
The minimum garage sethack shall be 30 feet measured from
the face of curb.
The landowner/developer shall provide/acquire sufficient
public offsite rights of way to provide for primar~ and
secondary access road(s) to a paved and maintained road.
Said access road(s) shall be constructed in accordance with
County Standard No. 106, Section B. (32'/60') at a grade
and alignment approved by the Road Commissioner.
Said offsite access road shall be the westerly extension of
La Serens Way to the paved and maintained portion of La
Serena Way or as approved by the Road Cc~mnissioner.
Said offsite access roads shall be the southerly and
easterly extensions of Butterfield Stage Road to Rancho
Califorr~a Road or as approved by the Road Commissioner.
Prior to the recordation of the final map, or the granting
of a waiver of the fins1 map, the developer shall deposit
with the Riverside County Road Department, a cash sum of
$150.00 per lot as mitigation for traffic signal impacts.
Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment, a
written agreement may be entered into with the County
deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a
building pormit.
· january 24, 1990
Page 4
3e
24.
25.
6e
7e
28.
0 ·
Electrical and co~nunications trenches shall be provided in
accordance with Ordinance 461, St~L~rd 817.
~ot access shall be restricted on Butterfield Stage Road
and ~a Serene Way and so noted on the final map.
~anddivisions c~eating cut or fill slopes adjacent to the
streets shell provide erosion control, sight distance
control and slope easements as a~roved b~ the Road
De~artmento
When blockwalls are required ~o be constructed on top of
slope, a debris retention wall shall be constructed at the
s~reet right of way line to prevent silting of sidewalks as
approved by the Road Commissioner.
If the existing right of way along La Serens Way exceeds
that which is required for this project, the developer may
submit a request for the vacation of said excess right of
way. Said procedure shall be as approved by the Board of
Supervisors. If said excess or superseded right of way is
also County owned land, it my be necessar7 to enter into
an agreement with the County for its purchase or exchange.
The applicant by design is requesting a vacation of the
existing dedicated rights-of-way along South GeD~ral Keal~
Road end the 66 foot road easements as shown on the
underlying P.M. 1/44-46. Said vacation shall he applied
for by the applicant end approved by the Board of
Supervisors prior to the recordation of the final map or
any phase thereof.
The street design and improvement concept of this project
shell be coordinated with PH 1/44-46, PM 14/93-95, PM
88/49-50, Tentative TRs 23101, 23103, 22148 and 20761.
Street lighting shall he required in accordance with
Ordinance 460 and 461 throughout the subdivision. The
County Service Area (CSA) Administrator deVarmines whether
~his proposal qualifies under an existing assessment
district or not. If not, the land owner shall file, after
receiving tenVative approval, for an application wi~h LAFCO
for ~nnexation into or creation of a 'Lighting Assessment
District' in accordance with Governmental Code Section
56000.
All private and public entrances a~/or intersections
opposite this project shall be- coordinated with this
project and shown on the street improvement plans.
Tract 23209 - Amend #4
~anuary 24, 1990
Page 5
3e
A striping plan is required for La Serena Way and
Butterfield Stage Road. The ree~Dval of the existing
striping shall be the responsibility of applicant. Traffic
Signing ap~ striping shall be done by County forces with
all incurred costs bone by the applicant.
Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act any
subdivision which is part of an existing Assessment
District must comply with the requirements of said Section.
S' ncerely,
wrence A. Toer~r
Road Division Engineer
C unty of Rivers_de
TO: RIVERSIDE C~ PI.J~NNING DEPT. DATE: August 16, 1989
FROM: ~ NARTINEZ, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SPECI~IST IV
~ 23209, aED NO. 3
RE:
Environmental Health Services has reviewed Amended No. 3 dated
August 15, 1989 . Our current co~nents will remain as stated
in our letter dated January 26, 1989.
SM:tac
GEN, FOP, M 4. (Pdv. 8t87)
January 26, 1989
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLM~IING DEPT.
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92502
ATTN: lsK Cann '
RE; TRACT NAP 23209: All that certain real property
situated zn the unzncorporated area of the County of
Riverside, State of California, described as Parcels 1,
6, 19, 20, 31 and 50 as shown in document recorded
June 27, 1986 as Instrument No. 15005 of R~verszde County
Records, all in the Hurrieta portion of the Temecul& Rancho,
as shown by map of the Temecula Land and Water Company, on
file in Book 8, Page 359 of maps, records of San D~ego
County, California
(304 Lots)
Gentlemen:
The Department of Public Health has revzeved Tentatmve Rap
No. 23209 and recommends that:
A water system shall be installed according to
plans and specification as approved by the water
company and the Health Department. Permanent
prints of the plans Of the rarer system shill
be submitted in triplicate, with , minimum so,Is
not lass th,n one inch equals 200 feet, along vZth
the original drawing to the County Surveyor. The
prints sh, ll show the internal pipe di,meter,
loc,tion of valves ,rid fire hydr,nts; pipe and
~oint specific,tZons, ,rid the size of the main
at the 3unction of the new system to the
existing ,ystes. The pl,ns shell comply in
· Zl respects with Div. S, P,rt l, Ch,pter ? of
the C, liforni, He,lab ,rid Safety Code, California
Administrative Code, Title 22, Ch,ptsr 16, and esnersl
Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of the
St,to of C, liforni** when ,pplic,ble.
Riverside County Planning Dept.
Page Two
Attn: Alex Gann
January 26, 1089
The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and
water company with the foil[vine certificate[n: "I
certify that the design of the water system in Tract
Map 33209 in accordance with the water system expansaon
plans of the Ranch[ California Water Distract
and that the water service.,torage and dastrmbutxon
,y,tem vail be adequate to provide water ,ervice to
such tract. This certification doe, not con,astute a
guarantee that ~t wall ,upply water to such tract at
any ,pecmfac q~antXtae,. flows or pressure, for fare
protection or any other purpose*'. This certification
shall be signed by a re,pen[able official of the water
company.
This Department has a statement from ~ancho Calllorries Water
Distract agreeing to serve domestic water to each and every
lot xn the subdivision on demand providing satisfactory
financial arrangements are completed Math the subdxvlder.
It wall he necessary for the flnancxal arrangements to he
made prxor to the recordsaXon of the renal map.
This Department has a statement from the lastors Municipal
Water DIstract agreeing to allow the su~divasion sewage
system to be connected to the severs of the DIstrict. The
sever system shall be installed according to plans and
specifications as approved My the Distract. the County
· urveyor and the Health Department. Permanent prants of the
plans of the sewer system shall be submitted in triplicate.
along with the original drawing. to the County Surveyor. The
prants shall show the internal pipe diameter. location of
manholes. complete profiles. pipe and ~oint specifications
and the site of the sewers at the ~unction of the new system
to the Irisring syltem. A single plat indicating location
of sewer lines and water lines shall be a portion of the
sewage plus and profiles.
The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and the
sewer district with the following certification: 'l certify
that the design of the sever system an Tract Map 23209 is an
accordance with the sever system expansion plans of the
· astern Municipal Water DIstrict and that the waste disposal
system is adequate at this tame to treat the anticipated
.wastes from the proposed tract."
R~vsrside County Pl&nnzng Dept,
Psge Three
Attn: Alex G&nn
J&nua~y 26, Z98g
It rill be necessary for financial arr&ngements to be
completely fXnalized prxor to record&tion of the Final map.
]t v~J be necessary ~or annexation proceedings to be
completely fXnaZxzed prior to recordatxDn of the fxnal mkp,
SM:t&c ~
KENNETH
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Riverside County
P1 anntng Department
County Administrative Center
Riverside, Ca1 ifornia
We have reviewed this case and have the following comments:
Re:
A,',f-,/,',/X/o. 4'
Except for nuisance nature local runoff which may traverse portions of the
property the project is considered free from ordinary storm flood hazard·
However, a storm of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New construc-
tion should comply with all applicable ordinances.
The topography of the area consists of well defined ridges and natural water-
courses which traverse the property. There is adequate area outside of the
natural watercourses for building sites. The natural watercourses should be
kept free of buildings and obstructions in order to maintain the natural
drainage patterns of the area and to prevent flood damage to new buildings.
A note should be placed on an environmental constraint sheet stating, "All new
buildings shall be floodproofed by elevating the finished floors a minimum of
18 inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosion protection shall be provided
for mobile home supports.'
This project is in the Area
drainage plan fees shall be paid in accordance with the applicable riles and
regulations.
The proposed zoning is consistent with existing flood hazards. Some flood
control facilities or floodproofing may be required to fully develop to the
implied density.
The District's report dated ef. ZT, Iqel is still current for this project.
The District does not object to the proposed minor change.
This project is a part of The projuct will he
free of ordinary storm flood'hazard when improvements have been constructed
accordance with approved plans.
The attached comments apply.
enriYoH. KASHUBA
· r Civil Engineer
DATE: J ~ ~ tt~ it 40
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
September 27, 1989
Riverside County
Planning Department
County Administrative Center
Riverside, California
Attention: Regional Team No. 1
.'~ ClAn
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Re: Tract 23209
Amended No. 3
This is a proposal to divide 80 acres in the Rancho California
area. The site is located on both sides of La Serene Way west of
Butterfield Stage Road.
The topography of the area consists of well defined ridges and
natural watercourses which traverse the property. The site is
subject to storm flows from several watersheds. The developer
proposes to intercept these offsite flows and convey them through
the tract in a storm drain system. Oneits flows are proposed to
be conveyed through the street system and into storm drain sys-
tems. The diversions being created by the storm drain picking up
flow between Lots 119 and 120, and Lots 163 and 164 is acceptable
since Tract 23101 has accounted for these flows.
Following are the District's reconnnendations:
This tract-as located within the limits of the
Murrieta Creek/Santa Gertrudie Valley and Tamecull Valley
Ares Drainage Plan for which drainage feel have been
adopted by the Board- Drainage fees shall be paid as let
forth under the provisions of the 'Rules and Regulations
for ~-tnistration of Area Drainage Plans~, amended
February 16, 1988=
Drainage fees shall be paid to the Road Co---tssioner
as part of the filing for record of the subdivision
final map or parcel map, or if the recording of a
final parcel map is waived, drainage fees shall be
paid as a condition of the waiver prior to recording
a certificate of compliance evidencing the waiver of
the parcel map: or
Riverside County
Planning Department
Re~ Tract 23209
~mended No. 3
-2- September 27, 1989
At the option of the land divider, upon filing a re-
quired affidavit requesting deferment of the payment
of fees, the drainage fees may be paid to the Build-
ing Director at the time of issuance of a grading
permit or building permit for each approved parcel,
whichever may be first obtained after the recording
of the subdivision final map or parcel map~ provided
however, this option to defer the fees may not be
exercised for any parcel where grading or structures
have been initiated on the parcel within the prior 3
year period, or permits for either activity have been
issued on that parcel which remain active.
Onsite drainage facilities located outside of road right
of way should be contained within drainage easements
shown on the final map. A note should be added to the
final map stating, "Drainage easements shall be kept free
of buildings and obstructions"·
Offsite drainage facilities should be located within
publ#icly dedicated drainage easements obtained from the
affected property owners. The documents should be re-
corded and a copy submitted to the District prior to
recordation 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 street right of way. When either of these
criteria is exceeded, additional drainage facilities
should be installed·
The proparty's street and lot grading should be designed
in a manner that perpetuates the existing natural
drainage patterns with respect to tributax7 drainage
area, outlet points and outlet conditions, otherwise, a
drainage easement should be obtained from the affected
property o~ners for the release of concentrated or di-
verted storm flows. A copy of the recorded drainage
easement should be submitted to the District for review
prior to the recordation of the final map.
l~verside County
Planning Department
Rez Tract 23209
Amended No. 3
-3- September 27, 1989
Temporary erosion control measures should be implemented
{~ediately following rough grading to prevent deposition
of debris onto downstream properties or drainage
facilities.
8. If the tract is built in phases, each phase shall be pro-
tected from the 1 in 100 year tributary storm flows.
A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final
map along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic cal-
culations should be submitted to the District via the
Road Department-for review and approval prior to recorda-
tion of the final map. Grading plans should be approved
prior to iscuance of grading permits.
Questions concerning this matter may be referred to Zully Smith
of this office at 714/787-2333.
cz Alba Engineering Inc.
r~ot~uly yo~,
/
OHN H. KASHUBA
r Civil Engineer
ZS~mcy
46-209 Omb 5tm~. 5u~ 405
inc~o, ~ 9~'901
(619) 342-8886
RWEi?alDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
IN COOPERATION WITH THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FOI~STRY
AND FiRE PROTEC11ON
GI.~.N J. NEWMAN
1-22-90
Planning & [.~inttting Oir, ct
4080 1.etsz Sta.i, Suite Ill
Rivtrtide, CA 92501
(714) 787-6606
TO: PLANNING DEPARTKENT
ATTN: ALEX GANN
RE: TRACT 23209 - AMENDED #4
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land division,
the Fire Department reco~ends the following fire protection measures be provided
in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection
standards:
FIRE PROTECTION
Schedule "A" fire protection approved standard fire hydrants, (6"x4"x2{") located
one at each street intersection and spaced no more than 330 feet apart in any
direction, with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a hydrant.
Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for 2 hours duration at 20 PSI.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire
Department for review. Plans shall 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 prescrihed 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 combustible hulldingmaterial being
placed on an individual lot.
MITIGATION
Prior to the recordatlon of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the
Riverside County Fire Department, a cash sum of $400.00 per lot/unit as mitigation
for fire protection impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of
payment, he/she may enter into a written agreement with the County deferring said
payment to the time of issuance of a building permit.
Subject: Trac~ 23209 Page 2
A11 questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to the
Planning and Engineering staff.
RAYMOND H. REGlS
Chief Fire Department Planner
Laura Cabral~ Fire Safe=y Specialis=
q)epaa :mea : ue dta9 a.d ,-qa eL9
Administrative Center · 1777 Atlanta Avenue
Riverside, CA 92507
Oune 2, 1989
Riverside County Planning Department
Attention: Dave Mahlgren
County Administrative Center
4080 LemOn Street .,(.q~-~In.~J//~ y/2
Riverside, CA 9Z501
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Land Use O~v~sJon of the Department of Building and
has the following comments Ind conditions:
Prior to the ~ssuance of butld~ng permits, the developer shall
obtain Planning Department approval fop all on-s~te and off-
s~e s~gnage advertising the sale of the subdivision pursuant
to Section 19.6 of Ordinance 348.
Fireplaces may encroach 1' into required minimum 5' side yard
setback.
Mechanical equipment may not be located in required minimum
side yard setback.
Very truly yours,
Administration (714) 682-8840 · (714) 787-2020
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTHENr
GRADING SECTION
TO: PLANNING / RANDY WILSON
FROH: TONY HARHON
DATE: January 23, 1990
RE: TRACT 23209 AHENDHENT ~4
APN 914-310-016, 018, 032
The "Grading Section" has reviewed a conceptual grading plan for this site.
The plan is acceptable. Consequently, the "Grading Section" recommence
approval of thus project if the following condition:; are included.
Prior to commencing any grading in excess of 50 cubic yards, the
applicant snell obtain a grading permit and aPProval to construct from
the Building and Safety Department.
Prior to approval of this use/subdivision a grading permit and ad;proval
of the rough grade snell De obtained from the Building and~ Safety
Department.
P~ant and irrigate fill slopes greater than or equal to 3' and/or cut
slo;es greater than or equal to 5' in vertical height w~th grass or
grcun~ cover. Slopes that exceed 15' in vertical height are to be
~r;'/~aed with shrugs and/or trees per count ordinance 457, see farm
~anCscaDe plans are to be signea Dya registereO landscape architect and
DonOea per the requirements of Ordinance 457, see form 284-47.
Grading in excess of 199 cubic yards will require performance security
to be pcstec with the Building and Safety department.
In ~nstances where a grading plan i~volves import or export, prior to
oDta. inqng a gradqng permqt, the applicant shall have obtained approval
for the import/export location from the Building and Safety Department -
this may require a written clearance from the Planning Department.
A noterazed letter of permission, from the affected property owners, is
required for any proposed offsite grading.
A recorded drainage easement is required for the proDose~ lot to lot
drainage.
The proposed block wall appears to run parallel to and at the too of a
slope. A Registered Civil Engineer shall mitigate the slopes effect on
t~e wall's footing. The Wall will require a separate permit.
NOTE: For the final grading plan, please provide the applicable information
form Building and Safety Department grading forms: 284-120, 284-21,284-a6,
and 284-46. Thank you.
COUNTY OF RIVEREl
PAR
April 28, 1989
11): KtB Johnson - Tee 1
FROM Steven A. Kupfermn - Engineering Geologist
I~: ~ettatieeTr~ct ~
Slope Stability Report No. 115
The following report has been revtwed relatlve to slope stability at the
subject stte:
· Preliminary Geetechnical Znvesttgatton of Tentative Tract Nap 23209, Rancho
California, Riverside County, CA," by Leighton and Associates, Inc., dated
March 22, 1989.
This report determine that:
1. Ft11 and cut slopes on the order of 25 feet and 20 feet htgh,
respectlvely, at an Inclination of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) are
proposed for the development.
Proposed slopes should be stable against beth the deep-seated failure
and the surftotal failure provided no adverse geologic conditions extst
tn the cut slope.
3. Cut slope excavation could expose adverse beddtng (out-of-slope) whtch
m&y have a potential for sliding.
4. The slopes my be subject to erostve rtlllng.
Thts report recmmended that:
1. Cut slopes should be geetechnically mpped by the project geologist
durtng gradleg.
Remedtal measures such as flattening slopes or constraction of earthen
buttresses ~11 be provtded tf adverse 9e01o91c conditions are
eftcountered durtng gredtn9.
3. Cut end flll slopes should be protided uhtch epproprtato drainage
features end landscaped vtth drought-tolerant, slope-stabilizing
vegetation as soon es posslble BIter grading.
4. Berm should be provided et the top of all slopes, end lot dretnage
directed such that su~ace runoff on the slope face ts ndetetzed.
Thts report saMsties the General Plan requtrmen; for e slope stability
report. The recomendattoes tn this report shell he adhered to tn the destgn
and constructtea of this project.
MK:i1
DATE: October 21, i988
RiVdR iDE courlc.u
PLAnnir DEPARtment
· TO: Assessor
8utldtng and Safety
Surveyor - Dave Dada
Road Departaent
tlealth - Ralph Luchs
Ftre Protection
Flood Control Dtstrlct
F~sh & GOre
U.S. Postal Sorvtce - Ruth E. Davtdson
Cmmtss~oner Jack Bresson
C. J. Crottnger
Rancho CA Water
Southern CA Edison
Southern GA GaS
General Telephone
CAL TRANS 18
Temecula Elementary
Temecula Union School Dtst.'
E 1 s t no r.t_U~ t d~,ll~.~ :~choo~-
Meadowview Comun ty Assoc,
U. C. R.-Archo.
RiVE~S:'3= C'O,.ir,;TY
PLANNli',~G DEPAP. r;/,ENT
TRACT 23209 - (Tm-1) - E.A. 33254 - Aiba
Consulting - flax herrtson -Sktnner Lake
Area -Ftrst Supervisortel Dtstrtct- Wl3
of Butterfield Stage & La Serena Way N]3
of Rancho CaHfore~a Road - RoT Zone - 8C
Acres Into 304 lots Nod 119 A.P.
914-310-016,914-310-018,032
Please rovtew the case described above, along ~th the attached case nap. A Land
Dtvtston Coemlttee mettrig has been tontattvely scheduled for Nov~er 17, 1988. if It
clears, it w111 then go to publtc hearing.
Your camfleets and recomaenditfoes are requested prior to Novea~er 17, 1988 tn ordt Chat
~e ~ tnclude the tn the staff report for Chls particular case.
Should ~mu have any questions regarding thts ttemo please do not hasttare to contact
Alex Genn at 787-1363.
