HomeMy WebLinkAbout092093 PC AgendaAGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
September20, 1993, 6:00 PM
VAIL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
29915 Mira Loma Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Ford
ROLL CALL:
Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland and Fahey
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 nqt 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 address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Planning
Secretary before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for
individual speakers.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Approval of Agenda
2.1 Approval of minutes from the July 19, 1993 Planning Commission meeting.
2.2 Approval of minutes from the August 2, 1993 Planning Commission meeting.
NON-PUBLIC HEARING
3. Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. 93-0134 - First Extension of
Time for Tentative Parcel Map No. 27108
Lutheran Church Extension Fund
Southeast corner of Ynez and Santiago Roads
One year extension of time for Tentative Parcel Map No.
27108
Re-affirm the previously adopted Negative Declaration for
Tentative Parcel Map No. 27108
Matthew Fagan
Approve
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action;
Planner:
Recommendation:
PA93-0137, First Extension of Time for Plot Plan No. 226
Ted Zanos
Southwest corner of Margarita Road and Pauba Road
Proposed commercial retail complex of three structures
totaling + 27,150 square feet.
Re-affirm the previously adopted Negative Declaration
Craig Ruiz
Approve
R:~WIMBERVG%PLANCOMM~AGENDAS\9-20-93 9116/93 vgw 1
5. Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
6. Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
7. Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
8. Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
PA93-0154, Second Extension of Time for Tentative
Tract Map No. 23513
Abhai Sawh
North side of Santiago Road, ± 1,500 feet west of
Avenida de San Pasqual.
Subdivision of 14.37 acres into 11 residential lots.
Re-affirm the previously adopted Negative Declaration
Craig Ruiz
Approve
PA93-0165, Second Extension of Time for Tentative
Tract Map No. 23990
Henning Alstrup
South of Via La Vida, + 300 east of Calle Palmas.
Subdivision of 6.32 acres into 30 residential lots.
Re-affirm the previously adopted Negative Declaration
Craig Ruiz
Approve
PA93-0132
Channell Commercial Corporation
26040 Ynez Road
The addition of a 107,330 square foot warehouse
building to increase the warehouse area of an existing
building on a 9.55 acre parcel in the Manufacturing
Service Commercial (M-SC) zone. The addition will be
constructed in two phases.
Adopt the recommended Negative Declaration
Craig Ruiz
Approve
Planning Application No. 93-0158, Amendment No. 1
Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD)
31350 Rancho Vista Road
Expansion to the existing TVUSD facility in two (2)
phases. Phase 1 consists of the construction of a 15,300
square foot warehouse, the conversion of an existing bus
facility to 3,840 square feet of additional warehouse
space, and the removal of ten (10) trailers and the drivers
lounge. Phase 2 proposes a 15,300 warehouse
expansion and a 13,824 square foot expansion to the
District Office.
Negative Declaration
Matthew Fagan
Approve
R:~VvqMBERVG~FLANCOMM~AGENDAS~9-20-93 9118/93 vgw 2
9. Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. 93-0027, Amendment No. 2 -
Public Use Permit
Temecula United Methodist Church
Northeasterly corner of Margarita and Rancho Vista Roads
A church facility which will be constructed in three (3)
phases. Phase I will consist of the construction of 5,200
square feet of classrooms, offices, meeting area and
utility area. Phase II consists of a 5,500 square foot
fellowship hall. Phase III consists of a 9,220 square foot
sanctuary. Total square footage of the project is 19,920.
Negative Declaration
Matthew Fagan
Approve
Next meeting: October 4, 1993, 6:00 p.m., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive,
Temecula, California.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
OTHER BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
R:~WIMBERVG~PLANCOMM~AGENDAS~9-20-93 9/16/93 vgw 3
ITEM #2
MINUTES FROM THF~
JULY 19, 1993
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD, JULY 19, 1993
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was held on Monday, July
19, 1993, 6:00 P.M., at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula,
California. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Linda Fahey.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
4 COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland, Fahey
1 COMMISSIONERS: Blair
Also present were Planning Director Gary Thornhill, Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh,
Senior Planner Debbie Ubnoske and Recording Secretary Gall Zigler.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. APProval Of Aqend8
It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Ford to approve
the agenda.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland, Fahey
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Blair
PCMIN07/19193
ADoroyal of PlanninQ Commission Minutes
2.1 June 7, 1993 Planning Commission Minutes
It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff
to approve the minutes of the June 7, 1993 Planning Commission meeting.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS:
.~.
Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland, Fahey
7121193
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Blair
JULY 19.1993
2.2
Approval of June 21, 1993 Planning Commission Minutes
It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Hoagland
to approve the minutes of the June 7, 1993 Planning Commission meeting.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland, Fahey
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Blair
NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Items
3.
No. 3 and No. 4 were presented to the Planning Commission jointly.
PA93-0009, First Extension of Time for Tentative Parcel Map No. 25059
A proposal for a four lot subdivision of a 5.51 acre site in the Industrial Park (I-P) Zone.
Located on the westerly side of Ridge Park Drive, approximately 70 feet southerly of
Rancho California Road.
PA93-0010, Extension of Time for Plot Plan No. 34
A proposal to construct a seven story office building (102,243 square feet), two
restaurants and (7,872 square feet and 7,000 square feet) on a four-level parking
structure (134,933 square feet) on 5.51 acres. Located on the westerly side of Ridge
Park Drive, approximately 70 feet southerly of Rancho California Road.
Anthony Polo, Avalon Consultants, 42200 Hacienda Drive, Murrieta, representing the
applicant, Preferred Equities Development Corporation, advised staff and the
Commission that there is an approved minor change on the map from October 1991
which is not reflected in the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Polo asked for clarification
regarding the length of the time extension. Mr. Polo stated that Ordinance 460 and
the Subdivision Map Act allows for a three year extension if the developer is
conditioned to build $100,000 or more of off-site improvements. Mr. Polo stated that
this map is conditioned to build two signals off-site.
PCMIN07/19193 -2- 7121193
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 19, 1993
It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland to continue this item for two weeks to allow
staff and the applicant an opportunity toresolve their issues.
The motion failed due to lack of a second.
Principal Engineer Ray Casey advised the Commission that staff's interpretation of the
latest Subdivision Map Act, dictates that 3 year extensions are based on the first map
being recorded in a phased manner, which has not happened with this applicant.
Anthony Polo stated that the applicant has been conditioned to support the Western
By-Pass Corridor which the applicant approves of in general, however, the applicant
feels that the condition is not applicable because A) it has not been approved as part
of the General Plan and; B) because it has not been approved as part of the General
Plan the developer is concerned with any changes to the corridor. Mr. Polo stated that
the developer requests the right to oppose the proposed Western By-Pass Corridor
should it negatively impact the property. Mr. Polo stated that added conditions are
held to General Plan amendments or health and safety issues and the applicant does
not feel the multiple changes which he has been given address General Plan
amendments or health and safety issues.
Planning Director Gary Thornhill stated that the Western By-Pass Corridor is a
significant feature of the General Plan and the City Council and Planning Commission
have approved it by consensus.
Commissioner Chiniaeff suggested amending the condition to read "subject to the
adoption of the General Plan".
Director Thornhill advised that should the plan not be adopted, the Condition would not
be applicable.
Principal Engineer Ray Casey advised the Commission that staff has concerns regarding
erosion control and additional NPDS requirements. Mr. Casey stated that staff feels
these issues apply to the general health, safety and welfare.
It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff to
continue Item No. 3 and Item No. 4 to the meeting of August 2, 1993.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COMMIS~;IONERS: Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland, Fahey
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Blair
PCMIN07/19/93 ~3- 7/21193
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
5.
JULY 19,1993
PA93-0104, Plot Plan
Proposed construction of a 17,342 square foot office/warehouse building in the
Manufacturing Service Commercial (M-SC) zone. Located northerly of McCabe Court,
approximately 300 feet westerly of Madison Avenue.
Assistant Planner Craig Ruiz presented the staff report. Mr. Ruiz advised the
Commission of a change to Condition of Approval No. 10, Page 11, deleting the
request for a check in the amount of t/1,250 to the Department of Fish and Game. Mr.
Ruiz advised that staff was able to make a finding that there would be no negative
impact.
Commissioner Ford asked staff if landscape conditions of approval 19 and 20 could be
reversed, to require 20 to be done prior to occupancy.
Planner Ruiz concurred with Commissioner Ford's recommendation.
Commissioner Chiniaeff said that he was concerned with the bonding requirements
stated in Condition No. 18. Commissioner Chiniaeff stated that he felt requiring 100%
bonding for landscaping was unwarranted.
Planner Director Gary Thornhill said that staff would address his concerns.
Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 6:30 P.M.
Jeff Hardy, 27349 Jefferson Avenue, architect representing the applicant, questioned
whether the applicant was exempt from the NPDES permit.
Principal Engineer Ray Casey advised that the applicant is not exempt.
It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Ford to close the
public hearing at 6:35 P.M. and ADOPT Resolution No. 93-16 approving PA93-0104,
Plot Plan based on the analysis and findings contained in the staff report and subject
to the attached Conditions of Approval, reversing Conditions No. 19 and No. 20 and
amending Condition No. 10 per staff recommendation.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland, Fahey
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Blair
PCMIN07/19193 -4- 7121193
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 19, 1993
6. PA93-0089, Conditional Use Permit
Proposal to locate an AM/PM self-service gas station and mini-mart on a .68 acre
parcel in the General Commercial (C-I/C-P) zone. Located at 28231 Ynez Road.
Assistant Planner Craig Ruiz presented the staff report. Mr. Ruiz advised of the
following changes: 1) Page 7 , amend title of the Resolution to read "....an ARCO
AM/PM Mini-Market and Self-service Gas Station with concurrent alcohol sales... "; and
2) Page 13, Condition of Approval No. 13, amend condition to require applicant to pay
$50.00 to the Department of Fish and Game and delete the requirement for a
$1,250.00 check to the Department of Fish and Game.
Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 6:35 P.M.
Ida Sanchez of Markham and Associates, 41750 Winchester Road, Temecula,
representing the applicant, expressed concurrence with the Conditions of Approval.
Lee Robertson, 44525 La Paz, Temecula, expressed concern with the traffic impact
the project will have at the proposed intersection which currently suffers from
congestion.
It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff to
close the public hearing at 6:43 P.M. and ADOPT the Negative Declaration for PA93-
0089 Conditional Use Permit and ADOPT Resolution No. 93-17 approving PA93-0089
Conditional Use Permit based on the analysis and findings contained in the staff report
and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval and RECOMMEND to the City
Council Changing of the Draft General Plan Land Use Designation for the Subject Site
from Office Professional to Highway/Tourist Commercial including modification to the
Resolution by staff and amending Condition of Approval No. 13 deleting the request
for a check in the amount of $1,250.00 to the Department of Fish and Game.
Chairman Fahey stated that she has a significant concern regarding permitting alcohol
sales at the mini-market.
Commissioner Ford stated that he also has concerns with the sale of alcohol at a gas
station based on the close proximity of the freeway at this location. Commissioner
Ford stated that he has no problem with the original resolution proposed, however, he
is opposed to the change in the resolution presented tonight.
Commissioner Hoagland stated that other gas stations are allowed to sell alcohol and
feels it would be unfair to deny the applicant the opportunity to compete fairly,
Planning Director Thornhill stated that one of the reasons the sale of alcohol was
denied on the previously proposed gas station in the Rancho Towne Center was based
on the location of the church which was adjacent to that project.
PCMINO7/19/93 -6- 7/21/83
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff, Hoagland, Fahey
NOES: I COMMISSIONERS: Ford
ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Blair
JULY 19.1993
Chairman Fahey declared a recess at 6:45 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 6:50 P.M.
PA93-0124, Plot Plan
Proposal to approve a 43,000 square foot tilt-up industrial building for sterilization,
warehouse, and distribution for new medical products. Located on the east side of
Business Park Drive between Rancho California Road and Rancho Way.
Planner Saied Naaseh presented the staff report.
Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 6:55 P.M. There being no requests to
speak, the public hearing was closed.
John Lutkins, President of Medical Design Concept, stated that he concurred with the
staff report and the conditions of approval.
It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Ford to ADOPT
Resolution No. 93-18 approving Plot Plan No. PA93-0124, Amendment No. I based
on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval and ADOPT Negative Declaration for Plot Plan No. PA93-0124,
Amendment No. I based on the analysis and findings contained in the staff report and
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
Commissioner Hoagland stated that he noticed that the applicant submitted the project
on June 18, 1993 and he hopes that the business community takes notice of staff's
efforts to process these applications in a timely manner.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
4 COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland, Fahey
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Blair
PCMINO7/19193 -6- 7121/93
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 19, 1993
8. PA93-0125. Conditional Usa Permit
Proposal for a Conditional Use Permit allowing the use of the Temecula showgrounds
for motocross and off-road events including practice and races. Located at the
Temecula Showgrounds, west of Diaz and south of Temecula City limits.
Saied Naaseh presented the staff report.
Planning Director Gary Thornhill referred to a letter from Mr. Cohen regarding
archeological issues. Paragraph one of the letter expressed some concerns regarding
the dirt mound known as the jump on the property and where the dirt was extracted
from. Mr. Thornhill advised that the archeologist confirmed that the dirt used to
construct the mound was not taken from the archaeologically sensitive area. Director
Thornhill stated that there is no archaeologically sensitive area within the proposed
development area and the applicant has been instructed to avoid the sensitive areas
completely. Mr. Thornhill also referred to a letter by the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (AQMD), advising the Commission that the letter was received
by staff late Friday, July 16, 1993. Mr. Thornhill suggested that the Commission
continue PA93-0125 Conditional Use Permit to allow staff to address the issues raised
by the AQMD.
Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 7:05 P.M.
Dirck Edge, 27349 Jefferson Avenue, #203, Temecula, attorney representing the
applicant, asked for clarification on the requirement for Condition #27 and #34.
Mr. Edge stated that the AQMD had thirty (30) days to respond and on the final hour,
they have faxed a letter and derailed the project. Mr. Edge advised that Shoemaker
Productions has a scheduled race on August 15, 1993 and to continue this item to
August 2, 1993 could pose a hardship to the applicant.
The following individuals expressed support of the proposed Conditional Use Permit for
the Temecula Motosports Park:
John DiCiaula, 42009 Rubicon Circle, Temecula.
Marlo Pichel, 28007 Front Street, Temecula.
Dr. Vernon Poole, 25536 Buckly, Murrieta.
Lee Robarson, 28093 Front Street, Temecula.
Greg Erickson, 43164 Corte Calandra, Temecula.
Charles Weedon, 640 Cable Court, Oceanside.
Kelly Pichel, P.O. Box 246, Aguanga.
Dana LeGrand, 46205 Anza Road, Temecula.
James Cohen of California Indian Legal Services, 1820 S. Escondido Boulevard,
Escondido, representing the Pechanga Indian Reservation, advised the Commission that
the Pechanga Indians are not opposed to the Motocross Sports Park or the race
activities, however, they would not like these activities to take place over the burial
PCMINO7/19/93 -7- 7121/93
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JULY 19,1993
grounds. Mr. Cohen asked for the following minor changes to the Conditions of
Approval: 1 ) a salvage operation be done on the dirt which forms the mound (the
jump), which the monitors have stated came from the midden area (archaeologically
sensitive area), with a complete investigation of the contents of the dirt; 2) a
description of the buffer zone area be placed in the Conditions of Approval.
Director Thornhill advised that the recommendations made were based on the
completed study by the archeologist and his determination was that the materials used
to make the mound were not from the midden area.
Mr. Cohen stated that the archeologist initially stated that no human remains would
be found at the site. Mr. Cohen requested that before the Negative Declaration is
adopted, consideration be given to this issue.
Doris Wahiteda, a member of the Pechanga Indian Tribal Council, said the indians are
not trying to prevent racing, they just want the material in the mound analyzed to
ensure there are no more human remains.
Melanie Churcon, Fallbrook, expressed her support of the proposal.
The applicant, Don Shoemaker, advised the Commission that the material used to
make up the mound was taken from an area at the north end of the track which was
dug out and that area is now used for the pee-wee track.
Commissioner Chiniaeff suggested that the applicant put the mound material back in
place and re-build the jump with materials taken from another area outside of the
sensitive area.
Planning Director Gary Thornhill advised the Commission that the applicant is on a very
tight schedule and there has been a lot of negative press regarding whether or not the
track would ever operate again. Director Thornhill stated that he feels the applicant
should not have to pay for an observer in the areas that the archeologist has stated are
not impacted. He asked for direction from the Commission on whether staff can
resolve the issues raised by AQMD and Native American Indians.
Commissioner Ford expressed concern regarding the circulation at the track and asked
that staff and the applicant look at the access to the pit area, the spectator area and
the area around the jump which allows spectators to stand in the immediate area of
the jump.
Commissioner Chiniaeff stated that he concurs with the comments made by the
supporters. He stated that the City owns the property, is responsible for leasing the
property and questioned the fees that the applicant has been conditioned for.
Commissioner Hoagland concurred, clarifying that the applicant was entering into a
lease agreement, not purchasing the land from the City and recommended deletion of
PCMIN07/19~93 -8- 7121/93
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JULY 19.1993
Condition 34. Commissioner Hoagland stated that he feels this is a good proposal and
the conditions are reasonable and suggested the Commission could conditionally
approve this pending resolution of the concerns expressed in the letter by the AQMD
if no additional work is required.
Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh said based on issues raised by the AQMD
which could affect the Negative Declaration, he would feel more comfortable if the
Commission directs staff to address those concerns and bring the item back as early
as possible for a recommendation by the Commission.
Chairman Fahey stated that she is in support of the proposal provided the AQMD
issues can be addressed.
The overall consensus of the Commission was in favor of the project.
It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Hoagland to
continue PA93-0125 Conditional Use Permit to August 2, 1993, to allow staff to
address the concerns expressed by the AQMD and the Pechanga Indians.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
4 COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland, Fahey
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Blair
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Planning Director Gary Thornhill advised the following:
* The WaI-Mart proposal went before the City Council on July 13, 1993 and was
approved on a 3-2 vote, with Mayor Mu~oz and Councilmember Stone in opposition.
* The Temecula auto dealer's marquee was presented to the Council on July 13, 1993
and was continued. The Council choose two representatives to work with the
applicant on the sign design, and requested that the Planning Commission be
represented also.
Commissioner Chiniaeff and Commissioner Ford volunteered to work along with
Council and the applicant on the sign design.
* Per the request of Commissioner Blair, the Department submittal requirements and
documentation will be on the August 2, 1993 agenda.
PCMIN07/19/93 *9- 71211~3
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 19, 1993
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Chiniaeff asked staff to look into the amount of bonding required for
landscaping.
OTHER BUSINESS
None
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Fahey declared the meeting adjourned at 8:30 P.M.
The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission will be held on August
2, 1993, 6:00 P.M., at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California.
Chairman Linda Fahey
Secretary
FCMIN07/19/93 -10- 7/21193
MINUTES FROM TFrF~
AUGUST 2, 1993
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, AUGUST 2, 1993
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on
Monday, August 2, 1993, 6:00 P.M., 22915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California. The
meeting was called to order by Chairman Ford.
PRESENT: 5 COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland and Fahey
None
Also present were Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh, Director of Planning Gary
Thornhill, Senior Planner Dabble Ubnoske and temporary Recording SecretaryTasha Summers.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Approval of Aoenda
It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Ford to approve
the agenda.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland and Fahey
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
Director's Hearino Update
This is an informational item with no action required of the Commission.
New Chairperson Election
It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Blair to elect
Steven Ford as the Planning Commission Chairperson.
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Hoagland and Fahey
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
R:'~S\PLANCOt~4'~DC~MINB-2.93 9115193 tjs
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 2o 1993
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Blairto elect Dennis
Chiniaaff as the Planning Commission Vice-Chairperson.
AYES:
4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Hoagland and Fahey
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
Submittal Standards
Commissioner Chiniaeff inquired as to whether there are extra copies of maps left over
from the Planning files. Planning Director Gary Thornhill responded that the type of
application and outside agency interest dictates the number of copies used and that
the number of maps required is necessary.
This is an informational item only with no action required by the Commission.
NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
5. PA93-0120, First Extension of Time for Tentative Parcel MaD No. 24785
Proposal to subdivide a 5 acre parcel into 2 parcels.
Planner Craig Ruiz presented the staff report.
New Conditions of Approval were added by the Department of Public Works for
Erosion Control and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES} in
order to comply with new laws, City Ordinances, and to protect the General Health
and Safety Of the citizens of Temecula.
It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Fahey to
approve PA93-0120, First Extension of Time for the subdivision of the 5 acre parcel
into 2 parcels.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland and Fahey
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
PA93-0072, First Extension of Time for Tentative Parcel MaD No. 25981
Proposal to subdivide a 3.01 acre parcel into 3 parcels.
Planner Craig Ruiz presented the staff report;
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 2, 1993
New Conditions of Approval were added by the Department of Public Works for
Erosion Control and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) in
order to comply with new laws, City Ordinances, and to protect the General Health
and Safety of the citizens of Temecula.
Commissioner Hoagland inquired as to whether an ultimate zoning study had been
done previously and if the project was consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map.
Mr. Ruiz confirmed that the project was consistent with the General Plan and that City
Council had approved the parcel request.
Commissioner Ford inquired about the conditions of approval for off-site grading.
To clarify Commissioner Ford's concern, Ray Casey stated that the added condition
was not subject to NPDES because the parcel was under 5 acres, but that the project
was subject to erosion control, under the grading permit.
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Blair to approve
PA93-0072, First Extension of Time for Tentative Parcel Map No. 25981.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford and Fahey
Hoagland
PA93-0150, First Extension of Time for Plot Plan No. 225
Proposal for a warehouse with 17,250 square feet of floor area.
Planner Craig Ruiz presented the staff report. To clarify, Mr. Ruiz stated that the
project is currently in plan check for grading permits, but because the applicant has not
technically met the definition of "use of the permit," he is required to file for an
extension. Upon approval of the proposed two year extension of time, the plan check
process will continue.
It was moved by Commissioner Blair, seconded by Commissioner Fahey to approve
PA93-0150, First Extension of Time for Plot Plan No. 225.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland and Fahey
None
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 2.1993
PA93-0009, First Extension of Time for Tentative Parcel Mao No. 25059 end PA93-
0010, Extension of Time for Plot Ran No. 34
Proposal for a four lot subdivision of a 5.51 acre site in the Industrial Park (I-P) zone
and to construct e seven story office building (102,243 s.f.), two restaurants (7,872
s.f. and 7,000 s.f.) and a four-level parking structure.
This project was continued from the July 19, 1993 Planning Commission Meeting.
Planner Craig Ruiz presented the case.
Commissioner Chiniaeff inquired about the applicants expenditure of funds. Ray Casey
from the Department of Public Works, stated that no funds had been spent to date for
improvements or financing through an Assessment District.
The representative, Anthony Polo, Avalon Consultants, questioned Planning staff's
ability to add new conditions to the project. Mr. Polo also argued that the added
conditions did not relate to the health and safety of the citizens of Temecula nor to the
General Plan. In addition, Mr. Polo felt that because he was required to provide public
facilities which would cost in excess of 9125,000 the project was entitled to a three
year extension of time.
Staff stated that the applicant did not meet the three requirements necessary to
receive a three year extension of time. The applicant had not (1) expended 9125,000,
(2) a final map was not recorded, and (3) the project was not part of a phased final
map.
Commissioner Chiniaeff stated that the conditions added to the project were standard.
Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh stated that the City has the authority to
impose new conditions of approval to a previously approved tentative map through the
extension of time process.
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff to
approve PA93-0009, first extension of time for Tentative Tract Map No. 25059 and
PA93-0101, First Extension of Time for Plot Plan No. 225.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland and Fahey
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 2, 1993
9. PA93-0101, Tentative Tract MaD NO, 25055, Amendment No. 5. First Extension of
Tim~
Proposed request for a one year time extension for Tentative Tract Map No. 25055,
Amendment No. 5, a twenty-eighth (28) unit condominium subdivision on 2.5 acres.
Planner Matthew Fagan presented the staff report.
Chairman Ford, to clarify, reiterated that the 25 foot setback on the 6 lots to the east
of the project which provide a buffer to the single family residences behind the
property was what was previously approved by the Planning Commission for Tentative
Tract Map No. 25055, but this had been included on the current submittal due to
economic hardship.
The project representative, Ida Sanchez, agreed to the three (3) conditions added to
Conditions of Approval.
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff to
approve the One Year Extension of Time for PA93-0101, Tentative Tract Map No.
25055, Amendment No. 5
The motion was carried as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland and Fahey
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh called for a recess to confer with the Pechanga
Indian council prior to discussing Item iVo. 10 of the agenda.
The meeting was reconvened at 7:00 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
10.
PA93-0125, Conditional Use Permit
Proposed Conditional Use Permit allowing the use of the Temecula showgrounds for
motorcross and off-road events including practice and races.
This project was continued from the July 19, 1993 Planning Commission Meeting.
Planner Saied Naaseh presented the staff report.
There were no comments from the audience.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 2.1993
Planning staff addressed the two outstanding issues raised by AQMD and the
Pechanga Indian Reservation.
In order to comply with AQMD concerns, the dirt access road and track must be
watered three (3) times daily on event days. Magnesium chloride, a soil stabilizer, will
also be applied to the road once every six months. The magnesium chloride will bring
the generated emissions below the threshold levels thereby reducing the significant
impacts of the project.
In order to address the Pechanga Indians concerns, the mound material used to
produce the jumps will be moved to the buffer zone. An archaeologist and a
representative from the Pechanga Reservation will be present during the sifting and
monitoring of the mound material on Saturday, August 7, 1993.
An additional condition added to the project is that the Pechanga Indians are to be
notified when additional grading is performed on the site. This excludes any grading
necessary to maintain the track after final grading approval.
Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh clarified the Agreement added to the project.
The following language was added to the agreement to clarify and safeguard the
agreement: if the Commission approved the CUP, the applicant could submit plans to
the Department of Public Works for the grading permit. The Pechanga's could appeal
the permit within 10 days of receipt.
John Cavanaugh requested the following changes in the Agreement:
Paragraph I of the Agreement regarding the relocation of the mound material states
that a rubber tire loader be used to transfer the material to the 100 foot buffer area.
Paragraph regarding the release. Mr. Cavanaugh stated that the Pechanga Indians may
waive their rights to appeal any Planning Commission decision regarding PA93-0125,
but the waiver does not apply to any matters related to the previously issued
temporary event permit for the motorcross which is the subject of a pending action;
Riverside Superior Court Case No. 23438.
The Pechanga representative approved the agreement and stated they would sign said
agreement on Tuesday, August 3, 1993.
Commissioner Chiniaeff expressed concern regarding the cost of the magnesium
chloride being applied to the road. He stated that the cost should be absorbed by the
other agencies using the road as well as Mr. Shoemaker, the applicant. Planning
Director Gary Thornhill addressed Commissioner Chiniaeff's concern by stating that the
issue was being discussed and that Planning staff would consult the Department of
Public Works in regards to dividing the cost of the chemical.
Chairman Ford opened the Public Hearing at 7:15 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 2. 1993
The project representative, Dirk Edge, stressed the importance of the Planning
Commission approving the project due to the race scheduled for August 15, 1993.
Mr. Edge also requested that Item No. 31 of the conditions of approval, which states
that a Registered Civil Engineer approve or design an erosion control plan for the site,
be deleted. To clarify, Ray Casey of the Department of Public Works, stated that due
to the nature of the project a Civil Engineer does not need to approve the projects
grading permit.
The applicant accepted the modified Conditions 15 and 19 in the Memorandum dated
August 2, 1993. The representative for the Pechanga Indians, James Cohen,
approved the language of the new conditions. Condition 31 was removed from the
memorandum.
It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Blair to close
the public hearing at 7:20 P.M. and approve the Conditional Use Permit, subject to the
amendments set forth by the City Attorney, allowing the use of the Temecula
Showgrounds for motorcross and off-road events including practice and races.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland and Fahey
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
11. Tentative Tract MaD No. 25338. Amendment No. 1
A proposed 28 unit condominium subdivision on 2.56 acres.
Planner Matthew Fagan presented the staff report stating that Planning Staff has
provided written correspondence on numerous occasions giving explicit resubmittal
requirements and has had numerous telephone conversations with the applicant and
one meeting. Staff's concerns included the request for a current grading plan outlining
the topography of the site, an updated traffic analysis, a hydrology and hydraulic
analysis of the site and an amended tentative map. The deadlines set by staff were
agreed to by the applicant, but the applicants resubmittal was not received. Planning
Staff therefore recommended denial of the project, without prejudice, based upon the
analysis and findings in the staff report.
To clarify the term "without prejudice," Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh
stated that without prejudice means that the applicant has the right to reapply within
a one year period of time. Commissioner Hoagland inquired as to whether the
applicant would have to begin the permit process from the beginning or could he apply
for a one year extension of time. Mr. Cavanaugh stated that the project would have
to be submitted over again as a new project.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 2, 1993
The applicant, Mr. Leigh Waxman, stated that he had not received a copy of the staff
report until the day of the Planning Commission meeting. He also stated that the
project was originally approved through Riverside County and then transferred to the
City of Temecula. Upon the City's recommendation of changing the number of units
from 32 to 28, the applicant complied and had plans redrawn to meet the request.
The applicant commented on the frequent change in City staff assigned to his project,
referring to the Case Planner Mark Rhoades and Engineer Bob Righetti.
The applicant requested a one year extension of time, but the Commission reminded
Mr. Waxman that the project had not been approved end therefore could not be
granted the extension.
Commissioner Ford looked at the letter sent to the applicant on October 22, 1993
regarding the submittal requirements in order for Planning Staff to continue its review
of the project. Mr. Waxman stated that he had not seen the letter before.
Commissioner Fahey suggested a one month extension in order for Mr. Waxman to
clarify with City staff the status of the project. Mr. Waxman requested a two month
extension.
Chairman Ford opened the public hearing at 7:40 P.M.
Jean Clement, 29822 Windwood Circle, Temecula, spoke in opposition to the project
due to the increased number of multi-family units along Solana Way which would
present an increased problem with traffic flow. Ms. Clement requested single family
detached homes be placed on the property instead of the proposed condominium
project. She also pointed out that there was a lack of playground facilities in the area.
Gall Edwards, 29741 Windwood Circle, Temecula, spoke in opposition to the project
stating that the proposed project location was the only "buffer zone" between her
home and commercial development. Ms. Edwards commented on the high level of
multi-family housing congestion in the area as well as the lack of view and decreased
value of the homes in the area. She also stated that the areas elementary school had
to add temporary classrooms to accommodate the increased number of children. Ms.
Edwards expressed great concern over the lack of funds the project would contribute
to the school system.
Susan Osborn, 41967 Sherwood Court, Temecula, spoke in opposition to the project
stating that she would like to see the area designated as a park area.
The applicant addressed each of the concerns of the opposed speakers and stated that
his project was in compliance with the City's plan for the area. He emphasized the
proposed school fees to be paid for the project equaled $200,000 in fees.
Commissioner Fahey expressed concern over the congestion the proposed project
would bring to the area.
R:~S%PLANC~NB-2.93 9115193 lit 8
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 2, 1993
It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Blair to close
the public hearing at 8:00 P.M. and to approve staff's recommendation to deny the
project without .prejudice based on the findings contained in the staff report.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland and Fahey
None
12. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Gary Thornhill stated that the next General Plan Meeting will be held August 17, 1993.
Delays in the project are due to conflicts the City Council has had with certain
meetings.
13. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Chiniaeff urged consistency in placing the proposed General Plan
Designations on the first page of the Planning Commission staff reports. He also
requested greater consistency in map exhibits.
14. OTHER BUSINESS
None
15. ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Ford declared the meeting adjourned at 8:00 P.M.
The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission will be held on
Monday, September 20, 1993, 6:00 P.M., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma
Drive, Temecula, California.
Chairman Steve Ford
Gary Thornhill, Secretary
ITEM #3
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 20, 1993
PA93-0134, Tentative Parcel Map No. 27108, First Extension of Time
Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission:
RE-AFFIRM the previously adopted Negative Declaration
for Tentative Parcel Map No. 27108; and
APPROVE PA93-0134, Tentative Parcel Map No. 27108,
First Extension of Time subject to the attached Conditions
of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Lutheran Church Extension Fund
REPRESENTATIVE:
Louis Todd
PROPOSAL:
A request for a one year time extension for Tentative Parcel Map
No. 27108 - A residential subdivision of 7.7+/- acres into 3
parcels averaging 2.5 + acres.
LOCATION:
Southeastern corner of Santiago and Ynez Roads.
EXISTING ZONING:
R-A-2.5 (Residential Agricultural - 2.5 Acre Minimum Parcel Size)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North: R-A-2,5
South: R-A-2.5
East: R-A-2.5
West: R-A-2.5, SP 180 (Specific Plan
residential uses to the northwest)
No. 180,
PROPOSED LAND USE
DESIGNATION:
Very Low Density Residential
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Single-Family Residences
Single-Family Residences
Single-Family Residences
Single-Family Residences
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Area:
Average Parcel Size Proposed:
Largest Proposed Parcel Area:
Smallest Proposed Parcel Area:
7.72 acres
2.57 acres
2.72 acres
2.50 acres
BACKGROUND
Tentative Parcel Map No. 27108 was originally approved by the Planning Commission on
August 5, 1991. A request for a one year extension of time was filed with the Planning
Department on June 28, 1993. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held
on July 22, 1993. Subsequent to the DRC meeting, the application was deemed complete
and a Planning Commission hearing date was established.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Planning Application No. 93-0134 is a request for a one year time extension for Tentative
Parcel Map No. 27108 - a residential subdivision of 7.7+/- acres into 3 parcels averaging
2.5 + acres.
ANALYSIS
No new significant issues have developed since this project was originally approved by the
Planning Commission on August 5, 1993, The draft General Plan has been evolving since this
project was originally approved and the project as proposed is consistent with the Draft
General Plan. NatiOnal Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements have
been mandated since this project was originally approved and have been included as a
condition of approval for erosion control on the site.
ZONING AND FUTURE GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The project site is zoned R-A-2.5 (Residential Agricultural - 2.5 Acre Minimum Parcel Size),
with adjacent parcels also zoned R-A-2.5. The Draft General Plan Land Use Designation for
the site is Very Low Density Residential (.2-.4 dwelling units per acre - 2,5 - 5 acre minimum
parcel size). The project's proposed density is .39 dwelling units per acre which is within the
range established in the draft General Plan. The project as proposed is consistent with the
City's future General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
A Negative Declaration was adopted for Tentative Parcel Map No. 27108 pursuant to the
CEQA guidelines. No subsequent changes are proposed in the project which would require
revisions to the previously adopted Negative Declaration. Significant environmental impacts
not considered in the previously adopted Negative Declaration on the project have not
developed since the project was originally approved.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The proposed project was originally approved by the Planning Commission on August 5,
1991. The project as proposed is consistent with the City's future General Plan. No
subsequent changes are proposed in the project which would require revisions to the
previously adopted Negative Declaration.
FINDINGS
The findings for the original approval for Tentative Parcel Map No. 27108 are found
to remain valid except as amended herein.
No subsequent changes are proposed in the project which would require revisions to
the previously adopted Negative Declaration. Significant environmental impacts not
considered in the previously adopted Negative Declaration on the project have not
developed since the project was originally approved.
3. No new information of substantial importance to the project has become available.
There is a reasonable probability that Tentative Parcel Map No. 27108, First Extension
of Time 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 Draft General Plan
recommended land use designation for the site is Very Low Density Residential (.2 -
.4 dwelling units per acre). The project proposes a density of approximately ,39
dwelling unit per acre.
The proposed use or action complies with State Planning and Zoning Laws. The
proposed use complies with the Subdivision Map Act, and City of Temecula
Ordinances No. 460 and 348.
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 residential development complies with the standards of
Ordinances No. 460 and 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 mitigation measures.
R:~S\STAFFRPT~I34PA93.PC 8/31193 klb 3
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, because very low density residential uses exist to the north,
south, east and west of the site. The draft General Plan Land Use designations are
medium density residential for the parcels which are immediately adjacent to the north
and west of the site.
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 use is compatible with the surrounding land uses.
10.
The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to: and
useable by, vehicular traffic, because access will be off of Santiago and Ynez Roads,
which are publicly maintained streets.
11.
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.
12.
Said findings are supported by maps and environmental documents associated with
these applications and herein incorporated by reference.
Attachments:
Conditions of Approval for PA93-0134, Tentative Parcel Map No. 27108, First
Extension of Time - Blue Page 5
Conditions of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map No. 27108 - Blue Page 9
Exhibits - Blue Page 10
A, Vicinity Map
B. Draft General Plan Land Use Map
C. Zoning Map
D. Tentative Parcel Map No, 27108
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PA93-0134, Tentative Parcel Map No. 27108, First Extension of Time
Project Description: A one (1) year extension of time for Tentative Parcel Map No.
27108 - a residential subdivision of 7.7 +/- acres into 3 parcels averaging 2.5 + acres.
Assessor's Parcel No.: 922-140-010
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
Tentative Parcel Map No. 27108, First Extension of Time shall comply with all
Conditions of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map No. 27108 unless superseded by
these Conditions of Approval.
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act
and to all the requirements of Ordinance No. 460, 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.
The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, it
agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City
of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning
Planning Application No. 93-0134 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 27108, First Extension
of Time), 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 Temecuta.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS
A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning
Director.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP
5. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director:
A. A copy of the Final Map.
An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) with the following note added: "This
property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All
proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of
Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations, Ordinance No. 655."
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
PRIORTO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS
The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board.
No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or
the project is shown to be exempt.
m
An erosion control plan in accordance with City Standards shall be prepared by a
registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works for review
and approval.
The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading
and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and
subject to approval 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 Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. If the
full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this
property, no new charge needs to be paid.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP
10.
The Developer shall construct or post security and enter into an agreement
guaranteeing the construction of the erosion control and slope protection
improvements within 18 months in conformance with applicable City Standards and
subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS
11.
In the event that Santiago Road is not constructed by an Assessment District prior to
the final map recordation, the Developer shall design and bond for the improvements
to provide for street improvements per City Standard No, 111 Section "B" with A.C.
Dike along both sides of paving. In addition a transition lane shall also be provided as
directed by the Department of Public Works. The improvements shall be constructed
prior to issuance of the occupancy permit. The owner shall also waive all rights to
oppose formation of an Assessment District to construct the ultimate improvements
to Santiago Road.
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS
12.
Upon the request of a building permit for construction of residential structures on one
or more of the parcels within four years following approval of a tentative map, parcel
map or planned development, real estate development, stock cooperative, community
apartment project and condominium for which a tentative map or parcel map is filed,
a pre-determined Quimby Act Fee in the amount equal to the fair market value of
required acreage shall be paid by the owner of each such parcel(s) as a condition to
the issuance of such permit as authorized by City Ordinance No. 460.93. This
condition of approval shall supersede condition of approval No. 25 of Tentative Parcel
Map No. 27108 and condition of approval No. 26 of Tentative Parcel Map No, 271
OTHER AGENCIES
13,
The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations outlined
in the Riverside County Health Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated
July 19, 1993, a copy of which is attached.
