HomeMy WebLinkAbout030695 PC AgendaAGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMIS~ON
March 6, 1995, 6:00 PM
Raneho California Water Distriet's
Board Room
4213~ W'mehestff Road
Temeeuh, CA 92390
C~t,t, TO ORDER:
Chairman Ford
ROLL C,&t.I.:
Blair, Fahey, Slaven, Webster and Ford
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on items that
are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to
the Commissioners about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink *Request to Speak" form should be
~led out and ~ed with the Commission Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and slate your name and oddtess.
For all other aganda items a "Request to Speak" form must be fled with the p|nnning Secreta~ before
Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Approval of P4enda
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Pinning Application No. 94-0131 (Plot Plan) - Temecula Museum
Temecula Valley Museum
Sam Hicks Monument Park
A 31,935 square foot museum building to be constructed in two phases.
Re-Affirm the previously adopted Negative Declaration
Matthew Fagan, Assistant pJanner
Approval
3. Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Phnning Applien~on No. PA94=0097, Tentative Parcel Map
phnnlng Application No. PA94-0095, Conditional Use Permit
Chris Smith, Land Grant Development
Southwesterly Comer of Highway 79 South and Redhawk Parkway
The subdivision o.f an approximately 30 acre site into 12 parcels and the
development of a commercial shopping center containing approxlmntely
238,000 square feet of building area.
Negative Declaration
Craig Ruiz
Approve
R:~WIMBERVG~q.,ANCOMMU~GENDAS~3-6-95 312/95 vgw
Csse No:
Applicant:
Proposal:
Phnner:
Recommendation:
Nicolus Valley Special Study (PAge0098)
City of Temecula
The study examines issues that relate to the future development of the
Valley. The study will present potential land uses alternatives.
Craig Ruiz
Recommend to the City Council No Change in Land Uses within the
Study Area
NEXT yF-~3YNGS:
John~n Ranch Workshop, March 13, 1995 6:00 p.m., Vail Elementary School District's Multi-
Puq~ose Room, 29915 Mira Loma Drive; Temecula, California.
Development Code, March 20, 1995, 6:00 p.m., Rancho California Water District's Board
Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
OT]~F,P~ BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
R:~WIMBERVG~t. ANCOMM~I, GENDA,~3-8-96 3/2/95 vgw 2
ITEM #2
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
March 6, 1995
Planning Application No. 94-0131 (Plot Plan)
Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
RE-AFFIRM the previously approved Negative Declaration
for the Sam Hicks Monument Park Master Plan; and
PROPOSED ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
EXISTING LAND USE:
ADOPT Resolution No. 95- approving PA94-0131,
based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the
Staff Report; and
APPROVE Planning Application No. PA94-0131, subject
to the attached Conditions of Approval.
Temecula Valley Museum
Herron + Rumansoff
An approximately 31,935 square foot museum building to be
constructed in two phases.
Sam Hicks Monument Park
Specific Plan (Old Town Specific Plan)
North:
South:
East:
West:
Specific Plan (Old Town Specific Plan)
Specific Plan (Old Town Specific Plan)
Specific Plan (Old Town Specific Plan)
Specific Plan (Old Town Specific Plan)
Not Requested
OS (Open Space/Recreation)
Park/Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Self-Serve Car Wash
Fire Department/Senior Center
Motel
Park/Commercial Center
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Area 1.49 acres (64,469 square feet)
Total Building Area:
Phase 1: 7,635 square feet
Phase 2: 24,300 square feet
Parking Provided 35 spaces
Standard 33 spaces
Handicap 2 spaces
Building Height 34 feet
BACKGROUND
Planning Application No. PA94-0131 was formally submitted to the Planning Department on
December 7, 1994. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on December
28, 1994. The Old Town Local Review Board reviewed the project prior to project submittal
and gave it's final approval for the project on February 13, 1995. Planning Application No.
PA94-0131 was deemed complete on February 15o 1995.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is a proposal for a 31,935 square foot museum building to be constructed in two
phases. Phase 1 will comprise approximately 7,635 square feet and Phase 2 will comprise
24,300 square feet.
ANALYSIS
Site Desjan
The building "footprint" was approved as a component of the Sam Hicks Monument Park
Master Plan. This Plan was approved by the City Council on April 5, 1994. Staff required a
Plot Plan application for this project in order to review and approve the design of the first
phase of the building as well as further expansions to the project. The location of the building
on the Plot Plan is in substantial conformance with the location approved on the Sam Hicks
Monument Park Master Plan. The location of the building will serve as a screen of the western
elevation of Motel 6.
Parking for the project was discussed during the formulation of the Sam Hicks Monument
Master Ran. It was determined that this project was a quasi-public use within Sam Hicks Park
and that parking would be shared between the Park and the Senior Center.
Architecture
As per the provisions contained within the Old Town Specific Plan (Plan), the Old Town Local
Review Board (Board) has reviewed the exterior colors and materials for consistency with the
Plan. The Board has determined that the project is consistent with the Plan and recommended
approval of the project to the Director of Planning.
Area Compatibility
The project is consistent with other development in the area in terms of scale, materials and
colors. The museum is a quasi-public building and will be compatible with the other
governmental buildings in the area (the Fire Station, Post Office and the Senior Center).
ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The land use designation for the site is identified in the General Plan as Open
Space/Recreation. It is likely that the Museum uses will be permitted in Open
Space/Recreation designations. The Old Town Specific Plan designation for the site is
Highway Tourist Commercial. The Planning Director has determined that the use is consistent
with the surrounding area and compatible with the Specific Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Study was prepared for the Sam Hicks Monument Park Master Plan (this project is
a component of the Plan). The Initial Study indicated that although the proposed project could
have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case
because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to
the project. A Negative Declaration was granted by the City Council on April 5, 1994 for the
Sam Hicks Monument Park Master Plan.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project is consistent with the City's General Plan, the Old Town Specific Plan, and
Ordinance No. 348. The project is located within Sam Hicks Monument Park, and the building
footprint has been considered by the Community Services Commission and the City Council
in their approval of the Park Master Plan. A Negative Declaration was granted by the City
Council on April 5, 1994 for the Sam Hicks Monument Park Master Plan (this project is a
component of the Plan). Planning Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission re-
affirm the previously adopted Negative Declaration for the project.
FINDINGS
The proposed use conforms to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable
re~luirements of state law and City ordinances. The land use designation for the site
is identified in the General Plan as Open Space/Recreation. The Old Town Specific Plan
designation for the site is Highway Tourist Commercial. The Planning Director has
determined that the project is consistent with the surrounding area. The proposed use
complies with California Governmental Code Section 65360, Section 18.30 (Plot Plan)
of Ordinance No. 348.
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health,
safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the land and is
compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding
property. The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment.
Mitigation measures identified in the Initial Environmental Assessment for the Sam
Hicks Monument Park Master Plan (of which this is a component) have been included
in the Conditions of Approval and will reduce any impacts to a level less than
significant.
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, access, and intensity of use, because the proposed
Planning Application (Plot Plan), as conditioned, complies with the standards contained
within the City's General Plan, the Old Town Specific Plan, and Ordinance No. 348.
The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic. Access to the project site is from two publicly maintained
roads (Mercedes Street and Moreno Road).
The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they are not in
conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed
project.
Said findings are supported by maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated
with these applications and herein incorporated by reference.
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
PC Resolution - Blue Page 5
Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 9
Initial Study for Sam Hicks Monument Park Master Plan - Blue Page 17
Exhibits - Blue Page 18
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan Map
D. Site Plan
E. Elevations
F. Old Town Specific Plan Map
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 95-
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF T~ff- PLANNING COMlv!I.~SION OF
~ CITY OF TI~VIECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 94-0131 TO CONSTRUCT AN
APPROXIMATELY 31,935 SQUARE FOOT MUSEUM
BU~,nING IN TWO PHASES ON A PARCEL CONTAINING
1.49 ACRV-~ LOCATED WITHIN SAM HICKS MONUMENT
PARK AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-
070-026
WIIERFAS, the Temecula Valley Museum filed planning Application No. 94-0131 in
accordance with the City of Temecula Genera] Plan and Riverside County Land Use and
Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
VVHEREAS, planning Application No. 94-0131 was processed in the time and warmer
prescribed by State and local hw;
WIIEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. 94-0131 on
March 6, 1995, 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;
WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons deserving to be heard, the Comminsion considered all facts
relating to Planning Application No. 94-0131;
NOW, THEREFORE, ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETF_MMINE AND ORDER AS FOI.IOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. ~ The planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
94-0131 makes the following findings:
A. The planning Commission, in approving proposed Planning Application No. 94-
0131, makes the following specific findings, to wit:
(1) The proposed use conforms to all the General Phn requirements and with
ali applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. The hnd use designation for the
site is identified in the General Plan as Open Space/Recreation. The Old Town Specific Plan
designation for the site is Highway Tourist Commercial. The plnnning Director has determined
that the project is consistent with the surrounding area. The proposed use complies with
California Governmental Code Section 65360, Section 18.30 (Plot Plan) of Ordinance No. 348.
(2) The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the
public health, safety and general weftare; conforms to the logical development of the land and
is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. The
proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment. Mitigation measures
identified in the Initial Environmental Assessment for the Sam Hicks Monument Park Master
Plan (of which thig is a component) have been included in the Conditions of Appwval and will
reduce any imtncts to a level less than significant.
(3) The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the
size and shape of the lot configuration, access, and intensity of use, because the proposed
Plannin~ Application (Plot Plan), as conditioned, complies with the standards contained within
the City's General Plan, the Old Town Specific Plan, and Ordinance No. 348.
(4) The project ha.~ acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open
to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. Access to the project site is from two publicly maintained
roads (Metcedes Street and Moreno Road).
(5) The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they
are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the propexty within the proposed
project.
(6) Said findings are supported by maps, exhibits and environmental
documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference.
B. As conditioned pursuant to Section 4, planning Application No. 94-0131 as
proposed, conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the
present and future development of the surrounding property.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study was prepared for the Sam Hicks
Monument Park Master Plan (this project is a component of the Plan) and it indicates that
although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions
of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration was therefore granted
by the City Council on April 5, 1994.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Tcmecula Planning Commi,~sion hereby
approves Planning Application No. 94-0131 to construct an approximately 31,935 square foot
museum building in two phases, located within Sam Hicks Monument Park, and known as
Assessor's Parcel No. 921-070-026 subject to the foilowing conditions:
A. Atlachment No. 2, atlached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and
made a part hereof.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED thin 6th day of March, 1995.
STi~v'EN I. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I Ffg~i~,Ry CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 6th day of March,
1995 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNI-n't
SECRETARY
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:~rAFFRP~131PA94.PC 2/7~ keb 9
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA94-0131, Plot Plan
Project Description: An approximately 31,935 square foot museum building in two
phases, located within Sam Hicks Monument Park
Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-070-026
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
General Requirements
The use hereby permitted by the approval of Planning Application No. PA94-0131 is
for an approximately 31,935 square foot museum building in two phases, located
within Sam Hicks Monument Park.
The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City
and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and
agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency
or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set
aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City,
or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative
body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning
Application No. 94-0131 (Plot Plan) which action is brought within the appropriate
statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4
(Section 21000 et sea., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152and
21167). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or
proceeding brought within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the
defense of the action. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully,
developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect,
or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers,
employees, or agents.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it
shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter
diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization
contemplated by this approval.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit D, as
approved with Planning Application No. PA94-0131, or as amended by these
conditions.
Building elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibit E, or as amended by these
conditions.
R:~ST~hmFR!~I31PA94.PC 2/28/9~ klb ,'[ 0
6. Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit marked F (color
elevations), Exhibit G (color and material board), or as amended by these conditions.
Materials Colors
Metal (Pre-weathered galvalume roof)
Wood frame (entry store front and windows)
Granite (Building Base)
Brick (entry areas)
Plaster (Loading dock and equipment room)
Plaster (Storage area and east exit stair)
Plaster (Exhibition space, first floor area, board &batt siding)
silver/grey
Benjamin Moore HC-89
Granite
Davidson Olde Plantation - Brick
Frazee 5393M
Frazee 5392M
Frazee 5390W
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Initial Study for the Sam Hicks Monument Park have been
satisfied for this stage of the development.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Initial Study for the Sam Hicks Monument Park have been
satisfied for this stage of the development.
The applicant shall make application and pay applicable application fee for Consistency
Check with the Department of Building and Safety.
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
10. An application for signage shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Director.
11. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view.
12.
Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal,
displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than
70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space
at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space
finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space
finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous
place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22
inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or
license plates issued for physically handicapped parsons may be
towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be
reclaimed at or by telephone
R:~ST~I31PA94.,PC 2/2~/9~ k~ 11
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a
surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at
least 3 square feet in size.
13.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
14.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Initial Study for the Sam Hicks Monument Park have been
satisfied for this stage of the development.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
15.
Comply with applicable provisions of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Building,
Plumbing and Mechanical; 1990 National Electrical Code; California Administrative
Code Title 24 Energy and Disabled access regulations and the Temecula Municipal
Code.
16.
Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with
Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
17. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
18. All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations.
19.
Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting
and fire alarm systems.
20.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the
1991 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C.
21. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
22.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
23.
Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan for plan review.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval for this project, and
shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true
meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the appropriate staff person of the Department
of Public Works.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and
proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their
omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
R:L~TAFPZ~l131pA94.PC 2/28/95
General Requirements
24.
A Grading Permit for precise (including all onsite flat work and improvements) grading
shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any
construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way.
25.
All precise grading, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for consistency
with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site. The plans
shall match the underlying Sam Hicks Monument Park (PW94-15CSD) proposed
improvements.
26. All plans shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
P~ior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
27.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
Riverside County Health Department
Community Services District
General Telephone
Southern California Edison Company
Southern California Gas Company
28.
A Grading Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the
Department of Public Works. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code,
Chapter 70, City Standards, and as additionally required in these Conditions of
Approval.
29.
A Soils Report prepared by a registered Soils Engineer shall be submitted to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall
address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and pavement sections.
30. An Erosion Control Plan in accordance with City Standards shall be designed by a
registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works.
31.
The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading
and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and
subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
32.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning
Department, Temecula Community Services District, and the Department of Public
Works for review.
33.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weedfree condition and shall be
either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures
as approved by the Department of Public Works.
R:~ST,~r, FFR3sT~I31PA94.P~ 2/7.~5 k]b 13
34.
The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto
or through the site. In the event the Department of Public Works permits the use of
streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Section XI of Ordinance No. 460 will
apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity, or use of streets be prohibited
for drainage purposes, the Developer shall provide adequate facilities as approved by
the Department of Public Works.
35.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area
Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is
payable to Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District prior to
issuance of any permit. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has been
already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
36.
The Developer shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration
of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be
provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing
facilities or by securing a drainage easement.
37.
The Developer shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed
guaranteeing the construction of the following private improvements in conformance
with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public
Works.
Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement, curb
and gutter, concrete sidewalk, and decomposed granite surface
b. Storm drain facilities
c. Sewer system {private)
d. Erosion control
38.
The proposed building is layed out over an existing sewer line. A Utility Plan that
shows the reconstruction/relocation of the existing sewer line shall be required.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
39.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
General Telephone
Southern California Edison
Southern California Gas
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
Riverside County Fire Department
Temecula Community Services District
R:~'rAFFRP'~131PAo~4.PC 2/28/95 k~ 14
40.
All necessary construction or encroachment permits have been submitted/accom plished
to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
41.
All building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and
elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction
and site conditions.
42. The Developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as
established per acre/unit as mitigation for traffic signal impact.
43.
The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the intent to develop.
Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards prior to issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy.
44.
The Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility
mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be
paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or
final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date
on which the Developer requests its building permit for the project or any phase
thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee,
a copy of which has been provided to the Developer. Concurrently, with executing this
Agreement, the Developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility
fee. The amount of the bond shall be e2.00 per square foot, not to exceed el0,000.
The Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in
excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such
fees). By execution of this Agreement, the Developer will waive any right to protest the
provisions of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee
district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee
for this project; Drovided that the Developer is not waiving its right to protest the
reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
Prior to the Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy
45.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
Department of Public Works
Temecula Community Services District
46.
All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City
standards, including but not limited to A.C. pavement and curb and gutter.
47. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Department of Public Works.
48.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken
due to the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and
replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
~.:~STAFFRP~I31pA94.PC 2/7J/95 k~ 15
49. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
OTHER AGENCIES
50.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District's transmittal dated December 21, 1994, a copy of which is attached.
51.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of
Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated December 14, 1994,
a copy of which is attached.
52.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District's transmittal dated January 5, 1995, a
copy of which is attached.
53.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County
Fire Department's transmittal dated January 5, 1995, a copy of which is attached.
54.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Municipal
Water District's transmittal dated December 13, 1994, a copy of which is attached.
55.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the City of Temecula
Police Department's transmittal dated December 22, 1994, a copy of which is
attached.
56.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Temecula Valley
Unified School District's transmittal dated December 16, 1994, a copy of which is
attached.
R:~'rAI~rP. PT~I31PAN.PC 2/28/9S I~ 16
December 21, 1994
DEC 2 ~ ISSz~
............
Mr. Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner
City of Temecula
planninS Depatment
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590-3606
SUBJECT:
Water Availability
APN 921-070-0260
PA94-0131 Museum Building
Dear Mr. Fagan:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District CRCWD). Water service,
therefore, would be ava~able upon completion of financial arrangements
between RCWD and the property owner.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner sj~ing an
Agency Agreement which assigns water management fights, ff any, to RCWD.
If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Senga Doherty.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
$B:SD:eb~/F18~
cc: Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONIVIENTAL ItEALTH
RECEIVEn
B.ZC I S
TO:
DATE: December 14, 1994
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMEN'F
ATTN: Matthew Fagan
FROM: I~IARGARET LORING, Environmental Health Specialist II
RIB: PLOT PLAN NO. PA94-0131
The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. P A94-0131 and has no
objections. Sanitary sewer end water services should be available in this arelL
PRIOR TO ANY PLAN C1tR. CK SUBMITTAL, for health clearance, the following items are required:
"Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water agency.
Three complete sets of plans for each food establiqhment will be submitted, including a L-ms~ schedule, a
finish schedule, and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the California Uniform Retail
Food Facilities Law. For specific reference, please contact Food Facility Plen examiners at (909) 694-
~018.
,,LL:clr
(909) 275-8980
NOTE: Any current additional requirements not covered, can be applicable at time of Building Plan
review for final Department of Environmental Health clearance.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
RECEIVED
JAN 11 1995
Ans'd ............
~ndDi~zic~AresDr~n~eP~anfees(d~w4qXn~ntm~g~enfees)~n~d~`d~n~m~nofa~m~
I'~'Thlsl:~woddnotbelm~byDiltdctMsstwDratnegePtlnflcilltilsnornWfabd~~~.
~Thisp~t~nv~vesDi~ic~Ma~terRanfed~1ies~TheDi~V~w~:~pt~w~d~uch~id~s~e~ofN~Fm~
feeshavebeen~:~ted;a~;iicab~e~e~h~ddbepaddt~the-~`~3~L~rC~typ~cwi~na~w~~a
of a parcel map or sutxlivisio~ lx~' to issuance of t~lding or gradingm. Fe~toNINidshouldbemtheral~lneffec~m~et~,neof
GFNFRAI INFORMATION
This project may require · N~etai Poilutm';t Dischege Biminaon System (NPDES) permit from b~e State Wmet Resources Corm'd Board.
CAearance fo~ grading. rf,,~-~a~loe% ot ~ finl up'ovid, should not be given twffil ~e City has detemdned ~ ~te i~'oJect has bee~ Fitted a
perrnit or ls shown to be exempt.
obtain · ConclitionaJ Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) pdor to Fading, m a' mher find Ipproval of ~e project, and · Litter of Map
Revision (LOMR) I~or to occupancy.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE * PERRIS, ~RNIA 92570 * (909) 657-3133
Januaxy5, 1995
TO: PLANNING D]~ARTI~q~Fr
ATTEN: MATr--P-W' FAGAN
RE: PA94-0131
· With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced plot plan, the Fire
Depaxauent recommends the following Fae protection measures be provided in accordance with
Temecula OzdinnnCeS and/or recognized fire prot~-~i. on standards:
m
The Fire I:)ep~.~,,ent is z~red to set a mlnlmlllll fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial building using the procedures established in OrdinRnce
546. A fire flow of 3000 GPM for a 3 hour duration at 20 PSI residual ope~ng
pressure must be av~.hle before any combum'ble material is placed on the job site.
A combin,lion of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6"x4"x2-2 1/1"), will be
located go less th~n 25 fe~t or more th~n 165 fee/from any portion of th~ buBdl-g as
measured along approved vehi~,hr travelways. The required fire flow nh.ll be available
from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system.
ApplicantJdevelop~ ~h.ll :fim:Lish o~ copy of the water plans to the Fire Depaxtment for -'
x~view. ph.~ ~h~411 be signed by a registered civil engincer, co~t~i.l.g a Fire
Depaztment approval signature block, and sh911 COnform tO hydnnt type, location,
spacing and minimum fn'e flow. Once the phn.~ are signed by the local water company,
the oz:j~n~ls~ shall be presented tO the Fire Department for siZ-.nzre.
The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the
appropriate water agency prior to any combustible builttlng materials being placed on the
job site.
Prior to the hsnnncc of bui]dlng permits, the developer shall deposit, with the City of
Temecula, the sum of $.25 per squsre foot as mitigation for fife protection impacts.
Prior to the iss, mnce of bu'fiding permits, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to
submit a plan check fee of $582.00 to the City of Temec-la.
THE FOLLOV~rlNG CONDITIONS MUST BE MET PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Install a complete fire SpMnldex system in all bu~dlnSs. The post indicator valve and fire
department connection shnl] be located to the front of th~ buffcling, Within 50 feet of a
hydrant, and a minimuln of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement that the building
will be automatically fire Spr~nkleXt must be included on the title page of the building
phns.
Insfall a supervised wateffiow monitoring fire ~l~rm system. Plans sh~ll be submitted
to the Fire Dcphtment for approval prior to in~nlln~on.
Install panic h~rdwaxe and exit signs as per ch=pfer 33 of the Uniform Building Code.
Low level exit signs shnll also be provided, where exit signs ale required by section
3314(a).
Install portable fire extinguishen with a minlmnm rating of 2A10BC. Contact a certified
extinguisher company for pwper phcement.
It h prohibited W use/process or sWre any matexi~l~ in thi~ occupancy that would classify
it as an "H" occupancy per Chapter 9 of the Uniform Building Code.
Bluc dot xefiectors shall be mounted in private streets and driveways to indicate location
of fi~ hydrants. They shall be mounted in the middle of the sUeet directly in line with
fire hydrant.
Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the
Fire Delr, uhaemt for approval, a site plan designntlng required fife hnes with appropriate
lane painling and or signs.
Stzeet address shall be posted, in a visible location, minimllB1 12 inches in h~ight, on the
~h~:et side of the building with a contrasting baek~ro~d.
15.
Applicant/developer sh~11 be responsible to provide or show them exists conditions set
forth by the Fire Depa~.,.ent.
16.
Fin~l conditions will be aadrcssed when building pJ.n~ am submitted to BuiJdin5 and
Safety.
All questions rega.~lin~ the meaning of these conditions shall be zefen'cd to the Fire
P~n~ and en~ineelinK section (909)694-~439.
RAYMOND H. REGJ. S
Chief Fire Department Planner
· - .Fire Safer), Spec~.~i~t
; EaStern Municipa[ Water Di tri
December 13, 1994
RECeiVED
DEO 1 1904
CITY OZ TEG ..CULA-
Matthew Fagan, Case Planner
Ci~ of Temecula
Temecula Planning Deparlment
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
SUBJECT: PA 94-0131 (Sam Hicks Monument Park Muse-m)
Dear Mr. Fagan:
We have reviewed the materials transmitted by your office which describe the subject project.
Ottr COmment~ IL~ outlined below:
General
It is our understanding the subject project is a proposed plot plan for the S.m Hicks Monument
Park, located at the northeast comer of the intersection of Moreno Road and Metcedes Street
(APN 921-070-026), including a 22,935 sq. ft. museum building.
The subject project is located within the District's sanitary sewer service area. However, it must
be understood the available service capabilities of the District's systems are continually changing
due to the occurrence of development within the District and programs of systems improvement.
As such, the provision of service will be based on the detailed plan of service requirements, the
timing Of the subject project, the sums of the District's permit to operate, and the service
agreement between the District and the developer of the subject project.
The developer must arrange for the pr~paxation of a detailed plan Of service; The detailed plan
of service will indicate the location(s) and size(s) of system improvements to be made by the
developer (or othezs), and which axe considered necessary in order to provide adequate levels
of service. To arrange for the pn;panttion of a plan of service, the developer should submit
information describing the subject project to the District's Customer Service Depaximent, (909)
766-1810, extension 409, as follows:
1. Written request for a "plan of service".
Mall To: Post Office Box 8300 * SanJacinto, California 92581-8900 * Telephone (909) 925-7676 * Fax (909) 929-0257
Main Office: 2045 S. San Jacinto Avenue, San Jacinto · Customer Service/Enginm'ing ~ 440 E O~lelancl Avenue, Hemet, CA
Matthew Fagan
PA 94-013 1
December 13, 1994
Page 2
Minimum $600.00 deposit (larger deposits may be required for extensive
development projects or projects located in "difficult to serve" geographic areas).
Plans/maps describing the exact location and nature of the subject project.
E~ecially helpful materials include grading plans and phasing plans.
Sanitary Sewer
The subject project is considered tributary to the District's Temecula Valley Regional Water
Reclamation Facility (TVRWRB.
The nearest existing TVRWRF system sanitary sewer facilities to the subject project are as
follows:
· 8-inch diameter sewer aligned along Moreno Road, extending north of Metcedes Street
for a distance of approximately 600
Other Issues
The Representative for the subject project must contact the DiStrict's Customer Service
Department to arrange for the following:
Determination and payment of appropriate fees.
Plan check and field inspection of onsite plumbing.
Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to contact this office
at (909) 925-7676, ext. 468.
Very tnlly yours,
EASTERN MUh~ICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
David G. Crosley
Senior l:-ngineer
Customer Service Depa, tmenl
DGC/cz
AB 94-962
(wp-m~k-PA940131 .r. lz)
VALLEY
Pat~c~a B, Novomey, E~d,D.
December 16, 1994
Matthew Fagan
City of Temecula Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
SUBJECT: Planning Application No. 94-0131, Ternecula Valley Museum
Dear Mr. Fagan:
BOARD OF EDUCATION
The Temecula Valley Unified School Distict would like payment of the ststuatory commercial development fees to be
listed as a condition of approval.
If you have any questions° please call me at 695-7340.