Planner
CGleeENTS:
The Elstnore Unton Htgh School Dtstrtct facilities are overcrowded and our
educational programs seriously impacted by Increasing student population caused
by new residenttaT, camerice1 end Industrial construction. Therefore,
pursuant to Caltforeta Government Cede Sectton 53080 of AB 2926 and SB 327, thts
dtstrtct levtes a fee agetest a11 he. developmet projects vlthtn 1Is boundaries.
DATE: 10-2548 SIMATUItE
PLEASE print naEe and tttle Dr. Larry Ibv, Supertntondent
8080 LEMON STREET. eTM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE CALIFORNIA 92501
{714) 787-6181
46-209 OASIS STREET. ROOM ~4
INDIO. CALIFORNIA 92201
(619) 342-6277
Ddb8 A.
Peered D. Starfay
St. Vz,
Jsm8 A.
J~ A~ la~d~
T. C. Ra,ve
December 17, 1987
Riverside County Division of
· nvirorunen~al Health
Land Use Section
Post Office Box 1370
Riverside, California 92502
Subject: Water Availability
Reference: Tract 23209
Gentlemen:
Please be advised that ~he above-referenced
proper~y is located within the boundaries of Rancho
California Water District. Water service, ~herefore,
would be available upon completion of financial
arrangements between RCWD end the proper~y owner.
Water availability would be contingent upon the
proper~y owner signing an Agency Agreement which
assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.
Sites for additional water production facilities may
be required within the proposed development depending
upon the level of increased demand created by the
proposal.
If RCWD can be of further service to you,
contact this office.
%
Very truly yours,
please
RANC~tO CAI=PORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Senga P. D~herty
Engineering Services Representative
FO11/dpth244
L
NCHO
CALIF
DATE: October 21, 1988
RiV 4)iDE COUnCY
PLAnnifl DEPARCnlEn;
TO: Assessor
Building and Safety
Surveyor - Dave Dada
bad Department
Health - Ralph Luchs
Fire Protection
Flood Control District
Fish & Game
~4l.S. hatal fmrvlce - Ituth E. DavtdSon
Coaetsstoner Jack Dresson
C. J. Crottnger
Rancho CA Hater
Southern CA Edison
Southern GA Gas
General Telephone
CAL TRAN5 98
Temecula Elementary
Temecula Union School Dist.
Elstnore Union liigh School
Meadowview Cormunity Assoc.
U. C. R.-Archo.
TRACT 23209 - (Tm-1) - E.A. 33254 - Alba
Consulting - Nax Harrison - Skinner Lake
Area - First Supervlsortal District -
of Butterfield Stage & La Serena Way
of Rancho Califoreta Road - R-T Zone - 8C
Acres into 304 lots Mod 119 - A.P.
914-310-016.914-310-018,032
Please review the case described above, along wtth the attache case map. A Land
Division Committee mettrig has been tentatively scheduled for November 17, 1988. If it
clears, it wtll then go to public bearing.
Your comehis and recommndattOnS are requestadprtor to November 17, 1988 in ordl that
ma Ely tnclude the In the Staff report for this particular case.
Should you have any questions regarding thts 1tam, please do not hasttale to contact
Alex Gann it 787-1363.
Planner
4080 ~MC)N S~, 9TM FLOC)R
RI~ItSJDE. ~LIFC)RNI 9264)1
(714) 7174181
4(.2~ ~S STREET, ROOM 4
INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201
(619~ ~24277
DATE: October 22, 1988
TO:
Assessor
Building and Safety
Surveyor - Dave Dude
Road Deparlaent
Heal~ - Ralph Luchs
Ftre Protectfon
Flood Control Dtstrtct
Ftsh& Game
U.$. Postal $er~ice - Ruth E. Davtdson
C~-,.,,isstoner Jack Dresson
C. J. Crottnger
::IEV;...i DE COUnC,v
PL rlrlillG DEPA::iCITIErlC
~ IN RIVER~IU~ COUNTY
AWU PLANNING DEPARTMENT
OCT 24 1988
Rancho CA Mater
Southern CA Edison
Southern GA Gas
General Telephone
CAL TRAN5 #8
Temecula Elementary
Ten~cula Union Schoo] Dist.
Elsinore Union Iligh School
Neadowvie~ Comunity Assoc.
U. C. R.-Archo.
-- TRACT 23209 - (Tm-1) - E.A. 33254 - Alba
Consulting - Flax Harrtson- Skinner Lake
Area -Ftrst Supervisortel District - ily
of Butterfield Stage & La Serena May Nly
of Rancho California Road - RoT Zone - 80
Acres tnto 304 lots Nod XX9 A.P.
914-3%0-016o914-310-0X8,032
Please revte~ the case described above, along vtth the attached case map. A Land
D~vtston Co,~tttee .eetlng has been tontathely scheduled for November 17. 1988. If It
clears. It wtll then go to publlc hearing.
Your counts and r~cmndattons are ~cluetad I~'1or to Noveld::,er %7, 19~ tn o~er that
~ my Include thee In the staff report for this pittitular case.
Should ~ou have any questions regarding this Item. please do not hesitate to contact
Alex Dann at 787-X363.
Planner
COmENTS: /7' ,q,.c[,,,,~f,c,-,,;,l
~,~ e.---~,,..4y (~F - 37~j~. tJ.
PLEASE prtnt nae and tttle
EASTERN INFORMATION CENTER
Nchaeslo~lcal Research Unit
Unlversl~y o~ Cllifornil
RhemMt CA 92521
4080 LEMON STREET, P FLOOR
RIVERSIDF, CALIFORNIA 92601
('714) 7874181
46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201
(619) 342-8277
DATE: October 21, 1988
TO:
Assessor
Butldtng and Safety
Surveyor - Dave Ouda
Road Department
Health - Ralph Luchs
F~re Protection
Flood Control Dtstrtct
Ftsh& Game
U.S. Postal Servtce- Ruth E. Davidson
Co~ntsstoner Jack Dresson
C. J. Crottnger :
iVE ii)E COtln;,u
PL&nnil DEiMR(mEn;
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
=LANNING DEPARTMENT
Rancho CA Hater
Southern CA Edison
Southern GA Gas
General Telephone
CAL TRANS #8
Temecula Elementary
Temecula Union School Diet.
Elstnore Union ltigh School
Meadowview Comuntty Assoc.
U. C. R.-Archo.
TRACT 23209 - (Tm-1) - E.A. 33254 - Alba
Consulting - Max Harrison - Skinner Lake
Area - First Supervisortel District - Wly
of Butterfield Stage & Ls Serene Way Nly
of Rancho California Road - R-T Zone - 80
Acres into 304 lots Nod 119 - A.P.
914-310-016,914-310-018,032
Please review the case described above, along vtth the attached case map. A Land
Division Committee meeting Has been tentatively scheduled for Novsaber 17, 1988. If it
clears, it will then go to public hearing.
COleCENTS:
Your comments and recoemendattons are requested prtor to November 17, 1988 in order that
ee amy include the in the start report for this particular case.
Should you have any questions regarding thts 1tam, please do not hast tats to contact
Alex Gann at 787-1363.
Planner
ITfTBR
DATE: SI611ATIIE
PLEASE print Mm 8~d tttle
4080 LEMON STREET. 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE CALIFORNIA 92801
(714) 787-6181
46-2090ASISSITqEET, ROOM304
INDIO, CALIFORNIA92201
(619)342-8277
ITATT Olr CALIK3m4A--IAe4ESS, 111A~ATIQN AND NI~ AgENCT
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ST1tICT I. P.O. IOX 231
,,N ISINAIDWqIO. C.A
10 (714) 313=4i09
October
1988
;F- ' ....
LAI~I.%,,, .7..'[-.' ('.~! ..t. ZTY
.,...,..
"' ....
Development Review
08-Rlv-79-8.23
Your Reference:
TTM 23209
Planning Department
Attention Mr. Alex Gann
County of Riverside
q080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
Dear Hr. Gann:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed Tentative
Tract Nap 23209 located westerly of Butterfield Stage and
northerly of Rancho California Road in Temecula Ranch.
This proposal is somewhat removed from an existing or proposed
state highway.
We have no specific comment on this proposal.
If additional information is desired, please call Hr. Thomas J.
Nevtlle at (71,) 383-.38",
Very truly your8,
H. N. LEWANDOWSKI
District Permits Engineer
,~outhern Call/on'tim Edimon Cornpmn. y
Riverside County
Road Department
P. O. Box 1090
Riverside,
Attention:
Gentlemen:
C~ 92502
Subdivision Section
SUBJECT: Tentative Tra~t Pap No. 23209
November 9. Z988
Flease be advised that the division of the property shown on
Tentative Tract Map No. 23209 will not unreasonably interfere
with the ~ree and complete exercise of any easement(s) held by
Southern California Edison Company within the boundaries of said
tentative tract map.
This letter should not be construed as · subordination of the
Coapany's rights. title and interest in and to said easement(s),
nor should this letter be construed as a waiver of any of the
provisions contained in said easement(s) o~ · waiver of any costs
for relocation o~ affected ~acilities.
Tn the event that the development requires relocation of [acil-
ities, if any, on the subject property by right of easement or
otherwise, the owner/developer will be requested to bear the cost
of such relocation and provide Edison with suitable [eplacement
rights. Such costs and replacement rights are required prior to
the perforaance of the relocation.
I~ additional in~oraatton is required in connection with the
above aentioned subject, please call Dennis C. Bazant ·t (213)
491-2644.
REI, OC&TION MiD DISTRIBUTION
DC"B/bJw
X460g-36WPC
co:' Xiverside County PlanningDepar~men~
ALBA ENGINEERING, INC.
PLANNING · ENGINEERING · SURVEYING
AuSust 11, 1989
1012-00
County of Riverside
Planning Department
4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor
liverside, California 92501
Attention: Randy Wilson
Subject: Tract 23209
Dear Mr. Wilson:
Transmitted herewith is Amendment
amendment was requested by Flood
changes in the drainage patterns.
We hereby request variances
lots:
No. 3 of Tract 23209. This
Control and consists of minor
Ordinance 460 for the following
Lots 76, 102, 103, 136, 137, 1~1
Please schedule L.D.C. as soon as possible.
If lou have any questions, please call.
President
cc: LaVerda E'Nond
Mike Lundin
~ Hel~efl St. ,~e 100 · SIn D~go CA 92131 ,, llle~ (619) 549-3,303
41~C) Emsrl:xse C~cte Scum, Ste 230 * Rlncho Cll~ofn,a. CA 92390 * TEn ('/'~4) 616.7282
ALIA ENGINEERING, INC.
PLANNING · ENGINEERING · SURVEYING
August 14, 1989
1012-00
County of Riverside
Planning Department
&080 Lemon StreeC, 9th
Riverside, California
Floor
92501
Attention: Randy Wilson
Subject: Tract 23209
Dear Nr. Wilson:
This p~oject proposes slopes in excess of 10 feet in height.
These slopes are necessary in order to maintain drainage patterns
and to prevent drainage from flowing across property lines. In
addition, some slopes are necessary due to county design
requirements for major roads i.e. La Serene end Butterfield Stage
Road.
Respectfully,
, ;hs;Sdsn. Crus..
RLC/Js
9668 H,ta. rl St. Suqe 100 · S~. D~90 CA 92131 · TWepho~e (619) 549-3303
41890 Enlerpr4e Carca ,So~n. Sle 230 ,, RInC~O Cahto.~a. CA 92390 · Te,e;:r. one (Ti4) 6T6-7282
D. iVE:DiDE COUrlCv,
PLAnlift3 DERA:I'd;tEIIC
APPLIC:A TION FOR L4ND UI! AND DEVELOPMENT
' CHANGE I~ ZONE NO D le~BLIC UIE leENIT NO
II~NMIT NO
C) T'EMPO~qARY U~E PERMIT NO .,.
'm PAMCEL MAR NO
INCOMPLLrr~ APPI. ICAT1ONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPIID
A. APPLICANT INPOIIMATIO N
B RIIGJECT INFORMATION
1 PutDome of Recaue$1 (clescr~e Drc~lecl l (Orchne~ce ~48 ret no )
C MIOI.IWtY mNIeO/IMATION
4010 LEMON STREEI'. e'" FLOC~
RIV~RBIDE, C, ALIFORNiA ~601-3657
(714) ?87-6181
OASIS STREET. IIOC)M 3(~
INDIO, CN,IFOeNIA g2~'0~
(61e) 342.8277
AINeLICATIONS FOe:
Jeeum~l)
VAmANCES
TEMPORARY USE le~nMffS
PROPERTY OWNERI CERTIIrlCA TION
"I11LE/II!IIIil'RAllO'N:
NXlelli.
PHONE:
N.~:
ITAFF USE ONLY
EN~'IRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM
I
ECONOMIC AND HOUSING LOANS
Riverside County
'k
NPP~R|NAT£LV $3.5 RILLION HAS KEN ~A~[ AVAILABLE FOR ECOIIOHIC D[Vrt OF~4EKT
IIOl~ill L~UI$ IN IONS- ,~PLIEATZOM$ C4U¢ IE FILED I~ITH THE RIVERSIDE
DEPARTI~NT OF ECORON]C ~D COIF~JNITY D[VELOI~ENT LOCATED AT 3499 TENTH
t.0. BOX 1280, RiVER.SiDE, CALIFOBIXA, 12502.
COFICJNITy DE~rELOI~ENT II.OClC ~IiNT$ (CBEG) FItBt'1 THE U.S. DEPARTMENT Ot iIOUS;.',5
AND ~I/It~IN~I:'~E;ELOI~'IINT &RE USED TO CLEAVE AND SAVE JOBS NeD HOUSING FOR LD,. A:,;
MODEl&T{ INC~Bu, E COUNTY RESIDENTS. THE LOANS HAVE BEEN USED FOR COI'WERCIAL, -;.
IlB/SIltIIJ...NOU$11~ NE) IIIF1M$111UrRIE PItOJECT$.
CP/f~ER;i~L NeD ]NDUSTR!AL PROJECTS N'diC~ SAVE OR CRiATE JOB5 FOR LO,:
~5]DE~S, CAN RECEIVE L~ ]~E~Sl, PART]~ FINA~:iNG, UP TO 33 PE~:E'~T
THE TOT~ PROJECT C~ BE FINANCED. I~E N~Irl~ LDA~ 15 $500,~D A%D THE~E
CAP OF $15,000 LO~ID PER ~B CREATED OR RETAINED. THE HOUS)NG LOA/~ FU~;S :~',
LO~ UP TO SO PERCENT OF THE COST FOR CONSTRJ;TION OR RE.AEZL)TATIDt, $r L~,,
)NCX HOUSING. FUNDS ~ST 9[ FULLY SECURED BY RE~ PROPERTY ~
DEVELOPER EQUITY 1S REQUIRED.
T( U)AN ~ 1S OFFERED JOINTLY BY THE COUNTY AND SEVENlEEk OF iTS
FOR FURTNER INFOIICATION, CONTACT YOUR COBG AREA REPRESENTATIVE OR
$1'RODTBECK AT (114) 78~-B770.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNZNG DEPARTHENT
COUNTY ADIqZNZSTRAT[VE CATER, NINTH FLOUR
4080 LElal STREET
RZVERSTDE, CALTFORNZA 92501-3657
Roger S. Streetor, Planntng Dtrector
A PUDLZCIEARING has been scheduled before the PLNIING CtR4ISSZUN to
consider the application(s) described halov. The Planning Department has
tentatively found that the proposed proJect(s) wtll have no significant
envtromental effect end has tontattvely completed negative declaration(s).
The Planntng Cmmlsston vtll consider whether or not to adopt the negative
declaration along vtth the proposed project at thts hearlng.
Place of heartrig: Bard Rom, 141h fieor, 4060 Lmm Street, RIve-side, CA
Date of Hearing: tE])NE$1)AY. DECBeER ZO.
The ttme of hearing Is Indicated wtth each application 11sted below.
Any person may submtt wrttten coeeents to the Planntng Department before the
heartng or my appear and be heard In support of or opposition to the adoption
of the negattve declaration and/or approval of thts project at the ttee of
heartrig. Zf you challenge any of the projects In court, ~ou mY be limited to
ratstng only those tssues you or someone else ratsad at the publtc hearing
described tn this nottce, or In wrttten correspondence delivered to the
Planntn9 Commission at, or prtor to, the publtc heartrig. The envtronmenta]
ftndtng along wtth the proposed project application my be viewed at the publtc
Information counter Honday through Frtday from 9:00 a.m. unttl 4:00 p.m.
TRACT NAP NO. 23209, AHENDED NO. 3, EA 33254 ts an application submitted by
Albe Consulting for property located tn the Sktnner Lake Area and
First Supervlsortal DIstrict and generally described as hetng West of
Butterfield Stage Road and La Serena Way; north of Rancho California
Road and which proposes to dhtde 80t acres into 257 lots
TIRE OF HF. JUtlNG: g:30 i.e.
;N W. POOLE, ETAL
J STATE WIDE DEVELOPERS
-~ : KATEU. A A'.'E. #202
LOS ALAM/TOS, CA. 90720
914-310-005, 007, 009
KEITX & SANDRY. DAY ·
5283 ORZNOA AVE.
LAS VEGAS, NV 89120
914-310-006
OWN ER:
CARLTON I BARBARA FRENCH
31131 ALMARA LANE
LGUNA HILLS, CA. 92677
914-310-016, 018
OWNER:
LAVERDA EDOND
1011N. WOODS
FULLERTON, CA. 92635
914-310-019 thru 032
ROBERT & LARRA]NE OCANNA
r - BOX 615
~ .IETA, CA. 92362
z 310-046
PETER & GABRIELLA GIOVANNONI
1784 W. ALCONAR AVE.
ANAHEIH,CA. 92804
914-310-047
6EORGE T. STARCEVZCN
39865 NICHOLAS RD.
NURR/ETA, CA. 92362
914-300-052
CARROLL ANDERSON
JOHN MOORE
P 0 BOX 324
NURR/ETA, CA. 92362
914-300-055, 058
DUANE & RENEE FR/EL
31235 CANZNO DEL ESTE
TEMECULA, CA. 92390
914-300-056
TRIPLE O INVESTRENTS
P 0 BOX 806
FALLBROOK, CA. 92028
943-020-006
BURTON & IqARGARET CLEVIDENCE
HATT & FRANCIS ANDREWS
9621 CARNATION AVE.
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA. 92708
943-040-001,002, 003
CALLAWAY VINEYARD & WINERY
32720 RANCHO CALIFORNIA
TENECULA, CA. 92390
943-070-001,002
~. K. OONES
1540 W. ~h ST. #21
UPL~ID, C,L 917~
914-310-~9
P. ANCHO CAi. IF DEVELO;qqENT CO
P O BOX 755
TIEMECULAo CJk. 92390
923-200-009, 010 I 923-210-OO1
923-210-008. 014
GEORGE T. STARCEVICH
39865 NICHOLAS RD.
MnRR/ETA, CA. 92362
-300-051
:IiVE:DiDE counff
PLAnRinG DEP, :IClTIEnC
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM:
EIWIRONMENTAL ~JE,~,tkI'~NT {F,A.) NUMIER: 33254
FROJECT CArE tllarr41) AND NUMIER8(I): Tract No. Z32Og
NaRJCANI~ NAME: Alba Consultinq
NANE OF lee~ON(a) FREFRRNG LA.: Randy Hi 1 son
L IqlOJl~ INFORMATION
A. DESCRIPTION ~ ~ minimum IN ~.e roll ue~ u wltlml:4e):
Subdivide 80 acres into 257 lots
ITANDARD EVALUATION
NUMBER(s): ] 19
B. TOTAL PROJECT AREA: ACRES qrl · ~' SQUARE FEET
G. A~ESSOR'$ PARCEL NO.(B): 914-310-016, q14~310-018, 019. r)2q. n?l. n22. r123. 024.
025. 026. 027. ~?R. 02q. NI~, N~l, ~2
D, EXSTING ZONING: RT
E, FROPOSED ZC~NING: RT
F. BTREET REFERENCES:
B ~ PR) lit CONFO4~IVLANCE?
B THE PR) N (X)NFO RmwtN~ICE?
