HomeMy WebLinkAbout090897 PC AgendaTEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
September 8, 1997, 6:00 PM
43200 Business Park Drive
Council Chambers
Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Fahey
ROLL CALL:
Fahey, Gucrricro, Miller, Slaven and Soltysiak
PUBLIC COMMF~NTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on
items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you
desire to speak to the Commissioners about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to
Speak" form should be filled out and ~ed with the Commission Secretary.
When you arc called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Planning Secretary
before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual
speakers.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Approval of Agenda
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
PA97-0174 (Development Plan) Costar
Mark P. Esbens~n
Approximately 400 feet southwest of the intersection of
Rancho California Road and Ridge Park Drive (Assessor's
Parcel Number 940-310-34).
The design and construction of two (2) office and
manufacturing buffrings totaling 13,108 square feet.
Negativc Declaration
Patty Anders
Approval
3. Case No:
Planning Application No. PA97-0142 (Tentative Tract
Map No. 23371- Revised)
Planning Application No. PA97-0143 (Tentative Tract
Map No. 28526)
Planning Application No. PA97-0144 (Tentative Tract
Map No. 28482)
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. PA97-0160 (Amendment No.3
to Specific Plan No. 199)
Pbnnin.~ Application No. PA97-0161 (General Plan
Amendment)
Planning Application No. PA97-0204 (Amendment and
R,~tat~ment of Devdopment Agreement for Specific Plan
No. 199, Village A)
Temeku Hills Development Partners, L.P.
South ofLa Serena Way, east of Margarita Road, west of
Meadows Parkway, north of Rancho California Road, within
the Temeku Hills Specific Plan (formerly Margarita Village)
A. To change the General Plan density designations ~'om Low
Medium Density Residential to Low Density within Planning
Area 2; ~'om Neighborhood Commercial to Medium Density
Residential within Planning Area 38; and fi'om Medium
Density Residential to Low Medium Density Residential
within Planning Area 40; all within Specific Plan No. 199,
Temeku Hills (formerly Margarita Village)..
B. To request approval of Amendment No. 3 to Specific Plan
No. 199, Temeku Hills (formerly Margarita Village).
C. To request approval of Amendment and restatement of
Development Agreement for Specific Plan No. 199, VHlage A)
D. To subdivide 74.5 acres into 368 single family residential lots,
2 landscape lots and 2 open space/recreational lots (Tentative
Tract Map No. 28482).
E. To subdivide 6.04 acres into 44 single family residential lots
(Tentative Tract Map No. 28526).
F. To revise the subdivision of 118.3 acres within Tentative Tract
Map No. 23371, creating 474 single family residential lots,
and 1 park site.
Determination of Consistency with a project for which an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified
Carole Donahoe, Project Planner
Approval
PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
OTHER BUSINESS
Next meeting:
ADJOURNMF~NT
September 15, 1997 - Regular Planning Commksion meeting
ITEM #2
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Debbie Ubnosk/,'P~/lanning Manager
September 8, 1997
Planning Application PA97-0174 (Development Plan)
Prepared by: Patty Anders, Assistant Planner
Planning Application PA97-0174 is a Development Plan request to construct and operate two office
buildings totaling 13,108 square feet on a one acre site located approximately 400 feet southwest of
the intersection of Rancho California and Ridge Park Drive. The subject site is located in the BP
(Business Park) zoning classification and is surrounded by Business Park and Light Industrial (LI)
zones.
After receiving a formal application submittal, staff thoroughly analyzed the area, the underlying
zoning classifications, the existing architectural styles, the applicant's proposed design, and the City-
Wide Design Guidelines. After considering all of these issues, staff determined that the proposed
design was consistent with the City-Wide Design Guidelines and was an appropriate architectural
style for the Business Park and Light Industrial zoning classifications which surround the subject site.
In contrast, some of the other structures in the area don't appear to be entirely appropriate with the
City's industrial zoning designations. Moreover, staff felt the proposed design with the curved, blue
reflective glass, red horizontal ~ and blue signage created a high quality, contemporary design that
was in proper scale in terms of bulk and mass.
The application was heard by the Planning Commission on August 18, 1997. The Commission
expressed concern with the project's architectural compatibility with the existing structures to the
south and east. The Commission directed staff to work with the applicant to revise the project to be
more compatible in terms of overall design, colors and materials with the existing structures.
Staff has meet with the owner's architect and representative to discuss alternative design options.
Staff also reviewed the City-Wide Design Guidelines again and found that the proposed design is
consistent with the Design Guidelines. The owner and architect considered a color change to a more
earth-tone color; however, it was felt that the company's lapis blue signage would not integrate well
with a earth-tone building color. Therefore, the applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission
consider approving the design of the buildings as proposed.
R:~STAFFRFBI74PA97.PC'2 9/3/97 pa
The previous staff report is included for the Commission's consideration of these applications.
Attachment:
1. August 18, 1997 Staff R~port - Blue Page 3
R:\STAFFRPT~174PA97.PC2 9/3/97 pa
ATTACHMF-NT NO. 1
AUGUST 18, 1997 STAFF REPORT
R:',STAFFR/rI~I74PAQT.PC'2 913197 ps
3
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 18, 1997
Planning Application No. PA97-0174 - Development Plan
(Mark P. Esbensen)
Prepared By: Patty Anders, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application
No. 97-0174;
ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning
Application No. 97-0174;
ADOPT Resolution No. 97- approving Planning
Application No. 97-0174 based upon the Analysis and
Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Mark P. Esbensen / Costar
REPRESENTATIVE:
DLS Builders
PROPOSAL:
To construct and operate two office buildings totaling 13,108
square feet on a one acre site.