Sincerely,
Temecula Valley Unified School District
DiXon
~ning Analyst
CC;
Dave Gallaher, Director of Facilities Development
Facilities Comment File: SA 301
31350 Rancho Vista Road / Temecuia, CA 92592 / (909) 676-2661
A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 3
INITIAL STUDY FOR SAM HICKS MONUMENT PARK MASTER PLAN
R:~TAFFaP~I31PAN.PC ~28/95 ~ 17
"City of Temecula
Planning Department
Environmental Study
I. BACKGROUND iNFORMATION
1. NameofProject:
2. CaseNumbers:
3. LocationofProjea:
4. D~nofProject:
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
Name of Proponent:
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
Sam Hicks Monument Park Master' Planffemecula Museum
N/A
Northeast .comer of Moreno Road and Mercedes Stree~
A long range MaslEr Developm.m Plan for Sam Hicks Monument
Park. The project inchde~ a Museum that will be consmscted in
~e 0) phases.
Fe, bru~y 15, 1994
City of Tamecuh/Temecuh Museum Association
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
(909) .694-6400
II, ENVIRONMENTAL IIVIPACTS
('Exp|nnnt~ous W all the answers are pwvided in Seaion
I. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes geologic. substructures?
Disruptions, displacements, compaction, or over covering
of the soft?
c. Change in topography or grotmd surface relief
The destruction, covering or modification of any unique
geologic or physical f-~,~es?
e. Any increase in wind or water,erosion of soils, eifi~r on
or off the sit~?
f. Change~ in siltation, deposition or erosion?
g. The modific~on of any wash, chimuel, creek, river or lake?
-1L _ _
X _ _
_ _ X
R:~STAe-re-~IJ~IItlCKS.IS Z/'17/gi Idb
h. ' Exposure of people or properly to geologic b~=rds such as-
earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, lifluefa~ion, grouud
faihre, or similar h~-~ds?
i. Any development within an Al_quist-Priolo Special ~mdies Zone?
Air. W'dl the proposal result im
a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality?
b. The cr*welon of objectionable odors?
c. Alteration of air movement, temperature, or'moisture or any
*change in ~img~, whefiaer locally or regionally?.
Water. Will the proposal' r~ult in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of wster
movements, in either m~xne or fresh waters?
b. ChaBge$ in absol'ption r~, dr~;nsSe patterns, or the Fate and
mount of surface runoff?.
c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?
d. Change in the amount of surface water in s~r w~ter body?
e. Discharge into surface w~ters, or in any alteration of surface
w~v. er quality, including but not limited to, temperam~,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rae of flow of ground
g. Change in the q-~n~ity of ground watch, either through direct
additions, withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer
by cuts or excavations?
h. Reduction in the mount of water otherwise available for public
water supplies?
i. Exposure of people or property to ww~er rel~i hasards such
as flooding?
Plant Life. Will the proposal resut~ in:
a. f~h=n~ve in the diversity of species, or number of any
species of plants Cmcluding trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and
aquatic phut~)?
Yes
Maybe
R:~TA~F/~'~AMHICgSJS 2/1~,./~1. Idb 2
; b. Reduaion of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or
endangere~i species of plan~s?
c. In=oduc~ion of new species of plau~ in~ an area of n~ve
vegetation, or in a bszrier to the normal replenishment of
ead.s~ng species7
d. Rednction in the Letcage of any agricultural crop?
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in ~he divenity of specie, or numb~ of any species of
.~i,~.ls (..i,~.ls includes all laud animals, bix~, reptiles, fish,
'amphibians, shellfish, bemhic org.-i~,, and/or inseas)?
b. Redu~on of the numbers of any unique, rare, threaw. ned, or
endangered species of .nim.l~? '
c. The imroduction of new wildlife species inw an area?
d. A barrier to the miFafion or movement of
e. Deteriorw:ion to existing fish or wildlife hshira~...
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in exisan~ noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
c. Exposure of people to severe vibrsXions?
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce or result in light or glare?
8. ' Land Use. W~il the proposal result in:
a. Altersion of the present land use of an are~?
b. Alteration to the future plsnned land use of an area as de~nibed
in a cernmuulty or general plan?
9. Natural Resomm. Will the proposal result in:
a. An increase in the ram of use, of any n~ral resources?
b. The depletion of any nonrenewable n~ural resource?
Ye~ Maybe
m
X _
I _
x _
X
m
_X_
R:~STAFFI~'~.,~I~IICI(~.IS 2/'14/$4 MI~ 3
11.
12.
Risk
of Upset. Will the proposal result in:
\
A risk of an explosion or the release of any D~rdous substances
in the event of an'~Cident or upset conditions ,th--:~lous
substances includes, but is not limited to, pesticicles, chemicals,
oil or radiation)?
The use, storage, 'wansport or disposal of any h~-~ious or wxic
nl~_t_t~-ials Cmcluding, but not limited to oil, pesficides, chemicals,
or radiation)?
Poss~le interference with an emergency response plan or an
.emergency evacuation plan?
Pop. In"on. Will the proposal al)er the lc~tlon, distribution, density,
or growth rate of the. b,,rn~n population of an area7
Housing. Will the proposal .affect existing housing or ctea~e a demand
for additional housing?
13. Tr~n~ortafion/Cir--,h~on. Will the proposal result in:
14.
a. Generalion of substantial additional vehicular movement'?
b. 'Effects on existing parking f~cil~ties, or cl~-m~nd for new parking?
c. Substantial impact upon existing transportslion systems, including
public wausponation?
d. Alterations W present pav2ms of circulation or movement of - people antYor goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air tnffic?
Increase i~raffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclisls or .
pedesu'ians?.
Public Services. Will the proposal have substantial effect upon, or
result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of
the following arm:
a. Fire proteclion?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools7
d. Parks or other rmcrosxjonal facilities?
Y~
Maybe
X
X
a:~'TAIr~'l~wT~S,q~tC't,S.m 2/~44m~ klb 4
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
f. Other governmental service:
15. Energy, Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of subsl2ntial amounts of fuel or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon exLein_v sources or energy,
or require the development of new sources of energy?
16. Ulilitias, Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or
substantial alterations to any of the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. C0mm~lBiCafi0ns SystellB?
c. Water system?
d. Sanitary sewer systems or septic
e. Sterm water cl~;n~_~e systems?
f. Solid waste disposal systems?
g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed or inefficient p~n of
utility delivery system improvements for any of the above?
17. Human Health, Will the proposal result in:
a. The creation of any health hazard or potential health b~7=rd?
b. The expostlre of people to potential health b~7=rds, incinding
the exposure of sensitive receptors (such as hospitals and
schools) to toxic pollutant emissions?
18. Aesthetics, Will the proposal result in:
Yes Marine
X..
X
X
X
19.
The obsiruaion of any scenic vista or view open to the public?
The crealion of an aesthedcally offensive site open m public view7
Delrimental visual iml~,acts on the surrounding area?
Recreation. Will the proposal r~ult in an imp, ac~ upon the quality or
quantity of existin,~ recreational reso~ces or opponuulfies?
Cultural Resources. Will the proposal r~ult in:
a. The alteration or destruction of any paleontologic, prehistoric,
archaeological or historic site?
Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure, or object?.
Any potential w cause a physical change which'would affect
unique efhnic cultural values?
d. Resuictions to existing religious or sacred uses within the · potential impact area?
Yes Maybe N_~o
X
X
X
X
IH. DISCUSSION OF l'tt~ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1.a.
No. The proposal will not result in unsublo earth co-"aidons or ~nges in geologic substructures.
The park will not require significant amounts of gradin8. Manufactured slopes will be cr-o-,a a~
the portion of the si~ adjacent m the Senior Ce~m=. Any uns~ble conditions will be mitigated
through planting of dopes for erosion conlrol (ttun is consistent with Uniform Building Code
Standards and Ordinance No. 457) and through proper compaction of the soils. Consu~ction and
grading for this development wffi not be st depths which would sffect any geologic substnxcmres.
No impacts are foreseen as a result of this project.
1.b.
Yes. The proposal wx]l result in the disruptinn, displacement, compaction, or overcover'rag of the
soil. All grading activity requires disruptions, displacements, compaction and overcovering of the
soil. The amount of disruption, displacement, compaction and overcovering of the soil will be the
mlnlm~//1 alllotlllt Deeded to realize the projecL No si_~nificant impacts arc ~u~tlcipated as a result
of this project.
1.C,
Yes. The proposal will result in a change in the site topography and ground surface relief f-~n,res.
A majority of the sffe is relatively fla. Additional gr~clln$ is proposed for the project, therefore
the wpography and ground surface relief f~-n,,es wfll be modified. The newly created slopes will
be similar w those cre_~_r__,~ on the Senior Cemer site. No siguificam impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
1.d.
No. The proposal will not result in the destruction, covering or modification of any unique
geologic or physical features. No unique geologic f~,res exist on the site. No significant impacts
are smicips~d as a result of this project.
1.e.
Yes. Development of the site wfil result in incressed wind and wamr erosion of sobs both on and
off-site. Gr~d lnE will occur during the constation phase for the project. In addition, the potential
for wind and wa~er erosions of soil will increase from the creation of mmmfacmrod slopes on the
eastern portion of the site that is adjacent to the Senior Cev2r. Short-term imp, acts will be
mitigated through grading teehniqUe~ th~ are consistent ~ Air Quality regulations and best
grading practices. Long-term impacts will be mitigsLed through site landscaping and the
cons=ucdon of harriscape. Erosion control measuros w~l be implemented as a condition of
approval for the project and will have to be consistent with Uulfonn Building Code Standards and
0rdina/1ce No. 45~. This will e~lsttre that no sigxlificaDt im,n~lcts arise as a result of this plDjecL
1.f.
Yes. The proposal will result in changes in siltsion, deposition, and erosion. Reference response
1 .e. No signi~cam impacts are ~Gcipaed as a result of this project.
1.g.
No. The proposal will not result in modifications m any wash, ehsnn,1; aeek, river or lake. None
e~st on the project sire, nor are proxim~e to the s~. No significant i,-n~cts are anticipnted as
a result of ~ project.
Yes. Development of the site will exppse people and property to earthquake hazards because the
project is locamd in Southern California: an area which is sei~nically active. Any potential impacts
will be mkigazed through building construction which is consistent with Unifonn Build'rag Code
./
1. i.
Ail'
2.a,b.
Water
3.b.
3,c.
3.d.
standards and proper ground compaction. The pwject w~l not expose people or property to
geologic hazards such as landslides, mudslides, ground failure or liquefaclion. No known
landslides are located on the site or proximale w the site. The s~m-- is true for mudslides. The
project will expose people or property to geologic hazards such as ground failure or liquefaction
because the project is lo_~ in a liqud'm:tion/subsiclence zone (as identified in the City of
Temecula General Plan Fin=~ Environmental Impact Report). Again, potential impacts w~l be
mitigat~i through building colon which is consistent with Uniform Building Code standards
and proper gro. nd compaction. No significant im!2am axe auticipatecl as a result of this project,
No. The proposal does ~ot include developu~mt withh an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone as
identified by the State of California, Resource Agency DeparUnent of Conservation Special Studies
Zone Map. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Yes.. The project will result hi air -mh~ions and deterioration of smhieat air quality in the short-
run. Air emissions and objectionable odors w~l occur during the construction phase of the project.
These impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant. There will be no air
emissions or deterioration of'-axnbient air quality in the long run. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The project will not result in altermions of air movement, tem~ar~Lre, or moisture, or in any
change in climate either locally or regionally. The scale of the pwject precludes it from c~fing
any significant impacts on the environment in this area.
No. The proposal will not result in changes to currents, to the course or direction of wa~r
movements in either m~ri~e or fresh wa~rs. ' The project site is not loca~l adjacent to m~rine
wm and is sufficiently removed from fresh wazer sources. No significant impacts are anticipa~cl
as a result of this project.
Yes. The proposal will result in changes to absorption razes, drainage p~-erns and the ra~e and
mount of surf, we runoff. Previously permeable gro-nd will be rendered impervious by
construction of buildings, accompanying hardscspe and driveways. While absoxption rauss n,,~
sill'face lltnoff will chatlge, hnpacts are Blitig~t_t~4~ through Site design. Drahlage conveyances w~l
be required which will safely and adeq-~ly h~-~le any of the runoff which is cr~.A by the
realization of the project. No significant impacts are amicip_~sd_ as a result of this project.
No. The proposal will not result in alterations to the come or flow of flood wszers. The project
is adjacent to the one hundred and five b--drezi year flood plain; however, it is not loc~t_~_ within
an identified floodway. No significant impacts are anticipsxed as a ~e~ult of this project.
No. The proposal will not result in a change in the amomn of surface wa~er in any waterbody.
Landscaping on site w"l allow a significant amount of the wazer m drain imo the ground. No
si~ificant impac~ Re snticipat~i as a result of this project.
R:WrAFFNrT'~AMHICKSJS 2~14/B4 klb 8
3.e.
3.f.
Yes. The proposal will result in discharges into su_rfa~ watch or in any alteration of surface water
quality. Prior w iss,,~nce of a grading permit for the project, the developer will be required w
comply with the requirements of the, National Pollutant Discharge EJimln~fion Sy~m (N~pDES)
permit fx'om the State Water Resour~_ Conre31 Board. No grading shall be permitr~i until an
NPDES Notice of Intent has been flied ~r the projea is shown to be exempt. By complying with
the NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level leas than significant.
Therefore, no significant im.n~ts are smlcipated as a result of this pwject.
No. The proposal will not result in an alterltion of the direction or rite of flow of groundwaters.
Construction on the site will not be at depths suff~ient to have a significant impact un ground
waters. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this projea.
3.g.
No. The proposal will not result in a change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct
additions, withdrawals, or through in~'celxion of an aquifor by ctns Or excavations. Reference
response ~ .f. No significant impacts are amicipa~d as a result of this project.
3.h.
No. The project will not result in- the reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for
public water supplies. Water service wil ultimately be provided by Rancho California Water
District (RCWD) upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property
owner. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
3.i.
No. The proposal will not expose people or property to wa~r reJ~ b~rds such as flooding.
Reference respomes 3 .c. and ~ .d. NO si~it~cam impaas are ~tlcipau~i as a result of this project.
PlantLife
No. The proposal will not result in a change to the diversity of species, or number of any n~five
species of planta. The project is considered in-fill, with development surrotmding it on all sides.
In addition, the majority of the site being previonsly graded and subsequantiy improved. A small
portion of the site will require additional grading; however, it has also been previously disturbed.'
No significant impacts are anticipated as a reault of this project.
4.b.
No. The proposal will not result in a reduction of the numbera of any unique, rare,
or evdnngered species of plants. Referante response 4.a.-
No. Development of the site will not result in the crearion of a barrier to the normal replenishment
of existing species. Reference response 4.a.
4.d.
No. The proposal will not result in a reduction in the acreage of any agriculmnl crop. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project since no prime farmland, farmland of
statewide or local importance, or unique farmland is located wimln the project site.
Animal Life
5.a.b.d.e. No. The project will not result in a, change in the diversity of species, or nnmben of species of
mlimah. The pwject site lies within the Riveraide County Stephens Kangaroo Rat Habitat
Conservation Plan Preliminary Study Area, however, the project itself will not impact the habitat
of the Stephem Kangaroo Rat (SKR). Thc site has been previously developed and cou, i-~ts of
structures, harriScape, landscaping snd din. Th~ project is considered 'in~ll' with d~velopment
existing to the nor, h, south, ust and west. There is no poi=aiial for the chang~ in the diversity and
number (reduction) of the species, or in producing s barrier to the migration of Stzphens Kangaroo
Rat ss well as the dete~ioralion of its habi~ ~ within th~ project area. SKR Mitigation
are not required for the developmen~ of parcels used by local governmental entities (as per Seaion
10(e) of Ordinance No. 66~). No other sensitive species have been identified upon the site.
si~i~caut impacls are snticipated as a resul~ of this project.
No, The proposal will not result in the inu'oduction of any new wildlife species into the area. No
significant impacts are anticipaxed as a result of this proje~___
Yes,. The pwposal will result in increases to e~4n,v noise levels. The site is currendy utilized
as a park site and the project proposes to exp~nd the park use nn~ add a museum. The museum
and park will be used primarily during the day. Inte/~i~te 15 is lor~t,~cl w the east. Commercial
uses exist to the north and west of the project. The Senior Center ~nd Fire Depatunent are located
W the soulix. These are not considered sensitive r_~__~mrs as identified in the Cky of Temecula
General Plan. No significantimpacts from noise are amicips~d as a result of this project.
6.b.
Yes. The projea will expose people to severe noise levels' during the development/consWaction
phase. Consu'u~on machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA s~ 100
fee~ which is considered very annoying and can came hearing ~mn~e from steady i-hour exposure.
This source of noise will be of short duration and therefore w~l not be considered significanL No
significant impacts are amicipated either in the short- or long-run.
6.c.
Yes. The proposal will result in the exposure of people to severe vibrations during the
development/construction phsse. The vibrations will be of short duration and therefore wilt not
be considered significant. No significant impacts are anticipated either in the short or long run.
Light and Glare
Yes, The proposal w~l ultlrn~ely produce and result in light/glare, because development of the
site will include new light sources. All light and Elate has the potential W impact the Mount
Palomar Observatory and surrounding development. The project is conditioned w be consistent
with Ordinance No. 655 (Ordln~nce Regul~inE Light Pollution). No impacts are foreseen from
light and glare.
Land Use
Yes, The proposal w~l not signi~camly alter the present lsnd use of the site. The Master Plan
will ~h~c~ and slightly expand the park and relocse the museum from its current Main Street
lotion. No significant impacts are sn~icipsed as a result of this project.-
10
8.b.
No. The proposal will not result in an alt~.ion w the future planned land use of the site as
described CiW's General PIn. The General Plan land Use designation for the site is Open
Space/Recreation. The Old-T0wn Specific Plan designation for the site is Old Town Civic which
is intended m provide for public and quasi-public uses such as parks and museums. No significant
impacts are anticipated'as a result of this project.
Natural Resources
9.a,b.
Yes. The proposal will result in an increase in the rm of use of any natural resource or the
depletion of any nonrenewable resource. Developmen~ of the si~ will result in an increase in the
rate of use of nanwal resources (construction minedais, fuels for the daily operation, asphalt,
lumber) and the subsequent depletion of these non-renewable .nm~al resources. Due w the scale
of the proposed deveJopmen~ these impacts are not seen as significant.
Risk of Upset
10.a,b.
No. The proposal wffi not result in a risk of explosion, or the release of any D-~rdous substances
in the e~ent of an accident or.upset conditiom, since none are proposed in the requesL The same
is ~rue for the use, storage; transport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic m,~dal-~. No
sigx~~cant impacts are anticip,~t_,~_ as a result of this project.
10.c.
No. The project ~ not interfere with an emer~-c~cy response plan or an emergency eval,,~!on
plan. The subjet site is not located in an area which could impact an emergency response plan.
The projet will tske access ~:om m~i.~insd ~S Clvlorono P, oed and Metcedes S~eet) and will
therefore not imp~t~ any emergency response or emergency evw,~fion plans. No significant
impacts are s~icipsted as a result of this project.
?opulation
11.
No. The projet will not result in altering the location, distribution, densit~ or iSzowth rate of the
human popul~Hon of the area. Projects of this namro do nor cause people to reloc~. No
significant impacts are andcipLn~__ as a result of this project.
12.
No. Reference response 11. Projects of this usmre do not cause people to reloc~e, and therefore,
additional housing needs will not be cromd. No si~ai~cant impaas are antiCip~_ted~ as a result of
this project.
Transportation/Circulation
13.a,
No. The proposal will not result in the generation of substantial additional vehicular movemenL
The site is currently used as a park a~d this use will be continued. The rm,.-,m compon~-~ will
not result in the generation of substantial additional vehicular movement since it will be included '
as a component of the park Master .Plan. No si~nificam impacts are expec~ from development
of the site.
R:~TA~HICKS.I$ 2/q4/~4 ~ I1
Yes. The project will result in an increased demand for new parking: Forty-five (45) parking
spaces will be provided on site (six spsc~ already ~ the rest will be pwvided under the Park
Master Plan. Although, Ordinance No. 348 requires one parking space for every two employees ~
pins one space for every 300 square feet of gross floor aru, the project is loc~ within the_Old
Town Specific Plaxx planning Area. Parking s~nclards will not be the slrne as those required ul~der
ordiv,-r-- No. 341. Any potential impam can be mitigated by future parking lots ths~ ~ill be
dispersed throughout the Old Town area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a resttit of this
project.
13 .c,
No. The proposal will not cr-~ impacts upon v, isting tnnsponation systems, including public
trsmponation. All of the streets surrounding the project have been improved to their full-width.
A Riverside Transit Agency CRTA) rolne is cun~ntly available in the area (Front, Main and
Mercedes Streets). The project is not anticipated to impact RTA's level of service. No significant
impam are anticipav, d as a result of this project.
13.d.
No. The proposal will not result in alterations to present p~n~-ns of circulation or movement of
people and/or goods. The site is currently developed as a park mi is accessed from streets that
are already developed to their ul~ right-of-way. No signifi~nt impam are anticiplV. z~d as a
rasult of this project. "
13.e.
No. The proposal w~l not result in alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic since none exists
atrrently in the proximity of the site smi none are proposed. No significant impam are
as a result Of this project,
13 .f.
No. The proposal will nut result in an increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedes~ians, Future development of the site will nut ~ne~ase traffic hszards above current
conditions. No significant impacts are anticip~e,~_ as a result of this project.
Public Services
· 14.a,b..
No. The proposal will not have a substantial effect upon, or x~esult in a n_ _,~ for new or altered fire
or police protection. The park and musetun will incrementally incresse the.need for fire snd police
protection, however, due to the scale of the p~oyosed development, these impacts are not seen as
significant.
14.c.
No. The proposal will not have a substsn~al effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
school facilities. Projects of this nature generally do not have effects upon the need for school
facilities. No significant impam are anticipated as a result of this project.
14.d.
No. The proposal will not have a substantial effect upon or result in a n_e~_ for new or altered
parks or other recreational f~ilities. The project willbe bendicial to the Old Town Area and the
'City of Temecula as a whole becatse it will result in the mnin~*n,ne~. and enhnOcem*nt of an
exi~llug park site. No significant impacts are anticipa~i as a result of this project,
R:~e'rA~H|Clt, S.lS 2/14/~4 Idb 12
14.e.
15.a.
15 .b.
.Utilities
16.a
16.b.
16.c.
16.d.
16.e.
No. The proposal will result in a need for the m~int~lallce of public facilities, including wads.
Funding for rn,inr-v~nce of roads is derived from the Gasoline Tax which is dislributed to the City
of Temecula frnm the Sta~e of California. Impacts w c-urmx and furare needs for m~inri~n~nce of
roads as a result of development of fine sir~ are incremental, are not considered significam, This
is b_~,,~the Gasoline Tax is sufficient to cover any of the proposecl expenses.
No. The proposal will not have a substantial affect upon or r~sult in a need for new or altered
governmental services. No significant impacts are antin'pa~i as a result of this project,
No. The proposal will not result in the use of substantial mn~unts of fuel or energy. As mentioned
in responses 9.a. and 9 .b. the proposal may result in an increase in the ra~ of use of any natural
resource or lhe depletion of any nonrenewable resource. Development of the site will result in an
increase in the ra~ of use of n~an,r~] resources (consmxcfion materials, fuels for the daily operation,
asphalt, lumber) and the subsequent depletion of these non-renewable nanxral resources. Due to
the scale of the proposed development, these impacts are not seen as significant.
No. The projea will not result in a substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy,
nor will the project require the development of new sources of energy. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The proposal will not result in a need for new sys~ms or substantial iterations to power or
natural gas. The project site is within prox;.,ity of ~ fac~ities. Development exists w the
north, south, and east of the site and they already receive these services. No significant impacts
are anticipa~d as a result of this projea.
No. The proposal Will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to
communication systems (reference response No. 16.a.). No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
No. The proposal will not result in a need for new syst~rn~ or substantial alterations to water
systems. As mentioned in response 3.h., water servic~ will ultimnt~ly be provided by Rm~cho
California Water Disn-ict (RCWD) upon completion of fm~nnial arrangements between RCWD and '
the property owner. No significant impacts are anticip~t_-d as a result of this project.
No. The proposal wffi not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to sanitary
sewer systems. The project is locn~_~ within Eastern Municipal Water District's (EMWD) snnitary
sewer service area. Infor?s~ion contained in the General PXan Fi-~l Environmennd Impact Pepon
(Certified November 9, 1993) stau~ tha~ adeq,,.t~ fscili~ies mdst (and are proposed) which will
adequately service the project. No significant impa~s are an~cipa~l as aresuit of this project.
No. The proposal will result in a need for new systems or subsmmial airtralions to on-si~e swrm
wa~r dr~i-~e sysren~. The proposal,Will result in changes to absorption rau~, dr.i-%~e p~-,~ms
and the ~ and mount of surfnce runoff. Previously permeable ~round will be rendered
impervious by consu'uctionofbuildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. While absorlXion
13
e
16.f.
rates and surface runoff will change, impacts are mitigated through site design.
conveyances will be required which will safely and adeq-~t~ly handle shy of the runoff which is
creamd by the realiT~tion of the project. No significant impass are anticipated as a result of this
projea. --,
No, The proposal will not mult in a need for n~w ,y~ns or substantial altm-atiom to solid waste
disposal sysmms. Any potmtial impa~s from solid w~.~,e crumd by this development can be
mitigated through pa'dcip~tion in any Source Reduction and Recyclhg Progr,m~ which are
implegnented by the City. No significant impa~s ate enticipw. ed as a result of this projea.
16.g.
No, The proposal will not result in a disjointed or inefficient paxtern of utility delivery system
improvements for any of the above. (referen~ response No. 16.a.). No significant impacts are
anticip,_,ed as a result of this project.
Human Heslth
17.a,b.
No. The proposal will not remult in the creWion of any health hazard or porentlal health b~7~rcl.
Projects of this nauLre do not result in the creation of health b~--rds or potential health hazards.
No significant impacts are ,-,~cipamd as a rasult of this project.
Aesthetics
18.a.
No. The proposal will not result in the obstnxaion of any scenic vim or view open to the public.
None exist on site, nor are any proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipaXmi as a
rasult of this project.
18.b.
No. The proposal will not result in the creation of an ae~hetically offensive ~ite open to public
view. The site is currently being used as a park. The Master Plan component shall serve to
enhance the aim. Elevations for the museum building will have to be approved by the Old Town
Temecula Local Review Board; thereby eusaring compslibility with the Old Tomm area. No
sigui~cant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
18.c.
No. The proposal vn]l not result in detrimental visual impact~ on the surrounding area. Referen~
re~pouse 18.b.
Recreation
19.
Yes. The proposal w~l mult in impam to the quality or quantity of existing recreational rasourc~
or oppornmi~as. The site is currently used as a park siu~ and this site wffi be enhanced via the
Master Plan process. No significant impam are enticipamd as a result of this project.