West of Butterfield Staqe Road, North of Rancho Cali~nrnia Road
G. IEb'TION, TOVVNSHIP, RANGE DESCRIPTION Oft ATTACH A LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Section 29, Township 7 South, Ranae 2 Nest
Vacant land traversed by drainaaes,, Soecific Plan ~199 to the west and snuth wi+h
vineyards to the east.
I am INVIRONMBNTAL I,Ui2.AMDe AND RBI4URCli .;IIBIIMINT
I. IndkmmwghmNe(Y)mee(Niwheeereny,,.~m,,.~F~ &,;Mardmmd/mme~keameymgnmcmmyMimcio~beaeec~
~yfmlxulmal. Mmleremdfigumsmmom'MlnmdlnlmCGa~etm, w'vl(hmBrIFqln. IrorlnYilauemlfkedYes(Y)w~te
elmidmthemppmoimmlmlm~daeornoimmmoomlmimblltymeng(m). (8medelNli~ll~ollhiml~eee).
HAZARDS
IN Ak~im-e~tomoSpmc:mmShmiemomCouNyr. mutt 12. JL. NnxmNoiN(Fig. n. lu, n. le.~
Ni, zmrdZanee(F'ig. Vl.1) &V1.12&lB84NGUZReOOrI, M.A.F.B.)
mL, PS U n (FiO. ~3) NA A e C D (Fig. W.I~)
2N L. ka~FmeN~JZone{Fig. Vl.1) 13. N RaJiroedNoiee(Fig. Vl.13.Vl.16)
NA S PS U R (fi~. W.4) NA A B C D (F~. ~.~)
3~J 6ro~q~shakirug Zone (Fig VI.I ) 14. _hi_ Nighway Noiae (Fig. VI.I 7 - v12g)
NA S PS t,J FI (Fig. Vi,S) NA A B C D (F~g, W.~ ~ )
4, ¥ 8~pes;iv. Go. 800Sc~eSkxxMaDs) 15. ~ CXhorNoee
5. N LanclslicleFliskZane(Riv. Co. 80OScale NA A B C D (Fig,
Seismk:MaDs ot On-aJto a~xction) 16. N Pmto~Genera~l NoiN Affocting
m._~_
7. N
8__Y
NA 8 InS U R (Fig. VI.6)
Roc~lal! Na,t, mrcl (On-lte InaDeCtion) 17. N
bDanmivo Soils (U,S,D~. Soll 18..N
k~'t00 Soll ~jneys) 2~. N
WinclEmoeion&llowand(Fig. Vl.1, 22.'N
Ord. 480, Br, 14,2&OKL4e4) 23. N
Dem inuN:latt(m Am~ (Fig. VI.7) N. __
Fkmdp4ainm (Fig. vi.7) 25. __
NA U e ¢Fig. VI.8)
NoimeSenmJt~Laes(Fig. Vl. ll)
Nome Senmtt. Pmtect(Fig. vl.~l)
Air Qumity Imlxcts From Proiect
PlOilct / 10 Air QuIlity
WeW Queltty Impacts From ~
~ ~ IO ~ Oullity
~ Metede~ end Wastes
Heza~lous F'n kee(Fi0. VIJ0-VI.3~)
Oaher
RESOURCE8
IcmnicHighweym(F~.Vt4S)
memoecMema(Fi0. Vt32-VL33)
f.jm_ AJ%,~ne'Mememmmea
pm~ _ &'nBi 'lmmeounmMmN
DeflnlUons for Land IJso lultmMUty mad Nolme AooeptmMnty MmUnem
U-GmerMyUnslmm R-Immmm~ A-MAmee~
· - COl'~dk:ll C ' GIIMIlyUI,"Z ,Y ~Ii D ' LiMLMiDilIxMalged
1. 0PF. N SPACENO)ATK:)NIdAP)NA)I): Not desionated as onen space.
~ LAND USEPt.&NNINGN~ Southwest Terrace
I IUIAF~,A, FANY: R, nchn Califomia/T~cula
& COMIk~JNfTYPL&JkLFANY: ~mathwp~t Arem Cnmmmn4ty Plmn
& (X:X~IdU~PLANDESIONATION(mX FANY: ?-4 dwlliqg ijnlt~ nor Arrp
IU~YOFPOUCESAFFECTI~I~ DrOject iS considered Cateanrv II which
requires a full ranqe of Public services. Adenuate transitinn with surroundinq
anrroved and existinq land uses is necessary. The Southwest Area Comunitv Plan
designation for this site is 2 to 4 dwellina units per acre.
B. ~elipfoiects. fnk~,tthe~(Y)~(N)wfe~ypu~iacit~ed/~men~iu~Nymienlf~thya~ect
Qrl:~Wf~bythWpfolXial. AimlwencidReumsmw~(,-~lBdr~lnlhwComDrwhe~aivwGe~miPin. Formyissue
m~rk~(Y~wr~Nam~ufce~enciem~Cnmu~f~:~in~d~ct~r~m~i~nme~um~un~er~eci~nV~
PUBUC FACILITIES AND IERVICES
11. N
Im, N
13....~N
14, N
EQuelbiln Trills (Fig. N.19 - IV.241
Riv. Co. 800 Scee Equaten Tit Maps)
I, Ilim (Fig. N2S - N.26)
IJ)flNi (Fig. N.1T - N.18)
~ ~ (r;. N.17 - IV.18)
AkiPixIm ~ mmt6.2 - L1U,
LIM - LI&I O & N.27 · N,36)
~~,m~) Category II
Cummntlendmmmabgomy(m) kxg~ematmemedonm,em~9~
(t~ mm~ a~ et) Cateoorv II
~ ID,1 d~emkomD~wBhd~emncmbemeehed.eemdm,9~C%,-AeaOe? ExXOn:
4. C~nmunlty Plln dm~nmion(,m):.~2-4 dwell inq units per acre
Im N ~ pn~ect eenmnt with ~he pol~.imm mn~ dmmi~nmtlons e~ m~e Convnun~ I~n?
II n~ expimin: No Th~D~.~e~t is cDn~i~tent_J~j.th the den~i_t~'doUFn~t~nn o~ p.a nil/a.
however, the pro)ect desiqn is not compatible with the vinP),ard~ ,n thP oR~t
6. g Npn~x~~wllhexi~gmnepn~mumNndi~lmndumes?
Wne~exl~: No. land uses to the east are vtnovarH~ and tn +h~ cn,+hea~tepp~oved
Specific Plan ~19q has I dwellinq unit oer acre.
l neLmlmmmlWleclimandleeueNumlwlmluldenWyin~l~:k~'mm. No, Land use
comaribaldry Revtew, Cat~ory ~ Land ~e ~aUb~11tv, -A orooosed land use ~v
~ r~at~hl~ ~th ~mmr~,~d~ng ev~e+~nn, and ap~rnv~d land u~ 4~ rnmn,+4h~l~+v raq
h achiev~ through p~ject ~estqn, The desiqn of the orooo$ed nro]~t does not
mdaress c milDlift C~r~s
4t,
A. ADDr'ilONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED BEFORE ENVIRONMENTAl, ASSESSMENT CAN BE COMPLETED:
DATE DATE N)EQUACY
I1¢110N/ illON NeONaKIION NFORMATION i
I~I B 4 Slope Stability Report 3-23-89 Yes
,~,11 B 8 Slope Stability Report 3-23-89 Yes
III B28 Biology Report 3-23-89 Yes
III B2g Biology Report 3-23-B9 Yes
I. Foe' elCh Illue marked yes (Y) under Sections IfLB end N.B, ideniffy the Section end issue number en~ clo the
IoaowtnO, lnthelommtam mhown below:
1. Uetell acldltional relevant ditm mources, lncluding egencles~onmulled.
2. 8tlle ell finclings of fact regarding envlronmentll I;~x}efns.
3. 8tale Ipeclfmc mitigation ~ureS. If identlfiabM without fequlring In environmenial impact report (E.I.R.)
4. If Idglltjonll informltion Is required before the environmenial uaessment can be completed. refer to
5. If eclditional sheets Ire neecle~ to complete this lectlon, check the box It the encl of the fiction and attach
III B4
If! B8
II1 B28
III 935
8OU;iCES,&GENCE$ CONSULTED. FINDINGSOFFACT, M~IGATION MEASURES:
A Slope Stability Report was done on the project's Proposed grading.
Mitigation measures for the proposed grading are outlined in the County
Geologist's letter dated 4-28-89.
A Slope Stability Report was done on the proJect's proposed qrading.
Mitigation measures for erosion due to the oroposed grading are outlined in
the County Geologist's letter dated 4-28-89.
A Biological Report was performed to survey the biological resources of the
project site. STephens' Kangaroo Rats were found to occuoy Dart of the site.
Mitigation measures to be taken are the participation of the developer in the
Habitat'Conservation Plan and Ordinance 663 as outlined in the conditions of
approval.
A Btolootcal mort was oerfornttd on the project site. No tmoacts to flora
deemed sensitive or endangered weee located on the site. No mitigation
measures are required.
The potential for Paleontoloqical resources on the project site exists. The
conditions of Ipproval require a PaleOnloqtcal study be performed prior to
the site being graded. If Paleonlogtcal resources are tdendtified as likely
V. WOIIIIAYION IOUmCll, IIIIIMNGI OF FACT ~ MI'rI~AYION t iIL/I~F..I (~ollUm~l)
IV BIT
8OUIqCEB~ABENCIES{~BULTED, IqNDINGSOFFACT, MITIGATION MEASURES:
~n this report, a qualified Paleontologists shall be present durr~ng
grading.
Zmpacts to the school system aerv~nq the area the Dro~ect ~S located are to
be mtt4gated per Ca14forn~a Government mandated school fees.
No ~mpacts to the new City of Temecuqa are ~dentified, The Drc)~ect is
~denttfted as being within the new City of Temecula,
VL ~.%_.Ofl~tqiTAL IMPACT D, , r. ATJi~IP.110N:
~i~11l ~ udll m hltve · li~ IIIIml m Iho &l~k~,.,, I '~t end · I~ ~ may be
[:) lhl lllTdlCl OOMId hlve ali~llkel Oe lll _~kM'm i~,t. homevi','ltla ldl not lll ellgnl~clnt
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
EXHIBITS
S%STAFFRPT~3209,1'i'M 32
CITY OF TEMECULA
PROJECT SITE
CALiFORNiA
Location Map
CASE NO.: Tentative Tract Map No. 23209
EXHIBIT: A VICINITY MAP
P.C. DATE:
March 16, 1992
S~STAFFRIrr~3209,TTM
CITY OF TEMECULA
"1
SWAP - Exhibit B
+4
Designation: 2-4 D.U./Acre
ZONING - Exhibit C
Case No.: Tentative Tract Map No. 23209
P.C. Date: March 16, 1992
Designation: R-T
S%STAFF~3209,TTM
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.:
EXHIBIT: D
P.C. DATE:
Tentative Tract Map No. 23209
March 16o 1992
SITE PLAN
S\STAFFRFT~.3209 .TTM
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
CORRESPONDENCE
S\STAFFRPT',23209.TTM 3 6
.CALL_:,2VXLt'z"f
Corrected copy~
June 14, 1991
Mayor Ron Parks and Councilmembers
City of Temecula
43180 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
Dear Mayor Parks and Councilmembers:
Enclosed is copy of letter from Callaway Vineyard & Winery sent to
the Temecula Planning Department on April 15, 1991 regarding
tentative Tract Map #23103.
We appeared before you in protest at your meeting of May 28, 1991.
At that time, a two week extension was approved by the council.
we have had an opportunity to show and to discuss our problems of
air movement westward from our vineyard with you and Councilmembers
Sal Munoz, Peg Moore and Karel Lindemans, Messrs. Gary Fatland and
Dorian Johnson of the Marlborouqh Development Corporation, Michael
Lundine, and John Gerritsen of Robert Bein, Will Frost & Associates
(who are developing the property to the north of Marlborough).
At this time we have no problem with the tentative map approval and
that the final map approval to be heard before the city council be
subjec~ ~o the following:
The road elevation, the pads and the contour in the valleys be
maintained as close to natural as possible. That the air
movement, wind patterns be maintained so there will be no
frost problems in Callaway vineyards in the future.
Also, Councilman Karel Lindemans has suggested that if it is
necessary to move dirt and pads to lower Butterfield
Stagecoach Road to have better air movement, that a study be
done to determine how much dirt, how far will it be hauled off
the property, how much would it cost to haul, and that
Callaway and other wineries, Marlborough Development
Corporation the City of Temecula share in the cost. Whatever
is adopted on this issue sets precedent for the continuation
of Butterfield Stage Road north bordering our property.
Corrected copy
June 14, 1991
Page 2
We would like to thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Senior Vice President & Viniculturist
JM:ll
Enclosure
cc:
Jon Moramarco
Pat Birdsall
Peg Moore
Sal Munoz
Karel Lindemans
Dorian A. Johnson, Marlborough Development Corp.
Gary Fatland, Marlborough Development Corp.
Michael Lundine
John Gerritsen, Robert Bein, Will Frost & Assoc.
ITEM # 10
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
March 16, 1992
Case No.: Tentative Parcel Map No. 22515 (Third Extension of Time)
Prepared By: Mark Rhoades
RECOMMENDATION:
ADOPT Resolution 92- approving the Third 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:
Third Extension of Time for a three tot commercial subdivision on
3.57 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
PROJECT STATISTICS
S~STAFFRPT~22515-2 ,TPM
Proposed Parcels: 3
Gross Acres: 3.57
Parcel Size Parcel I .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
Second Extension of Time was approved by the City of Temecula Planning Commission on
December 16, 1991.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This proposal project is a request for the Third 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. Concerns relative to the map included the two proposed
driveway access points, and the configuration of the drainage easement. Since the Second
Extension of Time was approved, Staff has received Cal Trans clearance for the location of
the driveway entries because of the proximity to the freeway offramp. In addition, the
drainage easement has been redesigned to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department.
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.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The previous Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 31724 is still applicable
to this proiect.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
If the Third Extension of Time is approved, the map will be extended to November of 1992.
The project is compatible with all applicable City Ordinances.
FINDINGS
S'~TAFR~T~22515*2.TPM 2
10.
11.
The proposed extension of Time for Tentative Parcel Map 22515 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.
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.
S~STAFFRPT~22515°2. TFM
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
ADOPT Resolution 92- approving the Third 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
Staff Report, 2nd Extension of Time - page 19
Exhibits - page 20
a. Vicinity Map
b. SWAP
c. Zoning Map
d. Site Plan
S\STAFFRPT~2515-2,TPM 4
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 92__
$\STAFFRPT~22515-2,TP~q 5
RESOLUTION NO. 92-,_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE THIRD 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 the Third Extension of Time for Parcel Map No.
22515 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, said Tentative Parcel Map application was approved by the Riverside
County Board of Supervisors on November 8, 1987 at which time interested parties had an
opportunity to testify either in support or opposition,
WHEREAS, the Riverside County Planning Commission considered the First
Extension of Time on September 8, 1989 at which time interested persons had an opportunity
to testify either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Second 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 March 16, 1992, Commission hearing, the
Commission approved said Third Extension of Time;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNI N G COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings.
That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings:
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~$TAFFRP1P,22515-2 ,TP~ 6
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 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 the Third Extension of Time
for Parcel Map No. 22515 proposed will be consistent with the
general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will
be studied within a reasonable time, because the project is
consistent with the existing SWAP and Zoning Designations.
(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, because the
project is similar in use and intensity to adjacent development.
(3)
The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances, because it is
consistent with the development standards of Ordinance No.
348, which conforms with State Laws.
S~STAFFRPT~22515-2 .TPM 7
4. 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.
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 Third Extension of Time
for proposed Tentative Parcel Map No. 22515, makes the following findings, to wit:
The proposed extension of Time for Tentative Parcel Map 22515 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.
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 Third Extension of Time for Tentative
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 Third 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.
SECTION 4.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of March, 1992.
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
March, 1992 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS-
S\STAFFRP~22515-2.TRVI 10
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
S\STAFFRPT~-2515-2.Tm 1 I
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Parcel Map No: 22515 (3rd E.O.T.)
Project Description: The proposed project is a request for the Third 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, 1992, unless
extended as provided by Ordinance 460.
The project shall conform to the Conditions of Approval established for the original
approval.
Access shall be restricted along I-15 and Front, except for approved 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.
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
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 Temeculao
The applicant shall comply with the CaI-Trans letter dated December 24, 1991, a copy
of which is attached.
S\STAFFRPT'~.2515*2.TPtd 12
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
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 personnel of the
Department of Public Works.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and
proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their
omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
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;
CalTrans; 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.
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.
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 residems.
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.
S~STAFFRFT~225tS-2,TP~ 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 City of Temecula standards and shall be
shown on the street improvement plans in accordance with City Standard 207A and
401 (curb sidewalk).
The subdivider shall submit two (2) prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the
Department of Public Works. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code,
Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval.
The plan shall be drawn on 24" x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer.
A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted
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 .TRM 15
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 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.
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.
35.
36.
37.
PRIOR
38.
39.
40.
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
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.
An encroachment permit shall be required from CalTrans for any work within their
right-of-way.
A permit from the County Flood Control District is required for work within their right-
of-way.
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
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; orovided that developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness
of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
S\STAFFRFT~2515-2.TPM 17
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
41.
Construct all required improvements including but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C.
pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees street lights, storm drains and
drainage devices as required by the Department of Public Works.
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 ENGINEERING
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
44.
All previous County of Riverside Road Department 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.TPM 18
STATE Of CAUFC~NIA----BU$1NES~, TRAN,,~K~rATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 8, P.O. BOX 231
SAN BERNARD~NO, CALIFORNIA 92402
TDD (714) 383-4609
December 24,
1991
Development Review
08-Riv-15-3.43
Your Reference:
TPM 22515
Planning Department
Attention Mr. Mark Rhoades and
Mr. Matthew Fagan
City Hall
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Dear Mr. Rhoades and Mr. Fagan:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed
Tentative Parcel Map No. 22515 located adjacent to the southbound
1-15 off-ramp to south Route 79 and 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.
If any work is necessary within the State highway right of
way, the developer must obtain an encroachment permit from the
Caltrans District 8 Permit Office prior to beginning work.
If additional information is desired, please call Mr. Steven
Wisniewski of our Development Review Section at (714) 383-4384.
Very truly yours,
Attachment
Riverside County
RECEIVL:O
DEO 2 ? 1991
Gift OF TEMECULA
CALTRANS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FORM =~6~D~ii~m~!T0~ APPLICANT
-y' Rf zZ l '
YOUR REFERENCE
STEVEN WISNIEWSKI
PLAN CHECKER
WE REQUEST THAT THE ITEMS
APPROVAL FOR THIS PROJECT:
HOeHAL RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION TO PROVIDE
· NORMAL STREET IMPROVEMENTS 10 PROVIDE
CURS AND GUTTERt STATE STANDARD NG-A
/z - zyo
DATE
( CO RTE PM)
CHECKED BELOW BE INCLUDED IN THE CONDITIONS OF
HALF--WIDTH ON THE STATE HIGHWAY.
HALF--WIDTH ON THE STATE HIGHWAY ·
TYPE A2-8 ALONG THE STATE HIGHWAY.
PARKING SHALL BE PROHIBITED ALONG THE STATE HIGHWAY 8Y THE PROPER PLACEMENT OF NO PARKING SIGNS.
35 FT RADIUS CURS RETURNS SHALL BE PROVIDED AT INTERSECTIONS WITH THE STATE SIGHUAY. STATE STANDARD N8-B,
CASE-A WHEELCHAIR RAMPS SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE CURB RETURNS AS DEFINED IN THE HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL,
SECTION t05,4 (2).
A POSITIVE VEHICULAR BARRIER ALONG THE PROPERTY FRONTAGE SHALL BE PROVIDED TO LIMIT PHYSICAL ACCESS TO THE
STATE HIGHWAY.
VEHICULAR ACCESS SHALL NOT BE DEVELOPED DIRECTLY TO THE STATE HIGHWAY.
VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE STATE HIGHWAY SHALL BE PROVIDED BY EXISTING PUBLIC ROAD CONHECTXONS.
VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE STATE HIGHWAY SHALL BE PROVIDED BY
STANDARD DRIVEUAYS.
VEHICIjI_AR ACCESS SHALL NOT BE PROVIDED UITHIN
THE INTERSECTION AT
VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE STATE HIGHWAY SHALL BE PROVIDED BY A ROAD--TYPE CONNECTION.
VEHICULAR ACCESS CONNECTIONS SHALL BE PAVED AT LEAST ~ITHIN THE STATE HIGHUAY RIGHT OF ~'AY.
ACCESS POINTS TO THE STATE HIGHUAY SHALL BE DEVELOPED IN A MANNER THAT ~ILL PROVIDE S]GHT DISTANCE
MPH ALONG THE STATE HIGHUAY.
/L.~NDSCAPING ALONG THE STATE HZGHUAY E~ALL PROVZ:E FOR SAFE SIGHT DISTANCE, COMPLY WITH FIXED OBJECT SET BAD(
AND BE TO STATE STANDARDS.
A TRAFFIC STUDY INDICATING ON AND OFF--SITE FLOV ;ATTERNS AND VOLUMES, PROBABLE IMPACTS AND P~DPOSED wiTIGAT]C~
MEASURES SHALL BE PREPARED.
PARKING SHALL BE DEVELOPED IN A MANNER THAT UILL NOT CAUSE ANY VEHICULAR MOVEMENT CONFLICTS, )NCLUDI~:
V//~CTALL ENTRANCE AND EXIT # WITHIN OF ThE ENTSANCE FROM THE STATE HIGHWAY.
ARE SHALL BE TAKEN ~HEN DEVELOPING THIS PROPERTY TO PRESERVE AND PERPETUATE THE EXISTING DRAINAGE PATIER~
OF THE STATE HIGHWAY. PARTICULAR CONSIDERATION SHCULD BE GIVEN TO CUMULATIVE INCREASED STORM RUNOFF 70 ]NSURE
THAT A HIGHWAY DRAI'NAGE PROBLEM IS NOT CREATED.
__EL/~LEASE REFER TO ATTACHED ADDITIONAL COMMENTS · P~OVZD~ TO APPT'IC-2~NT.
PLEASE BE ADVISED TMAT THIS IS A CONCEPTUAL REVIEW ONLY. FINAL APPROVAL ~ILL
BE DETERMINED DURING TM~ ~NCROACHME~ PERMIT PROCESS.
CONSTRUCTION/DEMOLITION ~ZTHIN PRESENT OR pROPOSED STATE RIGHT OF ~AY SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED FOR POTENTIAL
HAZARDOUS WASTE ( I ,E,ASBESTO$# PETROCHENICALSt ETC, ) AND MITIGATED AS PER REQUIREMENTS OF REGULATORY AGENCIES,
(ATHEN PLANS ARE SUBMITTED# PLEASE CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ATTACHED iI~"IANDOUTn· THIS MILL EXPEDITE
THE REVIEM PROCESS AND TIME REIXJIRED FOR PLAN CHECK, PROVTD~. r~O A. PPT.TC2~--I%Tr~,
ALTHOUGH THE TRAFFIC AND/OR DRAINAGE GENERATED BY THIS PROPOSAL DO NOT APPEAR TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
OR THE STATE NIGHMAY SYSTEMt CONSIDERATION BUST BE GIVEN TO THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT
IN THIS AREA, ANY MEASURES NECESSARY TO MITIGATE THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF TRAFFIC AND/OR DRAINAGE SHALL BE
PROVIDED PRIOR TO OR MITH DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA THAT NECESSITATES THEM,,
CONSIDERATION SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE PROVISIONI ON FUTURE PROVISIONt OF SIGNILIZATION AND LIGHTING OF THE
INTERSECTIOR 1~ AND THE STATE HIGHLY MHEN lIARRANTS ARE )LrT,
'TT APPEARS THAT THE TRAFFIC AND/OR DRAINAGE GENERATED BY THIS PROPOSAL COULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT OR
THE STATE HIGHMAY SYSTEM OF THE AREA, ANY MEASURES TO MITIGATE THE TRAFFIC AND/OR DRAINAGE IMPACTS SHALL BE
INCLUDED ~ITH THE DEVELORHEHT,
/THIS PORT]ON OF THE STATE HIGHWAY IS INCLUDED IN THE CALIFORNIA lVIASTER PLAN OF STATE I-IIGHMAYS ELIGIBLE FOR
OFFICIAL SCENIC HIGHMAY DESIGNATION AND IN THE FUTURE YOUR AGENCY NAY ~ISH TO HAVE THIS ROUTE OFFICIALLT
DESIGNATED AS A STATE SCENIC HIGHWAY.
THIS PORT]ON OF THE STATE HIGHMAY HAS SEEN OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED AS A STATE SCENIC HIGHMAYI AND DEVELOPMENT
IN THIS CONRIDON SHDULD BE COMPATIBLE ~ITH THE SCENIC HIGHMAY CONCEPT,
IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT THERE IS CONSIDERABLE PUBLIC CONCERN ABSUT NOISE LEVELS ADJACENT TO HEAVILY TRAVELLE~
HIGHUAYS, LAND DEVELQIq4ENT~, IN ORDER TO BE COMPATIBLE MITH THIS CONCERNs. NAT REQUIRE SPECIAL NOISE ATTENUATII~d
MEASURES. DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY SHOULD INCLUDE ANY NECESSARY NOISE ATTENUATION,
CALTPjLNS DISTRICT 8
DEVELOPMENT ~;~]~VI~ ]~RANCH
1:',0, Box 231
SAN ]~ERNARDINO~, ~ 92402
/A COPY OF ANY CCI~]TIONS OF APPROVAL OR REVISED APPROVAL ·
/,A~ COPY OF ANY DO~ENTS PROVIDING ADDITIONAL STATE HIGHWAY RIGHT OF ~AY UPON RECORDATION OF THE MAP ·
/i~d4Y PROPOSALS TO FURTHER DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY ·
COPY OF THE TRAFFIC OR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY,
CHECK PRIHT OF THE PARCEL OR r~RACT MAP.
CHECK PRINT OF THE PLANS FOR ANY INPROVEHENTS MZTHIN ON ADJACENT TO THE STATE NIGHMAY RIGHT OF MAT,
CHECK PRINT OF THE GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANS FOR THIS PROPERTY WHEN AVAILABLE,
Date: December 24, 1991
Riv-15-3.43
(Co-Rte-PM)
TPM 22515
(Your Reference)
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
The Caltrans symbol which indicates Access Control shall be used at the
State Right-of-Way on tentative/final parcel map.
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
STAFF REPORT - SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME
S~STAFFRPT~22515-2.TPM 19
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
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,
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The previous Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 31724 is still applicable
to this project.
S~STAFFRPT~22515*2.TR~4 2
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,
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.
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
8ny essements.
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
A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 91__
S%STAFFRrn225 ~ 5-2. TP~ 5
RESOLUTION NO. 91---
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA 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 OFTHECITY OFTEMECULA
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:
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~$TAFFRP~22515-2,TPtVl 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
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.
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.
S\STAFFRPT~22515-2 .TIM
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,TPM 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 Temecuta 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~STAFFRFT~22515-2,TPM 10
ATI'ACHMENT NO. 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
S',STAFFRPT~2515-2,TFM I I
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 I-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.
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.
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
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.
Within forty-eight (48) hours of the approval of the project, the applicant/developer
shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or money order payable to
the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand, Two Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars
($1,275.00), which includes the One Thousand, Two Hundred, Fifty Dollars
($1,250.00) fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code
Section 711.4(d)(2) plus the Twenty-Five Dollar ($25.00) County administrative fee
S\STAFFRFT~22515-2.TRVl 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 Tem~cula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Department of Public Works;
Riverside County Health Department;
CATV Franchise;
CalTrans; 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.
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~STAFFRPT~22S15-2.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.TPM l l~f
13o
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
Department of Public Works. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code,
Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval.
The plan shall be drawn on 24" x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer.
A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted
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\STAFFRFT~22515-2,TFM
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
PRIOR
31.
32.
33.
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.
On-site drainage facilities, located outside of road right-of-way, shall be contained
within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final
map stating "Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions."
A 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CA'IV Franchises of the Intent
to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time of street
improvements.
TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an
encroachment permit shall be obtained from the 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.
S\STAFFRPT~22515-2.TPM 16
34.
35.
36.
37.
PRIOR
38.
39.
40.
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
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 Rood 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.
An encroachment permit shall be required from CalTrans for any work within their
right-of-way.
A permit from the County Flood Control District is required for work within their right-
of-way,
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 -
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.
S\STAFFRPT~22515*2.TPM 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 Enaineerina
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~?2515-2.TPM 18
DATE: "_,:P.-,her :.~. ! ': :7
Dear Applicant:
The Riversi.de County Board
referenced tentative tract map at its regular meeting
RE: TENTATIVE TRACT HAP NO. .32S|5'
REGIONAL TEAM NO. ~-./~.,,- "
t ~...),V· ; ~Iz7
· ,
, 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 t
Riverside County General Plan and is in compliance with the California Environment
Cuality Act of 1970. 3he project will not have a significant effect on the environne;
and a Negative DeclaraFi?~.~as l een: ,adopted,
A conditionally approv'ed tentatfve tract map shall expire ~A'nonths after the approval ,
the Board of Supervisor~ Hearing, the date of which is showff"above, unless within th~
period of time a fina'~ map shall Jl'alv~ been approved and f~le Ljvith the County Recordt
Prior to the expiration date,:~:he'~lan'¢~ivfder!m~y."a'~ply in"~ri~ing for an extensicr, ,
time. Application shall'-. be/paa~,'~6 .the Planning Di'reCtor' t~i~'~y (30) days prior to t
expiration date of the tenE~Lf~m~a'6'.~ 7~ql ~3g'~'r,'q x~/~b~y.i. sGr~¢,'/nay extend the pericd f.
one 3ear and upon further ap)%J]cition-a Second and a third year.-
1~"~'~ ' ' :' ' Very truly yours
RIVERS[DE COIJNTY PLANNING DEPARTNENT
Roger S. S~reeter, Planning Director
/,, /,,' /,'
3nL, :Ih, nnde, c, Ll",.','v~:~it)2
FILE - WHITE
APPLICANT - CANARY
ENGINEER- PINK
4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 787-6181
46-209 OASIS STREET. ROOM 30.
INDIO, CALIFORNIA 9220
(619) 342-827
SUBMiTTAl. TO TH':_ BO.U'(D OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. STATE OF CAI..IFORNLA
FROM: The Planning Department SUBMITTAL DATE: October 8, 1987
SUBJECT: Notice of Decision of Tentative Parcel Maps acted on by
the Planning Con~ission on September 9, 1987.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
RECEIVE AND FILE the Notice of Decision for the following
tentative parcTmaps acted on by the Planning Con~ission
on September 9o 1987.
TENTATIVE PARCEL )~A,P NO, 22515 - ROeERT BEIN, WILLIAM FROST
& ASSOCIATES - First Supervisorial District - Temecula -
Schedule E - R-R and C-1/C-P Zone: ADOPTED the Negative
Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 31724 and APPROVED
the tentative map.
The decision of the Planning Comission 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.
L , g eC or
Prey. Agn. ref.
Depts. Comments Dlsl.
AGEND
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER g, 1987
(AGENDA ITEM 1-4 - REEL 954 - SIDE 1 - 767-877)
PARCEL MAP 22515 - EA 31724 - Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates -
Temecula District - First Supervisorial District - 3 1 ots- 3,86~ acres -
Schedule E Land Division
The hearing was opened at 10:27 a.m. and closed at 10:37 a,m.
STAFF.RECOe~MENOATION: Adoption of the negative declaration for EA 31724 and
approval of Parcel Hap 22515 subject to the proposed conditions, Surroundin
properties were zoned C-1/C-P and M-SC, and contained residential, cc~n~erciai
and industrial land uses, Staff felt the proposed project represented an
infilling within the cor~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 rec~r..ended that an archaeologist and
paleontologist be present to monitor gradin activities. Mr. Howard requested
that the condition be amended to give the Planning 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 vere 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&Rs containing provisions for ownership or the irrevocable right to
use the open space and ameni ties by the owners of the project.
There was no further testimony, and the hearing was closed at 10:33 a.m.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Parcel ~ap 22515 is an application to subdivide
3.36 acres into three comercial tots; surrounding land uses are vacant,
comercial, industrial, and residential; surrounding zoning is C-1/C-P and
M-SC; environmental Concerns identified by Environmental Assessment 31724 are
liquefaction, archaeology and paleontology; and the project site falls within
the Rancho California-Temecula subarea of the Southvest Territory Land Use
Planning Area. The project is a Category I land use; represents infill~ng
within the c~nercial 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.
8
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 9, 1987
MOTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Bresson, seconded by Commissioner
Purrlance and unanimously carried, the Commission reconfnended to the Board of
Supervisors adoption of the negative declaration for EA 31724 and approval of
Parcel Kap 22515 subject to the proposed conditions, with the deletion of
Condition 1B{c), based on the above findings and conclusions and the
reco~tnendations 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. 9,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMiNT
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 3unction of Front Street and
Interstate - 15
Vacant
Vacant, commercial and industrial
C-1/C-P and R-R
C-I/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: 07-08-87;
Mount Palomar: 06-30-87
Opposing/Supporting: None as of this writin
Not within a city sphere
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-I/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 chan~e the subject site's
current zoning to C-P-S.
PARCEL HAP NO. 22515
Staff Report
Page -2-
The land uses and zoning that surround the property are varied. Hurrieta Creek,
which runs parallel with Front Street in a north/south direction, traverses the
mid portions of lots that line the west Hide of Front Street. The creek forms
a natural separation between the coammercial/industrial land uses and zoning along
Front Street and the residential land uses and zoning designations along Pujol
Street.
W~ile there are established co~ercial and industrial land uses north of the
site in the Temecula Ristorical 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 development on Front Street and the
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 lnfilling of existing and proposed
commercial land uses along Front Street.
The access onto Front Street is being restricted. Tvo access openings will be
allowed - one between parcels 1 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 ~ NO. 22515
Staff Report
Page -3-
FINDINGS:
1. Parcel Map 22515 is an application to subdivide 3.36 acres into 3 commercial
lots.
2. SurroundinE land uses are vacant, coamaerctal/tndustrial and residential.
3. Surrounding zoning is C-1/C-P and M-St.
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 infilling within the commercial corridor along 1-15.
3. All environmental concerns can be mitigated through conditions of approval.
compatible
4. The proposed subdivisidn is consistent with General Plan Policies,
with area development, and in conformance with Ordinance 460.
R/COMMENDATIONS:
Based on the findings and conclusions incorporated in this staff report, staff
recommends the following:
ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration for Environ ntal Assessment No. 31724; and,
APPROVAL of Parcel Map No. 22515, subject to the attached conditions of approval.
LBL:ms
8-26-87
/
\ /
.~/
L.-Ij ,,.:
· t
\ ':::-..
VAC
4.3g AC_~
VAC
'~ I " '~!~' ' ' :
·App. ~( '..-T aEIN. ~LLIA~ Rb~T. p~SOC.
o,,u,, i'~.'~' ' "':"":',,~' ' '
Sac. T: 8 S..R.3W. ~sessor's Bk. 922 h. 12
Circulation ~ EXCESSWAY VARIABLE
Element ~ FREEWAY VARIABLE
~ Rd. Bk. h. 56A Date 8/19/87 )own By JCW
.e-A-2o
/
/
,/
4.39
R_-_R .
_R -A-;
~App. ROBERT BEIN, WILLIAM FROST Bi ASSC)C.
Use 5 LOTS.
~'ea TEMECULA Ist Sup. D~st.
See. T. 8 S.,R.3W. As.mess~'s Bk. 922 Fhg. )2
Circulofion (~ EXPRESSWAY VARIABLE
Element (~ FREEWAY VARIABLE
;Rd. BtLRB. 56A O~ite 8/19/87 Dro'wn By JCW vn
~ I*. 800' RTVER~DE COUNTY PLANN/N6 DEPARTkaeVT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBDIVISION
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 t~ap 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 Cali forhie
Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule
E, 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.
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
13.
14.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Department of Building and
Safety prior to commencement of any grading outside of county maintained
f
road right o way.
A~y delinquent property t~xes shall be paid prior to recordation of the
final map.
The subdivider shall comply with the street improvement recon~endations
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 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 a~a
conveyances shall be ~ubmitted and recorded as directed by the CouT
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 dated
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 riate fees for the construction of area drainage
facilities shall be collected by the Road Commissioner.
The subdivider shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations
outlined 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 HAP NO. 22515
Conditions of Approval
Page 3
17. Lots created by this subdivision shall c~nply with the following:
18.
a. All lots shall have a minimum size of ,91 acres net.
b. All lot length to width ratios shall be in conromance with Section
3.8C of Ordinance 460.
Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the
development standards of the C-P-S zone.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free
condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or
provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the
Director of Building and Safety.
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 frcrn the following agencies have been met.
County Fire Department
County Flood Control
County Health Department
County Planning Department
Prior to the recordation of the final map, Change of Zone No. 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.
Prier ~.a +-eeer~a{ie, e( the ~iRa~ s~b~ivisieR mah the affp~iean( shall
a~reva4 whieh ehai~ deme~s(~e (e ~he ~a(is~ae~ie~ e( (~e ~epa~e~
)~ ~he de{~me~( .re eelvery tithe
33 ~eve,a,(h eedes a,d -'.'es(~ie{ie~s (e .be ~eee~ed
s~ivisie~ ma~ is teeerred, &a4~ ~ee~meR(s sha~ eel{aiR ~revisie~s
ameRi{ies by {~e ewRe~e e~ (he ~eaee{, The a~ff~eve~
a~ee een~a/~ a p~evisie~ wkie~ p~evi~es (ha{ (he GG & ~5 may ~e{ ~e
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 22515
Conditions of Approval
Page 4
4mee~l~e~a(e a t~,evisieM (er ~eeil~-e~a4 iMgress a~d egress,(Deleted by
Planning C<mmission Seimtem~er g, 1987)
d$
If street lightin 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 Department's
traffic engineer and then from the appropriate utility purveyor.
2)
Following approval of the street lighting layout by the Road
Deparbnent's traffic engineer, the developer shall al so 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 district.
Prior to recordation of the final map, 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 installea 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
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 recon~endations dated June 30, 1987, a copy of which is
attached.
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 22515
Conditions of Approval
Page 5
lg.
Prior to the issuance of GRADING PEP~MITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
Grading plans shall conform to 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 {benthing} 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 w~th 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:
z)
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 hal t
grading activity to allow sufficient time for recovery and
adequate documentation.
2)
Any material collected during the monitoring shall
local institution which has the proper facilities
display and use by scholars and the general public.
be donated to a
for curation,
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 ~proval
Page 6
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 pal eontological impacts.
Should the paleontologist find tbe 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~tdecl at
Planning Cc~ission Sept~,~ber 9, 1gi)7)
LBL:ms
08-26-87
OFFICE OF ROAD COMMIISIONER & COUNTY SURVEYOR
July 24, 1987
Riverside County Planning Con~nisston
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
Re: Parcel Map 22515
Schedule E - Team 1
Ladies and Gentlemen:
With respect to the conditions of approval for the referenceo tentative lana
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).
It is understood that the tentative map correctly shows acceptable centerline
profiles, all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses with
appropriate O's, and that their 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 billdin~
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 Roao
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.
The 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
facilities as approved by the Road Department.
Parcel Hip 22515
July 24, 1987
Page 2
10,
11.
Major drainage is involved on this landdivision and its resolution
shall be as approved by the Road Department.
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed throughout the landdivision
in accordance ~th 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.
{Modified 60'/80'}.
Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall
deposit with the Riverside County Road Department, 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 40' opening between parcels 1
and 2 and one 4D' 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.
earc~l'Map 22515
duly 24, 1987
Pa~e 3
15,
16.
17.