LOCATION:
Approximately 400 feet southwest of the intersection of Rancho
California and Ridge Park Drive.
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
BP (Business Park)
EXISTING ZONING:
BP (Business Park)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
BP (Business Park) and LI (Light Industrial)
BP (Business Park)
LI (Light Industrial)
LI (Light Industrial)
PROPOSED ZONING:
Not requested
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North: Vacant
South: Office Buildings
East: Office Buildings
West: Vacant
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Area:
Building Area:
Landscape Area:
Paved Area:
Parking Required:
Parking Provided:
Building Height:
1 acre
9,856 square foot office and warehouse building, and a
3,252 square foot office building, totalling 13, 108 square
feet of building area
10,516 square feet
19,936 square feet
40 spaces
42 spaces
24 feet
BACKGROUND
A pre-application meeting was held for this project on March 12, 1997. The application was
formally submitted to the Planning Department on May 20, 1997. A Development Review
Committee (DRC) meeting was held on June 12, 1997. The project was deemed complete
on July 21, 1997.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of a Development Plan application for the design, construction, associated
landscaping and parking for two office buildings on a one acre parcel. Building 'A' is 9,856
square feet with 1,103 square feet of shipping and receiving area, and 8,753 square feet of
office space. Building 'B' is a 3,252 square foot shell office building. Both buildings total
13,108 square feet.
The subject parcel is a pie shaped lot with the wider portion of the parcel along Ridge Park
Dnve. Therefore, the larger building ('A') is located at the front or east side of the parcel, and
the smaller building ('B') is located at the rear or western portion of the site.
ANALYSIS
Site Design
The project is designed with access being taken from an existing 40 foot shared access
easement off of Ridge Park Drive. 20 feet of the easement is located on the southern portion
of the subject site, and 20 feet is located on the adjacent parcel. The site is designed with good
internal circulation with easy, safe access to both buildings, and complies with the necessary
setback and parking requirements, handicap accessibility and fire truck turn around. Therefore,
the site design is consistent with the provisions of the Development Code and the Design
Guidelines in reference to building location, parking and site circulation.
Architecture & Colors
The buildings were designed as contemporary style office buildings, both with an off-white
("Arizona White") color and blue reflective glass with red horizontal trim. Building 'A' is
proposed as a painted, concrete tilt-up building, and Building 'B' is proposed to be off-white
("Arizona White") stucco exterior finish. The proposed signage for both buildings is "Lapis Blue"
which also adds to the overall contemporary design.
The site was designed with Building 'A' close to the street, with the parking in the center of
the site. As a result, the parking area is screened by the building, and is not highly visible from
the Ridge Park Drive. The east elevation of Building 'A' is very architiculated with curved, blue
reflective glass, a red horizontal trim and two curved patio areas that will have blue umbrellas
and will be screened with landscaping. The design, materials, trim and heavy use of windows
creates a very visually appealing elevation along Ridge Park Drive.
Building 'A' has defined the main entry on the west elevation by utilizing a similar blue
reflective glass (spandrel) around the main entry doors. Building 'B' only has one set of entry
doors which are defined by using blue reflective glass. The blue reflective glass, red horizontal
trim and blue signage create contemporary structures that add interest and depth to the
building. The two buildings work well together by utilizing the same color, materials, similar
design and signage.
The subiect site is located in the Business Park zoning classification and is surrounded by Light
Industrial and Business Park zoning classifications. The various zoning classifications have
resulted in a variety of architectural styles in the immediate area. The subject's proposed
contemporary architecture is determined to be an appropriate and compatible design for the
Business Park zoning classification in terms of overall design, color, materials, site design and
bulk and mass.
Landscaoing
The project proposes to landscape 24.16 percent of the site which is just under the minimum
requirement of 25 percent in the BP (Business Park) zone; however, the landscaping that is
proposed is considered adequate to help screen the necessary elements of the elevations such
as the patio walls facing Ridge Park Drive and the parking area. The site meets the
requirement of a minimum five foot wide landscape planter around its perimeter. There is an
existing landscaped area along the frontage of Ridge Park Drive; however, the applicant will be
required to install sidewalks along Ridge Park Drive. The applicant is proposing to save as much
of the existing landscaping as possible, Landscaping in the form of berming and planrings has
been included along the front of the project.
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATION
The General Plan Land Use designation and the zoning classification for the site is BP (Business
Park), Business offices with associated warehouse uses are permitted with the approval of a
Development Plan, pursuant to Chapter 17.05 of the Development Code, The project as
proposed is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code.
R:~STAF~P-PT~I74PA97.l~C 816197 k~ ~3
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An initial Study has been prepared for this project. The Initial Study determined that although
the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not
considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in
the Conditions of Approval for the project. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project is compatible with the surrounaing land uses, The architecture complements the
existing development to the south and is the appropriate type of architectural design for the
Business Park (BP) zoning district. The proposed contemporary design contributes to an
aesthetically appealing presence along Ridge Park Road. Therefore, it is staffs opinion that
the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan, Development Code and Design
Guidelines.
FINDINGS
The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all
applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project is
consistent with all City Ordinances including: the City's Development Code, Ordinance
No. 655 (Mr. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping
provisions.
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health,
safety and welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and
meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the
public health, safety and welfare.
An Initial Study was prepared for the project and it has determined that although the
proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are
not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project
design and in the Conditions of Approval added to the project.