Cultm-al Rewources
20.s_
No. The proposal will not result in the alteraIion or destruction of any palenntologic, prehistoric,
axr. haeoloSical or historic site. Th~ site has been previously disturbed. The City of Tomearia
General Plan Environmental xmp. act Report (Certified November 9, 1993) indi~t~ that there is a
low possibility that paleontologic, prehistoric, archaeological or historic sites exist on the subject
project site. No all~uificant impacts are anficip,~ as a result of this project.
a:~S'r~,-e-i,SAMH,.CSCS.~S 2/~4m,~ k,k 14
20.b.
No, The proposal will not result in adverse physical or scathetic effects to a prehiswric or historic
building, structure or object. Reference response 20.b. No significant impacts are anticipa~i as
-a.~esutt of this projea.
No, The project will not have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values. No ~unique' e~hnlC alhxlral valtles e:gist O35-site or in prO:rlm~ty to the site.
No significant impacts are ~m~cipa~i as a result of this project.
20.d.
No, The proposal w~l not result in restrictions to existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area. None currenfiy exist on the site. No significant impacts are anticip~_~ as
a result of this project.
R:~'TAFFRPT~AMHICKS.te 2/'14/B4. klb 15
IV. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGI~i~iCANCE
Does file project have the port, n~al w either: degrade
the quality of the environmere, submmially reduce the
habi~st of afish, wildlife or bird species, cause a fish,
wildlife or bird populalion ~o drop below self su,e~i-lnz
levels, ~hreaen ~o elimi-~* a plant, bird or =nlrn~l
species, or ellminute important e~=mpleS Of the major.
periods of California hiswry or prehisWry?
Yes Maybe No
Does the project have the pow, ntial to achieve short
term, to the disadvantage of long term, environm~'~ml
goals? (A short ~ impac~ on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of
lime while long un-m impacts will endure will into the
fuutre.)
Does the projea have impacls which are individually
'limited, but cumulalively considerable? (A project's
impact on two or more se~ara~ resources may be'
relatively small, but where the effea of the tom[ of
those impacts on the ellvironm~-nt is signi~caut~ )
X
Does the project have anvironmanml effects which will
cause subsrautial adverse effects on humau beings,
either directly or indirectly?
V. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME nDE MiNIMUm" IMPACT FINDINGS
Does the project have the potential to cause any adverse effect,
either individually or cumulaZively, on fish and wildlife resources?
Wildlife is defined as "all wild ~nimals, birds, planls, fish,
amphibians, and relnfs, t ecological co.---,~i~es, including the
habitat upon which the wildlife depends on for it's continued ·
viability' (Seaion711.2, Fish and Game Code).
Yes
R:~Sl'AI:F1Fr~S~AH~CKS.lS 2/14/94 ab 16
ENVIRONMENTAL D,.-t-gxtVIINATION
the basis of this initial evat-~ion:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effea on
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepsred.
I find that although the proposed projea could have a significant effect
on the envirbnment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case
because the Mitigation Measures described on the ,.~bed sheels snd
in the Condkions.of Approval that have been edded Io the projea will
mitigate any pow. n~ally si~ificant impacts to a level of in~i~ifi~ne~-,
and a N'~GATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find the proposed project MAY have ~igni6;,snt effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT RBK)RT is required.
Prepared by:
~N~n~ and Title
R:~'rA~HICKS,I$ 2/14/94 klb 17
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
CITY OF TEMECULA
rlERIIA
CASE NO. - PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0131 - PLOT PLAN
EXHIBIT - A VICINITY MAP
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 6, 1995
OS ~)
EXHIBIT B - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - OPEN SPACE
CITY OF TEMECULA
H
R'4 -s
IDLKmIT C - ZONING
DESIGNATION - SPECIFIC PLAN - HIGHWAY TOURIST COlV!~m:gCIAL
CASE NO. - PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0131 - PLOT PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 6, 199~
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0131 - PLOT PLAN
EXIHRIT - D SITE PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 6, 1995
CITY OF TEMECULA
HDR
HTC Highway Tourist Com~er~lai
OTC CIvic ~
CC Community Commercial ~
TSR Tourist Sewing Residential '
TRC Tourist Retail Core ~
CCTS Community Commercial & Tourist Support
HDR High Density Residential
MDR Medium Density Residential
OS Open Space
TSO The Shootout Zone (Floating Zone)
CASE NO. - PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0131 - PLOT PLAN
EXFHRIT - F OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP
PLANNING COMMI,qSION DATE - MARCH 6, 1995
CITY OF TEMECULA
EAST ELEVATION
WEST ELEVATION
SOUTH ELEVATION
NORTH ELEVATION
CASE NO. - PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0131 - PLOT PLAN
EXlHRIT - E ELEVATIONS
PLANNING COMMLqSION DATE - Mnrch 6, 1995
ITEM #3
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Director of Plannin{~r~'/
March 6, 1995
Continued Public Hearing for Planning Application No. 94-0095 (Conditional Use
Permit) and PA94-0097 (Tentative Parcel Map 28567), The Vail Ranch
Commercial Center
Prepared by: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION: 1.
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for PA94-0095,
Conditional Use Permit and PA94-0097, Tentative Parcel
Map 27987; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 95- approvin9 PA94-0095,
Conditional Use Permit, based upon the Analysis and
Findings contained in the Staff Report; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 95- approving PA94-0097,
Tentative Parcel Map No. 27987, based upon the Analysis
and Findings contained in the Staff Report; and
APPROVE Planning Application No. PA94-0095,
Conditional Use Permit, subject to the attached Conditions
of Approval, and;
APPROVE Planning Application PA94-0097, Tentative
Parcel Map 27987, subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
BACKGROUND
This item was first heard by the Planning Commission at their January 23, 1995 meeting.
Because of time constraints, the Commission continued the item to March 6, 1995 and
directed staff to respond to the concerns of the Commission and members of the public at this
meeting.
DISCUSSION
Site Plan Lavout
The primary issue of concern for the Commission was the building layout of the center. In
reviewing the site plan, there are two major constraints that impact the site design. First,
there is a 50 foot wide drainage easement that runs roughly north and south along the
westerly portion of the site (See Attachment No. 6). The developer is prohibited from placing
structures upon the easement. This prohibition limits development in this area to landscaping
or parking.
The second constraint is the access points of the adjacent developments to the along the
western and eastern property boundaries (See Attachment No. 6). Because the access point
to the west exists (Country Glen Way), and the access to the east is shown upon a recorded
map, the proposed development is condition to align with these access points. Therefore, the
location of the on-site drive aisles have been somewhat pre-determined.
In addition, the layout must also be consistent with the General Plan's Village Center concept.
As shown on the revised site plan (See Exhibit "A, Amendment No. 1 "), the westerly portion
of the site contains many of the elements of the Village Center concept. This area, shown as
Phase 2 on Exhibit "B", provides for pedestrian access to the surrounding neighborhood,
pedestrian plazas that provide for public gathering, a pedestrian orientated streetscape, and
a "Main Street" circulation pattern. While the design does not contain every element of the
Village Center concept (i.e. residential uses), the present design will not preclude future
opportunities for these uses. As shown on Attachment No. 7, the project site is one portion
of the overall Village Center for this area. The entire Village Center concept will develop over
time.
In addition to the Commission's concerns, members of the public also expressed concern
about the site layout. Residents of the Redhawk and Country Glen developments stated that
they were concerned about the proximity of buildings and the impact of shopping center
patrons on the residential development to the west. As stated above, the Village Center
concept encourages designs that are accessible to surrounding development as opposed to
development which "turns its back" to the surrounding area. It should be noted that the
County Glen development is a gated community with a 6 foot perimeter wall. The gate and
wall will, in staff's opinion, greatly reduce the impacts of the center on the adjacent residential
community.
After reviewing the above mentioned constraints, the public's and Commission's concerns,
and the City's development requirements, it is staff's opinion that the proposed plan
satisfactorily balances these concerns.
Visual Bufferina of Buildings and Eouinment
Area residents and the Commission both raised concerns regarding the visual impacts of the
buildings from the existing residential developments to the west and south of the project.
Along the western edge of the site, the applicant is proposing landscaping along the street,
within the parking lot and adjacent to the building. In staff's opinion, this will reduce the
visual impacts on this side of the development (See Exhibit "B").
As for views from the south, the project will provide landscaping along Via Rio Temecula and
within the parking lot area. Also, the building elevations (See Exhibits "C", "D", "E" and "F")
and Design Guidelines (See Exhibit "0, Amendment No. 1 ") will require building articulation
and varying building materials. Roof top equipment will be screened with a four foot parapet
wall. Due to the differences in elevation, some homes to the south, which are approximately
1/3 of a mile away, may be able to see the upper portion of roof equipment. Again, it is
staff's opinion that design features incorporated into the project adequately address the
concerns that have been raised.
Colors and Materials
Commissioner Slaven expressed concern regarding the proposed colors for the center.
Originally, the included grey and brown colors to be used on the stucco building faces. The
applicant has since removed the grey colors while the brown colors remain. (See Exhibit "O,
Amendment No. 1 ').
Architecture Consistency
At the January 23 meeting, staff stated that the individual pad buildings, (McDonalds and
Chevron) did not have the same design elements as the rest of the center. It was staff's
opinion that the creation of stand alone pads did not meet the intent of the Village Center
guidelines. Subsequent to the last meeting, the elevations for both sites have been revised.
The Chevron building, in staff's opinion, substantially conforms to the Design Guidelines. With
regards to the McDonalds building, with the exception of the roof element, the building
conforms to the overall design of the center (See Exhibit "H, Amendment No. 1 "). The top
of the roof does not contain the cornice feature that contained within the rest of the center.
Also, the tile roof element on the building face, and not at the top, and is in staff's opinion,
inconsistent with the rest of the center. Staff recommends that conditions be added to require
the cornice feature and to remove the tile roof structures.
Desian Guidelines
At the January 23 meeting, staff recommended that the Design Guidelines be revised in order
to better provide direction for the development of future buildings consistent with the design
of the center. Subsequent to the last meeting, the design guidelines have been revised, with
one exception, to staff's satisfaction. Staff recommends that Commission require language
that specifically requires the buildings along the main drive aisle, within Phase 2, to be
oriented towards each other. In staff's opinion, the Guidelines do not clearly address this
issue.
Sian Proaram
At the January 23 meeting, staff also recommended that changes be made to the Sign
Program. The previous site plan identified a movie theater and a corresponding monument
sign along Highway 79 South. The theater is now called out as "Potential Theater\Major 4."
Staff recommends that the monument sing not be permitted should the building not be a
movie theater. Second, it is staff's opinion that cabinet signs be limited to monument signs
only. Staff recommends that all references to cabinet signs, excluding monument signs, be
deleted from the Sign Program. This would result in the McDonalds wall signage to be
modified. Third, staff recommends that changes be made to the temporary sign section to be
consistent with the City's sign ordinance.
CONCLUSION
Subsequent to the January 23 meeting, the applicant has made several revisions to the design
of the project. It is staff's opinion, as stated above, that the project adequately addresses the
concerns stated at the previous Commission meeting and meets the requirements of the City's
requirements. With regards to the issues raised above for Architectural Design, Design
Guidelines and Sign Program, staff would like further direction from the Commission.
Attachments:
3.
4,
5,
PC Resolution 95~ for Planning Application No. PA94-0095- Blue Page 5
Exhibit A of PC Resolution No. 95- (Conditions of Approval) - Blue Page 10
PC Resolution for Planning Application No. PA94-0097- Blue Page 26
Exhibit A of PC Resolution No. 95-__ (Conditions of Approval) - Blue Page 31
List of Revised Exhibits - Blue Page 48
Site Constraints Map - Blue Page 49
Village Center Overlay - Blue Page 50
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. FOR PA94-0095
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 9~-
A RESOLUTION OF TF~. CITY COUNCIL OF THY~ CITY
OF TEMECUIA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA94-4}095, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT
~ CONSTRUCTION OF A 238,000 SQUARE FOOT
COMMERCIAL SHOWING CENTER LOCATED ON THY.
SOIYrHWESTERLY CORNER OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH
AND REBHAWK PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARC~.L NO. 9~0-120-006
W3IEREAS, Chris Smith of the T and Grant Development Company filed Planning
Application No. PA94-0095 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside
County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City ha~ adopted by reference;
V,q~P. REAS, Planning Application No. PA94-0095 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WtIEREAS, the Planning Commission considered planning Application No. PA944)095
on January 23, 1995, at a duly noticed public heating as prescribed by law, at which time
interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition;
WI:IF. REAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing for Planning Application No. PA94-
0095, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons deserving
to be heard, the Planning Commission continued the hearing to the planning Commi-~sion
meeting of March 6, 1995;
WHEREAS, the planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA94-0095
on March 6, 1995, 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;
W~EREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons deserving to be heard, the Commission considered all facts
relating to Planning Application No. PA94-0095;
NOW, TI~.REFORE, ~ PIANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FO~JDWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. Findin2s. That the Temecuh planning Commission hereby makes the
foliowing findings:
A. Pursuant to Section 18.28, no Conditional Use Permit may be approved unless
the applicant demonstrates the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety and
we]fare of the community, and further, that any Conditional Use Permit approved shall be
subject to such conditions as shall be necessary to protect the health, safety and general weftare
of the community.
B. The Planning Commition, in appmving planning Application No. PA94-0095
makes the following findings, to wit:
1. The proposed use conforms to all General Plan requirements and with all
applicable requirements of state law and City ordinanceS. The project is a permitrod use within
the General plnn Land Use designntlon of Highway Tourist Commercial (IfrC). In addition,
the project is permitted with the approval of a conditional use permit.
2. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the
size and shape of the lot configuration, circuhtion patterns, access, and intensity of use due to
the fact that the proposed development complies with the standards of Ol~innnCe No. 348.
3. The is consistent with the General Plan due to the fact that the project has
been design to be consistent with the Village Center Concepts of the General Plan. Development
of this type will meet and further the overall goals of the General pinn
4. The impact of this project exceeds the thresholds, even after the imposition
of mitigation measures, for air quality. These thresholds are established by . As such, this
project must be viewed as having a significant effect on the environment, in particular air
quality.
5. In certifying the City's General Plan Environmental Impact Report and
adopting Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City identified air qnnlity as a potentinlly
significant effect on the environment that even with miU'gation could not be mitigated to a level
of insignificance. The project is within the rage of impacts analyzed in the General Plan EIR
and Statement of Overriding Considerations. Consequently, the pmpaxation of a full EIR W
address this issue alone is unlikely to result in additional new information or mitigation measures
not already av~ilnble for this project.
6. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public
health or we]fare due to the fact that the Conditions of Approval include measures which will
ensure that public health and we]fare will be maintained.
7. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in
scale, bulk, height, intensity, and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship with
adjoining properties due to the fact that the proposed development is compatible with current
surrounding development and Ordinance No. 348.
8. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open
w, and useable by, vehicular traffic due to the fact that the interior circuhtion is suitable and
connects with Redhawk Parkway, Country Glen Way, Vh Rio Temecuh and Highway 79 South.
9. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built
or natural env'tronment as determined in the initial study performed for thi,~ project due to the
fact that the Conditions of Approval provide for the necessary mitigation for the project.
10. The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they
are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed
project as represented on the site plan.
11. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the
public health, safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the land and
is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property, due
to the fact that the project is consistent with all City and State requirements.
12. The proposed use or action complies with all other requirements of state
law and local ordinances. The proposed use complies with California Governmental Code
Section 65360, Section 18.28 (Conditional Use Permit) of Ordinance No. 348.
13. Said findings are supported by maps, exhibits and env'tronmental
documents associated with these applications and here'm incorporated by reference.
C. As conditioned pursuant to Section 4, planning Application No. PA94-0095, as
proposed, is compatible with the health, safety and weftare of the community.
D. The Planning Commission in approving the certification of the Negative
Declaration of environmental impact under the provisions of the California Environmental
Qnality Act, specifically finds that the approval of this Conditional Use Permit will have a di
minimis impact on fish and wildlife resources. The planning Commission specifically finds that
in considering the record as a whole, the project involves no potential adverse effect, either
individually or cumulatively, on wildlife as the same is defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and
Game Code. This is based on the fact that this project will be located on a site that has been
previously graded an no wildlife exists on the site. The Planning Commission further finds that
l~nd Grant Development Company is the project proponent and the site is located at on the
southwesterly ceroer of Highway 79 South and Redhawk Parkway, Temecula, California. The
project includes the construction of a commercial shopping center consisting of approximately
238,000 square feet of building area and that all of the ~me are located in the County of
Riverside. Funhermore, the Planning Commission finds that an initial study has been px~ed
by the City Staff and considered by the Planning Commission which has been the basis to
evaluate the potential for adverse impact on the environment and forms the basis for the planning
Commission's determination, including the information contained in the public hea~g records,
on which a Negative Declaration of environmental impact was issued and this di minirnis finding
is made. In addition, the planning Commission finds that there is no evidence before the City
that the proposed project will have any potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources, or
the habitat on which the wildlife depends. Finally, the planning Commission finds that the City
has, on the basis of subsUmtial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect contained
in 14 California Code of Regulations 753.5(d).
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for thi.~ project
indicates that although the proposed project could have a si~qd~cant impact on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in
the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Dechra~on,
therdore, is hereby granted.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula pinnning Commission hereby
approves planning Application No. PA94-0095, for the opexation and construction of a
commercial shopping center located on the southwesterly comer of Highway 79 South and
Redhawk Parkway and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 950-120-006, and subject to the
following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made
a pan hereof.
Seaion 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTEB thi~ 6th day of March, 1995.
STEVEN I. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I FIERRRy CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 6th day of March,
1995 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOBS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNtn~L
SECRI/i'ARY
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PA94-0095
R:~TAFFRP~SPA94.1*~2 3~2~5 kl~ l0
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA94-0095, Conditional Use Permit
Project Description: The construction and operation of a commercial shopping center
consisting of approximately 238,000 square feet of building area
Assessor's Parcel No.: 950-120-006
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Seventy-Eight Dollars
(~78.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of
Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California
Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within such forty-eight (48) hour period the
applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check required
above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be voided by reason of failure
of condition.
General Requirements
The use hereby permitted by the approval of Planning Application No. PA94-0095 is
for the construction and operation of a commercial shopping center.
e
The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City
and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and
agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency
or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set
aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City,
or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative
body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning Planning
Application No. PA94-0095 which action is brought within the appropriate statute of
limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000
et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). City
shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding
brought within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the
action. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully,
developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect,
or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers,
employees, or agents.
R:~I'AFI~,PT~95PA94.ItC2 3/7j95 klb ] l
7,
8,
9,
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it
shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter
diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization
contemplated by this approval.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit "A',
approved with Planning Application No. PA94-0095, or as amended by these
conditions.
Landscaping for the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit 'B", approved
Planning Application No. PA94-0095, or as amended by these conditions.
Building elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibits "C" "D" 'E" and "F", or
as amended by these conditions.
Signage for the development shall conform substantially with Exhibit "G', approved
with Planning Application No. PA94-0095, or as amended by these conditions.
The development of the McDonalds shall conform substantially with Exhibits "H"
and"l", approved with Planning Application No. PA94-0095, or as amended by these
conditions.
The development of Chevron site shall conform substantially with Exhibits "J" "K" "L"
and "M" , approved with Planning Application No. PA94-0095, or as amended by these
conditions.
The support columns for the canopy structure shall be stucco exterior to match the
building exteriors (Added by Staff at the March 6, 1995 Commission Meeting).
Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibits "D", "N" and "P"
or as amended by these conditions (elevations and color and material board). (Amended
by Staff at the March 6, 1995 Commission Meeting).
Materials Colors
Roof Tiles
Wall Tile & Tile Base
Storefront
Plaster - Base
Plaster - Cornice
Accent Colors
#820 CA Mission Blend
Old Mission Red
Alum. Dark Bronze
Sinclair Windrift Beige & Antique White
Sinclair CM8513
Red & Frazee #55055A
A minimum of ~. ,2 ~. ~. 1359parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section
18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. One thousand three hundred ;~:~':~.~fty
six ~". ,2~. ~. 1359)parking spaces shall be provided as shown on Exhibit "A'.(Amended
by Staff at the March 6, 1995 Commission Meeting).
A minimum of 204 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on Exhibit
"A".(Amended by Staff at the March 6, 1995 Commission Meeting).
3/2/95
15.
The seven (7) parking spaces at the southerly end of the drive aisle of Phase 2 shall
be deleted. (Added by staff at the March 6, 1995 Commission Meeting).
16.
Landscape planters shall be provided every 5 spaces within the parking lot area. The
planters shall alternate in size between the 40 square foot and 195 square foot, as
detailed on Exhibit "A". (Added by Staff at the March 6, 1995 Commission Meeting).
17.
Fifty-two (52) Class II bicycle racks shall be provided as required by Section 18.12 of
Ordinance No. 348.
18.
The construction landscape plans shall be consistent with the conceptual landscape
plan and as shown on Exhibit "C", except as amended herein.
19.
The construction landscape plans shall be consistent with City Ordinance No. 94-22,
for Water Efficient Landscaping.
20.
The project shall provide three (3) pedestrian plazas in the following areas: between
buildings Major I and Major 2, in the area of Pad 9 and Pad 10, and in the area of
buildings Pads 5 through 8.
21.
The applicant shall submit development plans for all future development with the
appropriate filing fee to the Planning Department for approval. Staff may
administratively approve all future development if the square footage of future projects
within ten (10) percent of this approval, there are no material alterations to the
footprints on the site plan nor any alterations to the approved uses. Approvals for all
other proposals which are not within the ten percent margin, including alterations to
the building footprints on the site plan or alterations of the approved uses, at the
discretion of the Planning Director shall either be approved administratively or be
approved by the Planning Commission.
22.
A Mitiaation Monitorina Proaram shall be submitted and approved by the Planning
Director prior to recordation of the Final Map or issuance of Grading Permits which ever
occurs first.
23.
All light shall be directed onto the site to insure that surrounding properties are not
impacted by light or glare created from this project.
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
24.
The applicant shall comply with Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that
ordinance which is based on (the gross acreage of the parcels proposed for
development). Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat
Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fees required by Ordinance No. 663, the
applicant shall pay the fee required under the Habitat Conservation Plan as
implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
25.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
R:XSTAFIrRPT'x9SPA94.PC2 3/7.~5 klb 13
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
26.
A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be
submitted to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School
Mitigation Fees.
27.
Three (3) copies of a Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plan shall be submitted to
the Planning Department for approval and shall be accompanied by the appropriate
filing fee. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall
be shown. Plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along streets and
within the parking areas.
28.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a lighting plan for
each construction phase to the Planning Department to insure compliance with
Ordinance No. 665.
29.
Prior to the issuance of any building permit for Phase 1 C, the applicant, or their
successor, will acquire the necessary right-of-way for the ultimate construction of Via
Rio Temecula. If the owner, or their successor, is not able to acquire the right-of-way,
the owner shall pay all City costs and fees associated with the acquisition of said right-
of-way.
30.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
31.
The applicant shall make application for and pay the applicable fees for a consistency
check with the Department of Building and Safety Department.
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
32.
Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view.
The roof equipment shown on the canopy of the Chevron building (See Exhibit K,
Amendment No.1 ) shall be relocated to the market building. (Amended by Staff at the
March 6, 1995 Commission Meeting).
33.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation,
and shading plans.
34.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a
condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free
of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and
in good working order.
35.
Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed refiectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal,
displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than
70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space
at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space
finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space
finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous
place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22
inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or
license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be
towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be
reclaimed at or by telephone
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a
surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at
least 3 square feet in size.
36.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning to
guarantee the installation of planrings, walls, and fences in accordance with the
approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed
with the Department of Planning.
37.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
38.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
39.
The applicant shall construct sidewalk and land scape improvements along the entire
length of Highway 79 South and Redhawk Parkway. The applicant shall construct said
improvements along Country Glen Way and Via Rio Temecula consistent with the
phasing plan marked Exhibit "N".
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
40.
Comply with applicable provisions of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Building,
Plumbing and Mechanical; 1990 National Electrical Code; California Administrative
Code Title 24 Energy and Disabled access regulations and the Temecula Municipal
Code.
41.
Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with
Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
42. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
43. All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations.
44.
Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting
and fire alarm systems.
45.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the
1991 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C.
R:~TAFFRPT~95PA94,PC2 3/2/95
46. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
47. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan for plan review.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval for this project, and
shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true
meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the appropriate staff person of the Department
of Public Works.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and
proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their
omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
General Requirements
48. A Grading Permit for either rough or precise (including all onsite flat work, and
improvements) grading shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way.
49. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior
to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City
right-of-way.
50. A copy of the grading and improvement plans, along with sul~porting hydrologic and
hydraulic calculations shall submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District for approval prior to the issuance of any permit.
51. All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be
coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements
contiguous to the site.
52. All plans shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
53. All applicable conditions of Tentative Map No. 27987 shall be met.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits:
54. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No
grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the
project is shown to be exempt.
R:~STAFFIU, n95pA94.~,C"2 3r~J95 kn~ ].6
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
State Water Resources Control Board
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
Riverside County Health Department
Caltrans
Community Services District
General Telephone
Southern California Edison Company
Southern California Gas Company
A Grading Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the
Department of Public Works. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code,
Chapter 70, City Standards, and as additionally required in these Conditions of
Approval.
A Soils Report prepared by a registered Soils Engineer shall be submitted to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address
all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of
engineered structures and pavement sections.
An Erosion Control Plan in accordance with City Standards shall be designed by a
registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works.
The following criteria shall be observed in the design of the improvement plans and/or
precise grading plans to be submitted to the Department of Public Works:
Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over
A.C. paving.
Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard Nos.
207/207A and 401 (curb and sidewalk).
Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in
accordance with Ordinance 461 and shall be shown on the improvement plans
as directed by the Department of Public Works.
Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages
in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401.
Improvement plans shall extend 300 feet beyond the project boundaries or as
otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works.
Minimum centerline radii shall be in accordance with City standard 113 or as
otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works.
R:',STAFFRPT~95PA94.FC2 3/2/95 k~b ],7
G. All reverse curves shall include a 100 foot minimum tangent section or as
otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works.
60. ·
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 85 degrees or greater
as approved by the Department of Public Works.
Public Street improvement plans shall include plan profiles showing existing
topography and utilities, and proposed centerline, top of curb and flowline
grades as directed by the Department of Public Works.
Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed
through undersidewalk drains.
The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading
and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and
subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
A permit from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is
required for work within their right-of-way.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weedfree condition and shall be
either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures
as approved by the Department of Public Works.
The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for
offsite work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public
Works.
The site is in an area identified on the Flood Hazard Maps as Flood Zone A and is
subject to flooding of undetermined depths. Prior to the approval of any plans, this
project shall comply with Ordinance 91-12 of the City of Temecula and with the rules
and regulations of FEMA for development within a Flood Zone "A" which may include
obtaining a letter of map revision from FEMA.