The landdivider shall comply with the Caltrans recommendations 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 Cal trans, 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 ~hall 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:Ih
ery truly yourS, (~
Hug
Road Division Engine
· June 29, 1987
HEALTH
Riverside County Planning Commission
4080 Lemon Street
R~verslde, CA 92502 PL;.:'.
RE; PARCEL MAP 22515: That.portion of the Rancho Temecula
gr~nted by the government of the United States of America to
Luis Vignes by patent dated 3anuary 18, 1860 and recorded in
Book 1, 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 syslem 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
3olnt 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
the California Health and Safety Code, California
Administrative Code. Title 22, Chapter I6, 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
accol'dance with the water system e>,'pansion 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
viii supply water to such tract at any specific
quantities. flows or pressures for fire protection 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. _Th_~_~!~D~_~U~_~~
ThXs'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 ~re completed with the subdivider.
It will be necessary for the financial arrangements to be
made prior to the recordation of the final map.
This Department has a statement from the Eastern Municipal
Water DistrAct agreeing to allow the subdlvlslon 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 D~strlct, the County
Surveyor and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the
plans of the sewer system shall be submitted An triplicate,
along with the original drawing, to the County Surveyor. The
prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, locatlon of
manholes, complete pr6f~les, pipe and 3olnt specifications
and the size of the sewers at the Junction of the new system
to the existing system. A single plat indicatln~ location
of sewer llnes and water lines shall be a portion of the
sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall be signed by a
registered engineer and the sewer district with the
following certification: "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 ~s adequate at
this t~me to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed
parcel." Tb~_~!~D~_~_b~_~!~_~g_~_Gg~r2~x
Riverside Planning Commission
Page Three
June 2g, 1987
It ~ill be necessary for the financial 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 or the r~nal
map.
Environmental Health Services Division
SM:tac
RIVERSIDe COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
July 17, 1987
Riverside Cotmty
Planning Depa.~' ~,ent
County ~aministrative Center
Riverside, Califnrnia
Attention: Regional Team No. 1
Lesley Likins
!~aies and Gentlehen:
Parcel Map 22515
Parcel Map 22515 is a proposal to divide 3.86 acres into 3 lots in the Temecu-
la Valley area, between Front Street and Interstate 15.
Stormwater discharged f~u,, 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. Flows ~xDuld be COnveyed through t/-e property
in a 108-inch cliametar reinforced COncrete pipe and discharged intD Mu_nrieta
Creek. Pbwever, t]~ proposed pipe may not adequately convey t]~ double box
culvert' s discharge.
FOllowing are the District' s reeai,,~e, ndations:
This parcel map is 'located within t~e limite of the Murrieta Creek/
Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been
adopted by the Board. Drainage fees sh~ll be paid as set forth under
the provisions of the "Rules and Regulations for Administration of
Area Drainage Plans", amended July 3. 1984:
Drainage fees shall be paid to the RDad Cu~,.~ssioner as peart of
the filing for r~ord of the subdivision final map or parcel map,
or if the recording of a final parcel map is waived, drainage fees
shall be paid as a coPaition of the waiver prior to recr."]ing a
certificate of oa,~liance evidencing the wa/ver of the i eel mgp;
or
At the uFLion of the land divider, upon filing a required af-
fidavit requesting deferment of tt~ payment of fees, the drainage
fees shall be paid to t~e Building Director at the time of is-
sueAce of a grading permit or building permit for each approved
parcel, whichaver may be first obtained after th~ recording of ~
subdivision final map or parcel map: hDwever,
Drainage fees shall be paid to the ~oad Ccrm~issioner as a part of
the filing for record of the subdivision final map or pamcel map,
or before receiving a wa_ivar to record a land division, for each
lot within the land division where COnstruction activity as evi-
denced by one of the follc~6_ng actions has (k-curred since May 26.
1981:
Riverside Cou~nty
Planning Department
P~: P~rcel Map 22515
-2- July l7, 1~7
(a) A ~ading permit or building permit ~s been c~Dtained.
(b) Grading cr structures ~ve been tn/tia~.
The proposed pipe should be designed ~D ~:~,vey the tributary 100 year
peak flow rats or t~e flow rats required by Caltrans, whichever is
. greater. The pipe should be p~'ided with an adequats outlet.
C~sits drainage facilities located outside of road right of w~y should
be cc~f~{ned within drainage easerents shown c~1 th~ final map. A note
should be added tr3 the f/hal map stating, "Drainage easement~ shall be
kept Eree of buildings and d3structions".
Offsite drainage ~acilities should be located within publicly
dedicated drainage easements obtained from the affected pro.petty
owners. The documents should be recorded and a copy su]zm/tted to tt~
District prior to recordat_ion of the f~nal map.
Drainage facilities outletting sum~p conditions should be designed to
convey t_Pe tributary 100 year storm flows. ~aditional energency
escape should also be provided.
A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final map along
with st~kuorting bydrolcgic and hydraulic calculations should be
suknlitted to the District for review prior to recordat/on of the final
map. A registered engineer must sign, seal and note his expiration
date o~ plans and calculations sukNuitted.
Questions concerning this matter may be referred to Stuart McKikbin of this
office at 714/787-2333.
Very truly yours
Robe-t Bein, William Frost
& Associates
oHr ' Civil% ineer
SEM:bjp
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
IN COOPERATION WITH THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
RAY HEBRARD
FIRE CHIEF
?-15-87
PLANNING DEPARTMRNT
ATTH: TEAM
RE: PM 22515
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land division,
the Fire Department reconnends the following fire protection measures be provided
in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection
standards:
FIRE PROTECTION
The water mains shall be capable of providing a potential fire flow of 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"x2½x2)) 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 questions regarding the meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the
Fire Department Planning and Engineering staff.
MICHAEL E- GRAY, Planning Officer
STATE OF CALIFOINIA - IU$1NE~, TIANSPOE'TAnON AND HOUSING A~ENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TP,~NSPORTATION
Plann.ing Department
County of Riverside
q080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
08-Riv-15-3.q38
Your Reference:
TPM 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 beginninE the work.
If additional information is desired, please call Mr. Patrick M.
Cormally at (714) 383-4384.
District Permits Engineer
Att.
cc: Lee Johnson, Riverside County Road Department
WE WOULD L)XE TO NOTE:
Alth~gh the traffic and drainage generated by this proposal do not appear to have
a significant effect on the state hig~ay system, consideration must be given to
the cumulative errant or continued development in this area. Any "~asures
necessary to mitigate the -.n,latlve impact or traffic and drainage should be
provided prior to or with development or the area that necessitates them.
It appears that the-traffic and drainage generated by ~his proposal could have a
significant effect on the state highway system of the area. Ar~ measures necessary
to mitigate the traffic and drainage impacts ~ould be included with the
development. ..
This portion or state highway is included in t~e Califor~nia M~ster Plan or .State
Highways Eligible for Official Scenic Hig~ay Designation, and in the future your
agency my wish to have this route officially designated as a state scenic highway.
This portion of state higF~ay has been officially designated as a state scenic
h.iEhway, and development in this corridor'should be eo~atible with the scenic
highway concept.
It is recognized that there is considerable public concern about noise levels
adjacent to heavily traveled h~g~ays. Land development, in order to be c~atible.
with this concern, [nay require special noise attenuation measures. Development of
property should include any necessary noise attenuation.
WE RECOP~t~ND:
Normal right of way dedication to provide
~alf-width on the state highway.
Normal street improvements to provide
__half-~dth on the state highway.
Curb and gutter, State Standard along the state highway.
__ Parking be prohibited along the sta~e highway by painting the curb re~
sund/or by the proper placement of "no parking" si~s.
__ radius curb returns be provided at intersections w~th the state b. ighway.
A standard wheelchair ramp must be provided in the?eturns.
A p<xsitive vehicular baCrier along the property' frontage be provided to limit
~h~sical access to the state kiEhway. ~
Vehicular access not be develop~ directly to the state highway.
Vehicular access to the state hiE~ay be provided by existinE public r~ad
connections.
Vehicular access to the state highway be provided by standard
driveways. /
Fo~m 8-PD19 (Rev. 5/87) (Continued on reverse)
08-Riv-15-3.438
(Co-Rte-PM)
TPM 22515
(Your Reference)
ADDITIONAL COe4MENTS:
Access restrictions should be indicated on the parcel map along the rig
of way of 1-15. An additional 50' of access restriction along t
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 syste
We would like to see appropriate hydraulic calculations when available.
=iiVr-::DiD COUll %
PLA!lllirlG DF-PA:IC!TIF..Fli
DATE: June 9, 1987
T0:
Assessor
Building and Safety
Surveyor Dave Duda
Road Department
Health
Fire Protection
Flood Control District
Fish & Game
LAFCO Doug Vierra
JUL 0 G i987 ""'
RIVErtS!:'}E' COUNT
RECEIVED
JUN 3 0 1987
PALOMAR
Rancho Calif. Water Dist.
Southern Calif. Edison
Southern"Catif. Gas
General Telephone
Dept. of Transportation ~8
Temecula ChanU~er of Con~erce
Regional Water Quality Cpntrol ~9
E~stern Municipal Water
CHt Palomar~
Connissioner Bress on
PARCEL M~AP 22515 - (Tm-1} - E.A. 31
Robert Bein, William Frost & Assoc.
Temecula District - First Superviso
District - North of Junction of Fro
and 1-15 - R-R & C-1/C-P Zone - Sch
E - No Waiver - 3.86 acres into 3 1
Related Case 4783 - Mod 119 - A.P.
922-120-004
Please review the case described above, along wi
Division Committee meeting has been tentatively
it will then go to public hearing.
th the attached case map. A Land
scheduled for July 16, 1987. If it c
Your co~nments and recommendations are requested prior to July 2, 1987 in order that
include them in the staff report for this particular case.
Should you have any questions regarding this ttefn, please do not hesitate to contact
Lesley Liking at 787-1363
Planner
COMMENTS:
PLEASE SEE ATTACHED
DATE: 6/30/87 SIGNATURE
PLEASE print name and title Dr. Robert to/Assistant Director/Palomar
4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 787-6181
46-209 OASIS STREET. ROOM 3:
INDIO. CALIFORNIA 922C
(619) 342-827
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
This-case is viEbin 30 miles of the Palomar Observatory and is there[ore
within the zone requiring the use of low-pressure sodium vapor lamps for
street lighting, as stipulated by nhe 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 SuperXisors which is intended to mitigate the adverse e[fec=s
such facilities have 6n £he astronomical research at Palomar. Bene[icial
steps to that end include:
1, Use the minimum amount of light needed for the task.
2, Orient and shield light to prevent direct upward illumination.
3, Tun off lights at ll:06"p,m. (or earlier) unless, in commercial
applications, the associated business is ouen past that time, in which
case the lights should be turned off at closing.
4. Use low-pressure sodium la~nps for roadways, walkways, equipment yards,
parking lots, security and other siallet applications. These lights
need not be turned off at 11:00 p,m.
For further information, call (818) 356-4035.
Robert J. Brueato
Assistant Director
i. Caa~ltr ~r® r"'l
.................. ~4~ ...........................
to Cl~ctr~ctt;a · ~ ~
RIVERSIDE COUNi"Y PLANNING DEPARTI4ENT
COUNTY ADI~INISTP. ATIVE CENTER. NII~H FLOOR
4080 LEMON STREET
RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92501-3657
Roger S. Streeter, Planning 6irect~r
A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the Pi. ANNIMG C(}!qISSIOH to consider
the application{s) described below. The P1 anntng Department has tentativel
found that the pro osed pro ect s) will have no si nificant environmenta~
.ffect .nd has tent. tVvel, co ptetJ n.g.tive de l.ratlonCsl. T,e Planning
C~,,,,isston will consider whether or not to adopt the negative declaration along
with the proposed project at this hearing.
Place of Hearing: Board Roo~, 14th Floor, qOBO Lemon Street, Riverside, CA
Date of Hearing: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 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 nay 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 Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. The environmental
finding along with the proposed project application may be viewed at the public
infomation counter Monday through Friday from B:O0 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 Supervtsorial District which proposes to divide 3.86~ 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.
\
e., 'I
/,--!
BLK
I
·
·
·
·
·
I
I
t$S
C/e/I. ATMOND $~ITH
~ACO~ DEVEL~PM.~NI Ca
BOX 755
TOTAL L~SEL.S PRINTED 8
92.390
e2.39o
92.ZZ1003C,-5
~ RC (ORLIN N~ 1 LAI~
· · 66987 ~:~ONT ST
p;-~U:OLD LA,DD L
I pEN/-OLD R~GE
&&~,05 LA PAZ
TF-/'~;CUL~, CA 9Z390
922l~00Co-5
FHARRZS CHLEII
pHARRIS GENEVIEVE
2854 N SANTIAGO BLY NO ZOO
ORANGEt CA 9Zb67
9ZZiIOOC/-b
BOX 5~3.53
Ahr-[LESI CA
9005-'~
9ZZ/.IGOZ;-9
KANChO SPACE CENTER LTD
28999 FRONT ST
TERECUL.A CA
9~190
RANCHO SPACE CENTEK LTD
28999 FRONT ST
TEA~CUL-A CA
9Z390
92..ZIIGOZ~-Z
l C~D LLqE
P :ZZs s
~ \ APTS
VAC ~
H I L.L S \~\\
/
/
!
VAC
%
4.ie AC_4-
VAC
App. ROBERT BEIN. WILLIAM FROST 8~ ASSOC.
Use 3 LOTS.
Areo TEMECULA I i' Sup. Oist.
Sec. T. 8 S.,R.,~W. Aiees$or'$ Bk. 922 PQ. 12
Circulation d~) EXPRESSWAY VARIABLE
Element ~ FREEWAY VARIABLE
~ Rd. Bk. Pg. 56A Dole 8/19/87 Ckawn By JCW
6O3' RIVERS/DE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
LOC TIONAL MAp
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
S~STAFFRPT'~22515-2,TPM
20
CITY OF TEMECULA )
VICINITY MAP
CASE "0-~%~% .~
P.C. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA )
SWAP MAP
SP* 180
../
CASE · ~.,~':'~.~,~
P.C. DATE i.~_,_-i~--~./
CITY OF TEMECULA )
-J/
k
"rm-',. ~.z. St~.5""
CASE
ZONE MAP ) P.C. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
.'1
L
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
S%STAFFRPT%22515-2 .TP~ 20
CITY OF TEMECULA
LOCATION MAP
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 22515, THIRD EXTENSION OF TIME
EXHIBIT: A VICINITY MAP
P.C. DATE: MARCH 16, 1992
S\STAFFRFT~22515-2 .TPM
CITY OF TEMECULA
SWAP - EXHIBIT B
DESIGNATION: C
ITE
//
/l "
, \% ·
ZONING -EXHIBITC
DESIGNATION: C-P-S
Case No.: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 22515, THIRD EXTENSION OF TIME
P.C. Date: MARCH 16, 1992
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 22515, THIRD EXTENSION OF TIME
EXHIBIT: D SITE PLAN
P.C. DATE: MARCH 16, 1992
ITEM # 11
STAFF REPORT
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
March 16, 1992
Case No.: Second Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103
Prepared By: Mark Rhoades
RECOMMENDATION:
ADOPT Resolution 92--- recommending approval of the Second
Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval and based on the
Findings contained in the Staff Report
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Marlborough Development Corporation
REPRESENTATIVE:
Marlborough Development Corporation
PROPOSAL:
Second Extension of Time for an 18 lot residential subdivision on
29.2 acres.
LOCATION:
West of Butterfield Stage Road between La Serena Way and
Rancho California Road.
EXISTING ZONING:
Specific Plan No. 199 (Margarita Village)
SURROUNDING ZONING: North:
South:
East:
West:
R-T (Mobile Home Subdivision and Mobile Home
Park)
SP (Specific Plan No. 199, Margarita Village)
A-1-10 (Light Agriculture 10 Acres Minimum)
SP (Specific Plan No. 199, Margarita Village)
PROPOSED ZONING:
Not requested.
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant (Rough Graded)
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant
Single Family Residential
Agriculture
Single-Family Residential
S\STAFFRPT~23103-2,VTM
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Total Acreage:
Total Lots Proposed:
Proposed Density:
Proposed Minimum Lot Size:
29.2 acres
18 lots
0.6 DU/AC
1.0 acre
BACKGROUND
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103 was recommended for approval on September 28,
1988 by the Riverside County Planning Commission in conjunction with Tract Nos. 231 O0
Amended No. 1,23101, and 23102 Amended No. 1. All four tracts implement Village B of
the Margarita Village Specific Plan (SP 199 Amended No. 1 ) which was previously approved
by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on September 13, 1988. Subsequently all four
tracts (23100 Amended No. 1,23101,23102, and 23103 Amended No. 1) were approved
by the County Board of Supervisors on November 8, 1988. The First Extension of Time for
Tentative Tract 23103 was appro~ed by the City Council on June 11, 1991.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103 is a proposal to subdivide approximately 29.2 acres
into 18 single family residential lots averaging approximately 51,400 square feet ( 1.18 acre)
with a minimum lot size of one acre. The subject site is located west of Butterfield Stage
Road between La Serena Way and Rancho California Road.
ANALYSIS:
Desjan Considerations
The proposed subdivision has been designed in accordance with the standards of Ordinance
Nos. 348,460 and Specific Plan No. 199. The main access to the project is Butterfield Stage
Road to the east.
Density
The proposed subdivision (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103) is consistent with the
Density Designation for Specific Plan No. 199 of .4-2 DU/AC. The actual proposed
subdivision density is 0.6 DU/AC. The density of the proposed subdivision reflects a
transition between the agricultural use to the east, and the higher density residential to the
west.
Gradinq
The subject site has been rough graded. The proposed subdivision entails approximately
95,000 cubic yards of raw cut and approximately 210,000 cubic yards of raw fill which will
be imported from Tract 23100. The finished grading will be consistent with adjacent existing
residential developments.
ZONING, FUTURE GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY:
The proposed density of 0.6 DU/AC is consistent with the Southwest Area Community Plan
designation of and Specific Plan No. 199 (Margarita Village). In addition, Staff finds it
probable that this project will be consistent with the new General Plan when it is adopted.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
Environmental Assessments have been prepared on all four tracts (23100 Amended No. 1,
23101,23102, 23103 Amended.. No. 1 ). Environmental impacts were assessed in EIR No.
202 prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan. Additional environmental evaluations
have been provided by the reports prepared for the specific plan amendment and the
acoustical studies prepared for three tracts. No significant environmental impacts have been
found. Therefore, the existing environmental determination is still applicable.
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 proposed use or action complies with state planning and zoning laws, due to the
fact that the proposed use conforms with those uses listed as "allowed" within the
project site's existing Specific Plan No. 199 (Low Density Family Housing) land use
designation.
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and density, due to the fact
that; adequate area is provided for all proposed residential structures; adequate
landscaping is provided along the project's public and private frontages; and the
internal circulation plan should not create traffic conflicts as design provisions are in
conformance with adopted City standards.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or
welfare, due to the fact that the conditions stated in the approval are based on
mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts of the
project.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103 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
S\STAFFRPT'~.3103-2. VTM
provide for citing 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 (Specific Plan No. 199), and also consistent with the adopted Southwest
Area Community Plan (SWAP) designation of Specific Plan.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in EIR No. 202 and the Negative Declaration adopted by
the County for the project, due to the fact that impact mitigation is realized by
conformance with the project's Conditions of Approval.
The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact that the project currently proposes an
independent access point from Butterfield Stage Road which has 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 applications and herein incorporated by reference, due to the
fact that they are referenced in the attached Staff Report, Exhibits, Environmental
Assessment, and Conditions of Approval.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT Resolution 92- recommending approval of the
Second Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 23103 subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval, based on the findings contained in the Staff
Report.
vgw
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
Resolution - page 5
Conditions of Approval - page 11
Staff Report, First Extension of Time - page 15
Exhibits - page 16
A. Vicinity Map
B. SWAP Map
C. Zoning Map
D. Site Plan
Village "B" concept - page 17
ATrACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
S\STAFFRPT~3103-2.V'rM 5
RESOLUTION NO. 92-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF SECOND
EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23103
TO SUBDIVIDE A 29.2 ACRE PARCEL INTO 18 SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL LOTS LOCATED WEST OF BUf '/'ERFIELD STAGE
ROAD BETWEEN LA SERENA WAY AND RANCHO CALIFORNIA
ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS'S PARCEL NO. 923-210-
010.
