The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About020794 PC Agenda TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION . . FS~rmb7 ~, 19.04, ~..~.PM · i~ · (": '.'~ "::....=" '.,U ...: ..'~.V."?~.~ ','i~.'~/~ .'~% .~..-...,'.. ::' ..=:.. ,... '.,.~"...~'.'... . .. :'.: .' .~ . ':.~/ ~ ... C&Lt..TO ORD.ER: PRF, SKNTATION~: Sweating in of An Salyef *F . pUBLIC COMM~'x~ .. · i~ out ~ ~l~ wi~ to ~n S~- COMMIS$10~ BDSINNS$ I. Approval of Agenda 2. Approval .of minutes from the January 3, 1994 Planning Cornion meeting. 3. Direetor's Binring Update NON-PUBLIC HEARING me c~ty, .r .oa. ,z~c eU. ZUNG ~s Location: Proposal: f C, it~ o T~la Citywide Amend Ordinnnr,~ No. d~0 ID simplif~ the current rules for merging sub~t.nndard parcels .' ' ' ' ." · ....... i .., ..' ."...~.-,.' ~ ~,~et~'.~.i~dhih :.. ! ' ': ".' ." '~ '. '. "=' .-'.':* ' .'.! .... .' Planner: David Hogan Recommendation: Recommend Approval Proposal: Environmental Action: ~ianner: Recommendation: An'Ammdment m...,.Sl~unNo, aS,aS,A,C,00) orO~Unanee No, 348 :City:of.Te~a~cula.::. ~ -.""' .'. '~ . . : . :. : ' ...., ".' :';.. i:~.., Citywid~ Amud Ordinanc~ No. 348 pmaining Io the t3~e of paving material required for ms Io second dwelling units Exempt ~ Section 1~303(a) CalifOrnia F-nvironmental Quality .Act. GuMdim. . .... : Manizew Paten Recommend Approval Next meeting: March 7, 1994, 6:00 p.m., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, C'.alif~mia. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S ~RT ITEM #2 MINUTES OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 1994 A meeting of the City of Temeculs Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, January 3, 1994, 6:00 P.M., at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Steve Ford. PRESENT: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Hoagland, Ford ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Fahey Also present were Assistant City Attorney Mary Jo Shelton-Dutcher, Planning Director Gary Thornhill, Principal Engineer Ray Casey and Recording Secretary Gail Zigler. PUBLIC COMMENT None COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Aooroval of Ageride It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Blair to approve the agenda. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Hoagland, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey Aooroval of Minutes from December 6. 1993 Plannino Commission Meeting It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Blair to approve the minutes. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Hoagland, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Fahey PCMhN01103194 -1- 1/10193 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3. Director's Headno UPdate JANUARY 3. 1994 Report contained in the agenda packet. It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Blair to receive and file report. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Hoagland, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Fahey PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 4. Planning Aoolication No, 93-0187 Proposed church and associated facilities to be constructed in four (4) phases. The first phase will consist of a worship/fellowship building, a maintenance building, and Sunday School building totaling 9,230 square feet. The second phase will be a 4,832 square foot preschool building. Phase 3 is a 22,096 square foot Christian Day School. Phase four will be a 9,974 square foot sanctuary. Located on the north side of Pauba Road, approximately 2500 feet east of intersection of Ynez and Paub8 Roads. Planner Matthew Fagan presented the staff report. Principal Engineer Ray Casey distributed a memorandum recommending deletion of Condition No. 87. Chairman Ford opened the public hearing at 6:15 P.M. Paul Yelton, 38088 Avenids Braura, Temecula, provided an overview of the church's history. Louis Todd, 30645 Southern Cross Road, Temecula, asked for the Commission's approval of the project. Mr. Todd expressed opposition to Condition No. 75 regarding traffic mitigation fees. He asked that staff allow the attorneys representing the City and the applicant to resolve the issue. Commissioner Fahey arrived at 6:25 P.M. Marcia Slaven, 30110 La Primavers, Temecula, commended the New Community Lutheran Church for being a "good neighbor". Regarding the issue of water retention, Ms. Slaven said she is not clear how the church will retain water in the parking lot. PCMIN01103/g4 -2- 1 II 0/93 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 3, 1994 Regarding the endangered gnatcatcher, Ms. Slaven advised the Commission that through an informal report, she has been advised the gnatcatcher exists on this property. Ms. Slaven said she has concerns regarding the single access to the project. She also expressed a concern with the reference to natural vegetation as a buffer. Ms. Slavin said she does not feel the proposed vegetation will adequately buffer the noise from the playground area. In conclusion, Ms. Slavin said she was very disappointed that the City Council offered this property as a resolution to the problems with the New Community Lutheran Church. Ms. Slavin said she spent five years opposing Bedford's proposed development of this property and felt at the time the property was acquired by the City the general consensus of the city government was this property would be used as a passive recreation area. John Augustine, 30345 Colina Verde, Temecula, expressed opposition to the proposed project being built on property zoned rural residential. Mr. Augustine said he is very concerned with the traffic impacts and overflow parking. Betsy Stoakes, 30263 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, said she has concerns regarding the drainage issue. Ms. Stoakes said she is concerned the project will have an impact on any future fireworks displays the City may have and also expressed concerns regarding, noise, traffic, and lighting. Louis Todd addressed the concerns expressed by the opponents as follows: staff has reported very little impact will occur from the traffic generated by this project; the project is currently a graded pad and there is tremendous runoff occurring. The proposed drainage plan will carry the runoff away from the Lake Villages area; enhanced landscaping is proposed along the property ridge which will serve as a natural filtration for the water runoff as well as act as a noise buffer. Chairman Ford asked for clarification on the request for a decrease in the number of parking spaces. Planner Fagan explained a church facility typically does not use all the buildings at the same time. He said there is not a requirement to provide parking for each of the buildings at all times. Commissioner Blair asked for a clarification of the left turn lane into and out of the project. Ray Casey stated the stipulation between the applicant and the City specifies four lanes of improvement. The applicant has expressed a willingness to be flexible during the design process as long as the cost is capped at a certain point in the design process. The City will analyze the need for a left turn lane during the final design process. Commissioner Fehey said she is uncomfortable not including a condition for the left turn lane. PCMIN01/03194 -3- 1 I10/93 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 3. 1994 Ray Casey said suggested staff could include a condition contingent upon further analysis. Commissioner Fahey expressed a concern with the timing of the street light and road improvements planned for Margarita Road and Pauba. She said her concern is whether the improvements will be done prior to completion of the phase of the project which builds the school. Ray Casey said the developer is conditioned tohave the street improvements in, prior to occupancy of the first phase of the project. Commissioner Fahey asked if there is information that indicates the landscaping proposed for the project will adequately buffer the adjacent homeowners. Planning Director Gary Thornhill said a solid barrier is the only barrier that adequately buffers noise, however, staff does not feel the proposed use will generate the degree of noise to require a solid barrier. Commissioner Blair asked what could be done to help empty the parking out and alleviate the problem of cars stacking. Ray Casey said there is a significant amount of stacking distance on the drive lane outside of the parking lot. Commissioner Hoagland asked for clarification of the opinion of legal counsel on the issue of the gnatcatcher. Planning Director Gary Thornhill said the City Attorney has received a letter from the Department of Fish and Game regarding this issue and a field inspection must occur during the peak nesting period, however, there is no clear ruling from the government on this issue. Commissioner Hoagland said he feels it is difficult to make a determination of the environmental impacts when there is no date on the existence of this species on the proposed project. Planning Director Gary Thornhill clarified the City is proceeding legally and the City Attorney feels the City is in compliance. Commissioner Hoagland said he is concerned about saying the mitigation monitoring plan is going to happen when no plan has been presented. Commissioner Hoagland said he previously found this site unsuitable for high density development and he feels awkward approving a project on this site. Commissioner Blair said she would like a condition added which requires staff to take a serious look at a left turn lane. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE8 JANUARY 3,1994 Planning Director Gary Thornhill said he would agree that timing for the mitigation monitoring program could be clarified. He suggested the applicant be given some flexibility, perhaps 90 days after the window of opportunity. Chairman Ford said he would also like staff to address the issue of a left turn lane. Chairman Ford said he would like to see more trees planted and possibly some burming along the left perimeter of the property. Chairman Ford suggested the lighting conform with the lighting requirement at the Sports Park and the lights be shut off at 10:00 P.M. Chairman Ford said he is concerned with the reduction in the parking spaces and the potential for overflow parking. Commissioner Fahey said there is no provision for parking along Pauba Road and she feels it is not suitable for on street parking. Director Thornhill said the applicant could be conditioned to satisfy their parking demand for later phases and allow no on street parking. Commissioner Fahey said she feels staff has addressed the issue of the gnatcatcher, however she is not comfortable with the traffic issues and the issue of the left turn lane. Ray Casey suggested Conditions 61 and 80 be amended to include the following "In addition, the applicant shall construct a left turn pocket at the entrance of the project should further review by the Department of Public Works deem it is warranted. It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Blair to close the public hearing at 7:30 P.M. and Adoot the Negative Declaration for PA93-0187 Amendment No. 1 and Adoot Resolution No. 94-01, approving PA93-0187, Amendment No. 1 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the staff report, deleting Condition No. 67, amending Condition No. 61 and No. 80, amend Condition No. 16 to include a 90 day determination for the mitigation monitoring program, and direct staff to increase the landscaping requirements on the portion of the project which aligns the Lake Villages. Louis Todd expressed concurrence with the changes to the Conditions of Approval. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford NOES: I COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Chairman Ford declared a recess at 7:35 P.M. The meeting was reconvened st 7:45 P.M. PCMIN01/03/94 -5- 1 I10/93 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 3, 1994 5. WorkshoD on Villaae Center Desion Concepts Senior Planner John Meyer and Randy Jackson of the Design Center provided a slide presentation and discussion of some Village Center designs and projects. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT None PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS None OTHER BUSINESS None ADJOURNMENT Chairman Ford declared the meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M. The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission will be held on Monday, February 7, 1994, 6:00 P.M., at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California. Secretary Chairman Steve Ford PCMIN01/03/94 -6- 1 I10/93 ITEM #3 IvmMORANDUIVI TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Director of Plnnning February 7, 1993 Director's Hearing Case Update No cases were heard in January, 1994. ITEM #4 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner February 7, 1994 Planning Application No. PA94-0001, Administrative Plot Plan for a Proposed 20 Foot Free Standing Sign for the Norm Reeves Auto Dealership Located at 26755 Ynez Road BACKGROUND On January 4, 1994, the applicant's representative filed an application to erect a 20 foot free standing sign for the Norm Reeves auto dealership located at 26755 Ynez Road, Staff has concerns with the height of the sign as it is inconsistent with City approved signs in the area. DISCUSSION The project site is located in the General Commercial (C-P) zone. Free standing advertising signs in this zone require Plot Ran approval. In addition, free standing signs are also governed by the provisions of Section 19.4.2 of Ordinance No. 348 (Sign Regulations}. Section 19.4.2 states "the maximum height of a sign shall not exceed 20 feet." To approve a Plot Plan application, the following findings must be made: The overall development of the land shall be designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare. The project shall conform to the logical development of the land and be compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. It is staff's opinion that the proposed sign does not meet either of the above mentioned findings for the following reasons: Presently, there are six auto dealerships in this area. To allow each existing dealer, along with future dealers, to erect 20 foot signs would result in visual blight. To approve projects that would result in visual blight would be contrary to the general welfare of the community. Based upon direction from the City Council and Planning Commission, staff has not approved any signs in this area in excess of 6 feet. Since the City's incorporation, three auto dealership signs have been approved (Nissan, Toyota and Chevrolet). In all three cases, the signs are a maximum of six feet in height. To approve a 20 foot free standing sign at this location would not conform to the logical development of the land and would be inconsistent with present and future logical development in the area. The area does contain one free standing sign (Acura) which is approximately 15 feet in height. However, this sign was approved by the County of Riverside Planning Department prior to the City's incorporation. RECOMMENDATION 1. Provide staff direction relative to the allowable height of the proposed sign. 2. Provide staff direction relative to developing an Interim Sign Ordinance to be in effect until such time the City's Development Code is adopted. R:%ST.~%FPP~IPA94,1~ ~ Idb 2 ITEM #5 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning DATE: February 7, 1994 SUBJECT: General Plan Consistency Handbook Prepared By: David W. Hogan RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT PC Resolution No. 94- resolution entitled: recommending approval of a "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVE OF THE GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY HANDBOOK" BACKGROUND: In the process of beginning to implement the City's new General Plan, a number of questions have been raised concerning the issue of consistency with the newly adopted General Plan. As a result, Staff has prepared the attached Handbook to provide a standard methodology to guide implementation of the Plan. DISCUSSION: The purpose of the General Plan Consistency Handbook is to provide a standard methodology for determining whether or not a proposed development project, ordinance or program is consistent with the City General Plan. The Handbook has been designed so that as the programs are implemented, they can be incorporated into this process without major modification. The General Plan Consistency Handbook has been prepared using the following documents: 1. The 1993 State Planning, Zoning, and Development Laws; 2. The State of California General Plan Guidelines; and, 3. The Pre-final version of the adopted City General Plan. To facilitate the use of the Handbook, all the Goals in the General Plan, as well as the policies relating to the Village Center Concept have been included as Attachments. A copy of the Handbook is included in Attachment No. I to this Staff Report. A draft of the Handbook has been reviewed by the City Attorney. The Attorneys comments included several suggested revisions to Sections 1.3 and 2.3. These comments have been incorporated into the attached Draft of the Handbook. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The proposed Handbook will provide a standard methodology for implementing the adopted General Plan for the City of Temecula. As a result, approval and use of this Handbook does not have the potential to cause a significant adverse impact on the environment. Therefore, the Director of Planning has determined that the project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. FUTURE GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY: The General Plan Consistency Handbook will ensure consistent implementation of the City's General Plan and, as a result, approval of this Handbook is consistent with the adopted General Plan. Attachments: 1. General Plan Consistency Handbook - Blue Page 3 2. PC Resolution No. 94- - Blue Page 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY HANDBOOK City of Tcmccula GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY HANDBOOK January 20, 1994 Prepared by: Advance Planning Division Planning Department City of Temecula TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................................. 