14.
The applicant shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined in the
County of Riverside Fire Department's letter dated August 2, 1993, a copy of which
is attached.
15. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern Municipal
Water District transmittal dated July 28, 1993, a copy of which is attached.
16.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Rancho California
Water District Transmittal dated July 28, 1993, a copy of which is attached.
R:\S\STAFFRPT~I~4PA93.PC 8/31/93 klb 8
TO:
FROM
JUL 2 ~ !~
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL FrEALTH
DATE: July 19, 1993
CITY OF TEMECULA
~~ronmental Healt'h Specialist IV
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 27018, 1 ST EXTENSION OF TIME
The Depa,'tatent of Environmental Health has reviewed the proposed Extension of
Time and has no objections.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION, a soils percolation test shall be required.
SM:dr
(909) 275-8980
GLEN J, NEV(MAN
FIRE CHIEF
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
210 WEST SA/~ JACINTO AVENUE · PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370
(714) 657-3183
August 2,1993
To: Temecula Planning Department
ATTEN: Mathew Fagan
RE: PA93-0134
Firest Extension of Time PM 27108
The Riverside County Fire Department has reviewed the above
referenced planning case, the original conditions of approval will
remain the same for this application.
All questions regarding the meaning of this letter shall be
referred to the Fire Department Planning and Engineering staff.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
Laura Cabral, Fire Safety Specialist
Eastern Municipal Wa, er District
JUly 28,
1993
Matthew Fagan, Case Planner
city of Temecula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
SUBJECT: PA 93-0134 - 1st Extension of Time
27108)
d U L 2 9 1993
(related ease: PM
Dear Mr. Fagan:
We have reviewed the materials transmitted by your office which
describe the subject project. Our comments are outlined below:
General
It is our understanding the subject project is a proposed one year
time extension for Tentative Parcel Map 27108, a 7.72 acre property
located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Santiago and
Ynez Rds.
The subject project is located within the District's sanitary sewer
service areas. However, it must be understood the available
capabilities of the District's systems are continually changing due
to the occurrence of development within the District and programs
of sysEems improvement. As such, the provision of service will be
based on the detailed plan of service requirements, the timing of
the subject project, the status of the District's permit to
operate, and the service agreement between the District and the
developer of the subject project.
The developer must arrange for the preparation of a detailed plan
of service. The detailed plan of service will indicate the
location(s) and size(s) of system improvements to be made by the
developer (or others), and which are considered necessary in order
to provide adequate levels of service. To arrange for the
preparation of a plan of service, the developer should submit
information describing the subject project to the District's
Customer Service Department, (909) 925-7676, extension 409, as
follows:
Mail To: Post Office Box 8300 · SanJacinm, California 92581-8300 · Telephone (909) 925-7676 · Fax (909) 929-0257
Main Office: 2045 S. San jacinto Avenue, San Jacinto · Customer Service/Engineering Am'aex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue, Hernet, CA
Matthew Fagan
City of Temecula
July 28, 1993
Page 2
Written request for a "plaD of service".
Minimum $400.00 deposit (larger deposits may be required
for extensive development projects or projects located in
"difficult to serve" geographic areas).
Plans/maps describing the exact location and nature of
the subject project. Especially helpful materials
include grading plans and phasing plans.
Sanitary Sewer
The subject project is considered tributary to the District's
Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility (TVRWRF).
The nearest existing Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation
Facility (TVRWRF) system sanitary sewer facilities to the subject
project are as follows:
8-inch diameter sewer aligned along Santiago Rd., west of Ynez
Rd. (This sewer may not be available for connection by the
subject project).
The District master plan for the area indicates significant
improvements should be designed and constructed which would
allow the subject project to be sewered south, to existing
sewer facilities aligned along Highway 79.
Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel
free to contact this office at (909) 925-7676, extension 468.
Very truly yours,
Customer Service Department
DISTRICT
DGC/clz
AB 93-790
Wa r
John F. Hennigar
General Manager
Phillip L Forbes
July 28, 1993
Mr. Matthew Fagan
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43180 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
RECEIVED
AUG 0 2 1993
Ans'd ............
Water Availability
Parcel Map 27108
First Extension of Time
Lutheran Church
PA93-0134)
Dear Mr. Fagan:
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 Senga Doherty.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
SB:SO:mgO7/F18~
cc: Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 27108
ATI'ACHMENT NO. 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Parcel Map No: 27018
Project Description:
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Subdivision of 7.72-F/- gross
acres into 3 oarcels averaoina
2.5 +/- Gross acres each
922-140-010
Planning Deoartment
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision
Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule H, unless
modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in
accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request,
if made 30 days prior to the expiration date.
This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the
approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. The expiration
date is
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final
map.
Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract map
boundary to a City maintained road.
All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall
continue in force until the governing body accepts or abandons such offers,
All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the City
Engineer. Street names shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities, etc.,
shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division
boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted and
recorded as directed by the City Engineer.
A:PM27018 16
The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations
outlined in the Riverside County Health Department's Conditions of Approval,
contained herein.
The applicant shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined
in the Riverside County Fire Department's Conditions of Approval, contained
heroin.
10.
11.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the City
Building and Safety Department's Conditions of Approval, contained herein.
All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of
Technology, Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as outlined in the
Southwest Area Plan.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Temecula
Community Services District's Conditions of Approval contained heroin.
12. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following:
13.
Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the
development standards of the R-A-2 1/2 (Residential Agricultural, 2 1/2
Acre Minimum Parcel Size) zone.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free
condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided
with other erosion control measures as approved by the Director of
Building and Safety.
Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall provide
evidence to the Director of Building and Safety that any adiacent off-site
manufactured slopes which may be proposed have recorded slope
easements and that slope maintenance responsibilities have been
assigned as approved by the Director of Building and Safety.
Prior to the issuance of 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
A:PM27018 17
required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required
by the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance
or resolution.
14. Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit
within the project boundary until the developer's successor's-in-interest
provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures.
A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) per lot/unit shall be deposited
with the City as mitigation for public library development.
All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required
elements from the subdivision's approved fire protection plan as
approved by the County Fire Marshal.
All dwellings to be constructed within this subdivision shall be designed
and constructed with fire retardant (Class A) roofs as approved by the
Fire Marshal.
Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the
subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices
shall be permitted with Planning Department approval,
Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall not be
less than ten (10) feet.
f. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet.
15.
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. 27018, 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.
16. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
A:PM27018 18
underground.
17.
Within forty-eight (48) hours of the approval of the project, the
applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check
or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand,
Two Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars ($1,275.00), which includes the One
Thousand, Two Hundred, Fifty Dollars ($1,250.00) fee, in compliance with AB
3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(2) plus the Twenty-
Five Dollar {$25.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the
Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152
and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight (48) hour
period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the
check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void
by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
Riverside County Department of Health ~ Environmental Health Services Division
The Department of Health Division of Environmental Health Services, Land Use
Branch, has reviewed the map described above. If there are any questions concerning
this submittal, contact (714) 275-8980, Our recommendations are as follows:
18.
The Environmental Health Services Division (EHSD) has reviewed the above
Parcel Map and while we are not privileged to receive any preliminary
information relative to subsurface sewage disposal or connection to sewers or
domestic water supply, it is our considered opinion that the soils that might be
encountered in this area are not conducive to effective subsurface sewage
disposal systems and because of soil characteristics in the area, there may be
a requirement for extensive grading, compaction, cutting, etc. PRIOR TO
RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP, an acceptable soils feasibility report shall
be submit-ted for review and approval by the Environmental Health Services
Division. '(A PERCOLATION FEASIBILITY REPORT IS REQUIRED.)
19.
Prior to any grading, the following information shall be addressed and depicted
by a Registered Civil Engineer (RCE), Geologist with soils percolation expertise
on all grading plans for parcel maps, where SUBSURFACE SEPTIC SEWAGE
DISPOSAL is intended:
a. The proposed cuts and/or fills in the areas of sewage disposal systems.
b. The primary sewage disposal system and its 100% expansion area.
The elevation of the individual building pads in reference to the elevation
of the sewage disposal system.
A:PM27018 19
The original tile line to be installed and all required expansion area shall
be located in a natural undisturbed soil at the depth of the percolation
tests performed.
On those grading plans prepared by other than the person preparing the
feasibility percolation report, a statement must be placed on the grading
plan, signed and with seal, as to the appropriateness of the grading plan
with regard to the soils percolation engineer's report and particularly
specific to items "a" through "d" above.
Riverside County Fire Deoartment
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:
20.
Schedule "H" fire protection. An approved standard fire hydrant (6"x4"x2
1/2") shall be located so that no portion of the frontage of any lot is more than
330 feet from a fire hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for 2
hours duration at 20 PSi.
21.
The applicant/developer shall provide written certification from the appropriate
water company that the required fire hydrants are either existing or that
financial arrangements have been made to provide them, prior to recordation
of the final map.
MITIGATION:
22.
Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the
City of Temecula, a cash sum of 9400.00 per lot/unit as mitigation for fire
protection impacts.
All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to the Planning and
Engineering Staff.
City of Temecula DePartment of Buildino & Safety
23.
The Department of Building and Safety has no conditions of map approval at
this time.
A:PM27018 20
24.
The recorded map shall be submitted to the Department of Building and Safety
for addressing prior to review of structural plans which may be proposed for the
subject property.
Temecula Communitv Services District
The Subdivider shall submit to the Planning Director an agreement with the
Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) which demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the TCSD Board of Directors, and the City that upon the request
of a BUILDING PERMIT for construction of RESIDENTIAL structures on one or
more of the parcels WITHIN FOUR YEARS following approval of a tentative
map, parcel map, or planned development, real estate development, stock
cooperative community apartment project and condominium for which a
tentative map or parcel map is filed, a predetermined Quimby Act fee in the
amount equal to the fair market value of required acreage (Plus 20% for offsite
improvements) shall be paid by the owner of each such parcel(s) as a condition
to the issuance of such permit as authorized by City of Temecula Ordinance No.
460.93.
26. The following chart has been prepared to assist staff in calculating
requirements of the existing Quimby Ordinance:
Persons Per Acres
Dwellinqs Type Dwellinq Unit ReQuired*
1 lea) Single Family (Detached Garage) 2.98 .01490
1lea) Single Family (Attached Garage) 2.59 .01295
1lea) Mobile Home 2.64 .01360
2lea) Dwelling Units Per Structure 2.48 .01320
3 or 4lea) Dwelling Units Per Structure 2.34 .01240
5 or More Dwelling Units Per Structure 2.72 .01170
* Plus 20% for offsite improvements.
Enaineering Department
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this project,
and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
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.
A:PM27018 21
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
27. 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;
Riverside County Fire Del3artment;
Planning Department;
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department;
CATV Franchise; and
Temecula Community Services District.
28.
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.
29.
Ynez Road and Vallejo Road shall be improved with 32 feet of asphalt concrete
pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the
dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 102 (88'/64').
Side walks may be deleted on Vallejo Road to conform with the design criteria
of the Los Ranchitos area.
30.
Santiago Road shall be improved with 43 feet of asphalt concrete pavement,
or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated
right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 100 (110'/86').
31.
Vehicular access shall be restricted on Ynez Road and so noted on the final
map,
32.
Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No.
805.
33.
Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be
delineated or noticed on the final map.
34. 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.
35. The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be
A:PM27018 22
executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements
in conformance with applicable City standards,
Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and
gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, and
other traffic control devices as appropriate.
b. Drainage facilities.
c. Landscaping (street and parks).
d. Sewer and domestic water systems.
e. Undergrounding of existing and proposed utility distribution lines.
36.
The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated
with adjoining developments.
37.
Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. 461 and as approved by the
City Engineer.
38.
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.
39.
Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a
minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment
as approved by the City Engineer.
40. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent.
,,1.
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).
42. All driveways shall be located a minimum of two (2) feet from the property line.
43.
The subdivider shall submit two prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the
Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building
Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions
A:PM27018 23
of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 24" x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil
Engineer.
44. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified ~ngineer or geologist and
submitted at the time of application for grading plan check.
45,
The subdivider shall submit two copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
46.
Drainage calculations shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer.
All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.
47,
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."
48.
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.
49. 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:
50.
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.
51.
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.
52.
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:
53. A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for
A:PM27018 24
54.
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 propercy 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.
55.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public
facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project.
The fee to be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of
the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not
been finally established by the date on which developer requests its building
permits for the project or any phase thereof, the developer shall execute the
Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of which has been
provided to developer. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, developer
shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of
the bond shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000. Developer
understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of
those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such
fees). By execution of this Agreement, developer will waive any right to
protest the provisions of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of
any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic
mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project; Provided that developer is not
waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the
amount thereof.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
56.
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 public streets.
57.
Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times
with adequate detours during construction.
58.
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
A:PM27018 25
94 of the State Standard Specifications.
59. Existing traffic signal shall remain fully operational at all times.
Transportation Engineering
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
60. A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the City Engineer for Ynez Road, Santiago Road, and Vallejo Road,
and shall be included in the street improvement plans.
61. If deemed necessary by the City Engineer, plans for traffic signal pole relocation
shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City
Engineer for the intersection of Santiago Road and Ynez Road and shall be
included in the street improvement plans with the second plan check submittal.
Additional detector loops and signal heads shall be provided to conform to new
lane configuration.
PRIOR
62.
63.
TO CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY:
All signing and striping shall be installed and operational perthe approved plans.
If necessary, existing traffic signal facilities, along with added improvements,
shall be located and installed at their ultimate location and shall be operational
per the approved plans.
A:PM27018 26
A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 3
EXHIBITS
R:/S\STAFFRPT\134PA93.PC 8/31/93 klb 10
CITY OF TEMECULA
t/
tt
\\
CASE NO.:
EXHIBIT: A
P.C. DATE:
PA93-0134, Tentative Parcel Map No. 27108, First Extension of Time
VICINITY MAP
September 20, 1993
R:\FAGANM\P, EPORTS%I34PA93.PC 7/23/93 mf 11
CITY OF TEMECULA
DRAFT GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP
Designation: Very Low Density Residential
// /
' ~"'l l t L...~
/I I~
ZONING Designation: R-A 2 1/2 (Residential Agricultural)
Case No.: PA93-0134, Tentative Parcel Map No. 27108. First Extension of Time
P.C. Date: September 20, 1993
R:\FAGANM~P,F,I~RTS~134PA93.PC 7/23/93 mf 12
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: PA93-0134, Tentative Parcel Map No. 27108, First Extension of Time
EXHIBIT: D TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 27108
P.C. DATE: September 20, 1993
R:\FAGAN~A4~P~EPORTS\134PA93.PC 7/23/93 mj~ 1 ~
ITEM #4
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 20, 1993
Case No.: PA93-0137, Plot Plan No. 226, First Extension of Time
Prepared By: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission:
RE-AFFIRM The Previously Adopted Negative Declaration
for Plot Plan No. 226; and
APPROVE PA93-0137, Plot Plan No. 226, First Extension
of Time Subject to the Attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Ted Zonos
REPRESENTATIVE:
Shirley Vance
PROPOSAL:
A request for a one year time extension for Plot Plan No. 226 to
construct three commercial retail structures totalling 26,920
square feet on approximately 3.45 acres.
LOCATION:
Southwest corner of Pauba Road and Margarita Road
EXISTING ZONING:
C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
R~R (Rural Residential)
R-R (Rural Residential)
S-P (Specific Plan)
R-R (Rural Residential
PROPOSED LAND USE
DESIGNATION:
Neighborhood Commercial
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Sports Park
Residential (~ acre m~nimum lot size)
Residential (7,200 square foot minimum lot size)
Residential (¼ acre minimum lot size)
R:~S\STAFFRPT\I37PA93.PC 9/14/93 Idb
BACKGROUND
The proposed project was previously approved by the Temecula Planning Commission on
August 5, 1991. Pursuant to the recently modified approval authority ordinance, all
extensions of time are now heard by the Planning Commission.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of three commercial retail buildings. The three buildings will total 26,920
square feet. Architecture consists of red tile roofs and arched stucco walls. The site will
include landscaping and berms to mitigate visual impacts from Margarita Road and Pauba
Road.
ANALYSIS
The project is unchanged from that which was originally approved by the Temecula Planning
Commission. Staff is recommending the addition of new conditions of approval as they relate
to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). This additional condition was
added to comply with new laws and City ordinances and to protect the general health and
safety of the citizens of Temecula.
The site design and landscaping meet the standards set by Ordinance No. 348. The project
has been designed to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The projects'
landscaping is designed to screen the site from Pauba and Margarita Roads. A traffic study
prepared for the project determined any impacts can be mitigated through the payment of
signalization and public facility fees. Proper circulation has been provided to the site from
Pauba and Margarita Roads.
ZONING, FUTURE GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY
The project site is zoned CoP-S. The adjacent parcels are zoned R-R to the north, south and
west and S-P to the east. The proposed project is consistent with the requirements of the C-
P-S Zone and Ordinance 348.
The proposed Draft General Plan Land Use Designation is Neighborhood Commercial. The
current SWAP designation for the proposed site is Commercial. It is anticipated that the
project will likely be consistent with the City's future adopted General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
For the original approval of this project a Negative Declaration was issued under the CEQA
guidelines. The project is unchanged from that which was originally approved. Therefore, no
further environmental assessment on Plot Plan No. 226 is required. Mitigation measures
contained in the conditions of approval will mitigate 3otential impacts which will be created
by the project.
R:~S\STAFFP,.r~I37PA93.PC 9114/93 kJb 2
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The proposed commercial retail buildings have been designed with sensitivity relative to their
visibility from Pauba and Margarita Roads. The project is consistent with Ordinance No. 348,
the Draft General Plan designation of Neighborhood Commercial and the 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
The findings for the original approval for Plot Plan No. 226 are found to remain valid
except as amended herein.
No subsequent changes are proposed in the project which would require revisions to
the previously certified Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant
environmental impacts not considered in the previous approval of this project.
3. No new information of substantial importance to the project has become available.
There is a reasonable probability that PA93-0137, Plot Plan No. 226, First Extension
of Time, will be consistent with the City's Draft General Plan, which will be completed
in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law. The Draft General Plan Land
use designation for the site is Neighborhood Commercial. The proposed development
is consistent with the Neighborhood Commercial zone.
The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws. The
proposed use complies with City of Temecula 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 mitigation measures.
The project is compatible with surrounding proposed land uses. The harmony in scale,
bulk, height, intensity, and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship with
adjoining properties, due to the fact that similar uses are proposed for properties in the
vicinity of this project.
The project has acceptable access to existing and proposed dedicated right-of-ways
which are open to, and are useable by, vehicular traffic as evidenced on the underlying
Tentative Parcel Map showing access to Pauba Road and Margarita Road,
Said findings are supported by maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated
with these applications and herein incorporated by reference.
Attachments:
Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 5
Previously Adopted Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 8
Exhibits - Blue Page 9
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\S\STAFFRPTXI37PA93.PC 9114193 kib Ei
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PA93-0137, Plot Plan No. 226, First Extension of Time
Project Description: First one-year extension of time for Plot Plan No. 226, the
construction of three commercial retail buildings totaling 26,920 square feet on
a 3.45 parcel in the Scenic Highway Tourist Commercial (C-P-S) zone.
Assessor's Parcel No.: 945-110-003
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
General ReQuirements
PA93-0137, Plot Plan No. 226, First Extension of Time shall comply with all
Conditions of Approval for Plot Plan No. 226 (copies of which are attached) unless
superseded by these Conditions of Approval.
The project shall comply with the all the requirements of Ordinance 348, unless
modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in
accordance with the State Planning Law and City Ordinance No. 348, upon written
request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date.
Prior to the Issuance of Bulldine Permits
The applicant shall make an application for a consistency check with the Department
of Building and Safety and shall pay the appropriate filing fee. The applicant shall pay
the appropriate Landscape Inspection Fee to the Building and Safety Department.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans consistent with the
approved Conceptua~ Landscape Plans shall be submitted to the Building and Safety
Department for approval and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee.
Performance securities, in the amount equal to the total cost of landscaping and
irrigation including labor and material to guarantee adequate maintenance of the
landscaping for one year, shall be filed with the Department of Planning.
The applicant shall provide additional landscaping to screen various components of the
project if deemed necessary by the Planning Director.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Developer must comply with the
requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an
NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, an erosion control plan in accordance with City
Standards shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the
Department of Public Works for review and approval.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall post security and enter into
an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in
conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department
of Public Works.
R:',S\STAFFRPT~137pA93.pC 9/14193 klb 7
ATTACHMENT N0.2
PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\S\$TAFFRIr~I37PA93.1~C 9/14/93 klb ~
AI'FACHMENT NO. 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan No: 226
Project Description: Commercial retail
complex of 3 structures totallino 27,150+/-
square feet on a 2.53 acre site.
Assessor's Parcel No.: 945-110-003
Planning Department
The use hereby permitted bV this plot plan is for construction of a commercial
retail complex of three (3) structures, totaling 27, 150 +/- square feet on a 2.53
acre site,
The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula,
its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or proceeding
against the City of Temecule or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set
aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory
agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Plot Plan No. 226. The
City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action,
or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the
defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any such claim,
action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee
shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the
City of Temecula,
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of approval date; otherwise,
it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial
construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period
which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of
substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. This approval shall expire
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as
shown on Plot Plan No. 226 marked Exhibit D, or as amended by these
conditions.
A:PP226 17
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
The applicant shall comply with the Engineering Department's Conditions of
Approval which are included herein.
10.
11.
12.
13.
The applicant shall comply with the street improvement recommendations
outlined in the Transportation Engineering Division's Conditions of Approval,
which are included herein.
Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the
provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's Conditions of
Approval which are included herein.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of
Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's Conditions of Approval
contained heroin.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the City
Building and Safety Department's Conditions of Approval contained herein.
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, three (3) copies of a
Parking, Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans shall be submitted to the
Planning Department o.f 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. Landscaping plans shall include enhancement along the
base and top of slopes for increased screeing.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape,
irrigation, and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, or
within the time frame specified by the City Planning Director and City Building
· Official as referenced in Condition No. 19, below. An automatic sprinkler
system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be maintained in a viable
growth condition, including slopes maintained to the satisfaction of the
Planning Director. 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 137 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section
18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. 137 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
A:PP226 18
14.
inches of Class II base.
A minimum of four (4) 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:
15.
16.
17~
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing
placards or license plates issued for physically handicapped
persons may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed
vehicles may be reclaimed at __ or
by telephone "
in addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall
have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue
paint of at least 3 square feet in size.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance
and/or permits from the following agencies:
Planning Department
Engineering Department
Environmental Health
Rancho Water District
School District
Riverside County Flood Control
Fire Department
Eastern Municipal Water District
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the following additional .plans shall be
submitted for Planning Department approval:
Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans.
A Plot Plan ap'plication for a Sign Program shall be submitted and approved by
the Planning Director prior to occupancy.
A:PP226 19
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on
Exhibits F.1, F.2, and F.3.
Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial
conformance with that shown on Exhibit H.1 (Color Elevations) and Exhibit H.2
(Materials Board).
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening
material shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
All trash enclosures shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy
permits. As a minimum, each enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall be
constructed with materials similar in appearance to that utilized for structure
exteriors and a steel gate which screens the bins from external vieW.
Bermed landscape screening shall be provided along the project's Margarita and
Pauba Road frontages, Berm~ng shall be a minimum of three (3) feet in height;
street frontage landscaping shall substantially conform with the concept
illustrated in Exhibit E.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along
streets and within the parking areas.
24.
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.
25.
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.
26.
Nine (9) Class II bicycle racks shall be provided in convenient locations as
approved by the Planning Director to facilitate bicycle access to the project
area.
27.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts to
be determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the
installation of planrings, walls, and fences in accordance with the. approved
A:PP226 20
28,
29.
30.
31.
plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed with
the Department of Building and Safety.
Contingent upon availability of irrigation water, prior to the issuance of
occupancy permits, all required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been
installed and be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Building and Safety.
The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation
system shall be properly constructed and in good wcrking order. Alternatively,
installation of landscaping may be by means of bonding as referenced in
Condition No. 27 above, and installed at such times as irrigation water is in
adequate supply as determined by RCWD and the City Planning Director.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any
use allowed by this permit.
The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire all required off-site
property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the developer shall at
least 120 days prior to submittal for building permit, enter into an agreement
to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462
at such time 'as the City'acquires the--property interests'requir~'d'T~'r""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.
32.
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).
A:PP226 21
City of Temecula Engineering Department
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of-Approval for this project,
and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
33.
As deemed necessary by the City Engineer or his representative, the developer
shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Flood Control district;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department;
CATV Franchise; end
Parks and Recreation Department.
34.
The developer shall submit two (2) prints of a comprehensive grading plan to
the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building
Code and Chapter 70 as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions
of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 24"x36" mylar by a Registered Civil
Engineer.
35.
The developer shall submit two (2) copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
36. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and
submitted at the time of application for grading plan check.
37.
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:PP226 22
38.
39,
46.
NO grading shaft tak5 piac.a ~rir~r to the L"r:~rovemen~ plan,s b~,~:~O sul~stanti~El~,
compt~, appropriate cJa~:~c3 ~:~378 ~nd ~oval by the City Engineer.
If grading is to tak~ piece bGtwG3n ';h~ mcnths of. October ~!ncl A!}rii,
control plans will be required. ~ros!on c=ntroi plans ,~nd r.~tes shell be -
submitted and appreved b~f the Engjneering
Ali site plans, grad".nO p!ans, landscape a~d irri~aticn p!~.ns, and street
improvem.~nt plcns shal! b~ c'2,ord!nsted fc; consistency w;th aperoved
Street ;~.~pr~vems~': p~j~:~.s inc!~:;-:n~ Dar.~way trees and st;'Gst }F~hts pree~rs~ bV
a ~9~st~re~ C:';i~ ~2~3j~ &n~ G~pl'oved bY the C~t~l ~nginssr shall be required
for ~1 p~bL~: ~trGots pr~=r to issu=~sa of ~n Encroachment Permit. Fins~
and profires sh~ ch~w the ~cc~ticn of existSrig utilitV fsci~i~s~ w~th~n the right-
N~ ',:i!E Sio[:~s sha~l bs st.~s~sr ~ ;3n 2:1 un!-.ss otherw!se ~.p~.roved by the Cit~/
Engineer. An Ga,1hen berm shah b~ provided along the top of all slopes ~s
directed by the C!ty EnGineer or his representative.
Prior to any work [~e[ng performed on the private streets or drives, fees shal; ba
paid and s construction perm!t shall be obtained from the City Engine,ar's
Prior to a~y wet!< being pcrfc:,m3cJ in ~ublic rigl~t-~_f-,z~:ay, fees sha:~ be paid ~nd
a~ encrcechment .~arm..it s;-cg!! :.~s eb'.'ainsd from the City ~=ngi.~eer's Office,
Existing city roads r:ee. uiring conctruction shall remain open tc traffic 9t a~ times
~ith adequ_=te dotcuTs dur!n0 construction.
The subdivider shall construct or pest security and an agreement sha~l be
executed gur--ranteeing the construction of the following pul:'!c improvements
in confermance with applicable City standards.
.a,
Street improv~msnts,.inc ud ng, but no~ limited to: pavement, curb and
gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street !ight.% signinG,
str p rig, end other traffic control devices as appropriate..
Storm drain facilities.
Landsc.--ping (street end parks).
Sewer and domestie w~.ter systems.
A.FP'225 23
e. Undergrounding of existing and proposed utility distribution lines.
47.
A flood n.~itigation 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.
48,
A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. All
drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.
49,
A drainage easement shall be provided along the eastern property line for
construction and m-~intenance of the drainage structure outlet. A copy of the
recorded drainage easement shall be submitted to the City for review.
50. Adequate protection shall be provided at the storm drain outlet structure to
prevent any damage to existing or proposed slopes or pertinent structures.
51. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface
drainage entering the property from adjacent areas.
52. All concentrated drainage directed toward the public street shall be diverted
through the undersidewalk drains.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT:
53.
A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for
review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil
Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final
Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
54.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the
Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for
traffic signal impact.
55.
The developershall obtain an easement for ingress and egress overthe adjacent
property. Easement and access geometric shall be as approved by the City
Engineer.
56°
Prior to building permit, the subdivider shall notify the City's C.A,T.V.
Franchises of the intent to develop. Conduit shall be installed to C.A.T.V.
Standards prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy.
57. Developer shall pay any capital 'fee for road improvements and public facilities
A:PP226 24
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 sha. II 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 cn which developer requests its building
permits for the project or any phase thereof, the developer shall execute the
Agreement for payment of P~blic 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 rn. ay 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 reasonabEeness of any traffic impact fee, and the
amount thereof.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY:
58. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent.
59. Improvement plans per City Standards for the private streets or drives shall be
required for review and approval by the City Engineer and included with the
precise grading plan.
60.
All driveways shall conform to the applicable County of Riverside standards and
shall be shown on the street improvement plans in accordance with County
Standard 400 and 401 (curb sidewalk).
61.
Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. 461 and as approved by the
City Engineer.
62. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along all public street frontages in
accordance with Riverside County Standard Nos. 400 and 401 . .
63.
Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a
minimum of 300 feet ~Deyond the proiect boundaries at a grade and alignment
as approved by the City Engineer.
64.
This minimum centerline radii shall be 300 feet or as approved by the City
Engineer.
A:PP226 25
65.
Construct fu}l street improvements including but not limited to curb and gutter,
A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on
all interior pub!ic streets.
66.
Margarita Road shall be improved with 43 feet of asphalt concrete pavement
within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 1 O0
(110'/86').
67.
Pauba Road shall be improved with 32 feet of asphalt concrete pavement
within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with Count,/Standard No. 103,
Section A {88'/64').
68.
In the event read or off-site right-of-way are required to comply with these
conditions, such easements shall be obtained by the developer; or, in the event
the City is required to condemn the easement or right-of-way, as provided in
the Subdivision Map Act, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the
City for the acquisition of such easement at the developer's cost pursuant to
Government Code Section 66462.5, which shall be at no cost to the City.
69. Corner property line cut off sha)l be required per Riverside County Standard No.
805.
City of Temecula Transoortation Engineering
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS:
70.
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the City Engineer for Margarine Road and Pauba Road and shall be
included in the street improvement plans.
Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD)
With respect to the Conditions of Approvsl regarding Plot elan No. 22S, the Fire
Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in
accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection
standards:
71.
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings using the procedure established in
Ordinance 546.
72.
Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2000 GPM
for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, which must be
available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
A:PP226 26
73.
74.
75.
A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants, on a looped system
(6"x4'2 1/2 x 2 1/2), will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165
feet from any portion of the building as measured ~long approved vehicular
travelways.. The required fire flow shall be ava~able from any adjacent
hydrant{s) in the system.
The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in the permit process to
reflect changes in design, construction type, area separation or built-in fire
protection measures.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire
Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location
and spacing, and, ths system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall
be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company
with the following certification:
"1 certify that the design of the water system is in
accordance with the requirements'prescribed by the
Riverside County Fire Department."
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings requiring a fire flow of
1500 GPM or greater. The post indicator valve and fire department connection
shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25
feet from the building(s). A statement that the building(s) will be automatically
fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans.
Install a supervised waterflow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans must be
submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation, as per UBC.
A statement that the building will be automatically fire sprinklered must appear
on the title page of the building plans.
Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes.
Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC, Contact
a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be
responsible to submit a check or money order in the amount of $558.00 to the
Riverside County Fire Department for plan check fees.
A:PP225 27
82.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall deposit
with the City of Temecula, a check or money order equaling the sum of 25
cents per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts. This amount
must be submitted separately from the plan check review fee.
83.
Blue-dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets and driveways to indicate
location of fire hydrants. They shall be mounted in the middle of the street
directly in line with fire hydrants.
84. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the
Building and Safety Offica.
All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to RCFD Planning
and Engine.-.ring Staff.
Riverside County Department of Hea!th
The Environmental Health Services has reviewed Plot Plan No. 226 and has no
objections. Sanitar,/sewer and water services should be available in this area. Prior
to any building plan suDmitta!s: the fellowing items will be required:
85. "Wil~-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies.
86.
Three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted,
including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule, and a p~umbing 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).
87.
A cfearance letter from the Hazardous Materials Management Branch Services
(Jon Mohorcski, 358-5055), will be required indicating that the project has
been cleared for:
a. Underground storage tanks.
b. Hazardous Waste Generator Services.
c. Hazardous Waste Disclosure fin accordance with AB 2185).
d. Waste reduction Management.
City of Temecula Department of Building and Safety
88. Request for street addressing must be made prior to submittal of Building Plan
A:PP226 28
89.
90.
Review.
Comply with applicable provisions of the 1988 editions of the Uniform Building,
Plumbing and Mechanical ccdes, 1990 National Electrical Code, California S~ate
Administrative Cc:le, Title 24 Handicapped and Energy Regulations and the
Temecula City Coda. '
Lighting on site and iocate-J on structures shall comply with Mount Palomar
Lighting Ordinance No. 655,
A:PP226 29
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
EXHIBITS
R:\S\STAFFRPT\I37PA93.PCg/14193 klb 9
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: PA93-0137, PLOT PLAN NO. 226, First EXTENSION OF TIME
EXHIBIT: A VICINITY MAP
P.c. DATE: SEPTEMBER 20, 1993
R:\S\STAFFRPT\137PA93.PC 9114193 klb 10
CITY OF TEMECULA
II
,, \
II
/ .D \
CASE NO.: PA93-0137, PLOT PLAN NO. 226, First EXTENSION OF TIME
EXHIBIT: B ZONING MAP
P.C. DATE: SEPTEMBER 20, 1993
R:~S\STAFFRPT\I37PA93.PC 9/14/93 klb 11
ITEM #5
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 20, 1993
Case No.:
PA93-0154, Tentative Tract Map No. 23513,
Amendment No. 1, Second Extension of Time
Prepared By: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission:
RE-AFFIRM The Previously Adopted Negative Declaration
for Tentative Tract Map No. 23513, Amendment No. 1;
and
APPROVE PA93-0154, Tentative Tract Map No. 23513,
Amendment No. 1, Second Extension of Time Subject to
the Attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Abahai Sawh
REPRESENTATIVE:
A.J. Terrich
PROPOSAL:
A request for a one year time extension for Tentative Tract Map
No. 23513, Amendment No. 1, a subdivision of 14.37 acres into
11 residential lots in the R-R (Rural Residential) zone.
LOCATION:
North side of Santiago Road, approximately 1500 feet west of
Avenida De San Pasqual
EXISTING ZONING:
R-R (Rural Residential)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
R-R (Rural Residential)
R-R (Rural Residential)
R-A-2~ (Rural Agriculture, 2¼ acre
minimum parcels)
R-R (Rural Residential)
PROPOSED LAND USE
DESIGNATION:
Low Residential (.5-2 Du/Ac)
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North: Vacant
South: Vacant
East: Vacant
West: Residential (2.5 acre minimum parcel size)
BACKGROUND
The proposed project was originally approved by the Temecula City Council on August 28,
1990. The First Extension of Time was approved by the Planning Director on January 21,
1993. Pursuant to the recently modified approval authority ordinance, all extensions of time
are now heard by the Planning Commission.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is a subdivision of 14.37 acres into 11 residential parcels. The parcels range in
size from a minimum of one acre to a maximum of 2.3 acres. The subdivision is located on
the north side of Santiago Road, approximately 1500 feet west of Avenida De San Pasqual.
The subject site is within the R-R (Rural Residential) zone.
ANALYSIS
The project is unchanged from the first extension of time which was approved by the
Temecula Planning Director on January 21,1993, Staff is recommending the addition of new
conditions of approval as they relate to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) and park land dedications. The additional conditions were added to comply with new
laws and City ordinances and to protect the general health and safety of the citizens of
Temecula.
ZONING, FUTURE GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY
The project site is zoned R-R. The adjacent parcels are zoned R-R to the north, south and
west and R-A-2 Y2 tO the east. The proposed project is consistent with the requirements of the
R-R Zone, Ordinance 348 and Ordinance No. 460.
The proposed Draft General Plan Land Use Designation is Low Residential (.5-2 Du/Ac). The
current SWAP designation for the proposed site is Residential, 1-2 dwelling units per acre,
The proposed project's density of .76 Du/Ac is consistent with the Draft Land Use
Designation of Low Residential. It is anticipated that the project will likely be consistent with
the City's future adopted General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
For the original approval of this project a Negative Declaration was issued under the CEQA
guidelines. The project is unchanged from that which was originally approved. Therefore, no
further environmental assessment for Tentative Tract Map 23513, Amendment No. 1 is
required. Mitigation measures contained in the conditions of approval will mitigate potential
impacts which will be created by the project.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The proposed project was previously approved by the City of Temecula. The proposed project
is consistent with the present and future zoning and General Plan Land Use Designations. All
potential environmental impacts were addressed during the previous approval and mitigations
were incorporated into the conditions of approval.
FINDINGS
The findings for the original approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 23513 and the First
Extension of Time for Tentative Tract Map No. 23513, Amendment No. 1, are found
to remain valid except as amended herein.
2. No new information of substantial importance to the project has become available.
m
There is a reasonable probability that Tentative Tract Map No. 22513, Amendment No.
1, Second Extension of Time will be consistent with the City's Draft General Plan,
which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law. The
Draft General Plan Land Use Designation for the site is Low Residential. The proposed
development is consistent with the Draft General Plan and the current zoning of Rural
Residential.
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 and existing
residential development in the surrounding area.
No subsequent changes are proposed in the project which would require revisions to
the previously certified Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant
environmental impacts not considered in the previous approval of this project.
The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws. The
proposed use complies with City of Temecula Ordinance No. 348 and Ordinance No.
460.
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 subdivision complies with the standards of Ordinance No.
460.
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 mitigation measures.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does
not represent a significant change to the planned land use of the area, due to the fact
that the proposed use is compatible proposed land use designation of Low Residential.
10.
Said findings are supported by maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated
with these applications and herein incorporated by reference.
Attachments:
Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 5
Previously Adopted Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 8
Exhibits - Blue Page 9
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\S\STAFFRPT\q54PA93PC 9i14193 kJb 5
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PA93-0154, Tentative Tract Map No. 23513, Amendment No. 1, Second
Extension of Time
Project Description: Second one-year extension of time for Tentative Tract Map
No. 23513, Amendment No. 1, the subdivision of 14.37 acres into 11
residential parcels in the R-R zone.
Assessor's Parcel No.: 945-010-001,003, 004.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
General ReQuirements:
PA93-0154, Tentative Tract Map No. 23513, Amendment No. 1, Second Extension
of Time shall comply with all Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No.
23513 and Tentative Tract Map No. 23513, Amendment No. 1, First Extension of
Time (copies of which are attached) unless superseded by these Conditions of
Approval.
The project shall comply with the all the requirements of Ordinance 348, unless
modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in
accordance with the State Planning Law and City Ordinance No. 348, upon written
request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The Department of Public Works recommends the following requirements and changes be
made to the Conditions of Approval of the First Extension of Time of the Tentative Tract Map
23513, Amendment No. 1 as approved by the City of Temecula Planning Director on January
21, 1993.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall post security and enter into
an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in
conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department
of Public Works.