A Flood Plain Development Permit and drainage study shall be submitted to the
Department of Public Works for review and approval. The drainage study shall include,
but not be limited to, the following criteria:
Drainage and flood protection facilities which will protect all structures by
diverting site runoff to streets or approved storm drain facilities as directed by
the Department of Public Works.
Adequate provision shall be made for the acceptance and disposal of surface
drainage entering the property from adjacent areas.
R:~TAPFILt~T~95PA94,PC2 3/2/95
C. The impact to the site from any flood zone as shown on the FEMA flood hazard
map and any necessary mitigation to protect the site.
D. Identify and mitigate impacts of grading to any adjacent floodway.
The location of existing and post development 100-yearfloodplain and floodway
shall be shown on the precise grading plan.
67.
Concentrated onsite runoff shall be conveyed in concrete ribbon gutters or underground
storm drain facilities to an adequate outlet as determined by the Department of Public
Works.
68.
The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto
or through the site. In the event the Department of Public Works permits the use of
streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Section XI of Ordinance No. 460 will
apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity, or use of streets be prohibited
for drainage purposes, the Developer shall provide adequate facilities as approved by
the Department of Public Works.
69.
The Developer shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration
of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be
provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing
facilities or by securing a drainage easement.
70.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the
subject property.
71.
The adequacy of the capacity of existing downstream drainage facilities shall be
verified. Any upgrading or upsizing of those facilities, as required, shall be provided as
part of development of this project.
Prior to the Issuance of Encroachment Permits:
72.
All necessary grading permit requirements shall have been accomplished to the
satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
73.
Street improvement plans that include sidewalks, medians, parkway trees, street lights,
and traffic signals prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by CALTRANS
(Highway 79 South only) and the Department of Public Works shall be required for all
public streets and Highway 79 South prior to issuance of an Encroachment Permit.
Final plans and profiles shall show the location of exiting utility facilities within the
right-of-way as directed by CALTRANS and the Department of Public Works.
74.
A Traffic Control Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, and approved
by CALTRANS (Highway 79 South only) and the Department of Public Works. Where
construction on existing City streets and Highway 79 South is required, traffic shall
remain open at all times and the traffic control plan shall provide for adequate detour
during construction.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
A Signing and Striping Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by CALTRANS (Highway 79 South only) and the Department of Public Works
for any work on public streets and Highway 79 South and shall be included in the
street improvement plans.
Bus bays will be designed at all existing and proposed bus stops as directed by the
Department of Public Works and the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA).
Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be submitted to and approved by the
Department of Public Works for dedication to the City where sidewalks meander
through private property.
The Developer shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed
guaranteeing the construction of the following public and private improvements in
conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department
of Public Works.
Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: p;ivement, curb
and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing,
striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate
B. Storm drain facilities
C. Landscaping (slopes and parkways)
D. Sewer and domestic water systems
E. All trails, as required by the City's Master Plans
F. Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines
G. Erosion control and slope protection
The design and construction of the following infrastructure improvements are a
condition of this Project, pursuant to the Project Traffic Study, and shall be completed
prior to the issuance of an Encroachment Permit as follows:
PHASE 1:
· Half-streetimprovementstoViaRioTemeculafromRedhawkParkwaypastthemost
westerly ~ Phase I access driveway as a Principal Collector street pursuant
to the General Plan; (Amended by Staff at the March 6, 1995 Commission Meeting).
· Half street improvements to Country Glen Way from Highway 79 South past the
most northerly Project access driveway as a Principal Collector street pursuant to
the General Plan;
· Full street improvements, including raised medians, to Redhawk Parkway from
Highway 79 South to Via Rio Temecula as an Urban Arterial Highway pursuant to
the General Plan, or as conceptually shown on the Site Plan;
R:L%'TAFFRPT~9SPA94,PC2 3/2/95 kJb 20
· A traffic signal at Highway 79 South & Country Glen Way, subject to meeting
CALTRANS Traffic Signal Warrant requirements and CALTRANS approval;
(Amended by Staff at the March 6, 1995 Commission Meeting).
PHASE 1 C/2 (the earlier of):
· A traffic signal at Redhawk Parkway and the southerly Project access driveway,
including an interconnection with the Margarita Road/Highway 79 South traffic
Signal; (Added by Staff at the March 6, 1995 Commission Meeting).
· Full street improvements to Via Rio Temecula from Redhawk Parkway to Country
Glen Way as a Principal Collector street pursuant to the General Plan;
· Half street improvements to Country Glen Way from the most northerly Project
access driveway to Via Rio Temecula as a Principal Collector street pursuant to the
General Plan.
80.
The centerline of the southerly Project access driveway, off Redhawk Parkway, shall
be aligned with the access driveway of the adjacent development, as shown on the
record map. (Added by Staff at the March 6, 1995 Commission Meeting).
Prior to Issuance of Building Permit:
81.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
· Rancho California Water District
· Eastern Municipal Water District
· General Telephone
· Southern California Edison
· Southern California Gas
· Planning Department
· Department of Public Works
· Riverside County Fire Department
· Planning Department
· Department of Public Works
· Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
82. All necessary construction or encroachment permits have been
submitted/accomplished to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
83.
A triangular shaped raised "chatter strip", for right-in right-out movements, shall be
constructed in the Highway 79 South access driveway.
84.
All building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and
elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compact/on
and site conditions.
85.
The Developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as
established per acre/unit as mitigation for traffic signal impact.
R:~STAFFRPT~95PA94.l~32 3/7j95 Idb 2].
86.
The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the intent to develop.
Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards prior to issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy.
87.
The Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility
mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to
be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim
or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the
date on which the Developer requests its building permit for the project or any phase
thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee,
a copy of which has been provided to the Developer. Concurrently, with executing this
Agreement, the Developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility
fee. The amount of the bond shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000.
The Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in
excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such
fees). By execution of this Agreement, the Developer will waive any right to protest
the provisions of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact
fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact
fee for this project; orovided that the Developer is not waiving its right to protest the
reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
88,
Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is part
of an existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section.
Prior to Issuance of Certification of Occupancy:
89.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
· Rancho California Water District
· Eastern Municipal Water District
· Department of Public Works
· Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
90.
All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City
standards, including but not limited to curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive
approaches, parkway trees, street lights on all interior public streets, signing, striping,
traffic signal interconnect, and traffic signals as directed by the Department of Public
Works.
91. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805.
92. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Department of Public Works.
93.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken
due to the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and
replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
R:~STAFFRPT~95pAg~.PC2 3/2/95 IrJb 22
94.
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
95.
The design and construction of the following infrastructure improvements are a
condition of this Project, pursuant to the Project Traffic Study, and shall be completed
prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy as follows:
PHASE 1:
· HalfstreetimprovementstoViaRioTemeculafromRedhawkParkwaypastthemost
westerly tar~jee~ Phase I access driveway;
· Half street improvements to Country Glen Way from Highway 79 South past the
most northerly Project access driveway, including an acceleration lane on Highway
79 South;
· Full street improvements, including raised medians, to Redhawk Parkway from
Highway 79 South to Via Rio Temecula;
· A traffic signal at Highway 79 South & Country Glen Way, subject to meeting
CALTRANS Traffic Signal Warrant requirements and CALTRANS approval;
· A traffic signal at Highway 79 South & Redhawk Parkway;
· Access to the Project off Country Glen Way, including the box culverts, shall be
constructed; and
· In the event that construction of drainage culvert improvements in conjunction with
Assessment District No. 159 have not been completed, storm drain improvements
shall be designed and constructed within a dedicated right-of-way per the Riverside
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District as necessary to provide
access to Country Glen Way.
(Amended by Staff at the March 6, 1995 Commission Meeting).
PHASE 1 C/2 (the earlier of):
· A traffic signal at Redhawk Parkway and the southerly Project access driveway,
including an interconnection with the Margarita Road/Highway 79 South traffic
signal;
· Full street improvements to Via Rio Temecula from Redhawk Parkway to Country
Glen Way;
· Half street improvements to Country Glen Way from the most northerly Project
access driveway to Via Rio Temecula; and
· In the event that construction of Highway 79 South improvements in conjunction
with Assessment District No. 159 has not begun, half-width street improvements
shall be designed and constructed within a dedicated right-of-way per CALTRANS
(110'/134'). Construction bonds may be posted in lieu of construction.
(Amended by Staff at the March 6, 1995 Commission Meeting).
PHASING:
96.
All necessary infrastructure improvements have been/will be conditioned based on the
Project Traffic Study and the Conceptual Phasing Plan. Any substantive rephasing of
the development must be approved by the Planning Commission through a rephasing
application. A rephasing of the development considered to be minor or in substantial
conformance with the construction phasing plan, as determined by the Director of
Public Works and the Planning Director, may be approved administratively through
R:',STAFFRPT~95PA94.PC2 3/2/95 kJb '~3
applicable City procedures. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits within any
phase, all on and offsite improvements as referred to in the Traffic Reports and
subsequent addenda along with additional requirements set herein, or as set by
conditions on individual tracts, must be constructed and/or bonded as required by the
Department of Public Works.
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Community Services has reviewed the above referenced proiect and provides the following
conditions of approval:
General Requirements:
97. The developer shall provide Class II bike lanes on all roadways 66' or wider in
accordance with Caltrans and City Standards. Bike lanes shall be constructed in
concurrence with the completion of the street improvements.
98. Landscaping shall be maintained by an established property owners' association or the
individual property owner.
99. Landscape plans for the proposed median on Redhawk Parkway shall be reviewed and
approved by the Director of Community Services.
100. Construction of the landscape median shall commence pursuant to a pre-job meeting
with the developer and the City Maintenance Superintendent. Failure to comply with
the City's review, inspection, and dedication process may preclude acceptance of this
area into the City's maintenance program.
Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy:
101. Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Developer or his
assignee, shall file an application with the Temecula Community Services District and
pay the appropriate fees for the dedication of arterial street lights into the maintenance
program.
102. Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Developer or his
assignee, shall submit the most current list of Assessor's Parcel Numbers assigned to
the final project.
OTHER AGENCIES
103. Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the
provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's transmirtal dated
October 13, 1994, a copy of which is attached.
104. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood
Control District's transmittal dated November 10, 1994, a copy of which is attached.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of
Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated January 5, 1995,
a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho
California Water District transmittal dated October 10, 1994, a copy of which is
attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern
Municipal Water District transmittal dated October 18, 1994, a copy of which is
attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Department of
Transportation transmittal dated Ootobor 19, 1994, February 15, 1995 a copy of
which is attached. (Amended by Staff at the March 6, 1995 Commission Meeting).
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Temecula Police
Department transmittal dated November 4, 1994, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside Transit
Agency transmittal dated October 18, 1994, a copy of which is attached.
County of Riverside
HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY OCT 2
TO: CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ATTN: Craig Ruiz
DATE:
RE: Planning Application No. PA94-0095, Conditional Use Permit
OCTOBER 13, 1994
The Environmental Health Services has reviewed PA94-0095, Conditional Use
Permit and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services should
be available in that area. Prior to any building plan review for Health clearance,
the following items are required:
1. "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and seWering
agencies.
Three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will
be submitted, including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule,
and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with
the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. For specific
reference, please contact Food Facility Plan examiners at
(909) 358-5172.
A clearance letter from the Hazardous Services Materials
Management Branch (Mike Shetler 358-5055), will be required
indicating that the project has been cleared for:
a. Underground storage tanks
b. Hazardous Waste Generator Services
c. Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with AB 2185)
d. Waste reduction management
4. Waste Regulation Branch (Waste Coliection/LEA)
GD: cr
cc: Mike Shetier, Hazardous Materials Branch
NOTE: Any current additional requirements not covered, can be applicable
at time of Building Plan review for final Environmental Health Service clearance.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Atmntion: ("-,P-&t(~ '~-u~ ~
Ladies and Gentlemen:
..: ? 94 - 0095
The Disffict does not normally r~amrn~nd onnditions for land d'n/~ons or other land uae cases in incorporated dtie$. The District aiso does not
plan check dry land ura cases, or provide Stme Division of Read Est~a letters or other flood hazard rapon~ for m3ch ¢8s~s. Distzict
comrnents/recornmend~ons for such cases are non~aily lirniterl to Ite~t= of spedtic Inte~,.4t to the Dimttct Including Dirdlct M~'ler Drainage Plan
fadlMes, other regions· flood contrd ~ drainage facilities which could be con~dered · Ieglcai Compo~nt or extension of 8 maater plan symem,
and Di~ct A~ea Drainage Plan fees (development mitig~on fes). In addition, infon'na~on of · genera· n~ure is provided.
The Dtmrict has not reviewed the pro~ p~"~t;~'detail and the following checked c~rd'nem= do not in m~/way c~,stitute or imply Dis'~ict
a`~pr~va~orender~ementofmepr~p~edprojectwithrespecttoti~dhazerd~x~b~i~heel~hand~etyorany~thermJ~hL~ue~
~'~This project would not be impacted by Diatdict Maater Drainage Ran fadlitie~ not er~ offier factlitje$of mgion~ inter-~l
r"3This project involve~ District Master Ran facilities. The Distlct will accept ovmerd~p of mjch faci|tes on writtan request of the City. Fm'litjes
must be Conmmcted to District stondards, and Distact plan check ~ Inspection will be required for Di~ct acceptance. Ran chedc,
inspection and edminimrmive fees will be required.
t'J This project proposes channels, morm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or ether facilhies that could be mrmidered ragions· in nature
and/or a logical exterm]on of the adopted Master Drainage Ran. The Disffict wouad 13insider accepting
inspection will be required for District acceptonce. Ran Check, inspec~ort and edrr, inistTmiva fees will be required.
I"]This I:}mjec~ is Icx:ated within the limits of the Distl~cfs Aj'ea Drainage Ran tof which drainage
fees have been ad~pted; ~pp~ic~b~e fees sh~uid be paid to the R~Cd ~ Dis1~i~t or C~ty pH~r to ~nai app~:^m] of the ~m:~ect' or in the case
of a parcel map Or subdivision prior to issuance of Imji|din9 or grading pem~m. Fees to be paid should be at the me In effect at the time of
issuance of the actual pem~L
GENFRAI INFORMATION
This project may require · Nmionai Pollutant Di~ Birntn,,~on System (NPDES) pemit from lhe State Water Re~ufces Cont~ Boa,'d.
Clearance for grading, recorclmion, or other final ~,~,-~si, ~hould not be give~ until ~ City has determined that the project has been grained ·
permit or is shown to be exempt.
If this profact involves a Federsi Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maRoGd flood plain, the~ the City ~zxxdd require the applicant to
provide sil studies, caicuimierm, Plans and other inform·lion required to meet FEMA muirsmems, and ~tx~uld further require that the applicant
obtain a Conditional Lmter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recorda~on or olher ~nai approvsi of the project, and · Letter of Map
Revision (LOMR) prior to
If anaturai wmercourse or mapped fio~l plain
Agre~ment~r~m1heCaiif~miaDepertotentofFi~handGameand~CieanW~erActSection4~4pormittr~mtheU*$.AnnyC~rpsof
Engineers, or w;hlen c~r~espondence from thera agencies Indic~ng the project is exempt from th-Je requirm, A Clean Water Act Sealton
401 Water Quaiity Certification may be required from the Iocai Csifferni· Regional Water Quaiity Corm. ol Board prior to is=uance of the Corps
404 permit.
mJiy yours,
m: mS'nNTA:.
.~.~; .~.~,RIVERSIDE COUNTY
-~"R,vsRs,~g.:.~)FIRE DEPARTMENT
210 ~ S~ JA~O A~ · P~S, C~O~ 9~70 · (9~) 657-31~3
:
January 5, 1995
TO:
ATI'~.N:
RJE:
PLANNING DEPAI{TiWa'NT
· CRAIG RUIZ-'~: ~'
PA 94-0095
· With 'respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced plot plan, the
Depathaent r~commends the following ~ protection measuzes be provided in accorchnce with
City of Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized tim protection standards:
1. The ftm IX-partment is required to set a mlnlmunl ~ flow for the r~model or
conslraction of all commercial building using th~ procedures established in Ordlnane~
546. A rue flow of 3500 GPM for a 3 hour duration at 20 PSI residhal oper~tlng j"- ' - -
pressure must be avaH~ble before any combusU~le material is placed on the job sam..= ..__.~:..~.-.
2. A combination of on-sate and off-sate super rue hydrants, on a looped system (6"x4"x2-2 .:.:. :: :.
1/2"),wfllbelocatednotlessth~n25feetormorethan165feetfromanyponionofthe
building as measured along appmved vehiC.lar travelways. Th~ mtuixed tim flow shall ': :' ~ it :- - -
be av, lbhle from any adjacent hydrant(s) in th~ system. . = -~.<~'~::~
- . , . - . .' ~?
App.=~a~elop= s.~. f~-~.~ one ~y of me w~r p,--to the S~ D~=~
spazing and mlnlm,ml fire flow. Once the plans a_m signed by tl~ local water company,
the orig~M~ Shall be presented to the rim Dq3a~,,,ent for saShatom - ' ....-.:,:- · · ."~-'.~i-~:'~
· · ' -- .-.'. :~...:~.~.i~.',
4. The x~luired water system, including ~ze hydrants, SaM1 be installed and accepted by the~]~f_!~
appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materlnk being placed on the
job site,
The required fLre flow may be adjusted at a later point in the permit process to reflect
changes in design, construction type, area separation or built-in fu'e protection measures,
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to
submit a plan check fee of $582.00 to the City of Temecula.
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE MET PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY.
IllStall a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings. The post indicator valve and fire
department connection shall be located to the front of the building, within 50 feet of a
hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the buffring(s). A statement that the building
will be automatically fire splinkled must be included on the ti~e page of the building
plans.
Install file alarm system, plan.~ shall be submitted to Fire Dapaahnent for approval prior
to installation. Specifi~tuitdi~g requirements can be obtained from the Fire Prevention
Knox Key lock boxes shall be installed on all bags/suites. If building/suite requires
FlaTardous Material P,~orting (Material Safety Data Sheets) the Knox HAZ MAT Data
and key storage cabinets shall be installed. If building/suites al~ protected by a ~ or
burglar ~larm system, the boxes will require "Tamper" monitoring. plane shall be
submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to inStallatiOn.
10.
An automatic fir~ extinguishing system shall be installed in the kitchen exhaust hood with
activation monitored by the boarding fLr~ alarm system. plans Shall be submitted to fire
department for approval prior to installation.
11. All driveways shall be maintained a minimum of 24 foot.
12. All exit doors shall be openable without the use of key or special knowledge or effort.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Install panic hard on exit doors per Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building code.
of the Uniform Bm~ding :' ~ -
E~it signs and exit ~uminatiOn shall be provided per Chapter 33 .,.,
Occupancy separation walls will be required as perthe Uniform Building Code, Section
· .~ .'; .._.
· In,~all portable fire extinguishers with a mlnlmnm rating of 2A10BC, Contact a'certified · :' :' 2: '; ".
extinguisher company for proper placement. L · ..
17.
It is prolfibited to use/process or store any materials in this Occupancy that would classify
it as an "H" Occupancy per Chapter 9 of the Uniform Building Code.
18. Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets and drivewnys to indicnte location
of fn'c hydrants. They shall be mounted in the middle of the street directly in Hne with
tim hydrant.
19. Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the
Fire Depaz Unent for approval, a site plan designating required fi~ lanes with appropriate
lane painting and or signs.
20. Steer address shall be posted, in a visible location, m{n{mum 12 inches in height, on the
street side of the buiJding with a contra~ing background.
21. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall deposit, with the City of
Temecul~, the sum of $.25 per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts.
22. Applicant/devdoper shall be responsible to provide or show them exists conditions set
forth by the Fire Depa~aJleat
23. Final conditions will b6 addressed when building plans am reviewed in the BuildLing and
Safety Office.
All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Deparu~ent
planning and enginering section (9(~)694-(~39.
I~AYIVlOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Depaxtment Planner
by
hum Cabral
Fire Safety Speci~i~
P anc o
Water
October 10, 1994
Mr. Craig Ruiz
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590-3606
RECEIV~O
OCT t 2
-,lns't. ......: ....
SUBJECT:
Water Ava~ability
APN'950-120-006, PA94-0095
Shopping Center
Dear Mr. Rulz:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District CRCWD). Water service,
therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements
between RCWD and the property owner.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an
Agency Agreement which assigns water management fights, ff any, to RCWD.
ff you have any questions, please contact Ms. Senga Doherty.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
SB:SO:eb59-1/F186
cc: Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician
October 18, 1994
Craig Ruiz, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Depa,tment
43174 Business Park Dtive
Temecula, CA 93590
SUBJECT: PA 940095 (Conditional Use Permit)
PA 94-0097 (Tentative Parcel Map 27987)
Dear Mr. Ruiz:
We have reviewed the materials transmitted by your office which describe the subject project.
Our comments are outlined below:
General
It is our understanding the subject project is a proposed subdivision of 32 acres, located at the
southwest comer of the intersection of Highway 79 South and Redhawk Parkway, into 12
parcels, and a conditional use permit for the development of a commercial shopping center.
The subject project is located within the District's sanitaxy sewer service area. However, it must
be understood the available service capabilities of the Dis~ct's systems are continually changing
due to the occurrence of development within the District and prograrn.~ of systems improvement.
As such, the provision of service will be based on the detaUed plan of service requirements, the
timing of the subject project, the status of the District's permit m operate, and the service
agreement between the District and the developer of the subject project.
Sanitary Sewer
The subject project is considered tributary to the District's Temecula Valley Regional Water
Reclamation Facility (TVRWRF).
Mail To: Post Office Box 8300 · SanJacinto, California 92581-8300 - Telephone (909) 925-7676 · Fax (909) 929-0257
Main Office: 2045 S. San Jacinto Avenue, SanJacinto · Cuswmer Service/Engineering Annex: 440 E Oakland Avenue, Hemet, CA
Craig Ruiz
PA 94-0095
October 18, 1994
Page 2
The nearest existing TVRWRF system sanitary sewer facilities to the subject project are as
follows:
24-inch diameter gravity-flow sewer pipeline aligned along Highway 79 South, fronting
the subject project.
18-inch diameter gravity-flow sewer pipeline aligned along Redhawk Parkway, fronting
the subject project.
Other Issues
The representatives of the-subject project must contact the District's Customer Service
DepaxUuent to make arrangements for plan check and field inspection of onsite facilities.
Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to contact this office
at (909) 925-7676, ext. 468.
Very truly yours,
EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
David G. Crosley
Senior Engineer
Customer Service Depaament
DGC/cz
AB 94-798, AB 94-797
(wp-nnvk-PA940095.ch)
~Friday February 2z,, 1995 11:16am -- Page 2~
SENT BY:Xerox Telecophr 7021 | 2-24-95; 11:11
.j
~aVl ~ CA~V~qtI, RA--I,~f, Lvf4~ TW, A~Ah:m,I AND / AOlNCV
DEPARTMENT OF tRANSPORTATION
9o9694847~;# 2
Februar 15, 1995
09-~v-~9-17.376·
City of Temecula
91anninq Department
43174 BusineSs ~arkway
Temecula, CA 92590
~O~OSBD ~OJECT
Thank ou for the o por~unity
on the sout~ side of Sta~e a~ghway
and Redhawk Parkway.
to review the ~c~poaed ~ro~ect
q9 in between untry G n Way
e
In response to ~ur request for reconsidering your~ro sad
access ~o s~ate Highway 79, we a tee to a limited access d~v=way
(RIGHT IN/RIGhT OUT) with the ~o~lowing condl~lonsl
I. Approval o{ the recent ravimed Memorandum Of
Understanding (MOU),
Location of the driveway mustybe in co~liance with the
revised MOU (1/8 o~=lle (660) minimum spacing).
Desi of the driveway must include provisions for
posi~vsl prohibiting left turn movements in and out
the dr~viway.
The pro sad traffic signal at the Country Way
w~ll no~e considered a~ this Glen
time.
The existing Country Glen way right ln/r~gh= out acce.
shall =amain unchanged and a painted median on t/xe
center o~ the S~ate HI hway to
movements will be required. p=ohibit le~t turn
The proposed monument signs shall be apl>roved by the
Please be advised that this is a conce tual review only.
hal approval of street..lmprovements, grs~ng and drainage will
r~determined during the Encroachmen= Permit process.
IFriday FebruaPy 24, 1995 1h16am -- Page ~
SENT BY:Xerox Teleco
8g-i~3 ' Diet 7021; 2-24-95; 11:12 ;
· C~ty Of TemeOUla
Febrgaty 15, 1995
Page 2
90969464??;# 3
If any work is metessat within the 8ta~e highwa~ right Of
wa , the developer must obtain an encroachmen= permit fro~ the
Cab&tans D~strict 8 Permit Office p~lor to beginnin~ work.
If additional lnformatio~ is desired, pZeese ~all Mr. Ahead
Bal8h Of our 0f~toe of Development Review a~ (909) 383-5908.
Ver~ =ruly yours,
DI~ORO KANAgOLO# Chief
Office of Development
Review
City of Temecula
Temecula Police Department
November 4, 1994
Conditions of Approval
Landgrant Development
Commercial Shopping Center
Highway 79 x Redhawk Parkway
1 ). The applicant must pla..c..e at least a six foot security fence around the lot, with
lockable gates, during construction of the facility.
2). The applicant must provide sufficient lighting in and around the parking lot so
as to eliminate any and all dark area's at night.
3). The applicant must utilize low growth shrubbery, if any, around the buildings
and parking lot.
5). The applicant must provide the police department with a 24-hour emergency
contact phone number.
6). It is recommended that the applicant hire a security company to patrol the
construction site during the development phase of this project.
7). The applicant will be held responsible for any undue expenses incurred by the
police department as a result of any problems generated by this facility during
the construction phase.
If there should be any questions regarding these conditions, please feel free to
give me a call at the station.
Sincerely,
R'~jC~BrdSBR~Ch
Police Officer
Temecula Police Department
(909) 696-3000
October 18, 1994
Craig Ruiz
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
RECEIVED
OCT i 9
.1
Riverside Transit Agency
1825 Third Street
P.O. Box 59968
Riverside, CA 92517
Phone: (909) 684-0850
Fax: (909) 684-1007
TPM 27987 &~i~i'0095 Vail Ranch Shopping Center
Location: SWC SR79 and Redhawk Parkway (32 ac.)
Applicant: Chris Smith, Landgrant Deyelopment
There is no fixed roate transit service in the vicinity of the project site at this time. However, '
it is reasonable to assume that bus service will be introduced once this site and the nearby Murdy
Ranch property are developed· We recommend that the applicant be required to provide a bus
turnout and passenger shelter on Redhawk Parkway adjacent to parcel 3, south of the southerly :
driveway entrance. RTA design guidelines for bus turnouts and shelter placement are enclos'~.