WHEREAS, Marlborough Development, filed the Second Extension of Time for
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103 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, said Vesting Tentative Tract Map application was approved by the
Riverside county Board of Supervisors on September 28, 1988 at which time interested
parties had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition,
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the First Extension of Time on June 11,
1991 at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or
opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommend approval of said Second Extension of Time;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings.
That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings:
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:
S~STAFFRPT~23103-2.VTM 6
m
(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 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.
The Planning
including the
following:
Commission finds, in approving projects and taking other actions,
issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the
(1)
There is reasonable probability that the Third Extension of Time
for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103 proposed will be
consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time,
because the project is consistent with the existing SWAP and
Zoning Designations.
(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, because the
project is similar in use and intensity to adjacent development.
(3)
The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances, because it is
consistent with the development standards of Ordinance No.
348, which conforms with State Laws.
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.
S\STAFFRPT%23103-2,VTM 7
B. That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.
That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type of
development.
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 t_he 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 the proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map, makes the following findings, to wit:
There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the
City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in
accordance with State law, due to the fact that the project is consistent with
existing site development standards in that it proposes articulated design
features and site amenities commensurate with existing and anticipated
residential development standards.
There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with
the future and adopted general plan, if the proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that the project is in conformance
with existing and anticipated land use and design guidelines standards.
The proposed use or action complies with state planning and zoning laws, due
to the fact that the proposed use conforms with those uses listed as "allowed"
within the project site's existing Specific Plan No. 199 (Low Density Family
Housing) land use designation.
S~TAFFRPT~3103-2.VTM 8
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size
and shape of the tot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and density,
due to the fact that; adequate area is provided for all proposed residential
structures; adequate landscaping is provided along the project's public and
private frontages; and the internal circulation plan should not create traffic
conflicts as design provisions are in conformance with adopted City standards.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public
health or welfare, due to the fact that the conditions stated in the approval are
based on mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate potential
adverse impacts of the project.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103 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 citing 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 (Specific Plan No. 199), and also consistent
with the adopted Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP) designation of
Specific Plan.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or
natural environment as determined in EIR No. 202 and the Negative Declaration
adopted by the County for the project, due to the fact that impact mitigation
is realized by conformance with the project's Conditions of Approval.
The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open
to, and useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact that the project currently
proposes an independent access point from Butterfield Stage Road which has
been determined to be adequate by the City Engineer.
The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting
street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access
through or use of the property within the proposed projects, due to the fact
that this is clearly represented in the site plan and the project analysis.
Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental
documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by
reference, due to the fact that they are referenced in the attached Staff Report,
Exhibits, Environmental Assessment, and Conditions of Approval.
As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Second Extension of Time for Vesting
Tentative Tract Map proposed is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
S~STAFFRPT~23303-2.VTM 9
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
Potential Environmental Impacts were addressed by the County of Riverside for the proposed
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103. The previous adopted Environmental Impact Report
therefore, still applies to this site.
SECTION 3~ Conditions.
That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula recommending approval of Second
Extension of Time for Tentative Tract Map No. 23103 to subdivide a 29.2 acre parcel into 18
single family residential lots located west of Butterfield Stage Road between La Serena Way
and Rancho California Road and known as Assessors's Parcel No. 923-210-010.
A. Attachment 3, attached hereto.
SECTION 4.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of March, 1992.
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
March, 1992 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
S~STAFFRFT~23103-2.VTM 10
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
S\STAFFRPT',.23103-2,VTM 11
ATTACHMENT 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103
Commission Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
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.
The subdivider shall submit to the Planning Director verification that Section 10.35 of
Ordinance No. 460 has been satisfied regarding payment of parks and recreation fees
in accordance with Section 10.35 of Ordinance No. 460. Verification shall be
submitted prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy.
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.
This conditionally approved Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
23103 will expire one (1) year after the original expiration date, unless extended as
provided by Ordinance 460. The expiration date is November 8, 1991.
The subdivider shall comply with the original Conditions of Approval for Tentative
Tract Map No. 23103 (see attached) except as amended herein.
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, the applicant or his assignee shall pay the fair
market value of 0.23 acres of parkland to satisfy Quimby requirements. The amount
to be paid shall be determined by TCSD staff within thirty (30) days prior to the
recordation of said map.
S\STAFFRFT'~3103-2.VTM I 2
All known slope and open space areas are hereby conditioned to be maintained by an
established Homeowner's Association (HOA). 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. All slope and open space areas
shall be identified by numbered lot, with the square footage of said areas noted on the
final map.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
The following are the Department of Public Works additional 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 Subdivider has correctly shown on the tentative map all
existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvements constraints and
drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for
further review and revision.
The subdivider shall comply with all previous Conditions of Approval for this project
except as amended or superseded herein.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
10.
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.
11.
Subdivider shall deposit with the City of Temecula an amount sufficient to cover the
construction of that portion of Butterfield Stage Road between where the westerly
property line intersects with the westerly right-of-way line and extends to intersect
with the centerline of the street. This portion of Butterfield Stage Road shall be
completed by the developer of Tract Map No. 23209, and said funds shall be
reimbursed to the developer of Tract Map No. 23209 upon completion of the
improvements.
12.
The vertical design of Butterfield Stage Road shall be as approved by the City of
Temecula.
13.
Maintenance for slopes, drainage devices and open space areas must be provided by
Temecula Community Services District or the Homeowners Association. The limits of
each maintenance area must be defined by numbered lots on the map.
14.
A median island shall be shown on the street improvement plans and shall be
constructed within Butterfield Stage Road per City standard No. 100 and as directed
by the Department of Public Works, or bonds shall be posted, as part of the street
improvement plans.
15.
Sidewalks shall be constructed along both sides of Placer Loudeaonne and Chemin
Clinet, or bonds shall be posted, as part of the street improvement plans.
S%STAFFRPT~23103-2.VTM 13
Prior to Issuance of Gradina Permits:
16.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, developer must obtain a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control
Board. No grading shall be permitted until a NPDES permit is granted or the project is
shown to be exempt.
Prior to Issuance of Bulldine Permits
17.
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; orovided that developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness
of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
S%STAFFRPT%23}03~2,V'I'M 14
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
STAFF REPORT - FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME
S\STAFFRPT%23103-2.V'rM 15
APPROV~~
CITY ATTORN
FINANCE OFFI
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJEC T:
PREPARED B~
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council
City Manager
June 11, 1991
First Extension of Time - Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103
City Clerk June Greek
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file report
BACKGROUND: The attached staff report was prepared for the meeting of
May 28, 1991 and continued by the City Council to this date.
JSG
APPROVAL~iiT~
CITY ATTOPaEY
FINANCE OFFICE
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Planning Department
May 28, 1991
First Extension of Time
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103
PREPARED BY:
Richard Ayala
RECOMMENDATION:
ADOPT Resolution 91 - approving the First Extension of
Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103 subject to
the attached Conditions of Approval, based on the
findings contained in the Staff Report.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Marlborough Development Corporation
REPRESENTATIVE:
Marlborough Development Corporation
PROPOSAL:
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103 is a proposal
to subdivide approximately 29.2 acres into 18 single
family residential lots averaging approximately
51,0,00 square feet (1.18 acre) with a minimum lot
size of one acre. The subject site is located west of
Butterfield Stage Road between La Serena Way and
Rancho California Road.
BACKGROUND:
First Extension of Time application for Vestin9
Tentative Tract Map No. 23103 was submitted to the
City on October 22, 1990. On April 1, 1991, it was
presented to the City of Temecula Planning
commission and was approved by a 4-0 vote based on
the analysis and findings contained in the Staff
Report and subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
A: VTM23103. CC 1
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Planninq DeDartment Staff recommends that the City
Council:
ADOPT Resolution 91-__ approving the First
Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 23103 subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval, based on the
findings contained in the Staff Report.
RA:ks
Attachments:
Resolution
Conditions of Approval
Planning commission Staff Report
(dated April 1, 1991)
Development Fee Checklist
Planning Commission Minutes
{dated April 1, 1991 )
A: VTM23103. CC 2
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING TIlE FIRST
EXTENSION OF TIME FOR VESTING TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP 23103 A 18 LOT RESIDENTIAL
SUBDMSION OF 29.2 ACRES LOCATED WEST OF
BUTlERFIELD STAGE ROAD BETWEEN LA
SERENA WAY AND RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 923-
210-010
WHEREAS, Marlborough Development Corporation fried 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;
WREREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Time Extension on April 15,
1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or
opposition;
W'FtEREAS, as the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said Time Extension.
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to sa~d Time
Extension on May 28, 1991, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either
in support or opposition to said Time Extension; and
WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff
Report regarding the Time Extension;
NOW, TREREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RF-gOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. ~. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following
findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Cede 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
182 -1-
following requirements are met:
1. The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the prepararion of the general
2. The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, each of the following:
a. There is a reasonable probability that the Time Extension proposed will
be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied
within a reasonable rime.
b. There is little or no pwbability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan.
c. The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable
requirements of state law and loG~l ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as mended by the Southwest Area Community
Plan, {hereinafter 'SWAP') was adopted prior to the incorporarion of Temecula as the General
Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries
of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the
City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Time Extension is consistent with the SWAP and meets the
requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit:
1. The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a propararion of the general
2. The City Council finds, in appwving projects and taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this rifle, each of the following:
a. There is reasonable probability that the Time Extension proposed will
be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied
within a reasonable rime.
b. There is little or no pwbability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or acrion is ulrimately
inconsistent with the plan.
c. The proposed use or acrion complies with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances.
3~ 182 -2-
D. 1. Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no Time Extension may be approved unless the
following findings can be made:
a. The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements
and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances.
b. The proposed subdivision doe~ not affect the general health, safety, and
welfare of the public.
2. The City Council, in approving the pwposed Time Extension, makes the
following findings, to wit:
a. There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with
the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance
with State law, due to the fact that the project is consistent with existing site development
standards in that it proposes articulated design fatores and site amenities commensurate with
existing and anticipated residential development standards.
b. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the future and adopted general plan, if the pwposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that the project is in conformance with existing and
anticipated land use and design guidelines standards.
c. The proposed use or action complies with state planning and zoning
laws, due to the fact that the proposed use conforms with those uses listed as *allowed' within
the project site's existing Specific Plan No. 199 (Low Density Family Housing) land use
designation.
d. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of
the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patters, access, and density, due to the
fact; adequate area is provided for all pwposed residential su'uctures; 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.
e. 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 axe based on
mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts of the project.
f. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103 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.
3/Res~, 182 -3-
g. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property
because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area,
due to the fact that the proposed project is consistent with the current zoning of the subject site
(Specific Plan No. 199), and also consistent with the adopted Southwest Area Community Plan
(SWAP) designation of Specific Plan.
h. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the
built or natural environment as determined in the Negative Decis.ration adopted by the County
for the project, due to the fact that impact mitigation is l-~2liTed by conformance with the
pwject's Conditions of Appwval.
i. 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 an
independent access point from Butterfield Stage Road which has been determined to be adequate
by the City Engineer.
j. The Design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the
resulting street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through
or use of the property within the proposed projects, due to the fact that this is clearly represented
in the site plan and the project analysis.
k. That .said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and
environmental documents, associated with these applicants and herein incorporated by reference,
due to the fact they are referenced in the attached Staff Report, Exhibits, Environmental
Assessments, and Conditions of Appwval.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 2, the Time Extension proposed conforms to
the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future
development of the surrounding property.
SECTION 2. Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby appwves the
First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract MAP 23103 for A 18 lot residential
subdivision of 29.2 acres located west of Butterfield Stage Road between La Serena Way and
Rancho California Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 923-210-010 subject to the -
following conditions:
A. Attachment II, attached hereto.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
3/Rsaoa 182
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this llth day of June, 1991.
ATFESTi
Ronald J. Parks, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I I-IF~E!qY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City
Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the llth day of June,
1991 by the following vote of the Council:
COUNCIlMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEIvIBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
3/R~ 182 -5-
ATTACHMENT I I
CITY OF TEMECULA
ADDITIONAL CONDITION5 OF APPROVAL
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103
Commission Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
Plannlnq Department
Unless previously paid, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the
applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the
appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be
superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the
payment of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the
fee required by the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County
ordinance or resolution.
The subdivider shall submit to the Planning Director verification that Section
10. 35 of Ordinance No. ~,60 has been satisfied regarding payment of parks and
recreation fees in accordance with Section 10.35 of Ordinance No. ~60.
Verification shall be submitted prior to issuance of any certificate of
occupancy.
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.
This conditionally approved Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 23103 will expire one (1) year after the original expiration date,
unless extended as provided by Ordinance ~,60. The expiration date is
November 8, 1991.
The subdivider shall comply with the original Conditions of Approval for
Tentative Tract Map No. 23102 (see attached} except as amended herein.
Enqineerinq Department
The following are the Engineerin9 Department Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
STAFFRPT\VTM23103 1
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways. and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act,
and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions.
The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered
Civil Engineer, subject to all the requirements of the State of California
Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No. 0,60.
Submit letter from adjacent property owner that the proposed drainage on
their property is acceptable to them.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
As deemed necessary by the City Engineer or his representative the developer
shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District:
Eastern Municipal Water District:
Riverside County Flood Control district;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department:
CATV Franchise; and
Parks and Recreation Department.
10.
All road easements and/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication to
the public and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such
offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the
City Engineer.
11.
Vehicular access shall be restricted on Butterfield Road and so noted on the
final map.
12.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage
facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located
within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances
shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the City Engineer.
13.
A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCF, R's) shall be
prepared by the developer and submitted to the Director of Planning, City
Engineer and City Attorney. The CCF, R's shall be signed and acknowledged
by all parties having any record title interest in the property to be developed.
shall make the City a party thereto, and shall be enforceable by the City.
The CCF, R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded. The
CCF, R's shall be subject to the following conditions:
STAFFRPT\VTM23103 2
a. The CC~,R's shall be prepared at the developer's sole cost and expense.
The CCSR's shall be in the form and content approved by the Director
of Planning, City Engineer and the City Attorney, and shall include
such provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials
deem necessary to protect the interest of the City and its residents.
The CC~-R's and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owner's
Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering
Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent
with the final map. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City.
The CC~,R's shall provide for the effective establishment, operation.
management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas and
facilities.
The CCF, R's shall provide that the property shall be developed,
operated and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance.
The CCSR~s shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the
condition required by the CCE, R~s, then the City, after making due
demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and
perform, at the owner~s sole expense, any maintenance required
thereon by the CCF, R~s or the City ordinances. The property shall be
subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not
promptly reimbursed.
The declaration shall contain language prohibiting further
subdivision of any lots. whether they are lettered lots or
numbered lots.
iS.
All parkways. open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently
maintained by homeowner~s association or other means acceptable
to the City. Such proof of this maintenance shall be submitted
to the Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to issuance of
building permits.
The developer. or the developer's successor, shall execute a current Public
Facilities Agreement with the City of Temecula which provides for the payment
of the sum of money per residential unit then established by Resolution of the
City Council, prior to the issuance of any building permits for any individual
lots.
15.
The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be
executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements
in conformance with applicable City standards.
Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement. curb
and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights.
STAFFRPT\VTM23103 3
16.
17.
18.
signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control
devices as appropriate.
b. Storm drain facilities.
c. Landscaping (street and parks).
d, Sewer and domestic water systems,
e. Undergrounding of existing and proposed utility distribution lines.
The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated
with adjoining developments.
Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. ~,61 and as approved by the
City Engineer.
Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the
Engineering Department a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation
towards traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time
of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written
agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a
building permit.
19. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent.
20.
21.
22.
23.
All driveways shall be located a minimum of two (2) feet from the property
line.
The subdivider shall submit four prints of a comprehensive grading plan to
the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building
Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions
of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 24" x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil
Engineer.
A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and
submitted at the time of application for grading plan check.
The subdivider shall submit four copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer.
All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.
STAFFRPT\VTM23103 z4
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,"
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.
Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface
drainage entering the property from adjacent areas.
28.
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:
29.
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.
30.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to
commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of-
way.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid, The charge shall equal the prevailing
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The
charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits.
If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to
this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT:
32.
A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for
review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil
Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final
Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
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.
PRIOR 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.
STAFFRPT\VTM23103 5
35.
Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all
times with adequate detours during construction.
36.
Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than lu, days following
placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon
per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39, and
9L~ of the State Standard Specifications.
37.
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.
Trans~oortation Enclineerinq
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
38.
A signing plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved
by the City Engineer for Chenin Clinet and Placer Loudeaonne and shall be
included in the street improvement plans.
39.
Condition No. 7 in the County of Riverside Road letter dated July ZZ, 1988
shall be deleted.
Prior to design in9 any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering
for the design requirements.
Condition No. 28 in the County of Riverside Road letter dated July 22, 1988
shall be modified to read: A signing and striping plan shall be designed by
a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for Butterfield
Stage Road and shall be included with the street improvement plans.
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,
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and
striping plans.
STAFFRPT\VTM23103 6
Buildincl F, Safety Del~artment
Submit approved tract map to the Department of Building and Safety for
addressing prior to submittal for Structural Plan Review.
~,5. Obtain land Use and Building Department clearances.
~,6. School fees shall be paid to Temecula Unified School District.
STAFFRPT\VTM23103 7
ATTACHMENT I I I
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
April 15, 1991
Case No.: First Extension of Time for
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103
Prepared By: Richard Ayala
Recommendation: ADOPT Resolution 91-
recommending approval of the
First Extension of Time for
Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 23103 subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval,
based on the Findings contained
in the Staff Report
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
Marlborough Development Corporation
Marlborough Development Corporation
First Extension of Time
West of Butterfield Stage Road between La Serena
Way and Rancho California Road.
Specific Plan No. 199 (Margarita Village)
North: R-T (Mobile Home Subdivision
and Mobile Home Park)
South: SP (Specific Plan No. 199,
Margarita Village)
East: A-1-10 (Light Agriculture 10
Acres Minimum)
West: SP (Specific Plan No. 199,
Margarita Village)
Not requested.
Vacant ( Rough Graded )
STAFFRPT\VTM23103 1
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
North: Vacant
South: Single Family Residential
East: Agriculture
West: Vacant
Total Acreage:
Total Lots Proposed:
Proposed Density:
Proposed Minimum Lot Size:
29.2 acres
18 lots
0.6 DU/AC
1.0 acre
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103 was
recommended for approval on September 28. 1988 by
the Riverside County Planning Commission in
conjunction with Tract Nos. 23100 Amd. No. 1;
23101; and 23102 Amd. No. 1. All four tracts
implement Village B of the Margarita Village Specific
Plan {SP 199 Amd. No. 1) which was previously
approved by the Board of Supervisors on September
13, '388. Subsequently all four tracts (23100 Amd.
1, 23101, 23102, and 23103 Amd. 1 ) were approved
by the County Board of Supervisors on November 8.
1988.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103 is a proposal
to subdivide approximately 29.2 acres into 18 single
family residential lots averaging approximately
51.0,00 square feet (1.18 acre) with a minimum lot
size of one acre. The subject site is located west of
Butterfleld Stage Road between La Serena Way and
Rancho California Road.
Desiqn Considerations
The proposed subdivision has been designed in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance Nos.
30,8, 0,60 and Specific Plan No. 199. The main access
to the project is Butterfield Stage Road. The
project has been designed to provide increased land
use and circulation efficiency.
Density
The proposed subdivision ( Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 23103) is consistent with the Density
Designation for Specific Plan No. 199 of .u,-2
DU/AC. The actual proposed subdivision density is
0.6 DU/AC.
STAFFRPT\VTM23103 2
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS:
GradincI
The subject site has been partially rough graded
and yet needs to be fine graded. The proposed
subdivision will entail approximately 95,000 cubic
yards of raw cut and approximately 210,000 cubic
yards of raw fill which will be imported from Tract
23100. The finished grading will be consistent with
adjacent existing residential developments.