1 1.1 1,2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 PURPOSE ................................................... 1 ROLE OF THE GENERAL PLAN IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT .................. 1 WHAT IS GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY? ............................ I WHAT GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ............................... 2 WHAT GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY IS NOT ......................... 2 RELATIONSHIP BI~'fWEEN THE GENERAL PLAN AND OTHER PLANS .......... 3 NEW DIRECTIONS IN THE GENERAL PLAN ............................ 3 DETERMINATION 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 OF CONSISTENCY ............ 5 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY IN THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT CODE IS APPROVED ...................... 5 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY IN THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS AFrI~, THE DEVELOPMENT CODE IS APPROVED ............................ 6 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY AND THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS .... 6 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY IN STAFF AND AGENDA REPORTS ........... 15 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY IN RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES ......... 15 OTHER AGENCY CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN ................ 15 CONCLUSION .................................... 16 APPENDICES A. LIST OF GENERAL PLAN GOALS BY ELEMENT ......................... 18 B. POLICIES IMPLEMENTING THE VILLAGE CENTER CONCEPT ............... 24 Genera/P/an Cons/suncv Handbook 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of the General Plan Consistency Handbook is to provide a standard methodology for determining whether or not a proposed development project, ordinance or program is consistent with the City General Plan. This methodology is intended to provide a minimum threshold for determining general plan consistency. As additional programs and processes are adopted, the consistency process will change. 1.2 ROI,F~ OF TIlE GENERAL PLAN IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT The General Plan is the. City's overriding long-term development and activity policy document. The future vision for the community in the General Plan is provided in the goals and policies contained within each element. According to State Law, the General Plan is supposed to be the City's ultimate source in determining what a community's long-term objectives are. According to the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, all governments engaging in land use planning must base their official regulatory land use, development, and subdivision controls on the goals, policies and programs identified in the Plan. The Goals in the General Plan are intended to provide a general intent or purpose toward which the City will direct its efforts. The Policies under each Goal are intended to provide a specific statement of principle to guide or direct governmental decision making. Most of the detail in the General Plan is located in the policy statements. 1.3 WHAT IS GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY? The term "General Plan Consistency" has two different meanings. The first meaning is the requirement that all the elements of the general plan be internally consistent. The second meaning refers to the need for all development approvals and City programs to be consistent with the goals and policies contained in the adopted general plan. Internal consistency means that all elements of the Plan must be based upon the same assumptions and conditions. It also means that each element must be complimentary to and integrated with every other element. This requirement applies to all elements, whether mandatory and optional, which have been adopted by the City Council. This form of consistency is also very important when considering General Plan Amendments. The second meaning of General Plan Consistency is the requirement for all land use and planning decisions, as well as other City programs, to be consistent with the adopted general plan. According to established legal precedent, the fundamental rule for determining the consistency of a governmental action, program, or project with the General Plan is as follows: "... when considering all of a project's aspects, does it further the goals, objectives and policies of the general plan and (at a minimum) not obstrua their attainment or realization ?' This very broad and far-reaching statement has significant implications on City operations and the development review process. Being consistent with the General Plan does not mean being consistent or compatible with just the Land Use Map or a single policy. It means being in compliance with the Vision of the Future described in the General Plan (taken as a whole) and any individual elements. When a policy statement (or goal) does not apply to a project or activity, that project is considered to be consistent with the General Plan as long as it does not adversely impact or impair the furtheranoe of the value(s) stated in the policy. 1.4 WHAT GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY IS Listed below are several examples of what General Plan consistency is. Adopting a specific program described in the Implementation Measures of any General Plan Element. Having a specific Implementation Program action stating that a particular action should occur or function should be undertaken. Having Goals and Policies in several elements of the General Plan which have some relationship to a project or action, stating that the action should occur or that the particular issue should be considered and which is not contradicted by any other Goals or Policies. 1.5 WHAT GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY IS NOT When attempting to explain General Plan consistency, it is often easier to describe what it is not rather than what it is. Listed below are a number of examples of what General Plan consistency is not. Interpreting a goal or policy in a way which is inconsistent with the other goals, policies, maps, diagrams, or text of the Plan. Plan Cons~s'ge~.~ · Using a policy statement that when taken out of context, could be loosely interpreted to support or justify a project. Interpreting an individual element in a way which is inconsistent with the other elements of the Plan. Considering one or more elements to be either superior or subordinate, to any other element(s) in the Plan. 1.6 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ~ GENERAL PLAN AND OTHER PLANS Before the actual consistency process is discussed, the issue of inter-plan consistency needs to be addressed. All City approved, or amended, specific and meter plans must be consistent with the General Plan, just like any other development application, program or function. If the proposed or amended plans are not consistent with the adopted General Plan, the inconsistent components of those plans may not be adopted. This standard also applies to the Parks and Recreation MEter Plan and the Old Town Specific Plan. The Parks and Recreation MEter Plan has been integrated with the General Phn through Open Space and Conservation Element Goals 1 and 8. The Old Town Specific Plan has been integrated with the General Plan through Land Use Element Goal 6 and Open Space and Conservation Element Goal 6. All development applications, programs, and activities must be consistent with these other documents. When the Old Town Specific Plan or the Parks and Recreation Master Plan does not address a specific relevant issue, the direction contained in the General Plan is the guiding factor or principle. 1.7 NEW DIRECTIONS IN THE GENERAL PLAN The City General Plan contains a number of changes which will affect the current development review process. These changes represent departures from the City's (and County's) standard approaches to planning and development. These changes may also be the most difficult components of the Plan to implement. The major changes which will result from the adoption of the General Plan are highlighted below. The active encouragement of clustered commercial development (often in neighborhood and village centers) and the discouragement of automobile oriented strip commercial development. 3 The preservation of local environmental, aesthetic and biologic resource areas into permanent open space areas. The requirement that all development incorporate bike and trail network components into their designs. This includes connections to adjacent residential, commercial, and employment centers. · The requirement for non-automobile oriented development in and around the Village Centers. The implementation of development and design standards for special areas within the community including: individual neighborhood and community areas, Village Centers, the south Highway 79 corridor, large lot, semi- rural residential communities, and hillside areas. The prevention of development in any floodway and the minimizing of development into floodplain and the use of non-structural methods for flood control whenever possible. 4 DE 2.1 Genera/P/an Cons/stawv Handbook TERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY IN THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS BEFORE ~ DEVELOPMENT CODE IS APPROVED The period prior to the adoption of the Development Code will be a very difficult time for the City. We will be trying to review development projects for their consistency with the General Plan while using a partially inconsistent Zoning Ordinance. The key to successfully navigating this treacherous Found is to take extra time in the review process and carefully examine the Goals and Policies in the General Plan. The Plan contains several items which represent a departure from the City's previous approach to planning and development. These changes in direction are highlighted in Section 1.7 of this Handbook. The Consistency process contained in this Handbook is used to determine whether a project is consistent with the General Plan. The Pre-Development Code consistency process is the same as described in Section 2.3 of this Handbook. The main points to remember during this period are as follows: Before any development project, specific plan, development agreement, subdivision map or time extension is approved, the decision making body must find that the project is consistent with the City General Plan. Even when the project was consistent with a former county ordinance, the Southwest Area Plan, or any policy, tradition, practice or procedure, the project cannot be approved if it is inconsistent with the adopted City General Plan. It is not important what previous City policy was; if the General Plan disagrees with this former policy, then the former policy is inconsistent and is no longer valid in the decision making process. When the strict interpretation of the City Zoning code would create an inconsistency with any goals or policies in the General Plan, the General Plan is ALWAYS the controlling document. For tenant improvements and business licenses in existing building, review the proposed use and its conformity with the Land Use Designation identified on the Land Use Map. If the proposed land use is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation, it meets the General Plan consistency test. Genera/P/an Consistency Handb~4c Note: The Business Park (BP) and Very Low Density Residential (RL) Land Use Designations will be implemented by several zones in the future Development Code. Before the draft zoning map is available for public review, if the use is permitted in either zone, then it is probably consistent with the General Plan. After the draft Development Code and zoning map are available for public review, it will become easier to determine General Plan consistency for tenant improvements and business licenses. This determination process will be even easier after the draft Development Code and Zoning Map are approved by the Planning Commission. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY IN THE~ DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS AFTER THE DEVELOPMENT CODE IS APPROVED After the Development Code has been approved, the process for determining General Plan consistency will become easier. Because the Development Code must be consistent with the General Plan, meeting the development requirements in the Development Code also ensures the consistency of a project with the City General Plan. Complete consistency requires a proposed project to be consistent with the Development Code and the consistency guidelines described in Section 2.3 of this Handbook. General Plan consistency review, like the Initi~ Environmental Study, must be done early in the process before completeness is determined and prior to the first Development Review Committee meeting. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY AND THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS These guidelines are not intended to provide an exhaustive list of issues to consider or a single all-reaching method to follow when reviewing a project for consistency with the General Plan. Instead, it is intended to provide a process for determining general consistency of any planning application with the City General Plan and is based solely upon the Goals contained in the General Plan. It is very important that the specific policies be used to evaluate the consistency of a project or activity with the General Plan. The City General Plan contains 63 broad goal statements that provide overall intent for nearly 350 specific policy statements. The need to be familiar with the Goals and Policies in the General Plan cannot be overstated. The basic General Plan consistency process consists of the following steps: Initial PrOject Screening. Review the application to determine what type of project is being proposed, where it is located, and what the local conditions and issues are in the vicinity of the project. 6 Genera/P/an Cons~tencv Hanta, ook Initial Goals Screening. Review the Goal statements within the Plan to identify possible areas of compatibility and inconsistency. For example: · Does the project appear to support the accomplishment of the goal; or, does the goal not apply or relate to the proposed project? · Does the project appear to be contrary or counter productive to the goal? A list of the Goals is included in Appendix A of this Handbook. A list of the Policy statements which implement the Village Center Concept is included in Appendix B. Land Use Issues. Use the Land Use and Air Quality Elements to determine if the proposed project is consistent with the Plan. Specifically, is it consistent with the: A. Land Use Designation. Are the land uses in the proposed project consistent with the Land Use Designation on the Land Use Map? B. Land Use Element policies and programs. Will the project result in: i. An ideal mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, cultural, public and open spaces in the village centers? ii. A City of diversified development character where rural and historic areas are protected and co-exist with newer urban development? iii.The protection and enhancement of residential neighborhoods? iv. The preservation and enhancement of local environmental and biologic resources? v. The prevention of development in any floodway and the minimizing of development in floodplain? vi. A land use pattern that encourages public transit, bicycling and walking? vii. The encouragement of clustered commercial development and the discouragement of automob'fie oriented strip commercial development7 7 Genera/P/an Consistency Handbook viii. The support of regional land use growth paV. erns contained in the appropriate regional and subregional plans? C. Air Quality Element policies and programs. Will the project result in: A future land use pattern which will result in improved air quality (and the enhanced use of public and other alternative forms of transportation) in Temecula? ii. The implementation of the needed transportation control measures? D. Village Center concept. Will the project result in: i. A project consistent with the Village Center Concept? ii. A project which encourages the use of non-automotive modes of transportation in the every day life of local residents? The integration of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, cultural, public, and open spaces land uses in a manner which will reduce the number of future vehicle trips? Old Town Specific Plan. If the project is located in Old Town, is it consistent with the Goals, Objectives, Development Standards, and Design Guidelines? F. Parks and Recreation Master Plan objectives and requirements? Environmental Constraints. Resource and Safety Issues. Use the Open Space/Conservation, Public Safety, Air Quality, and Noise Elements to determine if the proposed project is consistent with the Plan. Is the project located in any of the following environmental constraint or issues areas? · An Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone. · An identified liquefaction zone. · A dam inundation area. · A 100 or 500 Year Floodplain. · A Wildland Fire area. · An area with significant biological resources. · A 65-CNEL noise area. · The Area of Influence for the French Valley Airport. · The Mount Palomar Lighting District. c, enerat ~'tan Consistency Sa,u/t,o~ Specifically, is the project consistent with the: A. Open Space and Conservation Element policies and programs. project result in: Will the i. The protection and conservation of surface, ground, and imported water resources? ii. The conservation of important biological habitats, species, and wildlife corridors? ili.The conservation of open space areas for a balance of recreation, scenic enjoyment, and protection of natural resources and features? iv. The protection of prime agricultural land from premature conversion to urbanized uses? v. The preservation of significant historical and cultural resources? vi. The protection of dark skies from intrusive light sources which may impact the Palomar Observatory? vii. The preservation of local environmental, esthetic and biologic resource areas into permanent open space areas? viii. Preventing development in the floodway and reducing development in any floodplain? Public Safety Element policies and programs. Will the project result in: i. The protection of the public from geologic instability, seismic events and flooding hazards? ii. The protection of the public from hazardous materials and waste? Circulation Element policies and programs. Does the project: i. Need to provide a General Plan designated roadway? ii. Result in a truck transportation network which minimizes noise and air pollution impacts? 