Thank you for 'the opportunity to review and comment on this development proposal. 'i'he
applicant is welcome to contact RTA for more information on bus stop design and plans for
transit service in the area.
S ix Icerely
enclostlres
October 18, 1994
Craig Ruiz
City of Temeeula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
OCT i 9 1994
........
Riverside Transit Agency
1825 Third Street
RO. Box 59968
Riverside, CA 92517
Phone: (909) 684-0850
Fax: (90g) 684-1007
TPM 27987 & PA94-0095 Vail Ranch Shopping Center
Location: SWC SR79 and Redhawk Parkway (32 ac.)
Applicm~t: Chris Smith, Landgrant Deyelopment
Them is no fixed rotxte transit service in the ,Acinity of the project site at this time. However,
it is reasonable to assun:e that bus service will be introduced once this site and the nearby Murdy
Ranch property are developed. We recommend that the applicant be required to provide a bus
turnout and passenger shelter on Redhawk Parkway adjacent to parcel 3, south of the southe~y
driveway entrance. RTA design guidelines for bus turnouts and shelter placement are enclosed.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this development proposal. The
applicant is welcome to contact RTA for more informaliota on bus stop design and plans for
transit service in the area.
Sincernly,
enclosures
· .rr
mmm
r-Z
~m
9Z
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ~
/'/ {
12'-0'
On Center
FRONT VIEW
i
I:::C 6 to 8"
/
4' "0" ~
O.C.
SIDE VIEW
SCALE: 1' - 4'
Note:
Bench ~yle can vary.
TYPICAL BUS SHELTER
BUS ZNFOI~ATtON
FIGURE 22
DESIGN
4l
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PC RESOLUTION NO. 95-
R:'~'FAFFR~w~95pA94.1~2 3/2/95 ldb 26
ATTACHIVIENT NO. 2
PC RESOLUTION NO. 9~-
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF T!tF. CITY
OF TIiXVIFXXIA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA94-0097, TO SUBDIVIDE A 31.5 ACRE PARCEL INTO 12
PARCELS LOCATED ON ~ SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF
HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH AND Rk~HAWK PARKWAY AND KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR'S PARCI~.L NO. 9~0-120-006
WHEREAS, Chris Smith of the l~nd Grant Development Company fried Planning
Application No. PA94-0097 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside
County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
Wltl~,REAS, the planning Application No. PA94-0097 was processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WI~.REAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA94-0097
on January 23, 1995, at a duly noticed public he, axing as prescribed by law, at which time
interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition;
W!tl~REAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing for planning Application No. PA94-
0097, upon hearing and considexing all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons deserving
to be heard, the Planning Commission continued the hearing to the Planning Commission
meeting of March 6, 1995;
WttF. REAS, the Planning Commission considered planning Application No. PA94-0097
on March 6, 1995, 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;
WI~.REAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all te~mony and
arguments, if any, of all persons deserving to be heard, the Commission considered all facts
rehting to Planning Application No. PA94-0097;
NOW, Tm~J~)RE, ~ PLANNING COlVllvngSION OF ~ CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. Findings. The Planning Commission in appreving the proposed Parcel Map,
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. 460, no subdivision may be
approved unless the following findings are made:
plans.
1. That the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific
2. That the design or impwvement of the proposed land division is consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.
3. That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type of
development.
4. That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the proposed
density of the development.
5. That the design of the proposed land division or proposed impwvements are not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat.
6. That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are
not likely to cause serious public health problems.
7. That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will
not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of,
property within the proposed land division. A land division may be appwved if it is found that
alternate easements for access or for use will be provided and that they will be substantially
equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection Shall apply only to
easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent
jurisdiction.
B. The planning Commission, in approving planning Application No. PA94-0097
makes the following specific findings, to wit:
1. The pwpesed land division is consistent with the City of Tomeeuia General Plan,
which was adopted November 9, 1993. The General Plan land use designation is Community
Commercial. All future development has been conditioned to be consistent with the Community
Commercial land use designation of the General Plan.
2. The proposed land division is consistent with City of Tomecub Ordinance No.
460. The parcels meet the requirements of Section 10. 10 of Ordinance No. 460 for Schedule "E"
Parcel Map Divisions.
3. The lot design is logical and meets the appwval of the City's planning and Public
Works Depadments. Each parcel provides for appropriate building location, access and parking.
R:'~TAFFRF~95PA94.PC2 317j95 k~ 28
4. The project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. A
Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project which includes mitigation measures
which will reduc~ all impacts to below a level of significance.
5. Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, and exhibits associated with these
applications and herein incoll~rated by reference. This Staff Report contains maps and
Conditions of Approval which suppelt the Staff recommendation.
C. As conditioned pursuant to Section 4, planning Application No. PA94-0097, as
propose~i, conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the
health, safety and welfare of the community.
D. The Planning Commission in approving the certification of the Negative
Declaration of environmental impact under the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act, specifically Finds that the approval of this Tentative Parcel Map will have a di
minimiS impact on fish and wi]dlife resourc, es. The planning Commission specifically finds that
in considering the record as a whole, the project involves no potential adverse effect, either
individually or cumulatively, on wildlife as the same is defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and
Game Code. This is based on the fact that this project will be located on a site that has been
previously graded an no wildlife exists on the site. The Planning Commission further finds that
Land Grant Development Company is the project proponent and the site is located on the
southwesterly comer of Highway 79 South and Redhawk Parkway, Temecula, C~lifornia. The
project includes the subdivision of 31.5 acres into 12 parcels and that all of the same are located
in the County of Riverside. Furthermore, the Planning Commission fmds that an initial study
has been prepared by the City Staff and considered by the Planning Commission which has been
the basis to evaluate the poteotiai for adverse impact on the environment and forms the basis for
the Planning Commission's determination, including the information coomined in the public
hearing records, on which a Negative Declaration of environmental impact was issued and this
di minimis finding is made. In addition, the Planning Commission finds that there is no
evidence before the City that the proposed project wffi have any potential for an adverse effect
on wildlife resources, or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. Finally, the Planning
Commission finds that the City has, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the
presumption of adverse effect coorained in 14 California Code of Regulations 753.5(d).
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepaxed for this project
indicates that the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment, and
a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
approves planning Application No. PA94-0097 for the subdivision of a 31.5 acre parcel into 12
parcels located on the southwesterly comer of Highway 79 South and Redhawk Parkway subject
to the foilowing conditions:
A. Exhibit A, auached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made
a part hereof.
R:~TAFI~RFrX95PA94.P~2 3/~95 klb ~9
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of March, 1995.
STEVI~ I. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I B'ERI~.Ry CER'flI~'~ that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 6th day of March,
1995 by the following vote of the Commi.~sion:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNHH
SECRETARY
R:XSTAFFRF~9SPA94.PC2 3/1/95 klb 30
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PA94-0097
R:',STAFFRF~95PA94.1~"2 3/2/95
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA94-0097, Tentative Parcel Map No. 27987
Project Description: The subdivision of approximately 31.5 acres into 12 parcels
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
950-120-006
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
General Requirements
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act
and to all the requirements of Ordinance No. 460, unless modified by the conditions
listed below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map
Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration
date.
The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City
and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and
agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency
or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set
aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City,
or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative
body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning Planning
Application No. PA94-0097 which action is brought within the appropriate statute of
limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000
et sea., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167}. City
shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding
brought within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the
action. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully,
developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect,
or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers,
employees, or agents.
A Mitiaation Monitorin{3 Proaram shall be submitted and approved by the Planning
Director prior to recordation of the Final Map or issuance of Grading Permits which
ever occurs first,
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning
Director.
R:~TAFI;R~95PA94.]~'2 3/2~95 klb 32
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report, compliance with the
Conceptual Landscape Plans for this stage of the development.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
Prior to Recordation of the Final Map
7. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director:
A. A copy of the Final Map
B. A copy of the Rough Grading Plans
C. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes:
(1)
This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory.
All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute
of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations, Ordinance No. 655.
(2) This project is within a 1 O0 year flood hazard zone.
(3) This project is within a liquefaction hazard zone.
D. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's)
(1)
CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. The CC&R's
shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining open space,
recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, exterior of all buildings and all
landscaped and open areas including parkways.
(2)
No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation,
association, property owner's group or similar entity has been formed with the
right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have
any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in
the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the
expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to
maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such
entity shall operate under recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsory
membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of
assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services.
Recorded CC&R's shall permit enforcement by the City for provisions required
as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance
with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the city prior to making any
such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for
public purposes.
(3) Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such
dwelling unit or lot, either (1) an undivided interest in the common areas and
facilities, or (2) a share in the corporation, or voting membership in an
association owning the common areas and facilities.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be
submitted to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from
School Mitigation fees.
Prior to the issuance of any building permit for phase 1 C, the applicant, or their
successor, will acquire the necessary right-of-way for the ultimate construction of Via
Rio Temecula. If the owner, or their successor, is not able to acquire the right-of-way,
the owner shall pay all City costs and fees associated with the acquisition of said right-
of-way.
10. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director:
Construction landscaoe Plans consistent with the City standards and the
approved Conceptual Landscape Plans including automatic irrigation for all
landscaped areas and complete screening of all ground mounted equipment
from the view of the public from streets and adjacent property.
Precise grading plans consistent with the approved rough grading plans
including all structural setback measurements.
11.
Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision,
however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with
Planning Director approval.
12.
The applicant shall demonstrate by a written report that all mitigation measures
identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the
development.
Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits
13.
If deemed necessary by the Planning Director, the applicant shall provide additional
landscaping to effectively screen various components of the project.
14.
Private common area landscaping shall be completed for insoection prior to issuance
of the first occupancy permit.
15.
The applicant shall sign an agreement and/or POSt a bond with the City to insure the
maintenance of all landscaping within private common areas for a period of one year.
16.
All the Conditions of Approval shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the
Directors of Planning, Public Works, Community Services and Building and Safety.
17.
The applicant shall demonstrate by a written report that all mitigation measures
identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the
development.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval for this project, and
shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true
meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the appropriate staff person of the Department
of Public Works.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and
proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their
omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
General Requirements
18.
19.
20.
21.
A Grading Permit for either rough or precise (including all onsite flat work and
improvements) grading shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior
to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-
of-way.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior
to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City
right-of-way.
A copy of the grading and improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and
hydraulic calculations shall submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District for approval prior to the issuance of any permit.
All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be
coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements
contiguous to the site.
22.
Prior to Recordation of Final Map
23.
24.
All grading and improvement plans shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of
Temecula mylars.
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid.
The Developer shall construct or post security and enter into an agreement
guaranteeing the construction of the following public/private improvements within 18
months for Phase I and 36 months for Phase 1C/2(the earlier of) in conformance with
applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
Street improvements, which may include, but are not limited to: pavement,
curb and gutter, sidewalks, raised medians, drive approaches, street lights,
signing, traffic signals and other traffic control devices as appropriate.
B. Storm drain facilities.
C. Landscaping (slopes and parkways).
R:L~'TAFFRPT~95PA94.I*C2 3/2/95 klb 35
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
D. Erosion control and slope protection.
E. Sewer and domestic water systems.
F. All trails, as required by the City's Master Plans.
G. Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
· San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
· Rancho California Water District
· Eastern Municipal Water District
· Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
· City of Temecula Fire Bureau
· Planning Department
· Department of Public Works
· Riverside County Health Department
· Cable TV Franchise
· Caltrans
· Community Services District
· General Telephone
· Southern California Edison Company
· Southern California Gas Company
· Fish & Game
· Army Corps of Engineers
Legal all-weather access as required by Ordinance No. 460 shall be provided from the
map boundary to a paved City-maintained road.
All road easements and/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication to the
public and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All
dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of
Public Works.
The Developer shall pay off any remaining assessment balance(s) or reapportion the
remaining assessment(s) for any Financing District including the property based on the
proposed subdivision.
The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property
interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the Developer shall, prior to submittal
of the final map for recordation, enter into an agreementto complete the improvements
pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462.5. Such
agreement shall provide for payment by the Developer of all costs incurred by the City
to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision.
Security of a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the
amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the Developer, at the Developer's cost.
The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the
appraisal.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805.
Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be
delineated and noted on the final map.
Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be submitted to and approved by the
Department of Public Works for dedication to the City where sidewalks meander
through private property.
An easement for a joint use driveway shall be provided prior to approval of the Final
Map or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage
facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the
land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted
for review and recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site
drainage facilities located outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within
drainage easements and shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final
map stating "drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions."
An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the
final map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed
with the office of the City Engineer. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the
Planning Department for review and approval. The following information shall be on
the ECS:
A. The delineation of the area within the 100-year floodplain.
B, Special Study Zones.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the
subject property.
The Developer shall deposit with the Department of Public Works a cash sum as
established, per lot, as mitigation towards traffic signal impacts. Should the Developer
choose to defer the time of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into
a written agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of
a building permit.
The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop.
Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements.
A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be prepared
by the Developer and submitted to the Director of Planning, City Engineer, and City
attorney. The CC&R's shall be signed and acknowledged by all parties having any
record title interest in the property to be developed, shall make the City a party
thereto, and shall be enforceable by the City. The CC&R's shall be reviewed and
approved by the City and recorded. The CC&R's shall be submitted to include the
following Engineering conditions:
P,:~TAFFla, F~gSPA94.PC2 3/2/95 kJb :3'7
Prior to
40.
41.
The CC&R's shall be prepared at the Developer's sole cost and expense.
The CC&R's shall be in the form and content approved by the Director of
Planning, City Engineer, and the City Attorney, and shall include such
provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials deem necessary
to protect the interest of the City and its residents.
The CC&R's and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owner's Association
are subject to the approval of Planning, Department of Public Works, and the
City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent with the final map. A
recorded copy shall be provided to the City.
The CC&R's shall provide for the effective establishment, operation,
management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas, drainage and
related facilities.
The CC&R's shall provide that the property shall be developed, operated and
maintained so as not to create a public nuisance.
The CC&R's shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the condition
required by the CC&R's, then the City, after making due demand and giving
reasonable notice, may enter the property and perform, at the Owner's sole
expense, any maintenance required thereon by the CC&R's or the City
ordinances. The property shall be subject to a lien in favor of the City to
secure any such expense not promptly reimbursed.
All private drainage facilities, parkways, open areas, on-site slopes and
landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the association or other means
acceptable to the City. Such proof of this maintenance shall be submitted to
Planning and the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of building
permits.
Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring access to
all parcels and joint maintenance of all roads, drives or parking areas shall be
provided by CC&R's or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrent with the
map, or prior to the issuance of building permit where no map is involved.
Issuance of Grading Permits:
The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No
grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the
project is shown to be exempt.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
· State Water Resources Control Board
· San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
· Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
R:'~TAJrFRJq~95PA94.PC~ 3/2/95
42.
43.
44.
45.
· Planning Department
· Department of Public Works
· Riverside County Health Department
· Caltrans
· Community Services District
· General Telephone
· Southern California Edison Company
· Southern California Gas Company
A Grading Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the
Department of Public Works. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code,
Chapter 70, City Standards, and as additionally required in these Conditions of
Approval.
A Soils Report prepared by a registered Soils Engineer shall be submitted to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall
address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and pavement sections.
An Erosion Control Plan in accordance with City Standards shall be designed by a
registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works.
The following criteria shall be observed in the design of the improvement plans and/or
precise grading plans to be submitted to the Department of Public Works:
Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over
A.C. paving.
Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard Nos.
207/207A and 401 (curb and sidewalk).
Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in
accordance with Ordinance 461 and shall be shown on the improvement plans
as directed by the Department of Public Works.
Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street
frontages in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401.
Improvement plans shall extend 300 feet beyond the project boundaries or as
otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works.
Minimum centerline radii shall be in accordance with City standard 113 or as
otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works.
All reverse curves shall include a 100 foot minimum tangent section or as
otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works.
All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 85 degrees or
greater as approved by the Department of Public Works.
R:~TA~,PT~95PA94.PC2 3~2/95 klb 39
I. Public Street improvement plans shall include plan profiles showing existing
topography and utilities, and proposed centerline, top of curb and flowline
grades as directed by the Department of Public Works.
J. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
K. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed
through undersidewalk drains.
46. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the
grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City
Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
47. A permit from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is
required for work within their right-of-way.
48. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning
Department and the Department of Public Works for review.
49. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weedfree condition and shall be
either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures
as approved by the Department of Public Works.
50. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for
offsite work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public
Works.
51. The site is in an area identified on the Flood Hazard Maps as Flood Zone A and is
subject to flooding of undetermined depths. Prior to the approval of any plans, this
project shall comply with Ordinance 91-12 of the City of Temecula and with the rules
and regulations of FEMA for development within a Flood Zone "A" which may include
obtaining a letter of map revision from FEMA.
52. A Flood Plain Development Permit and drainage study shall be submitted to the
Department of Public Works for review and approval. The drainage study shall include,
but not be limited to, the following criteria:
A. Drainage and flood protection facilities which will protect all structures by
diverting site runoff to streets or approved storm drain facilities as directed by
the Department of Public Works.
B. Adequate provision shall be made for the acceptance and disposal of surface
drainage entering the property from adjacent areas.
C. The impact to the site from any flood zone as shown on the FEMA flood hazard
map and any necessary mitigation to protect the site.
D. Identify and mitigate impacts of grading to any adjacent floodway.
The location of existing and post development 100-year floodplain and
floodway shall be shown on the precise grading plan.
53.
Concentrated onsite runoff shall be conveyed in concrete ribbon gutters or
underground storm drain facilities to an adequate outlet as determined by the
Department of Public Works.
54.
The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off*site drainage flowing onto
or through the site. In the event the Department of Public Works permits the use of
streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Section XI of Ordinance No. 460 will
apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity, or use of streets be prohibited
for drainage purposes, the Developer shall provide adequate facilities as approved by
the Department of Public Works.
55.
The Developer shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration
of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be
provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing
facilities or by securing a drainage easement.
56.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to
the subject property.
57.
The adequacy of the capacity of existing downstream drainage facilities shall be
verified. Any upgrading or upsizing of those facilities, as required, shall be provided as
part of development of this project.
Prior to the Issuance of Encroachment Permits:
58.
All necessary grading permit requirements shall have been accomplished to the
satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
59.
Street improvement plans that include sidewalks, medians, parkway trees, street
lights, and traffic signals prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by
CALTRANS (Highway 79 South only) and the Department of Public Works shall be
required for all public streets and Highway 79 South prior to issuance of an
Encroachment Permit. Final plans and profiles shall show the location of exiting utility
facilities within the right-of-way as directed by CALTRANS and the Department of
Public Works.
60.
A Traffic Control Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, and approved
by CALTRANS (Highway 79 South only) and the Department of Public Works. Where
construction on existing City streets and Highway 79 South is required, traffic shall
remain open at all times and the traffic control plan shall provide for adequate detour
during construction.
61.
A Signing and Striping Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by CALTRANS (Highway 79 South only) and the Department of Public Works
for any work on public streets and Highway 79 South and shall be included in the
street improvement plans.
R:~T~RPT~gSPA~.PC2 3/2/95 k~ 41
62.
63.
64.
65.
Bus bays will be designed at all existing and proposed bus stops as directed by the
Department of Public Works and the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA).
Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be submitted to and approved by the
Department of Public Works for dedication to the City where sidewalks meander
through private property.
The Developer shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed
guaranteeing the construction of the following public and private improvements in
conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department
of Public Works.
Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement, curb
and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing,
striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate
B. Storm drain facilities
C. Landscaping (slopes and parkways)
D. Sewer and domestic water systems
E. All trails, as required by the City's Master Plans
F, Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines
G. Erosion control and slope protection
The design and construction of the following infrastructure improvements are a
condition of this Project, pursuant to the Project Traffic Study, and shall be completed
prior to the issuance of an Encroachment Permit as follows:
PHASE 1:
· Half-streetimprovementstoViaRioTemeculafromRedhawkParkwaypastthemost
westerly Pr~eet Phase I access driveway as a Principal Collector street pursuant
to the General Plan;
· Half street improvements to Country Glen Way from Highway 79 South past the
most northerly Project access driveway as a Principal Collector street pursuant to
the General Plan;
· Full street improvements, including raised medians, to Redhawk Parkway from
Highway 79 South to Via Rio Temecula as an Urban Arterial Highway pursuant to
the General Plan or as conceptually shown on the Site Plan;
· A traffic signal at Highway 79 South & Country Glen Way, subject to meeting
CALTRANS Traffic Signal Warrant requirements and CALTRANS approval;
(Amended by Staff at the March 6, 1995 Commission Meeting).
PHASE 1 C/2 (the earlier of):
A traffic signal at Redhawk Parkway and the southerly Project access driveway,
including an interconnection with the Margarita Road/Highway 79 South traffic
signal; (Added by Staff at the March 6, 1995 Commission Meeting).
· Full street improvements to Via Rio Temecula from Redhawk Parkway to Country
Glen Way as a Principal Collector street pursuant to the General Plan;
Half street improvements to Country Glen Way from the most northerly Project
access driveway to Via Rio Temecula as a Principal Collector street pursuant to the
General Plan.
66.
The centedine of the southerly Project access driveway, off Redhawk Parkway, shall
be aligned with the access driveway of the adjacent development, as shown on the
record map. (Added by Staff at the March 6, 1995 Commission Meeting).
Prior to Issuance of Building Permit:
67.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
· Rancho California Water District
· Eastern Municipal Water District
· General Telephone
· Southern California Edison
· Southern California Gas
· Planning Department
· Department of Public Works
· Riverside County Fire Department
· Planning Department
· Department of Public Works
· Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
68.
All necessary construction or encroachment permits have been
submitted/accomplished to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
69.
A triangular shaped raised "chatter strip", for right-in right-out movements, shall be
constructed in the Highway 79 South access driveway.
70.
All building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and
elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction
and site conditions.
71.
The Developer shall notify the City's cable 'IV Franchises of the intent to develop.
Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards prior to issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy.
72.
The Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility
mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to
be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim
or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the
date on which the Developer requests its building permit for the project or any phase
thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee,
a copy of which has been provided to the Developer. Concurrently, with executing this
Agreement, the Developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility
fee. The amount of the bond shall be 92.00 per square foot, not to exceed 910,000.
The Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in
excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such
fees). By execution of this Agreement, the Developer will waive any right to protest
the provisions of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact
fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact
fee for this project; orovided that the Developer is not waiving its right to protest the
reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
73.
Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is part
of an existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section.
Prior to Issuance of Certification of Occupancy:
74.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
· Rancho California Water District
· Eastern Municipal Water District
· Department of Public Works
· Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
75.
All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City
standards, including but not limited to curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive
approaches, parkway trees, street lights on all interior public streets, signing, striping,
traffic signal interconnect, and traffic signals as directed by the Department of Public
Works.
76. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805.
77. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Department of Public Works.
78.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken
due to the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and
replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
79.
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
80.
The design and construction of the following infrastructure improvements are a
condition of this Project, pursuant to the Project Traffic Study, and shall be completed
prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy as follows:
PHASE 1:
· HalfstreetimprovementstoViaRioTemeculafromRedhawkParkwaypastthemost
westerly Project access driveway;
· Half street improvements to Country Glen Way from Highway 79 South past the
most northerly Project access driveway including an acceleration lane on Highway
79 South; (Amended by Staff at the March 6, 1995 Commission Meeting).
· Full street improvements, including raised medians, to Redhawk Parkway from
Highway 79 South to Via Rio Temecula;
· A traffic signal at Highway 79 South & Country Glen Way;
· A traffic signal at Highway 79 South & Redhawk Parkway;
· Access to the Project off Country Glen Way, including the box culverts, shall be
constructed; and
· In the event that construction of drainage culvert improvements in conjunction with
Assessment District No. 159 have not been completed, storm drain improvements
shall be designed and constructed within a dedicated right-of-way per the Riverside
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District as necessary to provide
access to Country Glen Way.
PHASE 1 C/2 (the earlier of):
· Full street improvements to Via Rio Temecula from Redhawk Parkway to Country
Glen Way;
· Half street improvements to Country Glen Way from the most northerly Project
access driveway to Via Rio Temecula; and
· In the event that construction of Highway 79 South improvements in conjunction
with Assessment District No. 159 has not begun, half-width street improvements
shall be designed and constructed within a dedicated right-of-way per CALTRANS
(110'/134'). Construction bonds may be posted in lieu of construction.
PHASING:
81.
All necessary infrastructure improvements have been/will be conditioned based on the
Project Traffic Study and the Conceptual Phasing Plan. Any substantive rephasing of
the development must be approved by the Planning Commission through a rephasing
application. A rephasing of the development considered to be minor or in substantial
conformance with the construction phasing plan, as determined by the Director of
Public Works and the Planning Director, may be approved administratively through
applicable City procedures. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits within any
phase, all on and offsite improvements as referred to in the Traffic Reports and
subsequent addenda along with additional requirements set herein, or as set by
conditions on individual tracts, must be constructed and/or bonded as required by the
Department of Public Works.
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Community Services has reviewed the above referenced project and provides the following
conditions of approval:
General Requirements:
82. The developer shall provide Class II bike lanes on all roadways 66' or wider in
accordance with Caltrans and City Standards. Bike lanes shall be constructed in
concurrence with the completion of the street improvements.
83. Landscaping shall be maintained by an established property owners' association or the
individual property owner.
84. Landscape plans for the proposed median on Redhawk Parkway shall be reviewed and
approved by the Director of Community Services.
85. Construction of the landscape median shall commence pursuant to a pre-job meeting
with the developer and the City Maintenance Superintendent. Failure to comply with
the City's review, inspection, and dedication process may preclude acceptance of this
area into the City's maintenance program.
Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy:
86. Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Developer or his
assignee, shall file an application with the Temecula Community Services District and
pay the appropriate fees for the dedication of arterial street lights into the maintenance
program.
87. Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Developer or his
assignee, shall submit the most current list of Assessor's Parcel Numbers assigned to
the final project.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
Prior to Recordation of the Final Map
88. The developer shall apply for lot/parcels address assignment.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits:
89. The followinQ fees shall be paid to the Building and Safety Department:
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Library Fees
Fire Mitigation Fees
Regional Statistical Area (RSA) Fees
Development Agreement Fees
City Building Plan Review Fees
City Consistency Check Fees
G. School Fees (made payable to the Temecula Unified School District)
90. The applicant shall apply for Buildino Plan Review and Consistencv Check.
91. A copy of the approved Acoustical Analysis shall be submitted to the Building and
Safety Department to ensure compliance with 65 dBA for exterior and 45 dBA for
interior noise levels.
*92. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1991 edition of the
Uniform BuildinQ, PlumbinQ and Mechanical Codes; 1990 National Electrical Code;
California Administrative Code Title 24 Energy and Handicapped Regulations and the
Temecula Municipal Code.
93. The applicant shall submit at time of plan review, complete exterior site lighting plans
in compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
94. The applicant shall obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal
for plan review.