Prior to recordation of the final map, the Developer shall construct or post security and
enter into an agreement guaranteeing the construction of the erosion control and slope
protection improvements within 18 months in conformance with applicable City
Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
Condition number 47 of the Conditions of Approval for Tract Map No. 23513,
Amendment No. 1, First Extension of Time shall be revised as follows:
In the event that Santiago Road is not constructed by an Assessment District, prior to
the final map recordation, the Developer shall design and bond for the improvements
R:\S\STAFFRPT~154PA93,PC 9/14/93 Idb 5
to provide for street improvements per City Standard No. 111 Section "B" with A.C.
Dike along both sides of paving. In addition a transition lane shall also be provided as
directed by the Department of Public Works.
Conditions numbers 48, 49, and 50 of the Conditions of Approval for Tract Map No.
23513, Amendment No. 1, First Extension of Time shall be revised as follows:
Streets "A" and "B" shall be improved with 28 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. 111 Section "B" (28'/50') with A.C. Dike along
both sides of paving.
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the applicant or his assignee shall pay the fair
market value of .14 acres of park land to comply with City Ordinance No.460.93
(Quimby). The amount to be paid shall be determined by TCSD staff within thirty (30)
days prior to the recordation of said map.
Exterior slopes contiguous to public streets that are adjacent to single family residential
development shall be offered for dedication to the TCSD for maintenance purposes
following compliance to existing City Standards and completion of the application
process. All other slopes and open space shall be maintained by an established Home
Owner's Association.
All proposed slopes intended for dedication to the TCSD shall be identified on the final
map as proposed TCSD maintenance area.
10.
Prior to recordation of the final map, the subdivider shall post security and enter into
an agreement to improve all proposed TCSD maintenance areas in conformance with
the City of Temecula Landscape Development Plan Guidelines and Specifications.
11.
Landscape construction drawings identified as TCSD maintenance areas shall be
reviewed and approved by TCSD staff prior to recordation of the final map.
12.
Construction of proposed TCSD landscape maintenance areas shall commence
pursuant to a pre-job meeting with the developer and the City Maintenance
Superintendent. Failure to comply with the TCSD review and inspection process will
preclude acceptance of these areas into the TCSD maintenance program.
13.
The developer, or the developer's successors or assignees, shall maintain all landscape
areas until such time as those maintenance responsibilities are accepted by the TCSD.
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Tract Map No. 23513
Project Description: First one-year extension of
time for Tentative Tract Map No. 23513, a
subdivision of 14.37 acres into 11 single family
residential lots.
Assessor's Parcel No.: 945-010-001,003,004
Approval Date: January 21, 1993
Expiration Date: August 28, 1993
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act
and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, 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.
The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, it
agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City
of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning
Tentative Tract Map No. 23513, First Extension of Time 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
3. Subdivision phasing shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director.
Tentative Tract Map No. 23513, First Extension of Time shall comply with all
Conditions of Approval for Tentative tract Map No. 23513 (copies of which are
attached) unless superseded by these Conditions of Approval.
5. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP
6. The applicant shall prepare an Environmental Constraints Sheet.
7. The following notes shall be added to the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS):
This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory.
All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute
of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations.
R:'~',STAFFRPT~3513.COA 1/26/93 Idb
8. The following shall be submitted to and approvod by the Planning Director:
A. A copy of the Rnal Map
B. A copy of the Rough Grading Plans
C A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS)
D. A Copy of the Conceptual Landscape Package to include:
All trees shall be a minimum of 15 gallon with at least 50 percent of
trees with a minimum of 24 inch box.
Installation of streetscape (including landscaping and walls) within and
outside the public right-of-way (ROW) for streets equal to and larger
than 66 foot ROW shall be required when the street improvements are
complete and accepted by the City.
Street trees shall be provided at approximately 60 foot intervals or a
minimum of one tree per lot frontage as required in Section 13.1 or
Ordinance 460.
9. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS
10.
A K-Rat study shall be prepared for the subject property by a qualified biologist and
submitted to the Planning Department for review. Should K-rat habitat or other
sensitive habitat be determined to exist upon the site, then mitigation measures along
with a Mitigation Monitoring Program shall be approved by the Planning Department.
If no habitat is determined to exist, then 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.
11.
A biological assessment of the Gnatcatcher shall be required prior to issuance of
grading l~ermits if the species is listed as endangered by the Fish and Wildlife and/or
Fish and Game, Necessary mitigation measures acceptable to these agencies shall be
implemented.
12.
The placement of rear or side yard fencing on each individual lot is optional and i.~ to
be at the discretion of each individual home owner, If there is to be rear or side yard
fencing, materials are to be approved by the Planning Director.
13. Individual homes on individual lots shall require Planning Deparun~nt approval.
14.
No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit within the
project boundary until the developer or its 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.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The following are revised Conditions of Approval of the Department of Public Works for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All previous
Conditions of Approval shall remain in force except as amended or superseded by the
following requirements. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be
referred to the appropriate staff person of the Department of Public Works.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map or 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,
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
15.
A Grading Permit for either rough or precise (including all onsite flat work and
improvements) construction shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works
prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-
of-way.
16.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior
to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City
right-of-way.
17.
All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be
coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements
contiguous to the site.
18.
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.
19.
The Developer shall agree to participate in, and waive any right to protest, the
formation of an assessment district to provide for the construction of improvements
to Santiago Road,
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
20.
The final grading plan shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and shall be
reviewed and approved by the Department of Pubtic Works,
21.
No concentrated drainage from any lot shall be conveyed over unprotected slopes.
Brow ditches and other drainage swales shall be concrete lined or as otherwise
directed by the Department of Public Works.
22.
Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board.
No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the
project is shown to be exempt.
23. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30,
31.
San Diego Regional Water Quality;
Metropolitan Water District
Riverside County Flood Control District;
Planning Department;
Department of Public Works;
Riverside County Health Department;
General Telephone;
Southern California Edison Company; and
Southern California Gas Company.
A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer and submitted to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall
address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and pavement sections.
An erosion control plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and submitted
to the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weedfree condition and shall be
either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures
as approved by the Department of Public Works.
A permit from the Metropolitan Water District is required for work within their right-of-
way.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing A~ea
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 been already credited to this property, no
new charge needs to be paid.
The developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or easements for any
offsite work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public
Works.
Adequate provision shall be made for the acceptance and disposal of surface drainage
entering the property from adjacent areas,
Drainage facilities will be required to protect the structures and the site by conveying
runoff to streets, storm drain or drainage channel.
32.
33.
34.
PRIOR
35.
36.
37.
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
faciiities or by securing a drainage easement. Any impact to the site from the adjacent
floodway shall be identified and mitigated on the grading pran.
A drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners for the
release of any concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent property. A
copy of the drainage easement shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works
for review prior to recordation. The location of the recorded easement shall be
delineated on the grading plan.
Prior to 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 impactto 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.
TO THE ISSUANCE OF ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
All necessary grading permit requirements shall have been completed and approved to
the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
Improvement plans, including but not limited to, streets, parkway trees, street lights,
driveways, and drainage facilities shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer on
24" x 36" mylar sheets and approved by the Department of Public Works. Final plans
(and profiles on streets) shaU show the location of existing utility facilities and
easements as directed by the Department of Public Works.
The following criteria shall be observed in the design of the improvement plans to be
submitted to the Department of Public Works:
FIowli'ne grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over
A,C. paving.
Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula standards
207/207A and 401 (curb and sidewalk).
Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in
accordance with Ordinance 461 and shall be shown on the improvement plans
as directed by the Department of Public Works,
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along public street frontages in
accordance with City standard 400 and 401,
Improvement plans shall extend 300 feet beyond the project boundaries or as
otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works.
R:~l'AFFRpTtJ35|3.COA ]/~0/93 k~
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
f. Minimum centerline radii shall be in accordance with City standard 113 or as
otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works.
g. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as
approved by the Department of Public Works.
h. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
k. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed
through undersidewalk drains.
The minimum centerline grade for streets shall be 0.50 percent or as otherwise
approved by the Department of Public Works.
All driveways shall be located a minimum of two (2) feet from the side property line.
All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable 'IV 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.
All conditions of the grading permit and encroachment permit shall be complied with
to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department.
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 RECORDATION OF FINAL MAP:
43,
The developer shall construct or post security and enter into an agreement
guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformonce
with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public
Works.
a. Street improvements, which may include, but are not limited to: pavement,
curb and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, and other
traffic control devices as appropriate.
b. Storm drain facilities
c. Landscaping (slopes and parkways).
d. Erosion control and slope protection.
e. Domestic water systems.
f. All trails, as required by the City's Master Plans.
g. Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines.
44,
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
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 Rood Control District;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Department of Public Works;
Riverside County Health Department;
CATV Franchise;
Parks and Recreation Department;
General Telephone;
Southern California Edison Company; and
Southern California Gas Company
Legal all-weather access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract
map boundary to a paved City maintained road.
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.
Santiago Road shall be improved with 32 feet of asphalt concrete pavement, plus one
12-foot lane, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the
dedicated right-of-way in accordance with City Standard No. 102, Section A (88'/64').
Street "B" shah 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').
Street "A" northeasterly of Street "B" shall be improved with 40 feet of asphalt
concrete pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the
dedicated right-of-way in accordance with City Standard No. 104, Section A (60'/40').
Street "A" southwesterly of Street "B" shall be improved with 20 feet of half street
improvement plus one 12-foot lane, or bonds for the street improvements may be
posted, within a 60-foot dedicated right-of-way in accordance with City Standard No.
106, Section B (60'I32').
Vehicular access shall be restricted on Santiago Road and so noted on the final map.
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the Department of Public Works for Santiago Road and shall be included
in the street improvement plans.
53. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
PRIOR
59,
60.
61.
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
for review and recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site
drainage facilities located outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within
drainage easements and 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."
Prior to recordation of the final map, an Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall
be prepared in conjunction with the final map to delineate identified environmental
concerns and shall be permanently filed with the office of the City Engineer. A copy
of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval.
The developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the
subiect property.
Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Department
of Public Works a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation towards traffic signal
impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment of traffic signal
mitigation fee, he may enter into a written agreement with the City deferring said
payment to the time of issuance of a building permit.
Prior to recording the 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.
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 end site conditions.
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code,
the approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading
Standards and accepted grading construction 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 a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount
of the bond shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000. Developer
understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those
now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By
execution of this Agreement, developer will waive any right to protest the provisions
of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district,
or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this
project; provided that developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness
of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
62.
All improvements shall be completed and in place per the approved plans, including but
not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, drainage
facilities, parkway trees and street lights on all interior public streets.
63. All signing and striping shall be installed pe~ the approved signing and striping plan.
64.
The subdivider shall provide "stop" controls at the intersection of local streets with
arterial streets as directed by the Department of Public Works.
65.
Landscaping installed in the corner cut-off area of all intersection and adjacent to
driveways shall be reviewed and approved in the field for minimum sight distance as
directed by the Department of Public Works,
· 66.
Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied only as directed by the Department of
Public Works 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.
67,
The applicant shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined in the
County of Riverside Fire Department's letter dated July 8, 1992, a copy of which is
attached.
68.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Temecula
Community Services District's transmittal dated July 8, 1992, a copy of which is
attached.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBDIVISION
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23513 DATE:
AMENDED NO. 1 EXPIRES:
STANDARD CONDITIONS:
The following conditions of approval are for Tentative Tract No. 23513,
Amended No. 1, which will subdivide a 14.37 acre site into eleven parcels
located north of Santiago Road and west of Margarita Road in Rancho Santa
Rosa.
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, its agents, officers, or
employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the County
of Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body
concerning Tentative Tract No. 23513, Amended No. 1, which action is
brought 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
OF 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 No. 460,
Schedule A, unless modified by the conditions listed below.
This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the
County of Riverside Board of Supervisors approval date, unless extended
as provided by Ordinance No. 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 No. 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 if 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 No. 457 and as may be additionally provided for in these
conditions of approval.
TEh'FATIVE Ti~CT NO. 23513
AMENDED NO. 1
Conditions of Approval
Page 2
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Department of Building and
Safety prior to commencement of any grading outside of County maintained
road right-of-way.
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the
final map.
The subdivider shall comply with the street improvement recommendations
outlined in the Riverside County Road Department's letter dated 03-08-89,
a copy of which is attached.
Legal access as required by Ordinance No. 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 sh~ll
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 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 Department's letter
dated 04-19-89, 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 03~08-8g,
a copy of which is attached. If the land division lies within an adopted
flood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of Ordinance No. 460,
appropriate 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 12-04-89, a copy of
which is attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the
Building and Safety Department - Land Use Section's letter dated
04-07-8g, a copy of which is attached.
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23513
AHENDED NO. 1
Conditions of Approval
Page 3
18.
19,
20.
21.
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the
Building and Safety Department - Grading Section's letter dated
03-09-89, a copy of which is attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the County
Geologist's transmittel dated March 13, 1990, a copy of which is attached.
(Added at Planning Commission on March 14, 1990.).
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the
Elsinore Union High School District's letter dated 01-04-89, 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.
22. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following:
23.
A. All lots shall have a minimum size of 1.0 acres gross.
All lot length to width ratios shall be in conformance with Section
3.8C of Ordinance No. 460.
Corner lots and through lots, if any, shall be provided with
additional area pursuant to Section 3.8B of Ordinance No. 450 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 conformance with the
development standards of the R-R zone.
Prior to the RECORDATION of the flnal map, the following conditions shall
be satisfied:
Prior to the recordatlon of the final map, the applicant shall submit
written clearances to the Riverside County Road and Survey Department
that all pertinent requirements outlined in the attached approval
letters from the following agencies have been met:
County Fire Department County Health Department
County Flood Control County Planning Department
~ENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23513
AMENDED NO. 1
Conditions of Approval
Page 4
24.
25.
26.
Prior to the recordatlon 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 noteshall be placed on the Environmental Constraints
Sheet: "County Biological Report No. 404 was prepared for this
property and is on file at the Riverside County Planning Department.
Specific items of concern in the report are as follows: Sage Scrub
vegetation,"
The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints
Sheet: "County Archaeological Report No. 1381 was prepared for
this property and is on file at the Riverside County Planning
Department."
Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS, the following conditions shall
be satisfied:
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.
Grading plans shall conform to Board-adopted Hillside Develol~nent
Standards: All cut and/or fill slopes, or individual c~binations thereof,
which exceed ten feet in vertical height shall be modified by an
appropriate combination of a special terracing {benching) plan, increase
slope ratio (i.e., 3:1), retaining walls, and/or slope planting combined
with irrigation. All driveways shall not exceed a fifteen (15) percent
grade.
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23513
AMENDED NO. 1
Conditions of Approval
Page 5
27.
28.
29.
All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded natural terrain and exceed ten
(10) feet In vertical height shall be contour-graded incorporating the
following grading techniques:
The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the
angle of the natural terrain.
Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall reflect
the natural rounded terrain.
The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves with radii
designed in proportion to the total height of the slopes where
drainage and stability permit such rounding.
Where cut and/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 PERMITS, the following conditions shall.
be satisfied:
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from view of surrounding
property.
Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall
not be less than ten {lO} feet.
C. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet.
Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS, the following conditions shall
be satisfied:
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply
with Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance.
Should Ordinance No. 663 be superceded 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.
DK:csf
2/14/90
k ,OE OF ROAD COMMISSIONER & COL f SURVEYOR
ROAD
Riverside County Planning Commission
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
March 8, 1989
Re: TR 23513 - Amend #1
Schedule B - Team 1 - SMD#9
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 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 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. They are intended to be complementary and to
describe the conditions for a complete design of the improvement. All
questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred
to the Road Commissioner's Office.
The landdivider shall protect downstream properties from
damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns,
i,e., concentration of diversion of flow. Protection
shall be provided by constructing ~dequate drainage
facilities including enlarging existing facilities and/
or by securing a drainage easement. All drainage
easementscshall be shown on the final maR and noted as
o~' enc'r'oaa~"'b~:'i~d fi'lls ~'~"~"~ed" .' 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.
COUNTY ADMINI_Trk&TrVE CF..NTZR · 4080 LEMON STRErT , RJVr]~IDE, CAM!rORNIA 92501
TR 235~'3 - Amend
.,Hatch 8, 1989
Page 2
10.
11.
Major drainage is involved on this landdivision and its
resolution shall be as approved by the Road Department.
"B" Street shall be improved within the dedicated
right of way in accordance with County Standard No.
Section B. (36'/60')
105
"A" Street northeasterly of Street "B" shall be improved
within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County
Standard No. 105, Section B. (36'/60')
Santiago Road shall be improved with 32 feet of asphalt
concrete pavement within a 44 foot half width dedicated
right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 102,
Section B, (32'/44')
"A" Street southwesterly of "B" Street shall be improved
with 28 feet of asphalt concrete pavement within a 40 foot
part width dedicated right of way in accordance with County
Standard No. 105, Section B. (18'/30')
Corner cutbacks in conformance with County Standard No.
805 shall be shown on the final map and offered for
dedication.
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 main-
tenance by County.
Standard cul-de-sacs shall be constructed throughout the
landdivision.
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
Section 37, 39 and 94 of the State Standard Specifi-
cations.
~R.23513 -Ameno ~
March .8,'1989
Page 3
14,
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
The landdivider shall provide utility clearance
Rancho California Water District prior to the
recordation of the final map.
from
The maximum centerline gradient and the minimum 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.
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along Santiago Road
in accordance with County Standard No. 400 and 401 (curb
sidewalks).
The minimum lot frontages along the cul-~e~sacs and
knuckles shall be 35 feet.
All driveways shall conform to the applicable
County Standards. A minimum Of four feet Of
curb shall be constructed between driveways.
Riverside
full height
The minimum garage setback 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 a primary
acces~"road toa_a__~_ed anu~aintaine~ road. Said access
road shall be constructeC zn 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 ~terly extension of
Santiago Road and to Santiago Road or as approved by the
Road Commissioner.
Said 'offsite access road shall be the westerly extension of
Santiago Road to Santiago Road or as~~d by the Road
Commissioner. ~ '
Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer
shall deposit with the Riverside County Road Department,
a cash sum of $150.00 per lot as mitigation for traffic
signal impacts. 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.
Electrical and communications trenches shall be provided in
accordance with Ordinance 461, Standard 817.
Lot access shall be restricted on Santiago Road and so
noted on the final map.
March b, 1~
'~age 4
24.
6e
27.
28.
29.
EB:jw
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.
The applicant by design is requesting a vacation of the
existing dedicated rights-of-way along Santiago Road. Said
vacation shall be applied for by the applicant and 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
shall be coordinated with PM 43/52-53, PM 152/62-63, PM
42.3~/47-48, and PM 130/40-41.
Street lights shall be installed in accordance with
Ordinance 460 and 461 at all intersections of roads
constructed or improved within the subdivision. The county
Service Area (CSA) Administrator determines whether the
subdivision is within an existing assessment district. If
not, the land owner shall file an application with LAFCO
for annexation into or creation of a County Service Area in
accordance with Governmental Code Section 25210.1.
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 stripino plan is ~Pquired for Santiago Road. The removal
of the existing striping s~ali be the responsibility of the
applicant. Traffic signing and striping shall be done by
County forces with all incurred costs borne by the
applicant.
Should this project lie within any assessment/benefit
district, the applicant shall prior to recordation make
application for and pay for their reapportionment Of the
assessments or pay the unit fees in the benefit district
unless said fees are deferred to building permit.
Subdivision Engineer
OUNTY OF px_IVERSIDE
DEPARTMENT
of HEALTH v
April 19, 1989
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DE~T.
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92502
Attn: Kim Dittmer
P,E; TlqACTKKF 23513z Beznu a subdxvision of Parcels 1-3 of
P.M. 8755, on file in Book 43 of Parcel Maps, Pages 52 and
53 zn the Office of the Riverside Recorder, also being a
portion of the Temecula Rancho.
(11 Lots)
Gentlemen:
The Department of Public Health has reviewed Tentative Map
No. 23513 and recommends that:
A water system shall be installed according to
plans and specxfXcation as aDDroved by the water
company and the Health DeDartment. Permanent
prints of the plans of the water system shall
be submitted in trlp~lcate. w=th a minimum scale
not less than one lnch equals 200 feet. alon9 with
the original drawin~ to the County Surveyor. The
prints shall show the lnternal p~pe diameter.
location of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and
joint sDeclfications, and the size of the main
at the 0unction of the new system to the
exlsting system. The plans shall comply In
all resl3ects with Div. 5. Part 1. Chapter 7 of
the California Health lad Safety Code. California
Administrative Code. Title 22. Chapter 18. and General
Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commi;sion of the
St&to of California, when applicable.
k
Riverside County Plannln~ Dept.
Page Two
Attn: Kim Dirtmet
April 19. 1989
The plans shall be slaned by a registered enqineer and
water company with the following certificatzon: "J
certify that the desiqn of the water system xn
Tract Map 23513 is ~ccordance with the water system
expansion plans of the Western Municipal Water Districk
and that the water service.storage and distribution
sVstem will beadequate to provide water service to
such parcel. This certification does not constitute a
guarantee that it will supply water to such parcel at
any specific quantities. flows or pressures for flre
protection or any other purpose". This certification
shall be signed by a responsible official of the'water
company.._Th_~_~_~_~_~~_~_~h~_~X_
Th~s Department has ~ statement from Rancho California Water
Dzstrict aqreeing to serve domestic water to each and every
lot In the subdivision on demand providinq satisfactory
flnanclal arrangements are completed with the subdivzder.
It wlll be necessary for the financial arranqements to be
made przor to the recordatzon of the flnal maD.
It will be necessary for the financial arrangements to be
made Drier to recordation of the final maD.
Thls Department w~ll permit domestic sewage disposal from
the individual lots in th~s subdivision a~ per a pertelation
report submitted by To-Mac Engineering dated
November 30. 1~80 as follows:
1 80
2 40
3 40
4 40
5 90
6 90
7 80
8 60
9 60
10 110
11 110
~_T~_: lEACH LINES TO BE INSTALLED IN TEST AREAS ONLY.
Riverside County Planninc Dept.
Pa~e Three
AIIN: Klm Dirtmet
April 19, 1989
The above information is an in~icatlon of the type of sewage
dxs~osal systems b~sed on existing 9round elevations at the
time the tests were conducted. If any ~radln9, compactIon.
cuttinG, etc. is accomplished and ~s in excess of two feet,
additional sevaoe dxsDosal Information shall be required
Drlor to flnalln0 Of the maD.
The size of the septic tank ~nd effluent disposal area shall
be determined based uDon the occupancy of each individual
lot. There shall be an unoccupied area on each lot where
sewage disposal, as required above, may be Installed ~n
conformante with the current Uniform Plumbing Code. There
shall be an addltlonal unoccupied area equal to 100% Of the
above-required sewage dlsposal systems for sewage disposal
~nstallat~on in case of failure. However. sewage disposal
system~ are considered temporary and If sewage l~nes of a
sewer district become available, connectxon to the system
should be made at that time.
It will be necessary for financial proceedshoe to be
completely fln~llzed ~rlor to recordatlon of the final
SM:tac
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Riverside County
P1 anning Department
County Administrative Center
Riversid,e, California
Attention: Regional Team No.
We have reviewed this case and have the following comments:
Except for nuisance nature local runoff which may .traverse portions of the
property the project is considered free from ordinary storm flood hazard.
However, a storm of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New construc-
tion should comply with all applicable ordinances.
The topography of the area consists of well defined ridges and natural water-
courses which traverse the property. There is adequate area outside of the
natural watercourses for building sites. The natural watercourses should be
kept free of buildings and obstructions in order to maintain the natural
drainage patterns of the area and to prevent flood damage to new buildings.
A note should be placed on an environmental constraint sheet stating, "All new
buildings shall be floodproofed by elevating the finished floors a minimum o~
18 inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosion protection shall be provide
for mobile home supports."
This project is in the //~.rr~e~ (re~/'~Pt.J& )/~P~ A:~tD. Area
drainage plan fees shall be paid in accordance with the applicable rules and
regulations.
The proposed zoning is consistent with existing flood hazards. Some flood
control facilities. or floodproofing may be required to fully develop to the
implied density.
The District's report dated
is still current for this project.
The District does not object to the proposed minor change.
The attached comments apply.
Very truly yours,
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
C ie ;~
' OHN H. ICASHUBA
~r Civil Engineer
DATE: I't~,t./~ ~i {f?~
e+ ¸
IUVEI~IDE COUNTY
riP, r_.. DEPARTHENT
IN COOPEPATION WITH THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
AND FIRE Pr'~DTECT]ON
GLEN ~. NEWbOrN HR~
PlasmimJ & En~nee~n~ (Xi'iae
46-209 Oasis Str~, Suite 405
Indio, C.A 92201
(619) ~,42-~886
12-4-89
PlanniM & EnS~w_tlnS OIr~e
4080 lzmon St~, Sultt l 1L
Rive~i~. CA 92501
(714) 787~606
TO:
PLANNINC DEPARTMENT
ATTN: DIANE KIRSKEY
TRACT 23513 - AMENDED #1
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land division,
the Fire Department recomm~ends the following fire protection measures be provided
in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection
standards:
FIRE PROTECTION
Schedule "B" fire protection approved standard fire hydrants, (6"x4"x2~") located
one at each street intersection and spaced no more than 660 feet apart in any
direction, with no portion of any lot frontage more than 330 feet from a hydrant.
Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for 2 hours duration at 20 PSI.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the
Fire Department for review. Plans shall 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
Dept."
The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted
by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being
placed on an individual lot.
Prior to the recordation of the finalmap, the applicant/developer shall provide
alternate or secondary access as approved by the County Road Department.
HAZARDOUS FIRE AREA
The laud division is located in the "Hazardous Fire Area" of Riverside County
as sho~-n on a map on file with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. ~ny
building constructed on lots created by this land division shall comply with
the special construction provisions contained in Riverside County Ordinance
546.
All buildings shall be constructed with fire retardant roofing material as
described in section 3203 of the Uniform Building Code. Any wood shingles
or shakes shall have a Class "B" rating and shall be approved by the Fire
Department prior to installation.
Subject: TRACT 23513 Page 2
Driveways not to exceed 15I Srade.
MITIGATION
Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the
Riverside County Fire Department, a cash sum of $400.00 per lot/unit as mitiEation
for fire protection impacts. Should the dewelope[ 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 shai1 be referred to the
PlanninE and EnEineering staff.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
Kurt Mattwell, Fire Safety Specialist
April 7, 1989
Administrative Center · 1777 Atlanta Avenue
Riverside, CA 92507
Riverside County Planning Department
Attention: Diane Kirksey
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
RE: Tract 23513, Amend #1
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety
has the following comments and conditions:
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall
obtain Planning Department approval for all on-site and off-
site signage advertising the sale of the parcel map pursuant
to Section 19.5 of Ordinance 348.
Fireplaces may encroach 1' into required minimum 5' side yard
setback.
Mechanical equipment may not be located in required minimum 5'
side yard setback.
Very truly yours, . /
Administration (714)682-8840 · (714)787-2020
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
Department of Building and Safety
TO: Planning - F~le
FROM:
RE:
Grading Section
/
~lext IZlX~/I~I)S ~te:
DATE:
~fPlease make the following a condition of approval:
Prior to commencing any grading exceeding 5e cubic yards,
the owner of that property shall obtain a grading permit
from the Department of Building and Safety
Prior to approval of this use/subdivision a grading
permit and approval of the rough .grading shall be
obtained from the Building and Safety Department.
Prior to issuance of any building permit, the proper'
owner shall obtain a grading permit and approval
construct from the Building and Safety Department.
___d. Constructing a road, where greater than 5~ cubic yards
of material is placed or moved, requires a grading
permit.
The Grading Section has no comment on this site
FOR FINAL GRADING PLAN - PLE_AS'E PROVIDE APPLICABLE INI:DRMATION
FOR COUNTY GRADING FOF~4S: 284-86
284-21 -
284-120
284- ( A. C./Paving )
B8~-13~ (5/88)
March 13, 1990
IN~'ER-DEPA. ll~'MEN'rAI, LETTEll
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TO: Diana Kirksey - Team 1
FROM: Steven A. Kupferman - Engineering Geologist
RE: Tentative Tract Map 23513
Slope Stability Report No. 225
The following report has been reviewed relative to slope stability
at the subject site:
"Geotechnical Analysis of Slope'Stability for Tentative Tract Map
No. 23513, ~15 Acre Site, Proposed Residential Development, Rancho
California, Riverside County, CA," by Leighton and Associates,
dated February 20, 1990.
This report determined that:
Planned fill and fill over cut slopes will be graded at 2:1
(horizontal to vertical), to a height 2.__0Jeer. Cut slopes are
planned at a 2:1 gradient to a maximum height of 15 feet.
2. Cut slopes will expose Pauba sandstone and/or alluvium
materials.
Proposed fill and fill over cut slopes will be stable against
deep-seated failure and surficial failure.
Cut slopes should be grossly stable provided they are fee of
adverse geologic conditions.
This report recommended that:
All cut slopes shall be observed by an engineering geologist
during site grading.
The General Earthwork and Grading Specifications (Appendix C
in the subject report) shall be incorporated into project
design and construction.
Cut and fill slopes shall be provided with appropriate surface
drainage features and landscaped with drought tolerant
vegetation as soon as possible after site grading.
Berms shall be provided at the top of fill slopes and brow
ditches shall be constructed at the top of cut slopes.
Diane Kirksey
March 13, 1990
Page ~2-
Lot drainage shall be directed such that surface runoff on the
slope face is minimized.
The outer portion of fill slopes should either be overbuilt
by 2 feet and trimmed back to the finished slope or compacted
in increments of 5 feet by a sheeps foot roller as the fill
is placed and then track walked to achieve the final
configuration.
This report satisfies the General Plan requirement for a slope
stability report. The recommendations made in this report shall
be adhered to in the design and construction of this project.
SAK:bam
)iDE COUilC,u
PLA!l!li!le DEPA=IElilBlC
'E: December 28, 1988
TO:
~SeSSOr
Building and Safety
Surveyor - Dave Duda
Road Department
Health - Ralph Luchs
Fire Protection
Flood Control District
Fish & Game
U.5. Postal Service - Ruth E. Davidson
U.S. Fish & Wildltfe Services
Southern California Edison
Southern California Gas
General Telephone
Cal Tran ~8
Temecula Union School District
Elsinore Union H.S~' ]
Commissioner Bresson
U.C.R. Arch Unit
C.J. Crotinger
Community Plans
TRACT 23513 - (Tm-1) - E.A. 33455 - Abhai
Kumar Sawh - To-Mac Engineering - Rancho
California Area - First Supervisorial
District - North of Santiago Road and
West of Margarita Rd - R-R Zone - 14.37
Acres - REQUEST To Subdivide 14.37 Acres
into 11 Residential Parcels - Mod 119 -
A.P. 923-400-003,004,011
Please review the case described above, along with the attached case map. A Land
Division Committee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for January 26, t989. If it
clears, it will then go to public hearing.
Your comments and recommendations are requested prior to January 26, 1989 in order that we
may include them in the staff report for this particular case.
Should you have any questions regarding this item, please do not hesitate to contact
Alex Gann at 787-1363.
Planner
COMMENTS:
The Elsinore Union High School District facilities are overcrowded
and our educational programs seriously impacted by increasing
student population caused by new residential, commercial and
industrial .construction. Therefore, pursuant to California
Government Code Section 53080 of AB 2926 and SB 327, this district
levies a fee against all new development projects within its
boundaries.
~ATE:
1/4/Rq SIGNATURE
4080 LEMON STREET, 9'" FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
('/14) 787-6181
Dr. Larry B. Maw, SUOP~'~n~nH~nf
46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201
(619) 342-8277
' ,as .ern,/Y .unicipal \
erl,)istrict
Riverside Co. Planning Dept.
4080 Lemon. St., 9th Floor
· Riverside, Ca 92501
Th~ District is responding to your request for comments on the subject project
relative to water and/or sewer service. The items checked below apply to this
project review.
The subject project:
/Is not Within EMWD's:
~/' water service area
sewer service area
///Will be required to construct/provide the following facilities if to
be served by EMWD:
Water Service
Any and all necessary onsite and any offsite water mains, regulators, pumping
plants, storage tanks, and appurtenant facilities and works. All mains and
facilities are to be regionally sized. Participation in regional water
facilities, and fee payments must be met. ~ Water mains will not be allowed
along lot lines/private lands. Fire flow requirements and backflow prevention
reDuirements must be met.
ISewer Service
'A~Y 'and all necessary regionally sized onsite and offsite gravity sewers and
· appurtenant works that might include monitoring manholes, lift stations, force
mains, and effluent disposal/use. Sewers will not be allowed along lot
lines/private land. Fee payment and participation in regional sewers,
treatment, and,effluent disposal must be met. Only wastes acceptable to EMWD
regulations will be allowed.
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
EXHIBITS
CITY OF TEMECULA
;ITE --
CASE NO.: PA93-0154, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23513, AMENDMENT NO. 1,
SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME
EXHIBIT: A VICINITY MAP
~,. DATE: SEPTEMBER 20, 1993
CITY OF TEMECULA
2 1/,2"',
ii
//
/I tl
' /I .vt
\
CASE NO.: PA93-0154, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23513, AMENDMENT NO. 2,
SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME
EXHIBIT: B ZONING MAP
P.C. DATE: SEPTEMBER 20, 1993
R:%S',STAFFRPTVI54PA93.PC 9/14193 Idb
ITEM #6
Case No.:
Prepared By:
RECOMMENDATION:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 20, 1993
PA93-0165, Tentative Tract Map No. 23990,
Amendment No. 4, Second Extension of Time
Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission:
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED LAND USE
DESIGNATION:
RE-AFFIRM The Previously Adopted Negative Declaration
for Tentative Tract Map No. 23990, Amendment No. 4;
and
EXISTING LAND USE:
APPROVE PA93-0165, Tentative Tract Map No. 23990,
Amendment No. 4, Second Extension of Time Subject to
the Attached Conditions of Approval.
Henning Alstrup
Robert Kemble
A request for a second one year time extension for Tentative
Tract Map No. 23990, Amendment No. 4, a subdivision of 6.32
acres into 30 residential lots and 1 open space lot in the R-2
zone.
South of Via La Vida, approximately 300 feet east of Calle
Palmas
R-2 (Multi-Family Residential)
North:
South:
East:
West:
R-2 (Multi-Family Residential)
R-1 (Single Family Residential)
R-1 (Single Family Residential)
R-2 (Multi-Family Residential)
Medium Residential
Vacant
R:\SXSTAFFRPl~I65PA93.lPC 9115193
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Residential (7,200 square foot minimum lot size)
Residential (10,000 square foot minimum lot size)
Residential (7,200 square foot minimum lot size)
Residential (7,200 square foot minimum lot size)
BACKGROUND
The proposed project was originally approved by the Temecula City Council on September 18,
1990. The First Extension of Time was approved by the Planning Director on January 28,
1993. Pursuant to the recently modified approval authority ordinance, all extensions of time
are now heard by the Planning Commission.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is a subdivision of 6.32 acres into 30 residential parcels and one open space
parcel. The subdivision is located south of Via La Vida, approximately 300 feet east of Calle
Palmas. The subject site is within the R-2 (Multi-Family Residential) zone.
ANALYSIS
The project is unchanged from the First Extension of Time which was approved by the
Temecula Planning Director on January 28, 1993. New conditions of approval have been
added by the Public Works Department for erosion control and the Community Services
Department for park land dedication requirements (Quimby)o
ZONING, FUTURE GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY
The project site is zoned R-2o The adjacent parcels are zoned R-2 to the north and west and
R-1 to the south and east, The proposed project is consistent with the requirements of the
R-2 Zone, Ordinance 348 and Ordinance No. 460.
The proposed Draft General Plan Land Use Designation is Medium Residential. The current
SWAP designation for the proposed site is Residential, 2-5 dwelling units per acre. The
proposed project's density of 4.7 Du/Ac is less than the 7-12 Du/Ac permitted in the Medium
Residential designation. It is anticipated that the project will likely be consistent with the
City's future adopted General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
For the original approval of this project a Negative Declaration was issued under the CEQA
guidelines. The project is unchanged from that which was originally approved. Therefore, no
further environmental assessment for Tentative Tract Map 23990, Amendment No. 4 is
required. Mitigation measures contained in the conditions of approval will mitigate potential
impacts which will be created by the project.
R:\S~STAFFRFBI65PA93.PC 9/14/93 klb 2
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The proposed project was previously approved by the City of Temecula. The proposed project
is consistent with the present and future zoning and General Plan Land Use Designations. All
potential environmental impacts were addressed during the previous approval and mitigations
were incorporated into the conditions of approval.
FINDINGS
The findings for the original approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 23990, Amendment
No. 2 and the First Extension of Time for Tentative Tract Map No. 23990, Amendment
No. 4, are found to remain valid except as amended herein.
2. No new information of substantial importance to the project has become available.
m
There is a reasonable probability that Tentative Tract Map No. 22990, Amendment No.
4, Second Extension of Time will be consistent with the City's Draft General Plan,
which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law. The
Draft General Plan Land Use Designation for the site is Medium Residential. The
proposed development is consistent with the Draft General Plan and the current zoning
of R-2.
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 and existing
residential development in the surrounding area.
No subsequent changes are proposed in the project which would require revisions to
the previously certified Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant
environmental impacts not considered in the previous approval of this project.
The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws, The
proposed use complies with City of Temecula Ordinance No. 460.
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 subdivision complies with the standards of Ordinance No.
460.
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 mitigation measures,
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does
not represent a significant change to the planned land use of the area, due to the fact
that the proposed use is compatible with the proposed land use designation of Medium
Residential.
10.
Said findings are supported by maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated
with these applications and herein incorporated by reference.
Attachments:
Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 5
Previously Adopted Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 8
Exhibits - Blue Page 9
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
R:~S~STAFFRPT',165PA93.PC 9/14/93 klb 4
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PA93-0165, Tentative Tract Map No. 23990, Amendment No. 4, Second
Extension of Time
Project Description: Second one-year extension of time for Tentative Tract
Map No. 23990, Amendment No. 4, the subdivision of 6.32 acres into 30
residential parcels and one open space lot in the R-2 zone.
Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-661-026,027, 028, 029, 038.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
General Re(~uirements:
PA93-0165, Tentative Tract Map No. 23990, Amendment No. 4, Second Extension
of Time shall comply with all Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No.
23990, Amendment No. 4, First Extension of Time and Tentative Tract Map No.
23990, Amendment No. 2 (copies of which are attached) unless superseded by these
Conditions of Approval.
The project shall comply with the all the requirements of Ordinance 348, unless
modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in
accordance with the State Planning Law and City Ordinance No. 348, upon written
request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The Department of Public Works recommends the following requirements and changes to be
made to the Conditions of Approval as approved by the Planning Director on January 28,
1993.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall post security and enter into
an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in
conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department
of Public Works.