The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats, including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds. The project
site has been previously disturbed and graded, and streetscape installed on site. There
are no native species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of
plants, no native vegetation on or adjacent to the site. Further, there is no indication
that any wildlife species exist, or that the site serves as a migration corridor. A
DeMinimus impact finding can be made for this project.
R:',STAFFP, FF',I74PA97.PC 816197 kJb 4
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 6
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10
Initial Study - Blue Page 20
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 38
Exhibits - Blue Page 45
A, Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan
D. Site Plan
E. Elevation
F. Landscape Ran
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 97-
]~:\STAFI~,I~'~I74PA97.pC 816197
A'i'i'ACHAMF. iNT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 97-
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TE1VIECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 97--0174 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) TO
CONSTRUCT AND OPERAIE T~VO O~'~ICE BUII.nINGS
TOTAI.ING 13,108 SQUARE FEET ON A ONE ACRE SITE,
LOCATED APPROXIMATELY FOUR HUNDI~RB (400) FEET
SOUTHWEST OF ~ INTERSECTION OF RANCHO
CALIFORNIA AND RIDGE PARK DRIVE KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 940-310-0M
~, Mark P. Esbensen filed Planning Application No. 97-0174 (for Development
Plan) in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
~, Planning Application No. 97-0174 (Development Plan) was processed in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. 97-0174
('Development Plan) on August 18, 1997, 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 heating, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, ff any, of all persons desixing to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating
to Planning Application No. 97-0174 (Development Plan);
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMiMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERNfINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. F_iacljag~ The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
97-0174 (Development Plan) makes the following findings; to wit:
A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and
with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project is
consistent with all City Ordinances including: the City's Development Code, Ordinance No. 655
(Mr. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions.
R:\STAFFRFFX174pA97,pC 816/97 klb 7
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the
public health, safety and welfare. The pwj~ct as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and
meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public
health, safety and welfare.
C. An Initial Study was prepared for the project and it has determined that
although the plyposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are
not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in
the Conditions of Approval added to the project.
D. The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare
species or their habitats, including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds. The
project site has been previously disturbed and graded, and streetscape installed on site. There are
no native species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of plants, no native
vegetation on or adjacent to the site. Further, there is no indication that any wildlife species exist.
or that the site serves as a migration corridor. A DeMinimus impact finding can be made for this
project.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study was prepared for this project and
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 Mitigated Negative Declaration,
therefore, is hereby adopted.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Planning Application No. 97-0174 to construct and operate two office buildings totaling 13,108
square feet on a one acre parcel located on Ridge Park Drive, approximately four hundred (400)
feet northeast of the intersection of Rancho California Road and Ridge Park Drive known as
Assessor's Parcel No. 940-310-034 subject to Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein
by this reference and made a pan hereof.
Section ~. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of August, 1997.
Linda Fahey, Chairman
I }IERERy CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a reg.hr meeting thereof, held on the 18th day of August,
1997 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\STAFFRPT~I74pA97.pC 8/6/97 kfo 10
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA97-0174 IDevelopment Plan - Mark P. Esbensen)
Project Description: A Development Plan for the deign, construction and associated
parking for two office buildings totaling 13,108 square feet
Assessor's Parcel No.: 940-310-O34
Approval Date: August 18, 1997
Expiration Date: August 18, 1999
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 made 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 with a DeMinimus Finding required under Public Resources Code Section
21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight
(48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department
the check as required above, the approval for the pro}act granted shall be void by reason
of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c}.
General Requirements
The use hereby permitted by the approval of Planning Application No. 97-0174
(Development Plan) is for the operation, design and construction of two office buildings
totalling 13, 108 square feet.
The primary use of the proposed structures is office with limited shipping and receiving
(1,103 square feet of Building 'A').
All activities shall be within enclosed buildings, and no outdoor storage is permitted.
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. 9%0174 (Development Plan). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of
any claim, action, or proceeding for which indemnification is sought and shall further
cooperate fully in the defense of the action,
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
R:XSTAFFRP"FxI74pA97.PC 816197 k~ 11
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 (Site Plan),
approved with Planning Application No. 97-0174, or as amended by these conditions.
a. A minimum of forty (40) parking spaces shall be provided.
b. A minimum of two (2) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided.
c. Two (2) Class I lockers or Class II bicycle racks shall be provided.
Landscaping shall conform substantially with the approved landscape plan, or as
amended by these conditions. Landscaping installed for the project shall be
continuously maintained to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager. If it is determined
that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Manager shall have the
authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with
the approved landscape plan.
9. Building elevations shall conform substantially with the approved plans (Color
elevations), or as amended by these conditions.
10. All mechanical and roof equipment shall be screened from public view.
11.
The applicant shall submit the actual colors (Frazee manufacturer and number) to be
used for the project. The colors and materials used shall conform substantially with the
approved color and material board, or as amended by these conditions.
Material
Building 'A'- Concrete Tilt-Up Panel
Building 'B' - Exterior Stucco Finish
Horizontal Trim on Glass
Reflective Glass
Reflective Glass
Color
Arizona White No.5830W
Arizona White No. 5830W
SafetyRed
Blue Reflective Glass
SRandel Glass to match Blue Reflective Glass
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
12.
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula
Municipal Code.
13.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report tha~ all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
14. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid.
R:\STAFFR2rI'XI74PAg'7.PC 816197 kF~ I 2
15.
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.