OTHER AGENCIES
95. Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the
provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittal dated
October 13, 1994, a copy of which is attached.
96. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood
Control District's transmittal dated November 10, 1994, a copy of which is attached.
97. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho
California Water District transmittal dated October 10, 1994, a copy of which is
attached.
98. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern
Municipal Water District transmittal dated October 18, 1994, a copy of which is
attached.
99. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Department of
Transportation transmittal dated Ootobor 18, 199/I February 15, 1995, a copy of
which is attached. (Amended by Staff at the March 6, 1995 Commission Meeting).
100. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside Transit
Agency transmittal dated October 18, 1994, a copy of which is attached.
County of Riverside
HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY OCT 2
TO: CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ATTN: Craig Ruiz
DATE:
RE: Planning Application No. PA94-0095, Conditional Use Permit
OCTOBER 13, 1994
The Environmental Health Services has reviewed PA94-0095, Conditional Use
Permit and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services should
be available in that area. Prior to any building plan review for Health clearance,
the following items are required:
1. "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering
agencies.
Three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will
be submitted, including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule,
and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with
the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. For specific
reference, please contact Food Facility Plan examiners at
(909) 358-5172.
A clearance letter from the Hazardous Services Materials
Management Branch (Mike Shetler 358-5055), will be required
indicatir~g that the project has been cleared for:
a. Underground storage tanks
b. Hazardous Waste Generator Services
c. Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with AB 2185)
d. Waste reduction management
4, Waste Regulation Branch (Waste Collection/LEA)
GD: cr
cc: Mike Shetier, Hazardous Materials BranCh
NOTE: Any current additional requirements not covered, can be applicable
at time of Building Plan review for final Environmental Health Service clearance.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Ladies and Gerttlarnen:
..: PA, 4 - 0095
plan check city land use cases. or Fodde Stm Division of Real Estme letters or effiar flood hazard reports for such cases. District
commonzs/recorrd'nenda~ors for such cases sre non'nally limited to items ~ specific imorosT to ~e I:~Slfict inctudin~ [:~n-ict Master Drainage Plan
radiities, other regional flood ~.~,~,,.~ end drainage facilities whld~ could be axffidored · Iogicoi component Or ectension of · reamer plan system,
and Diitfict Ate· Drainage Ran fees (development rnffigation fees). In an~/tJo~, inf~ of · genorsi n~Jre is provideS.
The Dimfic~ ha· not reviewed the propoaed project in dotall end ~he following ct~:ked rammerits do not in any Way me or imply Dimfict
a`~pr~Valorartdor~ement~f1hepr~p~s~dproj~ctwtthmspectto~dh~z~rd~publlche~h~nd*~d~tyOrany~6~ormJ~hm:
['qfThis project would not be impacreS by Disffict Master Drainage Ran fadlltes nor it other tacllffies. of regionsi imP. st
I~ This project invoiv~s Disffict Mastor Ran facilffies. The DimTict will re:inept ownersNp of such facilities on writran request of the City, Facilffies
must be consm..,cteS to Di·~rict $tander~s, end DLflrict plan check and inspection will be requireS for Dists'ict eeocprance. Plan check,
inspection and admOnish·live fees will be required.
1"'1 This project m channels, storm drains 36 inches or hulor in elarnetor, or other facilities etat could be considoreS regional in
and/or · logical extermion of the adopieS Mastor Drainage Ran. The District would consider act
ownership of such facilities on writtan request of the C.~. Facilities must be reed to District $tenclatds, and District plan che
i'd This projec~ is :c,Q~;eS wi~n l~e limils of The Disfficrs Area [:h'alnsge Ran for which dralns~e
fees have been adopteS; a;~licabie fees shoutd be paid to the Rood Conttoi District or City prior to final approval of the project. or In b~e case
of a parcel map or subdivision prior to issuance of building Or grading pelTnits. Fees to be paid should be ~ the rate in effect at 1he fime of
issuance of the actual permit.
GFNFRAI INFORMATION
This project m·y require a Na~onal Potlutant Di~horge Biminaljon Symem (NPDE~) pormit from me State Water Resouroes Corm-oi Board,
Clearance for grading, recordation. or other fina~ approval, chouicl not be give~ until the City has determined th:at 1he project has been granted a
permit or is shown to be exempt.
If this project invoives· Federal Emergency Management Agent/(FEMA) mB,o~ad flood plain, thin the CAty should require bhe applicant to
provide all studies, csiQ.liations, plans and other informmion requireS ~o me~ F'~4A requtremenls, ond should further require lh*t the applicant
obtain · CortditionaJ letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, record·lion or other [lnal approval of the project, and · Letlor of Map
Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy.
If a nat~4rai watercourse or rnapl:~:l flood plain is impacreS by this project the C~ty IhouId require the applicant to ebtin · Section 160111603 ~
Agreementfr~rntheCa~orniaDeparb`nentof~sham~Gerneand~C1eanWatarAc~`e~dN:~ion4~4permitf~Xn1heU.S~AtmyCorpsof
Engineers, or writtan coff~spondence f~orn ~e,$e egortctes Indioaltng the ~ is exempt from tt~,_se requirm'nents. A Gean Wmor Act Section
401 Water Quality Cerlfficafiort nay be requireS from the load California Reglonsi Water Quality Com'd Board pdOr to issuanoe of the Corps
404 permit.
v"" DUSTY INIIIIAMS
.-~ Senior Civil Engineer
Feau:ms~n'A:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
UNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
210 WF,3T SAN JAC]IqTO AVF_lxIIJ~ , P~RRIS, CALIFORxxlIA 92570 * (909) 657-3183
LM. HARRIS
January 5, 1995
TO:
RE:
PLANNING DEPARTMPTNT
· CRAIG RUIZ-'~ '~
PA 9,b0095
· With 'respect to the conditions of approval for the above rof~ced plot plan, the Fire
Depaxtment roeommellds the fonowing fi~ protection measures be provided in accordaace with
City of Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards:
The fire Department is roquirod to set a mlnlmnlll file flow for the remodel or
conslxuction of all COmmerCial btli~ding using the proce, dule8 establhhed ,in OrdinanCe
546. A fLve flOW Of 3500 GPM for a 3 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operafins
prossure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site
A combination of on-site and off-site super ftro hydrants, on a looped system (6"x4 "x2-2
1/2"), will be located not less than25 feet or moro tha- 165 feet from anyportion ofthe
building as measured along approved vellicn~ar travelways. The roquirod five flow .qhall
be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. .
spaci.llg and mlnlm~lln ~ flOW. Once the plan.~ axe signed by the local water company,
the oxi~inal.q Shall be prosented to the File Depaltment for signature
The required water system, inchding fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the
appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building matea-iaLs being placed on the
job site.
The required fn'e flow may be adjusted at a later point in the permit process to reflect
changes in design, consL~ucfion type, area separation or built-in fh-e protection measures.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be responsible W
submit a plan check fee of $582.00 to the City of Temecula.
TttE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE MET PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY.
hstall a complete fire sprinkler system in al/buildings. The post indicator valve and
depsnment connection shall be located to the front of the building, within 50 feet of a
hydrant, and a mirtimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement that the building
wi].l be automatically fn'e spr~n~ded must be included on the rifle page of the building
Inmll fire alarm system, plans shall be submitted to Fire DapaV-.ent for approval prior
to installation. Specific:building requirements can be obtained from the Fire l~vention
office.
Knox Key lock boxes Shall be i~sl2]led on all buildings/suites. If building/suite requix~
Hazardous Material Reporting (Material Safety Data Sheets) the Knox HAY, MAT Data
and key storage cabinets shall be installed. If building/mites are protected by a fire or
burglar alarm system, the boxes will require "Tamper" monitoring. Plans shall be
submitted to the Fi~ Depa~tnxent for approval prior W inst~11atlon.
10.
An automatic fire extin~fishing system shall be installed in the kitchen exhaust hood with
activation monitoEd by the building fire ~larm system. pl~n~ ShAll be submitted to fire
depa~hnent for approval prior to ins~llafion.
11. All driveways Shnll be maintained a minlmllln of 24 foot.
12. All exit doon .~hal] be openable without the use of key or special knowledge or effort.
13.
14.
16.
Install p~nic hard on exit doon per Chapter 33 of the Uniform BuffdlnE code.
Exit signs and e~it i]lvm{n~fion shall be provided per Ch,pter 33 of the Uniform Building
Code. ' ' : " '
...... - '-,' -.. -,.~
Occupancy separation walls wffi be ~luLred as per the Uniform Building Code, Section
503
· Install portable fare extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A10BC. Contact a'certifled
extin~tisher company for proper placement.
17.
It is proln'bited to use/process or store any materi~].~ in this occupancy that would classify
it as an 'H' occupancy per Chapter 9 of the Uniform Building Code.
Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets and driveways to indicate location
of fire hydrants. They shall be mounted in the middle of the street directly in line with
fh-'e hydrant.
19.
Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant sha//prepaxe and submit to the
Fire Depa,t~xent for approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate
lane painting and or signs.
20.
21.
Street address shall be posted, in a visible location, minimum 12 inches in height, on the
street side of the building with a contrasting background.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall deposit, with the City of
Temecula, the sum of $.25 per squaxe foot as mitigation for f'Lre protection impacts.
22.
Applicant/developer Shall be responsible to provide or show there exists conditions set
forth by the Fire Depax'ttttent.
23.
Final conditions wffi be addressed when building plans axe reviewed in the Building and
Safety Office,
All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Deparnnent
planning and engineering section (909)694-6439.
RAYSfOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Depa. ttaient Planner
hun Cabral
Fire Safety Spe6ali~t
October 10, 1994
Mr. Craig Ruiz
City of Temecula
Planning Depm~ment
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590-3606
C
RECEIV~O
OCT 12 !99,~
Jm't. .......,..
SUBJECT:
Water Ava~ability
APN'950-120-006, PA94-0095
Shopping Center
Dear Mr. Ruiz:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District CRCWD). Water service,
therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements
between RCWD and the property owner.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an
Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, ff any, to RCWD.
If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Senga Doherty.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
SB:SD:eb59-1/F186
co: Senga Doheny, Engineering Technician
October 18, 1994
OCT 2 0
Craig Ruiz, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
SUBJECT: PA 94-0095 (Conditional Use Permit)
PA 94-0097 Crentative Parcel Map 27987)
Dear Mr. Ru~:
We have reviewed the materials transmitted by your office which describe the subject project.
Our comments are outlined below:
General
It is our understanding the subject project is a proposed subdivision of 32 acres, located at the
southwest comer of the intersection of Highway 79 South and Redhawk Parkway, into 12
parcels, and a conditional use permit for the development of a commercial shopping center.
The subject project is located within the District's sanitat7 sewer service area. However, k must
be understood the available service capabilities of the District's systems are continually changing
due to the occurrence of development within the District and programs of system improvement.
As such, the provision of service will be based on the detailed plan of service requirements, the
timhag of the subject project, the slams of the District's permit to operate, and the service
agreement between the District and the developer of the subject project.
Sunitarv Sewer
The subject project is considered tributary to the District's Temecula Valley Regional Water
Reclamation Facility (TVRx,VRF).
Mail To: Post Office Box 8300 · Sanjacinto, California 92581-8300 · Telephone (909) 925-7676 · Fax (909) 929-0257
Main Office: 2045 S. San Jacinto Avenue, San Jacinto · Customer Service/.Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue, Hernet, CA
Craig Ruiz
PA 94-0095
October 18, 1994
Page 2
The nearest existing TVRWRF system sanitary sewer facilities to the subject project are as
follows:
24-inch diameter gravity-flow sewer pipeline aligned along Highway 79 South, fronting
the subject project.
18-inch diameter gravity-flow sewer pipeline aligned along Redhawk Parkway, fronting
the subject project.
Other Issues
The representatives of the-subject project must contact the District's Customer Service
Depatuuent to make arrangements for plan check and field inspection of onsite facilities.
Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to contact this office
at (909) 925-7676, ext. 468.
Very truly yours,
EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
David G. Crosley
Senior Engineer
Customer Service Depaxtment
DGC/cz
AB 94-798, AB 94-797
(wp-n~k-PA948095.c~)
IFriday February 2~,, 1995 11:16am -- Page 21
SENT BY:XePox TelecoDier 7021; 2-24-95; 11:11
.;
~i~PARTA4ENT OP ~RANSPORTATION
90969454??;# 2
Februst 15, 1995
oe-re.~'v-?9-..t?,
City of fe.~ecula
e
Planning Depa~t~ nt
43174 ~'sinees ~ar)r~ay Drive
?e~ec~a, C.A 92590
FROPOSeD PROJECT
Thank ou for the o portunity
on the sout~ s~de of StaTe Highway
and Redhawk Parkway.
to review the
19 in between
~oposed roJ act
In response to ~ur rec~uest for reconsidering ~our pro sed
access =o seats Highway ?9, we a tee to a limited access d~vewey
{RIGHT IN/RIGHT OUT) with the following conditionss
Approval of the recent revised Memorandum Of
d
Un eratending {MOU)~
Locatio~ of the driveway must be in cOallance with the
revised MOU (1/8 of E/le (660~) m/nimum spacing).
Deal O~ the driveway must include provisions for
poel~vel prohibiting left turn movements in and out
of the driveway.
The pro Osed traffic signal at the Country Glen Way
will nO~ be onsidc~ed a~ t is
C h time.
The exis=lngCountr~ Glen Way righ~ in/right out access
shall remain unchanged and · painted median on ~he
Center o~ the State Hi hway to prohibit left turn
movements will be required.
The proposed monument signs shall be ap roved by the
calftans Outdoo~Advertisin O~fice in ~aCramento
before they can be i~stalle~,
Please be advised that this iS a conc0 ~ual revie~ only.
Final approval of et~ee~-i~rovements, ~re~ng end drainage will
be determined during the EnCroaChmen= Permit process.
rFriday February 24, 1995 11:16am -- Page 3i
BENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021; 2-24-95; 11:12 ;
.
.City of TtmeCula
F~br;a=y
Page 2
· " 90989484??;#
,,.
If uny work is ueceastr within the State highway =ight of
wa , the developer must obtain an encrOacamen= permit fro~ the
Cab&tans DistriCt 8 Permit Office prior to beginning work.
If additional info~tion is desired, please call Mr. Ahead
8alah of our Oflioe of Development Review at {909) 383-5908.
ver~ =ruly NoUrs,
ASsel
DII~OPJ3 KANABOLO, Chief
Office of DevelOpmen~
Revlew
City of Temecula
Temecula Police Department
November 4, 1994
Conditions of Approval
Landgrant Development
Commercial Shopping Center
Highway 79 x Redhawk Parkway
1 ). The applicant must pl_ac._e at least a six foot security fence around the lot, with
lockable gates, during construction of the facility.
2). The applicant must provide sufficient lighting in and around the parking lot so
as to eliminate any and all dark area's at night.
3). The applicant must utilize low growth shrubbery, if any, around the buildings
and parking lot.
5}. The applicant must provide the police department with a 24-hour emergency
contact phone number.
6). It is recommended that the applicant hire a security company to patrol the
construction site during the development phase of this project.
7). The applicant will be held responsible for any undue expenses incurred by the
police department as a result of any problems generated by this facility during
the construction phase.
If there should be any questions regarding these conditions, please feel free to
give me a call at the station.
Sincerely,
R'~ic~ar~Sa~~ch
Police Officer
Temecula Police Department
(909) 696-3000
October 18, 1994
Craig Ruiz
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
RECEIVED
OCT I 9
Am't ........
Riverside 1Yahsit Agency
1825 Third Street
P.O, Box 59968
Riverside, CA 92517
Phone: (909) 684-0850
Fax: (909) 684-1007
R.EI
T'PM 27987 &~;~D'~.-0095 Vail Ranch Shopping Center
Location: SWC SR79 and R~ihawk Parkway (32 ac.)
Applicant: Chris Smith, Landgrant Deyclopment
There is no fixed rotxm transit service, in the vicinity of the project site at this time. However,
it is reasonable to a.ssume that bus service will be introduced once this site and the nearby Murdy
Ranch property are developed. We recommend that the applicant be required to provide a bus
turnout and passenger shelter on Redhawk Parkway adjacent to parcel 3, south of the southerly
driveway entrance. RTA design guidelines for bus turnouts and shelter placement arc enclosed.
.- : .~- ~. :-. ~:-: ,f
Thank you for 'the opportunity to r~view and comment on this development proposal. The
applicant is welcome to contact RTA for more information on bus stop design and plans for
transit service in the area.
Sincerely,
enclosures
October 18, 1994
Craig Ruiz
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
OCT t 9 lSS4
&l'& ........
Riverside Transit Agency
1825 Third Street
RO. Box 59968
Riverside, CA 92517
Phone: (909) 684-0850
Fax: (909) 684-1007
TPM 27987 & PA94-0095 Vail Ranch Shopping Center
Location: SWC SR79 and Redhawk Parkway (32 ac.)
ApplicmK: Chris Smith, Landgrant Deyelopment
There is no fixed roate transit service i,,. the vicinity of the project site at this time. However,
it is reasonable to ~ssume that bus service will be introduced once this site and the nearby Murdy
Ranch property are developed. We recommend that the applicant be required to provide a bus
turnout and passenger shelter on Redhawk Parkway adjacent to parcel 3, south of the southerly
driveway entrance. RTA design guidelines for bus turnouts and shelter placement are enclosed.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this development proposal. The
applicm~t is welcome to contact RTA for more information on bus stop design and plans for
transit service in the area.
Siucerely,
enclosures
I ECEIVED
1935
February 22, 1995
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
43172 Business Park Drive
P.O. Box 3000
Temecula, CA 92390
Dear Planning Commissioners:
We as residents of the Redhawk area, will be unable to attend the
meeting of March 6, 1995. However, it is imperative that we voice
our agreement of the proposed Ralph's Shopping Center on the
southwest corner of Highway 79.
It is important that this center be built to provide accessible
commercial business areas for the Redhawk area. In addition, it
will provide additional revenue to the community as a whole to have
this commercial center.
Please reconsider your position of not allowing the building of
this commercial center, its vital to our area to provide such
business. We appreciate your concern and hope your judgement will
be on the side of business.
Sincerely,
/
Juan ~ol&na
31839 Via Saltio
Temecula, CA 92592
.-~,rlnl
9~
r-he
ZmN
mz
mm
8.
Z~
ig
12'-0"
On Center
FRONTVIEW
/
I
2'-0.
/
4' -0"
0.C.
SIDE VIEW
SCALE: 1' - 4'
NOTE:
Bench style c~n vary.
BUS ZI(FOI~IATZON
FIGURE 22
TYPICAL BUS SHELTER DESIGN
41
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
LIST OF REVISED EXHIBITS
R:;STAFFP, J*T~9~PA94.1~"'2 3/2/95
VAIL RANCH EXHIBIT LIST
Exhibit - A, Ameadment No. 1
SITE PLAN
Exhibit- B
LANDSCAPE PLAN
Exhibit - C
HARDSCAlE & EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
Exhibit- D
EXTERIOR ELRVATIONS
Exhibit - E
LARGE SC~LR ELEVATIONS - MAJOR 1
Exhibit - F
LARGE SCAI .E ELEVATIONS
Exhibit - G, Amendment No. I
McDONALD'S - SfrE PLAN
Exhibit - H, Amendmelxt No. 1
McDONALI)'S
ELEVATIONS
Exhibit - I, Amendment No. 1
CHEVRON
PRELIMINARY ~II'E PLAN
Exhibit - J, Amendment No. 1
CHEVRON
CAR WASH ELEVATIONS
Exhibit - K, Amendment No. 1
CHEVRON
CANOPY ELEVATIONS
Exhibit - L
CHEVRON
SIGN CALCULATIONS
Exhibit - M, Amendment No. 1
PHASING PLAN
Exhibit - N, Amendmeat No. 1
SIGN PROGRAM
Exhibit - O, Amendment No. 1
DESIGN GUIDELINES
R:xL~T 311195 gaf
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
SITE CONSTRAINTS MAP
R:~,STAI;];P,F'~95pA94.1~"2 3/2/95 k.~
rn
O~
!~lrn
C~ 0
C j) 0
0~
-.I
m
ITI
-'!
0
Z
-!
ZD
Z
-H
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
VILLAGE CENTER OVERLAY
R:'tSTAl;'lrRFF',95PA94,PC2 3/2/95 IrJb 50
VILLAGE CENTER OVERLAY
General Plan Program
FIGURE 24
RECEIVED
FEB 24 J95 -
CITY OF TEMECULA
February 22, 1995
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
43172 Business Park Drive
P.O. Box 3000
Temecula, CA 92390
Dear Planning Commissioners:
We as residents of the Redhawk area, will be unable to attend the
meeting of March 6, 1995. However, it is imperative that we voice
our agreement of the proposed Ralph's Shopping Center on the
southwest corner of Highway 79.
It is important that this center be built to provide accessible
commercial business areas for the Redhawk area. In addition, it
will provide additional revenue to the community as a whole to have
this commercial center.
Please reconsider your position of not allowing the building of
this commercial center, its vital to our area to provide such
business. We appreciate your concern and hope your judgement will
be on the side of business.
Sincerely,
Ruth Molina
31839 Via Saltio
Temecula, CA 92592
rm
February 24, 1995
Planning Commission
City of Temecula
43174 Business Pk Dr.
Temecula, CA 92590
RECEIVED
FEB 2 7 1995
As residents of Redhawk, my husband and
I would like to add our suEport of
the Ralphs Shopping Center being planned
for the SW corner of Hwy 79S and Redhawk
Parkway.
We are aware of the meeting scheduled for
March 6 but not sure we will be able to
attend and we wanted our voice heard.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
C. David & Janet Moorhead
45420 Via Jaca
Temecula, CA 92592
(909) 676-2267
tThursday March 2, 1995 12:51pm -- Froln #71458,t0568' -- Page
83/82/Z995 12:49 7145838568
17~4583856~
PAGE 82
L~, Crli9 !tui='
City oZ.fmc'uZm
43171 BUsiness Pl~k .Oz~ve
· tmC:u~./s Ca,. 925~0-36.06
General PZ~n/' Nicelea Val3ey Study Area
I 10.
ASsessor ParCel leo,e 914-500-12,13, e,15,8 a
Dear Craig:
AS 'lnted out at the 2/i~/95' workshop, there is a tremendous
~a~T~ge ~d furze lnfrutrueb~e ~ct along NicOlas Road.
The burden is qEllte= O1~ '~3t property th~n most other's.
Density intmlslfioa~ion is ~eCessary to ever ho~e Co beer the
c0ec associated w2th any future develo~mnt for my pretty.
In order that z might be able to catty ~a~ose costs, I respect-
~Ull~ re~uest · e~ to ~h density desi~atfon for
entl~e bl~; ~a~u~n9 ~ I e 914-500-8~9,10,12,13,14,Z5~16~l
17. f~S ~ is ~=deted by Ni~las Road, N0rth~ ~lle Medusa,
weeti and ~lle Girdsol, ~.
Tr~ I'd 18518, 23483e 22118e ~ 23Z20 (~p includeall ore
d/redtZ adjacent and border my block to ~he SoucA. f~eee Tracts
are 7,2g0 sq. ft. lots, with a totes of 584 + hma, and are
occupi, ed ~o~o The City %natit elte ks aloe add. scent to this bloC~.
PZeale review 'th& exhibits enclosed and prepare a copy for each
c~isetoner, for tAo ~eetlng,, : . - -
In of the a~, p%ease feel free to calZ ~r. Ron
~u~, at (714) 583-044~.
..' $~nOetely,
:
ITEM #4
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
March 6, 1995
Planning Application No. PA94-0098, The Nicolas Valley Special Study
Prepared by: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION: 1.
RECOMMEND that the City Council Receive the Special
Study Report and that no Change be Made to the Land
Use Designation within the Study Area
BACKGROUND
The Nicolas Valley is located in the northeasterly limits of the City. The area boundary is
roughly Joseph Road in the west, Butterfield Stage Road in the east, approximately 1000 feet
north of Liefar Road in the north and the northern edge of the Tierra Brisas and Pavilion Home
developments to the south.
The Nicolas Valley Study area consists primarily of 2~ acres parcels, consistent with the
zoning for the area. The Study Area is approximately 650 acres in size, with approximately
150 individual property owners and 240 individual parcels. Over the past few years, there has
been "typical" single family home development (one family homes, 7,200 square foot parcels)
to the West and South of the study area. In addition, there is similar single family
development proposed for the areas to the North and East (Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and
Johnson Ranch Specific Plan).
When the City of Temecula adopted the General Plan, Nicolas Valley was given a land use
designation of Very Low Residential, .2-.4 dwelling units per acre. However, prior to the
adoption of the General Plan, some Nicolas Valley residents expressed a desire to have a
higher density land use designation for the area. Thus, when the General Plan was adopted,
the area was designated as a Special Study Overlay. The overlay designation was intended
to allow staff to re-examine the carrying capacity of land to determine what the appropriate
land use designation should be. Ultimately, the study was intended to provide a framework
for future development of the Valley. Should the study determine that an increased land use
intensity is appropriate, staff would then initiate a General Plan Amendment.
In March of 1994, the Planning Department issued five Requests-for-Proposal (RFP) to
planning firms in the Temecula area. In response, the City received three proposals. After a
preliminary screening of the proposals by staff, a consultant selection committee was
established. The committed was comprised of the Director of Public Works, Director of
Planning, and the Senior Planner. Base upon the committee's recommendation, the City
Council awarded a professional services contract to the consulting firm of NBS Lowry in
October of 1994.
DISCUSSION
In analyzing the carrying capacity of the Valley, the study area was divided into 4 major sub-
areas (See Attachment No. 2). Sub-areas were identified by way of major road divisions,
distinct topography, or parcel and study area limitations. The sub-areas were created to allow
a grouping of common areas together which can then be evaluated based upon a fixed set of
issues. The sub-areas are: Area 1 in the southwest quadrant of the study area; Area 2 is
located along the Valley floor; Area 3 is the northerly portion of the study area; and Area 4
is located in the southeasterly portion of the study area.
The first major task of the Study was for the consultant to develop the Opportunities and
Constraints Analysis (OCA). The OCA examines such issues as: land use density, traffic and
road improvements, drainage improvements, sewer and water improvements, and the impacts
of surrounding development. Each issue was evaluated to determine, as the name implies,
where development may or may not be suitable (See Attachment "4").
Once the OCA was complete, the next step was to develop land use alternatives. The
consultant and staff then developed four land use alternatives (See Attachment "4, Exhibit
2"). Alternative "A" proposes ~ acre development along the valley floor and 2~ acre
development in the north and south hill side areas. This alternative would potentially allow
742 dwelling units. Alternative "B" would allow ~ acre development along the valley floor
and I acre development in the north and south hill side areas. This alternative would
potentially allow 944 dwelling units. Alternative "C" would allow % acre development along
the valley floor and ~ acre development in the north and south hill side areas. This alternative
would potentially allow for 1888 dwelling units. Alternative "D" would be no change to the
existing land use designation.