9 Genera/P/an Cons/stencv Handbook Air Quality Element policies and programs. Will the project result in enhanced mobility and reduced air pollution emissions? E. Noise Element policies and programs. Will the project result in: Improved separation between significant noise generators and sensitive receptors? ii. The control and reduction of noise between different land uses? iii. The reduction of noise impacts from transportation sources? F. Parks and Recreation MEter Plan objectives and requirements? Housing Issues. If housing is to be provided or removed as a result of the proposed project, use the Housing Element to determine if the proposed project is consistent with the Plan. A key question to consider is: does the project support implementation of the City housing program? Specifically, is the project consistent with the Housing Element policies and programs? Will the project result in: A wide range of affordable housing opportunities for all income groups? ii. The removal of governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement and development of housing? iii. The conservation of the existing affordable housing stock? iv. Equal housing opportunity for all residents in Temecula? Project Design and L~out. Use the Community Design, Air Quality, Circulation, Noise, and Land Use Elements to determine if the proposed project is consistent with the Plan. Is the project located in any of the following special design standard areas? · The Old Town Area. · The South 79 Office/Commercial corridor. · The Winchester/Ynez Village Center. · The Town Center Plaza area. · An entry gateway or corridor. 10 General P/a~ Cons/~tenc~ Handbook Community Design Element policies. Will the project result in: i. The enhancement of the City's image related to its regional and natural setting and its tourist orientation? ii. Design excellence in the site planning, architecture, landscape architecture and signage? iii.The preservation and enhancement of the positive qualifies in individual districts or neighborhoods? iv. A streetscape system that provides a cohesive community image? v. The protection of the public's view of significant natural features? vi. The maintenance and enhancement of public spaces and resources? vii.Community gathering areas which provide social, civic, cultural and recreational opportunities? Community Design Plans. Will the project implement the: i. Appropriate local and/or citywide community design concepts? ii. Interconnection of open space areas? iii. Village Center concept? Air Quality Element policies and programs. i. ii. Will the project result in: The enhanced use of public and other alternative forms of transportation? The implementation of the needed transportation control measures? 11 General Plan Consistency Handbook Circulation Element policies and programs. D. Will the project result in: i. A Level of Service "D " or better during peak hours? ii. A Level of Service "C" or better during non-peak hours? iii.Enhanced traffic safety on City streets? iv. A regional transportation system that safely and efficien~y moves goods and people? v. An adequate supply of parking? vi. Alternatives to motorized travel throughout the City? vii.A safe and efficient truck circulation system? viii. Encouraging the use of alternative forms of transportation including public transit, bicycling and walking? E. Open Space and Conservation Element policies and programs. Will the project result in: i. The conservation of energy resources? ii. The conservation of open spaces? iii.A high quality park and recreation system? iv. A trail system that serves both recreational and transportation needs? F. Noise Element policies and programs. Will the project result in: iii. iv. The separation of significant noise generators and sensifive receptor areas? The control of noise between land uses? The consideration of noise issues in the planning process? Minimizing noise impacts from transportation sources? 12 General P/an Cons/stencv Handbook G. Land Use Element policies and programs. Will the project result in: i. The encouragement of alternate modes of transportation, including public transit, bicycling, and walking? ii. The implementation of the village center concept? H. Parks and Recreation MEter Plan objectives and requirements? Public Facilities and Infrastructure. Use the Growth Management/Public Facilities, Circulation, and Open Space and Conservation Elements to determine if the proposed project is consistent with the Plan. Specifically, is the project consistent with the: A. Growth Management/Public Facility Element policies and programs. Will the project result in: i. An effective and cost efficient sheriff, fire, and emergency medical service within the City? ii. Adequate facilities which support the community 's social, cultural, civic, religious, and recreational needs? iii.A water and waste water infrastructure system which supports existing and future development? iv. An effective, safe, and environmentally compatible flood control system? v. A safe and efficient solid waste collection, transportation, recycling and disposal system? vi. An adequate electric, natural gas, and teleeommunieation system? vii. The incorporation of bike and pedestrian trail network components in all projects? B. Will the Open Space and Conservation Element policies and programs. project result in: i. A high quality park and recreation system? 13 General Plan Consistency Handbook ii. A trail system that serves both recreational and transportation needs? iii. The implementation of the Park and Recreation MEter Plan? Economic Development. Regional Growth. and Jobs:Housing Issues. Use the Air Quality, Housing, Growth Management, and Economic Development Elements to determine if the proposed project is consistent with the Plan. Specifically, is the project consistent with the: Growth Management/Public Facility Element policies and programs. Will the project result in: An orderly and efficient pattern of growth that enhances the quality of life? ii. The cooperative management of growth among local governments within Riverside County? Economic Development Element policies and programs. Will the project result in: The diversification of the local economy to include a range of "clean" manufacturing, retail and service activities? ii. The maintenance of a sound financial foundation for City government? iii. Establish a diverse education and training and job placement system which will develop and maintain a high quality work force in Temecula? iv. The promotion of the advantages to doing business in Temecula? v. The development of Temeeula as a comprehensive and recognizable tourist destination center? Air Quality Element policies and programs. Will the project result in the use of transportation system management and demand management strategies? 14 General P/an Cons~tencv Handbook D. Land Use Element policies and programs. Will the project result in: i. The orderly annexation and development of unincorporated areas? ii. The support of regional land use growth patterns contained in the appropriate regional and subregional plans? 2.4 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY IN STAFF AND AGENDA REPORTS When preparing Staff Reports to the Planning Commission and Agenda Reports to the City Council the heading of Village Center Concept should always included immediately following the General Plan Cousisteney heading. This addition will further integrate the Village Center Concept into the decision making process within the City. Consistency with the Village Center Concept is also very important when considering any future General Plan Amendments. 2.5 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY IN RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES Like development and capital improvement program projects, City ordinances and resolutions need to be consistent with the long-term vision for the future contained in the General Plan. This cousisteney finding will generally be located in the whereas or finding seetious of the ordinances and resolutions. It is recommended that the appropriate General Plan references always be included in ordinances and resolutions. This will provide an additional basis and foundation for the City's action and can be useful if the ordinance or resolution is later challenged in a court of law. 2.6 OTHER AGENCY CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN Section 65403(c) of State Planning and Zoning Law requires that each special district, unified, elementary and high school district, and joint powers agency which constructs or maintains public facilities essential to the growth and maintenance of an urban population must submit its capital improvement program to the City for a determination of its cousisteney with the City's General Plan. The capital improvement program must be submitted to the City at least 60 days prior to its proposed adoption by the governing body of that special district. According to State Law, the local agency or district may not carry out any part of its capital improvement program if the City has determined that it is inconsistent with the City General Plan, or any other applicable plan. However, the district or local agency may overrule the City's tioding and carry out its capital improvement program. 15 General p/an Cons~tetwv Handbook 3. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the importance of ensuring that all the City's actions are consistent with the General Plan cannot be overstated. For the appropriate City decision making body to approve a project or proposal, any areas of inconsistency between the General Plan and the proposal must be eliminated prior to project approval or adoption. If the proposed project is not modified to be consistent with the General Plan, then according to State Law, the project cannot be approved. In addition, in the event of any legal challenge to a City approval or decision, the courts will consider the consistency of the proposal with the City General Plan in making their decision. 16 General Plan C~nsistenc~ Handbook APPENDICES 17 General Plan Conslstencv Handbook APPENDIX A LIST OF GENERAL PLAN GOAI~ BY ELEMI~NT 18 LAND USE ~t-PM~NT 1. General Plan Consistency Handbook A complete and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, cultural, public and open space land uses. 2. A City of diversified development charactor where rural and historic areas are protected and co-exist with newer urban development. 3. A land use pattern that will protect and enhance residential neighborhoods. 4. A development pattern that preserves and enhances the environmental resources of the Study Area. 5. A land use pattern and intensity of development that encourages alternate modes of transportation, including transit, bicycling, and walking. 6. A plan for Old Town that enhanCeS the economic viability, preserves historic structures, addresses parldng and public improvement needs, and establishes design standards to enhance and maintain the character and economic viability of Old Town. 7. Orderly annexation and development of unincorporated areas within Temecula' s Sphere of Influence. 8. A City which is compatible and coordinated with regional land use patterns. CIRCULATION gl-~g:M2RNT 1. Strive to maintain a Level of Service "D" or better at all intersections within the City during peak hours and Level of Service "C" or better during non-peak hours. 2. Enhance traffic safety on City streets. 3. A regional transportation system that accommodates the safe and efficient movement of people and goods to and from the community. 4. An efficient City circulation system through the use of transportation system management and demand management strategies. 5. An adequate supply of private and public parking to meet the needs of residents and visitors to the City. 6. Safe and efficient alternatives to motoriB,-d travel throughout the City. 7. A track cireuhtion system that provides for the safe and efficient transportation of commodities and also minimizes noise, air pollution, and traffic impacts to the City. 19 HOUSING 1. General Plan Consistency Handbook A diversity of housing opportunities that satisfy the physical, social and economic needs of existing and future residents of Temecula. 2. Affordable housing for all segments of Temecula. 3. Removal of governmental constraints in the maintenance, development of housing, where appropriate and legally possible. 4. Conservation of the existing affordable housing stock. 5. Equal housing opportunity for all residents in Temecuh. OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION ItI.tlMENT 1. impwvement and A high quality parks and recreation system that meets the varying recreational needs of residents. Conservation and protection of surface water, g~oundwater and imported water resonrceso Conservation of important biological habitats and protection of plant and animal species of concern, wildlife corridors, and general biodiversity. Conservation of energy resources through the use of available technology and conservation practices. Conservation of open space areas for a balance of recreation, scenic enjoyment, and pwtec~on of natural resources and features. 6.Preservation of significant historical and cultural resources. 7.Protection of prime agricultural land from premature conversion to urbaniTed uses. 8.A trail system that serves both recreational and transportation needs. 9. Protection of dark skies fwm intrusive light sources which may impact the Palomar Observatory. GROWTH MANAGEMENT/PUBLIC FACH,1T!~-q 1. Cooperative management of growth among local governments within Riverside County. 2. Orde~y and efficient patterns of growth within Temecuh that enhances the quality of General P/an Consistency Handbook life for residents. 3. Effective and cost efficient sheriff, fife and emergency medical service within the City. 4. A quality school system that coptnin~ adequate facilities and funding to educate the youth of Temecula. 5. Public and Quasi-public facilities and services which provide for the social, cultural, civic, religious, and recreational needs of the commllnlty. 6. A water and waste water infrastructure system that supports existing and future development in the Study Area. 7. An effective, safe and environmentally compatible flood control system. 8. A solid waste management system that provides for the safe and efficient collection, transponalion, recovery and disposal of solid wastes. 9. Adequate electrical, natural gas, and telecommunication systems to meet the demand of new and existing development. PUBLIC SAFETY I~.I~flgNT 1. Protection from natural hnTnrds associated with geologic instability, seismic events, and flooding. 2. Protection of the public and environmental resources from exposure to hazardous materials and waste. 3. A safe and secure community free from the threat of personal injury and loss of property. 4. An effective response of emergency services fullowing a disaster. NOISE PI.IqI~IENT 1. Land use planning that provides for the separation of significant noise generators from sensitive receptor areas. 2. The control of noise between land uses. 3. Consider noise issues in the planning process. 4. Minimize noise impacts from transportation noise sources 21 AIR OUALITY PT.PMRNT 1. 2. 3. 4. C-en~a/P/an Cons/stencv Handbook Improvement of air quality through proper land use planning in Temecula. Enhanced mobility to minimize air poHutant emissions. Inco~orate energy conservation practices and recycling to reduce emissions. Effective coordination of air quality improvement efforts in the Western Riverside area. COMMUNITY DESIGN ~-~MENT 5. 6. 7. Enhancement of the City's image related to its regional and natural setting and its tourist orientation. Design excellence in site planning, architecture, landscape architecture and signage in new development and modifications to existing development. Preservation and enhancement of the positive qualities of individual districts or neighborhoods. A streetscape system that provides cohesiveness and enhances community image. Protection of public views of significant natural features. Maintenance and enhancement of the City's public spaces and resources. Community gathering areas which provide social, civic, cultural and recreational needs of the community. ECONOMIC DEVELOPM!~NT ~T,~IENT Development of a strong base of clean manufacturing activities which employs a skilled labor force and can be suecessfaHy integrated into Temecula's community character. Diversification of the economic base to include a range of manufacturing, retail, and service activities. Maintain an economic base to provide a sound fiscal foundation for the City as well as quality community facilities and high service levels. Establish a diverse education and training and job placement system which will develop and maintain a high quality work force in Temecula. 22 C,~,~eral plan Cons~tet~v Handbook ~mo~ ~e adv~ to bus~es~s of l~g ~ Tem~u~, ~clu~g ~st adv~ges, me~, hous~g, ~u~ a~vi~es ~d civic ~i~s. ~velop Tem~u~ E a comp~hensive, ~iTnble ~u~st des~on, wi~ a ~ge of a~ons ~ughout ~d ~yond ~e ~he~ of ~u~. 