16.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to
the Planning Department for approval. The location, number, genus, species, and
container size of the plants shall be shown. These plans shall be consistent with the
Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the
landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items:
Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecuta Fee Schedule at time of
submittal).
b. One (1} copy of the approved grading plan.
c. Water usage calculations per Ordinance No. 94-22 (Water Efficient Ordinance).
d. Total cost estimate of planrings and irrigation (in accordance with the plan).
17.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
18. An application for signage shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Manager.
19. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view.
20.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation,
and shading plans.
21.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a
condition acceptable to the Planning Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of
weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in
good working order.
22.
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:
R:\STAFFRFI~F74pAg'7.pC 8/6/97 k~o 13
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or
license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be
towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be
reclaimed at or by telephone
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a
surtace identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least
3 square feet in size.
23.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager 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.
24.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
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.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
26.
Comply with applicable provisions of the 1994 edition of the California Building,
Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1993 National Electrical Code; California
Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula
Municipal Code.
27.
Submit at time of plan review complete exterior site lighting plans in compliance with
Ordinance Number 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
28. Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to commencement of any
construction work,
29. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
30.
The occupancy classification of the proposed use shall be determined at time of plan
review.
31,
All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations.
Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1,
1994).
32. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
33. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry.
34. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement.
35.
Provide house electrical meter provisions for per for the operation of exterior lighting,
fire alarm systems.
36.
Restroom fixtures. number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the
1994 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C.
37. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system as needed by occupancy.
38.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
39.
Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan for plan review.
40.
Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss
manufacturers engineer are required for plan review submittal, if used for the
construction.
41,
Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility.
Show all ramps, sidewalks, walks, grades, handrails, etc.
42.
Provide an accessible path of egress, away from the building, from northern door of
building.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any
Government Agency. 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 will subject the project to further review and may require revision.
General Requirements
A Grading Permit for precise grading, includir~g all onsite flat work and improvements,
shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any
construction outside of the City*maintained road right-of-way.
44.
All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated
for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site
and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
45.
A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and
approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all
necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and
private property.
R:',STAFFRFI'xI74pA97.pC 816197 k~ 15
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 Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Soils or Civil Engineer and submitted to
the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall
address all soils conditions of the site. and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and pavement sections.
48.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
49.
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.
50.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
51.
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.
52.
An Area Drainage Plan fee shall be paid to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District prior to issuance of any permit. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee
or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs
to be paid.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
53.
Precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to
approval by the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be
observed:
Flowline grades shall be 0,5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over
A.C. paving.
Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages
in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400 and 401.
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.
All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed
through under sidewalk drains.
54.
The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula
General Ran standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved
by the Department of Public Works:
Improve Ridge Park Drive (Secondary Highway Standards - 88' R/W) to include
installation of sidewalk, street lights, and drainage facilities.
55.
The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance
with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soils
Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
56.
The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code
and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06.
57.
The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and wave all rights to object
to the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge
and Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed Western
Bypass Corridor in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be
subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney.
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
58.
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
59.
All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and
City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
60.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken
shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Del~artment of Public
Works.
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Prior to installation of street lights or issuance of building permits, whichever
comes first, the applicant, or his assignee, shall pay the appropriate fees for
the dedication of arterial street lights into the TCSD maintenance program
FIRE DEPARTMENT
62.
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial building using the procedures established in City of
Temecula Ordinances and recognized fire protection standards. A fire flow of 1500
GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure must be available before
any combustible material is placed on the job site.
R:\STAFFRY'I~I74PA~7.PC 8/6/97 Idb 17
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6"x4"x2-2 1/1"), will be
located no less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as
measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available
from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water plans to the Fire Department for
review. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, containing a Fire Department
approval signature block, and shall conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and
minimum fire flow. Once the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals
shall be presented to the Fire Department for signature.
The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by
the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed
on the job site.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall pay $.25 per square foot
as mitigation for fire protection impacts.
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.
68.
69.
70.
71.
73.
74.
Install a complete fire sprinkler system in building A. 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 building(s). A statement that the building
will be automatically fire sprinkled must be included on the title page of the building
plans.
Install a supervised waterflow monitoring fire alarm system in building A. Plans shall be
submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation.
Knox Key lock boxes shall be installed on all buildings/suites. If building/suite requires
Hazardous Material Reporting (Material Safety Data Sheets) the Knox HAZ MAT Data
and key storage cabinets shall be installed. If building/suites are protected by a fire or
burglar alarm system, the boxes will require "Tamper" monitoring. Plans shall be
submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation.
All exit doors shall be openable without the use of key or special knowledge or effort.
Occupancy separation walls will be required as per the Uniform Building Code, Section
302.4.
Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2AI OBC. Contact a certified
extinguisher company for proper placement.
It is prohibited to use/process or store any materials in this occupancy that would
classify it as an "H" occupancy per Chapter 3 of the Uniform Building Code.
R:~STAFYPd"~I74pA97.pC 816/97 klb 18
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets and driveways to indicate location
of fire hydrants. They shall be mounted in the middle of the street directly in line with
fire hydrant.
Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire
Department for approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane
painting and or signs.
Street address shall be posted, ~n a visible location, minimum 12 inches in height, on the
street side of the building with a contrasting background.
All buildings shall be constructed with fire retardant roofing materials as described in
The Uniform Building Code. Any wood shingles or shakes shall be a Class "B" rating
and shall be approved by the fire department prior to installation.
Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and
Safety Office.
Please contact the Fire Department for a final inspection prior to occupancy.
OTHER AGENCIES
81.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County
Flood Control transmittal dated June 24, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
82.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of
Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated June 16, 1997, a
copy of which is attached.