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the applicant or his assignee shall pay the fair
market value of .39 acres of park land to comply with City Ordinance No.460.93
(Quimby). The amount to be paid shall be determined by TCSD staff within thirty (30)
days prior to the recordation of said map.
R:\~;\STAFFRP~I65pA93.PC 9/14193 klb S
10.
Exterior slopes contiguous to public streets that are adjacent to single family residential
development shall be offered for dedication to the TCSD for maintenance purposes
following compliance to existing City Standards and completion of the application
process. All other slopes and open space shall be maintained by an established Home
Owner's Association.
All proposed slopes intended for dedication to the TCSD shall be identified on the final
map as proposed TCSD maintenance area.
Prior to recordation of the final map, the subdivider shall post security and enter into
an agreement to improve all proposed TCSD maintenance areas in conformance with
the City of Temecula Landscape Development Plan Guidelines and Specifications.
Landscape construction drawings identified as TCSD maintenance areas shall be
reviewed and approved by TCSD staff prior to recordation of the final map.
Construction of proposed TCSD landscape maintenance areas shall commence
pursuant to a pre-job meeting with the developer and the City Maintenance
Superintendent. Failure to comply with the TCSD review and inspection process will
preclude acceptance of these areas into the TCSD maintenance program.
The developer, or the developer's successors or assignees, shall maintain all landscape
areas until such time as those maintenance responsibilities are accepted by the TCSD.
R:'~S\STAI:I;P, PT~165PA93.PC 9114193 klb 7
AI'I'ACHMENT NO. 2
PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\S\STAFFRPT~IfSPA93.PC 9/14/93 k.lb ~
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Tract Map No. 23990
Project Description: First one-year extension of
time for Tentative Tract Map No. 23990, a
subdivision 5.76 acres into 30 single family
residential lots.
Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-330-019,
921-330-020, 921-330-021,921-330-022
Approval Date: January 28, 1993
Expiration Date: September 18, 1993
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act
and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, 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.
The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, it
agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City
of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning
Tentative Tract Map No. 23990, First Extension of Time 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 Temecuia 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
3. Subdivision phasing .shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director.
Tentative Tract Map No. 23990, First Extension of Time shall comply with all
Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 23990 (copies of which are
attached) unless superseded by these Conditions of Approval.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE RNAL MAP:
5./ The fencing detail that is shown on the Tentative Map shall be removed.
6. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map.
The applicant shall prepare an Environmental Constraints Sheet. The following notes
shall be added to the Environmental Conrcreint Sheet (ECS):
a. This'property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory.
All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute
of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations.
The 100-year flood plain shall be clearly deiiniated. A note shall state "The
location of the 100-year flood plain has been deliniatsd."
The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director:
a. A copy of the Final Map
b. A CoPy of the Rough Grading Plans
c. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS)
d. A copy of the Conceptual Landscape Package to include:
i. Drought tolerant and fire resistant plants shall be utilized.
ii. The height of plants at street intersection shall be subject to approval of
the City Engineer.
iii. The plants shall meet the following minimum size requirements:
(1) All trees shall be a minimum of 15 gallon with at least 50
percent of trees with a minimum of 24 inch box.
(2) All shrubs shaft be a minimum of 5 gallons.
(3) All ground cover shall be a minimum of 8" on the center.
(4) Street trees shall be provided at approximately 60 foot intervais
or a minimum of one tree per lot frontage as required in Section
13.1 or Ordinance 460.
iv. Landscaping shall be provided for the following:
(2)
(3)
(4)
Typical front yards for interior, corner and cul-de-sac lots.
Typical slope conditions.
Private and public parks including all improvements.
Streetscape within and outside the public right-of-way.
Irrigation shall be identified for all areas to be landscaped.
All front yard landscaping shall be installed and completed prior to the final
release of the house.
9. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC~R's)
CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. The
CC&R's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining the open
space, maintenance of drainage easements, slope maintenance, private roads,
exterior of all buildings, all landscaped and open areas including parkways.
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 stlfficienr..to meet the expenses
of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of
said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate
under recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsory membership of all
owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meet
changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&R's shall
permit enforcement by the City for provisions required as Conditions of
Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this
requirement to, and receive approval of, the city prior to making any such sale.
This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes,
Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such
dwelling unit or lot, either (1) an undivided interest in the common areas and
facilities, or (2) a share in the corporation, or voting membership in an
association owning the common areas and facilities.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
10.
The apl31icant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No, 663 by paying the
appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance to the Planning Department. 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.
11.
A biological assessment of the Gnatcatcher shall be required prior to issuance of
grading permits if the species is listed as endangered by the Fish and Wildlife and/or
Fish and Game. Necessary mitigation measures acceptable to these agencies shall be
implemented.
12. 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 representat ve sha have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect
or i~ait grading activity to allow recovery of fossils.
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT:
13, The following shall be submitrod to and approved by the Planning Director:
Construction landscape plans consistent with the City Standards and the
approved Conceptual Landscape Package and including the following:
Complete automatic irrigation for all landscaped areas, or as otherwise
specified in the Conceptual Landscape Package.
Precise Grading Plans consistent with the approved Rough Grading Plans and
including the following:
i. All structural setback measurements
ii. Building elevations
c, The Model Home Complex Plot Plan including the following:
i. Site Plan with off-street parking
ii. Construction Landscape Plans
iii. Fencing Plans
iv. Building Elevations
v. Floor Plans
vi. Materials and Colors Board
14.
The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the COnceptual Landscape Package
for this stage of the development.
15. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permWced within the subdivision,
however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with
Planning Director approval. ,-: ~:
16. No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit within the
project boundary until the developer or its 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, '?- ~; -": ' i,:; :-
PUBUC WORKS DEPARTMENT ,-' :"-
The following are the Depament of ~blic Wor~ Condffions 0f Appr0~i f0~:t~i~'~oje~, and
shall be completed st no cost to any Government Age~y. All pre~ous Engineering
Depa~ment Conditions of Appronl shall ~ su~rseded by ~ese reqUiremenBT~AII questions
regarding ~he true meaning of ~he conditions shaii ~ rarefied to the appro'priat~ Staff person
of the De~ment of Public Works. * ' ~ .: ;~' -: -':: *.; -~; *::;~'~: ':;~'
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map or 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.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:
17.
A Grading Permit for either rough or precise (including all onsite flat work and
improvements) construction shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works
prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-
of-way.
18,
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior
to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City
right-of-way.
19.
All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be
coordinated for consistency .with adjacent projects and existing improvements
contiguous to the site.
20. Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is part
of an existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
21. The final grading plan shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and shall be
reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works.
22. All lot drainage shall be directed to the driveway by side yard drainage swales
independent of any other lot.
23.
Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board.
No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the
project is shown to be exempt.
24. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
San Diego Regional Water Quality;
Riverside County Flood Control District;
Planning Department;
DeDa~i~,ent of Public Works;
Riverside County Health Department;
ColTtans;
Parks and Recreation Department;
General Telephone;
Southern California Edison Company; and
Southern California Gas.Company.
25. A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer and submitted to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall
26.
27 .'/'
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.~/
address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and pavement sections.
An erosion control plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer ~nd submitted
to the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weedfree condition and shall be
either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures
as 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 .been already credited .to ~,his prol0erty, no
new charge needs to be paid.
The developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or easements for any
offsite work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public
Works.
A drainage study shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and
approval The drainage study shall include, but not be limited to, the following criteria:
Drainage and flood protection facilities which will protect all structures by
diverting site runoff to streets or approved storm drain facilities as directed by
the Department of Public Works.
Adequate provision shall be made for the acceptance and disposal of surface
drainage entering the propercy from adjacent areas.
The impact to the site from any flood zone as shown on the latest FEMA flood
hazard map and any necessary mitigation to protect the site.
d. Identify and mitigate impacts of grading to any adjacent floodway.
The location of existing and post development lO0-year floodplain and
floodway shall be shown on the improvement plan.
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 Section 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.
Drainage facilities will be required to protect the structures by diverting runoff to a
storm drain. Cross*lot surface drainage long the subdivision boundaries and slopes
shall be conveyed in concrete swales. An emergency overflow facility shall also be
provided as directed by the Department of Public Works.
33. The subclivider shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration
34.
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.
A drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners for the
release of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adiacent property. A copy
of the drainage easement shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for
review prior to recordstion. The location of the recorded easement shall be delineated
on the grading plan.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
35.
All necessary grading permit requirements shall have been completed and epproved to
the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
36.
37.
Improvement plans, including but not limited to, streets, parkway trees, street lights,
driveways, and drainage facilities shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer on
24." x 36" mylar sheets and approved by the Department of Public Works. Final plans
(and profiles on streets) shall show the location of existing utility facilities and
easements as directed by the Department of Public Works.
The following criteria shall be observed in the design of the improvement plans to be
submitted to the Department of Public Works:
Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over
A.C. paving.
Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula standards
207/207A and 401 (curb and sidewalk) and shall be shown on the street
improvement plans.
Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in
accordance with Ordinance 461 and shall be shown on the improvement plans
as directed by the Department of Public Works.
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along public street frontages in
accordance with City standard 400 and 401.
e. Improvement plans shall extend 300 feet beyond the project boundaries or as
otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works.
f. Minimum centerline radii shall be in accordance with City standard 113 or as
otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works.
All reverse curves shall include a 100 foot minimum tangent section or as
otherwise 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.
All units shall be provided with zero clearance garage doors and garage door
openers if the driveway is less than 18 feet in depth from beck of sidewalk.
Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed
through undersidewalk drains.
38.
The minimum centerline grade for streets shall be 0.50 percent or as otherwise
approved by the Department of Public Works,
39. All driveways shall be located a minimum of two (2) feet from the side property line.
40.
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 prorider. Telephone, cable
TV, and/or security systems shall be pre~wired in the residence.
41. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground.
42.
All general conditions and special instructions of the grading permit and encroachment
permit shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department.
43.
A construction area traffic control plan shaft be designed by a registered Civil Engineer
and apDroved by the City Engineer for any detour or other disruption to traffic
circulation as required by the Department of Public Works.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF FINAL MAP:
44.
The developer shall construct or post security and enter into an agreement
guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance
with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public
Works.
Street improvements, which may include, but are not limited to: pavement,
curb and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, and other
traffic control devices as appropriate,
b. Storm drain facilities
c. Landscaping (slopes and parkways).
d. Erosion control and slope protection.
e. Sewer and domestic water systems.
f. Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
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;
CA'IV Franchise;
Parks and Recreation Department;
General Telephone;
Southern California Edison Company; and
Southern California Gas Company
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.
Via La Vida shall be improved with 22 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').
Street "A" and Street "B" shall be improved with 40 feet of asphalt concrete
pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated
right-of-way in accordance with City Standard No. 104, Section A (60'/40').
Vehicular access shall be restricted on Via La Vida and so noted on the final map as
directed by the Department of Public Works.
Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805.
Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks
meander through private property.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape .easements, drainage
facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the
land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted
for review and recorded as directed by the DepafLJnent of Public Works. On-site
drainage facilities located outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within
drainage easements and 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."
Prior to recordation of the final map, an Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) ~hall
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.
54. 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.
55.
Prior to recordalien 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.
56.
Prior to recording the final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CATV Franchises
of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards st time of
street improvements.
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT:
57.
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.
58.
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code,
the approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading
Standards and accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall
be in substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan.
59.
[:)eveleper 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 st 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'(essuming 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; Drovi(;led 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:
60.
All improvements shall be completed and in place per the approved plans, including but
not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, drainage
facilities, parkway trees and street lights on all. interior public streets.
61. All signing shall be installed per the approved plan.
62. The subdivider shall provide "stop" controls at the intersection of local streets with
arterial streets as directed by the Department of Public Works.
63.
Landscaping as installed in the comer c.ut-off area of all intersection and adjacent to
driveways shell be reviewed and approved in the field for minimum sight distance by
the Department of Public Works.
64.
Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied only as directed by the Department of
Public Works 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.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
NO new CommaFits
OTHER DEPARTMENTS:
65.
This project shall comply with the Riverside Count,/Flood Control District transmittal
dated October 21, 1992, a copy of which is a~ached.
66.
This project shall comply with the Riverside County Health Services Department
transmittal dated October 6, 1992, a copy of which is attached.
67.
This project shall comply with the Temecula Community Services Department
transmittal dated September 2, 1992, a copy of which is attached.
68.
This project shall comply with the Rancho California Water District transmittal dated
August 25, 1992, a copy of which is attached.
I
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Ladies and Geniemen:
RECEIVED
OCT 2 8 1992
~'d ...........
The Oisl~cl does not normNh/recemmend J for land
in~ ~ ~N~ f~ ~il ~ ~
~ip of ~ f~li~e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C~.
GFNFRAI INFORMATI('JN
This ;rojec~ may req~re a Na~:~i P~ilutanrDischarge Biminaaon S~ (NPDES) ~ fr~ ~ Stle W~t~ R~ ~ ~.
Cle~ f~ g~. r~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~d ~ ~ given ~1 ~ ~ h~ detm~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a
~it ~ is ~ to ~ ex~
If ~s ~ i~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ (~) ~ ~ ~n, ~ ~ ~ ~ r~re ~ ~ to
Re~ (LOMR) ~ to ~. -
VR ~ ~urs.
,~V' OUSTYWILLIAMS
o-.: IO-Zl'cl?--
October 6. 1992
CITY OF ~'~MECULA
PLANNING DH?ARTMENT
43174 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
~.MECULA, CA 92590
'ATfN: Craig Ruiz:
...........
RE: ~aqTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 23990: PARCI{ZS 1,2,3, AND 4 OF
PARC~r- MAP N0. 13784 RECORDED MAT 23, 1980 IN BOOK 78, PAGE
50 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA.
(3 LOTS)
Dear Gentlemen:
The Department of F~vironmental Health has reviewed
Tentative Tract Map No. 23990 ~nd 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 plans of the
water system shall be submitted in triplicate. with a
minimum scale not less th~n one inch equals 200 feet, along
with the original drawlng to the County Surveyor. The
prints shall show the internal pipe diameter. location of
valves and fire hydrants; pipe and joint specifications, and
the slze of the main at the junction of the new system to
the existing system. The plans shall comply in all respects
wzth Div. 5. Part 1. 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
23990 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." ~
City of Temecula
Page Two
Attn: Craig l~uiz
October 6. 1992
This certification does not constitute a guarantee that it
will supply w~ter to such Tract Map at ~ny specific
quantities. flows or pressures for fire protection or &ny
other purpose". This certification shall be signed by
responsible official of the water company. The ul~ns must
be submitted to The County Survevor°s Office to review at
least two weeks prior to the reuuest for the recordation of
the final
This subdivision has & statement from Rlncho 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 financial arrangements
to be made prior to the record&tion of the final map.
This subdivision is within the E~stern Municipal Water
District and shall be connected to the sewers of the
District. The sewer system shall be installed according to
plans and specifications &s approved by the District. the
County Surveyor and the Health Department. Permanent prints
of the plans of the sewer system sh&ll be submitted in
triplicate. &long with the original dr&wing. to the County
Surveyor. .The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter.
specifications and the size of the sewers ~t the junction of
the new system to the existing system. A single plat
indicating location of sewer lines and water lines shall be
& portion of the sewage plans and profiles.
The plans shall be signed by ~ registered engineer and the
sewer district with the following certification: "I certify
that the design of the sewer system in Tract Map No. 23990
is in accordance with the sewer system expansion plans of
the Eastern Municipal Water District and that the waste
disposal system is ~dequate at this time.to treat the
anticipated wastes from the proposed Tract Map."
City of Temecul&
Page Three
Attn: Crai9 Ruiz
October 6, 1992
The plan6 mu6t be ~ubmitted to the County 8urveyor°s Office
to review at least two weeks prior to the reuuest for the
recordation of the final
It will be necesszry for financial arrangements to be
completely finalized prior to recordation of the finzl map.
Sincerely.
(714) 275-8980
SM:dr
· TO:
FROM:
DATE:
REFERENFF:
Craig Ruiz, Pier g Department
Beryl Yasinoskv ~
Senior Development Assistant
September 2, 1992
T,~ntR~ve Tr~ttf Mnp Nn ~.qclN . First Fxtension of Time
30 lot residential subdivision within 5.76 acres.
Applicant: Henning and Kirsten Alstrup
TCSD staff has reviewed the Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No.
23990 and conditions this map as follows:
!,-/
2.,/
Prior to recorderion of the Final Map, the applicant or-his.essignse she!!
pay the fair market value of .39 acres of park land to comply with City
Ordinance No. 460.93(Quimby). The amount to be paid 'shall be
determined by TCSD staff within thirty (30) days prior to the recordation
of said map.
Exterior slopes (as defined as: Those slopes contiguous to residerrtial
streets that have a width of 66' or greater), shall be offered for
dedication to the City of Temecula for maintenance. purposes following
compliance to TCSD standards and completion of the application
process. All other slopes and open space shall be maintained by an
established Home Owners' Association (HOA).
All questions regarding the meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the
Temecula Community Services Department staff,
cc: Gary L. King, Development Services Adiministrator
Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner
F
Wmr
August 25, 1992
RECEIVED
AU6 2 6 1992
b't ..........
Mr. Craig Ruiz
City of Temecula
Planning Depa~ tazent
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
Water Availability
Tract Map 23990
Dear Mr. Ruiz:
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 siEnlng an
Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.
If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Senga Doherty.
Sincerely,
R. ANC'clO CAI.rFOI~NIA WATER DIS~r'RICT
Steve Brannon, P. E.
Manager of Development Engineering
S8:SO:ajZ/'l/F186
cc: Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician
Mayor
Ron Parks
Mayor Pro Tern
Karel F. Lindemans
CITY OF TEMECULA
P,o. Box sore RECEIVED
Tcmccula, California 92390
(714) 694-1989 NOV 0 ~ 1990
FAX (714) 694-1999
P,01~7. R~! ....
Councilrnembt
Par, ricia H. Bimsa~
Peg Moore
-r J. Sal Mulioz
October 26, 1990
Mr. Robert B. Kernhie
Robert Bein, 'William Frost F, Associates
2S765 Single Oak Drive. Suite 250
Temecula, CA 92390
SUBJECT: Final Conditions of ApproVal
For Tentative Parcel Map No. 23990
Dear Mr. Kemble:
On September 18, 1990, the City of Temecula City Council approved Tentative Parcel
Map No. 23990 subject to the enclosed Conditions of Approval, Tentative Parcel Map
No. 23990 is a proposed Thirty (30) lot subdivision of 5.76 acres located on the south
side of Via La Vide in Temecula.
This approval is effective until Septemb~- 18, 1992 unless extended in a~c..rdance
with Ordinance u,60. Section 8.u,. Written request for a time extension must be
submitted to the City of Temecula a minimum of 30 days prior to the exp~,',~tion date.
Sincetel .
Gary Thornhill
Planning Director
ple=~e contact the
OM/CT: ks
PLANNING\L101,
L ECEIVED
dUN 2 2 i92
CITY OF TEMECULA
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23990
Council Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
Planninq Department
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision
'Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance q60, Schedule A.. unless
modified by the conditions listed below.
This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the City
Council approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance L~60.
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
q60.
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.
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordarSon of the final
map.
Legal access as required by Ordinance ~60 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 apprcved by the City
Engineer. Street name shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities,
etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land
division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be
submitted end recorded as directed by the City Engineer.
Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space are
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.
STAw~T~r'T\ TT2 3 9 9 0 I
10.
11.
Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following:
a. Corner lots and through lots. if any. shall be provided with additional
area p.ursuant to Section 3.88 of Ordinance u,60 and so as not to contain
less net area than the least amount of net area in non-corner and
through tots.
Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformante with the
development standards of the R-2 {Restricted Single Family) 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 recordslion of the final 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 City Attorney:
a. 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 declaretlon of covenants, conditions and
restrictions is incorporw~ed therein by rderence.
The declaration of covenants. conditions and restrictions submitted for
review shall t a) provide for a minimum term of 60 years, I b) provide for
the establishment of a property owners' association comprised of the
owners of each individual lot or unit, Ic) provide for ownership of the
common area by either the property owners~ association or the owners
of each individual lot or unit as tenants in common and Id) contain the
followlng provisions verbstim:
"Notwithstanding an provision in this Declaretlon to the
contrary, the foilowlng provisions shall apply:
The property ownerst association established hardin shall manage
and continuously maintain the 'common areat, more particularly
described and shall not sell or transfer the ~common area~, or any
part thereof, absent the prior written consent of the Planning
Director of the City of Tamecute.
The property owners~ association shall have the right to -dress
the owners of each individual lot or unit for the reasonable cost
of maintaining the ~ce~mon areat and shall have the right to lien
the property of any such owner who defaults in the payment of
the maintenance assessment. An assessment lien, once created,
shall be Drlor to all other liens recorded subsequent to the notice
of assessment or other document creatinq the assessment lien.
I
STAFFRi~T\TT2 3 9 90 2
This Declaration shall not be terminated, 'substantially amended
or property aleannexed there from absent the prior written
consent of the Planning Direct. A proposed amendment shall be
considered tsubstantiaP if it affects the extent. usage or
~naintenance of the tcommon area%
In the event of any conflict between this Declaration and the
Articles of Incorporation, the Bylaws of the UroOerty ownerst
association Rules and Reclulations, if any, this Declaration shall
control."
Once approved, the declaration of covenants, conditions and
restrictions shall be recorded at the same time that the final map is'
recorded.
In the event that no property owners~ association is formed, the
developer may request annexation into the local landscape assessment
district for the care and maintenance of Lot 31. If the request for
annexation is denied, a property owners' association shall be formed.
12. The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes,
landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations
are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Direr.
13. Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
Prior to the issuance of gradlng permits (or buildincl Dermits as Ioncl as
aDproDriate bonds have been issued) detailed common open space area
landscaping and irrigation. plans shall be submitted for Planning
Department approval for the phase of development in process. The
plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for
the following (Amended by Planning Commission on August 20, 1990):
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 uti|ity service ares and enclosures shall be screened from
view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle
treatments, as approved by the Plannlng Director. Utilities shall
be placed underground.
Parkways shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a
transition into the primary use ares of the site. Landscape
elements shall include earth berming, ground cover. shrubs and
specimen trees. Front yards shall be landscaped and street trees
planted.
ST.xJ'E2-LPT\TT2 3 9 9 0 3
15.
Wall plans shall be submitted for the project perimeter. exc_~Sg~
· for the easterly boundar~, and along Via LaYida. 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
hates in the wall for' maintenance access. { Amended by Planning
Commission on August 20, 1990).
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
rlght-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 projectts grading
plans and shall note those to be removed, reloc,~.ed and/or
retained.
All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow
growing trees shall be steel stoked.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified palesntolocJist 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, red/tact or halt
grading activity to allow recovery of fossils.
Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the followlng conditions shall be
satisfied:
b%
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 t$100) per
lot/unit shall be deFmslted with the City as mitigation for public library
development.
Prior to the submittol of building plans to the Department of Building
and Sofaty an acoustical study shall be performed by an acouaticai
engineer to establish appropriate mitigation measures that shall be
applied to individual dwelling units within the subdivision to reduce
ambient interior noise levels to u,5 Ldn.
STAFFRPT\'--~23990 4
All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate. all required
elements from the subdivision's approved fire protection plan as
approved by the County Fire Marshal.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and
irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval.
The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requiring
landscaping and irrigation to be installed including, but not limited to,
parkway planting, street trees, slope planting, and individual front
yard landscaping.
All dwellings to be constructed within this subdivision shall be designed
and constructed with fire retardant I Class A ) roofs as approved by the
Fire Marshal.
Roof-mounted mechanlcal equipment shall not be permitted within the
subdivision, however solar equipment or any cther energy saving
devices shall be permitted with Planning Department approval.
Roof-mounted ~qulpment shall be shielded from view of surrounding
property.
Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall not
be less than ten (10) feet.
i. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet.
All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and automatic
irrigation.
Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall
be satisfied:
Wall and fence locations shall conform to Condition 15.e., and shall not
block views of existing residences.
All landed=ping 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 msssurss 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 withstandlng 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.
STAFFRPT\TT23990 5
All street and landscape imorovements on Via La Vlda shall be installed
in accordance with anDroved plans I=rior to the issuance of occupancy
permits. (Added by Planning Commission on August 20. 1990).
Health Oel~artment'
The Department of Public Health has reviewed Tract Map No. 23990 and recommends
that:
17.
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 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-shai~ .=how-the internal pipe
diameter, location of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and joint specifications,
and the size of the main at the junction of the' new system to the existing
system. The plans shall comply in all respects with Div. 5, Part 1, Chapter
7 of the California Health and Safety Code, California Administrative Cede,
Title 22, Chapter 16, and General Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities
Commission of the State of California, when applicable. The plans shall be
signed by a registered engineer and water company with the following
certification: 'i certify that the design of the water system in Tract Map No.
23990. is in accordance with the water system expansion plans of the Rancho
California Water District and that the water service, .storage and distribution
system will be adequate to provide water service to such tract. This
certification does not constitute a guarantee that it will supply water to such
tract map at any specific quantities, slows or pressures for fire protection or
any other purpose". ..
This certification shall be signed by a responsible official of the water
company.
The ;lens must be submitted to the County Surveyor~s Office to review st
least two weeks prior to the request for the recordation of the final maD.
This Department has a statement from Rancho California Water District
agreeing to serve domestic water to each and every lot in the subdivision on
demand providing satisfactory financial arrangements are completed with the
subdivider. It will be ne~t~__~sary for financial arrangements to be made prior
to the recordation of the final map.
19.
This subdivision is within the Eastern Municipal Water District and shall be
connected to the sewers of the District. The sewer system shall be installed
according to plans and specifications as approved by the District, the County
Surveyor and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the
sewer system shall be submitted in triplicate, along with the original drawing,
to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe diemmr,
location of manholes, complete profiles, pipe and joint specifications and the
(
STAFFRPT\TT.23990 6
size of the sewers at the junction of the new system to the existing system.
A single plat indicating location of sewer lines and. water tines shall be a
portion of the sewage plans and profiles. The plans shell be signed by a
registered englneer and the sewer distric'L with the following certific3tlon:
certify that the design of the sewer system in Tract Map 23990, 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
The plans must be submitted to the County Surveyotis Office to review at
least two weeks prior to the recluest for the recordstlon of the final maD.
It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be completely finalized prior
to recordatlon of the final map.
Fire Department
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:
20. Fire Protection
Schedule 'A" fire protection approved standard fire hydrants, | 6"x~'x2 1/u,,, )
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: 'l certify that the design of
the water.system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the
Riverside County Fire Dept."
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.
Hazardous Fire Area
The land division is located in the "Hazardous Fire Ares" of Riverside County
as shown on a map on file with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Any
13uilding constructed on lots created by this land division shall comply with
the special construction provisions contained in Riverside County Ordinance
546.
ST,~.rRl~T\TT23990 7
All buildings shall be constructed with fire retardant roofing materlal as
described in Section 3203 of the Uniform Buildlng Code. Any wo~d shingles
or shakes shall have a Class "But rating and shall be approved by the Fire
Department _prior to installation.
Mitiqation
Prior to the recordslion of the final map. the developer shall deposit with the
Riverside County Fire Department a cash sum of $~,00.00 per lot/unit as
mitigation for fire pru~.ection 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.
All questions regarding the meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the'
F-ire .Department Planning and Engineering Staff.
Rood Control District
This is a proposal to subdivide 5.76 acres for residential usa in the Rancho California
area. The site is located on Via La Vide about qS0 feet south of Solone Way.
The site is subject to only local off-site runoff via a drainage easement from the
existing Tract 20153 to the south. The developer proposes to collect these flows and
along with s portion of the on-site flows discharge them to a drainage easement in the
development to the west. The remainder of the tract would drain via Street "A" to
Via La Vide.
Following are the Oistrict's recommendations:
21.
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", mended February
16, 1988:
a. At the option of the land divider, upon filing a required affidavit
requesting aleferment of the payment of fees, the drainage fees may be
paid to the Building Director at the time of issuance of a grading
permit.
22.V/ Drainage facilities outletting sump conditions should be designed to convey
the tributary 100 year storm flows. Additional emergency escape shall also be
provided.
Enqtneerinq Department
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
23. The developer shall r;eceive written clearance from the followln9 agencies:
'- STA~FRPT\TT2 3 9 9 0 8
25.
Eastern Municipal Water District:
Riverside County Flood Control District:
City of Temecula Fire Bureau:
Planning Department:
Engineerlag Department; and
Riverside Coun.ty Health Department.
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. ~60.
The following perimeter landscaped parkways are required to be annexed into
the landscape maintenance district: Lot 31.
26.
Dedication shall be made of the following right-of-way on the following
streets:
60 total feet on Street A
60. total feet on Street S
33 total feet half street on Via La Vide
2?.
Corner property llne radius will be required per City Standards and
drawings.
28. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall
be delineated or notices on the final map.
29.~/The minimum centerllne radii shall be 300 feet or as approvede by the City
Engineer. -- ~.'/~/.~/~-f'. L-(~ ~/~
30. All street centerllne~ntersectlons shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the
City Engineer.
The subdlvider shall construct or post security guaranteelag the construction
of the following public improvements in oonformance with appl!,~hle City
standards.
Street improvements, including, but net limited to: pavement, curb
and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing,
striping, and other irafile c~ntrol d~vices as appropriate.
b. Storm drain facilities.
c. Landscaping letreel and parks).
STAFFRIoT\TT2 3 9 9 O 9
32.
Sewer and domestic water systems.
e. Unergrounding of existing and proposed utility distribution lines.
The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated
with adjoining developments,
Driveways shall be designed so as not to exceed a fifteen ( 15 ) percent grade.
35.
Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. u,61 and as approved by the
City Engineer.
Prior to recorder/on of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the
Engineering Department a cash sum established per lot as mitigation for a
traffic signal impact.
36.
37.
38.
39.
Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment of traffic signal
mitigation fee, he may enter into a written agreement with the City deferring
said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit.
Street names shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineering
Department.
The subdivlder shall submit four copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geelogical
conditions of the site.
Prior' to occupancy, all fill slope'~ greater than 3~ and all cut slopes greater
than 5' in vertical height shall be planted with grass or ground cover and
irrigated.
A hydrology study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer.
All drainage facilities shall be/natalled as required by the City Engineer,
On-site drainage facilities, located outside of road right-of-way, shall be
contained within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note shall be
added to the final map stating "Drainage easements shall be kept free of
buildings and obatructions,"
It is understood that the Tentative Map correctly shows all exiating
easements, traveled ways and drainage c~urses, and that their mission my
require the map to be resubmitted for further consideration.
All tots shall be graded to drain to the adjacent aireat or an adequate drainage
facility, Lots shall not be allowed to drain onto adjacent tracts without ·
9radin9 and/or drainage permit, (Amended by Planning Commission on
August 20, 1990).
\
STAFFRPT\TT23990 10
The subdivider shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage
flowing onto or through the site. in the event the City Engineer permits the
use of streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Article Xl of
Ordinance N~. 1160 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 Enginering
Department.
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 useant.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
P.-ior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid
and an encroachment permit shall be obtained'from theCity Enginer~s Office,
in addition to any other permits required,
All driveways shall conform to the appii~kle City of Temecula.stanciards and
shall be shown on the street improvement plans,
All driveways shall be located a minimum of two |2) feet from the property
line.
All driveways shall be constructed along all public street frontages in
accordance with City Standard No.is u,00 and lie1 |curb sidewalk),
50.
The subdlvider shall submit four prints of a comprehensive grading plan to
the Enginerlng Department, The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building
Code, Chapter 10, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions
of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 21~"x36" mylar by a Registered Civil
Engineer.
51.
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.
52.
Gradlng of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform
Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practi---, The
final grading plan shall be in substantial conformonce with the approved
grading plan.
53.
Adequate provisions shall be made for wr,?ptsnce and disposal of surface
drainage entering the property from adjacent areas.
Pavement striping, marking, traffic and street name signing shall be installed
per requirements of the City Traffic Engineer.
55. Existing city roads requiring construc'jon shall remain open to traffic st all
STA~'~'Kl~T\TT23990 11
times with adequate detours during construction.
56. Aspbaltic emulsion (fog seal3 shall be applied nee less 'than 1~, days following
placement of the esphalt surfacing and shell be applied at a rate of LOS gallon
per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall c~nfomto Sectlan No-ts31o 39, and
9~ of the State Standard Specifi~-etions-
57, Corner cutbacks, in conformonce with City Standard No. 805, shall be offered
for dediPatlon and shown on the final map.
58. The following are the Enginesrlng Conditions of Approval for this project, and
shall be completed at no cost to any Governmsnt agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the
Engineering Department.
STA~-,~',r~eT\.TT2 3 9 90
Z2
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
EXHIBITS
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.:
EXHIBIT: A
~. DATE:
PA93-0165, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23990, AMENDMENT NO. 4,
2ND EXTENSION OF TIME
VICINITY MAP
SEPTEMBER 20, 1993
R:~S~STAFFRPT~165PA93.PC 9/14/93 Idb 10
CITY OF TEMECULA
SITE
CASE NO.:
EXHIBIT: B
P.C. DATE:
PA93-0165, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23990, AMENDMENT NO. 4,
2ND EXTENSION OF TIME
ZONING MAP
SEPTEMBER 20, 1993
R:\S\STAFFRPT\I65PA93.1~ 9/14/93 klb 11
ITEM #7
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 20, 1993
PA93-0132, Revised Plot Plan
Prepared By: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT Resolution No. 93- approving PA93-0132,
Revised Plot Plan based on the Analysis and Findings
contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval; and
ADOPT Negative Declaration for PA93-0132, Revised Plot
Plan.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Channell Commercial Corporation
REPRESENTATIVE:
Howard Parsell & Associates
PROPOSAL:
A request to expand an existing 91,950 square foot
warehouse/office building by adding a 107,330 square foot
warehouse. The addition will be constructed in two phases.
Phase I will be 49,400 square feet and Phase II will be 57,930
square feet.
LOCATION:
26040 Ynez Road
EXISTING ZONING:
Manufacturing-Service Commercial (M-SC)
SURROUNDING
ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Rural Residential (R-R)
Manufacturing-Service Commercial (M-SC)
Manufacturing-Service Commercial (M-SC)
Industrial Park (I-P)
EXISTING LAND USE: OfficeANarehouse Building
R:%S\STAFFRPT\132PA93.PC 9/14/93 Idb
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North: Vacant
South: Vacant
East: OfficeNVarehouse
West: Vacant
PROJECT STATISTICS (Phases I and II)
Total Site Area: 416,000 square
Building Area: 199,280 square
Existing 91,950 square
Phase I 49,400 square
Phase II 57,930 square
Landscape Area: 118,000 square
Paved Area: 98,720 square
Parking Required: 197 spaces
Parking Provided: 203 spaces
Standard: 197 spaces
Handicap: 5 spaces
Building Height: 30 feet
feet (9.55 acres)
feet (48%)
feet
feet
feet
feet (28%)
feet (24%)
BACKGROUND
On July 11, 1988, the Riverside County Planning Director approved the construction of a
office manufacturing building, The entire parcel has previously been mass graded as part of
the construction of the original project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of the construction of 107,330 square feet of warehouse building to an
existing 91,950 square foot office/warehouse building. The addition will be constructed in
two phases. Phase I will be 49,400 square feet and Phase II will be 57,930 square feet. The
building pad area for Phases I and II has been previously graded and currently contains a grass
area and an asphalt drive way.
ANALYSIS
Architecture
The proposed elevations have been designed to match the existing building. The elevations
consist of concrete sandblasted tilt-up panels with ribbed concrete detail bands along the top
and middle portions of the elevation (see Exhibit 4D). The architecture is consistent with the
surrounding industrial buildings in the area.
Landscaoina
Currently, the site is 28% landscaped. At buildout, 2,600 square feet of landscaping will be
removed, resulting in a 0.6% decrease in landscaping. The existing landscaping will provide
sufficient screening to adjacent and future development.
R:\S\STAFFFIPT\132PA93.PC 9/14/93 Idb 2
The project has been conditioned to replace any landscaping that is damaged during the
construction of either Phase I or II. Should there be significant damage to landscaped areas,
the project will be required to post bonds for the installation and maintenance of the re-planted
areas.
Circulation
Currently, the project site has access from Ynez Road, Equity Drive and County Center Drive.
At the completion of Phase II, the access from Equity Drive will be removed. The Riverside
County Fire Department and the Public Works Department have reviewed the site plan and
have determined that the remaining two access points will be sufficient to provide satisfactory
internal circulation.
The primary access to the site is from Ynez Road and secondary access is from County Center
Drive. The addition of the warehouse area is not anticipated to significantly increase traffic
in the area. At buildout, the existing roads will be sufficient to handle the increased traffic
volumes. The project has been conditioned to pay signal mitigation fees to mitigate any traffic
impacts.
Parking
The site currently contains 203 parking spaces. The addition of the two phases will not
require the deletion of any parking spaces. At buildout, the 203 spaces will be adequate to
meet the parking requirements of Section 18o 12 of Ordinance 348.
FUTURE GENERAL PLAN, ZONING, AND SWAP CONSISTENCY
There is a reasonable probability that PA93-0132, Revised Plot Plan, will likely be consistent
with the City's future General Plan due the fact that the proposed warehouse addition is
consistent with the Draft General Plan Land Use Designation of Business Park.
This project is consistent with the M-SC zone since it meets all the requirements for this zone.
This project is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) since it is designated as Light
Industrial.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
A Initial Study was prepared for PA93-0132, Revised Plot Plan. Any potential significant
impacts have been mitigated to an insignificant level. The project site was previously mass
graded as part of the original development of the site. Therefore, Staff recommends adoption
of a Negative Declaration.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project as proposed meets all the requirements of Ordinance No. 348. The existing
landscaping is adequate to screen the new building area. All environmental impacts have been
reduced to insignificant levels by the mitigation measures contained in the conditions of
approval.
R:\S\STAFFRPT\132PA93.PC 9/14/93 klb 3
FINDINGS
There is a reasonable probability that PA93-0132, Revised Plot Plan, will likely 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 warehouse
building is consistent with the existing Manufacturing Service Commercial zoning and
the Draft General Plan Land Use Designation of Business Park.
This project is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) designation of Light
Industrial.
This project is consistent with the M-SC zone since it meets all the requirements for
this zone.
This project will not have a significant impact on the environment since all the impacts
have been mitigated to a level of insignificance.
The proposed project is suitable for the site since it accommodates all the structures,
the necessary parking, landscaping and circulation for the site.
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
Resolution - Blue Page 5
Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10
Initial Study - Blue Page 18
Exhibits - Blue Page 19
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. Site Plan
D. Elevations
R:\S~STAFFRPT~132PA93.PC 9/14/93 Idb 4
A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 93-
R:\S\STAFFRPT~132PA93.PC 9/14/93 klb 5
ATFACH1VIENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF TRE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
~ CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PA93-0132,
REVISED PLOT PLAN, TO CONSTRUCT A 107,330
SQUARE FOOT WA.q~.HOUSE BUHJHNG ADDITION TO
AN EXISTING 91,950 SQUARE FOOT
OFFICE/WAI~.~OUSE BU~oDING WHICH WILL BE
CONSTRUCTED IN TWO PHASES LOCATED AT 26040
yNl~.7. ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.