23 Genera/P/an Cons/stencv Handbook POLICIES IMPLEMENTING TIlE VILLAGE CENTER CONCEPT Policy 1.3 Policy 1.7 Policy 5.2 Policy 5.3 Policy 5.4 Policy 5.5 Policy 5.6 Policy 5.7 Policy 5.8 Policy 5.9 Policy 5.10 Policy 5.11 General Plan Con~isten~ Handbook 1 ,AND USE m ,m~NT Require the development of unified or clustered community-level and neighborhood-level commercial centers and discourage development of strip commercial uses. Require the preparation of specific plans as designated on the Specific Plan Overlay to achieve the comprehensive planning and phasing of development and infrastructure. Require the provision of pedesUian and bicycle linkages from residential areas to open space/recreation facilities, coramereial and employment centers. Encourage variety in the design of sidewalks and trails with respect to alignment and surface materials to provide a convenient and enjoyable experience for the users. Provide grade separated bike paths along major arterials where feasible. Ensure that non-grade separated bike paths are designed for safety. Designate Village Centers on the Land Use Plan to provide areas within the community that are urban in character, contain a mixture of compatible uses, and are designed to reduce or eliminate the need for the automobile in travelling to or within the Village Centers. Encourage higher density residential, mixed use development, and supporting public and community facilities within Vil~e Centers. Establish design guidelines, development standards, and incentive programs for uses within Village Centers. Develop a plan to link Village Centers by trails and potential transit systems including bus, shutfie and light rail. Ensure that the architecture, landscape design and site planning within Village Centers emphasizes a pedestrian scale and safe and convenient access between Ensure that adequate public gathering areas or plaTa~ ale incorporated within Village Centers to allow for social interaction and community activities. Discourage the development of strip commercial centers that increase auto- dependency. 25 Policy 8.2 Policy 8.4 Policy 3.6 Policy 4.4 Policy 4.5 Policy 4.6 Policy 4.7 Policy 4.8 Policy 6.5 Genera/P/an Cons/stmcv Handbook Provide a system of open space that is coordinated with regional open space uses to comprehensively address the management and conservation resources. Continue to participate with the Western Riverside Council of Governments in the preparation of plans and programs addressing regional issues, including the Growth Management Strategy, Comprehensive Transportation Plan, Water Resources Strategy, and School Facilities Plan. CIRC~TION ~.P~IENT Coordinate with We, stem Riverside Council of Governments to identify, protect, and pursue opportunities for a light nil transit niong major transportation corridors which connect Tomecula to other population centers. Require new development to incorporate design features which facilitate transit service and encourage transit ridership such as bus pullout areas, covered bus stop facilities, efficient trail systems through projects to transit stops, and incorporation of pedestrian wait'ways that pass through subdivision boundary walls. Require specific plans and other mixed use projects to provide an internal system of trails linking schools, shopping centers, transit, and other public facilities within residential areas. Provide a comprehensive system of Class I and/or Chss H bicycle lanes to meet the needs of cyclist traveling to and from work and other destinations within the City. Encourage a mix of uses within a project designed to maximize internal trip making, maximize the use of parking facilities, and to promote a shift from auto use to pedestrian and bicycle modes of travel. Encourage the provision of additional regional public transportation services and support facilities, including park-and-ride lots near the 1-15 freeway and within village centers. Adequate linkages shall be provided for non-motorized mode, between residential areas and commercial/employment activity centers, public institutions, and recreation areas. Policy 1.3 HOUSING PI.I~IENT Require a mixture of diverse housing types and densities in new developments around the village centers to enhance their people-orientation and diversity. Policy 1.6 Policy 1.10 Policy 3.1 Policy 8.1 Policy 8.3 Policy 8.4 Policy 2.4 Policy 2.5 Policy 2.7 Policy 1.2 Genera/P/an Cons/stenc~ Handbook Promote the development of compatible mixed use projects that promotes and enhances the village concept, facilitates the efficient use of public facilities, and supports alternative transit options. OPEN' SPACE/CONSERVATION I~.~aVmNT Maximize pedestrian and bicycle access to existing and new park facilities when appropriate. Require development proposals to identify significant biological resoumes and provide mitigation includlngthe use of adequate buffering; selective preservation; the provision of replacement habitats; the use of sensitive site planning techniques including wildlife corridor/recreational trails; and other appropriate measures. Provide a city-wide recreation trail system that connects to the County's regional trail system through adoption of a Master Plan of Trails that provides for bicycling, equestrian, hiking and jogging tntils and support facffifies. Require proposed development to provide trail connections to the city-wide trail system as defined by the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and Master plan of Trails. Require development plans to identify locations for an internal trails/sidewalk system that links land uses and provides convenient travel to transit facilities. GROWTH MANAGEMENT/PUBLIC FACK,ITIES Encourage development of Village Centers, as defined in the Land Use and Community Design Elements to reduce public service costs and enviromental impacts through compatible land use relationships, and efficient circulation and open space systems. Encourage new development that helps to create and maintain a balance between jobs and housing opportunities. Discourage the use of assessment districts that promote urban sprawl and premature urbnniTation in rural agricultural areas. Encourage in-fill development near activity centers and along transportation corridors. 27 Policy 2.1 Policy 2.3 Policy 2.4 Policy 1.1 Policy 2.2 Policy 3.2 Policy 3.4 Policy 4.1 Policy 6.1 Policy 7.1 Policy 7.4 General Plan Consistency Handbook Implement transportation demand management techniques to reduce motor vehicle trips, including wailring, bicycling, ridesharing, local transit, staggcred work schedules and telecommunications. Pursue development of a public transit system including local shuttle and bus routes, and bicycle and pedestrian trails that are linked to regional light rail Promote alternatives to motorized transportation by establishing a convenient and efficient system of bicycle routes and pedestrian walkways. COMMUNITY DESIGN ~.~o~qgtNT Promote the development of a comprehensive system of trails and open space areas that connect schools, public recreation areas, residential areas and commercial centers. Promote a cohesive and integrated pattern of development for large undeveloped areas, by requiring the preparation of Specific Plans. Preserve the scale and character of residential development by creating appropriate transitions between lower density, rural areas, and higher density development. Improve the pedestrian orientation, convenience and safety of commercial centers through the provision of pedestrian amenities such as benches, p]aTa areas, information kiosks and other street furniture, and through careful site planning and architectural design. Promote the development of a continuous sidewalk and trail system throughout the City. Provide for street furniture in areas with high pedestrian activity and provide for shade trees in shopping areas. Encourage the development of public spaces and plazas within commercial developments that can accommodate cultural and social events and function as community gathering areas. Encourage development of common areas and facilities within residential developments to provide gathering areas for social and recreational activities. 28 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 94- ATTACHMENT NO. 2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION FOR Tl:tg CITY OF TEMECULA RECO~ING THAT ~ COUNCIL APPROVE OF ~ GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY HANDBOOK. WgI~EAS, the City Council adopted the fn'st General Plan for the City of Temecula on November 9, 1993; and VV~EREAS, the Plan does not contain adequate guidelines addressing the day-to-day use and implementation of the General Pinn; and WHEREAS, the City of Temecula desires to provide standard guidelines concerning the use and implementation of the General Plan; and ~, the General Plan Consistency Handbook will provide the needed guidance and direction to consisten~y implement the City's General Plan; and WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Handbook was posted at City I'InlL County Library, Rancho California Branch, the U.S. Post Office and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and WI~REAS, the General Plan Consistency Handbook was considered at the February 7, 1994, meeting of the Commission at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition. NOW, THY~REFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HERERy RECO~ THAT ~ COUNCIL FOR ~ CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVE ~ GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY HANDBOOK TO GUIDE THY~ IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CITY GENERAL PLAN. Section 1. PASSED APPROVED AND ADOPTED thin 7th day of February, 1994. STEVEN J. FORD CHAIRMAN I FFI~RRy 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 7th day of February, 1994 by the following vote of the Commi.~sion: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: GARY THORNI-rH SECRETARY ITEM #6 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Director of Plann;ng February 7, 1994 An Ordinance to reduce water consumption through efficient landscape design, consistent with provisions of AB 325. Prepared by: John Meyer RECOMMENDATION: RECOMMEND Adopting Resolution 94- adoption of an Ordinance entitled: __ recommending "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING STANDARDS FOR WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE DESIGN" BACKGROUND California Government Code Section 65590 (enacted by AB 325) requires all cities to adopt a local water efficient ordinance by January 1, 1993 or use the State's model ordinance. Currently, the City's landscape review consultant is using the model ordinance to review plans. In order to develop the most appropriate ordinance for the City; City Staff and the landscape review consultant have reviewed the State's Model Ordinance, and many other sample ordinances from other local jurisdictions and water districts. Based on this review, the consultant provided the City with a draft ordinance which drew components from each of the samples ordinances. Staff then revised this draft to respond to community needs. ANALYSIS The draft ordinance contains both general and procedural provisions, and specific landscape and irrigation design requirements. Conformance to the ordinance is demonstrated by the project designers through a water budget formula. This formula calculates the water demands of the selected plant material and the efficiency of the irrigation system against the allowable water demand. The landscape water demand must not exceed 80% of the allowable water demand which is determined based on localized climatic conditions. The ordinance also includes landscapes design requirements which assist the designer when choosing plant selections and layout. The ordinance further includes options for the design of irrigation systems. Overall, the ordinance does not establish mandates but rather establishes thresholds that designers must reach. This allows the designer maximum flexibility in meeting the thresholds while still accomplishing the central goal of conserving water. PUBLIC REVIEW A draft ordinance was submitted to the City's Coordinating Committee for review and comment. Few comments were received at this time. Because of this lack of feedback, staff sponsored an afternoon workshop to solicit further input on the ordinance. The workshop was moderately attended by representatives from the Development and Design Community, the Commission and Council. The workshop resulted in the elimination of ambiguous standards in the draft ordinance. Participants at the workshop responded favorably to the ordinance's flexibility. Comments were never received from the Rancho California Water District, although staff sent copies of the draft ordinance to the District twice. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The proposed Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance will provide standards and requirements regarding the location of landscape material and the selection of irrigation systems. As a result, adoption of this Ordinance does not have the potential to cause a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, the Director of Planning has determined that the project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The proposed Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance is consistent with a Open Space Conservation Element implementation measures requiring drought tolerant landscaping in new development. FINDINGS The proposed Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance will encourage the conservation of water use. The propose Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance will carry out the intent of California Government Code Section 65590. 3. The proposed Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance is consistent with the General Plan. Attachments: PC Resolution No. 94- - Blue Page 3 Ordinance - Blue Page 6 R:\LSCAPE~WTRILI~.RIP 2/1194 k~ 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 94- ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF ~ PIANNING CO1VIMLqSION FOR ~ CITY OF TEMECUIA RECO1VIM!~IDING THAT ~ CITY COUNCIL ESTABt,t.~mNG STANDARDS FOR WATER EFFICII~IT LANDSCAPE DESIGN WIW. REAS, the waters of the State of California are a limited and renewable resource subject to ever increasing demands; and, WHEREAS, water must be managed and used efficiently so as to maximize its benefits and so that population and economies may expand without increasing their demands on water; and, WIIEREAS, outdoor landscaping consumes approximately fifty percent of all water in urban areas; and, WI:W. REAS, the proposed Water Efficient landscape OrdinanCe will encourage the conservation of water use; and, ~, the propose Water Efficient Landscape OrdinanCe will carry out the intent of California Government Code Section 65590; and, W!~.REAS, the proposed Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance is consistent with the General Plan; and, WIIEREAS, that this Ordinance complies with all the applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances; and, ~, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, County Library, Rancho California Branch, the U.S. Post Office and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and, WIlERE/kS, a public hearing were conducted on February 7, 1994, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition. NOW, TIIEREi~ORE, ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DEI'I~MINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby fmds that the proposed Water Efficient l~ndscape Ordinance will provide for the establishment of effective standards to encourage the conservation of water. R:~J.~CAPE~WTRBFF.RIP 2t1~)4 klb 4 Section 2. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula further fmds that the proposed Water efficient Landscape Ordinnnce is consistent with the General Plan by encouraging the use of drought tolerant landscaping in new development. Section 4. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula funher finds that the proposed Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance does not have the potential to cause a significant impacts on the environment and has determined that the project is exempt from California Environmental Qtmlity Act, as amended, pursuant to Section 15061 (b) (3). Section 5. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby recommends to the City Council that the Council adopts the proposed Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The Ordinance is incorporated into this Resolution by this reference. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 7th day of February, 1994. S'rt4v'EN I. FORD CHAIRMAN I HERERy CERTIFY that the foregoing Resohtion was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 7th day of February, 1994 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: A3SENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMM/SSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: GARY THORNI-~ SECRETARY R:~,SCAPB~V/TI~.RIP 211/94 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 ORDINANCE DRAFT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL Section 1.01 INTENT It is the intent of this ordinance: A. To promote high quality, water-efficient landscaping, water use management and water conservation through the use of water-efficient landscaping, wise use of turf areas and appropriate use of irrigation technology and management; B. To reduce landscape water requirements without a decline in landscape quality or quantity; C. To retain flexibility and encourage creativity through appropriate design; D. To assure the attainment of water-efficient landscape goals by requiring that landscape not exceed a maximum water demand of eighty percent (80%) of its reference evapotranspiration (ETo); and E. To achieve water conservation by raising the public awareness of the need to conserve water through education and motivation to embrace an effective water management program. Section 1.02 APPLICABILITY A. Except as provided in Section 1.02 B, requirements of this ordinance shall apply to: 1. All new and rehabilitated development projects including those by public agencies; 2. Developer-installed, common area landscaping for single-family and multi-family residential development projects. B. This ordinance shall not apply to: 1. Landscaping for a single family residence; 2. Cemeteries; 3. Registered historical sites; 4. Ecological restoration projects that do not require a permanent irrigation system; Landscape projects that existed prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, unless such landscaping is rehabilitated; Final landscape plans which have been approved prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, unless such landscaping is subsequently rehabilitated; Landscape projects with conditions which, in the determination of the Director of Planning, would reasonably or necessarily be exempt. Section 1.03 GENERAL PROVISIONS All landscape plan approvals are subject to and dependent upon the applicant complying with all applicable City ordinances, codes, regulations, and adopted policies. Should any provision of this Ordinance conflict with any other provisions already established by the City of Temecula, the more restrictive shall apply. If the water purveyor for a proposed project has adopted water-efficient landscaping requirements, all landscaping and irrigation plans submitted shall comply with the water purveyor's requirements. Said plans shall be accompanied by a written document from the water purveyor delineating each requirement. Landscape design shall facilitate the implementation of landscape maintenance practices which foster long-term water conservation. Said practices may include, but not be limited to, scheduling irrigation based on established industry standards, conducting water audits and establishing a water budget to limit the amount of water applied per landscaped acre. PROCEDURE Section 2.01 PROCEDURES The submittal, review, revision and approval of all required landscape and irrigation plans shall be in compliance with already established City of Temecula procedures. The requirements of this Ordinance shall be submitted jointly along with the required landscape and irrigation plans. Landscaping plans shall be prepared using the Water Budget Formula included in exhibit "A". In addition, landscaping plans shall provide a water budget which includes estimated annual water use (in gallons/acre feet) and the area (in square feet/acres) to be irrigated; and precipitation rates for each valve circuit. An applicant shall submit a letter of substantial conformance, subject to field verification by the appropriate City department, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Use and Occupancy. Said letter of substantial conformance shall be prepared by the project designer and shall indicate that all plant materials R:~SCAF~AB325.D1 1/31194 Idb 2 and irrigation system components have been installed in accordance with the approved final landscape and irrigation plans. If a Certificate of Use and Occupancy is not required for the project, such letter of substantial conformance shall be submitted prior to scheduling for the final inspection. REQUIREMENTS Section 3.01 LANDSCAPE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS The design and installation of all proposed landscape improvements subject to this Section shall comply with the following provisions: The landscaping plan shall incorporate trees, shrubs and ground covers that have low crop coefficiency categories of I and 2 or medium crop coefficiency categories of 3 and 4. The list, as provided in Exhibit "B", is provided to assist designers in obtaining the plant coefficient of many (but not all) plant materials (See Exhibit "A", Table 3). If other than those plants which are included in this exhibit are used, the designer shall submit plant coefficient numbers with backup information for use of the City in reviewing the plans. Landscape design shall provide for the grouping of plant materials having similar water demands (hydrozones) so as to facilitate appropriate and efficient water applications. It is recommended that the plants selected for non-turf areas be well-suited to the climate of the region so as to require minimal water once established. Other, more water consumptive plants should be grouped together and irrigated separately. Turf is not permitted without justification to be planted in areas that are less than 10 feet in width. Turf in areas of a lesser width is difficult to water efficiently, frequently resulting in excessive watering. Turf is not permitted without justification on bermed areas due to the problem of water run-off. Where turf is used on berms, it should be limited to the "public" side of the berm. The backside of the berm should be planted with less water-consuming shrubs and groundcover. A shallow swale should be designed at the toe of all berms which are adjacent to sidewalks or other impervious surfaces to "catch" any run-off. This will help keep water on planted areas and help prevent weathering of pavement. Irrigation of bermed areas should place the sprinkler heads at the toe of the berm, so as to water "from the bottom up." The use of turf should be limited to only those areas designated for active recreational use or where irrigated by reclaimed water. Prior to installation of planting, applicants are encouraged to submit soil samples from areas proposed for planting to a soils laboratory for testing for soil fertility. Soil testing provides the designer with information regarding proper soil amendment, as necessary, to provide a healthy landscape environment. Healthier plants tolerate stress conditions better. Testing can also assist in the design of the irrigation system by identifying the nature of the subject soil and thus amending the irrigation system to be as effective as possible. A minimum 2 inch layer of mulching is required to be installed over landscaped areas. The mulching should be in the form of shredded bark, bark chips of varying sizes, or other similar materials. The size and type of mulch used should allow for moisture to pass though the surface, thus providing permeability and reduced erosion, particularly on slopes. Non-porous material should not be placed under mulch. Landscape design shall provide for the functional aspects of landscaping such as grading, drainage, minimal runoff, erosion prevention, wind barriers, provisions for shade and reduction of glare. Landscape design shall provide for the retention of existing mature landscaping that is in good, healthful condition, incorporating such landscaping into the landscape plan where feasible. The protection, preservation and enhancement of native species and natural areas are encouraged. Section 3.02 IRRIGATION SYSTEM DESIGN The design and installation of all irrigation improvements subject to this section shall be in compliance with the following provisions: All landscaped areas must be serviced by a automatic irrigation system. It is recommended that irrigation systems be operated by dual or multiple program controllers. Controllers should have at least two independent programs and be capable of initiating a watering cycle three times per day. They should contain default programs, a rain switch, manual and semi-automatic start capabilities, be UL listed, and have a circuit breaker. Controllers used for commercial and industrial developments should have water budgeting and testing capabilities and be contained in a vandal-proof case. These features insure that controllers will be suitable for the type of system they serve and provide proper amounts of water under varying climatic situations. Where possible and where it can be accomplished safely, water systems shall be made capable of utilizing non-potable water, if approved facilities are made available by the water purveyor. Provisions for the conversion to anon-potable water system shall be provided within the landscape plan should there be the possibility for future non-potable water availability. Water systems designed to utilize non-potable water shall be designed to meet all applicable standards of the City of Temecula, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, State Department of Health Services and the Riverside County Health Department. Separate valves shall be provided for separate water use planting areas, so that plants with similar water needs are irrigated by the same irrigation valve. Drip irrigation techniques shall be provided where appropriate (i.e., shrubs, massing in mulched areas) in instances where spray irrigation is not necessary. Valves and circuits are recommended to be separated based on water use. As an example, trees should be placed on a separate valve from other landscaping. During severe drought conditions, trees could be watered while watering for shrubs, groundcover and lawns could be cutback or eliminated. The irrigation plan shall incorporate appropriate irrigation equipment, drip irrigation, bubbler, spray head, and/or rotor irrigation heads in order to provide the most efficient water application. The spacing of spray heads within an irrigation system should be designed to provide triangular or square spacing. Such spacing allows for head-to-head coverage proportionate with their designed specifications. Irrigation systems shall be designed, installed and maintained so as to minimize overspray and runoff onto streets, sidewalks, driveways, structures, windows, walls, and fences. Compliance with this provision will require consideration of the appropriate operating pressure, head/emitter location and spray patterns during the design phase. The use of low head check valves shall be included in irrigation systems as applicable. Such valves prevent water from flowing out of sprinkler heads which are located at the low points of irrigation systems when the systems are not operating. In larger systems, this flow represents significant water loss. Pressure regulation shall to be incorporated into all irrigation systems to prevent excessive pressure at sprinkler heads. Sprinkler heads should not operate at pressures that exceed their design capacity. Excess pressures can result in misting or fogging which wastes water. Also, excess pressures can damage heads causing excessive water usage. Pressure regulation can be accomplished through the use of a pressure regulator, or pressure regulating valves or heads. After establishment of the plant materials, the irrigation of landscaped areas should be limited to the hours between dusk and early morning in order to provide maximum benefit to the plant material and to reduce unnecessary water loss through wind drift and evaporation. Drip irrigation systems are exempt from this provision. A watering schedule which incorporates the specific water needs of the plants and turf throughout the calendar year, including water needs both before and after the plants and turf have been established, shall be included with the irrigation plans. The watering schedule shall take into account the particular characteristics of the soil; shall be continuously available on site to those responsible for the landscape maintenance; and shall contain specifics as to optimum run time and frequency of watering, and irrigation hours per day. Section 3.03 A. Ce RESIDENTIAL MODEL HOME REQUIREMENTS Thirty percent of all model homes in residential subdivisions shall comply with the provisions of this Ordinance. The project applicant shall provide home buyers with sample water-efficient landscape and irrigation plans and additional educational material as approved by the Director of Planning, upon the sale of each dwelling unit within the project. The plans shall include a key identifying the common names of the plants used in the landscaping. The project applicant shall distribute outdoor water conservation pamphlets provided by local water purveyors, if available, to buyers upon the sale of each dwelling unit within the development. A sign shall be displayed in the front yard of each model home which is clearly visible to home buyers. The sign shall indicate that the model home features a water-efficient landscape and irrigation design. SOURCES This document is a compilation and modification of several water efficient landscape ordinances from other agencies. Information from the following sources is used: Riverside County: Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance Reouirements Eastern Municipal Water District: Procedural Guide and General Desion Reauirements for Procurina Water Service for On-Site Landscape Irriaation Systems City of Dana Point: Ordinance No. 92-13 CITY OF TEMECULA WATER B=RCINT ~ OMatiANGf WATER BUDGET FORMULA EXHIBIT "A" PROJECTED LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION WATER USE PROCESS Process Step Number Formula Step # 1 The evapotranspiration for Temecula is 55.4"/year. Step # 2 Identify the boundaries of planting areas with similar water requirements {hydrozones) and measure their area. (sq.ft,) Step # 3 Obtain the plant coefficient (KC) for each hydrozone from Exhibit "B". Step # 4 Obtain the irrigation system distribution efficiency percentage from Table No. 1. Step # 5 Obtain irrigation system operation efficiency percentage from Table No. 2. Step # 6 Calculate the yearly plant water demand, in inches (Step #1 X Step #3), result in./year. Step # 7 Calculate yearly plant water demand by volume (0.083 X Step #2 X Step #6), result in cu.ft./year. Step # 8 Calculate irrigation efficiency (Step #4 / Step #5), unitless. Step # 9 Calculate hydrozone water demand (Step #7 / Step #8), result in cu.ft./year. Step # 10 Calculate the allowable project water demand (*0.083 X **0.8 X Step #1 X Total sq.ft.), results in cu.ft./year. Step # 11 Compare the allowable project water demand from Step # 10, to the total of all hydrozone water demands. If the total projected water demand is higher than 80% of total allowable project water demand, then either select plants with less water demand or utilize more efficient irrigation equipment, or both. 0,083 is a conversion factor to convert inches to feet (1 / 12 -- 0.083) 0.8 is a multiplier to obtain 80% of the evapotranspiration value. PROJECTED LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION WATER USE .:~sc~s~s32s.m ~ k~ Exhibit A - I EXHIBIT "A" Hydrozone Number Evapotranspiration Rate (in./yr.) -- 55.0" Area of Hydrozone (sq.ft.) Plant Coefficient (KC) (Exhi bit "B" ) Irrigation system Distribution Efficiency (Table No. 1 ) Proposed Irrigation Operation Efficiency (Table No. 2) Yearly Plant Water Demand (Step #1 X Step #3) result in (in./yr.) Total Area Water Demand (0.083 X item #6 X item 82) result in (cu.ft.) Irrigation Efficiency (step 84 X step 85) Hydrozone Water Demand (cu.ft.) (item #7 / item 88) result in (cu.ft,) cu,ft. per yr. cu.ft, per yr. Process I 2 3 4 Step 8 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Allowable Project Demand (10) (0.083 X 0.8 X step #1 X the total of all step 82's) Total of all areas water demands. ":~$CAPE~AB325.D11/31/94 kt Exhibit A - 2 PROJECTED LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION WATER USE EXHIBIT "A" TABLE NO. 1 TYPICAL IRRIGATION SYSTEM DISTRIBUTION EFFICIENCY FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF IRRIGATION · Insert 0.7 ~ Step #4 in case of using spray heads · Insert 0.85 ~ Step #4 in case of using bubbler heads · Insert 0.85 @ Step #4 in case of using rotor irrigation heads · Insert 0.9 @ Step #4 in case of using drip irrigation system TABLE NO. 2 IRRIGATION SYSTEM OPERATION EFFICIENCY · Insert 0.85 ~ Step #5 if the system has Eto controls, such as moisture sensor, central controller. · Insert 0.65 ~ Step #5 if the system does not have soil or weather driven controls. TABLE NO. 3 CROP COEFFICIENT (KC) VALUES LOW WATER USE MEDIUM WATER USE HIGH WATER USE CATEGORY 1: KC = 0 TO 0.25 CATEGORY 3: KC = 0.40 TO 0.60 CATEGORY 4: KC = 0.60 TO 0.80 CATEGORY 5: KC = 0.80 OR GREATER Exhibit A - 3 PLANT LIST EXHIBIT "B" Source: Riverside County Plant List O'at F.S 2X 'lus Bo~n~al & Commoa Nam~ Acacia ba~eyana i~arplc Barley Amch Acacia b. *Purpurea' Purple-Leaf Acacia Acacia decurrens Green Wattle Acacia d. dealbata Acacia melanoxylon Black Acacia Aescuhs catifornica CJllfor~ia Buckeye Agohis ~ex'uosa Peppermint Tree Albizia j,,b'brissin Silk Tree Arbutus unedo Strawberry Tree Brachychiton acerifolius Austrnlian Flame Tree Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree C. gl~emon fi~dus Stiff Bottlebrush CalBstemon Vimin~djS Weeping Bottlebrush ~_nts dec~rrens lncen.~ C=~t C. anadu cunninghamiana Casuarlna equiseti/olia Horsetail Tree P, iv. Co. KC So~Wst IUv. Co. Gillde Cstegou? Nativ, Nativ, 4, S, 6 2 S, 6 2 5, 6 2 5,6 2 4,5,6 2 5,6 2 X 2-3 A]I 3 3, 4, 5,6 2 5.6 .2-3 4, 5, 6 2-3 4,5,6 2 S. 6 2-3 3,5, 6 2-3 X X 4, ~, 6 2-3 4,5,6 3 gemtrks Cansson Namu Csdrus alhntlca Cedrus deodara Deod~Cedar Ceratonia sillqua Czrob Cercidium floridurn Blue Palo Verde Charoncrops hum~s Mediterranean Fan Palm Cbori~ speciou Flou Silk Tree Smoke Tree Cupre. nocTpari~ leyiandil Elaeegnus angus~ifolia Ru.~ian Otive Eric~otrya de~ex~ BronT~ Loquat Erlobottya japoniu Loquat Mexican Blue PaLm Guadalupe Palm Eucalyptus umaldulen.~s River Red Gum F, nca~/ptus globulus "Compaeta* Dwarf Blue Gum E,,calyptus lehm,-nii Bushy Yate R jr, Co, Gedde A~ 3, S, 6 4,5,6 3, 4, 5, 6 3, 4, 5,6 5,6 2,3, 4, 5, 6 3,4, 3, 4, 4, 6 4, 5, 6 3,4, fi 49 g 4m KC 2-3 2-3 2 1-2 2 2-3 1 2-3 2 2-3 ' ~-3 2 2 2 2 2 ~Vst Native X X Native X Remar~ I.~r~ to 12 - 15 degrees F. Hardy to 17 - 22 degrees 1:. Hard)' Io 14-18 degrees F. 2 ,"I'P~'J:-~ 21 fi- Pins) F.~catyptus mscrocarpa Bis Fruited F,m:alyptus Eucalyptus nichofii Nicho!'s Willow-l. gafcd Peppermint Eucalyptus niphophila Snow Gum Silve~ Dollar Gum Eucalyptus puh, erulenta Silver Mountain Gum Eualyptus rudis Desert or Swamp Gum Eucalyptus sideroxylon Pink In>nbark Eucalyptus sideroxylon *Roza* Red Ironbark F_m'~tus v~mlnaHs Manna Gum Rjv. Guide 3, 4, 5,6 3t 4s 3s 4o 3.0 41 3~ 4, 5, 6 4, 5, 6 5, 6 KC Catqo~ 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2-3 2-3 So/Wst Native X Native X Remarks Hardy to 14 - 18 degrees F. Hardy to 8 - 12 degrees F. Hardy to 12 - 15 degrees F. Hardy to 0 - 10 degrees F. Hardy to 14 - 18 degrees F. Hardy to 13 - 21 degrees F. Hardy to 12 - 18 degrees F. Hardy to 10 - 15 degrees F. Hardy Io 10 - 15 degrees F. Hardy to 12 - 15 degrees F. D,-,-iduous 3 CI~=P-~ 21 ft. Plus) kiankal & Commo~ Names JugLus ca!fforu~a Ca~omla Wahut Koelreutcrla blplnnata Chinese Flame Tree Koelreuterla panicuhta Goldenrain Tree Lagcrrtreemja india Crepe Myrtle I~urus nobili~ Sweet Bay Leptospermum laevlgatum Au~ralian Tea Tree Leptospermum ~oparium New Zealand Tea Tree L~notham,~us ~on'bundus a~Jen. Fernleaf CAtalina lronweod Maytenus boaris Mayten Tree Me~aleuca linariifolh F1az3eaf Paperbark Melaleuca quinquenervh Cajeput Tree Mehleuca styphelioides Olee europaca Olive Olea 'Fruitless" Fruitless Olive OMeya tesota Desert lronwc<x1 Guide All 4, 5, 6 2,5,6 3,4, 5, 6 4, f;,6 5, 6 4, 5, 6 4 4, 5, 6 3, 4, 5, 6 3, 4, 5,6 4,6 4 KC Category 2-3 2 2 2-3 2-3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 2-3 2-3 2 Native X X X Native X Remarks Deciduous May Freeze' Boimskal & Cmnmou Nsmes Pinus halep~nsis Aleppo Pine Italian Stone Pine Pinus lorreyana Torvey Pine Pistacia chinensi ~iines~ Pistache Pimcio Nut PiUosponam rhombilolium O~see~la~d Pitlosporum Ltn~on Plane Tree Prosopls chilcnsis ('~;leaa M~quite iv. Geide 3, 4 S, 6 4, 5, 6 2,5,6 2,3. 