83.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District's transmittal dated June 4, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
84.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in teh City of Temecula
Police Department transmittal dated June 2, 1.997 that are not in conflict with the City
of Temecuta Conditions of Approval.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, I understand and I accept all the
above mentioned Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be
maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish
to make to the project shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
Applicant Name
R:XSTAFF'Pj~'xI74PA97.l~C 8/6/97 Idb 19
DAVID P. ZAPPE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
City of Ternecula
Ptannin Department
43200 li~usiness Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Attention: P~TTv A/M ~ F. tR_~, .
Ladies and Gentlemen:
1995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
909/275-1200
909/788-9965 FAX
........ 7829.
Re: IP g q - l q
The District does not normally recommend conall'dons for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities.
The District also does not p an check city and use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood
hazard reports for such cases D strict comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of
spec fic riterest to the D sthct inctud ng Disthct Master Drains e Plan facilities oti~er regional flood control and
drains e fad ties which could be cons alered a ogical componentlot extension of a master plan system, and Disthct
Area ~reainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is provided.
The District has not reviewed the reposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in an wa
constitute or imply District appmv;l~or endorsement of the proposed project v/ffih respect to flood hazard, public ~t;al~
and safety or any other such issue:
L.//This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of regional
interest proposed.
This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will accept ownership of such facilities on
wdtten request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to Distdct standards, and D~strict plan check and
inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check. inspection and administrative fees will be
required.
This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be
cons dered regional in nature and/or a logical extension of the adopted
Master Drainage Plan. The District would consider acceptin ownership of such facilities on written request
of the Ci . Facilities must be constructed to District standaYs and District plan check and inspection will be
reduired%r Disthct acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. Vt:It.-cg
Distric~or Ci dot to final ap royal of the pro'ect. or in t~e case of a arcel map or subdivision prior to
recordation ;t'(tge final map. ~'Pges to be paid s~ould be at the rate in efiPeac~ at the time of recordation, or if
deferred, at the time of issuance of the actual permit
GENERAL INFORMATION
This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Eliminatiori S stem (NPDES) permit from the State Water
Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordslion, or other ~V;al approval should not be given until the City.
has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt.
If this pro ect involves a Federal EmergenCy Management Agency (FEMA) mapped flood plain, then the City should
require }t~e applicant to rovide all studies calculations, plans and other reformation required to meet FEMA
requirements and should f~rther require that ;.he applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) pdor
to grading. recordslion or other final approval of the project. and a Letter of Map Rev s on (LOMR) prior to occupancy.
If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is im acted by this project, the City should require the a ticant to
obtain a Section 1601/1603 A teemerit from the California Department of Fish and Game and a Clean ~ater Act
Section 404 Permit from the U.B. Army Corps of En ineers, or wdtten correspondence from these agencies indicating
the project is exempt from these requirements. A~lean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit.
Very truly yours,
STUART E. MCKIBBIN
Senior Civil Engineer
Date:--
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
DATE: June 16, 1997
TO:
FROM:
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ATTN: Patty Anders
GREGOR DELLENBACH, Environmental Health Specialist IV
PLOT PLAN NO. PA97-174 (Development Plan)
Department of Environmental Health has received and reviewed the Hot Plan No. PA97-174
(Development Plan) and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services may be
available in this area.
PRIOR TO PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL, "will-serve" letters from the water and sewering
agencies will be required.
GD:dr
{ c~09> 275-8980
ancho
June 4,1997
Ms. Patty Anders, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAILABILITY
PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP 23968
APN 940-310-034
P_ANN!NG APPLICATION NO. PA97-!74
Dear Ms. Anders:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within
the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water
service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial
arrangements between RCWD and the property owner.
If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD
for fees and requirements.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing
an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any,
to RCWD.
If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services
Representative at this office.
SincereIv
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
97ISB eb10OlFO121FEF
c: Laurie '¢Alfiams, Engineering Services Supervisor
City of Temecula
Temecula Police Department
June 2, 1997
Planning Department
PA97-174 (Construct 2 offices and manufacturing buildings)
Case Planner: Patty Andera
Wiffi respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced project, the Poice Department
recommends the following 'Officer Safety' measures be provided in accordance with City of
Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized pogce safety standards and training codes:
1. Applicant shall ensure all landscaping surrounding the bugcling are maintained at a height no
greater than thirty-eLx {36) inches.
2. Applicant shall ensue all trees on the property are maintJiined away from all build'rags as to
deter root accessabirAy fo~ suspect(s},
3. Additionally, plants. $hrubbel~ and trees will be maintained in ereas not designated for foot
trafFH; or areas to create any dead spots for suspects to hide or conceal themselves both day/night
time hours.
4, Light fixtures shall be installed to iUuminate aft perking areas, driveways, end pedestrian
walkways. Them areas shall be fit with a minimum maintained one {13 foot candle of lig~ at
ground level, evenly dispersed acror. s the surface, eliminating all shadows, AJI extBrior light Furlurea
shall be vandal resistant end po~itioned so as not to produce glare. The installation of al esterio~
lighdng shall be in compliance with Mt. Palemar LIghting Ordinance.
5. Vandal resistant light f'mutes shall be installed above all exterior doors on each building. These
light fixtures shall ifiuminate the door surface with a minimum maintained one (1} loot candle of
Eght at ground level, evenly dispersed.
6. All exterior ligh'~ng shall be controlled by timers or other means that prevent the lights from
being turned off by unanthodzed persons.
7. Upon completion of each bugdlg, a monitored alarm system shall be installed to deter
unauthorized entryburglary and to notify the Police Department of unauthorized intrusion.