910-110--048.
WRF. REAS, Howard Parsell fried PA93-0132, Revised Plot Plan, in accordance with
the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City
has adopted by reference;
WIIEREAS, said 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
application on September 20, 1993, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify
either in support or opposition to said application and;
WI-W. REAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said application;
NOW, TIW-REFORE, ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the
following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shah
adopt a general plan within thLrty (30) months foliowing incorporation. Dung that 30-month
period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the
following requirements are met:
1. The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the
general plan.
2. The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, each of the foliowing:
R:\S\STAFFRPT\132PA93.PC 9/14193 klb 6
a. There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action
proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which
will be studied within a reasonable time.
b. Them is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan.
c. The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as mended by the Southwest Area
Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as
the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan
guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General
Plan.
C. The proposed application 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 pr~paxation 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 foilowing:
a. There is reasonable probability that the said application will be
consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied
within a reasonable time since the project is consistent with the existing SWAP and zoning
designation.
b. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan since the project is compatible with surrounding development.
c. The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances since it complies with Ordinance No. 348.
D. Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan 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.
R:\S\STAFFRPT~132PA93.PC 9/14/93 klb 7
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 SUlTOtlDding property.
E. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the proposed Revised
Plot Plan, makes the following findings, to wit:
1. There is a reasonable probability that PA93-0132, Revised Plot Plan, will
likely 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 warehouse building is
consistent with the existing Manufacturing Service Commercial zoning and the Draft General
Plan Land Use Designation of Business Park.
2. This project is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP)
designation of Light Industrial.
3. This project is consistent with the M-SC zone since it meets all the
requirements for this zone.
4. This project will not have a significant impact on the environment since
all the impacts have been mitigated to a level of insignificance.
5. The proposed project is suitable for the site since it accommodates all the
structures, the necessary parking, landscaping and circulation for the site.
F. As conditioned pursuant to Section 3, the Revised 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. Adoption of the Negative Declaration for PA93-
0132, Revised Plot Plan is recommended.
Section 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
approves PA93-0132, Revised Plot Plan to construct a 107,330 square foot warehouse building
to increase the warehouse area of an existing 91,950 square foot office/warehouse building. The
addition will be constructed in two phases. Phase I will be 49,400 square feet and Phase II will
be 57,930 square feet, and known as Assessor' s Parcel No. 910-110-048 subject to the following
conditions:
A. Attachment No. 2, attached hereto.
R:\S\STAFFRPT~132PA93.PC 9/14/93 klb ~
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of September, 1993.
STEVEN J. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I I~.RERy CERT~Y that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Tem~cula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 20th day of
September, 1993 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNItlLL
SECRETARY
R:\S\STAFFRPTH32PA93.PC 9/14/93 klb 9
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\S\STAFFRP"~I32PA93.PC 9/14/93 klb 10
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PA93-0132, REVISED PLOT PLAN
Project Description: A107,330 square foot warehouse building to increase the
warehouse area of an existing 91,950 square foot office/warehouse building.
The addition will be constructed in two phases. Phase I will be 49,400 square
feet and Phase II will be 57,930 square feet.
Assessor'a Parcel No.: 910-110-048
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
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 attach, set aside, void, or annul,
an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative
body concerning PA93-0132, Revised Plot Plan. 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.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on
PA93-0132, Revised Plot Plan, marked Exhibit A, or as amended by these conditions,
4. Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit B.
Colors and materials used in the construction of all buildings shall match existing
building materials as shown on Exhibit B.
Materials: Walls - Sandblasted Concrete Colors: Warm Gray
Any landscaping that is damaged during the construction of either phase shall be
replanted in accordance with the originally approved landscape plan.
R:%S~STAFFI~°T~132PA93 .PC 9/15/93 klb 11
WITHIN FORTY-EIGHT {49) 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 Seventy-Eight ($78.00) for
the County administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination
required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 Cel. 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 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.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS
The applicant shall make an application for a consistency check with the Department
of Building and Safety and shall pay the appropriate filing fee. The applicant shall pay
the appropriate Landscape Inspection Fee to the Building and Safety Department,
10. All roof top equipment shall be architecturally screened from ground view.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS
11.
All roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground
view.
12.
All landscaping that is damaged as a result of construction of the building addition shall
be replaced in accordance with approved landscape and irrigation plans.
13.
If landscaping is damaged during the construction of the building additions,
performance securities, in the amount equal to the total cost of landscaping and
irrigation including labor and material to guarantee adequate maintenance of the
landscaping for one year, shall be filed with the Department of Planning.
14.
The applicant shall provide additional landscaping to screen various components of the
project if deemed necessary by the Planning Director.
15.
All materials, including but not limited to wood pallets, stored in the parking lot areas
shall be removed.
16.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
R:\S~STAFFRPl~132PA93.PC 9115/93 klb 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 person 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.
GENERALREQUIREMENTS
17.
A Grading Permit for either rough or precise (including all onsite flat work and
improvements) grading shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior
to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-
of-way.
18.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior
to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City
right-of-way.
19.
All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be
coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements
contiguous to the site.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
20.
The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board.
No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the
project is shown to be exempt.
21. The Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
San Diego Regional Water Quality;
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District;
Planning Department;
Department of Public Works;
Riverside County Health Department;
Community Services District;
General Telephone;
Southern California Edison Company; and
Southern California Gas Company.
22.
A Grading Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the
Department of Public Works. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code,
Chapter 70, City Standards, and as additionally required in these Conditions of
Approval.
R:~S~STAFFRPT~132PA93.PC 9115/93 klb 13
23.
24,
2~.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
PRIOR
31.
32.
33,
34,
A Soils Report prepared by a registered Soils Engineer shall be submitted to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall
address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and pavement sections.
An Erosion Control Plan in accordance with City Standards shall be designed by a
registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works.
The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading
and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and
subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning
Department and the Department of Public Works for review.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weedfree condition and shall be
either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures
as 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 Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District prior
to issuance of any permit. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has
been already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for
offsite work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public
Works.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to
the subject property.
TO THE ISSUANCE OF ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
All necessary grading permit requirements shall have been accomplished to the
satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
A Traffic Control Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, and approved
by the Department of Public Works. Where construction on existing City streets is
required, traffic shall remain open at all times and the traffic control plan shall provide
for adequate detour during construction.
All required fees shall be paid.
The following criteria shall be observed in the design of the improvement plans and/or
precise grading plans to be submitted to the Department of Public Works:
Curb and gutters shall conform to the applicable City Standard Nos. 200 and
201.
R:~S~STAFFRPT~132pA93.pC 9/15/93 kJb 14
35.
PRIOR
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
b. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along public street frontages in
accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401.
The Developer shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed
guaranteeing the construction of the following public and private improvements in
conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department
of Public Works.
a. Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement, curb
and gutter, and sidewalks.
b. Storm drain facilities.
c. Landscaping (slopes and parkways).
d. Sewer and domestic water systems.
e. Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines.
f. Erosion control and slope protection.
TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT:
The Develol~er shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
· Riverside County Fire Department;
· Planning Department;
· Department of Public Works; and
· Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
necessary construction or encroachment permits have
All been
submitted/accomplished to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
All drainage'facilities shall be installed as required by the Department of Public Works
to satisfy the drainage requirements of each phase of the proposed additions.
All building pads 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.
The Developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as
established per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact.
The Developer shall notify the City's CA.T.V. Franchises of the intent to develop.
Conduit shall be installed to CA.T.V. Standards prior to issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy.
The 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
R:\S~STAFFRPT~132PA93.PC 9115/93 klb 15
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 the Developer requests its building permit for the project or any phase
thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee,
a copy of which has been provided to the Developer. Concurrently, with executing
this Agreement, the 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. The 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, the 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 the 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:
43. The Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
General Telephone;
Southern California Edison;
Southern California Gas;
Planning Department;
Department of Public Works; and
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
44.
All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City
standards, including but not limited to curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive
approaches, parkway trees, street lights on all interior public streets, signing and
striping.
45.
Existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken due
to the construction operation of this project shall be repaired or removed and replaced
to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
OTHER AGENCIES
46.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Riverside County
Department of Environmental Health transmittal dated July 14, 1993, a copy of which
is attached.
47.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of
Ordinance No. 546.
R:\S~STAFFI~T~132PA93,PC 9115f93 klb 16
48. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho
California Water District transmittal dated July 7, 1993 a copy of which is attached.
49.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern Municipal
Water District transmittal dated July 22, 1993, a copy of which is attached.
R:\S\STAFFRPT~132PA93.PC 9115/93 Idb 17
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
INITIAL STUDY
R:\S%STAFFRPT%132PA93.PC 9/14/93 klb 1 ~
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Notice of Proposed Negative Declaration
PROJECT:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
DESCRIFFION:
PA93-0132, Revised Plot Plan
Charmell Commercial Corporation
26040 Ynez Road
The addition of a 107,330 square foot warehouse building to increase the
warehouse area of an existing building. The addition will be constructed in two
phases. Phase one will be 49,400 square feet and phase two will be 57,930
square feet. The project site currently contains a -t-100,000 square foot
office/warehouse building on a 9.55 acre parcel in the Manufacturing Service
Commercial (M-SC) zone.
The City of Temecula intends to adopt a Negative Declaration for the project described above. Based
upon the information contained in the attached Initial Environmental Study and pursuant to the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); it has been determined that this
project as proposed, revised or mitigated will not have a significant impact upon the environment.
As a result, the Planning Commission intends to adopt a Negative Declaration for this project.
The mitigation measures required to reduce or mitigate the impacts of this project on the environment
are included in the project design and will be included as part of the Negative Declaration for this
project.
The Comment Period for this proposed Negative Declaration is August 26, 1993 to September 15,
1993. Written comments and responses to this notice should be addressed to the contact person listed
below at the following address: City of Temecula, 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA
92590.
The public notice of the intent to adopt this Negative Declaration is provided through:
X__ The Local Newspaper. X__ Posting the Site. X__ Notice to Adjacent Property Owners.
If you need additional information or have any questions concerning this project, please contact Craig
D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner, (909) 694-6400.
Prepared by: &Z ~ J) . ~ ~ ~ignature) ~
Craig D. Ruiz. Assistant Planner
(Name and Title)
City of Temecula
Planning Department
PROJECT: PA93-0132, Revised Plot Plan
DISTRIBUTION DATE: August 26, 1993
CITY OF TE1VIECULA:
Building Inspection ..............
Code Enforcement ...............
Fire Department ................
Sheriff ......................
Parks & Recreation (TCSD) .........
Planning, Advance ..............
Planning, Current ...............
Public Works ..................
STATE:
Callruns .....................
Fish & Game ..................
Mines & Geology ...............
Regional Water Quality Control Bd ....
State Clearinghouse ..............
State Clearinghouse (10 Copies) ......
Water Resources ................
FEDERAL:
Army Corps of Engineers ..........
Fish and Wildlife Service ..........
Cleveland National Forest ..........
REGIONAL:
Air Quality Management District ......
SCAG ......................
Western Riverside COG ...........
SANDAG ....................
R:\SXPLANN1NG\132PA93.pND $/17/93 ~s
Agency Distribution L:
CASE PLANNER: Craig D, Ruiz
CITY OF MURRIF:rA:
Planning ................... (X)
.... )
RIVERSIDE COIYNTY:
Airport Land Use Commission ....... )
County Engineer ................ )
County Fire Department .......... (X)
County Flood Control ........... (X)
County Health Department ......... (X)
County Parks and Recreation ........ )
County Planning ................ )
Habitat Conservation Agency ........ )
Riverside Transit Agency ..........
UTILITY:
Eastern Municipal Water District .....
Western Municipal Water District ..... ( )
Inland Cable Vision .............. ( )
Ranch Water District, Will Serve .... (X)
Southern California Gas .......... (X)
Southern California Edison ........ (X)
Murrieta School District ...........
Temecula Valley School District ......
OTHER:
Pechanga Indian Reservation ........
Eastern Information Center .........
Archeology Department, UCR .......
Local Agency Formation Comm ......
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Initial Environmental Study
I. BACKGROUND INFORMA~ON
II.
1. Name of Project:
2. Case Numbers:
3. Location of Project:
4. Description of Project:
5. Date of Environmental
Assessment:
Cbannell Commercial Corporation
Planning Application No. 93-0132 (PA93-0132), Revised Plot Plan
26040 Yne~ Road, Temecula, California
The addition of a 107,330 square foot warehouse building to increase
the warehouse area of an existing building on a 9.55 acre parcel in
the Manufacturing Service Commercial (M-SC) zone. The addition
will be constructed in two phases. Phase One will be 49,400 square
feet and Phase Two will be 57,930 square feet.
August 17, 1993
6. Name of Proponent: Ed Burke
7. Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
26040 Ynez Road, Temecula, CA 92590
(909) 694-6400
R:\S\PLANNING%132PA93.1ES 8/17193 tjs
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations to all the answers are provided in Section I11)
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction, or over covering
of the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features?
d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique
geologic or physical features?
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on
or off the site?
f. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion?.
g. The modification of any wash, channel, creek, river or lake?
i
Y.es Maybe No
X
X
X
X
.X _ _
X
X
h. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as
earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, liquefaction, ground
failure, or similar hazards?
i. Any development within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone?
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality?.
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Alteration of air movement, temperature, or moisture or any
change in climate, whether locally or regionally?
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or fresh waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and
mount of surface runoffT.
c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?
d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface
water quality, including but not limited to, temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters?
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct
additions, withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer
by cuts or excavations?
h. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public
water supplies?
i. Exposure of people or proper~y to water related hazards such
as flooding?
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native
species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and
aquatic plants)?
ye~ Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
R:\S\PLANNiNG~132PA93.1ES 8/17/93 tie 2
Y~ Maybe
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or
endangered species of plants? __ __
c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species? X
d. Reduction in the acreage of any agricultural crop? __ __
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of
animals (anlrn~s includes all land aninlals, birds, reptiles, fish,
amphibians, shellfish, benthie organisms, and/or insects)? __ __
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or
endangered species of animals? __ __
c. The introduction of new wildlife species into an area? __ __
d. A barrier to the migration or movement of animals? __ __
e. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? __ __
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? __ __
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? __ __
c. Exposure of people to severe vibrations? __ __
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce or result in light or glare? X
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in:
a. Alteration of the present land use of an area? __ __
b. Alteration to the future planned land use of an area as described
in a community or general plan? __ __
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. An increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? __ __
b. The depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? __ __
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:~SXPLANNING\132PA93.1ES 8/17193 tjs 3
Yes Maybe No
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal result in:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of any hazardous substances
in the event of an accident or upset conditions (hazardous
substances includes, but is not limited to, pesticicles, chemicals,
oil or radiation)? __ __
b. The use, storage, transport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic
materials (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals,
or radiation)? __ __
c. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an
emergency evacuation plan? __ __
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density,
or growth rate of the human population of an area? __ __
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand
for additional housing? __ __
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? __ __
c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation system, incinding
public transportation? __ __
d. Alterations to present paRems of circulation or movement of
people and/or goods? __ __
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? __ __
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians? X
14. 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?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
R:XS\PLANNING\132PA93.1ES 8/17/93 tjs 4
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
f. Other govermnental services:
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? __
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy,
or require the development of new sources of energy? __
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or
substantial alterations to any of the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? __
b. Communications systems? _
c. Water systems? __
d. Sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks? __
e. Storm water drainage systems? __
f. Solid waste disposal systems? __
g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed or inefficient pattern of
utility delivery system improvements for any of the above? __
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? __
b. The exposure of people to potential health hazards, including
the exposure of sensitive receptors (such as hospitals and
schools) to toxic pollutant emissions? __
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? __
b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to publit view? __
c. Detrimental visual impacts on the surrounding area? __
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or
quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities? __
Ye~
Mayl~e
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:\S\PLANNING\132PA93JES 8/17/93 tjs 5
20.
Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. The alteration or destruction of any paleontologic, prehistoric,
archaeological or hisWrie site?
b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure, or object?
c. Any potential to cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values?
d. Restrictions to existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
Maybe No
X
R:%S\PLANNING~132PA93.1ES 8117/93 tjs 6
III. DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Earth
1.a.
No. AlthOugh the proposed project will result in minhllal Fading there will not be changes in the
base geologic substructures. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
l.b.
Yes. All development disrupts the soil profile to some degree and results in soil displacement,
compaction and over-covering. A Fading plan will be certified by the Engineering Department
which will mitigate any potential impacts. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
i.C,
No. The proposed site is currently Faded and further development of the proposed project will
not require substantial Fading and as a result will not alter the existing topography. Therefore,
no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
l.d.
No. There are no unique geologic or physical features on the site. Therefore, no significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
I.e.
Yes. Wind and water erosion potentials will increase during the construction phase and remain
until disturbed axeas are replanted. The wind erosion impact is considered moderate but will be
mitigated through minimal Fading and use of watering trucks and the re-vegctation of disturbed
areas after grading. Water erosion will be mitigated through compliance of the grading plan with
the City's NPDES requirements. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
l.f.
No. There is no body of water near the project site which could be affected by the proposed
project. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
l.g.
No. There will be no modification of a water course or body of water. Therefore, no significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
1.h
Yes. The project site is located in an area identified as having potential for liquefaction and
subsidence. The project will be required to follow the mitigation techniques recommended in the
geotechnical report prepared for the original construction on this site. In addition, the project will
be required to follow City standard grading requirements which will be monitored by the Public
Works Department. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a result of this project.
Therefore, no significant impacts axe anticipated as a result of this project.
1 .i. No. The project is not within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone.
Ai__Zr
2.a.
Yes. This project will have a short term impact due m construction related activities and a
cumulative impact on the overall air quality of the South Coast Air Basin. The short term
construction impacts will be mitigated by using the South Coast Air Quality Management District's
(SCAQMD) best available mitigations techniques. The long term impacts are not considered
significant since the air emissions from this project-axe not expected to exceed the South Coast Air
Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) CEQA handbook thresholds of significance.
R:~S\PLANNING~132PA93.1ES 8/17193 tjs ?
2.b.
No. The proposed project will not result in the creation of objectionable odors. Therefore, no
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
2.c.
No. The proposed project will not result in an alteration of air movement, temperatures, or
moisture or any change in Climate either locally or regionally. Therefore, no significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
Water
3.a.
No. The project is not located near any body of water. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the
project will have a significant effect on any body of water.
3.b.
Yes. The proposed project will increase the mount of impermeable surfaces on the site which will
reduce the mount of water absorption. The existing drainage facilities have adequate capacity to
handle the increased surface runoff. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the project will have a
significant effect on any body of water.
3.c.
No. The project is not located near any body of water. Therefore, no significant impacts are
anticipated due to the fact that the project will not result in changes to the course or flow of flood
waters.
3.d.
No. The project is not located near any body of water. Therefore, no significant impacts resuking
in changes in the mount of surface water in any water body are anticipated as a result of this
project.
3.e.
No. The project is not located near any body of water. Therefore, no significant impacts are
anticipated due to the fact that the project will not result in discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality.
3 .f,g.
No. The proposed project, as designed, will not interfere with the direction or rate of flow of
ground waters or ground water quantities.
3.h.
No. The project has received a "will serve" letter from the Rancho California Water District
indicating that there will be adequate water supplies at the completion of this project. Therefore,
it not anticipated that there will be a significant effect on the public water supply or system.
3.i.
No. The project is not located in the 100-year flood plain or in a area that is subject to flooding.
Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated due to the fact that the project will not expose
people or property to water related hazards such as flooding.
Plant Life
4.8.
No. The project site has been previously graded. The site is planted with grass and contains no
native species of plants. Therefore there will be no significant impacts as a result of this project.
4.b.
No. The project site has been previously Faded. Currently, there are no native species of plants
on the site. Therefore there will be no significant impacts as a result of this project.
R:~S\PLANNING\132PA93,1ES 8117/93 tjs S
4.c,
No. While this project will introduce new species of plants through the addition of landscaping,
the site has been previously Faded and there are no native species on this site. Therefore there
will be no significant impacts as a result of this project.
4.d.
No. This property is not currently used as farm land and is not identified in the DraR General Plan
as an area of agricultural significance. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a result
of this project.
Animal Life
5.a,c,d,e. No. The proposed project is in an area that has been experiencing urbaniT~tion for a number of
years. The site is currently graded and there is no indication that any wildlife species exists at this
location. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts to animal life as a result of this project.
5.b.
No. The site is currently graded and is in an area that has been experiencing urbsnization for a
number of years. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area.
Habitat Conservation fees have been paid as part of the underlying parcel map to mitigate the effect
of cumulative impacts.
Noise
Yes. On-site noise levels will increase temporarily during construction. Construction related
impacts will be mitigated through the standard conditions of approval for construction activities
which will be imposed by the Public Works. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
6.b,c.
No. Severe noise and severe vibrations will not be generated by the proposed project. Therefore
there will be no significant impacts as a result of this project.
Light and Glare
,
Yes. The project is proposing to add security lighting above and around the doorways. This
project site is located within the Mount Palomar Observatory Special Lighting District. The project
will comply with the lighting standards of this district which require that only low pressure sodium
street and security lights be installed and all other lighting must be oriented or shielded to reduce
the glare in the night sky near the observatory. The impact of the additional light and glare will
be mitigated by following the standards of the Mount Palomar Observatory Special Lighting District
(Ordinance No. 655) and through the appropriate design of the lighting system.
Land Use
8.a.
No. The project is an addition to an existing building. The proposed addition is consistent with
the Draft Preferred Land Use Plan which designates the subject site as Business Park. The
surrounding land uses are also designated Business Park and Office. The current zoning is
Manufacturing Service Commercial. The intensification of the proposed use is not anticipated to
be significant due to the fact that the proposed project is consistent with current and future land use
designations.
R:\SXPLANNING\132PA93,1ES 8117/93 tjs 9
8.b.
No. The proposed development will be consistent with the Draft Preferred Land Use Plan
designation of Business Park and the current zoning designation of Manufacturing Service
Commercial. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated a.s a result of this project.
Natural Resources
9.a,b.
No. This project will not result in a significant increase in the rate of use of any natural resource
or the depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource. Therefore, there will be no significant
impacts as a result of this project.
Risk of Unset
lO.a,b.
No. It is not anticipated that this project will use or store hazardous materials. However, prior
to any on-site storage, transport, or disposal of any hazardous substances, clearance shall be
obtained from the Riverside County Health Department and the Riverside County Fire Department.
The project will be condkioned to insure that the project complies with all recommendations of
these agencies. The mitigations proposed by these agencies will reduce the potential impacts below
a level of significance.
lO.c.
No. During construction, k should not be necessary to close any streets which would imeffere with
emergency vehicles. If street or land closure is necessary, it shall be coordinated with the City end
Sheriff Department.
Population
11.
No. The proposed use is not anticipated to generate a significant mount of new jobs. The project
may have an minor incremental impact on the regions population. This impact is not considered
to be significant due to the use of the project is not anticipated employee significant mounts of
people.
Housing
12.
No. The proposed project is not anticipated to generate a significant number of jobs which would
in turn create a significant demand for additional housing. Therefore, there will be no significant
impacts as a result of this project.
Transportation/Circulation
13.a.
No. This project will generate additional vehicular movement. However, the previous
improvements to the streets for the underlying parcel map will be sufficient to handle the increased
traffic. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
13.b.
No. While-the project will create a need for additional parking spaces, the site contains an
adequate number of spaces to meet the City's requirements for parking. Therefore, there will be
no significant impacts as a result of this project.
13.c.
No. The proposed project will generate additional traffic to and from the site. The traffic
generated by the project may add an incremental impact to the 1-15 interchanges which are
currently operating at capacity during peak hours; This potential impact will be mitigated by a
R:\S\PLANNINGX132PA93,1ES 8/17/93 tj. 10
transportation improvement mitigation fee. There will not be a significant impact upon existing
transportation systems due to the small size of the project.
13 .d.
No. The project has been designed so that there will not be alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people and/or goods. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts
as a result of this project.
13 .e.
No. Due to the nature of the proposed project, there will be no impacts to waterborne, rail or air
traffic.
13.f.
Yes. Any increase in traffic will increase the potential hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or
pedestrians. The previous improvements to the streets for the underlying parcel map will be
sufficient to reduce the impact to a level of non-significance.
Public Services
14.a,b,e.
No. The project will require public services in the areas of police, fire, maintenance of roads, and
public facilities. The project has been conditioned to pay impact fees to help mitigate any potential
impacts.
14.c,d,f. No. Due to the nature of the proposed project, there will be no substantial effects on these public
services. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a result of this project.
Energy
15.a,b. No. The project will consume fuel and energy rasourcas. Because these energy resources are
readily available there will be no significant impacts as a result of this project.
Utilities
16.a,b,c,d,
e,f,g. No. Adequate utilities exist for this project. The project has been conditioned to meet the
requirements of all utilities to insure that any impacts will be mitigated to below a level of
significance.
Human Health
17.a,b.
No. The proposed project, as designed, does not pose a potential health hazard. The project is
not located neax sensitive receptors. Therefore, no significant impacts axe anticipated as a result
of this project.
Aesthetics
18.a,b,c.
No. The proposed project will not obstruct any scenic vista open to the public. The elevations of
the proposed project axe architecturally consistent with to the surrounding buildings. Therefore
there will be no significant impacts as a result of this project.
R:\S\PLANNING\132PA93.1ES 8/17/93 tjs
Recreation
19.
No. The subject site is not currently used for recreational uses nor will the project create the need
for additional facilities. Therefore there will be no significant impacts as a result of this project.
C~ltural Resources
20.a.
No. The City's Draf~ General Plan does not identify this area as an "Area of Sensitivity for
Archaeological Resources". The site is currently graded. Therefore, there will be no significant
impacts as a result of this project.
20.b.
No. The project site is vacant and does not contain any known prehistoric buildings, structures or
objects. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a resuk of this project.
20.c.
No. The project site is developed and its' further development is not expected to significantly
impact any known unique ethnic values. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a result
of this project.
20.d.
No. The project site is developed and is not known to have any existing religious or sacred uses.
Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a result of this project.
R:\SXPLANNING\132PA93.1ES 8117193 tjs
IV. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Does the project have the potential to either: degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the .
habitat of a fish, wildlife or bird species, cause a fish,
wildlife or bird population to drop below self sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant, bird or nnim~l
species, or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
Yes Maybe No
X
Does the project have the potential to achieve short
term, to the disadvantage of long term, environmental
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.)
X
Does the project have impacts which are individually
limited, but cumulatively 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.)
X
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
V. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME "DE MINIMUS" IMPACT FINDINGS
Does the project have the potential to cause any adverse effect,
either individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife resources?
Wildlife is defined as "all wild animals, birds, plants, fish,
amphibians, and related ecological communities, including the
habitat upon which the wildlife depends on for it's continued
viability" (Section 711.2, Fish and Game Code).
Yes
N__o
R:~SXPLANNING\132PA93.tES 8117193 tjs 13
A'R'ACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
R:',S%STAFFRPT%132PA93.PC 9/14/9,~ klb 19
CITY OF TEMECULA
g
CASE NO.: PA93-0132, Revised Plot Plan
EXHIBIT: A
P.C. DATE: September 20, 1993
VICINITY MAP
R:\S\STAFFRPT~132PA93.PC 9/14/93 klb
CITY OF TEMECULA
TE
A-2-20
II ,
I/
II
h
CASE NO.:
EXHIBIT: B
P.C. DATE:
PA93-0132, Revised Plot Plan
September 20, 1993
ZONING MAP
R:\S\STAFFRPT~132PA93.PC 9/14/9~ klb
CITY OF TEMECULA
SITE PLAN
CASE NO.: PA93-0132, Revised Plot Plan
EXHIBIT: C
P.C. DATE: September 20, 1993
SITE PLAN
R:\S\STAFFRPT~132PA93.PC 9/14/93 klb
CITY OF TEMECULA
"'i"'f"'f"f .........i ......',, ~,,_.-._.-,--~ .. ~
NORTH ELEVATION
EAST ELEVATION
CASE NO.: PA93-0132, Revised Plot Plan
EXHIBIT: D
P.C. DATE: September 20, 1993
ELEVATIONS
R:\S\STAFFRPT\132PA93,PC 9/14/93 Idb
ITEM #8
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 20, 1993
Planning Application No. 93-0158, Amendment No. I
Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application
No. 93-0158, Amendment No. 1; and
APPROVEPlanning Application No. 93-0158, Amendment
No. I based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the
staff report and subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD)
REPRESENTATIVE:
BGRP Architecture and Planning
PROPOSAL:
Expansion of the existing TVUSD facility in two (2) phases.
Phase 1 consists of the construction of a 15,300 square foot
warehouse, the conversion of an existing bus facility to 3,840
square feet of additional warehouse space, and the removal of
ten (10) trailers and the drivers lounge. Phase 2 consists of a
15,300 warehouse expansion and a 13,824 square foot
expansion to the District Office.
LOCATION:
31350 Rancho Vista Road
EXISTING ZONING:
R-R (Rural Residential)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
S-P 199 (Margarita Village Specific Plan)
R-R (Rural Residential)
S-P 199 (Margarita Village Specific Plan)
S-P 199 (Margarita Village Specific Plan)
PROPOSED ZONING:
Not requested
EXISTING LAND USE: School/School Administration
R:\S\STAFFRPT~158PA93.PC 9/8/93 mf
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Single-Family Residential
Temecula Valley High School
Metropolitan Water District Easement/Single-Family Residential
Single-Family Residential
PROJECT STATISTICS
Building Area:
Phase I - Warehouse:
Phase 2 ~ Warehouse:
Offices:
Total:
19, 140 square feet
15,300 square feet
13,824 square feet
48,264 square feet
Parking Spaces Required: 193
Parking Spaces Provided: 224
BACKGROUND
Planning Application No. 93-0158 was submitted to the Planning Department on July 23,
1993. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on August 12, 1993.
Additional clarification of the site plan was requested at that time. Staff also requested a
copy of the existing Transportation Reduction Plan for the TVUSD facility, a copy of the air
emission and noise study prepared for the site and a copy of the Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan. Planning Application No. 93-0158 was deemed complete on August 26,
1993.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Planning Application No. 93-0158 is a proposal to expand the existing TVUSD facility in two
(2) phases and relocate the bus maintenance and storage facility. Phase 1 consists of the
construction of a 15,300 square foot warehouse, the conversion of an existing bus facility
to 3,840 square feet of additional warehouse space, and the removal of ten (10) trailers, the
drivers lounge and the bus maintenance and storage. Phase 2 proposes a 15,300 warehouse
expansion and a 13,824 square foot expansion to the District Office.
ANALYSIS
Project Phasincl
As mentioned above, the project is proposed to be constructed in two (2) phases. In addition
to the information stated above, paving of the northwest portion of the site and removal of
existing trailers on the site will occur during Phase 1.
Architecture
The warehouse facility that will be constructed during Phase 1 of the project will be concrete
block material, Pilaster elements have been included on the elevations to break up the vertical
R:\S\STAFFRPT~158PA93.PC 9/8/93mf 2
plane and a two (2) foot wide band traverses the building which breaks up the horizontal
plane. The building is compatible with the existing buildings interms of design and colors.
As mentioned above, designs for the Phase 2 (warehouse expansion and office expansion) will
be reviewed by Staff prior to the issuance of building permits for these items. Designs for the
Phase 2 (warehouse expansion and office expansion) will be reviewed by Staff prior to the
issuance of building permits for these items.
Compatibility With Adiacent Uses
Homes are located adjacent to the northern and western boundaries of the project site. These
homes have views into the site because the site is lower in elevation. Potential impacts have
been mitigated through the use of landscaping along the perimeter of the site. Staff
transmitted the landscape plan to the City's landscape architect for review and comment and
the landscape architect determined that views of the facility from residences along the north,
east and west sides will be sufficiently screened with the addition of these new plantings.
Noise
The project will result in an overall decrease in existing noise levels. The site is currently
developed with a more intensive use (bus storage and maintenance) which will be relocated
as a result of this project. The noise impacts from the buses which have been an issue would
be substantially reduced when all phases are completed and the bus maintenance facility is
relocated. This is based upon information contained in an acoustical report prepared for this
site by Med-Tox Associates, Inc. dated January 21, 1991. With the removal of the buses
from the site noise impacts are anticipated to decrease.
Traffic
The project will not generate additional traffic. The relocation of the bus storage and
maintenance facility will result in a less intensive use of the site. Ultimate buildout of the site
will include additional warehouse facilities and office/administration uses. A Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) plan has already been established for this site and is currently
being implemented. The TDM program is required under State Law and serves to mitigate any
potential impacts to the traffic in the area as a result of development.
EXISTING ZONING AND FUTURE GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
Existing zoning for the site is Specific Plan (S.P. 199 - Margarita Village). The Specific Plan
land use designation for the site is school administration. Ordinance No. 348.2922 (the
Ordinance adopting Specific Plan No. 199) includes public school administrative buildings and
facilities as permitted uses. The draft General Plan land use designation for the site is
Public/Institutional Facilities. The draft General Plan states: "Additional public and institutional
uses may be developed in the residential or non-residential land use designations under the
procedures established in the Development Code." Until the Development Code is adopted,
Staff is utilizing the provisions contained in Ordinance No. 348. As mentioned above,
Ordinance No. 348.2922 (the Ordinance adopting Specific Plan No. 199) includes public
school administrative buildings and facilities as permitted uses. The project as proposed is
consistent with Specific Plan No. 199 (Margarita Village), Ordinance No. 348, and the draft
General Plan.
R:\S\STAFFRPT\158PA93.PC 9/8/93 mf 3
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study has been
prepared for this project. The Initial Study determined that although the proposed project
could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects will not be considered to be
significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions
of Approval added to the project. These will mitigate any potentially significant impacts to
a level of insignificance, and therefore a Negative Declaration will be adopted.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
Planning Application No. 93-0158 is a proposal to expand the existing TVUSD facility in two
(2) phases and relocate the bus maintenance and storage facility. The building which is
proposed in Phase 1 is compatible with the existing buildings in terms of design and colors.
Designs for Phase 2 (warehouse expansion and office expansion) will be reviewed by Staff
prior to the issuance of building permits for these items. The project will result in an overall
decrease to existing noise levels and will not generate additional traffic. The project as
proposed is consistent with Specific Plan No. 199 (Margarita Village), Ordinance No. 348, and
the draft General Plan. The Initial Study prepared for the project determined the impacts
associated with this project are not significant due to mitigation measures contained in the
project design and in the Conditions of Approval added to the project.
FINDINGS
There is reasonable probability that Planning Application No. 93-0158, Amendment No.
1 proposed will be consistent with the General Plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. The draft General Plan land
use designation for the site is Public/Institutional Facilities. The draft General Plan
states: "Additional public and institutional uses may be developed in the residential or
non-residential land use designations under the procedures established in the
Development Code." Until the Development Code is adopted, Staff utilizes the
provisions contained in Ordinance No. 348. As mentioned above, Ordinance No.
348.2922 (the Ordinance adopting Specific Plan No. 199) includes public school
administrative buildings and facilities as permitted uses. The project as proposed is
consistent with Specific Plan No. 199 (Margarita Village), Ordinance No. 348, and the
draft General Plan.
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 land use designation for the site is identified in the draft General
Plan as Public/Institutional Facilities. Uses which are consistent with the
Public/Institutional Facilities land use designation will ultimately be permitted on this
site, and would include educational facilities,
R:\S~STAFFRPT~158PA93,PC 9/8/93 mf 4
The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law
and local ordinances. The proposed use complies with California Governmental Code
Section 65360, and Ordinance No, 348. The proposed project is consistent with
.Specific Plan No. 199 - Margarita Village. The project is located within Planning Area
No. 28 of Specific Plan No. 199 - Margarita Village, and is identified as a 11,0 acre
school administration site within the Specific Plan. The project as designed and
conditioned meets all the requirements of Specific Plan No. 199.
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 site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the
size and shape of the lot configuration, access, and intensity of use. In addition, 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. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is
open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. Access to the project site is from a publicly
maintained road (Margarita Road).
Attachments:
2.
3,
4.
Resolution No. 93- - Blue Page 6
Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 11
Initial Study - Blue Page 17
Exhibits - Blue Page 35
R:\S\STAFFRPT%158PA93.PC 9/8/93 mf 5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 93-__
R:\S\STAFFRFT\158PA93.PC 9/8/93 mf 6
ATrACI-IMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 93-
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF
~ CITY OF TEM~CULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 93-0158, AMENDIMF~NT NO. 1 TO
CONSTRUCT APPROXIMATELY 34,440 SQUARE FEET OF
WA~R!~.FIOUSE SPACE AND 13,824 SQUARE IyEET OF
OFFICE SPACE IN TWO PHASES ON A PARCFJ-
CONTAINING 10.94 ACRES LOCATED AT 31350 RANCHO
VISTA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.
954-020-002
WHEREAS, Temecula Valley Unified School District fried Planning Application No.
93-0158 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision
Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Planning Application was processed in the tune and manner prescribed
by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing pertaining to said
Planning Application on September 20, 1993, at which time interested persons had opportunity
to testify either in suppert or opposition to said Plot Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report regarding the
Planning Application;
NOW, THEI~EFORE, THE PLANNING COIVIMISSION OF TIYE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the
following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall
adopt a General Plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month
period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a General Plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the General Plan, ff all of the
following requirements are met:
1. The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the
General Plan.
R:~S\STAFFF~PT~lSBPA93.PC 9/8/93 mf 7
2. The planning agency Finds, in approving projects and taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, each of the following:
a. There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action
proposed will be consistent with the General Plan proposal being considered or studied or which
will be studied within a reasonable time.
b. Them is liffie or no probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the future adopted General Plan ff 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 hw and local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area
Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as
the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan
guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General
Plan.
C. The Planning Commission, in approving of the proposed Plot Plan, makes the
following fmdings, to wit:
1. There is reasonable probability that Planning Application No. 93-0158,
Amendment No. 1 proposed will be consistent with the General Plan proposal being considered
or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. The draft General Plan land use
designation for the site is Public/Institutional Facilities. The draft General Plan states:
"Additional public and institutional uses may be developed in the residential or non-residential
land use designations under the procedures established in the Development Code." Until the
Development Code is adopted, Staff utilizes the provisions contained in Ordinance No. 348. As
mentioned above, Ordinance No. 348.2922 (the Ordinance adopting Specific Plan No. 199)
includes public school administrative buildings and facilities as permitted uses. The project as
proposed is consistent with Specific Plan No. 199 (Margarita Village), Ordinance No. 348, and
the draft General Plan.
2. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference
with the future adopted General Plan fithe proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with
the plan. The land use designation for the site is identified in the draft General Plan as
Public/Institutional Facilities. Uses which are consistent with the Public/Institutional Facilities
land use designation will ultimately be permitted on this site, and would include educational
facilities.