In addition to the above tasks, a goal of the Study was to discuss what the residents of the
Valley envisioned for the future of this area. To this end, staff held two public workshops
with area residents. The first meeting was held in December of 1994 and was attended by
approximately 65 people. At this meeting, staff and the City's consultant presented the
preliminary opportunities and constraints analysis and discussed the existing and proposed
development for the surrounding areas. At the conclusion of the workshop, staff took an
informal poll of the meeting attendees to assess the residents views on future land use
designations. Staff determined that approximately 1/3 of the attendees wanted no change to
the land use designation, 1/3 would consider "some" increased land use designation and 1/3
were undecided, pending further information.
A second workshop was held in February of 1995 which was at'tended by approximately 35
people. The second meeting further discussed the opportunities and constraints of the area
and discussed various land use alternatives. In addition, staff provided preliminary information
on costs for various levels of street and drainage improvements. Specifically, rough cost
estimates were provided to construct half-street improvements to the circulation element roads
within the study area and for drainage improvements to Santa Gertrudis Creek. Staff stated
that if there were no increases in land use designations, or no funding mechanisms were
identified to provide the above improvements, the roads would continued to be unimproved
and the drainage problems would continue. At the conclusion of this meeting, the
overwhelming majority of attendees were opposed to any increase in land use intensity.
As presented at the workshops, the OCA determined that even the most constrained areas,
the hillside portion of Areas 1,3 and 4, could absorb increased land use intensity. Typically,
parcels of a half-acre or greater do not require sewer improvements. Therefore, any land use
intensity greater than 2 dwelling units per acre would not require the installation of sewer
lines. As for street improvements, all subdivisions require half-section street improvements.
In addition, subdivisions of one-acre or less would require additional paved access to the
nearest publicly maintained street (Subdivision Ordinance No. 460). Finally, drainage
improvements would be dependant upon each developments impact and proximity to a
particular drainage course.
As an addition note, in 1994, the Department of Public Works conducted two mail surveys
of the residents in the area of Liefer Road. The purpose of the surveys were to determine if
the residents of the area were interested in forming an assessment district for purpose of
improving Liefer Road. The majority of the respondents indicated they did not wish to form
an assessment district.
CONCLUSION
The Special Study has determined that the Nicolas Valley could support an increase in land
use intensity. However, the anticipated cost associated with any increase in land use intensity
greater than one dwelling unit per acre would make such an increase cost prohibitive at this
time. Therefore, the alternative would be to allow for a density of one dwelling unit per acre.
In contrast, it is clearly the opinion of the majority of the Valley residents (those who have
contacted staff) that they do not support any increases in land use intensity. While this
opinion may represent a minority of the overall total number of land owners within the study
area, staff considers their input to be significant. Therefore, based upon the input of the area
residents, it is staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission recommend to the City
Council that the Very Low Residential Land Use Designation for the Nicolas Valley remain
unchanged.
Attachments:
Study Area Map - Blue Page 4
General Plan Land Use Designations of the Study Area - Blue Page 5
Draft Opportunities and Constraints Analysis - Blue Page 6
Letters Opposing Increases in Land Use Designation - Blue Page 7
Letters Supporting Increases in Land Use Designation - Blue Page 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
STUDY AREA MAP
-NICOLAS -VAI,LEY ....
SPECL&L STUDY AREA BOUND.&RY
'." .,."'T' .~...._.....""'.. '.\ ..:...:..... ,.,....~ :.-.,. ........ ....., .-? .......
- . .....,,)C.,....:,,,~-.....:.. :...-..:.,,:-
' ' ~' ::' "' "'~' "~" ":::""'~' """"~7~
i ....
' 'x"'4e" 5"" ~ , '. ;i',:i":" "' """"':'
· .--.., ..== . .-.....:-...;.
r.' / ,
,...z ......
· .---! ........
'~"~'~*~ Axea~ Indicate Study Area Boundary'
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS OF THE STUDY AREA
CC .~H
.-'1 os
~ ~ - '~ ~ '~ ' ' ~ . '
CC
LM
LM
)H
OS %-
.~ .~ ,~_.----~
/
LM ~
LM
"i
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
DRAFT OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS
NICOLAS VALLEY
SPECIAL STUDY OVERLAY
AREA
Draft Report
March 2, 1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS
II.
III.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................ I
INTRODUCTION ....................... ; ............. 3
BACKGROUND ...................................... 5
B.
C.
D.
E.
Location ...................................... 5
Existing Setting ................................. 5
Proposed Land Use .......... ' ..................... 5
Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan ....................... 7
Area and Subarea Units ............................ 7
IV. JURISDICTION ..................................... 10
Existing and Proposed Circulation .................... 10
Existing and Proposed Parks and Open Space ............ 12
Existing and Proposed Public Facilities ................. 12
V. PHYSICAL ........................................ 15
A. Area 1
B. Area 2
C. Area 3
D. Area 4
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL ................................... 20
A. Area 1
B. Area 2
C. Area 3
D. Area 4
VII. LAND USE ALTERNATIVES ............................ 23
Land Use Alternatives ............................ 23
Preliminary Cost Evaluation ........................ 24
VIII. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ................... '30
EXHIBITS
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Location Map ....................................... 6
Opportunity and Constraints - I ........................... 8
Opportunity and Constraints - 2 .......................... 11
Land Use Alternative A ................................ 27
Land Use Alternative B ................................ 28
Land Use Alternative C ................................ 29
TABLES
1. Land Use Alternatives ................................ 26
II.
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to evaluate the issues related to the future
development of Nicolas Valley (herain referred to as the Study Area). The
Study Area is presently identified as a Special Study Overlay area in the
Temecula General Plan. Such a designation requires a comprehensive,
detailed evaluation of the area's development opportunities and constraints.
This evaluation will allow the City to further understand the issues that
effect the area such that appropriate decisions can be made to determine
the future use of the area and to recommend any changes to the General
Plan land uses. The General Plan contains the following list of issues to be
evaluated:
·
·
·
·
·
·
The provision of flood control, sewer, water and other services;
Impact on surrounding development in terms of traffic, light, noise,
and other impacts;
Methods to provide a transition between rural and suburban/urban
development;
Topography and related visual impacts of development;
Existing lot patterns;
Traffic circulation and impacts of level of service;
Vegetation and wildlife resources;
The provision of recreation trails and open space linkages; and
Identify a strategy for financing and phasing of infrastructure and
other public improvements.
This report is divided into five (5) distinct subjects that will outline the
approach utilized to evaluate the issues listed above. The five (5) subjects
include:
Ill.
Background: This Section is intended to provide the reader with an
overview of the Study Area and will act as a framework for
understanding the issues which affect the Study Area.
IV.
Jurisdictional: This Section will identify the various governmental
regulations and proposed projects which affect the use and
development of the Study Area. The issues to be discussed include
the General Plan Land Use and Circulation, zoning, park and open
space areas, bicycle trails, schools and other public facilities.
Phvsicah The information in this Section focuses upon the landforms
and infrastructure facilities which exist or are proposed. This Section
is to be separated into four (4) geographic areas in an effort to group
common or like areas together which can then be evaluated based
upon a fixed set of issues. This process will occur by comparing the
effect of the existing or proposed facilities upon the Study Area's
physical environment and rating it as either low, moderate or high in
3
VI.
VII.
VIII.
sensitivity. The definition of these sensitivity measures are noted in
Section III Background. The issues to be discussed in this Section
include the Study Area's geography, slopes, landform, parcelization
pattern, and road system.
Environmental: This Section contains information related to biological
and drainage issues which constrain the use of the land. The issues
to be discussed include native plant communities, animal habitat and
drainage courses. The evaluation criteria will be the same as that
noted in Section V Physical.
Land Use Alternatives: This Section evaluates potential land use
intensities for various portions of the Study Area and estimates a cost
distribution for road and drainage facilities. The purpose of this
section is to understand the financial implications of selecting
different development options for the Study Area.
Conclusion and Recommendation: This Section contains a brief
summary of the issues presented previously and provides the City
with a specific recommendation.
4
III. BACKGROUND
A. Location
The Nicolas Valley Study Area contains approximately 680 acres and
is located in the northeast corner of the City. The Study Area is
irregular in shape since it is an o.utgrowth of adjoining development
patterns created by either existing or proposed development. Project
boundaries include Butterfield Stage Road on the east and proposed
Leon Road along a portion of the westerly boundary. The northern
boundary of the Study Area abuts the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan.
The Study Area is bisected by Nicolas Road which runs generally in
an east/west direction. (See Exhibit 1}
B. Existing Setting
The Study Area is bordered by hills to the north and south and
traversed by several drainage courses which merge near Nicolas
Road, just east of proposed Leon Road. Nicolas Road is fully
improved from approximately Winchester Road to proposed Leon
Road where it narrows to a two (2) lane paved road between Leon
Road and Calle Girasol. Nicolas Road easterly of Calle Girasol is a
two (2) lane graded dirt roadway. Butterfield Stage Road and Calle
Medusa are also graded dirt roads within the Study Area. The Study
Area can be characterized as rural in nature based upon the existence
of large lots, horse corrals, dirt or graded dirt streets, and the lack of
public improvements.
C. Proposed Land Use
Study Area: The Study Area is currently designated VL (Very
Low, .2 to .4 dwelling units per acre) on the City General Plan
Land Use Map. It is also a Special Study Overlay area, as
noted in the General Plan text.
The property is zoned R-R-1 and 2~/2 (Rural Residential, I and
2~ acre minimum lot sizes); R-1-1 (One Family Dwellings, 1
acre minimum lot size); and R-A-2~ (Residential Agriculture,
2~ acre minimum lot size.)
Adjacent Lands: The Study Area borders a variety of General
Plan Land Use designations: RH (Hillside, 0 to .1 dwelling
units per acre); L (Low, .5 to 2 dwelling units per acre); LM
(Low Medium, 3 to 6 dwelling units per acre); and OS (Open
Space).
5
-NICOLAS -VALLEY ....
SPECIAL STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
-~. "'~..:-..-': ."' ""..-;-[ ?i;'.---'.-:"~"".': '., ,':.~-- -- ~ .! ·
..... . ,: .,. ';:' ~ ..... '1 ~, ";' :,;.' ....i" J ' -
\ I% "~ "; .. '.'
' : "'-":.77~.-.:
""," "E' 7'
Areas Indicate Study Azea Boundary'
Adjacent City zoning is R-A-5 (Residential-Agriculture, 5 acre
minimum lot size); R-1 (One Family Dwellings), R~T
(Mobilehome Subdivision and Mobilehome Park); and the
Roripaugh 800 Specific Plan.
Roripeugh Ranch Specific Plan
The Roripaugh Specific Plan is approximately 790 acres in size and
is proposed to contain 2,370 units. It includes 160 acres within the
City limits with the balance in the unincorporated County area. The
project is proposed to improve Butterfield Stage Road to an Urban
Arterial ( 134 foot right-of-way) or Arterial Highway ( 110 foot right-of-
way) depending upon its location. Several Secondary Streets (88
foot right-of-way) and a Principal Collector (78 foot right-of-way) are
proposed within the project and will intersect with Butterfield Stage
Road adjacent the Study Area boundary.
The land uses proposed within the Specific Plan adjacent to the
easterly end of the Study Area include commercial, residential, park,
middle school, and open space. The northern portion is proposed for
commercial and residential uses, although both are to be separated
from the Study Area by an open space buffer.
Area and Subarea Units
Research within the Study Area has been divided into a series of
geographical areas. Sections V and VI of this report contain a
discussion of the physical and environmental issues associated with
four (4) distinct areas (See Exhibit 2). Each area boundary was
formed based upon a significant identifiable feature, such as the hills
or the location of the flood plain. Section VII contains land use
alternatives which further divide the Study Area into smaller
subareas. These subareas reflect potential development areas or
units. Due to the separate function of each area and subarea
analysis, the boundaries of each are not intended to be coterminous.
The overall objective of dividing the Study Area into smaller
components is an attempt to more easily define the relevant issues
which affect the Study Area and weigh their level of importance.
The evaluation criteria for the physical and environmental issues
contained in the four (4) major geographical areas are based upon the
following scale:
7
Low Sensitivitv: An issue affects either a minimal amount of
land or is not significant with respect to maintaining the
integrity or composition of a facility or resource.
Medium Sensitivity: An issue effects either a sizeable area of
land or could adversely effect the integrity or composition of
a facility or resource.
High Sensitivitv: An issue will effect a significant amount of
land or will adversely effect the integrity or composition of a
facility or resource.
9
IV. JURISDICTIONAL
A number of issues affect the Study Area which are either regulated by the
City of Temecula or maintained by other local agencies. Although these
regulations maybe unseen by a member of the public, they have a
significant effect upon the potential use of property.
A. Existing and Proposed Circulation
The Study Area is currently traversed by the following identifiable
roadways:
O
·
·
o
·
·
·
·
Nicolas Road - 2-lane graded dirt road
Butterfield Stage Road - Graded dirt road
Calle Medusa - 2-lane paved road
Calle G!rasol - Graded dirt/paved road
Walcott Road - 2-lane graded dirt road
Calle Chapos - Graded dirt road
Riverton Lane - 2-lane paved road
Liefer Road - 2-lane graded dirt road
A number of addition streets are noted on Assessor's Map pages but
not recognizable in the field. These streets provide access to
individual parcels within the Study Area. Although some of these
streets are dedicated to the City the balance are private roads and are
identified as a lettered lot on the County Assessor maps. The private
roads have been offered for dedication but not accepted by the City
for maintenance.
Various circulation improvements are identified for the Study Area
and contained in the City General Plan Circulation Element. These
circulation improvements include the following (See Exhibit 3):
Butterfield Staae Road: This roadway is to be a 6-lane Urban
Arterial (134 foot right-of-way).' The westerly one-half of
Butterfield Stage Road, south of Calle Chapos, has been
dedicated to the City at a half-width right-of-way of 55 feet.
Additional dedication of land will be required to meet the
General Plan requirement.
Nicolas Road: This roadway is to be a 4-lane Arterial Highway
(110 foot right-of-way) with a raised landscape median.
Within the street right-of-way is to be included a Class II or III
bicycle lane. Nicolas Road, east of proposed Leon Road, is
primarily a non-dedicated roadway. The balance of the
roadway is noted as a separate lettered lot on the County
10
Assessor maps and has been offered for dedication to the City
but not accepted for maintenance.
Leon Road: This roadway is proposed to be a Secondary
Highway (88 foot right-of-way). No portion of this roadway
has been dedicated to the City at this time.
Calle Girasol/Calle ChaoosRValcott Lane: These streets have
been identified on the City General Plan Circulation Element as
a 2-lane Principal Collector (78 foot right-of-way). In the
Spring of 1995, the City intends to construct road
improvements on these streets to provide for two (2) lanes of
traffic within 32 feet of paving. The improvements will extend
from La Serena Way to Nicolas Road.
Bicycle Facilities: In addition to the bicycle lane described
above, a Class I bicycle lane is also proposed north of Nicolas
Road. This facility would be separate from Nicolas Road and
located outside of the street right-of-way.
Existing and Proposed Parks and Open Space
No parks or open space areas exist or are proposed within the Study
Area. However, existing Riverton Park and a number of proposed
parks and open space areas are planned in the areas immediately
beyond the Study Area boundary. The park and open space areas
noted on the City's General Plan north of the Study Area overlap
those planned for the Roripaugh Specific Plan. The drainage courses
in the Roripaugh Specific Plan, which ultimately extend into the Study
Area, have been identified as open space with the intent of
preserving their drainage and biological characteristics.
The City collects park development fees for the purpose of
developing new parks or rehabilitating existing ones. Although no
parks are proposed in the Study Area, development fees provide a
mechanism for new development in the Study Area to pay their
proportional share of new park facilities.
Existing and Proposed Public Facilities
No schools exist or are proposed within the Study Area. However,
one elementary school exists to the northwest of the Study Area and
several schools are proposed within the Roripaugh Ranch Specific
Plan. The Roripaugh Plan includes both a K-8th grade school and a
middle school. As was noted above for park facilities, each new
development is assessed school fees for the purpose of paying their
proportional share of new school facilities. These facilities may be
12
located beyond the immediate geographic area of individual
development projects.
A number of infrastructure improvements are proposed and include
the following:
~: A 115 volt electrical line is proposed along the
westerly edge of the Study Area.
2. Existing Sewer: No sewer lines exist within the Study Area.
ProDosed Sewer: Two (2) sewer lines are proposed through
the Study Area.
An 18-inch line is proposed along the southerly side of
Nicolas Road extending easterly through the Study Area,
tO Calle Girasol. At this point the line size decreases to
15-inches and continues easterly through the Study
Area into the Roripaugh Specific Plan.
A 12-inch line is proposed to branch off of the 18-inch
line (described above) just easterly of the intersection of
Nicolas Road and Calle Girasol. The 12-inch line will run
parallel with Calle Girasol until it intersects with Calle
Chapos, where it will extend easterly until it terminates
at the intersection of Calle Chapos and Walcott Road.
Existing Water: A water well owned and operated by the
Rancho California Water District exists just north of the
intersection of Nicolas Road and Calle Girasol. Water lines
exist in the following locations:
·
e
An 8-inch line in Liefer Road.
An 8-inch line along the north side of Nicolas Road
extending from the San Diego Aqueduct westerly to a
point just west of the intersection section of Calle
Girasol and Nicolas Road. This line intersects with the
Liefar Road line.
An 8-inch line extending southerly and easterly from the
8-inch line in Nicolas Road along the east side of Calle
Girasol and the north side of Calle Chapos to a point just
east of the intersection of Walcott Road and Calle
Chapos.
A 12-inch line in Calle Medusa, which extends south of
its intersection with the extension Nicolas Road. This
line connects to the 8-inch line in Liefer Road.
13
Prooosed Water: A number of water lines are proposed in the
Study Area. A 48-inch line is proposed through the length of
the Study Area along the southerly side of Nicolas Road.
Intersecting this line just east of Butterfield Stage Road, is a
proposed 16-inch line extending north and south of Nicolas
Road. An additional 30-inch water line is proposed to connect
to the existing 8-inch line which parallels Calle Girasol and
Calle Chapos. The line will run south along Walcott road and
north along the San Diego Aqueduct.
14
PHYSICAL
The Study Area has been divided into four (4) primary areas for purposes of
evaluating specific site issues. The boundaries of each area were
determined by establishing a geographic boundary which reflected similar
land uses, geography, drainage features or other significant environmental
characteristics.
A. Area I
Geograohv
Area 1 is in the Southwest Quadrant of the Study Area and is
primarily characterized as hillside area. This Area is geographically
homogeneous due to the ridgeline which forms a spine and traverse
the property from the east to west. ·
Slopes in the area are averaging approximately 17 percent and range
between 5 percent and 30 percent. This area borders the flood plain
created through the convergence of the many drainage courses which
enter the Study Area from the east.
Parcelization Pattern
The parcelization pattern is fairly uniform with respect to size
throughout the area although some parcel configurations have narrow
widths when compared to their depth.
Road System
This area includes only a portion of Nicolas Road and Calle Medusa.
Only a small portion of these roads are improved. Nicolas Road is the
only General Plan Circulation roadway within the area.
Landform
The most significant physical feature is the gently sloping ridge which
generally divides the area in half from east to west. The high points
which create the ridge characteristics are not significant within the
context of the topographic configuration of the entire Study Area.
However, the ridge does help to divert some local drainage around
the Study Area to avoid further impacting the Study Area's drainage
problems.
15
Sensitiviw Measure
Due to the moderate scale of the area's topography and the fact it
could have some effect upon the development of the area, the
physical issues in this area would rate as moderate on the sensitivity
scale.
Area 2
Geograohv
The boundaries of this area were derived from the configuration of
the Valley floor, which is primarily effected by the storm water
drainage course which traverses the Study Area generally along the
alignment of Nicolas Road. This floodplain is probably the most
significant and defining feature ~vithin the entire Study Area. The
floodplain boundary is also the location of numerous master planned
physical improvements identified in Section II Background, including
Nicolas Road, portions of Leon Road and Butterfield Stage Road, a
Class I bicycle lane and proposed water and sewer lines.
SIoDes/Landform
The combination of the proposed improvements discussed above are
reflective of the physical characteristics embodied in the fact this area
is a floodplain and relatively flat. As a low-lying area it is subject to
receiving stormwater run-off from tributary areas. In addition, a low
point is the logical location for the placement of facilities, such as
sewer lines, which are designed based upon achieving a gravity flow.
The location of the road also reflects the path of least resistance to
traverse for man and vehicles.
Parcelization Pattern
The subdivision pattern abutting Nicolas Road reflects an intent to
use the street as the primary access for existing parcels. The
planned road improvements and the installation of a bicycle lane
could significantly affect the use of these properties. In addition, the
intent of designating Nicolas Road a 4-lane Arterial Highway is to
provide a major east-west circulation link designed to carry a
significant number of vehicles through this portion of the City.
Allowing individual lots to maintain access to Nicolas Road would
severely hamper its effectiveness to achieve this goal.
16
Road System
Nicolas Road is the primary roadway within the Study Area and acts
as a spine from which other portions of the Study Area can be
accessed. Roadways within this area are primarily graded dirt roads.
Proposed master planned streets in the area include Nicolas Road, a
small portion of Calle Girasol branching south of Nicolas Road and a
portion of Butterfield Stage Road which abuts the Study Area
boundary.
· Sensitivity Measure
Due to the significant effect of the proposed improvements upon the
areas existing subdivision pattern and storm water drainage courses,
the existing physical issues in this area would rate high on the
sensitivity scale.
Area 3
Geooraohv
Area 3 consists of the most northerly portion of the Study Area and
abuts the Roripaugh Specific Plan to the noah and east. This area
also contains the greatest amount of development within the Study
Area.
Slooes/Landform
The topographic configuration of this area consists of an irregular
sloping terrain which descends to the south. Slopes within the area
range between 10 and 15 percent. Isolated high points exist but are
not significant in respect to the amount of land they encompass or
their height. The subdivision pattern has attempted to make the
greatest use of these high points by subdividing around them and
incorporating them into individual lots.
Parcelization Pattern
The subdivision pattern within this area is uniformly irregular except
for Some of the parcels located north of Liefer Road. Some of the
parcels in this area do not have access to a public street. This may
not be a significant concern, however, since private streets, denoted
as a lettered lot on the County Assessor maps, have been approved
securing them access to public streets.
17
Road Svstem
Liefer Road is the only existing public street in the area.
Development within the area must obtain access from Liefer Road.
Sensitivity Measure
The topographic configuration in this area is not as dramatic as that
contained within Area 4. As such, the hillside area is more suited to
development than-Area 4. Slopes within'this area are moderately
steep. However, they do not prohibit development, as evidenced by
the current number of homes. No other significant physical issues
exist which constrain development, such as a drainage course or
flood plain. Due to these factors the effect of existing physical issues
in this area would rate as moderate on the sensitivity scale.
Area 4
GeograDhv/SIoDes
Area 4 is located in the southeasterly portion of the Study Area. This
area offers the greatest topographic variety within the Study Area
since it does include a relatively flat portion of land north of Calle
Chapos which transitions into moderately steep terrain as one
progresses south.
Landforms
Within the overall setting of the Study Area the low lying area north
of Calle Chapos represents a terrace or bench which sits above the
actual floodplain area (Subarea 2). The high points within this area
represent the highest elevations within the entire Study Area.
Parcelization Pattern
This area contains the most irregular shaped parcels within the Study
Area, The number of "flag lots" are reflective of the area's terrain.
Road Svstem
This area is traversed by a number of existing roadways. Several
master planned streets are also planned in the area including
Butterfield Stage Road and Calle Girasol/Calle ChaposANalcott Lane
which are grouped in the City General Plan as a Principle Collector
Street and therefore would be the same width. Road improvements
within this area would be expensive due to the existing topography.
Existing drainage courses which traverse the roadways will also
18
require improvement. The combination of Calle Girasol/Calle
Chapos/Walcott Lane is to be improved to an interim condition
consisting of a 2-lane roadway within 32 feet of paving.
Construction is scheduled to start in the Spring of 1995.
Sensitivity Measure
This area represents the greatest change in topographic elevation in
the Study Area. The level-of improvements necessary for both
existing and proposed roads are also probably the most extensive,
based upon the length of the roadways. Due to these factors the
physical issues affecting development in this area would be rated as
high on the sensitivity scale.
19
VI.
ENVIRONMENTAL
The previous section identified physical issues related to each primary
geographic area of the Study Area. The purpose of this section is to focus
upon and identify those environmental issues which are significant within
each Subarea.
A. Area I
General Character
This area is the entry point to the Study Area and was formed as a
remainder area created by the residential development to the
southeast, the floodplain to the north and the project boundary to the
south. As such, the predominate feature of this area is the sloping
hillside ridge which slices through the area.
BioloQical Resources
The most significant environmental component of this area is the
location of a small Coastal Sage-Scrub community located just to the
west of Calle Medusa. It is unknown at this time whether any
threatened or endangered species exist in this area.
Drainaoe Characteristics
As noted in the previous discussion on physical issues, the
topographic configuration of the hillsides helps to divert drainage
around the Study Area. This drainage course is only partially within
the Study Area and does not possess significant environmental
attributes.
Sensitivity Measure
Due to the isolated location of the Coastal Sage-Scrub, the relatively
minimal site area it effects, and the lack of other environmental
factors, the environmental issues within this area Would rate low on
the sensitivity scale.
B. Area 2
General Character
The southerly boundary of this area generally borders the floodplain
while the northerly portion primarily reflects a transition in grade
(grade break) from the flat valley floor to the sloping hillsides.
20
Bioloaical Resources/Drainage Characteristics
The most significant environmental feature of this area is the drainage
course. outlined by the floodplain boundary. The drainage course is
comprised of two {2) blue line streams which not only signify
significant drainage courses but also the potential existence of
various biological resources such as plants and trees or animals which
use the vegetation for habitat. It is unknown at this time whether
any threatened or endangered species exist in this Subarea.
Sensitivity Measure
The most significant environmental factor within the Study Area is
the floodplain and its associated environmental attributes, which can
act as a life source for plants and a resulting habitat for animals. In
addition, the floodplain represents both a significant danger to
development and a significant cost tO overcome. Due to these
environmental factors, the environmental issues within this area
would rate high on the sensitivity scale.
Area 3
General Character
The easterly boundary of this area is formed by the City limits with
the northerly boundary abutting the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan.
The area contains a fairly irregular slope pattern.
Biological Resources
The most significant environmental aspect of this area is the
extensive amount of land covered by Coastal Sage-Scrub which
occurs primarily within the north half of the area. In addition, the
Coastal Sage-Scrub overlaps an area located at the northwest corner
of the area that has been identified as having the potential for
paleontaological (pre-historic) resources.
Drainage Characteristics
The topographic configuration of the area has created several notable
drainage courses'through the area. These drainage courses are not
identified as blue line streams On the U.S.G.So map and therefore do
not represent the same level of stormwater run-off or potential
vegetation as other drainage areas within Study Area.