8. AJI doors, windows, locking mechanisms, hinges, and other miscellaneous hardware shall be of
commercial or institutional grade.
9. Any public telephones located on the exterior of the factty shall be placed In e well-lighted,
highly v~sglle area. and Instaled with e 'Call-Out Only* feature to deter loitering.
10. The address for the Iocafjon ~halJ be painted on the roof using numbers no hL~a than four (4)
feet in height, in a color which contrasts the background and la highly visible du~ing the day and
night-rime hours.
11. Roof hatches shall be painted 'International Orange.'
12. Street address shall be posted in e visible location, minimum 14 inches in height, on the street
side of the building wiU1 a contrbo-'-'-,g background,
iHonday J~ele 2, 1997 lO:11am -- From '9095062&38, -- Page 3e
8~/82/1997 18:59 9895862838 TE]~cs. A RI,!CIE
PAGE 03
Any questions regarding l~e~e cond'rtions can be referred re, the PoEe. a Department Czlme
Prevention & Plans Section {909) 506-2626.
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
R:\,STA~I74pA97.pC 8/6~97kib 20
CITY OF TEMECULA
Environmental Checklist
5
6,
7.
8
10
Project Ti~e:
Lead Agency Name and Address:
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Project Location:
Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning:
Description of Project:
Surroundring Land Uses and Setting:
Other public agencies whose approval
Is required:
Platruing Application No. PA97-0174
(Development Plan) Mark P. Esbensen
City of Temeada, 43200 Business Park Drive
Temeeula, CA 92590
Patty Anders, Assistant Planner, (909) 694-6400
Approximately 400 feet southwest of the intersection of
Rancho Califorma and Ridge Park Drive.
BP (Business Park)
BP (Business Park)
To construct and operate two office buildings totaling
13,108 square feet on a one acre site.
Vacant land is to the north and escarpment is to the west.
Office and warehouse buildings are to the east and south.
Fire Deparanent, Health Department, Temecula Police
Department, Eastern Mumcipal Water Disu-ict, Rancho
California Water Dismet, Riverside Count},, Flood Conlxol,
Southern California Edison, Southern California Gas
Company, General Telephone
R:',STAFFP, F~I74.pA97.PC g/6/~7 kab 21
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS pOTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Pomtially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages~
[ ] Land Use and planning [ ] HaTards
[ ] Population and Housing [ ] Noise
IX] Geologic Problems [ ] Public Services
IX] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems
[ ] Air Quality IX] Aesthetics
[ ] Transportation/Circulation [ ] Cultural Resources
[ ] Biological Resources [ ] Recreation
[ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I fred that although the proposed project could have a sigm~cant effect on the environment, there will not be a
sigm~cant effect in this case because the rmtigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added
to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
Signature Date: July 25. 1997
Pnnted Name: Pattv Anders For: City of Temecula
R:\STAFFRF~I74pA97.PC 8/6/~7 klb ,2:2
ISSUES AND SLrppORTINO D~P~ORMATION SOURCES
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17)
b. Conflict with applicable environmenUfi plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction Over the project?
c. Be incompatible with existing land use m the vicinity?
d. Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to
soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)?
(Source 1, Figure 5-4, Page 5-17)
e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (including low-income or minority community)?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal:
a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projects? (Source 1, Page 2-23)
b ~nduce substantiaJ grow',h in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. Through project in an ondeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)?
c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?
(Source I, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17)
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving?
Fault rupture? (Source 1, Figure 7-1, Page 7-6)
b Scisrmc ground shaking?
c. Seisrmc ground failure, including liquefaction?
(Source I, Figure 7-2, Page 7-8)
d.Seiche, tsunaml, or volcanic baTnrd?
Landslides or mudflows?
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions
from excavation, grading or fill?
g. Subsidence of the land? (Source 2, Figure 7, Page 68)
[] [] []
[] [] []
[] [] [)
[] [] []
[] [] []
[] {1 [] [~
[] [J [] f~
f] fx] [] []
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [] [~
[1 [1 [x] []
[J Ix] []
R:~TAFFRF~ITdPA~7,PC 8/6/97klb 23
ISSUES AND $UPPOR'rI~G INEORMATION SOURCE~
Sisni~am
sipm,~
h. Expens:ve soils?
i. Unique geologic or physical features?
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and mount of surface runoff?
Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (Source 1, Figure 7-3, Page 7-10
and Figme 7-4, Page 7-12; Source 5)
Discharge into surfarc waters or other alteration of surface
water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)?
d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body7
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movern~ms?
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
direct additions or widiclrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial
loss of groundwater recharge capability?
g Altered d/recUon or rate of flow of Foundwater?
h Impacts to groundwater quality?
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies7
(Source 2, Page 263)
5. AI]R QUALITY. Would the proposal:
Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
(Source 3, Page 6-10 and 6-11, Table 6-2)
b Expose sensitive receptors to polluta.nts7
c. Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause
any change in climate?
[] [] Pq [1
[] [] [] ~
[] [] [x]
[] [] Ix] [3
[] fx] [] []
[] [] ~] []
[] [] [] Pq
[] [] [] ['x]
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [] [xJ
[] [] [3
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] [] Ix]
R:',~TAFYP-,vI'q74PA97,PC g/6/97 k~ 24
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORJ~IATION SOURCES
sirenre. No
d. Create objectionable odors?
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCUlaTION.
Would the proposal mult in:
a. Increase vehicle tnps or traffic congest/on?
b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp cotyes
or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses)?
c Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
d./nsufficient parking capacity on-site or off-sire?