3. The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances. The proposed use complies with California
Governmental Code Section 65360, and Ordinance No. 348. The proposed project is consistent
with Specific Plan No. 199 ~ Margarita Village. The project is located within Planning Area
No. 28 of Specific Plan No. 199 - Margaxita Village, and is identified as a 11.0 acre school
R:\S\STAFFRPTX158PA93.PC 9/8193 mf 8
administration site within the Specific Plan. The project as designed and conditioned meets all
the requirements of Specific Plan No. 199.
4. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the
public health, safety and general weftare; conforms to the logical development of the land and
is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. The
site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot
configuration, access, and intensity of use. In addition, 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. The project has acceptable access
to a dedicamd right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. Access to the
project site is from a publicly maintained road (Margarita Road).
D. 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 funare
development of the surrounding property.
Section 2. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project
indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in
the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration,
therefore, is hereby granted.
Section 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecuh Planning Commission hereby
approves Planning Application No. 93-0158, Amendment No. I to construct approximately
34,440 square feet of warehouse space and 13,824square feet of office space in two phases on
a parcel containing 10.94 acres located at 31350 Rancho Vista Road and known as Assessor's
Parcel No. 954-020-002 subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of September, 1993.
STEVEN J. FORD
CHAIRMAN
R:\S\STAFFRPT~159PA93.PC 9/11/93 mf 9
I FfI~RRy 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 20th day of
September, 1993 by the following vote of the Commission:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNBTLL
SECRETARY
R:\S\STAFFRPT\158PA93.PC 9/8/93 mf 10
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\S\STAFFRPT~158PA93 .PC 9/8/93 .mf 11
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. 93-0158, Amendment No. I
Project Description: To construct approximately 34,440 square feet of warehouse
space and 13,824 square feet of office space in two phases.
Assessor's Parcel No.: 954-020-002
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
General
The use hereby permitted by this Plot Plan is for approximately 34,440 square feet of
warehouse space and 13,824 square feet of office space in two phases.
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 attach, set aside, void, or annul,
an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative
body concerning Planning Application No. 93-0158, Amendment 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 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.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on
the Site Plan marked Exhibit D, or as amended by these conditions.
5. Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit E.
Colors and materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial
conformance with that shown on Exhibit F (color material board).
A minimum of 193 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12,
Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. Two hundred twenty-four (224) parking spaces
shall be provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit D.
R:\S~STAFFRPT\158PA93.PC 918193 mf 12
8. A minimum of five (5) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on
Exhibit D.
9. Thirteen (13) Class II bicycle racks shall be provided as shown on Exhibit __
10.
Landscaping of the site shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit
D.
Within Forty-EiGht (48) Hours of the AoDroval of this Project
11.
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or
money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) 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)).
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
12.
Three (3) copies of a Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plan shall be submitted to
the Planning Department for approval and shall be accompanied by the appropriate
filing fee. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall
be shown. Plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along streets and
within the parking areas.
13.
Prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase 2 (warehouse expansion and office
expansion), the applicant shall file an Administrative Plot Plan (PPA). Accompanying
the PPA shall be three (3) sets of elevations and the appropriate filing fee.
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
14. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view.
15.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape,
irrigation, and shading plans.
16.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a
condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free
of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and
in good working order.
17.
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
R:\S\STAFFRPT\158PA93 .PC 9/8/93 rnf 13
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.
18. A maintenance bond, to guarantee the installation of plantings and adequate
maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed with the Department of
Planning. Said bond amount shall be submitted to the Director of Planning for review
and approval prior to the submittal of the bond.
19. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
20. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1991 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.
21. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with
Ordinance Number 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
22. Prior to the commencement of any construction work, obtain all building plan and
permit approvals.
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
accessibility regulations.
25. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior
lighting, fire alarm systems.
26. Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the
1991 edition of the uniform plumbing code, Appendix C.
27. The applicant shall provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original
signature on plans submitted for plan review.
28. The applicant shall provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule,
plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review.
R:\S\STAFFRPT\158PA93.PC 9/8/93 mf 14
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Prior to Issuance of Gradina Permits
29.
The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board.
No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the
project is shown to be exempt.
Prior to Issuance of BuildinQ Permits
30.
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 Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. If the
full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has been already credited to this
property, no new charge needs to be paid.
31.
The Applicant shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established
per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact.
32.
The Applicant 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 the Applicant requests its building permits for the project or any phase
thereof, the Applicant shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee,
a copy of which has been provided to the Applicant. Concurrently, with executing this
Agreement, the Applicant shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility
fee. The amount of the bond shall be 92.00 per square foot, not to exceed 910,000.
The Applicant 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, the Applicant 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 the Applicant is not waiving its right to protest the
reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
Prior to Issuance of an Encroachment Permits
33.
An encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior
to commencement of any construction within the existing City right-of-way.
Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits
34.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken
due to the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and
replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works,
R:~S\STAFFRPT~158PA93.PC 9i8193 .mf 15
35.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weedfree condition and shall be
either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures
as approved by the Department of Public Works.
OTHER AGENCIES
36.
Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the
provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittal dated
August 6, 1993, a copy of which is attached.
37.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of
Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated August 9, 1993,
a copy of which is attached.
38.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho
California Water District's transrnittal dated August 11, 1993, e copy of which is
attached,
R:\S\STAFFRPT~158PA93.PC 9/8/93 mf 16
TO:
FROM:
RE:
CoUnty of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPT.
~onmental H2th Specialist IV
PLOT PLAN NO. PA93-0158
RECEIVED
AUG 12 B'
Ans'd. ·
DATE: August 6, 1993
The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed lhe proposed expansi~ of the Temecula Valley Unified School
District Facility and has the following comments:
1. It appears that this facility may be on a subsurface sewage disposal system. If this is the case, the following is
required:
The existing subsurface soyeaSe disposal ~ must be e~emnlned by a C-42 Slate Licensed Plumber. The size
and condition of the existing system must be certified by the above as pel Dcpefancnt of Environmemal
reqtllre~ant$. In addition, it may be necessavJ to verify the size of the system by obtainin~ a copy of the
building permit and signed job card from the Riverside County Building end Safety DeparanunL
A derailed, scaled(l"=40' mammuan)plotpltm shovnngall~xtores ser~ug thee~dug subsuffa~sewage
disposal sysUnn. The complete subsurface s6vage dispcstl system, inclxuting 100% ex:pannion must be plotled
on the plot plan.
4. Detailed soils te~tmg may be required ff the above cannot be effectod OE
a the area is within a high walor table area or an area where soils have poor leaching characteristics.
b the existing subsurface system have failed Or is faitin~
c theexistin~subst~fac~sys~mar~fi~M`.quatosizeOr~cat~dmununacceptab~earea(Leach~me~
are not to be located in a vehicular traffic/parking area - paved or unpaved).
5, A "will-serve" letter fi'om the agency providing water.
OR
6. Should sanim~ sewer be available, a "will-serve" letter fi'om the appmpnat~ sewering district shall be
rcqmred.
7 PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE, clearance from Riverside County Department of Ija~n~lou,s
Service~ Materials Mnnageammt Brnneh (909) 358-5055.
SM:dr
(909) 275-8980
J.M. HARR.IS
~ CHIF~
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE · PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370
(714) 657-3183
TO:
ATTEN:
RE:
Temecula Planning Department
Matthew Fagan
PA93-0158
August 9, 1993
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced
plot plan, the Fire Department recommends the following fire
protection measures be provided in accordance with City of Temecula
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 20PSI 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 hydrants,
on a looped system (6"x4"x2-2 1/2"), Will be located not less
than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the
building as measured along approved vehicular travelways.
The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent
hydrant(s) in the system.
4. 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
5. The required fire flow my be adjusted at a later point in
the permit process to reflect changes in design, construction
type, area separation or built-in fire protection.
6. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water
system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall
conform to the fire hydrant type, location and spacing, and
the systemshall 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 prescribedby the Riverside County Fire
Department".
7. Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all
buildings. The post indicator valve and fire department
connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a
hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A
statement that the building(s) will be automatically fire
sprinkled must be included on the title page of the building
plans.
8. A statement that the building will be automatically fire
sprinklered must appear on the title page of the building
plans.
9. Prior to final inspection of any building , the applicant
shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval,
a site plan designation required fire lanes with appropriate
lane paint.
10. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimumrating
of 2A10BC. Contact a certified extinguisher company for
proper placement of equipment.
11. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the
applicant/developer shall be responsible to submit a check or
money order in the amount of $558.00 to the City of Temecula
for plan check fees. Please reference Plan Check number with
remittance.
12. 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.
13. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans
are reviewed in the building and safety office.
All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred
to the Planning and Engineering Staff.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
bYL~r~al
Fire Safety Specialist
RECEIVED
August 11, 1993
Mr. Matthew Fagan
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590-3606
AU6 13 1993
Water Ava~abi~ty
APN954-020-002
(PA93-0158)
Dear Mr. Fagan:
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
Development Engineering Manager
SB:SD:eb129-2/F186
cc: Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician
]Eastern Municipal rater District
,, 4~
August 17,
1993
AUG 2 0 II;
Matthew Fagan, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
SUBJECT: Temecula Valley Unified School District Plot Plan
(PA 93-0158)
Dear Mr. Fagan:
We have reviewed the materials transmitted by your office which
describe the subject project. Our comments are outlined below:
General
It is our understanding the subject project is a proposed expansion
of the existing Temecula Valley Unified School District facility
located on the north side of Rancho Vista Rd., between Avenida De
La Reina and Via E1 Greco, (Assessor Parcel No. 954-020-002).
The subject project is located within the District's sanitary sewer
service area. However, it must be understood the available
capabilities of the District's systems are continually changing due
to the occurrence of development within the District and programs
of systems improvement. As such, the provision of service will be
based on the detailed plan of service requirements, the timing of
the subject project, the status of the District's permit to
operate, and the service agreement between the District and the
developer of the subject project.
Sanitary Sewer
The subject project is considered tributary to the District's
Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility.
other Issues
The subject project representative must contact the District's
Customer Service Department in.order to arrange for the following
actions:
Mail To: Post Office Box8300 · SanJacinto, California 92581-8300 · Telephone (909) 925-7676 · Fax (909) 929-0257
Main Office: 2045 S. San Jacinto Avenue, San jacinro · Customer Service/Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue, Hemet, CA
Matthew Fagan
PA 93-0158
August 17, 1993
Page 2
plan check of onsite plumbing
field inspection of ~nsite plumbing
revision to existing service account to reflect expanded
facility
Should you have anyquestions regarding these comments, please feel
free to contact this office at (909) 925-7676, extension 468.
very truly yours,
EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
David G.
Senior Engineer
Customer Service Department
DGC/cz
AB 93-863
(wp-n~k-PA930158.ch)
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
INITIAL STUDY
R:\S\STAFFRPT\158PA93.PC 9/8/93 mf 17
City of Temecula
Planning Department
h:!jfial Environmental Study
I. BACKGROUND INFORMA~ON
II.
1. Name of Project:
2. Case Numbers:
3. Location of Project:
4. Description of Project:
5. Date of Environmental
Assessment:
6. Name of Proponent:
7. Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
Temecula Valley Unified School District CYVUSD) Warehouse
Facility
Planning Application No. 93-0158, Amendment No. 1
31350 Rancho Vista Road
Expansion to the existing TVUSD facility in two (2) phases. Phase
I consists of the construction of a 15,300 square foot warehouse, the
conversion of an existing bus facility to 3,840 square feet of
additional warehouse space, and the removal of ten (10) trailers and
the drivers lounge. Phase 2 proposes a 15,300 warehouse expansion
and a 13,824 square foot expansion to the District Office.
August 25, 1993
Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD)
31350 Rancho Vista Road
Temecula, CA 92592
(909) 695-7340
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations to all the answers are provided in Section III)
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions. displacements, compaction, or over covering
of the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features?
d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique
geologic or physical features?
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on
or off the site?
Yes Maybe N__o
R:%S\STAFFRPT\158PA93.PC 9/8/93 rnf 1 E~
f. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion?
g. The modification of any wash, channel, creek, river or lake?
h. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as
earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, liquefaction, ground
failure, or similar hazards?
i. Any development within an Aiquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone?
Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Alteration of air movement, temperature, or moisture or any
change in climate, whether locally or regionally?
Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or fresh waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and
mount of surface runoff?
c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?
d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface
water quality, including but not limited to, temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters?
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct
addition_s, withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer
by cuts or excavations?
h. Reduction in the mount of water otherwise available for public
water supplies?
i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such
as flooding?
Ye~ Maybe N__Qo
X
X
X
X
X
R:\S\STAFFRPT\158PA93 .PC 9/8/93 mf 19
Yes
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native
species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and
aquatic plants)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or
endangered species of plants? __
c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species? __
d. Reduction in the acreage of any agricultural crop? __
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of
animals (animals includes all land animals, birds, reptiles, fish,
amphibians, shellfish, benthic organisms, and/or insects)? __
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or
endangered species of animals? __
c. The introduction of new wildlife species into an area? __
d. A barrier to the migration or movement of animals? __
e. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? __
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X
c. Exposure of people to severe vibrations? __
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce or result in light or glare? X
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in:
a. Alteration of the present land use of an area? __
b. Alteration to the future planned land use of an area as described
in a community or General Plan? __
Maybe
N__qo
X
X
X
R:\S\STAFFRPT\158PA93.PC 9/8/93 rnf 20
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. An increase in the rate of use of any natural resources?
b. The depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource?
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal result in:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of any hazardous substances
in the event of an accident or upset conditions (hazardous
substances includes, but is not limited te, pesticides, chemicals,
oil or radiation)?
b. The use, storage, transport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic
materials (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals,
or radiation)?
c. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an
emergency evacuation plan?
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density,
or growth rate of the human population of an area?
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand
for additional housing?
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking?
c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, including
public transportation?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of
people and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians?
14. 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?
Yes Maybe N_.Qo
X
X
X
X
X
R:\S\STAFFRPT\158PA93.PC 9/8/93 mf 21
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
f. Other governmental services:
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial mounts of fuel or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy,
or require the development of new sources of energy?
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or
substantial alterations to any of the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Water systems?
d. Sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage systems?
f. Solid waste disposal systems?
g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed or inefficient pattern of
utility delivery system improvements for any of the above?
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard?
b. The exposure of people to potential health hazards, including
the exposure of sensitive receptors (such as hospitals and
schools) to toxic pollutant emissions?
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
Yes
Maybe N._9.o
_
_ x__
_
_ x__
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public?
X
R:\S\STAFFRPT%158PA93.PC 9/8/93 mf 22
19.
20.
Y~ Maybe No
b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? __ X
c. Detrimental visual impacts on the surrounding area? __ X
Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or
quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities? _ _ ~
Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. The alteration or destruction of any paleontolOgic, prehistoric,
archaeological or historic site? __ __ X
b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects m a prehistoric or historic
building, structure, or object? _ _ X
c. Any potential to cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values? __ __ X
d. Restrictions to existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? __ __ X
R:\S\STAFFRPT\15BPA93.pC 9/8/93mf 23
IH. DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Earth
1.a.
l.b.
I.C.
l.d.
l.e.
1.f.
l.g.
No. The proposal will not result in unstable earth coMitions or changes in geologic substructures.
Manufactured slopes already exist on the site, and additional landscaping is included in the project
for erosion control. Construction and Fading for this development will not be at depths which
would affect any geologic substructures. No impacts are foreseen as a result of this project.
Yes. The proposal will result in the disruption, displacement, compaction, or overcovering of the
soil. All Fading activity requires some form of disruption, displacement, compaction and/or
overcovering of the soil. Impacts are not considered significant because the site has previously
been graded and because the mount of disruption, displacement, compaction and overcovering of
the soil will be minimal (grading is less than 50 cubic yards). No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
Yes. The proposal will result in a change in the site topography and Found surface relief features.
The topography of the site has already been modified into its current configuration. Additional
grading is proposed for the project (less than 50 cubic yards), however, since the amount of
grading will be minimal, modification to topography and ground surface relief features not be
considered significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The proposal will not result in the destruction, covering or modification of any unique
geologic or physical features. No unique geologic features or physical features exist on the site.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No. Development of the site will not result in increased wind and water erosion of soils both on
and off-site. Hardscape will be placed in the remaining portion of the site which is currently
unimproved (din). In addition, as mentioned in response 1 .a., additional landscaping is included
in the project for erosion control. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The project proposal will not result in changes in siltation, deposition or erosion. Reference
responses 1 .a. and 1 .e. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The proposal will not result in modifications to any wash, channel, creek, river or lake. None
exist on the project site, nor are proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
R:\S\STAFFRPT\158PA93.PC 9/8/93 rnf 24
1.h.
1.i.
Air
2.a. ,b.
Water
3.a.
3.b.
Yes. Development of the site will expose people and property to earthquake hazards since the
project is located in Southern California, an area which is seismically active. Any potential impacts
will be mitigated through building construction which is consistent with Uniform Building Code
standards. Information contained in the City of Temecula General Plan Draft Environmental
Impact Report (dated August 12, 1992), the Southwest Area Community Plan Final Environmental
Impact Report (adopted May, 1989) and the Margarite Village Specific Plan Environmental Impact
Report (certified April, 1986) states that the project will not expose people or property to geologic
hazards such as landslides, mudslides, ground failure or liquefaction. No known landslides are
located on the site or proximate to the site. The same is true for mudslides. The potential for
Found failure and liquefaction is also low in this area.
No. The proposal does not include development within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone as
identified by the State of California, Resource Agency Depa~haent of Conservation Special Studies
Zone Map. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Yes. The project will result in air emissions both in the short and long-run. Air emissions and
objectionable odors will occur during the construction phase of the project. These impacts will be
of short duration and are not considered siguiflcant. The site was previously used for school,
office/administrative, warehousing, and storage and maintenance of buses. The project proposes
to relocate the bus storage and maintenance and replace it with additional warehousing operations
and office/administrative uses. This will ultimately result in a less intense use of the site. The
impact to air emissions created by the buses was not considered significant. Because of this and
since the site will not be used as intensely due to the conversion of uses on the site, no significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The project will not result in alterations of air movement, temperature, or moisture, or in any
change in climate either locally or regionally. The scale of the project precludes it from creating
any significant impacts on the environment in this area.
No. The proposal will not result in changes to currents, to the course or direction of water
movements in either marine or fresh waters. The project site is not located adjacent to either
marine or fresh water sources. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Yes. The proposal will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and
amount of surface runoff. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by
construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. While absorption rates and
surface runoff will change, impacts are mitigated through site design. Existing drainage
conveyances safely and adequately handle the existing runoff and any potential runoff which will
be created by this project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The proposal will not result in alterations to the course or flow of flood waters. The project
is not located within or adjacent to an identified floodway. No siguiflcant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
R:\S\STAFFRPT%158PA93.PC 9/8/93 mf 25
3.d.
No. The proposal will not result in a change in the amount of surface water in any waterbody.
No major waterbodies are located in the subject project area, therefore, no significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
3.e.
Yes. The proposal will result in discharges into surface waters or in any alteration of surface water
quality. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project, the developer will be required to
comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System GNPDES)
permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an
NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with
the NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level less than significant.
Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
3.f.
No. The proposal will not result in an alteration of the direction or rate of flow of groundwaters.
Construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground
waters. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
3.g.
No. The proposal will not result in a change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct
additions, withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations. Reference
response 3 .f. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
3.h.
No. The project will not result in the reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for
public water supplies. Water service currently exists at the project site. Additional water service
will be provided by Rancho California Water District (RCWD) upon completion of financial
arrangements between RCWD and the property owner (based upon transmittal dated August 11,
1993, a copy of which is on file with the Planning Department). No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
3.i.
No. The proposal will not expose people or property to water related hazards such as flooding.
Reference response 3.c. In addition, the project site is not located within the boundaries of the
Dam Inundation Area as identified in the General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report for the
City of Temecula dated August 12, 1993.
Plant Life
No. The proposal will not result in any change to the diversity of species, or number of any native
species of plants. The site has bean previously graded, developed, and landscaped. The project
is considered "infill" with development existing on the site, to the north, south, east and west. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
4.b.
No. The proposal will not result in a reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened,
or endangered species of plants. There are no unique or rare, threatened or endangered species
of plants on the site, therefore, none will be significantly affected (Reference response 4.a.). No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:XS\STAFFRPT\I58PA93.PC 9/8/93 rnf 26
4.c.
No. Development of the site will not result in the creation of a barrier to the normal replenishment
of existing species due to the fact that the project is considered "in-fill" and is surrounded by
existing development to the north, south, east and west. Although the project proposes species of
plants which do not currently exist on the site, it is not being introduced into an area of native
vegetation. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
4.d.
No. The proposal will not result in a reduction in the acreage of any agricultural crop. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project since no prime farmland, farmland of
statewide or local importance, or unique farmland is located within the project site.
Animal Life
5.a.b.d.e.
No. The project will not result in a change in the diversity of species, or numbers of species of
animals. The project site lies within the Riverside County Stephens Kangaroo Rat Habitat
Conservation Plan Preliminary Study Area, however, the project itself will not impact the habitat
of the Stephens Kangaroo Rat (SKR). The site has been previously developed and consists of
structures, harriscape, landscaping and dirt. The project is considered "infill" with development
existing to the north, south, east and west, There is no potential for the change in the diversity and
number (reduction) of the species, or in producing a barrier to the migration of Stephens Kangaroo
Rat as well as the deterioration of its habitat exists within the project area. SKR Mitigation Fees
are not required for the development of parcels used by local gnvernmenta] entities (as per Section
10(e) of Ordinance No. 663). No other sensitive species have been identified upon the site. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The proposal will not result in the introduction of any new wildlife species into the area. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Noise
6.a.
No. The proposal will not result in increases to existing noise levels. The site is curremly
developed with a more intensive use (bus storage and maintenance) which will be relocated as a
result of this project. Noise impacts from the buses were considered significant but had been
mitigated on the site. This is based upon information contained in a report prepared for this site
by Med-Tox Associates, Inc. dated January 21, 1991. With the removal of the buses from the site,
no significant noise impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.b.
Yes. The project may expose people to severe noise levels during the development/construction
phase (short run). Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+
DBA at 100 feet which is considered very annoying and can cause hearing damage from steady 8-
hour exposure. This source of noise will be of short duration and therefore will not be considered
significant.
6.c.
No. The proposal will not result in the exposure of people to severe vibrations. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:'xS%STAFFRPT\158PA93.PC 9/8/93 rnf 27
Light and Glare
Yes. The proposal will ultimately produce and result in light/glare as all development of this
nature results new light sources. Potential light and glare impacts upon adjacent residences can be
mitigated through the use of low height lighting devices (under 10 feet high). The project is
located lower than the adjacent residences. In addition, all light and glare has the potential to
impact the Mount Palomar Observatory. No impacts are foreseen from light and glare since any
future development on the site will be conditioned to be consistent with Ordinance No. 655
(Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution).
Land Use
No. The proposal will not alter the present land use of the area, because the site is currently used
for school/administration uses. The project as proposed is consistent with the Margarita Village
Specific Plan (SP - 199). In addition, it is likely that the proposal will be consistent with the future
General Plan land use designation for the site which identifies the site as Public/Institutional
Facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
8.b.
No. The proposal will not result in an alteration to the future planned land use of the site as
described in the Margarita Village Specific Plan or the City's future General Plan. Reference
response 8.a. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Natural Resources
9.a.b.
Maybe. The proposal may result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource or in the
depletion of nonrenewable resource(s). Development of the site will result in an increase in the rate
of use of natural resources (construction materials, fuels for the dally operation, asphalt, lumber)
and the subsequent depletion of these non-renewable natural resources. Due to the scale of the
proposed development, these impacts are not seen as significant.
Risk of Upset
10.a.b.
No. The proposal will not result in a risk of explosion, or the release of any hazardous substances
in the event of an accident or upset conditions, since none are proposed in the request. The same
is true for the use, storage, transport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic materials. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
lO.c.
No. The project wilt not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency evaluation
plan. The subject site is not located in an area which could impact an emergency response plan.
The project will take access from a maintained street and will therefore not impede any emergency
response or emergency evacuation plans. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
Population
11.
No. The project will not result in altering the location, distribution, density or growth rate of the
human population of the area. The limited scale of the project will not result in the relocation of
people. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\S\STAFFRPT\158PA93.PC 9~8~93 mf 28
Housin~
12.
No. Reference response 11. Projects of this nature do not cause people to relocate, and therefore,
additional housing needs will not be created. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
TraRsportation/Circulafion
13.a.
No, The proposal will not result in the generation of substantial additional vehicular movement.
The relocation of the bus storage and maintenance facility will result in a less intensive use of the
site. Ultimate buildout of the site will include additional warehouse facilities and
office/administration uses. A Transportation Demand Management CFDM) plan has already been
established for this site and is currently being implemented. The TDM program is required under
State Law and serves to mitigate any potential impacts to the traffic in the area as a result of
development. No significant impacts are expected from development of the site.
13.b.
Yes, The project will result in an increased demand for new parking. Currently, one hundred
and seven (107) parking spaces exist on site. One hundred ninety-three (193) parking spaces will
be required as a result of project build-out. The project as proposed will meet the amount of
parking spaces required under Ordinance No. 348. No significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
13.c.
No. The proposal will not create impacts upon existing transportation systems, including public
transportation. The site is located adjacent to a fully improved secondary street (Rancho Vista
Road). A Riverside Trait Agency (RTA) route is available in the area where the project is
located (the route goes past the intersection of Margarita and Rancho Vista Roads and the site is
approximately 2500 feet from this intersection). In addition, a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) plan has already been established for this site and is currently being
implemented. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
13.d.
Yes. The proposal will result in alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of
people and/or goods. The site is currently used for the storage and maintenance of buses. The
project is a proposal to relocate the bus facility and expand warehousing activities and
office/administration uses. This will logically alter the present circulation pattern. Since the
proposal will result in a less intensive traffic impacts, no significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
13.e.
No. The proposal will not result in alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic since none exists
currently in the proximity of the site and none are proposed. No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
13.f.
Yes. The proposal will result in an increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians. The hazards will increase as the project develops due to increased activity on the site.
These impacts are not seen as significant. Impacts have been mitigated to a level less than
significant through the site design, which is consistent with City standards.
R:\S\STAFFRPTVI58PA93.PC 9/8/93 mf 29
Public Services
14.a.b.
No. The proposal will not have a substantial effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire
or police protection. The additional buildings will incrementally increase the need for fire and
police protection, however, due to the scale of the proposed development, these impacts are not
seen as significant.
14.c.
No. The proposal will not have a substantial effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
school facilities. The project is for school facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
14.d.
No. The proposal will not have a substantial effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
parks or other recreational facilities. Existing facilities on site will service the need generated by
the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
14.e.
Yes. The proposal will result in a need for the maintenance of public facilities, including roads.
Funding for maintenance of roads is derived from the Gasoline Tax which is distributed to the City
of Temecula from the State of California. Impacts to current and future needs for maintenance of
roads as a result of development of the site will be incremental, however, they will not be
considered significant. This is because the Gasoline Tax is sufficient to cover any of the proposed
expenses.
14.f.
No. The proposal will not have a substantial affect upon or result in a need for new or altered
governmental services. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Energy
15.a.
No. The proposal will not result in the use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy. As mentioned
in responses 9.a. and 9.b. the proposal may result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural
resource or the depletion of any nonrenewable resource. Development of the site will result in an
increase in the rate of use of natural resources (construction materials, fuels for daily operation,
asphalt, lumber) and the subsequent depletion of these non-renewable natural resources. Due to
the scale of the proposed development, these impacts are not seen as significant.
15.b.
No. The project will not result in a substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy,
nor will the project require the development of new sources of energy. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
Utilities
16.a
No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to power or
natural gas. The project site is within proximity of existing facilities. The project is seen as an
"in-fill" project with existing uses to the north, south, east and west. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
16.b.
No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to
communication systems (reference response No. 16.a.). No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
R:~S\STAFFRPT\lSI1PA93.PC 9/8/93 mf 30
16.c.
No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to water
systems. Reference response 3.h. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
16.d.
No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to sanitary
sewer systems. The project is located within Eastern Municipal Water District's (EMWD) sanitary
sewer service area. Based upon information contained in the General Plan Draft Environmental
Impact Report (dated August 12, 1993) adequate facilities exist (and are proposed) which will
adequately service the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
16.e.
No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to on-site
storm water drainage systems. Since the project is considered "in-fill" and a large portion of the
site has been previously developed, the proposal will utilize existing drainage systems. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
16.f.
No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to solid waste
disposal systems. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be
mitigated through participation in any Source Reduction and Recycling Programs which are
implemented by the City. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
16.g.
No. The proposal will not result in a disjointed or inefficient pattern of utility delivery system
improvements for any of the above. (reference response No. 16.a.). No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
Human Health
17.a.b. No. The proposal will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard.
The County of Riverside Health Services Agency has reviewed the project and its recommendations
shall be included as conditions of approval for the project (as per County of Riverside Health
Services Agency transmittal dated August 6, 1993, a copy of which is on file with the Planning
Department). In addition, the proposal will expose not people to potential health hazards. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Aesthetics
18.a.
No. The proposal will not result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public.
The project is considered in-fill, with development located to the north, south, east and west. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
18.b.
Maybe. The proposal may result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public
view. The project proposes to locate buildings where there were previously trailers and vacant
areas. Homes adjacent to the project have views into the site because the site is lower in elevation.
Any potential impacts have been mitigated through the use of landscaping along the perimeter of
the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
18.c.
Maybe. The proposal may result in detrimental visual impacts on the surrounding area. Reference
response 18.b. Any potential impacts have been mitigated to a level less than significant through
the use of landscaping along the perimeter of the site.
R:\S%STAFFRPT\158PA93.PC 9/8/93 mf ~1
Recreation
19.
No. The proposal will not result in impacts to the quality or quantity of existing recreational
resources or opportunities. The site is currently being used for educational, bus maintenance and
storage, warehousing and office/administrative uses. Recreational facilities exist on the site to
accommodate the students, therefore additional recreational facilities above those provided on site
will be needed. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Cultural Resources
20.a.
No. The proposal will not result in the alteration or destruction of any paleontologic, prehistoric,
archaeological or historic site. Although both the City of Temecula Draft General Plan
Environmental Impact Report (dated August 12, 1992) and the Southwest Area Community Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report (adopted May, 1989) indicate that there is a possibility that
paleontologic, prehistoric, archaeological or historic sites may exist on the subject project site, the
Final Environmental Impact Report for Margarita Village indicates that no historic sites and only
one archeological site were found within the Specific Plan area. The subject project site is not in
proximity to the archeological site. In addition, the site has been previously graded and the
potential for any significant resources to be located on this site is very low. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
20.b.
No. The proposal will not result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure or object. Reference response 20.b. No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
20.c.
No. The will not have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic
cultural values. No "unique" ethnic cultoral values exist on-site or in proximity to the site. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
20.d.
No. The proposal will not result in restrictions to existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area. None currently exist on the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
R:\S\STAFFRPT\158PA93,pC 9/8/93 mf 32
IV. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNil~ICANCE
Does the project have the potential to either: degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish, wildlife or bird species, cause a fish,
wildlife or bird population to drop below self sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant, bird or animal
species, or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
Ye~ Maybe No
Does the project have the potential to achieve short
mnn, to the disadvantage of long term, environmental
goals? (A short term impac~ 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.)
X
Does the project have impacts which are individually
limited, but cumulatively 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.)
X
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME "DE MINIMUS" INIPACT FINDINGS
Yes
Does the project have the potential to cause any adverse effect,
either individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife resources.'?
Wildlife is defined as "all wild animals, birds, plants, fish,
amphibians, and related ecological communities, including the
habitat upon which the wildlife depends on for it's continued
viability" (Section 711.2, Fish and Game Code).
X
N_.q
R:\S\STAFFRPT\lSBPA93.PC 919193 mf 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 significant effect
on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case
because the Mitigation Measures described on the attached sheets and
in the Conditions of Approval that have been added to the project will
mitigate any potentially significant impacts to a level of insignificance,
and 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.
Prepared by:
Signature
Matthew Fagan. Assistant Planner
Name and Title
Date
R:\S\STAFFRPT\158pA93.pC 9/8/93 mf 34
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
R:\S\STAFFFIPT~158PA93.PC 918193 mf 35
CITY OF TEMECULA
N
CASE NO.:
EXHIBIT: A
P.C. DATE:
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 93-0158, AMENDMENT NO. 1
VICINITY MAP
SEPTEMBER 20, 1993
R:\S\STAFFRPT\158PA93.PC 8/30/93 mf
CITY OF TEMECULA
/
/
t
/
CASE NO.: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 93-0158, AMENDMENT NO. 1
EXHIBIT: D SITE PLAN
P.C. DATE: SEPTEMBER 20, 1993
R:\S\STAFFRPT~158PA93.PC 8~30/93 mf
CITY OF TEMECULA
SITE
DRAFT GENERAL PLAN - EXHIBIT B
DESIGNATION: PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL FACILITIES
SITE
II
II
II
II
ZONING - EXHIBIT C DESIGNATION: S-P 199 - MARGARITA VILLAGE
=3E NO.: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 93-0158, AMENDMENT NO. 1
, .,..;. DATE: SEPTEMBER 20, 1993
R:\S\STAFFRPT\I E8PA93.PC 8/30/93 mf
ITEM #9
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 20, 1993
Planning Application No. 93-0027, Amendment No. 2 (Public Use Permit)
Prepared By: Matthew Fagan
RECOMMENDATION:
ADOPT The Negative Declaration prepared for Planning
Application No. 93-0027, Amendment No. 2 (Public Use Permit)
and;
ADOPT Resolution No. 93- Approving Planning Application
No. 93-0027, Amendment No. 2, based on the Findings and
Analysis contained in the Staff Report and subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Temecula United Methodist Church
REPRESENTATIVE:
Herron & Rumansoff
PROPOSAL:
Construction of a church facility in three (3) phases. Phase I will
consist of the construction of 5,200 square feet of classrooms,
offices, meeting area, day care facility, and utility area. Phase II
consists of a 5,500 square foot fellowship hall. Phase Ill
consists of a 9,220 square foot sanctuary. Total square footage
of the project is 19,920.
LOCATION:
Northeasterly corner of Margarita and Rancho Vista Roads
EXISTING ZONING:
Specific Plan No. 199 (Margarita Village)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Specific Plan No. 199 (Margarita Village)
Rural Residential (R-R)
Specific Plan No. 199 (Margarita Village)
One-Family Dwellings (R-l)
PROPOSED ZONING:
Not requested
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
R:\S\STAFFRPT\27PA93,PC 9/10/93 tie
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Rancho California Water District Pump Station/Apartments
Temecula Valley High School
Metropolitan Water District Easement, Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
PROJECT STATISTICS
Site Acreage: 5.49
Phase 1:
Phase 2:
Phase 3:
Total:
5,200 square feet
5,500 square feet
9,220 square feet
19,920 square feet
Parking Spaces:
Landscaping/Walkways:
Total Earthwork:
157
171,046 square feet
balanced cut and fill of 22,000 cubic yards
BACKGROUND
Planning Application No. 93-0027 Amendment No. 2 (Public Use Permit) was submitted to
the Planning Department on February 9, 1993. This was a proposal for a church facility to
be constructed in two phases comprising 22,774 square feet. A Development Review
Committee (DRC) meeting was held on February 25, 1993. Subsequent to the DRC meeting,
the application was deemed incomplete. The applicant re-submitted materials on June 14,
1993, and a second DRC meeting was held on July 1, 1993. The proposal was modified to
include a church facility that would be constructed in three (3) phases. Total square footage
of the project was revised to 19,920. Several items remained outstanding at this time. These
items included clearance from Metropolitan Water District (MWD) for grading which would
occur within their easement and the submittal of a focused traffic study for the project. The
applicant subsequently submitted the materials requested at the July 1, 1993 DRC meeting
and the application was deemed complete on August 25, 1993.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Planning Application No. 93-0027, Amendment No. 2 is a proposal for a church facility to be
constructed in three (3) phases. Phase I will consist of the construction of 5,200 square feet
of classrooms, offices, a day care facility, meeting area and utility area. The day care facility
will serve up to sixty children. Phase I is proposed to be constructed within one year from
the approval of the project. Phase II consists of a 5,500 square foot fellowship hall. Phase
III consists of a 9,220 square foot sanctuary. Construction for Phase II is proposed to
commence within 1 - 3 years after project approval, with construction for Phase III is proposed
to commence within 10 years after project approval. Total square footage of the project is
19,920. Hours of operation for the regular events at the facility are: Sunday 8:30 a.m. - 9:30
a .m. (sunday school and church services), Sunday 10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. (church services)
and Monday - Friday 7:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m, (day care facility).
R:\S\STAFFRPT~27PA93.PC 9/10/93 tie 2
ANALYSIS
Comoatibilitv with Surroundina Development
A Metropolitan Water District easement exists to the east of the site (reference Exhibit D) and
will serve as a buffer to residential development in that area. Rancho Vista Road will serve
as a buffer to the Temecula Valley High School to the south. Margarita Road, as well as
landscaped slopes, will serve as a buffer to residential development to the west and a Rancho
California Water District Pump Station as well as on-site parking will serve as a buffer to the
apartments north of the site.
Traffic/Circulation
Information contained in the Focused Traffic Study for the project (prepared by Wilbur Smith
Associates, dated August 4, 1993) indicates that project related traffic increases were found
to be well under the five percent increase threshold at the intersections of Margarita/Rancho
Vista Roads, and Margarita/Peuba Roads. The Study states that if the project-related traffic
for an intersection approach is equal to or greater than five percent of the existing volume,
then the intersection should be analyzed. Increased development of the site will result in the
maintenance of Levels of Service (LOS) "C" for these intersections during weekday peak AM
and PM hours. The impact of the project at the intersection of Margarita/Rancho California
Roads (northbound approach at Rancho California) would exceed the five percent threshold,
however, the intersection would still operate at a Level of Service C. The study further
concludes that future traffic operations at the Church project access driveway would operate
at a Level of Service A or better for all movements except the left-turn movement exiting the
site. According to the study, a service level "D" or better operating condition would be
maintained for the outbound left-turn movement during the peak weekday traffic periods. The
report further indicates that all traffic movements at the project access driveway intersection
would operate at a Level of Service A during a Sunday peak-hour condition.
Parkinq
One hundred fifty-seven (157) parking spaces are required for the project under Ordinance No.
348 and are provided in the project. Parking needs are determined by the amount of assembly
area for church facilities. Based upon this criteria, Phase I will require thirty-eight (38) parking
spaces, Phase II will require ninety-two (92) parking spaces and Phase III will require one
hundred fifty-seven (157) parking spaces,
Landscapincl
Streetscape plantings (along Margarita Road) included on the landscape plan for this project
are consistent with the Margarita Village Specific Plan. The Plan calls for a twenty-five (25)
foot wide landscape corridor adjacent to Margarita Road. The landscape plan has been
reviewed by the City's Consultant (The Elliott Group) and their comments have been
incorporated into the plan. A portion of the site (the northwest corner) will remain in its
natural state. Within this portion is approximately .19 acres of healthy Coastal Sage Scrub.