4, 5, 6 3, 5, 6 4, 5, 6 3,4. ~,6 5.6 5,6 Catego~ 2 2 2 2-3 2 2 2-3 2-3 2 '2 2 2-3 :2-3 2 2-3 2 rMN~Vst NsUve X X X X X X X Riv. Ca. Native X X X i~msrks 5 (~E:ES 21 ft. Plus) letaakad & C~mmmn~ Names Pnmus mrolidana CmoY~a Laurel Chen7 Pru~us lyon~ Catdna ~ Pm~udotnga mac~arpa Big Cone Spruce 0uetfJu~ agdfo!ia Co~ Live Oak ~uercus chtysoleps ~n Live Oak Blue Oak Quercus cngclmannli Mesa Oak 0uercus Holly Oak Q'uercus kelloggll Cal~oruia Black O~ Quercus iobata Valley Oak 0uercus s~b~r Cork Oak ]nl~dor Live Oak P, haxnnus alaternus Italian Buckthorn African Sumxc Robida p~eudor. ada Btack ~ Samhumus mexi~ana M,~xican Elderberry C.dfornia Pepper Tree 3,4, 5,6 4,5,6 1, 2, 3,5,6 4,5,6 All 3, 4, 1,2, 3,4, 3,4, 5,6 4,5,6 4,5,6 KC Cattgor~ 3 2 3 1-2 2 1-2 1-2 2-3 3 2 '2 2 2 2 2 1-2 1-2 X × × × × × Native X X X Rtmarks (TRI~ 21 ~ Plus) ~aakal & Common Names -~'],;-~s laebinZhiirolius ' Br-,,'s;u Pepper Saluoi~ mzq~av{re~s (c~fivsrs) Corn Redwood S~iuoisdendron g~ganteum Giant Sequoh Umbellulsrla cafifornica California Bay W-t~;-S~onla fili~era Cslfi'ornia Fan Palm W!~.~-~,~onla robusta Me:xk~n Fsn Palm 7---]l~ova serrata Sawleaf ~-ese Jujube Iiv. Co. Guide 4, 6 5, 6 AH 4, 5, 6 3, 4, 5, 6 3,'4, 5, 6 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 3,4, .~, 6 KC Category 2 3 2-3 2-3 2 2 3 2 ~}o~Wst Native X X Native X a~marks 7 (LAROE SHRUBS 1! o 20 fi) ]Bot, aa~ai & Cemmo~ Name~ C~inla flue Bird of Partd~ Bush C~iuanon cilrinus Lunon Bottlebnsb lARGE SH]tUBS 11 - %0 {L . llv. Co. XC r~Wst liv. C~ Guide Catelm"y Nmlive Native 4. 5, 6 2 4. 5.6 2 4,5,6 2 5,6 2 X X 5, 6 2 4,5. 6 2 5.6 2 2, 3, 5,6 1 X X 2,5,6 1 X X 2,5,6 .I X X ~, 6 2 X 3, 4, 5,6 2 X X 4, 6 2-3 3,4. 5,6 1-2 4, 5, 6 2 4, 5, 6 2-3 i-marks Win Freezt Troubled with Chlowsis in Zone B~ssl~sl & Cramrues Nsm,s Cmnothns "Ray Hartman" C4mnothus *Sierra Blue" Cen:idium floridurn Blue Palo Verde C.a~s oc=identalls Wenern Re~ud C4n'cocarpus bemloides Mountsln Mahogany Casaxarpus ledifolius Cur1-l, zaf Mountain Mahopny Medilerranean Fan Palm Odlops~s linearis Dsen Willow Eheagnus pungens .~verberry F.~'-_~plus rhodan0aa l~sapple Guava Frr-dnus aipetala Foothill Ash iiv. 4, 5, 6 5,6 % 6 5, 6 3, 4. 5.6 All 3. 4, 5,6 All 3. 4. 5, 6 5,6 4, 5, 6 5,6 3, 4, 5, 6 4, 5, 6 3, 4 KC 2 2-3 2-3 2-3 1-2 2 1 1 2 2 '1 2 2 2 2 2-3 l X X X X X. X X X X X X X X X ~marks Hardy to 8 - 12 degrees F. Ct.~RGE SHRUBS ktaakal & Common Names Bush Fnm~mtodendron mc~canLtm Southern Flannel Bush byerids Cm-t~ fiavescens Pale Tasselbush Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon Juglzns californics California Wabaul Junlperus species Melaleuca clliptica Nerium oleander Oleander O~a ~esc>x~ Desert Ironwood Chinese Fnotlnin Two Leaf PinCh Ptt:sopis ~andulosa totreyana Mes:luite Carolina Laurel Cberr3, Prohas ilic~olia ~-~olly Leaf Cberrl, Prunus lyenil Catalina Cber~ 2. 3. 4.5,6 3, 4. 2,3. 4,5,6 2.5.6 3,4. 2,5,6 4, 5, 6 5, 6 4.6 3, 4, 5, 6 3, 4, 3, 4, 5,6 3, 4, 5,6 4,5, 6 4,5,6 KC Category 1 1-2 1-2 2 1-2 2 2-3 3 2 2 3 3 1-2 2 3 1 2 Native X X X X X X X X X X X Native X X X X X X w-marks No S~mmer Water No Spmm*.r Water No Summer Water Red Berries in Winter, Nice Small Tree. Will Freeze (lARGE SI~UBS 11 - ~ fi) Botukal & Cacaos Names Khus ~ Sumac Rbus L~urina Laurcl Sumac ~pr Bush ~b~ m~u M~ Ede~ ~a Pc~r Tr~ T~m ms Yc~ BoBs T~ ~ ~fo~a Bay Vsuque~ia · ~ Roff~d 3, 4, 5. 6 5.6 3, 4, S. 6 3, 4, 5, 6 5, 6 4,5,6 5,6 5,6 4, 5, 6 - 4, 5, 6 4, S, 6 4, S, 6 3,4 KC Cstqm3, 4 2 2 2 2 1-2 24 2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 2-3 2 2-3 2 ~o~Vst Nstlve X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Rimratio Prefers Milder C!~lale, Ue- $paring.ly May Freeze qq (I.A.RGE SH~,L"BS 11 - 20 f't) ~etaaka! & Cedmmea Name~ Native ltmarks I2 (I~.~ID'M f~-IRUBS 4 - 10 fi-) Names Arcsonspbylos "Louis Edmunds" Arnonsphylos "Sentin el" Artemlsla californlca Cslifornia Sagebrush Artera;all triden~ata Big Sagebrush Atriplex Four Wlsg Saltbush Atriplex kn~ormls ~ Bush At~la lenfiformis breweri Brewer Saltbush Csllhndra mlffornica Csllhndr, eriopbyBa Fairy Duster Czs,~othus crs-'~folius Hoary-Leaf Ceanothus rfms,,~n Buetbrush Cem~shus grcggii Clrpleaf CP.x~thus C~.~oshus integerfimus D~rbrush ~anothus 'Joyce Coulter' lmmltrM sastU~ 4 - !0 ~. Riv. Co. KC So/Wsa Riv. Cngde Cstqory Native Native 2-3 5, 6 2 X 5.6 2 X 5, 6 2 X 3,.4, 5, 6 2 X X All 1 X X All 2 X X 3. 4, 5, 6 2 X X 5, 6 2 X X 3,4, 5, 6 2 X 3, 4, 5,6 I X X 5, 6 2-3 X 2,5,6 I X X 4.5,6 2 X X 2.3 5, 6 1 X X 4,5.6 2 X X 5, 6 2-3 Remrks (IvIEDrUM SHRUBS 4 - 10 fL) Bc~m~ctl k Cc~n Names Bit Pod Cetnotbus Curiothus C4mnothus "Snow flurry. f"o's,~otbus veFrllcost/s Warty S~em Csanothus C~gmelaucium undnatum Geraldran Wax Flower Ctixnson-Spol Rocl~rose Cistus purpurcus Ontid Rockros~ Co{oneaster laneus Red Ousterberry Cycas revoluta Sap Palm Dales gref. gli Dalea pulchra Dalea spinou ~moke Tree Diphc~ Bush Monkey Flower Echium fanuosum (pexennial) Pride of Madeira giv. Co. Guide S, 6 2,5.6 5,6 5, 6 2,5,6 4,5,6 4,5,6 4,5,6 2,5,6 5,6 KC Cmsgonj 2 2-3 2-3 2 3 2-3 2 3 3 2-3 2-3 i-2 1-2 2 2 Native X X X X X l~v. Co. Native X X Renutks Frost Tendtr 14 (MEDIUM SHRUBS ~ - 1o Botan~ & Common Names Falh;h ApSe Plume Island Bur, b-Sns~ Dragon homerls arboru Bradtier Pod Zunilzrus species 3uniper Lm'rca tridentata Creosote Bush ],z~coplytlum 'Green Cloud' Le~copbysdum 'White CloucF Iz~.,byilum fruses~ens Tags Ranger LeucopbyLlum ~gopbylhm Lnpinus aroifi'ons Sa~ver Lupine Mahonia squifofium Oregon Grape Mahonia nevinii N~in Mthonia Nan,4~,,, domestics Heavenly Bamboo Neffurn oleander *l.jtfie Red" Riv. Co. Guide. 6 All S, 6 4,5,6 2,3, 4,5,6 All 3,4,6 5, 6 5,6 5,6 2,5,6 3,4, 3,4, 5,6 3,4, S, 6 KC CateZo~ 2-3 1 3-4 2 1-2 2-3 1 2 2 2 .2 2 2 3 2 3 2-3 .qo/Wn Native X X X X X X X giv. Co. Native X X X 15 Botanical & C~,,~,-~,a Names l~.~;,,m ok~nder *Little White' Pmtstm=aon ntirritinoides P/uosporum robira Toblra Plumbag~ aur~ulata Cape PlumbaZo !~tha q~es F/retboru Laurel Sumac Riv. Co. Guide 3, 4. 3.4, S, 6 3.4, 4,5,6 3, 4 5, 6 5, 6 5, 6 5, 6 5, 6 All 5, 6 5, 6 All 5, 6 KC Category 2-3 ! 2-3 2 2 2 2 1-2 1 2-3 1-2 2-3 2-3 2 1-2 2 So/Wm Native X .X X X X X X X X X Riv. Co. Native X X X X X X Reamks Prefers Mi3der Ug Sparingly May Freeze 0,(EDn~M ~LRIj'BS 4 - 10 k) Botanical & Cnumio,, Names White Sqe Autumn Sqe ~ kucophyBa Pro.pie Salv~ metlife~a Blgk Sage ~nclsia chi~ensis S~strtium junceum S~anish Broom T~getes iemmonli T~dcrium f~utlcans Bush Germantier Thevetia pe'ru~tna Yellow Oleander Trio. bosoms hnatum Wooly Blue Curls Westringh rosxnariniforttds Woodwtrdis funbriata yu~.s Slodou sp,zc sh D,Uer Yam Ziorba 'Vafiepta" Yu~.a J~nduh glauca Riv. Co. Cmide 3, 4, 3, 4, 2,5,6 3, 4, 6 3,4, 4, $, 6 3,4, 5,6 4 6 5t 6 3,4, 5,6 3, 4, 5,6 4,5,6 4,5,6 KC Catep~ 1 2 2 1 1-2 2 4 2-3 2-3 2-3 2-3 3 So/wn Native X X X X X X X Riv. C.~. Native X X X X Ren~rks 17 (htt~bIUM ~I-IRUBS ~ * 10 ~ & Cmnmo~ Names Mobave ,qo/Wst Native X Riv. Co. Native X Remarks 18 (S]~IAI~SH~,UBSI*3fL) ik~anlcal i C, mnmon Ntme~ ~ of ~e NHe ~p~us ~nus ~p~us ~e~t Pan' ~ve ~e~ ~afiegzta' ~ve d~ ~ ~ve ~ vera ~e huegc~i Blue ~utm u~ '~mpa~ta" ~phy~s ~ybs ~e" ~y~ ~e~d ~~s ~pby~s ~oinl Reyes' SM~Y~- bnKUBS 1 - 3 Rjv. Co. Guide 4, 5, 6 2 AH 3 4,5,6 2-3 4,5,6 2-3 4, S, 6 2-3 4,5,6 2,3. 4,5,6 4,5,6 1-2 3,4, 4;, 6 2-3 3,4, 5,6 2 5,6 2 ~,6 2 5,6 2 5,6 2 5,6 2 5,6 2 1,2 5,6 2 Native X X X X X X X Riv. Co. Native X X Remark; (SMALLSHXUBS1-3ft.) An:anstaphyios "WintaZlow' Arcsotls Zrandis African Daisy Argemone species Prickly Poppy Anneria maritima Sea Pink Anennlsia calffornica Csliforz~a Sagebrush A~,.~do "C. any~n Grey' Atriplex s~n~'baccata Australian Saltbush Bsmlmds pnularis 'Twin Peaks' Dwarf Coy~,- Brush Belepemne nlifornica Chupamsa C. tlliandra twe~dil Trinidad Flame Bush Riv. Co. Guide S, 6 1,2 5,6 All 3,4, 3,4 5,6 All 5, 6 3,4, 5,6 4,5,6 3,4 3, 4, 6 3,4,6 3,4 4,5,6 KC Category 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 .1 1 2 2 2 1 2-3 So/Wst Nstive X X X X X X X Riv, Co. Native X X Freezes back, but recovers in zone 13 2O Botank:al i C.z~mmon Names Carira $nndffiora 'Tunic' Nstsl Plum Cm'pemals ~al~fond~a Bu,~ Anemone Cassia anemlsioides Feathery Ca~a Cs.~a mndoleana C. anh nemopbBa Cas~a odorata Cas~a wL~zen~ Csanotbus gris~us Carme| Ceanolhus Ct..t~thus gr~slus bod2ontalis C, armel Creeper Ceauothus C~anothu~ "~tnta Aria" Csanozhus "Yankee Po/nt" Cj~tu: {norba. rjewdm White Rockrose Ci~lus mlvii~ollus Sageleaf Rockrose Cmide ~, 6 4,5,6 4.5.6 4.5,6 .~, 6 5,6 4,5,6 4,5,6 4,5,6 KC Cs. tqo~ 3 3 2-3 2-3 2-3 2-3 2-3 2 2-3 2-3 .2-3 2J 2-3 2-3 2 '2 2 SoAvs~ Native X X X Native Remarks 21 Botnicsl & Common Names Conyobtains mnrizanicus Coreopsis tj~ennial) Caoneszez buxifolius Cotone~ter ~ngestus Dalea gre~gii Dasylirion wheeleri D,sen Spoon Diplacus puu~eus Red Monkey Flower Dzpptcris etythrosora Autumn Fern Enc~lla fari~os~ Desert Brittlebush Er~xlnm $fbor~ns Sa/mta CI"Ilz lels']d Buckwheat Erlogonum ft~ciculatum California Buckwheat Erlogooum fat:kn~tum 'Wildwood" St, Calhcdne's La:e F_,rlepbldlum mnfeniOorum Golden Yarrow Felkla amelioides Blue Marguerite Riv. Co. Cvnlde 4,5,6 4,5,6 All 3,4 A~ 4,6 5,6 2,5,6 All 3,4, 5,6 5, 6 5,6 5,6 5,6 4.5,6 KC Cetepp/ 2 2 3 2 3 2-3 2-3 2 1-2 3 .1 2-3 1 1-2 2-3 2-3 Native X X X X X X X X Riv. Co. Nalive X X X Remarks 22 Botan~al&CtzamonNames Day Lt~y Heuchera m~,na Island Alumroot Heuchera ranguinea Coral Bells Pac~c Coast lris ira hayesiana Hayes Ira Juniperus species Juniper Keckjella mrdifolla He. an L~af Perilslemon Knipbo~a evarim (l'crcnnial) Re~l Hot Poker Lsptocts~lon mlifornicum Guide S, 6 All 5, 6 5, 6 ~, 6 Z.S, 6 ~, 2 5, 6 4, 5, 6 4,5,6 3,4, '~, 6 4,5,6 5,6 KC Category 3 2 2 2-3 3 3 2 2 2~3 1-2 2 2 2 2 2 Native X X X X X X X Native X Rcnmks Needs Shade Needs Shade Deer & Rabbit Repellanl Erosion mntrol May Freeg but f~Dver 23 (SMALL SHRUBS Perennial Blue FLax ~ musca~ (perennial) Bi~ Blue l.,Dy Turf Lonlcera subspints C:haparrtl Honeysuckle L~tns !~rgnelotti (pe?eunial) Parrot's Beak Lotus scepters Deerweed Mthonia aqui. t~mpacta !dthonia repens Cryping Mahonia Motsea *Bioolor' Butterfly Iris Motsea irrioides (Dietes) Fortnigbl 12"y Idyq~n'um parvifollum NeTinns oleander .petit~ Pink" Nerfum oleander 'Petite Salmon" sot hny's Nolina (knothera ,,,;-'~ur,',,,';, (perennial) Riv. Co. Guide 3, 4, 5, 6 4 All 4,5,6 5, 6 All All 4,5,6 4,5,6 5, 6 5, 6 3, 40 4, 5, 6 KC C. atego~ 2 2 3 3~t 2 3 1 3 2-3 2-3 ~.-3 3 2-3 2-3 2-3 1 2-3 Native X X X X Reinarks Averages 2 it, tall 24 (~-~ ~ 5Z.~T,.,,'3S ~ - 3 h.) Bot,udcg & _r'~,~w~n Names Cknothen specks EveninlPrimms~ Ostecslxn'mum fn:tlcosum Fleeway Daisy (African Pm~,--',, Grass Pg~tsleanoll centranlhi~olius Pentstemon *(::herr), G)ow" Pc-tstemon glox~nlodes GMden PenUtemon Penthereon betcropbylJus Penthereon s~ecnbilis Showy Pcntstemon Pirtosponam robira 'V,Pne~len'* Wbeelcr's Dwarf Pyracantha species F~eLborn Raphiolepis indica "Clara" Indian Hawlborn "Clara" Raphiolcpis indica "Pink l~dy" Indian HaMborn 'Pink l~'bes indecomm V/bite Flowered Currant Ribcs spedosum Fucbsh-Fiowerinz C.~x~bert~ Ribes vibsm~ofium l=verFeen Currant R_os'mndnus oil. 'Proslrams" l:~zff Roserusty Riv. Co. Guide _ 5s 6 KC Category 2-3 2-3 1-2 1-2 1-2 2 1 1 2 2 '3 2 So/wn Native X X X X X Native X X X Remarks Severs] to choose from Requires some shade 25 Names ~ "~ea Chicken" Salvia devebad~ Sadvia ieucantha Mer~tu Bm~ Sage Purple Sage Bla:k Sage Salv~ melBfera TeraSeca Garden Sage Santolina ~s,-sec-ypar~sus Lavancler Cotton Santolint virens G~een Santolina Sisyrincbjum bel]um Blue-eye. d Grs.~ Ttlchc~ema Ituatum Wool,/Blue Curls Westzingia roenari~'op,,;t X~onm ,~,nS~'tum 'C. ompa~' v---.-- wblppbi Our Lord's Candle C~lif~a Riv. Co. Guide 3.4. 3, 6 3,4. S, 6 3. 4, 2,5,6 2,S. 6 All All 3.4, 4,5, 6 4, 5, 6 5. 6 6 5, 6 2, 3. 4, 5, 6 2,4. 5,6 KC Category 2 1-2 2 2 1 1 2-3 2 2 2 2-3 1 2-3 '1 1-2 So/wa Native X X X X X X X X X Riv. Co. Native X X X X Rem~rk~ 26 Truap~ Cr~cl~r Cia~s satarctica Kanpr~ Vine C_weJsemlum sempervirens Keckielln oordlfolla Heart Leaf Pentstemon Lo~era subsplcata {3uparral Honeysuckle Patz~enoc~-~ tricu~i~ta lloston Ivy Rosa ba~ksiac Banks Rose .~&lanum jas~ninoides Potato Vine T__.~o_~aria apensls Cape Honeysuckle Wis~ria speci~ Riv. Co. KC SoAVst giv~ Co. Guide Cotepry Native Native '~,6 3 4, 6 2-3 A13 3 5,6 3 5,6 3 2,5,6 1-2 X X 2 X X 'All 3 5,6 3 4,5,6 2 Ag 2 X X An 3 Rem~ks Wi~ freeze Sun Io shade Deciduous, Shade Deciduous~ Fa~t growth Deciduous 27 'rUIF GI, ASS Hybrid BermndaSrass C3modon dz'zylon Common Bermudagrass Festuca elatior Tall Fescue Lollurn perenne Perennial Ryegrau 2~enotaphrum scctmdatum St. Anguszinc Crass IUv. Co. Guide An All All All All All KC Category 2 2-3 2*3 4 3 3 Native P~v. Co. Native Remarks 28 Camnon Names Alert, urn ho~mnianum Fires Flower Annetla snm"ltinu Sea Pink Cennium mmentosum Snow in Summer Corsopsis species Cosmos bipinn~qus C..esmos EriophyUum confen~orum Golden Ytrrow ~:~kotzia caliIornica CA~ornia Poppy C~Hh,'ci~ ~'andifiora Lobuhrla nm'itima (annual) tapinus nanus (nnual) Sky Lupine {:~sothen bethndierl (perennial) Mninn Evening Primrose Portulaca gr~ndi~ora Rose Moss S:.-syrincl~ium belhm ~luc-cyed Grass BEDDING PIdOiTS Riv. Co. KC Guide Cszegos~ All 3 All 3 may vsry w/species 2-3 All 2:3 2-3 5, 6 2-3 All 1-2 All 3 ~,6 2 All 2-3 All 2-3 All 2-3 3,4, 5, 6 2 29 So/Wst Native X X giv. Co. Native X R~matks Annuals & perennials Yellow to red gun flowers Full SUD. low water for wmpacme~ Summer Only inzones2&3 S~ to choose from (GROUND COVERS) GROUND COVE~ Riv. Co. KC SoAVn Guide Categoz7 Native All 3 X S, 6 2 X S, 6 2 X 5, 6 2 S, 6 2 X S, 6 2 X 5, 6 2 1, 2 5, 6 2 X 5,6 2 1,2 S, 6 2 X 5,6 2 3, 4 5,6 2 X A~ 2 S, 6 3 S, 6 1 4, 5, 6 1 R~,.Co. Native X 3O (GROUND COVERS) Botanical & Cc~mon Names Bacr. Jt. arls piluhris 'Pio-~on Point' Ceanothus 2rlsins horizontalis Cannel Creeper Ceaoothus ~othus 'Yankee Point' Cistus c~rbariensiz Whhe Rockrose Conwh, ulus tzeorum Bush Morning Glory Convoivulus nnuritanicus M~ing Glory Eriog~nu~a fasciculatum "Wildwood" Fagaria chiloensis Ornamental Strawberry Helianthemum nummularium Sun Hetw. hesa maxima Island Alumroot Heuchera ranguinea Aaron's Beard Riv. Co. Guide 3, 4 3.4, 6 3,4,6 5,6 All 5,6 4,5,6 4,5,6 4.5,6 5,6 3. 4, 5.6 KC Categopy 2 2 2 2-3 2-3 3 2 2 2 3 1-2 3 2 3 3 3 ~o/wn Native X X X X X X X Native Remarks Sun to shade Some shade in zones 11 & 13 Needs Shade Ne_-'-4,: Shade 31 (GROUND COVERS) Botankal & Cc,,,,,,,on Names Fay= Ira Mahonia repen$ Creeping Mthonla M)~oporum pacif~ca Myoporum parvifolium Oenot~era berlandierl (perennial) Me~r. kan Evening Primrose Onwspermum frutlcosum Freeway Daisy (AL'ican Queen) Phyla nodiBorn Pyracantha species Filethorn Ribes v~'burnffotium Evergreen Currant Rt~s,inus off. *Prostratus" Salvia mellifera TeraSec. a Sadvia sonomen.sis Creeping Sage Lavandar Couon Sa.nmlina virens Green SantoHna .~Jum ru~rotlnaum ~ork & ~eans Riv. Co. Guide 5,6 5, 6 A.I1 5,6 .% 6 5, 6 5, 6 ~5, 6 5, 6 KC Category 2 2-3 2-3 3 2-3 2-3 2-3 3 2 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 Native X X X X Riv. Native Remarks Deer & Rabbit Repelhut Good all sons, Erosion control Requires some shade 32 (GROUND COVERS) 'l'Vd'olixtm fngeriferum O'Connor's O'Ccmnor's V bemr Riv. Co. Guide 3, 4, 3,4, 5,6 · 3,4, 5, 6 KC Category 2 2-3 So/wn Native X glv. Co. Native X Remarks ITEM #7 FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning~'' February 7, 1994 Contiguous Parcel Merger Ordinance Prepared By: David W. Hogan RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT Resolution No. 94- entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING SECTION 16.7 OF ORDINANCE NO. 460 PERTAINING TO THE MERGER OF CONTIGUOUS PARCELS" BACKGROUND The purpose of this amendment to Ordinance No. 460 is to address problems with the current parcel merger process which were identified during the approval of the Midnight Roundup. The current City (County) subdivision standards for merging adjacent parcels creates a process which is inefficient, cumbersome, and inconsistent with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. Currently, the City cannot efficiently merge properties which are covered with a single development or are smaller than required by the zoning/development code. DISCUSSION The State Subdivision Map Act sets specific standards for the provisions of merger ordinances. No parcels may be merged unless there is a valid local ordinance which is consistent with the requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act. Based upon an evaluation of the requirements of the Map Act, staff determined that the primary reason for the detailed procedures was the need to ensure that the property owner was aware of the City's intent to merge the parcels. The provisions for a city initiated parcel merger are virtually identical to the merger requirements contained in the Map Act. The only component of the proposed ordinance which is not identical to the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act is the section for a property owner initiated parcel merger. If the property owner has requested the merger, it is safe to assume that the property owner is aware of the merger. As a result, the process can be simplified by removing the special noticing and hearing requirements from the proposed Ordinance. This approach has been approved by the City Attorney. In his opinion, the streamlined merger standards for owner initiated parcel merger is consistent with the requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act. The proposed Parcel Merger Ordinance would repeal the existing Section 16.7 and replace it with the following: Section A. Section B. Section C. Section D. Section E. Section F. Section G. The purpose of the Ordinance; Describes when parcels may be merged; Provides the requirements which must be met to merge parcels; Establishes procedures for City Initiated parcel merger; Establishes procedures for Property Owner Requested parcel merger; Describes when the parcel merger becomes effective; and, Establishes an appeal process. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The proposed Parcel Merger Ordinance will provide standards and requirements concerning the merger of legally created and preexisting contiguous parcels. As a result, adoption of this Ordinance does not have the potential to cause a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, the Director of Planning has determined that the project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The proposed Parcel Merger Ordinance will support the General Plan by allowing for the efficient utilization of adjacent or substandard parcels throughout the City. As a result, Staff has determined that the proposed Ordinance is consistent the long-term goals of the City General Plan. FINDINGS The proposed Parcel Merger Ordinance will provide for the establishment of effective regulations to merge contiguous parcels when needed to ensure efficient land development. The proposed Parcel Merger Ordinance is consistent with the requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act. 3. The proposed Parcel Merger Ordinance is consistent with the General Plan. There is a reasonable probability that the proposed Parcel Merger Ordinance will not interfere with the future Old Town Specific Plan if it is ultimately determined to be inconsistent with the policies contained in said Plan. Attachments: 2. 3. 4. PC Resolution No. 94- - Blue Page 3 CC Ordinance No. 94- - Blue Page 6 Current Parcel Merger Provisions - Blue Page 13 State Standards for Local Merger Ordinances - Blue Page 14 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 94- ATrACItlv!I~qT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION FOR ~ CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT ~ CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITI,~n "AN ORDINANCE OF ~ CITY COUNCIL FOR ~ CITY OF TEMECULA AMI~IDING SECTION 16.7 OF ORDINANCE NO. 460 PERTAINING TO TIff. MERGER OF CONTIGUOUS PARCELS*' ~, City Ordinance No. 90-04 adopted by reference cer~in poRions of the non- codified Riverside County Ordinances, including Ordinance No. 460 (" An Ordinance Regulating the Division of Land"); and, WI~REAS, such regulations do not contain adequate provisions concerning the merger of contiguous parcels; and, Wn~.REAS, That there are a number of parcels in the City of Temecula which axe under common ownership and that do not meet the minimum standards for the zoning district in which they are located; and, WI~.REAS, That there is a need in the City to provide an appropriate and effective method to merge contiguous parcels to enable the appropriate development of these contiguous parcels; and, Wn~.REAS, That the City Council is authorized by Section 66451.11 of the Subdivision Map Act, to adopt a local ordinance reguhting the merger of contiguous parcels; and, WI~.REAS, That this Ordinance provides for the merger of contiguous parcels and will address this problem; and, WHE~REAS, That this Ordinance complies with all the applicable requirements of Stab law and local ordinances; and, W~.REAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City 11311 , County Library, Rancho California Branch, the U.S. Post Office and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and, WtlliIREAS, a public hearing were conducted on February 7, 1994, at which time himrested persons had an opponuhity to testify either in support or opposition. NOW, TI:~q3~EFORE, ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the Phnning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby finds that the proposed Parcel Merger Ordinance will provide for thc establishment of effective regulations to merger contiguous parcels when needed to ensure efficient land development. Section 2. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula further finds that the proposed Parcel Merger Ordinance will probably be consistent with the Old Town Specific Plan when it is adopted. Section 3. That the Planning Commilsion of the City of Temecula further finds that the proposed Parcel Merger Ordinance is consistent with the General Plan. Section 4. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecuh further finds that the proposed Parcel Merger Ordinance does not have the potential to cause a significant impacts on the environment and has determined that the project is exempt from California Environmental Q,ality Act, as amended, pursuant to Section 15061 (b) (3). Section S. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby recommends to the City Council that the Council adopts the proposed Parcel Merger Ordinance. The Ordinance is incorporated into this Resolution by this reference. Section6. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 7th day of February, 1994. S'i'iz~ J. FORD CI~ I l:[l~l~.ay CERT~Y that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecuh at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 7th day of February, 1994 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIOn: PLANNING CO1V~VIISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: GARY THORNHH SECRETARY ATTACHMENT NO. 2 ORDINANCE NO. 94--- ATrACHIVIENT NO. 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF TB'P. CITY COUNCIL FOR ~ CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING SECTION 16,7 OF ORDINANCE NO, 460 PERTAINING TO TBY. I~ERGER OF CONTIGUOUS PARCh..! 8 The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby Ordain as follows: Seaion 1. Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the following findings: A. That the City Council is authorized under Section 66451.11 of the Subdivision Map Act ("Map Act"), to adopt a local ordinance regulating the merger of contiguous parcels under common ownership; B. That there are a number of parcels in the City of Temecula which are under common ownership and that do not meet the minimum standards for the zoning district in which they are located; C. That there is a need hi the City to pwvide an appropriate and effective method to merge contiguous parcels to enable the appropriate development of these contiguous parcels; D. That this Ordinance provides for the merger of contiguous parcels and will address this problem; and, E. That this Ordinance complies with all the applicable requirements of State hw and local ordinances. Section 2, Section 16.7 of Article XVI of Ordinance No. 460 is hereby amended in full to read as follows: "SECTION 16.7 MERGER OF CONTIGUOUS PARCELS. A. PURPOSE. The purpose of this section is to provide procedures by which the City may require or provide for the merger of two or more contiguous parcels under common ownership. This Ordinance has been adopted in compliance with the provisions of Sections 66451.11 of the Subdivision Map Act and complies with the provisions of Sections 66451.10 through 66451.21 inclusive, of the Subdivision Map Act, which provides the City with authority for the merger of contiguous parcels. B. WHEN PARCELS MAY BE MERGED. The Director of Planning or the owner of any contiguous parcel may initiate the merger of any parcel which meets the requirements of Subsection C. The Director of Planning, Planning Commission or City Council may require the R:%STAF~GE.PC1 1/25194 Idb 7 owner of any contiguous parcel to request the merger of any or all contiguous parcels within the boundaries of the Old Town Specific Plan in conjunction with the approval of any plot plan or conditional use permit. C. MI~RGER REQIJIREblRNTS. The merger of a parcel with a contiguous parcel(s) may only occur if all the following requirements are satisfied: 1. If any contiguous parcels are held by the same owner or owners. 2. That at least one of the affected parcels is undeveloped and does not contain a structure for which a builclino~ permit was issued or for which a bullcling permit was not required at the time of construction, or is developed only with an accessory structure or other structure which is sited or partially sited on a contiguous parcel. 3. That one or more of the following conditions applies to the affected paxcel: a. At least one of the parcel(s) involved comprises less than 5,000 square feet in area at the time of the determination of merger. b. The parcel was legally created in compliance with all applicable laws and ordinances in effect at the time of its establishment. c. The parcel does not meet slope stability standards. d. The parcel does not meet current standards for sewage disposal and domestic water supply. e. The parcel has inadequate access or provides for inadequate maneuverability for motor vehicles or safety equipment. f. The development of the pamel would create health and safety baT~rds. g. The parcel is inconsistent with the City' s General Plan, any approved Specific Plan, or the provisions of the City' s zoning and development cede. 4. That the parcels when merged wffi not: a. Be inconsistent or create a conflict with the City Zoning Ordinnnce Or General Plan, or any approved Specific Phm. Create a conflict with the location of any existing structures. Deprive or restrict another parcel of access. Create new lot lines. D. tx'x' INi'A'iATBD MERGER. 1. Prior to merging any contiguous parcels, the Direaor of Planning shall, by Certified Mail to the property owner of record at the address shown on the latest available assessment role of the County of Riverside, mail a Notice of Intent to Merge which notifies the owner that the affected parcels may be merged pursuant to the provisions of this Section. The notice shall include the statement that the owner will be given the opportunity to request a hearing and to present evidence that the proposed contiguous parcel merger does not meet the criteria for a merger. 2. The Notice of Intent to Merge shall be recorded with the Riverside County Recorder on the date that the notice is given to the property owner of record. 3. Within thirty (30) days of the recordation of the Notice of Intent to Merge, the owner of the affected property must file a request for a hearing regarding the proposed merger, with the Planning Department. a. If the owner of the affected property does not file a request for a hearing within the thirty (30) day time period specified above, the Director of Planning shall determine whether or not to merge the contiguous parcels. To merge contiguous parcels the Director of Planning shall make the fOllOwing findings: i. The merged parcel complies with the appropriate provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and all applicable City Requi~ments for the merging of contiguous parcels. ii. The merged parcel does not adversely affect the purpose and intent of the City's General Plan or the public health, safety, and weftare. b. ff the owner of the affected property requests a hearing on the merger, then Planning Commission, after a hearing, shah make the determination whether or not the affected parcels are or are not to be merged. 4. The Planning Department shall set a time, date, and location for the hearing upon receiving a request for a hearing fwm the property owner of the affected property or on the thirty-fffst day foliowing the recordation of the Notice of Intent to Merge. The hearing shall be conducted within sixty (60) days following the receipt of the owner's request, but may be continued with the mutual consent of the Phnning Commission and the property owner. Notice of the hearing shall be given to the property owner by Certified Marl. 5. At the hearing the property owner shall be given the opportunity to present evidence that the affected property does not meet the merger requirements set forth in this Subsection C of this Section. At the conclusion of the hearing, the PlayninE Commission shall make a determination to whether the affected parcels are to be merged or not to be merged. To merge contiguous parcels the Plan~xing Commission shah make the following findings: R:',STAFF~RGE.PC1 1125/94 Idb 9 a. The merged parcel complies with the appropriate provision of the Subdivision Map Act and all applicable City Requirements for the merging of contiguous parcels. b. The merged parcel does not adversely affect the purpose and intent of the City's General Plan or the public health, safety, and weftare. 6. If the pI3nnlng Comminsion determines that the subject parcels sh311 be merged, it sh~ll cause the Notice of Intent to Merge to be recorded as provided for in Section 66451.12 of the Government Code. If notification cannot be made at the time of the hearing W the parcel owner in person, notification shRll be made by Certified Mgil. The Commission shall notify the owner of its' determirmtion no later thRn five working days after the conclusion of the hearing. 7. If the Planning Commi.~sion determines that the parcels should not be merged, the Comminsion shall instruct the Director of Planning to release the Notification of Intent to Merge and mail a copy of the release to the property owner. E. PROPERTY OWNER REQUESTED MERGER. 1. When the owner or owners of record of any contiguous parcel, as defmed in Subsection C, requests the merger of two or more contiguous parcels, application shall be made on the forms and in the manner specified by the Director of Planning. 2. Upon receipt of complete application requesting the merger of any contiguous parcels, a Notice of Intent to Merge shall be recorded with the Riverside County Recorder and a copy shall be sent W the property owner. 3. Within thirty (30) days of the recorda~on of the Notice of Intent W Merge, the Director of P]annlng shaJl determine whether the affected parcels are W be merged. To merge contiguous parcels the Director of Planning shall make the following findings: a. The merged parcel complies with the appropriate provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and all applicable City Requirements for the merging of contiguous parcels. b. The merged parcel does not adversely affect the purpose and intent of the City's General Plan or the public health, safety, and welfare. 4. ff the Director of Planning determines that the subject parcels shall be merged, it shall cause the Notice of Merger to be recorded as provided for in Section 66451.12 of the Government Code. ff notification cannot be made at the time of the hearing to the parcel owner in person, notification shnll be made no later than five working days after the conclusion of the hearing. 5. If the Director of plnnnlng determines that the parcels should not be merged, the Director of Planning shall release the Notification of Intent to Merge and mail a copy of the release to the property owner. R:',STAFFRPT'N~ERGE.PC11/25/94 Idb 10 F. EFFECTIVE DATE OF lvrRRGER. The merger of any contiguous parcels shah become effective upon recordation of the Notice of Merger with the County Recorder. The Notice of Merger shall specify the date of the Planning Commission's determination, the names of the recorded owners, and a legal description of the properties. G. APPEAL OF MI~RGER. The appeal of the planning Commission' s determination to merge contiguous parcels to the City Council shall be made in accordance with the appeal provisions contained in the Municipal Code." Section 3. Severability The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and ff for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shah hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date This Ordinance shall be in fuH foree and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause copies of this Ordinance to be posted in three designated posting places. R:\STAFFRPT~MERGE.PC1 1125/94 Idb 11 1994. Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Ordinance. Seaion 6. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of ATrEST: RON ROBERTS MAYOR June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CAI-IFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF 'x't~IECULA l, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 94- was duly introduced and phced upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the __ day of , 199__, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecuh on the day of , by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS COUNCILMEMBERS COUNCILAIEMBERS JUNE S. CITY CI,I~-X R:XSTAFFRPll~ERGE.PC1 1125194 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 CURRENT PARCEL MERGER PROVISIONS (ORDINANCE 460) R:\STAFFRPT~/ERGE, PC1 1/25194 Idb 13 SECTTON 16.7. HERGINs. OF CONTzGUOUS PARCELS. A. Notwithstanding the preceding sections, four or fewer contiguous parcels under common ownership may be merged ~thout reverting to acreage, provided that the merger ts Ipproved by tM Planning Dtrector end an tnstnauent evidencing such merger ts recorded eqth the CounV Recorder. B. Applications to merge contiguous parcels shell be made to tM Planntng Director on foes protided by the Plannt Deparlaent, and shall be accomplished by the fee spectfied In Secffon 17,1 of this ordinance, and the following: 1, An exhtbtt, drawn to scale, delineating theexisting plrcel boundaries end the locetton of extstt~g strucl~ros and easeants. 2. Copies of grant deeds for tM extsttng parcels. 3. An exhtbtt, drawn to scah, delineating the beundertes of the parcel after the merger. 4. A legal description of the new parcel as merged. 5. Preliminary title report. 6. bdrttten consent of ell owners of record interest. C. The Planning Dtrector shall transmit a cmpleted application to the County Surveyor for raytaw and rocemmendetton and shall grant approval of the request for merger tf: 1. The parcels to be merged are, It the time of merger, under croon ownership and written consent his been obtained fra~ ell record Owners, 2. The perceq as merged w~11 be consistent vtth the zoning of the pPoperty. .. 3. The parcel as merged ~11 Rot confltct ~th the location of any existing $truc+,~lre$ on the property, 4. The parcel as merged v~11 Rot be deprived access as · result of tM 5. Access to the adjoining parcels v~11 Rot be mtrtcted by the merger. 6, No new lot 1tries ere created through the merger, The Planntng Director Shall su~tt to the COunty Recorder for recordat~on the new legaq description ·he exhtbtt w~thtn 20 days after It has been approved by the Plenntng Dtroctor. ATTACHMENT NO. 4 STATE STANDARDS FOR LOCAL MERGER ORDINANCES (STATE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT) Artiek I~ Mm'g~r of Pared. aht~g~2c~imitthea~thm~/~fa~ca~agency~asu~vide~wimn~m~:tm~hef~wingpt~cedureswi;hin this division: (l) Lot line adjusum~ C2) Amendmm$or txxm:tion of a final or pstueJ map. (4) ~u:lusicm. Note: Stm. 1983, Ck 845, aimo SEC. 4. T~e~m~ml of mbdivlsiou (b) of Se~66424.2, by Se~ 1 ofttm m, mlaU mx be~mmm~ed maffecithesmms~myl~deemedum~i_.jpurmmtum~lmtsubd~Anylgelumnet~,ed 664~Lll. Aiocal agen~y my, by o~whkh~mfmmm mmsd implemeuts the pux:edum lx~:n'bed by thissr~le. lxuvide forthe mm~ofal~t tmitwit acomiguomlmm~elotunitw~_-~byth~mms~ ifanyo~eofthecomiguompm~unitsMJdbyt~emmeownetdoesmxr~mmandardsf~t minimump~m~.