(Source 4, Table 17.24(a), Page 17-24-9)
e. Hazards or bamers for pedestnarts or bicyclists?
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(Source 4, Chapter 17.24, Page 12)
g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, snLmals
and bids)? (Source 1, Page 5-15, Figure 5-3)
b Locally designated species (e,g. heritage trees)'7
(Source 1, Figure 5-3, Page 5-15)
c Leeally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest,
coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source 1, Figure 5-3, Page 5-I 5)
d Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, npanan and vernal pool)?
(Source 1, Figure 5-3, Page 5-15)
e. Wildlife dispersal or rniSration coredors?
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
[] [] [] Ix3
[] [1 pc'] []
[] [] [] t'x]
[] [] [1 Ix]
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [] t'x]
[] [] [] [xl
[1 [] [] pc']
[] [] [] Pq
[1 [] f] ['-q
[] [] [1 [~
[] f] []: [~
[] [] [] [~
[] [1 1] [x]
R:\STAFFRFI'xI74pA97,PC 816/97 Ir2o 25
ISSUES A,NO SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
p~mtially
SiSaifica~ No
b. Use non-renewal resources in a w~ste~ul end inefficient
manner?
c. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of future value to the region and the residents
of the State7
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pestleides,
chefmeal or radiation)? (Source 1, Figure 7 -5, Page 7 - 14)
b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
c. The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazerd7
d Exposure of people to exisUng sources of potential health
hazards?
e Increase fLre hazard in areas with ~mmmable brush,
grass, or trees?
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a Increase in existing noise levels?
b Exposure ofpeople to severe noise levels7
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect.
upon, or result in a ne~d for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a FU'e protection?
b. Police protection?
c Schools?
d. Mamtenance ofpublic facilities, mcludingroads?
e. Other governmental ser~ces?
[] [] Fx] []
[] [] [] Pq
[] [] [] ['x]
[] [] [] ix]
[] [] []
[] [] [] Ex]
[] [) []
[] [] [~ []
[] [] Ix] []
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[
[]
[]
[]
[]
Ix] [ ]
Ex] [ ]
[x] []
[x] []
[] Ix]
ISSUES AND SUPPORTINO INFORMATION SOURCES
SiW~L~ct~ No
12. UTILx ra~:S AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilttim:
a. power or natural gas?
b Commumcations systems?
c. Local or regional water ~-eatment or distribution
facilities?
d. Sewer or septic tanks? (Source 2, Page 39-40)
e Storm water drainage?
~ Solid waste disposal?
g Local or regional water supplies?
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a Affect a scemc vista or seeroe highway?
b Have a d~monstrable negative aesthetic effect?
c Create light or glare?
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a. Disturb paleontological resources? (Source 2, Figure 55.
Page 280; Source 6)
b Disturb archaeological resources? (Source 2, Figure 56,
Page 283)
c Affect historical resources?
d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would
affect unique eth~c cultural values?
e Restrict ex~sung religious or sacred uses within the potential
Impact area?
[] [] [] pc]
[] [] [] [~
[J [] Ix] [J
[] [1 []
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] [] [x']
[] [1 [] [x]
[] [] []
[] ~] []
[] [] [x] []
[] [] [x'] []
[1 [] ~] [l
[J [] [] [x"J
[1 [1 [] [~
[1 [1 [1 ['x'j
R:~STAFFRF~I74PA97.PC 816/97
ISSUES AND SUPPORTINO I~FORMATION SOURCES
No
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a. Inere~.se the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facildties?
b. Affect existing recreational oppormmtics?
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGN2W~CANCE,
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below seE-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or antmail community, reduce the number of restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or arereal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history
or prehistory?
b Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals7
Does the project have impacts that area individually
lureted, but cumulativcly considerable? ("Cumulativcly
considerable" means that the mcnrmental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects)
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
17. EARI.II~.R ANALYSES. None.
[] [] []
[1 [] [] Ix]
[] [] [] [x']
[1 [] [] [x']
[] [] []
[] [] [1 ~
SOURCES
Ci.ty of Ternecula General Plan.
2 Ci,ty of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.
3 South Co~t Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
4 City of Temecula Development Code
R:\STAFFRPT',174pA~7.pC 816197 k~b 28
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1.b,
The project will not conflict with applicable environmental plans or polices adopted by
agencies with jurisdiction over the project. The project is consistent with the City's
General Ran Land Use Designation of BP (Business Park). Impacts from all General Plan
Land Use Designations were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the
General Ran. Agencies with jurisdiction within the City commented on the scope of the
analysis contained in the EIR and how the land uses would impact their particular
agency. Mitigation measures approved with the EIR will be applied to this project.
Further, all agencies with jurisdiction over the project are also being given the
opportunity to comment on the project and it is anticipated that they will make the
appropriate comments as to how the project relates to their specific environmental plans
or polices. The project site has been previously graded and services have been
extended into the area. There will be limited, if any environmental effects on
environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project.
No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
1.C.
The proposed office buildings will not be incompatible with existing land use, and will
not to be considered incompatible or impact the existing adjacent office and industrial
buildings in the vicinity. The project has been designed to comply with the City-Wide
Design Guidelines as well as the Development Code regulations in terms of size, bulk
and mass, architectural design, landscaping, etc.; therefore the project will be
compatible with the surrounding area. No significant effects are anticipated as a result
of this project.
The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (including low-income or minority community), The proiect is proposed on
a vacant parcel that is zone BP (Business Park) which does not allow residential
development of any kind. Therefore, there is not an established residential community
(including low-income or minority community) at this site, and significant effects are not
anticipated as a result of this project.