The proposed density of 0.6 DU/AC is consistent
with the Southwest Area Community Plan and
Specific Plan No. 199 {Margarita Village). in
addition, Staff finds it probable that this project
will be consistent with the new General Plan when it
is adopted.
Environmental Assessments have been prepared on
all four tracts {23100 Amd. No. 1, 23101, 23102,
23103 Amd. No. 1). Environmental impacts were
assessed in EIR No. 107 and EIR No. 202 prepared
for the Rancho Village Specific Plan and the
Margarita Village Specific Plan. Additional
environmental evaluations have been provided by
the reports prepared for the specific plan
amendment and the acoustical studies prepared for
three tracts. No significant environmental impacts
have been found. Therefore, Staff is not
requesting any further environmental
determination.
There is a reasonable probability that this
project will be consistent with the City's
future General Plan, which will be completed
in a reasonable time and in accordance with
State law, due to the fact that the project is
consistent with existing site development
standards in that it proposes articulated
design features and site amenities
commensurate with existing and anticipated
residential development standards.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future and adopted general plan, if the
proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact
that the project is in conformante with
STAFFRPT\VTM23103 3
existing and anticipated land use and design
guidelines standards.
The proposed use or action complies with
state planning and zoning laws, due to the
fact that the proposed use conforms with
those uses listed as "allowed" within the
project slte~s existing Specific Plan No, 199
{Low Density Family Housing) land use
designation.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation
patterns, access, and density, due to the
fact that; adequate area is provided for all
proposed residential structures; adequate
landscaping is provided along the project's
public and private frontages; and the
internal circulation plan should not create
traffic conflicts as design provisions are in
conformance with adopted City standards.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare, due to the fact that the conditions
stated in the approval are based on mitigation
measures necessary to reduce or eliminate
potential adverse impacts of the project.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103 is
compatible with surrounding land uses. The
harmony in scale, bulk, height, density and
coverage creates a cDmpatible 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
{Specific Plan No. 199), and also consistent
STAFFRPT\VTM23103 ~
with the adopted Southwest Area Community
Plan (SWAP) designation of Specific Plan.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the Negative
Declaration adopted by the County for the
project, due to the fact that impact mitigation
is realized by conformance with the project's
Conditions of Approval.
The project has acceptable access to a
dedicated right-of-way which is open to. and
useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact
that the project currently proposes an
independent access point from Butterfield
Stage Road which has been determined to be
adequate by the City Engineer.
10.
The design of the subdivision, the type of
improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed projects, due to
the fact that this is clearly represented in the
site plan and the project analysis.
11.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applicants and herein
incorporated by reference, due to the fact
that they are referenced in the attached Staff
Report, Exhibits, Environmental Assessment,
and Conditions of Approval.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
ADOPT Resolution 91- recommending
approval of the First Extension of Time for
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103
subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval, based on the findings contained in
the Staff Report.
RA:ks
Attachments:
Resolution 91-
Conditions of Approval
Exhibits
A. 5ire Plan
STAFFRPT\VTM23103 5
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 91-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVETRACT MAP
NO. 23103 TO SUBDIVIDE A 29.2 ACRE PARCEL INTO 18
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS LOCATED WEST OF
BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD BETWEEN LA SERENA WAY
AND RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSORIS PARCEL NO. 923-210-010.
WHEREAS, Marlborough Development Corporation filed a Extension of
Time 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 Tentative Tract
Map on April 15, 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 Extension of Time;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findin.qs. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30} months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with th'~
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
( 1 ) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
(2 | The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
STAFFRPT\VTM23103 6
!a)
There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
Ib)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP" ) was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Ran for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, inciuding the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Ran guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Extension of Time is consistent with the
SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the
Government Code, to wit:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The Planning Commission finds, in recommending
approval of projects and taking other actions, including
the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title,
each of the following:
There is reasonable probability that First
Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 23103 proposed will be consistent
with the general . plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
Ib)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
STAFFRPT\VTM23103 7
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state taw and
local ordinances.
D. (1) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No.
u,60, no subdivision or extension of time may be approved unless the
following findings are made:
a)
That the proposed land division is consistent
with applicable general and specific plans.
b)
That the design or improvement of the
proposed land division is consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.
c)
That the site of the proposed land division is
physically suitable for the type of
development.
d)
That the site of the proposed land division is
physically suitable for the proposed density
of the development.
e)
That the design of the proposed land division
or proposed improvements are not ilkely to
cause substsntiai environmental damage or
substantially and unavoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat.
f)
That the design of the proposed land division
or the type of improvements are not likely to
cause serious public health problems.
g)
That the design of the proposed land division
or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at
large. for access through. or use of.
property within the proposed land division.
A land division may be approved if it is found
that alternate easements for access or for use
will be provided and that they will be
substantially equivalent to ones previously
acquired by the public. This subsection
shall apply only to easements of record or to
easements established by judgment of a court
of competent jurisdiction.
(2) The Planning Commission in recommending approval
of the proposed Extension of Time makes the following findings, to wit:
STAFFRPT\VTM23103 8
al
b)
d)
e)
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 conformante with
existing and anticipated land use and design
guidelines standards.
The proposed use or action complies with
state planning and zoning laws, due to the
fact that the proposed use conforms with
those uses listed as "allowed" within the
project site's existing Specific Plan No. 199
{Low Density Family Housing) land use
designation.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation
patterns, access, and density, due to the
fact that; adequate area is provided for all
proposed residential structures; adequate
landscaping is provided along the project~s
public and private frontages; and the
internal circulation plan should not create
traffic conflicts as design provisions are in
conformante 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.
STAFFRPT\VTM23103 9
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103 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
{Specific Plan No. 199), and also consistent
with the adopted Southwest Area Community
Plan ( SWAP ) designation of Specific Plan.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the Negative
Declaration adopted by the County for the
project, due to the fact that impact mitigation
is realized by conformance with the project's
Conditions of Approval.
The project has acceptable access to a
dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact
that the project currently proposes an
independent access point from Butterfield
Stage Road which has been determined to be
adequate by the City Engineer.
The design of the subdivision, the type of
improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed projects, due to
the fact that this is clearly represented in the
site plan and the project analysis.
STAFFRPT\VTM23103 10
k)
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applicants and herein
incorporated by reference, due to the fact
that they are referenced in the attached Staff
Report, Exhibits, Environmental Assessment,
and Conditions of Approval.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Tentative
Tract Map is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
SECTION 2. Environmental ComDJlance.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby determines that
the previous Environmental Determination (Adoption of Negative Declaration for
Environmental Assessment No. 32535) still applies to said tract map. 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 Nos. 107 and 202 and
in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative
Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends
approval for the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103
for the subdivision of a 29.2 acre parcel into 18 single family residential )ors located
west of Butterfield Stage Road between La Serena Way and Rancho California Road
and known as Assessor~s Parcel No. 923-210-010 subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
SECTION ~,.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of April, 1991.
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
CHAIRMAN
STAFFRPT\VTM23103 11
CASE NO.:
ATTACHMENT IV
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
First Extension of Time For
Vesting Tentative Tract MaI~ No. 231133
The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this
project.
Fee
Habitat Conservation Plan
(K-Rat)
Parks and Recreation
( Qu imby )
Public Facility
( Traffic Mitigation )
Public Facility
( Traffic Signal Mitigation )
Public Facility
( Library )
Fire Protection
Flood Control
(ADP)
Condition of AI3Droval
Condition No. 1
Condition No. 2
Condition No. 37
Condition No. 18
Condition No. 3
Letter Dated 9/20/88
Condition No. 31
A: VTM23103, CC
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 15th day of April, 1991 by the following vote of the Commissian:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFFRPT\VTM23103 12
A'I'!'ACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
S~'STAFFRPT"23103*2,V'rM 16
CALLAWAY
April 11, 1991
Temecula Planning Department
The City of Temecula
43180 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
Ref: VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23101
Gentlemen:
We are the owners adjacent to the property referenced in Tract Map
No. 23101. We understand the state of real estate sales and do not
have a concern with the extension of the time-frame for this
development. However, we have been in contact with the owners of
this property regarding the grading they have done on Butterfield
Stagecoach Road. In grading the road and elevating it by 40 feet
high, has caused pockets of cold air, resulting in frost damage in
our vineyards. We will very likely have to install wind machines
in the near future to contend with this problem at a significant
cost.
To assure that potential buyers are aware of this, we request that
the Use Permit be modified to require advising potential buyers of
a situation that they may perceive as a nuisance in the future.
Further, we request that the Planning Department be cognizant of
this problem when evaluating future plans along Butterfield
S~agecoach Rd. to avoid increasing this problem in our vineyards.
John Moramarco, Senior Vice President
JM:ll
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBDIVISION
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TENTATZVE TRACT NO. 23103
DATE: 9-28-88
AMENDED NO. ]
STANDARD CONDITIONS
The subdivider shall defend, Indemnify, and hold harmless the County of
RIverside, tts agents, officers, and employees from any clatm, action, or
proceeding against the County of RIverside or tts agents, officers, or
employees to attack, set astde, void, or annul an approval of the County
of Riverside, its advtsory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body
t
concerning Tentative Tract 23103, Amended No. 1, which ac ion ts brought
about wtthln the time period provtded for tn 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 wtll 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
B, 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, unlsss extended as
provided by Ordinance 460.
The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all
the requirements of the State of California- Subdivision ~p Act and
Ordinance 460.
The subdivider shall submit one copy of a soils report to the Riverside
County Surveyor's Office and t~ copies to the Oepartment 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
~;an shall comply with the Unifom Building Code, Chapter 70, as amended
Ordinance 457 and as maybe additionally provided for in these
conditions of approval.
J
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract No. 23103, Amended No. 1
Page 2
_)
7. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Department of Building and
Sa* ety prior to c~,,,encement of any grading outside of county maintained
f
road right of way.
8. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to rocordation of the
final map.
12.
13.
14.
The subdivider shall comply with the street improvement recommendations
outlined in the Riverside County Road Department's letter dated 7-22-BB 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 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
conve~nces 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 6-23-88 a copy of which is attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommendations
outlined by the Riverside County Flood Control Distrtct's letter dated
6-}7-B8 9-27-BB a copy of which is attached. If the land division lies
~thtn an adopted flood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 Of
Ordinance 460, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage
facilities shall be collected by the Road Commissioner. (Amended by
Planning Commission 9-28-88)
The subdivider shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations
outlined in the County Fire Marshal's letter dated 9-29-BB a copy of which
is attached.
Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area
improvement phasin , 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.
Conditions of Appreval
Tentative Tract No. 23103, Amended No. 1
Page 3
Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following:
a All lots shall have a minimum stze of 1 acre gross.
b. All lot length to width ratios shall be in conformance with Section
3.8C of Ordinance 460.
Corner lots and through lotso If any, shall be provided with
additional area pursuant to Section 3.8B of Ordinance 460 and so as
not to contain less net area than the least amount of net area in
non-corner and through lots.
Lots created by this subdivision shall be in confonnance with the
development standards of the Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1
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 utility easement.
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.
Trash bins, loading areas and incidental storage areas shall be
located away and visually screened from surrounding areas with the use
of block walls and landscaping.
Prior to RECORDATION of the final map the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
a. Prior to the recordatton of the final map the applicant shall submit
written clearances to the Riverside County Road and Survey Deparl~nent
that all pertinent requirements outlined in the attached approval
letters from the following agencies have been met.
~ounty Fire Department
County Flood Control
County Parks Oepartment
Rancho Water District
' County Health Department
County Planning Department
Eastern ~nictpal Water Oist.
Prior to the recordatton of the final map, General Plan Amendment No.
150, Specific Plan No. 199, Amendment No. 1, Development Agreement No.
5, and Change of Zone No. 5107 shall be approved by the Board of
Supervisors and shall be effective. Lots created by this land
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract No. 23103, Amended No. 1
Page 4
dtvtston shall be tn conformance with the develo~ent standards of the
zone ultimtely applted to the property.
19. All extsttng structures on the subject property shall be removed prior to
recordatton of the final map.
impacts to the Temecula Elementany and Elsinore Unton High School Distrtct
shall be mitigated at the development application stage in accordance with
the district policies.
The common open space area shall be shown as a numbered lot on the final
map and shall be managed by a master property owners association or CSA.
(Amended by Planning Commission 9-2B-BB)
~--~Ja~l~r~t. tor~,~f-~.,av~r~.~i-t, ton~r~?~st~k-t-i~,-a~- (Amended
by Planning Commission 9-28-88)
an&-~s~c~-ion~-~:--ineeq~<~<~nerei~j-i-a~. (Amended by
Planning Commission 9-28-88)
J~4alq~wi~g-tx~evi-yi~n-~4~eqq-epfRl~- (Amended by Planning Connisston
9-28-88)
J~i~r64~e-~r-4~e-~f'~-~es~r-4~-i~tenes~-. (Amended by Planning
Commission 9-28-B8)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract No. 23103, Mended No. 1
Page 5
22.
en~-Ret2~l~t~lms,-~-enr,-~+Hs-Oet-ltl-a~i~fni-l~-ttm4yr~l~~ (Amended by
Planning Commission 9-28-88)
(Amended by Planning Commission 9-28-88)
Prior to the recordation of the final map, the subdivider shall convey to
the County fee simple title, to all common or common open space areas,
free and clear of all liens, taxes, assessment, leases (recorded and
unrecorded} and easements, except those easements which in the sole
discretion of the County are acceptable. As a conditions precedent to the
County accepting title to such areas, the subdivider shall submit the
following documents, to the Planning Department for review, which
documents shall be subject to the approval of that department and the
Office of the County Counsel: (Amended by Planning Commission 9-2B-B8)
1) A declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions; and (Amended
by Planning Coe~ntsston 9-28-88)
z)
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.
(Amended by Planning Commission 9-28-88)
The declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions submitted for
review shall {a) provide for a term of 60years, (b) provide for the
establishment of a property owners' association comprised of the owners of
each individual lot or unit and (c) contain the following provisions
verbatim: {Amended by Planning Commission 9-28-88)
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract No. 23103, Amended No. 1
Page 6
· Not~dthstandtng any provision tn this Declaration to the contrary, the
following provision shall apply: (Amended by Planntng Co~ntsston
9-28-88)
The property owners association established herein shall, tf dormant,
be acthated, by Incorporation or othendse, at the request of the
County of Riverside, and the property o~ners' association shall
unconditionally accept from the County of Riverside, upon the County's
demand, title to all or any part of the 'common area', more
particularly described on Exhibit ' ' attached hereto. The
declston to requtre activation of the property owners' association and
the dectston to require that the association unconditionally accept
title to the 'co~wnon area' shall be at the sole discretion of the
County of Riverside. (Amended by Planntng Commission 9-28-88)
In the event that the common area, or any part thereof, is conveyed to
the property owners' association, the association, thereafter shall
own such 'common area., shall manage and continuously maintain such
'common area', of any part thereof, absent the prior written consent
of the Planning Director of the County of Riverside or the County's
successor-in-interest. The property owners' association shall have
the right to assess the owners of each individual lot or unit for the
reasonable cost of maintaining such 'common area', and sahll have the
right to lien the property of any such owner who defaults in the
payment of a maintenance assessment, An assessment lien, once
created, shall be prior to all other liens recorded subsequent to the
notice of assessment or other document creating the assessment lien.
(Amended by Planning Commission 9-28-88)
This Declaration shall not be terminated, 'substantially' amended or
property deannexed therefrom absent the prior written consent of the
Planning Director of the County of Riverside or the County's
successor-in-interest. A proposed amendment shall be considered
'substantial' if it affects the extent, usage or maintenance of the
'common area'. (Amended by Planning Commission 9-2B-BB)
In the event of any conflict between this Declaration and the Articles
of Incorporation, the Bylaws, or the property owners' association
Rules and Regulations, if any, this Declaration shall control."
(Amended by Planning Commission 9-2B-BB)
Once approved, the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions
shall be recorded at the same time that the final map is recorded.
(Amended by Planning Cmmission 9-28-88).
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract No. 23]03, h~ended No. 1
Page 7
Z3. The developer shall c~,,~ly with the following parkwa,y landscaping
conditions and Specific Plan No, 199, Amendment No. 1:
24.
25.
1)
Prlor to recoPdatton of the ftnaq map the developer shall ftle an
application with the County for the formation of or annexation to, a
parkway maintenance dtstrtct for Tentative Tract No, 23102 in
accordance with the Landscaping and Ltghttng Act of 1972, unless the
project ts withtn an extsttng parkway maintenance district.
2)
Prior to the tssuance of butlding permits, the developer shall secure
approval of proposed landscaping and Irrigation plans from the County
Road and Planning Department. All landscaping and irrigation plans
and specifications ~ha11 be prepared in a reproducible format sultable
for permanent liltrig with the County Road Department,
3)
The developer shall post a landscape performance bond which shall be
released concurrently with the release of subdivision performance
bonds, quaranteelng the vtabtltty of all landscaping which will be
installed prior to the assumption of the maintenance responsibility by
the district.
4)
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 systems 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)
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 Department's traffic engineer
and then from the appropriate utility purveyor.
z)
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 district.
3)
Prior to recordatlon of the final map, the developer shall secure
conditional approval of the street lighting application from LAFCO,
unless the site is within an existing lighting district.
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract No. 23103, Amended No. 1
Page 8
4)
All street lights and other outdoor ltghttng shall be sho~n on
t and Safety
electrical plans submitted to the Department of Bu ldtng
for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of
Riverside County Ordinance No. 655 and the Riverside County
Comprehensive General Plan.
Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERHITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, detailed co.~on open space
area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning
Department approval for the phase of development in process. The
plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide
for the following.
Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all
landscaped areas requiring irrigation.
2) Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be opaque up
to a minimum height of six {6) feet at maturity.
3)
All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from view
with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle treatments, as
approved by the Planning Director. Utilities shall be placed
underground.
4)
Parkways and landscaped building setbacks shall be landscaped to
provide visual screening or a transition into the primary use area of
the site. Landscape elements shall include earth berming, ground
cover, shrubs and specimen trees in conjunction with meandering
sidewalks, benches and other pedestrian amenities where appropriate as
approved by the Planning Department and Specific Plan No. 199
Amendment No. 1.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent trees
at key visual focal points within the project.
Where streets 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.
8)
All existing specimen trees and significant rock outcroppings on the
subject property shall be shown on the project's grading plans and
shall note those to be removed, relocated and/or retained.
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract No. 23103, Amended No. 1
Page 9
29.
30.
9) All trees shall be minimum double staked.
trees shall be stee] staked.
Weaker and/or slow growing
All existing nattve specimen trees on the subject property shall be
preserved wherever feasible, Where they cannot be preserved they shall be
relocated or replaced vrlth specimen trees as approved by the Planntng
Director, Replacement trees shall be noted on approved landscaping plans,
If the project ts to be phased, prior' to the approval of grading permits,
an overall conceptual fading plan shall be submitted to the Planning
Director or approval. The plan shall be used as a guideline for
f
subsequent detailed grading plans for individual phases of development and
shall include the following:
1) Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and sedimentation
. during and after the grading process.
z)
Approximate time frames for grading and identification of areas which
may be graded during the higher probability rain months of January
through Narch.
3) Preliminary pad and roadway elevations.
4) Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase.
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 eas~ents and that slope
maintenance responsibilities have been assigned as approved by the
Director of Building and Safety.
Grading plans shall conform to Board adopted Hillside Development .
Standards: All cut and/or fill slopes, or individual combinations
thereof, which exceed ten feet in vertical heights shall be modified by an
appropriate combination of a special terracing (benthing) plan increase
slope ratio (i.e. 3:1), retaining walls, 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 Po?t,'i'.l In v.rtic.1 h. ights sh.ll be conto.r-gr.d.d tncorpor. ting
the grading techniques:
1) The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the angle
of the natural terrain.
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract No. 23Z03, Amended No.