21
Sensitivity Measure
Due to the extensive existence of Coastal Sage-Scrub, the potential
existence of paleontological artifacts, and drainage concerns, the
environmental issues within this area would rate as moderate on the
sensitivity scale.
Area 4
General Character
This area is reflective of many features within the Study Area in that
it contains flat land as well as relatively steep slopes. Since Area 4
represents an area with both floodplain and hillside characteristics, it
is appropriate that it contain attributes found in both.
Biological Resources
That portion of the area south of Calle Chapos and primarily east of
Walcott Road contains a fairly large geographical area with Coastal
Sage-Scrub. It is unknown whether any threatened or endangered
species exist in this area.
Drainage Characteristics
That portion of the area north of Calle Chapos contains a blue line
stream which represents the drainage course which traverses the area
and connectsto the defined floodplain along Nicolas Road to the
north. The blue line stream is parallel to or within the same alignment
as Calle Chapos.
SensitiVity Measure
The significance of drainage issues and the designation of blue line
streams have been previously noted. Due to these and the other
environmental factors noted, the environmental issues within this
area would rate as high on the sensitivity scale.
22
VII. LAND USE ALTERNATIVES
For the purposes of evaluating land use intensities within the Study Area,
a series of 13 Subareas have been formed. Each Subarea is geographically
distinct due'to its unique characteristics, such as major roadways, parcel
configurations or/and Study Area limitations.
To help understand the relationship between the previous four (4)
geographic areas represented in the opportunities and constraints analysis
and the new Subareas, please refer to the following comparison:
Opportunity end Constraint Areas
Area 1
Area 2
Area 3
Area 4
Land Use Alternative Subareas
I, J, and portions of F and G
H and portions of C, D, E, F and G
A, B and portions of D and E
K, L, M and a portion of J
The combination of various physical and environmental issues, including the
influence of potential development, warranted this reconfiguration and
further analysis of the study area.
A. Land Use Alternatives.
The approach to evaluating various land use intensities is based upon
the previously compjeted opportunity and constraints analysis and a
further analysis of potential access alignments throughout the Study
Area. The delineation of each land use alternative is sensitive to the
issues raised in those previous sections.
Four (4) different residential parcel sizes have been utilized in
developing each land use alternative starting with the existing zoning
of R-R 2 1/2 acre minimum, and transitioning to R-R I acre minimum,
R-R 1/2 acre minimum, and R-R 1/4 acre minimum lot sizes. Starting
with a existing base of 260 allowable units for the area (based upon
the existing zoning), Alternatives A, B, and C would intensify the
tot. al lot count to 742 lots, 944 lots, and 1888 lots, respectively (see
Table 1 and Exhibits 4, 5 and 6). The three alternative land use
intensities were chosen in order to generate varying unit counts
within the Study Area. The goal of generating these alternative
intensities is to establish a method of distributing the cost of road
and storm drain improvements for the Study Area among the existing
and/or future residents and to identify those dollar values:
23
As part of. this analysis existing and future improvement programs for
the Study Area were also evaluated. This includes the future
disposition of the Roripaugh Specific Plan, which boarders Nicolas
Valley to the north and east, as well as the character of the existing
surrounding land uses.
Preliminary Cost Evaluation '
NBS/Lowry approached the cost analysis as a preliminary means of
evaluating the relative costs of required infrastructure. The major
infrastructure elements considered in the cost analysis included the
major roads and drainage facilities required by the City of Temecula
General Plan and necessary to provide for the health, safety and
welfare of the local community. The roads included a half section of
Nicolas Road, a half section of Butterfield Stage Road, a. half section
of Leon Road, and a full section of Liefer Road.
The drainage improvements included in the analysis were the (3)
three blue line streams which traverse the property from east to
west, as well as a half portion of the bridge necessary for a crossing
near the intersection of Nicolas Road and Calle Girasol. Three (3)
different types of channels were considered for evaluation; a
naturalized channel, a dirt sided trapezoidal channel, and a concrete
sided trapezoidal channel. Each type of channel has significant cost
and land area implications. The principle difference in design is
between the trapezoidal channel and the naturalized channel.
Examples of the designs are evident in both the Study Area and
adjoining properties. The Study Area has an improved concrete/riprap
sided trapezoidal channel along the north side of Nicolas Road at the
southwesterly entrance to the Study Area. The proposed Roripaugh
Specific Plan, located easterly and upstream of the Study Area,
proposes the use of naturalized channels for each of the existing blue
line streams.
The Temecula General Plan also included a Class I bicycle trail along
the north side of Nicolas Road which could be aligned with the
existing drainage course or proposed drainage facilities. Due to the
potential dual functions of these channels it was deemed appropriate
to include more than one type of channel improvement cost.
24
The relative costs of these improvements and their associated cost
allocation would range as follows:'
Roadway costs would generally vary between $300.00 and
$800.00 per unit per annualized assessment.
Drainage costs would generally vary between $100.00 and
$1,300.00 per acre per annualized assessment depending
upon the type of channel design selected.
These costs are preliminary in nature and are only intended to identify
potential improvement costs such that property owners and decision-
makers will have a general understanding of the implications of
different land use decisions. These do not represent preliminary
engineering studies for assessment district purposes.
25
NICOLAS VALLEY
LAND USE _AI,TERNATIVE LEGENDS
A 88.0 2 112 35
B 35.0 1.0 35
C 30.0 112 ~0
D 21.0 1]2 42
E 72.0 11'2 144
F 40.0 lf2 80
G 16.0 I~2 ~
H 80.0 112 1~0
I 79.0 1.0 79
J 20.0 2 1/~ 8
K 55.0 2 112 ~'~
L 78.0 2 1/2 31
M 34.0 2 l f2 13
649.0 742
A 88.0 1.0 88
B 3&0 112 72
C 30.0 1/2 (g)
D 21.0 112 42
E T2.0 1/2 14~
F 40.0 1t2 80
G l&O 1F2 32
H 80.0 1/2 1~0
I 79.0 1.0 ~
I 20.0 1.0 20
K 55.0 1.0 55
L 78.0 1.0 78
M 34.0 1.0 34
649.0 944
AL'I'I~Ii.NATIVE C
A,~ z~,y D.U.', I
88.0 1/2 176
3&0 1/4 144
~0.0 1/4 120
21.0 1/4 84
T2.0 1/4 288
40.0 1~. 1~0
l&0 1/4
80.0 1/4 320
~9.0 IF2 158
20.0 1F2 40
55.0 112 110
78.0 112 156
~4.0 1]2
649.0 1888
TABLE I
,~ zo
e
VIII. CONCLUSION
The purpose of this study was to undertake an additional level of analysis,
beyond that recently completed for the new General Plan, to define the
area's future land use. The current General Plan Land Use designation for
the Study Area is VL (Very Low Density, .2 to .4 units per acre). A variety
of goals, objectives, and policies are contained in the City's General Plan
which currently have an affect upon the use of land within the Study Area.
However, the City felt the unique attributes of the Study Area warranted
further analysis prior to assigning a more appropriate land use designation.
The Study Area is affected by a broad range of issues due to its location,
current use, and adjacent uses. The documentation contained in the
previous sections has identified those issues in an effort to gain a greater
understanding of the area. Although some potentially significant
environmental issues exist, such as drainage and topography, they do not
represent constraints severe enough to restrain development to a level less
than the adjoining residential areas.
In addition, several workshops have been held with area residents to obtain
their input on the potential use of the area. The majority of residents in
attendance at the meetings expressed a desire that the level of development
allowed within the Study Area remain at or near the level currently
permitted.
The latter portion of the report contained development intensity and
improvement cost information in an effort to link the improvements required
by the General Plan and/or new development to the ability to pay for the
cost of construction. If the City is to further the circulation and associated
drainage improvements specified in the Temecula General Plan, a
proportional level of development will need to occur which can bear the
financial burden of paying for the cost of construction. The cost will
generally lessen for more intensive development due to the ability to spread
the cost over a greater number of people and/or the property owners will
realize a greater value and potential profit for their land.
Recommendation
Due to the intensification of the land surrounding the Study Area and the need to
maintain the goals, objectives and policies of City's General Plan, it is
recommended:
The Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the Nicolas
Valley Study Area be allowed to intensify to permit lots 1/4 acre and larger,
consistent with Land Use Alternative C.
C:~wp51%iwm~i¢ml~
30
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
LETTERS OPPOSING INCREASES IN LAND USE DESIGNATION
R:~TAFFP, F'~918pA94.PC 3/2/95
RECEIVED
,/
Craig Ruiz
Assistant Planner
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590-3606
February 23, 1995
RECEIVED
FEB 2 7 B95
Dear Mr. Ruiz:
As property owners at the far east end of Nicholas Road within the
city of Temecula, we are writing to express our concerns with items
that the Planning Department is considering. We are very much
against idea of rezoning the area for parcels smaller than two and
one-half (2 1/2) acres and the idea of creating an assessment
district to pay for improvements caused by the rezoning.
My wife and I, both born and raised in the Riverside/SanBernardino
area, purchased our property consisting of 3.79 acres in 1976 with
the intent of building a residence on it to retire to. Like us,
the people who own property on the east end of Nicholas Road are
either retired persons on fixed incomes or families trying to raise
children.
Along with all the fees incurred by being annexed into the city of
Temecula, imposing additional assessments on the property, whether
by the parcel or the acre, will either break the backs of these
owners or make it very hard to find a buyer for the property if and
when they decide to sell.
To be honest with you, our bottom line is leave us alone - we are
comfortable with they w~y th~qgs are!
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely, x~.jLaz~r~,'
Day . a' .
7020 Halesworth Court
Citrus Heights, CA 95610
(916) 725-6195
February 14, 1995
FROM:
The City of Temecuh
Temecula Planning Commission
45174 Business Park Drive
Tcmecula, CA 92590
Andy Gallo
Member, Coalition for a Rural Temecula (CART)
39445 Pala Vista Drive
Temecula, CA 92591
ATfl:;NTION:
Chairman Ford; Conuni~oners Blair, Fahey, Slaven and Webster
s j cr:
Nicolas Valley Special Study Recommendation
I would like to thank you and the city staff for undertaking the extra effort of
orchestrating the special study meetings for the residents of the Nieolas Valley Special
Study area. The information was enlightening and valuable. The individuals from the
city staff were always professional and courteous to what could be described as a
sometimes 'lively' crow& This is exemphry city government, "of the people, for the
people and by the people". All involved should be commended. I roccommend that
no change be made to the Current Nicolas Valley Area Zoning.
The first study meetin~ was attended by roughly 5096 of the property owners. Roughly
haw were opposed to increased zoning density. The second meeting was attended by
roughly 20% of the property owners. Roughly 8096 were opposed to increased zoning
density. A handful of residents were in favor of doing 'something' and this floated
along the lines of improvements to drainage and circulation, but not necessarily
increased zoning density.
I believe that there is an overall negative value-_adaed associated with increased
population density in what is now predominately a 2 I/g acre minimum parcel area.
The following are perceived to be the negatives associated with an increase in zoning
density and are contrary to the 'highest and best use' of the Nicolas Valley area:
Decreased quality of ourrein rural Lifestyle
Increased vehicuhr and pedestrian traffic
Increased local population density and crime
Negative impac~ for safe equestrian usage
Further eradicafion of an unlisted endangered species:
The 'Rural Temeculan Resident'
Nicolas Valley Special Study Recommendation Page 2
I can find no clear overriding positive aspects, (either financially, culturally or quality
of life enhancing) to the proposal to change the existing zoning from R-R-2 1/2. I
located to Temecula, specifically in the Nicolas Valley area, to enjoy the riches of the
rural lifestyle. I do not desire, nor can I afford, the costs associated with
improvements, assessments, etc. which are directly linked to increased density. In this
regard I would he poorer in more ways than one.
I am not a developer, but am a homeowner residing in the immediate neighborhoods
of the Nicolas Valley Special Study and my lifestyles are directly impacted by the results
and recommendations that this process will produce. I intend to be represented when
the study recommendations are brought before the Plannin~ Commission and
subsequently the City Council. I would like this letter to be placed on record as being
in opposition to zoning density increases when the hearing is conducted.
Additionally, I would like to extend my gratitude to the you and the commission
members for recognizing the residents who voiced their opposition to the Johnson
Ranch high density residential proposal. I believe that Temecula is fully capable of
becoming an a~h-~'ive mix of rural residential units coupled with a balance of light
industrial businesses. This active association can offer the community an
opportunity for prosperity, self-reliance and rural charisma second to none. It can
establish itself as a shining example for others on how to mature as a community
without the ills affiliated with high density residential development which have
pockmarked Southern California.
Hease continue to maintain a questioninS attitude regarding the merit of high density
residential growth proposed by land developers, especially in the Johnson and
Roripaugh projects which impact my immediate area. I am a member of a growing
population of local rural residents who stand in opposition to the intense residential
development of rural Temeoula and its current spheres of influence. We are
collectively known as CaRT - Coalition for a Rural Temeoula. Use my voice to
communicate to the representatives of these projects that we believe in adding greater
value to Temeoula through less-dense, rural-residential development.
Andy Gallo
RECE I VED
FEB 2 ? 1995
Fel:n-uary 14, 1995
TO:
FROM:
The City of Temecula
Temecule Planning Commission
45174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Members, Coalition for a Rural Temecuh (CART)
59140 Pah Vista Drive
Temecula, CA 92591
Krr~in~l'lON:
Chairman Ford~ Commissioners Blair, Fahey, Shven and Wel~ter
Nicolas Valley Special Study Recommendation
We would like to thank you and the city staff for undertaking the extra effor~ of
orche~hath~ the special study meetinSs for the residents of the Nicolas Valley Special Study
area. The information was enlightening and valuable. The indiv~_~als from the city staff
were always professional and courteous ~o what could be ~ as a some~me~ 'lively~
crowd, This is exemplary c~y ~overnment, "of rite people, for the people and by the
people". All involved should be commended` We recommend that no chan~e be maa~
to the Current Nicolas Valley Area Zoning.
.The ~ study meeth~ was affende~ by roughly 50% of the ~ o~e~. ~ d ~
m a~n~ce ~ o~ W ~c~ ~ &~. ~e ~d m~ ~ a~nded
~ ~y 2~ d the ~ o~e~. ~y S~ we~ ~v~ W ~ ~
&~. A ~ d ~n~ we~ ~ hv~ d ~ '~' ~d ~ ~ ~
the ~ d ~emen~ W ~ ~ ~, ~t n~ n~y ~ ~
We believe that there is an overall negative value-_~da-d associated with increased
population density in what is now predominately a 2 1 / 2 acre minimum parcel area. The
following are perceived to be the negatives associated with an increase in zon~ density
and are contm~ to the 'highest and best use' of the Nicolas Valley areaz
Decreased ~ of currein rural lifestyle
Increasexl vehicular and pedestrian traffic
Increased local populefion density and crime
Negative impact for safe equesh'ian usage
Further eradication of an ~ endangered species:
The 'Rural Ten~mhn Reskienf
Nieolas Valley Study Recommendation Page 2
We can find no clear overriding positive aspeet$, (either financially, cultunl~y or quality of
life enhancing) to the proposal to change the existing zoning from R-R-2 1/2. We located
to Temecula, specifically in the Nicolas Valley area, to enjoy the riches of the rural lifestyle.
We do not desire, nor can we afford, the costs associated with improvements, assessments,
etc. which are ~y linkexl to increased density. In this regard we would be pcorer in
more ways than one.
We are not developers, but are homeowners residing in the immediate neighborhoods of
the Nicolas Valley Special Study and our lifestyles are directly impaccwxt by the remits and
recommendations that this process will produce. We intend to be represented when the
study recommendations are brought before the Planning Commission and subsequently the
City Council. We would like this letter to be placed on record as being in opposition to
zoning density increases when the hearing is conducted.
Additionally, we would like to extend our gx, atituda to the you and the commission
members for recognizing the residents who voiced their opposition to the Johnson Ranch
high density residential ~. We believe that Temecula is fury capable of becoming
an attractive mix of rural residential units coupled with a balance of light industrial
businesses. This distinctive association can offer the community an opportunity for
prosperity, serf~reliance and rural charisma second to none. It can establish itself as a
shining example for others on how to mature as a community without the ills affiliated
with high &mity residential develuvntent which have pochnarked ,Southern Califomi
Hease continue to maintain a questioning attitude regarding the merit of high density
residential growth ~ by land developers, especially in the Johnson and Roripaugh
projects which impact our immediate area. We are members of a growing population of
local rural residents who stand in vFl~ition to the intense residential develvy,uent of rural
Temecula and its current spheres of influence. We are collectively known as CaRT -
Coalition for a Rural Temeatl Use our voice to communicate to the representatives of
these projects that we believe in adding greater value to Temecula through less-dense,
rural-residential development.
Greg Duncan
ECEIVED
FEB 2 8 199
I
February 14, 1995
TO:
FROM;
The City of Temecula
Temecuh Harming Comxtdssion
43174 Business Park Drive
ATfl:,NTION:
Chairman Ford~ Commissioners Bhir, Fahey, Shven and Webster
stm3 cr:
Nieolas VaLley Special Study Recommendation
I would like to thank you and the city staff for undertaking the extra effort of
orchestrating the special study meetings for the residents of the Nicolas Valley Special
Study area. The information was enlightening and valuable. The individuals from the
city s~ff were always professional and courteous to what could be described as a
sometimes 'lively~ crowd. This is exempiary city government, "of the people, for the
people and by the people". All involved should be commendeeL I reccommend that
no change be made to the Current Nicolas Valley Area Zoning.
The first study meeting was attended by roughly 50% of the property owners. Roughly
half were opposed to increased zoning density. The second meeting was artended by
roughly 20% of the property owners. Roughly 80% were opposed to increased zoning
density, A handful of residents were in favor of doing Tsomething' and this floated
along the lines of improvements to drainage and circulation, but no~ necessarily
increased zoning density.
I believe that there is an overall negative value-added associated with increased
population density in what is now predominately a 2 1/2 acre minimum parcel area.
The following are perceived to be the negatives associated with an increase in zoning
density and are contrary to the 'highest and best use' of the Nieolas Valley area:
Decreased quality of ourrein rural lifestyle
Increased vehicular and pedest,lan traffic
Increased local population density and crime
Negative impac~ for safe equestrian usage
Further eradication of an urdisted endangered species:
The 'Rural Temeculan Resident'
Nicolas Valley Special Study Recommendation Page
I can find no clear overriding positive aspects, (either financially, culturally or quality
of life enhancing) to the proposal to change the existing zoning from R-R-2 1/2. I
located to Temecula, specifically in the Nicolas Valley area, to enjoy the riches of the
rural lifestyle. I do not desire, nor can I afford, the costs associated with
improvements, assessments, etc. which are directly linked to increased density. In this
regard I would be poorer in more ways than one.
I am not a developer, but am a homeowner residing in the immediate neighborhoods
of the Nicolas Valley Special Study and my lifestyles are directly impacted by the results
and recommendations that this process will produce. I intend to be represented when
the study recommendations are brought before the Manning Commission and
subsequently the City Council. I would like this letter to be placed on record as Leing
in opposition to zoning density increases when the hearing is conducted.
Additionally, I would like to extend my gratitude to the you and the commission
members for recognizing the residents who voiced their opposition to the Johnson
Ranch high density residential proposal. I believe that Temeoula is fully capable of
becoming an attractive mix of rural residential units coupled with a balance of light
indu~,ial businesses. This distinctive association can offer the community an
opportunity for prosperity, serf-reliance and rural charisma second to none. It can
establish itself as a shining example for others on how to mature as a community
without the ills affiliated with high density residential development which have
pockmarked Sonthem California.
Please continue to maintain a questioning attitude regarding the merit of high density
residential growth proposed by land developers, especially in the Johnson and
Roripau~h projects which impact my immediate area. I am a member of a growing
population of local rural residents who stand in opposition to the intense residential
development of rural Temecula and its cUrrent spheres of influence. We are
collectively known as CaRT - Coalition for a Rural Temecula. Use my voice to
communicate to the representatives of these projects that we believe in addin~ ~reater
value to Temecula through less~dense, rural-residential developiiient.
Respectfully,
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
Lb ~ ~ ERS SUPPORTING INCREASES IN LAND USE DESIGNATION
2/17/95
To: Craig Ruiz
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Dr.
Temecula, Ca. 92590-3606
RE: General Plan / Nicolas Valley Study Area
Assessor Parcel No's 914-500'12,13,14,15,8,& 10
Dear Craig
As pointed out at the 2/13/95 work shop, there is a tremendous
drainage and future infrastructure impact along Nicolas ~oad.
The burden is greater on my property than most other's.
Density intensification is necessary to ever hope to bear the
cost associated with any future development for my property.
In order that I mightbe able to carry those cost~ I respectfully
request a medium to high density designation for this entire
block, including AP # 914-500-8,9,10,12,13,14,15,16,& 17, This
block is bordered by Nicolas Rd.,North - Calle Medusa, West
and Calle Girasol, East.
Tract #'s 18518,23483,22148, and 23220 (map included) are
directly adjacent and border my block to the south. These tracts
are 7200 sq. ft. lots with a total of 584 plus homes and are
occupied now. The city park site is also adjacent to this block.
Please review the exhibits enclosed and prepare a copy for each
commissioner for the meeting.
Thank you for your help in this matter. If you have any questions
regarding any of the above, please feel free to call Ron Rauch,
at (714) 583-0441
Sincerely,
2/17/95
To: Craig Ruiz
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Dr.
Temecula, Ca. 92590-3606
RE: General Plan / Nicolas Valley Study Area
Assessor Parcel No's 914-500-12,13,14,15,8,& 10
Dear Craig
As pointed out at the 2/13/95 work shop, there is a tremendous
drainage and future infrastructure impact along Nicolas road.
The burden is greater on my property than most other's.
Density intensification is necessary to ever hope to bear the
cost associated with any future development for my property.
In order that I might be able to carry those cost, I respectfully
request a medium to high density designation for this entire
block, including AP # 914-500-8,9,10,12,13,14,15,16,& 17, This
block is bordered by Nicolas Rd.,North - Calle Medusa, West
and Calle Girasol, East.
Tract #'s 18518,23483,22148, and 23220 (map included) are
directly adjacent and border my block to the south. These tracts
are 7200 sq. ft. lots with a total of 584 plus homes and are
occupied now. The city park site is also adjacent to this block.
Please review the exhibits enclosed and prepare a copy for each
commissioner for the meeting.
Thank you for your help in this matter.
regarding any of the above, please feel
at (714) 583-0441
If you have any questions
free to call Ron Rauch,
Sincerely,
,/ ;e"' ' ~"
', ', ,b ,,, · - -- ~
.~,~,.,,.. I i,~,
_ ~%'..'- .... --, I~ ':" · . ".'.
'~ ' /IN ../,'~ :' ':-.-'-~.:-. i~l,,.~
'~,4 .I .,'""I~ , ,
, :,;, ,j",
./~-. ,...,...,.~ · [} .,.-~ '.-!?-,. ;
~;I. ,"" .. ~ ".,, ',~
eo '!:' '-:~ .'" , .t®,~ ,"L~'~ ~
" ':':--.~_~
'7L " '-': "2~: "'
February 28,1995
Mr. Craig Ruiz
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temeeula, CA 92590
RE: Nicholas Valley Special Study
RECEIVED
/ins'd, ........
Thank you for setting up the meetings to obtain the opinion of the property owners in the
Nicolas Valley. While I appreciate the effort to derive three scenarios for development in
the area, I think all three missed the mark. This group of diverse property owners cannot be
treated as a few major land developers. What you basically offered was a trade of potential
zoning for development fees, the usual kind of deal with developers. While developers see
this as a business deal, most homeowners surely cannot, especially ff they like the land that
they have as is. In addition, the improvements offered were sanply not much of a benefit.
We should not need improve Nicolas Road, when the main collectors are Calle Girasol and
Liefer Roads, both of which will soon be paved regardless. We should also not try to turn
flood plains into housing tracts by lining the creeks at great cost and then creating
liquefaction problems. This is not what the people in the area want, even the ones who own
property for speculative purposes. It's no wonder that llnle interest was shown in your
proposals. These proposal would increase the tax burden for many years in exchange for
potential financial gain that cant be realized until the property is cut up.
I also do not agree that a consensus was reached for all Nicolas Valley landowners at the
meeting. Many of the lot owners were absentees and could not make the meeting. I know
that some of them bought property they expected to be able to split in order to finance
dream houses or make retirement more comfortable. We did not hear from these folks.
ff this area is develop into an quality rural residential neighborhood, the current very low
density zoning must be changed. The currently developed properties are quite varied, and
for this reason the area cannot support mansions of the type in Santiago Ranchos which
have the same minimum lot size. The problem now is that the land has litfie value since
dwelling units cannot be constructed without the major expense of bring an all-weather
road from the unit to existing all-weather road. When Calle Girasol/Calle Chapos and
Liefer are paved, the land will become more vainable, making it feasible to build higher
quality homes, one of the few viable land uses since small projects with inexpensive homes
could not compete with the major subdivisions. Given the varied owners, from land
speculators to fixed income retirees, the usual developer-city bargaining cannot be
followed. I propose a different approach based on the following:
1. Let the creeks be creeks and make no special effort to turn flood plain.q into housing
tracts. The highest density shown in your proposals was in the flood plains (since they are
flat) when actually many of the lots should have zero density unless the owner performs
remedialion as a condition to development.
2. Allow zoningfrom 1/'2 to 2 1/2 acres in the General Ran depending on the specific
topography of the pwperty and the willingness of the owner to perform the necessary
remedialion. Don't tie the general plan to improvements at the start, but mandate
impwvements as a requ'n'ement for lot splits to less than the current 2 1/2 acres.
3. The improvements to Nicolas Road should be borne by the mega developments
proposed by Ro~paugh and Johnson. They will have thousands of houses that would
routinely use this road compared to a few residences in the Nicolas Valley that really need
the road.
4. Other than the soon-to-be completed improvements on Calle Girasol/Calle Chapos and
Liefer R0ad~ let property owners be responsible for them. Most of these will be short
sections of road affecting only a relatively few properties. The existing t~quixements for
paved, all-weather access for new dwellings is sufficient to enforce the needed
improvements.
5. If further improvements are required, collect fees per lot as a part of the split process and
put them in as they can financed.
I hope that you will consider the points raised. I think most of us property owners in the
Nicolas Valley, especially those of us who live here now, want the area to remain rural in
nature. I hope that you, the other planners, the Planning Commission, and the City council
take this into account and provide us with the needed flexibility to create the neighborhood
that we desire. Please don't rush to a decision. Let absentee landowners (which I am
contacted to upd~t~ the situation) have their say. If at all possible, any decision should be
made after the paving of the collector roatt~. Without your help, the Nicolas V alley will
stagnate, with your help it will develop into a high quality residential area that the City can
he proud of.
Temecula, CA 92591
cc: Planning Commission