All landscaping for the project will be installed during Phase I of the project. A condition of
approval has been added to the project that requires the applicant to submit landscape plans
for the Sanctuary prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase III. This will tie the
structure to the site (per comments the from Elliot Group). In addition, berms will be required
R:%S\STAFFRPT\27PA93.PC 9/10/93 fie 3
to be created along the Margarita Road frontage for additional screening prior to the issuance
of building permits for Phase III. The retaining wall that is located adjacent to the MWD
easement will be landscaped.
Architecture/Colors
The architect for the project has defined the architecture as "eclectic," with no one style being
predominant. Phases I and II colors include: off-white wall color, burgundy/grey accent color
used on the door and window frames, sand color for the base and trim, and burgundy roof
tile. Horizontal elements of the project are broken up through the use of pilasters, doors and
windows. Phases I and II incorporate both pitched and flat roof elements. Phase III (the
Sanctuary) incorporates glass and stained glass into the design. The height of the structure
is forty (40) feet to the top of the roof. The base color is the same as that use for Phases I
and II. A grid is utilized as an architectural feature on both the east and west elevations and
a dark tan was chosen for the color. The lower roof tile is the same color as that used in
Phases I and II. The side roof tile is dark grey. A translucent "white" shade is used for the
center roof, along with maroon for the roof frame.
Sensitive Habitat
A portion of the site (.19 acres) consists of healthy Coastal Sage Scrub. This is habitat for
the California Gnatcatcher, a bird which is on the Federal Endangered Species list. Coastal
Sage Scrub is very likely of suitable vegetative composition for the California Gnatcatcher
according to the Biological Survey of the site (prepared by T.V. St. John, Ph.D. dated July 18,
1993). This portion of the site will remain in its natural state - the project has been designed
to incorporate the .19 acre piece of Coastal Sage Scrub into it. Also according to the
Biological Survey of the site (prepared by T.V. St. John, Ph.D. dated July 18, 1993): No
California gnatcatchers were located on site,
Metropolitan Water District (MWD) Easement
The project is located adjacent to a Metropolitan Water District (MWD) Easement. The
applicant proposes to grade within this easement. Staff informed the applicant that they must
receive clearance from MWD prior to the project being scheduled for a Planning Commission
hearing. The applicant supplied a letter to Staff dated August 23, 1993 that stated the
proposed fill within their easement as shown on the grading plan is acceptable to
Metropolitan, provided that no fill is placed closer than ten feet from the centerline of their
San Diego Pipeline No. 2. Other criteria were discussed in the letter are the placement of the
retaining wall in relation to the easement and the location of cuts within the easement. Public
Works Staff has reviewed the above mentioned letter and has determined that the project has
received the necessary clearance from MWD to proceed with the Planning Commission
hearing.
EXISTING ZONING AND FUTURE GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
Existing zoning for the site is Specific Plan (S.P. 199 - Margarita Village). The Specific Plan
land use designation for the site is for a church. Churches are permitted in any zone provided
that a public use permit is granted pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.29 of Ordinance
No. 348. The draft General Plan land use designation for the site is Public/Institutional
Facilities. The draft General Plan states: "Additional public and institutional uses, including
R:\S\STAFFRPT~27PA93.PC 9/10/93 tie 4
churches and daycare facilities, may be developed in the residential or non-residential land use
designations under the procedures established in the Development Code." Until the
Development Code is adopted, Staff utilizes the provisions contained in Ordinance No. 348.
As mentioned above, churches are permitted in any zone under Ordinance No. 348 provided
that a public use permit is granted. The project as proposed is consistent with Specific Plan
No. 199 (Margarita Village), Ordinance No. 348, and the draft General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study has been
prepared for this project. The Initial Study determined that although the proposed project
could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not considered to be
significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions
of Approval added to the project. These will mitigate any potentially significant impacts to
a level of insignificance, and therefore a Negative Declaration should be adopted.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
Planning Application No. 93-0027, Amendment No. 2 is proposal for a church facility to be
constructed in three (3) phases. Total square footage of the project is 19,920. The project
as proposed will be compatible with surrounding land uses because of buffering from adjacent
uses. The project is consistent with Ordinance No. 348, Specific Plan No. 199 - Margarita
Village, and is likely to be consistent with the City' General Plan upon its adoption. The
proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment; however, these effects
will not be considered significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design
and in the Conditions of Approval added to the project. Sensitive habitat located on the site
will be preserved.
FINDINGS
There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the General Plan proposal being considered or studied within a reasonable time.
The land use designation for the site is identified as in the draft General Plan as
Public/Institutional Facilities. The draft General Plan states: "Additional public and
institutional uses, including churches and daycare facilities, may be developed in the
residential or non-residential land use designations under the procedures established
in the Development Code." Until the Development Code is adopted, the provisions
contained in Ordinance No. 348 are utilized. Churches are permitted in any zone under
Ordinance No. 348 provided that a public use permit is granted.
There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the
future adopted General Plan if the proposed action is ultimately inconsistent with the
Plan. The land use designation for the site identified in the draft General Plan is
Public/Institutional Facilities. Uses which are consistent with the Public/Institutional
Facilities land use designation will ultimately be permitted on this site, which would
include churches.
The proposed use or action complies with all other requirements of state law and local
ordinances. The proposed use complies with California Governmental Code Section
65360, Section 18.29 (Public Use Permit) of Ordinance No. 348. The proposed
R:\S\STAFFRPT\27PA93,PC 9/10/93 tjs 5
project is consistent with Specific Plan No. 199 - Margarita Village. The project is
located within Planning Area No. 31 of Specific Plan No. 199 - Margarita Village, and
is identified as a 5.3 acre church site within the Specific Plan. The project as designed
and conditioned meets all the requirements of Specific Plan No. 199.
The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare
of the community. In addition, the proposed project will not have a significant impact
on the environment. Mitigation measures have been included in the Conditions of
Approval that will reduce any impacts to a level less than significant.
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, access, and intensity of use, because the proposed plot
plan, as conditioned, complies with the standards contained within Ordinance No. 348
and Specific Plan No. 199 - Margarita Village.
The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project is buffered from
adjacent uses to the north, south, east and west. A Metropolitan Water District
easement exists to the east of the site and will serve as a buffer to residential
development in that area. Rancho Vista Road will serve as a buffer to the Temecula
Valley High School to the south. Margarita Road, as well as landscaped slopes, will
serve as a buffer to residential development to the west and a Rancho California Water
District Pump Station as well as on-site parking will serve as a buffer to the apartments
north of the site.
The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic. Access to the project site is from a publicly maintained
road (Margarita Road).
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.
Said findings are supported by maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated
with these applications and herein incorporated by reference,
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
Resolution No. 93- - Blue Page 7
Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 12
Initial Study - Blue Page 23
Exhibits - Blue Page 42
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning
C. Draft General Plan
D. Site Plan
R:\S\STAFFRPT~27PA93.PC 9/15/93 tie 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 93-
R:\S\STAFFRPT\27PA93,PC 9/10/93 tie 7
ATTACI-IMF~NT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 93.-
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF
~ CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 93-0027, AMEND1M~NT NO. 2 (PUBLIC
USE PERM1T) TO PER1VIg TRE OPERATION OF A 19,920
SQUARE FOOT CHURCH FACILITY TO BE
CONSTRUCTED IN 3 PHASES AND LOCATED AT
NORT!~ASTERN CORNER OF MARGARITA AND
RANCHO VISTA ROADS.
WltF. P, EAS, Temecula United Methodist Church fried Planning Application No. 93-0027
(Public Use Permit) in accordance with the Riverside County land Use, Zoning, Planning and
Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHF. RIi;AS, said Planning Application was processed in the time and manner prescribed
by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Planning Application on
September 20, 1993, 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 Planning Application;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TRF~ CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the
following findings:
A. Pursuant to Govermnent 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, ff 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 fmds, in approving projects and taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, each of the following:
R:\S%STAFFRPT\27PA93.PC 9/10/93 ~ ~
a. Them is a reasonable probab'fiity that the land use or action
proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which
will be studied within a reasonable time.
b. Them is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the future adopted general plan ff the proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan.
c. The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable
requirements of stab law and local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as mended by the Southwest Area
Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as
the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan
guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General
Plan.
C. The Planning Commission, in appmving the proposed Planning Application
(Public Use Permit), makes the foliowing fmdings, to wit:
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 within a reasonable
time. The land use designation for the site is identified in the draft General Plan as
Public/Institutional Facilities. The draft General Plan states: "Additional public and institutional
uses, including churches and daycare facilities, may be developed in the residential or non-
residential land use designations under the procedures established in the Development Code."
Until the Development Code is adopted, the provisions contained in Ordinance No. 348 are
utilized. Churches are permitted in any zone under Ordinance No. 348 provided that a public
use permit is granted.
2. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference
with the future adopted General Plan ff the proposed action is ultimately inconsistent with the
Plan. The land use designation for the site is identified in the draft General Plan as
Public/Institutional Facilities. Uses which are consistent with the Public/Institutional Facilities
land use designation will ultimately be permitted on this site, and would include churches.
3. The proposed use or action complies with all other requirements of state
law and local ordinances. The proposed use complies with California Governmental Code
Section 65360, Section 18.29 (Public Use Permit) of Ordinance No. 348. The proposed project
is consistent with Specific Plan No. 199 - Margarita Village. The project is located within
Planning Area No. 31 of Specific Plan No. 199 - Margarita Village, and is identified as a 5.3
acre church site within the Specific Plan. The project as designed and conditioned meets all the
requirements of Specific Plan No. 199.
R:\S\STAFFRPT~27PA93.PC 9/10/93 t~ 9
4. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety or
general welfare of the community. In addition, the proposed project will not have a significant
impact on the environment. Mitigation measures have been included in the Conditions of
Approval that will reduce any impacts to a level less than significant.
5. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the
size and shape of the lot configuration, access, and intensity of use, because the proposed plot
plan, as conditioned complies with the standards contained within Ordinance No. 348 and
Specific Plan No. 199 - Margarita Village.
6. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project is
buffered from adjacent uses to the north, south, east and west. A Metropolitan Water District
easement exists to the east of the site and will serve as a buffer to residential development in that
area. Rancho Vista Road will serve as a buffer to the Temecula Valley High School to the
south. Margarita Road, as well as landscaped slopes, will serve as a buffer to residential
development to the west and a Rancho California Water District Pump Station as well as on-site
parking will serve as a buffer to the apartments north of the site.
7. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open
to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. Access to the project site is from a publicly maintained
road (Margaxita Road).
8. 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.
9. Said findings are supported by maps, exhibits and environmental
documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference.
D. As conditioned pursuant to Section 3, the Planning Application (Public Use
Permit) proposed is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
Section 2. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project
indicates that the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment, and
a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted.
Section 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
approves Planning Application No. 93-0027, Amendment No. 2 (Public Use Permit) for the
operation and construction of a 19,920 square foot church facility located northeast of the
intersection of Margarita and Rancho Vista Roads, subject to the following conditions:
R:\S\STAFFRPT\27PA93.PC 9/10/93 tie 10
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
Seaion 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of September, 1993.
STEVEN I. FORD
C~
I HEREBY CERT~Y that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 20th day of
September 20, 1993, by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNI-fflJ-
SECRETARY
R:\S%STAFFRPT\27PA93.PC 9/10/93 tjs 11
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\S\STAFFRPT\27PA93.PC 9/10/93 ~js 12
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. 93-0027, Amendment No. 2 {Public Use Permit)
Project Description: A proposal for a church facility to be constructed in three
(3) phases. Phase I consists of the construction of 5,200 square feet of
classrooms, offices, meeting area and utility area. Phase II consists of a 5,500
square foot fellowship hall. Phase III consists of a 9,220 square foot
sanctuary. Total square footage of the project is 19,920.
Assessor's Parcel No.: 954-020-009
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
General
The use hereby permitted by this Planning Application No. 93-0027, Amendment No.
2 (Public Use Permit) is for a church facility to be constructed in three (3) phases.
Phase I will consist of the construction of 5,200 square feet of classrooms, offices,
meeting area and utility area. Phase II consists of a 5,500 square foot fellowship hall.
Phase III consists of a 9,220 square foot sanctuary. Total square footage of the
project is 19,920.
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 attach, set aside, void, or annul,
an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative
body concerning Planning Application No. 93-0027, Amendment No. 2 (Public Use
Permit). 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.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on
the site plan marked Exhibit D, or as amended by these conditions.
The development of Phase I shall conform substantially with that as shown on Exhibit
D-1, or as amended by these conditions,
R:%S\STAFFRPT\27PA93.PC 9/10/93 tjs 13
6. Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit E.
7. Landscaping shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit F.
Colors and materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial
conformance with that shown on Exhibit G (color elevations) and Exhibit H (material
board).
A minimum of one hundred fifty-seven (157) parking spaces shall be provided in
accordance with Section 18.12, Ordinance No. 348. One hundred fifty-seven (157)
parking spaces shall be provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit D. Phase I parking
shall be in conformance with Exhibit D-1.
10.
A minimum of four (4) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on
Exhibit D.
11. Twelve (12) Class II bicycle racks shall be provided as shown on Exhibit
Within fortv-eioht (48) hours of the aooroval of this Droiect
12.
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 Gradina Permits
13.
A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning
Director.
14.
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.
15.
The developer or his successor's interest shall submit a mitigation monitoring program
which shall describe how compliance with required mitigation measures will be met
and the appropriate monitoring timing of the mitigation. The applicant shall pay all
costs associated with all monitoring activities.
R:\S\STAFFRPT~27PA93.PC 9/10/93 fig 14
16.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
Prior to the Issuance of Buildincl Permits
17.
Three (3) copies of a Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plan shall be submitted to
the Planning Department for approval and shall be accompanied by the appropriate
filing fee. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall
be shown. Plans should include detail of the plantings which will be on the retaining
wall.
18.
Prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase 3, the applicant shall submit three
(3) copies of a Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plan to the Planning Department
for approval and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. The location,
number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. Plans shall
incorporate berms along Margarita Road and additional landscaping around the
Sanctuary.
19.
Prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase 3, the applicant shall submit an
acoustical analysis which addresses noise impacts to the Sanctuary from Margarita
Road and which contains measures to mitigate any impacts. Said mitigations shall be
incorporated into the design of the building.
20.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
Prior to the Issuance of Occuoancv Permits
21.
The entire parking lot shall be installed in conformance with the Site Plan (Exhibit D)
pnor to the issuance of occupancy permits for any building in Phase 2.
22.
An Administrative Plot Plan application for signage (if applicable) shall be submitted
and approved by the Planning Director.
23. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view.
24.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape,
irrigation, and shading plans.
25.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a
condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free
of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and
in good working order.
26.
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
R:\S\STAFFRPT\27PA93.PC 9/10/93 tjs 15
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.
27.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning to
guarantee the installation of planrings, wails, and fences in accordance with the
approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed
with the Department of Planning.
28.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
29.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
30.
The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1991 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.
31.
Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with
Ordinance Number 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
32. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
33.
All existing buildings and facilities must comply with applicable handicapped
accessibility regulations.
34.
Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior
lighting, fire alarm systems.
35.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the
1991 edition of the uniform plumbing code, Appendix C.
36. The applicant shall provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original
R:\S\STAFFRPT~27PA93.PC 9/10/93 :tie 16
37.
signature on plans submitted for plan review.
The applicant shall provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule,
plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review.
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 person 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.
General ReQuirements
38.
A Grading Permit for either rough or precise (including all onsite flat work and
improvements) grading shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior
to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-
of-way.
39.
40.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior
to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City
right-of-way.
All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be
coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements
contiguous to the site.
Prior to Issuance of GradinQ Permits
41.
The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board.
No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the
project is shown to be exempt.
42. The Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
San Diego Regional Water Quality;
Planning Department;
Department of Public Works;
Riverside County Health Department;
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Community Services District;
Metropolitan Water District;
General Telephone;
Southern California Edison Company; and
Southern California Gas Company.
R:~S~STAFFRPT\27PA93.PC 9/10/93 tjs 17
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
A Grading Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the
Department of Public Works. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code,
Chapter 70, City Standards, and as additionally required in these Conditions of
Approval.
A Soils Report prepared by a registered Soils Engineer shall be submitted to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall
address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and pavement sections.
An erosion control plan in accordance with City Standards shall be designed by a
registered civil engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works.
The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading
and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and
subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning
Department and the Department of Public Works for review.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weedfree condition and shall be
either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures
as 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 Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District prior
to issuance of any permit. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has
been already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for
offsite work performed on adjacent properties, including Metropolitan Water District,
as directed by the Department of Public Works.
The Developer 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 Section XI of Ordinance No. 460 will
apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity, or use of streets be prohibited
for drainage purposes, the Developer shall provide adequate facilities as approved by
the Department of Public Works.
The Developer 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.
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 drainage easement shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for
review prior to recordation. The location of the recorded easement shall be delineated
R:\S\STAFFRPT\27PA93.pC 9/10/93 .tie 18
on the grading plan.
54, The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to
the subject property.
Prior to the Issuance of Encroachment Permits
55. All necessary grading permit requirements shall have been accomplished to the
satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
56. Street improvement 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 exiting utility facilities within the right-of-way
as directed by the Department of Public Works.
57. The following criteria shall be observed in the design of the improvement plans and/or
precise grading plans to be submitted to the Department of Public Works:
A, Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over
A.C. paving.
B. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard Nos.
207/207A and 401 (curb and sidewalk),
C. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in
accordance with Ordinance 461 and shall be shown on the improvement plans
as directed by the Department of Public Works.
D. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along public street frontages in
accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401.
E. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as
approved by the Department of Public Works.
F. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
G. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed
through undersidewalk drains.
58. A Traffic Control Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, and approved
by the Department of Public Works. Where construction on existing City streets is
required, traffic shall remain open at all times and the traffic control plan shall provide
for adequate detour during construction.
59. A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the Department of Public Works for Margarita Road as recommended in
the Focused Traffic Study for the above project prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates
R:\S%STAFFRPT~27PA93.PC 9/10~93 tie 19
60.
61,
62.
dated August 4, 1993.
Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be submitted to and approved by the
Department of Public Works for dedication to the City where sidewalks meander
through private property.
All required fees shall be paid.
The Developer shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed
guaranteeing the construction of the following public and private improvements in
conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department
of Public Works.
Street improvements, which may include, 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 (slopes and parkways).
D. Sewer and domestic water systems.
E. All trails, as required by the City's Master Plans.
F. Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines.
G. Erosion control and slope protection.
Prior to Issuance of Bulldine Permits
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
The Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Riverside County Fire Department;
Planning Department;
Department of Public Works; and
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
All necessary construction or encroachment permits have been
submitted/accomplished to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Department of Public Works
All building pads 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.
The Developer shall deposit with the City a cash sum as established per acre as
mitigation for traffic signal impact.
R:\S\STAFFRPT~27PA93.PC 9/10/93 ti~ 20
68.
The Developer 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.
69.
The 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 the Developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase
thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee,
a copy of which has been provided to the Developer. Concurrently, with executing
this Agreement, the 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. The 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, the 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 the Developer is not
waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the
amount thereof.
Prior to issuance of Occupancy Permits
70. The Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
General Telephone;
Southern California Edison;
Southern California Gas;
Planning Department; and
Department of Public Works.
71.
All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City
standards, including but not limited to curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive
approaches, parkway trees, street lights, signing, and striping as directed by the
Department of Public works.
OTHER AGENCIES
72.
Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the
provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittal dated
February 19, 1993, a copy of which is attached.
73.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of
Ordinance No. 546 ad the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated June 28, 1993, a
R:\S\STAFFRPT~27PA93.PC 9/10/93 tjs 21
74.
75.
76.
copy of which is attached,
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern
Municipal Water District transmittal dated February 23, 1993, a copy of which is
attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho
California Water District transmittal dated March 9, 1993, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California transmittal dated June 29, 1993, a copy of which
is attached.
R:\S\STAFFRPT~27PA93.PC 9/10/93 tjs 22
County of Riverside
HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPT.
nmental Health
FROM:
PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. PA93-0027
BE:
DATE:
Specialist IV
02-19-93
RECEIVED
FEB2~1993
Ans'd ............
The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the
Public Use Permit No. PA93-0027 and has no objections.
Sanitary sewer and water services may be available in this
area.
PRIORTO BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL "will-serve" letters from
the water and sewering agencies will be required.
SM:dr
(909) 275-8980
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
· .. ~.~,,:~..
FIRE DEPARTMENT
C-~ J. M. HARRIS 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE · p~, ~O~ 92570 · (~) 657-31:
June 289 1995
TO: City of Temecula RECEIVED
ATTN: Matthew Fagan "~0 2 993
RE= P~ 75-OO27, Amended #1
With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above
referenced plan, the Fire Department recommends the following
fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Riverside
County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards:
The fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow
for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings
using the procedure established in Ordinance 346.
Provide or show there exists a water system capable of
delivering 2000 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI resid~l
operating pressure, which must be available before
combustible material is placed on the job site.
m
The required fire flow shall be available from a super fire
hydrant (6"x4"x2 1/2"x2 1/2"), located not less than 25 feet
or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building
measured alonq vehicular travel ways.
m
Applicant/Developer shall be responsible to submit written
Certification from the water company noting the location of
the existing fire hydrant and that the existing water
system is capable of delivering 2000 GPM fire flow for a 2
hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure. If a
water system currently does not exist, the applicant/de-
veloper shall be responsible to provide written certifica-
tion that financial arrangements have been made to provide
them.
Blue retroreflective pavement markers shall be mounted on
private streets, public streets and driveways to indicate
location of fire hydrants. Prior to installation, placement
of markers must be approved by the Riverside County Fire
Department.
~ RIVERSIDE OFFICE
3760 I2th Street, Riverside, CA 92501
(909) 275-4777 * FAX {909) 369-7451
FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION
PLANNING SECTION
F'I INDIO OFFICE
79-733 Countp/Club Drive, Suite F, lndio, CA 9220
(619) 863-8886 * FAX (619) 863-7072
RE: PA 95-0027
Page 2
Applicant/Developer shall separately submit two 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 require-
ments. 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".
Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings
requiring a fire flow of 1500 SPM or greater. The post
indicator valve and fire department connection shall be
located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant~ and a
minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement that
the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinkled must
be included on the title page of the building plans.
Applicant/Developer shall be responsible to install a U.L.
Central Station Monitored Fire Alarm System. That monitors
fire sprinkler system water flow, P.I.V.'s and all control
valves. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for
approval prior to installation.
Applicant/Developer shall be responsible to install a
Manual and Automatic pre--recorded VOICE fire Alarm
System. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department
for approval prior to installation.
A statement that the building will be automatically fire
sprinkled must appear on the title page of the building
plans.
10. Comply with Title 19 of the California Administrative'Code.
11.
Install panic hardware and exit signs as per Chapter 33 of
the Uniform Building Code. All illuminated exits shall be UL
924 Listed. Low--level Exit Signs, where exit signs are
required by Section 3314 (a).
FIRE LANES
12.
The applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Depart-
ment for approval, a site plan designating required fire
lanes with appropriate lane painting and/or signs.
13.
Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of
2A-10BC and signage. Fire Extinguishers located in public
areas shall be in recessed cabinets mounted 48" (inches) to
center above floor level with maximum 4" (inch) projection
from the wall. Contact Fire Department for proper placement
of equipment prior to installation.
RE: PA 95-0027 Page
14.
Install a hood duct fire e×tinguishing system. Contact ~
certified fire protection company for proper placem~
Plans must be approved by the Fire Department prior to
installation. The automatic fire extinguisher system
installed in the cooking equipment hood shall be monitored
by the building fire alarm system.
BUILDING(s) ACCESS
15.
Knox Key lock boxes shall be installed on all buildings/
suites. If building/suite requires Hazardous
Material Reporting (Material Safety Data Sheets) the
Knox HAZ MAT Data and key storage cabinets shall be
installed. If buildings/suites are protected by a fire
or burglar alarm system, the boxes will require "Tamper"
monitoring. Plans must be submitted to the Fire
Department for approval prior to installation.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/de
veloper shall be responsible to submit a check or money
order in the amount of $558.00 to the Riverside County Fire
Department for plan check fees.
17. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are
reviewed in the Building and Safety Office.
All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be
referred to the Riverside County Fire department Planning
division staff.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire epartment ~lanner
B!~1 " ist
MA:ma
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA !r2Jg0
!uebrnary :23, 1993
SUBJECT: PUP P& 93-0027
To Whom It May Concerto
We have reviewed the wn.'~za.ls transmitted by your office which describe the subject project.
Our comments .ere outlined Mow:
It Is our understmuting the subject project is a pmpogd church facility located at the
northeasterly oorner of the intersection of Margsrim Road arid Rancho Vtsm Road.
The subject project is located within the Disttict'a sanitary sewer service area. However, it must
be understood th~ available service e.tpzbilitms of the District' s systems are continually changing
due to the ¢r, curn~ce of development and proiotas of systems improvement. As such, the
provision of services will be based on the de~ll~ plall of sezvice reqllirements, the tinling of
the subject project, the status of the Distri~t's permit to operate, and the service ~ent
betwesn the District and the developer of the subject proj~t.
The develcrper must arrange for the preparation of a detailed plan of service. The detailed plan
of service will indicate the location(s) end size(s) of system improvements to be made by the
developer (or ore), a~d whi~ ar~ conairiest necemar~ i.n order to provide aftequate levels
of service. To arrange for the preparation of a plan o/service, th~ d~veloper should submit
information describing the subject project to the Distdct's Customer Service Departmgnt, (909)
925-7676, extension 409, as folIows:
1} Written request for a 'plan of grvi~"
2} ' Minimum M00,00 deposit (larger deposits may be required for exttnsive
development projects or projects located in difficult to serve geographic areas.
Mail To: Post OHicc Box 8300 · SanJscinm, c,!!foroia 92581-8300 · Telephone (909) ~25-76"76 * Fu (909) 929-02~7
Main Offira: 2045 £. knJscinm Avenue,.San Jsejnm · Gummet S~rvice/!ingineeeL~ Anaes: 440 R Ckld_,~i A~m_~_s, ~ CA
Mathew Fapn
Pl/P PA. 93-0027
February 2'1, 1993
lma~c 2
3} Plans/maps describiq tire ffact localion and nature o~ ~he subject project.
Especially helpful msterials i~w_,,cl~ gradin~ plans and phasing plans.
S-ni,*v.v Sewer
Ti~ subject la-oject is consid~mt tributary ~o tttc Dlstzict't Tcm~ula Vall~ Reatonsl Water
The nearest cxistinf and available Tcmecula Varify Regional Warn* Reclamation Facility system
sanitary sewer facilities to 'the subject project arc as follows:
8-inch diameter sewer, flowing westerly, in Rancho Vista Road east of Mar~zita Road.
12-inch aismetff' sewif, fiowh~ nor~erly, in Msrgarim Rc~d sou~h o~ Ran~o Vista
Road.
· l~-inch, diameter sewu, fiowin2 westerly, in Rancho Vista Road west of Maf2srita
R~d.
Other lsaume
Any proposed onsiXe public myers must be located within minimum 20 ~ot wide casement,
Should you have any questions reSarclin2 these comments, please feel free to contact this office
at (90~) 92~-7676, extension 409.
Very truly yours,
EASTEI~ MUNICIPAL WATBR DISTRICT
Judith C. Conac~er
lX'~clopment Com'dinator
DGC/clz
(wl>-ntwk-PA930027.clz)
A.B 93-267 (partial)
co: Planning
Wa r
PhiHip L. Forbes
March 9, 1993
.~[.r. Matthew Fagan
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43180 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
SUBJECT: Water A,railability, APN 954-020-009
P.U.P. No. PA93-0027, Temecula United Methodist Church
Dear Mr. Fagan:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District CRCWD). 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 fights, ff any, to RCWD.
If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Senga Doheny.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P. E.
Manager of Development Engineering
SO:SO:aj61/F186
co: Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
RECEIVED
JUN 3 0 "- .~
Ans'd :-
Office a/the General Manager
Mr. Matthew Fagan
City of Temecula
Pl~-~ing Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
JUt/2 g 1993
Dear Mr. Fagan:
Development Review Committee Meeting for Pl----ing
Application No. 93-0027 (Public Use Permit)
Temecula United Methodist Church
We have received the Development Review Committee
Project Transmittal and Development Plans for Pls-~ing
Application No. 93-0027 (Public Use Permit) Temecula United
Methodist Church. The project proposes to construct a church
facility in three phases totalling 19,920 square feet in
area. The comments herein represent Metropolitan as response
as a potentially affected public agency.
Our review of the Transmittal and Development Plans
indicates that Metropolitan has two facilities in the area of
your proposed project site. Metropolitan's San Diego
Pipelines Nos. i and 2 border the eastern portion of the
project area and travel in a southerly direction. The
attached map shows Metropolitanas facilities in relation to
your proposed project. It will be necessar~ to consider these
facilities in your project planning.
After reviewing the proposed Grading Plan for this
project, MeUropolitan strongly objects to the proposed grading
within our easement. The proposed excavation would endanger
our existing facilities. Therefore, we require that any
grading in our easement be in confor~--ce with our "Guidelines
for Developments in the Area of Facilities, Fee Properties,
and/or Easements of The Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California," copy attached, and subject to our
written approval of the grading plans. In addition,
Metropolitan as pipelines may not be adequate for AASHTO H-20
loading in this area.
In order to avoid potential conflicts with
Metropolitanas facilities, we request that preliminary prints
METROPOL/TAN WATER W,~RICT OF 50UTHERN CALIFORNIA
Mr. Matthew Fagan
-2-
JUN 2 9 1993
of all improvement plans for any activity in the area of
Metropolitan's pipelines and rights-of-way be submitted for our
review and written approval. You may obtain detailed prints of
drawings of Metropoliten's pipelines and rights-of-way by calling
Metropolitan's Substructures Information Line at (213) 217-6564.
Additionally, Metropolitan encourages projects within its
service area to include water conservation measures. While
Metropolitan continues to build new supplies and develop means for
more efficient use of current resources, projected population and
economic growth will increase demands on the current system.
Water conservation, reclaimed water use, and groundwater recharge
programs are integral components to regional water supply
planning. Metropolitan supports mitigation measures such as using
water efficient fixtures, drought tolerant landscaping, and
reclaimed water to offset any increase in water use associated
with your proposed project.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide input to your
planning process. If we can be of further assistance, please
contact me at (213) 217-6272.
Very truly yours,
Kathleen M. Kunysz Affairs
MKanager, Environmental
DW/wlb
Attachments
i: /
I '/,
~ M.W.O Pipeline
-
I ~" X 6#premolded
-- -- I exponslon Joint
I not fo exceed ~ f~ volume
" ""' """" "' of the supporting ~11
... · ....:..,.
~..~.. ....~ '-
SECT/ON "~-~"
CROSS SECTION
Supporting v/oH shah hove o firm bearing on the
subgrade and against the side of the excavation.
Premolded expansion jo~nt filler per ASTM
to be used in supOort for steel pipe on/y.
If trench ~vidth is 4 feet or greater, measured along"
centerline of M. YK.D. pipe, concrete support must
be constructed.
If trench width is less than 4 feet, clean sand back-
fill, compacted .to 90~ density in accordance with
the provisions of ASTM $tondof~ D-1557-70 may
be used in lieu of the concrete support v/oil.
SEC T/OAI
SUPPORT FOR
PIP~'I. IN$
Ic-9547
NO PERMANENT STRUCTURES P~RMITT~D M.W.D. PERMANENT RIGHT OF WAY
NO ROOF OVERHANG PERMITTED
BUILDING
· FOOTING MUST NOT~ ADJACENT
ENCROACH INTO TO RIGHT
RIGHT OF WAY, ' OF WAY
""""; .
~ ~ M,W.D. PIPELINE
NOTE: M.V~.D. PIPELINe SIZE, DEPTH, LOCATION
AND WIDTH OF PERMANENT RIGHT OF
WAY VARIES.
R£OUIREblENTS FOR
BUILDHVGS ANO FOOTINGS
ADJAC£NT TO M.
RIGHT OF WAY
F~GURE 2
- 14-
17. Additional Information
Should you require additional information, please
contact Mr. Jim Hale~ telephone(213) 250-6564.
JEH/MRW/lk
Rev. January
Encl.
22, 1989
- 13-
giving Metropolitan's comments, requirements and/or approval
that will require 8 man-hours or less of effort is typically
performed at no cost to the developer, unless a facility
must be modified where Metropolitan has superior rights. If
an engineering review and letter response requires more than
8 man-hours of effort by Metropolitan to determine if the
proposed facility or development is compatible with its
facilities, or if modifications to Metropolitan's manhole(s)
or other facilities will be required, then all of
Metropolitan's costs associated with the project must be
paid by the developer, unless the developer has superior
rights.
b. A deposit of funds will be required from the
developer before Metropolitan can begin its detailed
engineering plan review that will exceed 8 hours. The
amount of the required deposit will be determined after a
cursory review of the plans for the proposed development.
c. Metropolitan's final billing will be based on
actual cost incurred, and will include engineering plan
review, inspection, materials, construction, and
administrative overhead charges calculated in accordance
with Metropolitan's standard accounting practices. If the
cost is less than the deposit, a refund will be made;
however, if the cost exceeds the deposit, an invoice will be
forwarded for payment of the additional amount. Additional
deposits may be required if the cost of Metropolitan's
review exceeds the amount of the initial deposit.
16.
Caution
We advise you that Metropolitan's plan reviews and
responses are based'upon information available to
Metropolitan which was prepared by or on behalf of
Metropolitan for general record purposes only. Such
information may not be sufficiently detailed or accurate for
your purposes. No warranty of any kind, either express or
implied, is attached to the information therein conveyed as
to its accuracy, and no inference should be drawn from
Metropolitan's failure to comment on any aspect of your
project. You are therefore cautioned to make such surveys
and other field investigations as you may deem prudent to
assure yourself that any plans for your project are correct.
- 12 -
2} In order to ensure compliance with the
regulations implementing CEQA where Metropolitan is not
the Lead Agency, the following minimum procedures to
ensure compliance with the Act have been established:
a) Metropolitan shall be timely advised of
any determination that a Categorical Exemption
applies to the project. The Lead Agency is to
advise Metropolitan that it and other agencies
participating in the project have complied with
the requirements of CEQA prior to Metropolitan's
participation.
b) Metropolitan is to be consulted during
the preparation of the Negative Declaration or
EIR.
c) Metropolitan is to review and submit any
necessary comments on the Negative Declaration or
draft EIR.
d) Metropolitan is to be indemnified for
any costs or liability arising out of any
violation of any laws or regulations including but
not limited to the California Environmental
Quality Act and its implementing regulations.
b. When Environmental Documents Have Been Prepared
If environmental documents have been prepared for your
project, please furnish us a copy for our review and files
in a timely manner so that we may have sufficient time to
review and comment. The following steps must also be
accomplished:
1) The Lead Agency is to advise Metropolitan
that it and other agencies participating in the project
have complied with the requirements of CEQA prior to
Metropolitan's participation.
2) You must agree to indemnify Metropolitan, its
officers, engineers, and agents for any costs or
liability arising out of any violation of any laws or
regulations including but not limited to the California'
Environmental Quality Act and its implementing regulations.
15.
Metropolitan's Plan-Review Cost
a. An engineering review of your proposed facilities
and developments and the preparation of a letter response
- 11 -
imposes loads no greater than ~3~SHTO B-10. If the cover is
between two and three feet, equipment must be restricted to
that of a Caterpillar D-4 tract-type tractor. If the cover
is less than two feet, only hand equipment may be used.
Also, if the contractor plans to use any equipment over
Metropolitan's pipeline which will impose loads greater than
~a~SHTO H-20, it will be necessary to submit the specifications
of such equipment for our review and approval at least one
week prior to its use. More restrictive requirements may
apply to the loading guideline over the San Diego Pipelines
1 and 2, portions of the Orange County Feeder, and the
Colorado River Aqueduct. Please contact us for loading
restrictions on all of Metropolitan's pipelines and
conduits.
b. The existing cover over the pipeline shall be
maintained unless Metropolitan determines that proposed
changes do not pose a hazard to the integrity of the
pipeline or an impediment to its maintenance.
13. Blasting
a. At least 20 days prior to the start of any
drilling for rock excavation blasting, or any blasting,
the vicinity of Metropolitan's facilities, a two-part
preliminary conceptual plan shall be submitted to
Metropolitan as follows:
in
b. Part 1 of the conceptual plan shall include a
complete suzunary of proposed transportation, handling,
storage, and use of explosions.
c. Part 2 shall include the proposed general concept
for blasting, including controlled blasting techniques and
controls of noise, fly rock, airblast, and ground vibration.
14. CEQA Requirements
a. When Environmental Documents Have Not Been
Prepared
1) Regulations implementing the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) require that
Metropolitan have an opportunity to consult with the
agency or consultants preparing any environmental
documentation. We are required to review and consider
the environmental effects of the project as shown in
the Negative Declaration or Envirorunental Impact Report
(EIR) prepared for your project before co~unitting
Metropolitan to approve your request.
-
10.
Drainage
a. Residential or commercial development typically
increases and concentrates the peak storm water runoff as
well as the total yearly storm runoff from an area, thereby
increasing the requirements for storm drain facilities
downstream of the development. Also, throughout the year
water from landscape irrigation, car washing, and other
outdoor domestic water uses flows into the storm drainage
system resulting in weed abatement, insect infestation,
obstructed access and other problems. Therefore, it is
Metropolitan's usual practice not to approve plans that show
discharge of drainage from developments onto its fee
properties and/or easements.
b. If water must be carried across or discharged onto
Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements, Metropolitan
will insist that plans for development provide that it be
carried by closed conduit or lined open channel approved in
writing by Metropolitan. Also the drainage facilities must be
maintained by others, e.g., city, county, homeowners association,
etc. If the development proposes changes to existing drainage
features, then the developer shall make provisions to provide
for replacement and these changes must be approved by Metropolitan
in writing.
11. Construction Coordination
During construction, Metropolitan's field representative
will make periodic inspections. We request that a stipulation
be added to the plans or specifications for notification of
Mr. of Me%ropolitan's Operations Services Branch,
telephone (213) 250- , at least two working days prior to
any work in the vicinity of our facilities.
12. Pipeline Loading Restrictions
a. Metropolitan's pipelines and conduits vary in
structural strength, and some are not adequate for
AASHTO H-20 loading. Therefore, specific loads over the
specific sections of pipe or conduit must be reviewed and
approved by Metropolitan. However, Metropolitan's pipelines
are typically adequate for AASHTO H-20 loading provided that
the cover over the pipeline is not less than four feet or
the cover is not substantially increased. If the temporary
cover over the pipeline during construction is between three
and four feet, equipment must restricted to that which
o. Control cables connected with the operation of
Metropolitan's system are buried within streets, its fee
properties and/or easements. The locations and elevations
of these cables shall be shown on the drawings. The
drawings shall note that prior to any excavation in the
area, the control cables shall be located and measures
shall be taken by the contractor to protect the cables in
place.
p. Metropolitan is a member of Underground Service
Alert (USA). The contractor (excavator) shall contact
USA at 1-800-422-4133 (Southern California) at least 48
hours prior to starting any excavation work. The contractor
will be liable for any damage to Metropolitan's facilities
as a result of the construction.