Page Z0
32.
2) Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall reflect the
natural rounded terrain.
3) The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves with radii
designed in proportion to the total height of the slopes where
drainage and stability permit such rounding.
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 BUILDING PERHITS the following conditions shall
be satisfied:
With to the submittal of building plans to the Department of Building
and Safety the developer will demonstrate compliance with the
acoustical study prepared for lract 23103 Amended No. I which
established appropriate mitigation measures to reduce ambient interior
noise levels to 45 Ldn and exterior noise levels below 65 Ldn.
b. Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall
not be less than ten {10} feet.
c. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 10 feet.
33. In accordance with the written request of the developer to the County of
Riverside, a copy of which is on file, and in furtherance of the agreement
between the developer and the County of Riverstde, no building permits
shall be issued by the County of Riverside for any parcels within the
subject tract until the developer, or the developer's
successors-in-interest provided evidence of compliance with the terms of
said Development Agreement No. 5 for the financing of public facilities.
34. Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERHITS the following conditions shall
be satisfied:
a. Wall and/or fence locations shall substantially conform to attached
Figure III-2B of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1. (Amended by
Planning Commission 9-28-88)
All landsca ing and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with
approved pV prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If
ans
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.
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract No. 23103, Amended No. 1
Page 11
All landscaping and trPtgaUon shall be Installed in acoordance with
approved plans and shall be verified by a Planning Department field
Inspection.
d. Not w~thstanding the preceding conditions,the heights of all required
walls shall be determined by the acoustical study where applicable.
(~ Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed throughout the subdivision in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance 461 and Specific Plan No.
199 Amendment No. 1.
Street trees shall .be planted throughout the subdivision tn accordance
with the standards of Ordinance 460 and Specific Plan No. 199
Aunendment No. %
Development of Tentative Tract No. 23103 Amended No,1 confom to shall
comply with the provisions of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1 and
De~el opment Agreement No. 5.
KG:mp
K[NNL'rH L, ED~fARDI P.o. ~ox loss
.)
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
RIverside County
Planning Department
County Administrative Center
RIverside, California
Attention: Regtonal Team No. Re: '~c~-
Area: '~ '~* c ,~ l'~
le have revte~ed thts case and have the following co~ents:
Except for nuisance nature local runoff which may traverse portions of the
property the project is considered free from ordinary storm flood hazard.
However, a storm of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New construc-
tion should comply with all applicable ordinances.
The topography of the area consists of well defined ridges and natural water-
courses which traverse the property. There is adequate area outside of the
natural watercourses for building sites. The natural watercourses should be
kept free of buildings and obstructions in order to maintain the natural
drainage patterns of the area and to prevent flood damage to new buildings.
A note should be placed on an environmental constraint sheet stating, 'All new
buildings shall be floodproofed by elevating the finished floors a minimum of
18 inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosion protection shall be provided
for mobile home supports."
This project is in the
drainage plan fees shall be paid in accordance with the applicable r~lesArea
and
regulations.
The proposed zoning is consistent with existing flood
control facilities or floodproofing may be required to
implied density.
The District's report dated
hazards. Some flood
fully develop to the
'3'..,e 1'7, (lti'is still current for this project.
The District does not object to the proposed minor change.
The attached con~aents apply.
Very truly yours.
CO:
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
Chief Engineer
JOHN H. KASHUBA
Senior Civil Engineer
DATE: ~er( . ~?,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
June 17, 1988
_)
Riverside County
Planning Department
County Administrative Center
R/verside, California 92501
Attention: Specific Plan
Kathy Gifford
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Re: Tract 23103
This is a proposal to divide about 29 acres in the Temecula
Valley area. The site is along the west side of Butterfield
Stage Road. This tract is within Specific Plan 199 for which
the drainage plan ~as been approved.
our review indicates that the area consists of well defined
ridges and natural watercourses that traverse the property from
the east to the west. The applicant proposes to accept these
offsite flows across Butterfield Stage Road with culverts and
daylight the flows in their natural paths on the property.
Onsite flows would be drained with streets.
Following are the District's recommendations:
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 shall be paid as set forth under the provisions of
the "Rules and Regulations for Administration of Area
Drainage Plans', amended February 16, 1988:
Drainage fees shall be paid to the Road Commissioner
as part of the filing for record of the subdivision
final map or parcel map, or if the recording of a
final parcel map is waived, drainage fees shall be
paid as a condition of the waiver prior to recording
a certificate of compliance evidencing the waiver of
the parcel map; or
A~ ~m option of the land divider, upon filing a re-
quired affidavit requesting deferment of the payment
ot fees, the drainage fees may be paid to the Build-
ing Director at the time of issuance of a grading
permit or building permit for each approved parcel,
whichever may be first obtained after the recording
of the subdivision final map or parcel map; provided
~a3wever, this Option ~o defer the fees may not be
exer=ised fDr any parcel where grading or structures
Riverside County
Planning Department
Re= Tract 23103
- 2 - June 17, 1988
have been initiated on the ~arcel within t~e prior 3
year period, or permits for either activity have been
issued on that percel which remain active·
Adequate inlets and outlets should be provided ~o the
proposed culverts under Butterfield Stage Road. The ap-
propriate capacity of the culverts should be provided.
Erosion protection should be provided along all the
slopes which are exposed to the potential erosion
hazards.
fill
Onsite drainage facilities located outside of road right
of way should be contained within drainage easements
shown on the final map. A note should be added to the
final map stating, "Drainage easements shall be kept free
of buildings and obstructions".
Offsite drainage facilities should be located within
publicly dedicated drainage easements obtained from the
affected property owners. The documents should be re-
corded and a copy submitted to the District prior to
recordation 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 street right of way. When either of these
criteria is exceeded, additional drainage facilities
should be installed.
Drainage facilities outletting sump conditions should be
designed to convey the tributary 100 year storm flows.
Additional emergency escape should also be provided.
The property's street and lot grading should be designed
in a manner that perpetuates the existing natural
drainage patterns with respect to tributary drainage
area, outlet points and outlet conditions, otherwise, a
drainage easement should be obtained from the affected
property owners for the release of concentrated or di-
verted storm flows. A copy of the recorded drainage
easement should be submitted to the District for review
prior to the recordation of the final map.
Riverside County
Planning Department
Re: Tract 23103
June 17; 1988
Temporary erosion control measures should be implemented
{~mediately following rough grading to prevent deposition
of debris onto downstream properties or drainage
facilities.
Development of this property should be coordinated with
the development of adjacent properties to ensure that
watercourses remain unobstructed and stormwaters are not
diverted from one watershed to another. This may require
the construction of temporary drainage facilities or
offsite construction and grading-
A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final
map along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic ca1-..
culations should be submitted to the District via the
Road Department for review and approval prior to recorda-
tion of the final map. Grading plans should be approved
prior to issuance of grading permits.
Questions concerning this matter m~y be referred to Robert Chian!
of this office at 714/787-2333.
Very truly yours,
cc:
Community Services
Engineering, Inc.
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
ief~ginee
· r Civil Engineer
RC:sef
335-146-50
June 7, 1988
Riverside County Planning Department
4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
Attention: Mr. Ron Golc~:
Reference: Tentative Tract No. 23103 - Lot 18
Variance for LOt Depth to Width Ratio
Dear Mr. Goldman:
We are requesting a variance from the County of Riverside in regard to
Ordinance 460, Section 3.8.C. for Lot 18 of Tentative Tract No. 23103, Amend
Map No. 1. This section requires that the lot depth shall not exceed 2 1/2
times the lot width.
Upon reviewing the proposed tentative, the County of Riverside Road Department
has stated that no vehicular access will be allowed from private property onto
Butterfield Stage Road. We can only provide access to the area previously
known as Lot 19 by combining Lots 18 and 19. This single lot has its access
only from Street "C".
By not combining these two lots, the' area previously kno~ as Lot 19 becomes
inaccessable and virtually land locked. Based on these conditions and
requirements, we therefore, request a variance from aforementioned section of
Ordinance 460.
Thank you for your help in expediting this matter.
Very truly yours,
TYETINE~, INC.
Bill U~
BU/em
cc: Rick Niec, Marlborough Development
Bob Brink, Turrini and Brink, Planning Consultants
Riverside County Planning Comtssion
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
OFFICE OF ROAD COMMI~31ONER & COUNTY SURVEYOR
July 22, 1988
RO: Tract Map 23103 - Amend
Schedule A - Team SP
Ladies and Gentlemen:
With respect to the conditions of approval for the referenced tentative land
division map, the Road Department recommends that the landdivider provide the
following street improvement plans and/or road dedications in accordance with
Ordinance 460 and Riverside County Road/mprovement Standards (Ordinance 461).
It is 'understood that the tentative mp correctly shows acceptable centerline
profiles, all existin9 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 followin9
conditions are essential parts and a requirement occurring in ONE is as binding
as though occurring in a11. They are intended to be complementary and to
describe the conditions for a complete design of the improvement. All questions
regarding the true meanin9 of the conditions shall be referred to the Road
Commissioner's Office,
The landdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages
caused by alteration of the drainage patterns, i.e., concentra-
tion of diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by
constructing adequate drainage facilities including enlarging
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.
The landdlvider 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
facilities as approved by the Road Department.
Tract .Nap 23103 - Amend
~luly 22, 1988
,Page 2
10.
11.
13.
NaJor drainage ts tnvolved on this landdivision and its resolution
shall be as approved by the Road Department, '
Butterfield Stage Road (Including RCWD site) shall be improved
within the dedicated right of way tn accordance with County Standard
No. 100, (43'/55'),
'C" Street shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in
accordance with County Standard No. 103, Section A, (44'/66').
"B" and *S" Streets shall be improved within the dedicated right
of way in accordance with County Standard No. 104, Section A. (40'/
60').
The landdivider will provide a left turn lane on Butterfield Stage
Road at the intersection with "C" and "S" Streets as approved by
the Road Department.
The landdivider shall provide utility clearance from Rancho Calif.
Water District prior to the recordation of the final map.
The maximum centerline gradient shall not exceed 15%.
The minimum centerline radii shall be 300' or as approved by the
Road Department.
The minimum lot frontages along the cul-de-sacs and knuckles shall
be 35 feet or as approved by the Road Commissioner.
All driveways shall conform to the applicable Riverside County
Standards.
When blockills are required to be constructed on top of slope, a
debris retention wall shall be constructed at the street right of
way line to prevent silting of sidewalks as approved by the Road
Commissioner.
'Tract Hap 23103 - Amend
~uqy 22, 1988
Page 3!
14. The mtnimum garage setback shall be 30 feet measured from the face
of curb.
15. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed throughout the landdivision
tn accordance with County Standard No. 400 and 401 (curb sidewalk).
16. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall
deposit with the Riverside County Road bepartjnent, a cash sum of
$150.00 per lot'as mitigation for traffic signal impacts. Should
the developer choose to defer the time of pa~nent, he may enter into
a written agreement wtth the County deferring said payment to the
time of issuance of a building permit.
21.
22,
23,
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.
Asphalttc emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than
fourteen days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall
be applied at a rate of 0.05 9allon per square yard. Asphalt
emulsion shall conform to Sections 37, 39 and g4 of the State
Standard Specifications.
Standard cul-de-sacs and off-set cul-de-sacs shall be constructed
throughout the landdivision.
Corner cutbacks in conformance with County Standard No. 805 shall
be Shown on the final map and offered for dedication.
Lot access shall be restricted on Butterfield Stage Road and so
noted on the final map.
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.
All centerline intersections shall be at 90° with a minimum 50'
tangent measured from flow line.
Tract Nap 23103 - Amend
.Ju~y 22, 1988
Page 4
28.
The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be
coordinated with TR 23100, TR 23101 and SP 199.
Street lighting shall be required in accordance with Ordinance 460
and 461 throughout the subdivision. The County Service Area (CSA}
Administrator detemines whether this proposal qualifies under an
existing assessment district or not. If not, the land owner shall
file an application with LAFCO for annexation into or creation of
a "Lighting Assessment District" in accordance with Governmental
Code Section 56000.
All private and public entrances and/or intersections opposite this
project shall be coordinated with this project and shown on the
street improvement plans.
A striping plan is required for Butterfield Stage Road. Traffic
signing and striping shall be done by County forces with all
incurred costs borne by the applicant.
The landdivider shall comply with this department's recommendations
for SP lgg as outlined in our letter dated dune 2, 1988.
GH:lh
Very truly yours,
Road Division Engineer
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
HRE DEPARTMENT
IN QOOPERATION k~TH THE
QAUFORN|A DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
KAY H~BRARD
FIRE CHIEF
9-20.-88
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TEAM l, KATHY GIFFORD
11 23103
j
With respect to the conditions of ·pprov·l for the ·hove referenced lend division,
the Fire Department reckends the foXloving fire protection measures be provided
in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection
standards:
FIRE PROTECTION
Schedule "C" fire protection approved st·ndard fire ~ydrants, (6"x4"x21") located
one st each street intersection and spaced no more than 660 feet apart in any
direction, with no portion of any lot frontage more than 330 feet from'a hydrant.
Minimum fire flow sh·ll be 500 GPH for 2 hours duration at 20 PSI.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the
Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location
and spacing, ands the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall
he signed/approved by a registered civil engineer end 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
Dept."
The required rarer system including fire hydrants shall he installed and accepted
by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being
placed on an individual lot.
MITIGATION FEES
Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with
the Riverside County Firs Department · cash sum of $400.00 per lot/unit as mitigation
for fire protection impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time
of payment, he may enter into a vrttten agreement vith the County deferring
said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit.
All questions regarding the meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the
Fire Department Flanning ·nd Engineering staff.
RAYMOND B. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
By
George Tatum, Deputy Fire Marshal
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE '
'
RIVERSIDK COUNTY PLANNING DEPT.
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92502
RIVERSIDE COUNTy
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Attn: Kathy Gitford
RE; Tract Map 23103; Belng a portion of the Rancho Temecula
granted by the government of the United States of Ameraca to
Luis Vignes by patent dated January 18, 1860, and recorded
in the Office of the County Recorder of San D:e~o County,
California in Book 1 of patents at Page 37 and a portson of
the Rancho Pauba Government of the United States of America
to Luis Vignes by patent dated January 19, 1860 and recorded
sn the office of the San Diego County Recorder in Book 1 at
Pa~e 45.
(IS Lots)
Gentlemen:
The Department of Public Health has reviewed Tentative Map
No. 23103 and recommends that:
A water system shall be installed accordxng to
plans and specification as approved by the water
company and the Health Department, Permanent
prindts 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
prXnts shall show the internal pipe diameter,
location of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and
joint specifications, and the size of the main
at the junction of the new system to the
existing system. The plans shall comply in
all respects with Div. S, Part 1, Chapter 7 of
the California Health end Safety Code, Californxa
Admxnistrative Code, Title 22, Chapter 16, and General
Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commxssxon of the
State of California, when applicable.
Rep~m:
~iverside County Pianning Dept.
Page Two
Attn: Kathy Gifford
April 18, 1988
The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and
water company with the following cert~ficatzon:
Certify that the design of the water system ~ Tract
Nap 23103 is in accordance with the water system
expansion plans of the Rancho California Water Distr~ct
and that the water service,storage and distribution
system will be adequate to provide water service to
such tract. This certification does not constitute a
guarantee that it will supply water to such tract at
any specific quantities, flows or pressures for fire
protection or any other purpose". This certification
shall be signed by a responsible official of the water
This Department has a statement from the Rancho Californ:a
Water D~strlct agreeing to serve domestic water to each and
every lot xn the subdivision on demand providlng
satisfactory financial arrangements are completed with the
subdivider. It will be necessary for the financial
arrangements to be made prior to the recordatlon of the
final map.
Th~s Department has a statement from the Eastern Municipal
Water Dlstrlct agreelng to allow the subdlvision 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
prxnts shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of
manholes, complete profiles, pipe and 3oint specifications
and the size of the sewers at the 3unction of the new system
to the existing system. A single plat indicating location
of sewer lines and water lines shall be a portion of the
sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall be signed by a
registered engineer and the sewer d/strict with the
following certification: "I certify that the design of the
sewer system in Tract Map 23103 is in accordance with the
sewer system expansion plans of the Eastern Municipal Water
District and that the waste disposal system is adequate at
this time to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed
tract."
Riverside County Pl&nning Dept.
Page Three
ATTN: K&thy Oifford
April ~8, 1988
It rill be necessity for fin&nci&l &rr&ngements to be made
pr:or to the recordat~on of the final m&p,
Environmental Health Services
SM:tac
J
Richard D. $teffey
Pmidea~
~. V~ ~ent
~ph D~ly
~ A. LunCh
Jeff~y L. MinUet
T. C. ~we
aune 16, 1988
Riverside County Planning Departanent
4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor
Riverside, California 92501-3657
Subject: Water Availability
Reference: Vesting Tract 23103
Gentlemen:-
Please be advised that the above-referenced
property is located within the boundaries of Rancho
California Water District. Water service, therefore,
would be available upon completion of financial
arrangements between RCWD and the property owner.
Officers:
Stan T. Mills
Genen,] Manager
Phillip L. Forbes
Dir~r of Finance -
~reasumr
Norman L. Thomas
Dmea~ o~ Engnw~,nng
Tbomas R. Mc~lkster
D~ector of Operstions
& Maintenance
Barbsra J. Reed
Disctot of Admirdstration -
Disu-ict Secretmy
Rutan sad Tucker
Lepl Counse~
F012/jkv169f
Water availability would be contingent upon the
property owner signing an Agency Agreement which
assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.
If RCWD can be of further service to you, please
contact this office.
Very truly yours,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Senga P. Doherty
Engineering Services Representative
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRIC
9~c~81 DIAZ ROAD · POST OFFICE BOX 174 · TEMECULA, CA 92390-0174 · (714J 676-4101 · FAX (714J 676<
I20/B/eg
Aprtl 15, 1988
Riverside County Planntng Department
4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor
Riverside, California 92501
JamMC~.f~a~eel
W[G ~
SUBJECT: YESTING TRACT 23103 (6ifford)
The District is responding to your request for comments on the subject
project(s) relative to the provision of water and sewer service. The items
checked below apply to this project review.
The subject project:
X
Is not within ERWD's:
X water service area
sewer service area
Rust be annexed to this District's Improvement District No. in order
'to be eligible to receive domestic water/sanitary sewer service.
__ Will be required to construct the following facilities:
a.) Water Service
b.) Sewer Service Comments were submitted to Riverside Co. (Feb.,
15, lgBB) regarding SP 199 - Am #1. This is to reiterate those comments that
sewers are to be gravity, regionally sized and no sewers will be allowed on
private lands, or along lot lines. They are to be in streets.
Street · Post OrSce Box 858 · Hemet. CaJffomim 92343 · Telephone (?t4) 925-7676
AI'rACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
S~STAFFRPT~23103-2,VTM 12
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
VICINITY MAP
"~
CASE NO. yT/,,4
P.C. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA )
IlTA ,~/ILLA(
SP 19!
SWAP
MAP
CASE NO.
P.C. DATE ~/-/~-.--~/
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
CASE NO.
ZONE MAP ) P,C. DATE
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
VILLAGE "B" CONCEPT
S\STAFFRPT~23103-2.VTM 13
CITY OF TEMECULA
PROJECT
SITE '
Location Map
CASE NO.: VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23103
EXHIBIT: A
P.C. DATE: MARCH 16, 1992
VICINITY MAP
S\STAFFRPT~.23103-2 .VTM
CITY OF TEMECULA
SWAP - EXHIBIT B
DESIGNATION: SPECIFIC PLAN
~ ,~\ ~\
· ~
ZONING - EXHIBIT C
Case No.: VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23103
P.C. Date: MARCH 16, 1992
DESIGNATION:
SPECIFIC PLAN 199
S%STAFFRPT'~231 O3-2. V'i'M
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23103
EXHIBIT: D
P.C. DATE: MARCH 16, 1992
SITE PLAN
S~STAFFRPT~3103-2,VTM
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
VILLAGE "B" CONCEPT
S~STAFFRF'r~3103-2.VTM 17