~unde~thez~ingm~linan~ft~e~c~gmcya~i~c~b~t~thep~r~els~mm~ (a~ At least ene of the affected patceis is undeveloped by my mtmcuu~ for whkh a buiiding ~ ~ muedorforwhichabuildlngpemlitwasnot~!ui~datthetjmeof~.tximdeveloped~y~ structm-e, thatisalmo panially sited on a contiguous parcel orunit (b~Vitht~spectmany affect~dpatx:el, oaeormut~ofthefollowingcondifiouseu~ts: (l ~ Compmes less than $,000 squa~ feet in a~a ai the time of the detmmnitmtion of merger. (2~Vasnotcrtm~dincomplim~cewithapplicabklawmando~dinancesineffect~eof~. (3) DoesnotmeeicmmumndaRisfo~mewagedimpomalanddomemticw~rmlppiy. (4) Doesnotmeeislopembilitymmiards. (~) Has no legal ~cess which is .,i~q...~ for vehkular and mfety equipment ~ and mmeuverability. (6) Its development would ~ health or mafety (7) Is/nconsi~at with the applicable general plan and any applicable slt~ecif'te plan. other than minimum l~x size ~x density standards. applicable u3 parcels to be meted. F~rptu3x~e~fd~mn/ningwhetherc~mi~u~mpa~.Jsa~heldbythemme~wne~w~er~hipsha~lbe de,_~nined m of ~he dale ~ notke o~ mtmuiou This subdivisioo mhall not s~p|y if o~e of ~ following conditioum (A) Ouorbefm~luiy 1, 1981,meo~mo~eofthec~ntiguousparc~lsorunitsoflandiseulou:eably~.~_-_ed set i~nh in Se~ 421of ~he Revenue and Taxation Code. (B) On3uly 1, 1981, me ur mo~ofthecomiguous Mm~els~xunits ofland is timberland mdefined in subdivimiou (0 of Se~ ~l l04, ~ is land devoted to m ag~ultural use as defined in su~v~ ~) of Se~ ~ 1201. (C) Oululy 1. l~81.oneormote ofthecomiguouspax~or units ofhnd is lo~ wififin 2,000 feet of extraction is being made puremint m a me pe~t imm~ed by the local ag~. Y_~ta~e d~e el' mer~er i~Uati~a t~ (D) On luly I. 1981. one or nm~of the mmmigumms~.~Js or unils ofland is Iocaled wilhin2.G00feet of afutut~mineralextmctiomsi~mshownonaplmforwhichausepezmitototherlu~rmit (l) Witi~intheeoasmlzune, asdefmedinSeaitm30103ofthePublk~Code, oneffmo~of~e Ca~if~miaC~a~a~Act~f~976(Divisinn2~~fthePub~kP`mmm:e~C~de)~~t(ii)ptktm~head~~~i~n~f ~ftheC~1if~ni~C~sm~Act~f~976ina~s~a~deve~tpennitd~cisi~n~inan~i~d~andu~e p~nw~pm~mmt~n~m~v~dism~idm~if~:~i~n~nwhir~ht~qm~i~n~fa~ndusep~npu~suant For pmpmes ot ~ (C) md CD) ot this sulxlivi~c~ ~mimshmmm~ examim* mum ~a~ oil, ( Arae nded by Sta:s. Z 984 , Gh. Z O2. eff ective AprH ? O , Z ~4. See aote fo llowing Se~ ao n ~ 3 L Z O : ~ by $mu. 19a.~. ~ 796. F. ffec~ve 5epmnber ~. 1983.) Nora: Sink 1984. C~ 102. aim $1~C.~.Lltis:heimmoftheL~lislam~iamnmdi~thefws:lmaSmphofSr-a~ma66451.11ofthe tof a mergar ot comi~aous psn~s ot mm ot lmmi Mid ia aommoa mma:s~ ti~ mluimmn mt oao or moreof:hopan~uni:s~lmadm__,~-,fqrmmsmndardsterminimumpmn:elmemFemitmoar dev~ioixaemuadet:~zm~iaSmdmnc~ofthokrala~m~appli::a~mmysuahlm~.lsofmamofimd- 7h~reamrmimofihism~mnm:isiamdedmcam:ti~:mmck~ioninC'hW:~845otmoSmmtes ofl~3mclmll:ha~oto~cmsmmdmmammm:i~me~.n2~in, bm, md~hta:mYo~ixemAm~iaw. amendin$Sa:tion(~45L19, ofth~Govemmen:_Ct~__-.mml~ecomt~c~thoobli_~"~qmmi~sSmml adopta me~rordmm~whic~amnplieswi:h:hes~10tov~sms, mdwhich my thm~effeainm o~nflfflheh'*[~tivednmoflhi~sckra~n'lhnn onotaf~m'July 1, 1984. rec~rtim~fthec~untyinwhichthenm~ptupenyis!`~e~.an~tice~fmergerspecifyingthenamss~fUie record ownen and p0micularly des~ibing the teal (Ame:.,I,J by Stau. 1984. Ch. 102. Effective April 30. 1984. See notes following Seclio~..s 66451JO and 66451.11 .) 664s~3~Pri~rt~m:x~rdingan~tice~fmm~th~ca~ageg7eu~ncausi~bemai~edbyemifedmadim the thea cunent~own~of the pmpmy anolice of mteation mdeennize smus, mifying the own= lhattheaffecedpar~e~smaybemergedpursuantt~standards~e~mdinlhemetgermdmnce.mdad~ theownewoftheopponmitytoz~luesahearingo~Sofstatusandlolansemevidmeenh~ heating that the v,ovaty does not meet the ail~ia for merger. The notice of inertlice to d~___,Rnine met sha~be~edfertr.~tdwithth~rec~tder~fthec~untyinwhichtheu~pr~penyis~caw~d~athedaethat notice is mailed to the y,,n~'ty owner. (Amended by Slats. 1984. Ch. 102. Effective April30. 1984. See notes following $ections t564~l JO and 66452 .]].) 664Sl.14. Atanytim~withia30daysafermcordingofthenoliceofineationtadeem~smm, the~ oftheaff-,-itdv.,,F~.nytmyf~withthebalageacyam~--efarsheeringoaeetmitmiee~me (Amended by Stats. 1984. CIz. 102. E~ective April 30. 1984; See nt~tts foilowing Seaiolv 664~1.10 and 664~1.11.) 15val~ypemmumSectim66451.14, telecalageacydmilfix"lime. de=,mdPle~fer"beafiagm~ foliowing the local agncy's nx:eipi of bepmpmy ow~efs~qum for the hearing, bla my belmlm~ (ended by $tau. 1984, Ch. 102. E~ective April 30. 1984. See nates folhraing Sections 56451JO and 6645 l.l 2; Amended by Slats. 2983. CK ?96. l~eaie September 19, 1985.) 132 · Xgt!!qmmb~ZomMI, andDevdopmatLmm II I I1 r~ Ua~ .ttr Mttttr ~lhMatu 664SLlgS.(a)Coumimmo~shtn20,OOOsqu~cmilesinsizefhunbaveunffiJanum. yl,1990, m~a~ Dad/be/re' ofmer~fcrl:ercebof4,OOOsqufu~fe~tOtle~ptictmthetimeofmerger, whjchw~smerged~m mtntktamttttr J~nu~ry~984~mdft~ep~n2l~pm~mergedp~.t~anur/~9~4~s~a~lbectmsid~edmerged sumprim.m un~e~gnmi~e~fme~ge~h~sbeen~:~n~ed~i~rmJ~numy~99~C~un~i~s~P~d~on~i~fmerger ismub lSnmnt m Ibis subdivision shall comply with the noOce n~luixemems of Se~ion 66451.19. (b)Tnis~ec~ts~l~n~tbeapp~icablet~n~m~e~"~ichmeett~cr~miaof~bdivi~i~(a) l~3Pkedq. Zoein~,endDevebemeMIde · 133 TaE SUBD~O~ MAP ACT I (Addtd by St~u. Ig&~. Ca. 72Z l~t~h,t $tpttmbtr 14, 1~.) 1984 '1 660'L10.Pri~.mameadingame~erotdinanmw~h~inexinmmonlanur/l, .inmdm'mh4ng - itinm eomplianm wilh Secfim66451.11, lhe_k~Id~dvebody dielocal agency dmll adqlsmmblim 30 days prkr to mJopfion ot dw mnended mdinatu, (Added by Stat. v. 1983, C~. 84.~. See nine foliowinS Section a6451J 0.) (~lS1.21.Pdormthv,~vdmofamagerordinaa:eincmfformancewid, Section66451.1 l,byacilyercm~ I notbaving amet~roniMmce onlanum~ 1, 1984, 1he lelishfi~ebody shall adepta~olution ofimmdm ~d~ptame~r~n~imnc~nd~xa~m~ndplmef~ra~mb~iche~ring~nt~epm~xsedmdin~nc~which siailbecmghlctednmksslMn30nm'meetlan60dm/slfer~dopdmoftheresolufimx-Theckukof~ (c) SmmthnagthebemingnllinUm~lmrmmwillbehemd. (Added by Stau. 1983. C~. M. ,~e s~e ~ ~eaio~ 66451JO.) AM L7 U-merger of Parcek Jtudw7 ], ($ecaen a(~5125 tkreuSh ei64J129 repealed by $mu. I~,l, Ck. 102. ~ave April 30, 1984. See aote follewiag $ecl~n 664.$1.11 .) 66O130. Anypan:eis ot unils ofland for wddch anol~eofmetgefitad notbmn m:mled on~r~JmmT 1, 1984, ~sll be dmmed mm ha~merged ffen lmuaty 1, 1984: (a) Tbepm~memmchoffigfcilowMguiterk (1) CommimsstkastJ,000sqnmf~etinm (2) Wasc~t~edincomp]ia~e~ithapp]kablelm~andordinan~mineffeamt~edmeofi~c~mims. (4)Meetsskmedemi~mndar~ (6) De~tort~epe~elwouldc~m~nohmd~orsafr~h---~!s. flanminimumlameoraemitymanaa~. (b) And, wah rmpea ta~uch pgel, none ofthe followang a~difiom exi~ (1)Onofiaefo~July 1.1981,oaeorm~eoftheo~tfiguouspaR:eisotunilsoflandi~eafutcmllyttalfi~l ~pm.qscehndpmuantmac~mract~agzmmem~menietmrieti~n~r~pen~q~mseammem~asdsfinedand mtfcnhinSenion421 of the tevenue and Taxafion Code. (2)On july 1, 1981, one or mote of lhe comiguous pa~els or units ofland is limbaland as ds~__in mMivision(!)ofSection51104, oris land devoted man agrlculttnl useas deFmed~m~)~ Section 51201. (3) On july 1, 19~1,oneormo~themmiguousparmisormitsofiandisiontedwi~hin2,000fo~tof Ihesleonwhichanexislingcommercialminetal~mun:eexlracdonmeisbeingp,v-%wbe~rwm~ eaumionisbeingmadepursuammause!~mitismedbylhelocalagency. (4) On July 1, 1981, one or more o[ the condguom ~nrceb er units of land is locamd within 2,000 feet ~ afutu~commegialmineralextracti~siteasshownonaplan[orwhiehaumpamitoro&erpmmi~ malhofi~gcommetcialmineralrgsoon:eextractionbas_keen_inmlbythebcalagency. contiguom lmcels ot units of land lm, p~ior mJuly l, 19gl. bem idmified ot desipm4m~ CalifenfiaCoasmlActo~1976(Division20ofthePublic~Cod~),er(B)pdortolbeMoplimo~ a!lM um plan, been made by femal aaion ofihe Cllifm'n~CemM Cemmlulm pormant lo tbe!lovisiom d~eCalifomMComm]Mof1976inac:msald~'v~up~mpermitda:isiono~Mm~,~dim~dme ~anwmkpmgram~ranq~`u~ediuueidmifica~n~nwhich~he~m:pamti~n~f~andump~anpunuant mmepmvisionsoftheCalifomiaCmnlAaislmmd. ITEM #8 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning~:~' DATE: February 7, 1994 SUBJECT: An Amendment to Section 18.28.A.C.(10) of Ordinance No. 348 Pertaining to the Type of Paving Material Required for Access to Second Dwelling Units Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT Resolution No. 94- recommending approval of an amendment to Section 18.28.A.C.(10) of Ordinance No. 348 entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF TEMECULA, AMENDING SECTION NO. 18.28.A.C.{10) OF ORDINANCE NO. 348 PERTAINING TO THE TYPE OF PAVING MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR ACCESS TO SECOND DWELLING UNITS" BACKGROUND On November 1,1993 the Planning Commission approved Planning Application No. 93-0179, Amendment No. 1, for a second dwelling unit. At that meeting, the Commission was informed that pursuant to Section 18.28.A.C.(10) of Ordinance No. 348, any second unit placed more than 150 feet from a public right-of-way shall be required to provide all-weather access for emergency vehicles. Current ordinance provisions require a 28' wide asphaltic concrete paved road. The applicant, in this case, would have been required to provide approximately 500 feet of 28 foot wide asphaltic concreted paved road to provide all-weather access per Ordinance No. 348. The applicant expressed that would be a hardship for them. The Commission approved the project with no modification to this requirement. Subsequently, the applicant filed an appeal to the City Council appealing the Conditions of Approval requiring street improvement plans and the strict interpretation of "all-weather" access. The City Council, at their January 11, 1994 meeting, seeked to provide some relief for applications of this type. They directed the Commission to consider an Amendment to Section No. 18.28.A.C(10) of Ordinance No. 348 - a requirement for all-weather access for emergency vehicles to any second unit placed more than 150 feet form a public right-of-way. This ordinance amendment will allow staff to exercise some "flexibility" to the existing requirements. The draft Ordinance Amendment is included in this report as Attachment No. 2. DISCUSSION Staff prepared the language for the Ordinance Amendment at the direction of the City Council. It was the Council's intent to provide relief from the existing requirement for one specific type of paving material for "all-weather" access. The language was provided by the City Attorney, the Riverside County Fire Department, the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works. The draft Ordinance was included in the City Council Staff Report dated January 11, 1994. The recommended language for the amendment to Section 18.28.a.c.(10) of Ordinance No. 348 is indicated in bold: "Any second unit placed more than 150 feet from a public right-of-way shall be required to provide all-weather access for emergency vehicles from a publicly maintained road. Asphaltic or concrete paving is required for all-weather access; however, this requirement may be waived if all of the following conditions are met: A soils report (prepared by a licensed soil or civil engineer) is submitted to the Department of Public Works for approval. The report shall determine the stability of the soils at the project site and contain recommendations for alternative matedal types and any associated drainage facilities that will support a 30,000 pound emergency vehicle. The applicant records a waiver against the property, releasing the City of Temecula of any liability in the event that emergency vehicles cannot utilize the drive lane. The City of Temecula will not accept or maintain the roadway until it has been improved to City of Temecula Standards as identified in the Circulation Element of the General Plan." ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION This Ordinance Amendment is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines. This exemption applies to the construction and location of limited numbers of new structures including single-family residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units. Construction of a driveway to the structure is a logical component of this section. In addition, because of limited City-wide second unit application, the cumulative impact of this Ordinance Amendment will not be significant. Attachments: PC Resolution - Blue Page 3 Draft Ordinance - Blue Page 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 94- ATrACHlv~IT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 94 - A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF TFrR CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION NO. 18.28.A.C.(10) OF ORDINANCE NO. 348 PERTAINING TO ~ TYPE OF PAVING MATERIAL REQUI~'~ FOR ACCESS TO SECOND DWRI JJNG UNITS WI~.REAS, the Plannlng Commission considered an Amendment to Section No. 18.28.a.c.(10) to Ordinance No. 348 on February 7, 1994, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; WtlEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons deserving to be heard, the Commi.~sion considered all facts relating to the Ordinance Amendment; NOW, ~RE, ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF Ti~, CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOIJ~OWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. Finndines. A. The Planning Comraissinn in recommending approval of an Amendment to Section No. 18.28.a.c.(10) to Ordinance No. 348 makes the following findings, to wit: 1. It is the Mission of the City of Temecula to maintain a safe, secure, clean, healthy and orderly community. 2. It is necessary to re-e~amine the regulations of the zoning ordinance relating to the type of paving material required for access to second dwelling units. 3. The Ordinance Amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment since the project is a Class 3 Categorical Exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. 4. The Ordinance Amendment will result to the logical development of the City, and is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property. 5. The Ordinance Amendment is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. Section 3. Enviromental Compliance, This Ordinance Amendment is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines. This exemption appfies to the construction and location of limited numbers of new structure including single-family residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units. Construction of a driveway to the structure is a logical component of this section. In addition, because of limited City-wide second unit application, the cumulative impact of this Ordinance Amendment will not be significant. Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 7th day of February, 1994. STEVEN I. FORD CHAIRMAN I HERi?.Ry CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the P!3nning Commission of the City of Tomecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 7th day of February, 1994 by the following vote of the Commission: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: GARY THORNttII,L SECRETARY ATTACHMENT NO. 2 DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 94- ATrA~ NO. 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF TEMECULA, AMENDING SECTION NO. 18.28.A.C.(10) OF ORDINANCE NO. 348 PERTAINING TO THR TYPE OF PAVING MATERIAL REQU'II~n FOR ACCESS TO SECOND DWEJJJNG UNITS CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TI~IECULA, STATE OF CAIJYORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOI-I~OWS: Section 1. City Ordinanc~ No. 90-04 adopted by reference certain portions of the Non- Codified Riverside County Ordinances, including Ordinance No. 348. Section 18.28.a.c.(10) of Ordinance No. 348 is hereby amended to read as follows: (lo) Any second unit placed more than 150 feet from a public right-of-way shall be required to provide all-weather access for emergency vehicles from a publicly maintained road. Asphaltic or concrete paving is required for all-weather access; howevcr, this requirement may be waived if all of the following conditions are met: A soils report Compared by a licensed soil or civil engineer) is submitted to the Department of Public Works for approval. The report shall determine the stability of the soils at the project site and contain recommendations for alternative material types and any associated drainage facilities that will support a 30,000 pound emergency vehicle. The applicant records a waiver, releasing the City of Temecula of any liability in the event that emergency vehicles cannot DtiliTe the drive lane. The City of Temecula will not accept or maintain the roadway until it has been improved to City of Temecula Standards as identified in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Section 2. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance is severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this ordinance to be invalid, such decisions shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. Section 3. Notice of Adoption. Within 10 days after the adoption hereof, the City Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be posted in at least three public places in the City. Section 4. Taking Effect. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after the date of its adoption. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of ,199_. RON ROBFiTS MAYOR ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk [SFAL] STATE OF CAx-I~ORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss CITY OF TEIVIECULA) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecuh, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 94--- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 199_, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed a regular meeting of the City Council on the __th day of __, 1994 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCH MEMBBRS: COUNCrLMEMBERS: COUNTERS: APPROVED AS TO FORM: June S. Greek, City Clerk Scott F. Field City Attorney R:\STAFFRPT~pAVE.-ORD.PC 211/94 klb 8