Paramount Riqht
Facilities constructed within Metropolitan's fee
properties and/or easements shall be subject to the
paramount right of Metropolitan to use its fee properties
and/or easements for the purpose for which they were
acquired. If at any time Metropolitan or its assigns
should, in the exercise of their rights, find it necessary
to remove any of the facilities from the fee properties
and/or easements, such removal and replacement shall be at
the expense of the owner of the facility.
Modification of Metropolitan's Facilities
When a manhole or other of Metropolitan's facilities
must be modified to ~ccommodate your construction or recons-
truction, Metropolit'an will modify the facilities with its
forces. This should be noted on the construction plans. The
estimated cost to perform this modification will be given to
you and we will require a deposit for this amount before the
work is performed. Once the deposit is received, we will
schedule the work. Our forces will coordinate the work with
your contractor. Our final billing will be based on actual
cost incurred, and will include materials, construction,
engineering plan review, inspection, and administrative
overhead charges calculated in accordance with Metropolitan'S
standard accounting practices. If the cost is less than the
deposit, a refund will be made; however, if the cost exceeds
the deposit, an invoice will be forwarded for payment of the
additional amount.
- 8 -
m. Cathodic Protection requirements:
1} If there is a cathodic protection station
for Metropolitan's pipeline in the area of the proposed
work, it shall be located prior to any grading or
excavation. The exact location, description and manner
of protection shall be shown on all applicable plans.
Please contact Metropolitan's Corrosion Engineering
Section, located at Metropolitan's F. E. Weymouth
Softening and Filtration Plant, 700 North Moreno
Avenue, La Verne, California 91750, telephone (714)
593-7474, for the locations of Metropolitan's cathodic
protection stations.
2) If an induced-current cathodic protection
system is to be installed on any pipeli~e crossing
Metropolitan's pipeline, please contact Mr. Wayne E.
Risner at (714) 593-7474 or (213) 250-5085. He will
review the proposed system and determine if any
conflicts will arise with the existing cathodic
protection systems installed by Metropolitan.
3) Within Metropolitan's rights-of-way,
pipelines and carrier pipes (casings) shall be coated
with an approved protective coating to conform to
Metropolitan's requirements, and shall be maintained in
a neat and orderly condition as directed by Metropolitan.
The application and monitoring of cathodic protection
on the pipeline and casing shall conform to Title 49 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 195.
4) If a steel carrier pipe (casing) is used:
(a) Cathodic protection shall be provided
by use ofa sacrificial magnesium anode (a sketch
showing the cathodic protection details can be
provided for the designers information).
(b) The steel carrier pipe shall be
protected with a coal tar'enamel coating inside
and out in accordance with AWWA C203 specification.
n. All trenches shall be excavated to comply with the
CAL/OSHA Construction Safety Orders, Article 6, beginning
with Sections 1539 through 1547. Trench backfill shall be
placed in 8-inch lifts and shall be compacted to 95 percent
relative compaction (ASTM D698) across roadways and through
protective dikes. Trench backfill elsewhere will be
compacted to 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D698).
- 7 -
j. Potholing of Metropolitan's pipeline is required
if the vertical clearance between a utility and
Metropolitan's pipeline is indicated on the plan to be one
foot or less. If the indicated clearance is between one and
two feet, potholing is suggested. Metropolitan will provide
a representative to assists others in locating and
identifying its pipeline. Two-working days notice is
requested.
k. Adequate shoring and bracing is required for the
full depth of the trench when the excavation encroaches
within the zone shown on Figure 4.
1. The location of utilities within Metropolitan's
fee property and/or easement shall be plainly marked to
help prevent damage during maintenance or other work done
in the area. Detectable tape over buried utilities
should be placed a minimum of 12 inches above the utility
and shall conform to the following requirements:
1) Water pipeline: A two-inch blue warning
tape shall be imprinted with:
"CAUTION EURIED WATER PIPELINE"
2) Gas, oil, or chemical pipeline: A
two-inch yellow warning tape shall be imprinted
with:
"CAUTION BURIED
PIPELINE"
3) Sewer or storm drain pipeline: A
two-inch green warning tape shall be imprinted with:
"CAUTION BURIED
PIPELINE"
4) Electric, street lighting, or traffic
signals conduit: A two-inch red warning tape shall
be imprinted with:
"CAUTION BURIED
CONDUIT"
5) Telephone, or television conduit: A
two-inch orange warning tape shall be imprinted
with:
"CAUTION EURIED CONDUIT"
- 6
g. Overhead electrical and telephone line
requirements:
1) Conductor clearances are to conform to the
California State Public Utilities Commission, General
Order 95, for Overhead Electrical Line Construction or
at a greater clearance if required by Metropolitan.
Under no circumstances shall clearance be less than
35 feet.
2) A marker must be attached to the power pole
showing the ground clearance and line voltage, to help
prevent damage to your facilities during maintenance or
other work being done in the area.
3) Line clearance over Metropolitan's fee
properties and/or easements shall be shown on the
drawing to indicate the lowest point of the line
under the most adverse conditions including
consideration of sag, wind load, temperature change,
and support type. We require that overhead lines be
located at least 30 feet laterally away from all
above-ground structures on the pipelines.
4) When underground electrical conduits,
120 volts or greater, are installed within
Metropolitan's fee property and/or easement, the
conduits must be incased in a minimum of three inches
of red concrete. Where possible, above ground warning
signs must also be placed at the right-of-way lines
where the conduits enter and exit the right-of-way.
h. The construction of sewerlines in Metropolitan's
fee properties and/or easements must conform to the
California Department of Health Services 'Criteria for the
Separation of Water Mains and Sanitary Services and the
local City or County Health Code Ordinance as it relates to
installation of sewers in the vicinity of pressure
waterlines. The construction of sewerlines should also
conform to these standards in street rights-of- way.
i. ~ross sections shall be provided for all pipeline
crossings showing Me~ropolitan's fee property and/or
easement limits and the location of our pipeline(s). The
exact locations of the crossing pipelines and their
elevations shall be marked on as-built drawings for our
information.
- 5 -
a. Permanent structures, including catch basins,
manholes, power poles, telephone riser boxes, etc., shall
not be located within its fee properties and/or easements.
b. We request that permanent utility structures
within public streets, in which Metropolitan's facilities
are constructed under the Metropolitan Water District
Act, be placed as far from our pipeline as possible, but
not closer than 5 feet from the outside of our pipeline.
c. The installation of utilities over or under
Metropolitan's pipeline(s) must be in accordance with the
requirements shown on the enclosed prints of Drawings
Nos. C-11632 and C-9547. Whenever possible we request a
minimum of one foot clearance between Metropolitan's pipe
and your facility. Temporary support of Metrgpolitan's
pipe may also be required at undercrossings of its pipe
in an open trench. The temporary support plans must be
reviewed and approved by Metropolitan.
d. Lateral utility crossings of Metropolitan's
pipelines must be as perpendicular to its pipeline
alinement as practical. Prior to any excavation our
pipeline shall be located manually and any excavation
within two feet of our pipeline must be done by hand.
This shall be noted on the appropriate drawings.
e. Utilities constructed longitudinally within
Metropolitan's rights-of-way must be located outside the
theoretical trench prism for uncovering its pipeline and
must be located parallel to and as close to its rights-
of-way lines as practical.
f. When pipin~ is jacked or installed in jacked
casing or tunnel under Metropolitan's pipe, there must be
at least two feet of vertical clearance between the
bottom of Metropolitan's pipe and the top of the jacked
pipe, jacked casing or tunnel. We also require that
detail drawings of the shoring for the jacking or
tunneling pits be submitted for our review and approval.
Provisions must be made to grout any voids around the
exterior of the jacked pipe, jacked casing or tunnel. If
the piping is installed in a jacked casing or tunnel the
annular space between the piping and the jacked casing or
tunnel must be filled with grout.
- 4 -
c. Absolutely no trees will be allowed within 15
of the centerline of Metropolitan's existing or future
pipelines and facilities.
feet
d. Deep-rooted trees are prohibited within
Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements. Shallow-
rooted trees are the only trees allowed. The shallow-rooted
trees will not be permitted any closer.than 15 feet from the
centerline of the pipeline, and such trees shall not be
taller than 25 feet with a root spread no greater than
20 feet in diameter at maturity. Shrubs, bushes, vines, and
ground cover are permitted, but larger shrubs and bushes
should not be planted directly over our pipeline. Turf is
acceptable. We require submittal of landscape plans for
Metropolitan's prior review and written approval. (See
Figure 3}.
e. The landscape plans must contain provisions for
Metropolitan's.vehicular access at all times along its
rights-of-way to its pipelines or facilities therein.
Gates capable of accepting Metropolitan's locks are
required in any fences across its rights-of-way. Also,
any walks or drainage facilities across its access route
must be constructed to AASHTO H-20 loading standards.
f. Rights to landscape any of Metropolitan's fee
properties must be acquired from its Right of Way and
Land Division. Appropriate entry permits must be obtained
prior to any entry on its property. There will be a charge
for any entry permit or easements required.
Fencing
Metropolitan requires that perimeter fencing of its fee
properties and facilities be constructed of universal chain
link, 6 feet in height'and topped with 3 strands of barbed
wire angled upward and outward at a 45 degree angle or an
approved equal for a total fence height of 7 feet. Suitable
substitute fencing may be considered by Metropolitan.
(Please see Figure 5 for details).
Utilities in Metropolitan's Fee Properties and/or Easements
or Adjacent to Its Pipeline in Public Streets
Metropolitan's policy for the alinement of utilities
permitted within its fee properties and/or easements and
street rights-of-way is as follows:
- 3 -
e. Metropolitan's pipelines and other facilities,
e.g. structures, manholes, equipment, survey monuments, etc.
within its fee properties and/or easements must be protected
from damage by the easement holder on Metropolitan's
property or the property owner where Metropolitan has an
easement, at no expense to Metropolitan. If the facility is
a cathodic protection station it shall be located prior to
any grading or excavation. The exact location, description
and way of protection shall be shown on the'related plans
for the easement area.
Easements on Metropolitan's Property
a. We encourage the use of Metropolitan's fee rights-
of-way by governmental agencies for public street and
utility purposes, provided that such use does not interfere
with Metropolitan's use of the property, the entire width of
the property is accepted into the agency's public street
system and fair market value is paid for such use of the
right-of-way.
b. Please contact the Director of Metropolitan's
Right of Way and Land Division, telephone (213) 250-6302,
concerning easements for landscaping, street, storm drain,
sewer, water or other public facilities proposed within
Metropolitan's fee properties. A map and legal description
of the requested easements must be submitted. Also, written
evidence must be submitted that shows the city or county
will accept the easement for the specific purposes into its
public system. The grant of the easement will be subject to
Metropolitan's rights to use its land for water pipelines
and related purposes.to the same extent as if such grant had
not been made. There will be a charge for the easement.
Please note that, if entry is required on the property prior
to issuance of the easement, an entry permit must be
obtained. There will also be a charge for the entry permit.
Landscaping
Metropolitan's landscape guidelines for its fee
properties and/or easements are as follows:
a. A green belt may be allowed within Metropolitan's
fee property or easemen=.
b. All landscape plans shall show the location and
size of Metropolitan's fee property and/or easement and the
location and size of Metropolitan's pipeline or other
facilities therein.
- 2 -
Maintenance of Access Along Metropolitan's Rights-of-Way
a. Proposed cut or fill slopes exceeding 10 percent
are normally not allowed within Metropolitan's fee
properties or easements. This is required to facilitate the
use of construction and maintenance equipment, and provide
access to its aboveground and belowground facilities.
b. We require that 16-foot-wide comme~cial-~ype
driveway approaches be constructed on both sides of all
streets crossing Metropolitan's rights-of-way. Openings
are required in any median island. Access ramps, if
necessary, must be at least 16,feet-wide. Grades of ramps
are normally not allowed to exceed 10 percent. If the slope
of an access ramp must exceed 10 percent due to the
topography, the ramp must be paved. We require a
40-foot-long level area on the driveway approach to access
ramps where the ramp meets the street. At Metropolitan's
fee properties, we may require fences and gates.
c. The terms of Metropolitan's permanent easement
deeds normally preclude the building or maintenance of
structures of any nature or kind within its easements, to
ensure safety and avoid interference with operation and
maintenance of Metropolitan's pipelines or other facilities.
Metropolitan must have vehicular access along the easements
at all times for inspection, patrolling, and for maintenance
of the pipelines and other facilities on a routine basis.
We require a 20-foot-wide clear zone around all above-ground
facilities for this routine access. This clear zone should
slope away from our facility on a grade not to exceed
2 percent. We must also have access along the easements
with construction equipment. An example of this is shown on
Figure 1.
d. The footings of any proposed buildings adjacent to
Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements must not
encroach into the fee property or easement or impose
additional loading on Metropolitan's pipelines or other
facilities therein. A typical situation is shown on
Figure 2. Prints of the detail plans of the footings for
any building or structure adjacent to the fee property or
easement must be submitted for our review and written
approval as they pertain to the pipeline or other facilities'
therein. Also, roof eaves of buildings adjacent to the
easement or fee property must not overhang into the fee
property or easement area.
Guidelines for Developments in the
Area of Facilities, Fee Properties, and/or Easements
of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Introduction
a. The following general guidelines should be
followed for the design of proposed facilities and
developments in the area of Metropolitan's facilities,
properties, and/or easements.
b. We require that 3 copies of your tentative and
final record maps, grading, paving, street improvement,
landscape, storm drain, and utility plans be ~ubmitted
for our review and written approval as they pertain to
Metropolitan's facilities, fee properties and/or
easements, prior to the commencement of any construction
work.
fee
Plans, Parcel and Tract Maps
The following are Metropolitan's requirements for the
identification of its facilities, fee properties, and/or
easements on your plans, parcel maps and tract maps:
a. Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements and
its pipelines and other facilities must be fully shown and
identified as Metropolitan's On all applicable plans.
b. Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements
must be shown and identified as Metropolitan's with the
official recording data on all applicable parcel and
tract maps.
c. Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements
and existing survey monuments must be dimensionally tied
to the parcel or tract boundaries.
d. Metropolitan's records of surveys must be
referenced on the parcel and tract maps.
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
INITIAL STUDY
R:\S\STAFFRPT~27PA93,PC 9/10/93 tie 2~
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Initial Environmental Study
I. BACKGROUND INFORMA~ON
1. Name of Project:
Temecula United Methodist Church
2. Case Numbers:
Planning Application No. 93-0027, Amendment No. 2 (Public Use
Permit)
3. Location of Project:
Northeast corner of Margarita and Rancho Vista Roads.
4. Description of Project:
A proposal for a church facility to be constructed in three (3) phases.
Phase I will consist of the construction of 5,200 square feet of
classrooms, offices, meeting area and utility area. Phase II consists
of a 5,500 square foot fellowship hall. Phase III consists of a 9,220
square foot sanctuary. Total square footage of the project is 19,920.
5. Date of Environmental
Assessment:
August 25, 1993
6. Name of Proponent:
Temecula United Methodist Church
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
27349 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 208
Temecula, CA 92590
(909) 676-1800
II.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations to all the answers are provided in Section Ill)
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes geologic substructures? __ __ __X
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction, or over covering
of the soil? X
c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X __
d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique
geologic or physical features? __ __ X__
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on
or off the site? X
Yes Maybe N._Qo
R:\S\STAFFRPT\27PA93.PC 9/10193 tjs 24
f. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion?
g. The modification of any wash, channel, cre~k, river or lake?
h. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as
earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, liquefaction, ground
failure, or similar hazards?
i. Any development within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone?
Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Alteration of air movement, temperature, or moisture or any
change in climate, whether locally or regionally?
Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or fresh waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and
amount of surface runoff?.
c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?
d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface
water quality, including but not limited to, temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters?
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct
additions, withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer
by cuts or excavations?
h. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public
water supplies?
i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such
as flooding?
Ye~ Maybe N__Q
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:\S\STAFFRPT~27PA93.PC 9/10/93 tjs 25
Yes Maybe N__o
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native
species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and
aquatic plants)? __ __ __X
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or
endangered species of plants? __ __ __X
c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species? __ __ X__
d. Reduction in the acreage of any agricultural crop? __ __ X__
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of
animals (animals includes all land animals, birds, reptiles, fish,
amphibians, shellfish, benthic organisms, and/or insects)? __ X
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or
endangered species of animals? __ X
c. The introduction of new wildlife species into an area? __ __ __X
d. A barrier to the migration or movement of animals? __ X
e. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? __ X
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? X__ __ __
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? __X __ __
c. Exposure of people to severe vibrations? __ __ __X
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce or result in light or glare? __X __ __
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in:
a. Alteration of the present land use of an area? __X __ __
b. Alteration to the future planned land use of an area as described
in a community or general plan? __ __ __X
R:\S\STAFFRPT\27PA93.PC 9/30/93
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. An increase in the rate of use of any natural resources?
b. The depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource?
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal result in:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of any hazardous substances
in the event of an accident or upset conditions (hazardous
substances includes, but is not limited to, pesticides, chemicals,
oil or radiation)?
b. The use, storage, transport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic
materials (including, but not limitp.~l to oil, pestleides, chemicals,
or radiation)?
c. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an
emergency evacuation plan?
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density,
or growth rate of the human population of an area?
12. Homing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand
for additional housing?
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking?
c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, including
public transportation?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of
people and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
f. Increase'in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians?
14. 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?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
R:\S\STAFFRPT~27PA93,PC 9/10/93 tie 27
Yes Maybe N__o
b. Police protection? _ _
c. Schools? _ _ __X
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance Of public facilities, including roads? X __
f. Other governmental services: __ __
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? __ __
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy,
or require the development of new sources of energy? __ __
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or
substantial alterations to any of the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? _ _
b. Communications systems? __ __
c. Water systems? __ __
d. Sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks? __ __
e. Storm water drainage systems? X
f. Solid waste disposal systems? __ __
g. Will the .proposal result in a disjointed or inefficient pattern of
utility delivery system improvements for any of the above? __ __
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? __ __
b. The exposure of people to potential health hazards, including
the exposure of sensitive receptors (such as hospitals and
schools) to toxic pollutant emissions? __ __
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? __ __
b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? __ __
R:\S\STAFFRPT\27PA93.PC 9110193 tjs 28
Yes Maybe N._Q
c. Detrimental visual impacts on the surrounding area?
X
19.
Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or
quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities?
X
20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
The alteration or destruction of any paleontologic, prehistoric,
archaeological or historic site?
X
Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure, or object?
X
Any potential to cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values?
X
Restrictions to existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
X
R:\SXSTAFFRPTX27PA93.PC 9/10/93 tie 29
HI. DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Earth
1.a.
No. The proposal will not result in unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures.
Manufactured slopes will be created on the site, however, any potential impacts will be mitigated
through planting of slopes for erosion control consistent with Uniform Building Code Standards and
Ordinance No. 457. Construction and grading for this development will not be at depths which
would affect any geologic substructures. No impacts are foreseen as a result of this project.
1.b.
Yes. The proposal will result in the disruption, displacement, compaction, or overcovering of the
soil. All grading activity requires disruptions, displacements, compaction and overcovering of the
soil. Impacts are not considered significant because the site has previously been graded. The
amount of disruption, displacement, compaction and overcovering of the soil will be minimal. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Yes. The proposal will result in a change in the site topography and ground surface relief features.
The topography of the site has already been previously modified into its current configuration.
Additional grading is proposed for the project, therefore the topography and Found surface relief
features will again be modified. Earthwork on the site will be a balance of cut and fill. Although
topographic features will be modified to accommodate this project, the physical nature of them will
not be significantly altered (i.e. slopes will still look like slopes). No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
1.d.
No. The proposal will not result in the destruction, covering or modification of any unique
geologic or physical features. No unique geologic features exist on the site. As mentioned in
response 1 .c., the topography has previously been altered and will be altered during the grading
process. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Maybe. Development of the site may result in increased wind and water erosion of soils both on
and off-site. Grading will occur for the creation of slopes, building area, and the parking lot. Any
impacts will be mitigated through planting of slopes, site landscaping, and the construction of
harriscape. Erosion control measures will be implemented as a condition of approval for the project
and will have to be consistent with Uniform Building Code Standards and Ordinance No. 457.
This will ensure that no significant impacts arise as a result of this project.
1 .f. Maybe. Reference response 1 .e. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
1.g.
No. The proposal will not result in modifications to any wash, channel, creek, river or lake. None
exist on the project site, nor are proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this~project.
1.h.
Yes. Development of the site will expose people and property to earthquake hazards since the
project is located in Southern California, an area which is seismically active. Any potential impacts
will be mitigated through building construction which is consistent with Uniform Building Code
standards. Information contained in the City of Temecula General Plan Draft Environmental
Impact Report (dated August 12, 1992) and the Southwest Area Community Plan Final
Environmental Impact Report (adopted May, 1989) and the Margarita Village Specific Plan
R:\S\STAFFRPT\27PA93.PC 9/10/93 tjs ~0
1. i.
Aid
2.a.b.
Water
3.a.
3.b.
3.c.
3.d.
Environmental Impact Report (certified April, 1986) states that the project will not expose people
or property to geologic hazards such as landslides, mudslides, Found failure or liquefaction. No
known landslides are located on the site or proximate to the site. The same is true for mudslides.
The potential for ground failure and liquefaction is also low in this area.
No. The proposal does not include development within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone as
identified by the State of California, Resource Agency Depamnent of Conservation Special Studies
Zone Map. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Yes. The project will result in air emissions both in the short and long-run. Air emissions and
objectionable odors will occur during the construction phase of the project. These impacts will be
of short duration and are not considered significant. Upon ultimate buildout of the project (Phase
lID, total volume of traffic will be 237 trip ends. According to the Traffic analysis prepared for
this project, Sunday peak-hour condition indicate that all traffic movements at the project access
driveway intersection would operate at a Level of Service A. The hours of operation of the church
and its ancillary facilities will not be during peak hours for traffic, therefore, long-run impacts from
auto emissions will not be considered significant.
No. The project will not result in alterations of air movement, temperatore, or moisture, or in any
change in climate either locally or regionally. The scale of the project precludes it from creating
any significant impacts on the environment in this area.
No. The proposal will not result in changes to currents, to the course or direction of water
movements in either marine or fresh waters. The project site is not located adjacent to either
marine or fresh water sources. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Yes. The proposal will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and
amount of surface runoff. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by
construction of buildings, accompanying harriscape and driveways. While absorption rates and
surface runoff will change, impacts are mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyances will
be required which will safely and adequately handle any of the runoff which is created by the
realization of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The proposal will not result in alterations to the course or flow of flood waters. The project
is not located within or adjacent to an identified floodway. No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
No. The proposal will not result in a change in the amount of surface water in any waterbody.
No major waterbodies are located in the subject project area, therefore, no significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
Yes. The proposal will result in discharges into surface waters or in any alteration of surface water
quality. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project, the developer will be required to
comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
R:\S\STAFFRPT\27PA93.PC 9/10/93 tie 31
permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an
NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with
the NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level less than significant.
Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
3.f.
No. The proposal will not result in an alteration of the direction or rate of flow of groundwaters.
Construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground
waters. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
3.g.
No. The proposal will not result in a change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct
additions, withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations. Reference
response 3 .f. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project,
3.h.
No. The project will not result in the reduction in the mount of water otherwise available for
public water supplies. Water service will be provided by Raneho California Water District
(RCWD) upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner
(based upon transmittal dated March 9, 1993, a copy of which is on file with the Planning
Department). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
3.i.
No. The proposal will not expose people or property to water related hazards such as flooding.
Reference response 3.c.
Plant Life
No. The proposal will not result in any change to the diversity of species, or number of any native
species of plants. A portion of the site (. 19 acres) consists of healthy Coastal Sage Scrub. This
is habitat for the California Gnatcatcher, a bird which is on the Federal Endangered Species list.
According to the Biological Survey of the site (prepared by T.V. St. John, Ph,D. dated July 18,
1993): "the Coastal Sage Scrub is very likely of suitable vegetative composition for the California
Gnatcatcher." This portion of the site will remain in its natural state - the project has been
designed to incorporate the. 19 acre piece of Coastal Sage Scrub into it. The remainder of the site
has been previously graded and consists of sporadic ground cover. The project is considered
"inflll" with development existing to the north, south, east and west. As a result of the
preservation of the Coastal Sage Scrub; as well as the disturbed nature of the site, no significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
4.b.
No. The proposal will not result in a reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened,
or endangered species of plants. Reference response No. 4.a. The remainder of the site does not
contain unique or rare plants, therefore, threatened or endangered species will not be significantly
affected. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No. Development of the site will not result in the creation of a barrier to the normal replenishment
of existing species for two main reasons. First, the piece of Coastal Sage Scrub is being preserved
in its natural state. Secondly, the project is "in-fill," with existing development to the north, south,
east and west. Although the project proposes species of plants which do not currently exist on the
site, it is not being introduced into an area of native vegetation. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\S\STAFFRPT\27PA93.pC 9/10/93 ~i" 32
4.d.
No. The proposnl will not result in a reduction in the acreage of any agricultural crop. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project since no prime farmland, farmland of
statewide or local importance, or unique farnfland is located within the project site.
5.a.b.
d.c.
Maybe. The project may result in a change in the diversity of species, or numbers of species of
animals. The project site lies within the Riverside County Stephens Kangaroo Rat Habitat
Conservation Plan Preliminary Study Area, however, the project itself will not impact the habitat
of the Stephens Kangaroo Rat. The site has been previously graded and consists of sporadic ground
cover. The project is considered "in~ll" with development existing to the north, south, east and
west. There is no potential for the change in the diversity and number (reduction) of the species,
or in producing a barrier to the migration of Stephens Kangaroo Rat as well as the deterioration
of its habitat exists within the project area. Since a Habitat Conservation Plan has not been
established as of this date, the impacts to the Stephens Kangaroo Rat may be mitigated through the
payment of the Interim Mitigation Fee pursuant to Ordinance No. 663. This fee will be imposed
as a Condition of Approval for a project at this site. As mentioned in response No. 4.a., a portion
of the site (. 19 acres) consists of healthy Coastal Sage Scrub, which is habitat for the California
Gnatcatcher. The Gnatcatcher is a bird that is on the Federal Endangered Species list. This
portion of the site will remained in its natural state - the project has been designed to incorporate
the . 19 acre piece of Coastal Sage Scrub into it, thereby preserving the potential Gnatcatcher
habitat. According to the Biological Survey of the site (prepared by T.V. St. John, Ph.D. dated
July 18, 1993): "None of the efforts to locate California gnatcatchers were successful." No other
sensitive species have been identified upon the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
5.c.
No. The proposal will not result in the introduction of any new wildlife species into the area. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Noise
Yes. The proposal will result in increases to existing noise levels. The site is currently vacant and
any development of the land would result in increases to noise levels during construction phases
as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run. These impacts will not be considered
significant. The church site is located adjacent to an MWD easement which serves as a buffer to
homes east of the site. Homes located west of the site are across Margarita Road. Temecula
Valley High School is located to the south of the site. An apartment complex exists to the north
of the project site, however, they will not be impacted because of the site layout. No significant
impacts from noise are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.b.
Yes. The project may expose people to severe noise levels during the development/construction
phase (short run) and during the long-run. Construction machinery is capable of producing noise
in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet which is considered very annoying and can cause hearing
damage from steady 8-hour exposure. This source of noise will be of short duration and therefore
will not be considered significant. Buildout CNEL at 100 feet from Margarita Road will be 63.0.
According to the General Plan EIR, 63.0 CNEL is conditionally acceptable - new construction or
development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirement
R:\S%STAFFRPT\27PA93.PC 9/10/93 ~s 33
is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. The sanctuary will be within
100 feet. An acoustical analysis will be required prior to the issuance of a ~rading permit for the
sanctuary and has been included as a condition of approval. Any potential impacts will be
mitigated at this time. No significant impacts are anticipated either in the short- or long-run.
6.c.
No. The proposal will not result in the exposure of people to severe vibrations. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Light and Glare
Yes. The proposal will ultimately produce and result in light/glare, because development of the
site will create new light sources. All light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount
Palemar Observatory. No impacts are foreseen from light and glare since any future development
on the site will be conditioned to be consistent with Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating
Light Pollution).
Land Use
Yes. The proposal will alter the present land use of the area, because the site is currently vacant.
When the project is realized on the site the use of the land will be altered. The project as proposed
is consistent with the Margarita Village Specific Plan (SP - 199). In addition, it is likely that the
proposal will be consistent with the future General Plan land use designation for the site which
identifies the site as Public/Institutional Facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project,
8.b.
No. The proposal will not result in an alteration to the future planned land use of the site as
described in the Margarita Village Specific Plan or the City's future General Plan. Reference
response 8.a. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Natural Resources
9.a.b.
Maybe. The proposal may result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource or in the
depletion of nonrenewable resource(s). Development of the site will result in an increase in the rate
of use of natural resources (construction materials, fuels for the dally operation, asphalt, lumber)
and the subsequent depletion of these non-renewable natural resources. Due to the scale of the
proposed development, these impacts are not seen as significant.
Risk of Upset
10.a.b.
No. The proposal will not result in a risk of explosion, or the release of any hazardous substances
in the event olLan accident or upset conditions, since none are proposed in the request. The same
is true for the use, storage, transport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic materials. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\S\STAFFRPT\27PA93.PC 9/10/93
10.c.
No. The project will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency evaluation
plan. The subject site is not located in an area which could impact and emergency response plan.
The project will take access from a maintained street and will therefore not impede any emergency
response or emergency evacuation plans. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
Population
11.
No. The project will not result in altering the location, distribution, density or growth rate of the
human population of the area. Projects of this nature do not cause people to relocate. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Housing
12.
No. Reference response 11. Projects of this nature do not cause people to relocate, and therefore,
additional housing needs will not be created. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
Transportation/Circulation
13.a.
No. The proposal will not result in the generation of substantial additional vehicular movement.
Information contained in the Focused Traffic Study (prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates, dated
August 4, 1993) indicates that project related traffic increases were found to be well under the five
percent increase threshold at the intersections of Margarita/Rancho Vista Roads, and
Margarita/Pauba Roads. Increased development of the site will result in the maintenance of Levels
of Service (LOS) "C" for these intersections during weekday peak AM and PM hours. The impact
of the project at the intersection of MargaritrdRancho California Roads (northbound approach at
Rancho California) would exceed the five percent threshold, however, the intersection would still
operate at a Level of Service C. The study further concludes that future traffic operations at the
Church project access driveway would operate at a Level of Service A or better for all movements
except the left-turn movement exiting the site. According to the study, a "composite" service level
"D" or better operating condition would be maintained for the outbound left-turn movement during
the peak weekday traffic periods. This will not be considered significant because the site will be
used mostly on Sunday. The report states: "The analysis of the Sunday peak-hour condition
indicates that all traffic movements at the project access driveway intersection would operate at a
Level of Service A." No significant impacts are expected from development of the site.
13.b.
Yes. The project will result in an increased demand for new parking. One hundred fifty-eight
(158) off-site parking spaces have been provided and this is consistent with Section 18.12 of
Ordinance No. 348. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
13.c.
No. The proposal will not create impacts upon existing transportation systems, including public
transportation. The site is located at the intersection of a fully improved arterial (Margarita Road)
and a fully improved secondary street (Rancho Vista Road). Currently, an RTA route is available
in the area where the project is located. Due to the time of operation of the proposed project (off-
peak traffic generation), no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\S\STAFFRPT\27PA93.PG 9/10/93 tjs 35
13.d.
Yes. The proposal will result in alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of
people and/or goods. The site is curren~y vacant and therefore, no one is traveling to the site.
Upon development of the site, people will travel to the site which previously had no one travelling
to it. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
13.e.
No. The proposal will not result in alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic since none exists
currently in the proximity of the site and none are proposed. No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
13.f.
Yes. The proposal will result in an increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians, however, they are not seen as significant. Impacts have been mitigated to a level less
than significant through the site design, which is consistent with City standards.
Public Services
14.a.b.
No. The proposal will not have a substantial effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire
or police protection. The church and associated buildings will incrementally increase the need for
fire and police protection, however, due to the scale of the proposed development, these impacts
are not seen as significant.
14.c.
No. The proposal will not have a substantial effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
school facilities. Any potential impacts can be reduced to a level less than significant through the
payment of school fees which will be required to be paid prior to the issuance of building permits
for the project. No significant impacts are anticipat~xt as a result of this project.
14.d.
No. The proposal will not have a substantial effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
parks or other recreational facilities. Projects of this nature do not cause people to relocate into
the area or require additional housing. Therefore additional recreational facilities above those
provided on site will not be needad. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
14.e.
Yes. The proposal will result in a need for the maintenance of public facilities, including roads.
Funding for maintenance of roads is derived from the Gasoline Tax which is distributed to the City
of Temecula from the State of California. Impacts to current and future needs for maintenance of
roads as a result of development of the site will be incremental, however, they will not be
considered significant. This is because the Gasoline Tax is sufficient to cover any of the proposed
expenses.
14.f.
No. The proposal will not have a substantial affect upon or result in a need for new or altered
governmental services. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:',S%STAFFRPT\27PA93.pC 9/10/93 tjs 36
Ener~
15.a.
15.b.
Utilities
16.a.
16.b.
16.c.
16.d.
16.e.
16.f.
16.g.
No. The proposal will not result in the use of substantial mounts of fuel or energy. As mentioned
in responses 9.a. and 9.b. the proposal may result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural
resource or the depletion of any nonrenewable resource. Development of the site will result in an
increase in the rate of use of natural resources (construction materials, fuels for the daily operation,
asphalt, lumber) and the subsequent depletion of these non-renewable natural resources. Due to
the scale of the proposed development, these impacts are not seen as significant.
No. The project will not result in a substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy,
nor will the project require the development of new sources of energy. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to power or
natural gas. The project site is within proximity of existing facilities. The project is seen as an
"in-fill" project with existing uses to the north, south, east and west. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to
communication systems (reference response No. 16.a.). No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to water
systems. Reference response 3.h. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to sanitary
sewer systems. The project is located within Eastern Municipal Water District's (EMWD) sanitary
sewer service area. Based upon information contained in the General Plan Draft Environmental
Impact Report (dated August 12, 1993) adequate facilities exist (and are proposed) which will
adequately service the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Yes. The proposal will result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to on-site storm
water drainage systems (reference response No. 3.b,c.). No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to solid waste
disposal systems. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be
mitigated through participation in any Source Reduction and Recycling Programs which are
implemented by the City. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The proposal will not result in a disjointed or inefficient pattern of utility delivery system
improvements for any of the above. (reference response No. 16.a.). No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
R:~S\STAFFRPT\27PA93.PC 9/10/93 t}s 37
Human Health
17.a.b.
No. The proposal will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard.
The County of Riverside Health Services Agency has reviewed the project and has voiced no
objections to the project (County of Riverside Health Services Agency transmittal dated February
19, 1993, a copy of which is on file with the Planning Department). In addition, the proposal will
not expose people to potential health hazards. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
Aesthetics
18.a.
No. The proposal will not result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public.
The project is considered in-fill, with development located to the north, south, east and west. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
18.b.
No. The proposal will not result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public
view. The manufactured slopes which will be created on the site will be completely landscaped,
thereby mitigating any potential offensive views created by the slope.
18.c.
No. The proposal will not result in detrimental visual impacts on the surrounding area. Reference
response 18.b. Potential visual impacts have been mitigated to a level less than significant.
Recreation
19.
No. The proposal will not result in impacts to the quality or quantity of existing recreational
resources or opportunities. The site is currently vacant and is not being used for either passive or
active recreational purposes. Projects of this nature do not cause people to relocate into the area
or require additional housing. Therefore additional recreational facilities above those provided on
site will not be needed. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Cultural Resources
No. The proposal will not result in the alteration or destruction of any paleontologic, prehistoric,
archaeological or historic site. Although both the City of Temecula Draft General Plan
Environmental Impact Report (dated August 12, 1992) and the Southwest Area Community Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report (adopted May, 1989) indicate that there is a possibility that
paleontologic, prehisteric, archaeological or histeric sites may exist on the subject project site, the
Final Environmental Impact Report for Marrgarita Village indicates that no historic sites and only
one archeological site were found within the Specific Plan area. The subject project site is not in
proximity to the archeological site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
20.b.
No. The proposal will not result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structere or object. Reference response 20.b. No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
20.c.
No. The project will not have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values. No "unique" ethnic cultural values exist on-site or in proximity to the site.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:XS\STAFFRPT\27PA93.PC 9110/93 tjs 38
20.d.
No. The proposal will not result in restrictions to existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area. None currently exist on the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
R:\S\STAFFRPT~27PA93.PC 9/10/93 tie 39
IV. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIIqCANCE
Does the project have the potential to either: degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish, wildlife or bird species, cause a fish,
wildlife or bird population to drop below self sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant, bird or animal
species, or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
Y~ Maybe No
Does the project have the potential to achieve short
term, to the disadvantage of long term, environmental
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 cumulatively 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 substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
V. DEPARTMENT OF HSH AND GAME "DE MINIMUS" I1VIPACT FINDINGS
Does the project have the potential to cause any adverse effect,
either individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife resources?
Wildlife is defined as "all wild animals, birds, plants, fish,
amphibians, and related ecological communities, including the
habitat upon which the wildlife depends on for it's continued
viability" (Section 711.2, Fish and Game Code).
Yes
X
N__o
R:\S\STAFFRPT\27PA93.PC 9/10/93 tjs 40
ENVIRONMENTAL D~:f~ATION
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 significant effect
on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case
because the Mitigation Measures described on the attached sheets and
in the Conditions of Approval that have been added to the project will
mitigate any potentially significant impacts to a level of insignificance,
and 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.
Prepared by: Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner
Signature
Name and Tide
Date
R:\SXSTAFFRPT\27pA93,pC 9/10/93 tie
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
R:%S\STAFFRPT\27PA93,PC 9/10/93.tie 42
CITY OF TEMECULA
PAR)(
CASE NO.: Public Use Permit No. PA93-0027, Amendment No. 2
EXHIBIT: A VICINITY MAP
P.C. DATE: September 20, 1993
R:\S\STAFFRPT\27PA93.PC 9/1/93 tjs
CITY OF TEMECULA
IN|A
SITE
FUTURE GENERAL PLAN - Exhibit B
Designation: Public/Institutional Facilities
SITE
II
II
II
·
ZONING - Exhibit C Designation: Specific Plan No. 199, Margarita Village
Case No.: Public Use Permit No. PA93-0027, Amendment No. 2
P.C. Date: September 20, 1993
R:\S\STAFFRPT\27PA93.pC 9/1/93 tjs
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: Public Use Permit No. PA93-0027, Amendment No. 2
EXHIBIT: D
P.C. DATE: September 13, 1993
SITE PLAN
R:\S\STAFFRPT\27PA93.pC 9/1/93 tjs