Pooulation and Housing
The project will not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population proiections.
The project is two office buildings is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use
Designation of BP (Business Park). Since the project is consistent with the City's
General Plan, and does not exceed the floor area ratio for the BP zoning district, it will
not be a significant contributor to population growth which will cumulatively exceed
official regional or local population projections. No significant effects are anticipated
as a result of this project,
2.b.
The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly.
The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Business Park.
The project will cause people to relocate to or within Temecula; however, due to its
limited scale, it will not induce substantial growth in the area. No significant effects are
anticipated as a result of this project.
R:~STAFFF2T~I74PAg?.I~C 8/6/r/Lib 29
2.c.
The project will not displace housing, especially_ affordable housing as the site is a
vacant lot zoned for Business Park uses and prohibits residential development. No
significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project,
Geologic Problems
3,b,f,
h.
The project may have a significant impact on people involving seismic ground shaking,
seismic ground failure (including liquefaction), erosion, changes in topography or
unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill and expansive soils. The project
is located in Southern California, an area which is seismically active. Any potentially
significant impacts will be mitigated through building construction which is consistent
with Uniform Building Code standards. Further, preliminary soil reports have been
submitted and reviewed as part of the application submittal and recommendations
contained in this report will be used to determine appropriate conditions of approval.
The soils reports will also contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil
which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground
shaking, seismic ground failure (including liquefaction), erosion, changes in topography
or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill and expansive soils.
Increased wind and water erosion of soils both on and off-site may occur during the
construction phase of the project and the project may result in changes in siltation,
deposition or erosion. Erosion control techniques will be included as a condition of
approval for the project. In the long-run, herdscape and landscaping will serve as
permanent erosion control for the project. Modification to topography and ground
surface relief features will not be considered significant since modifications will be
consistent with the surrounding development. Potential unstable soil conditions from
excavation, grading or fill will be mitigated through the use of landscaping and proper
compaction of the soils. After mitigation measures are performed, no impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
3,d,
The project will not expose people to a seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard, The project
is not located in an area where any of these hazards could occur. No significant effects
are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not expose people to landslides or mudflows. The Final Environmental
Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan has not identified any known
landslides or mudslides located on the site or proximate to the site. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
3.i.
The project will not impact unique geologic or physical features. No unique geologic
features or physical features exist on the site. No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
Water
The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and
amount of surface runoff; however, these changes are considered less than significant.
Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings,
accompanying herdscape and driveways. While absorption rates and surface runoff will
R:\STAFPRF~I74pA~7,PC 81619'7 k~ 30
change, potential impacts shall be mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyances
will be required for the project to safely and ade~3uately handle runoff which is created.
After mitigation measures are performed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
4.c.
The project may have a potentially significant effect on discharges into surface waters
and alteration of surface water quality. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the
project, the developer will be required to comply with the requirements of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources
Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of intent has been
filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements,
any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level less than significant. After mitigation
measures are performed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
4.d,e.
The project will have a less than significant impact in a change in the amount of surface
water in any water body or impact currents, or to the course or direction of water
movements. Additional surface runoff will occur because previously permeable ground
will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and
driveways. Due to the limited scale of the project, the additional amount of drainage
into the City's drainage system will not considered significant. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
4.f-h.
The proiect will have a less than significant change in the quantity and quality of ground
waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability. Limited changes will occur in the quantity and quality of ground waters;
however, due to the minor scale of the project, it will not be considered significant.
Further, construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant
impact on ground waters. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
4,i.
The project will not result in a substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies. According to information contained in the
Final Environmental Impact Report for the ~ity of Temecula General Plan, "Rancho
California Water District indicate that they can accommodate additional water
demands." Water service currently exists in the immediate proximity to the project.
Water service will need to be provided by Rancho California Water District (RCWD).
This is typically provided upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD
and the property owner. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
5.a.
The project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or
projected air quality violation. The project is below the threshold for potentially
significant air quality impact established by South Coast Air Quality Management
District (Page 6-11, Table 6-2 of the South Coast Air Quality Management CEQA Air
Quality Handbook). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
5.b.
5.d.
The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. There are no significan'
pollutants nor sensitive receptors in proximity to the project. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change
in climate. The limited scale of the project precludes it from creating any significant
impacts on the environment in this area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
The project will create objectional odors during the construction phase of the project.
These impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant. No other
odors are anticipated as a result of this project.
Transportation/Circulation
6.3.
6.b.
6.c,
6.d.
6.f.
The project will result in a less than significant increase in vehicle trips; however it will
add to traffic congestion. It is anticipated that this project will contribute less than a
five percent (5%) increase in existing volumes during the AM peak hour and PM peak
hour time frames to the intersections of Ridge Park Drive/Rancho California Road and
the Rancho California freeway interchange. The applicant will be required to pay traffic
signal mitigation fees and public facility fees as conditions of approval for the project.
After mitigation measures are performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
The project will not result in hazards to safety from design features. The project is
designed to current City standards and does not propose any hazards to safety from
design features. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses.
The project is two office buildings in an area with existing similar type of uses and
structures in the Business Park (BP) and Ught Industrial (Ll) zoning districts. The project
~s designed to current City standards and has adequate emergency access. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will have sufficient parking capacity on-site. The applicant has completed
a parking needs analysis based upon the uses proposed by this project. Based upon this
analysis, there will be sufficient on-site parking spaces provided. Off-site parking will
not be impacted. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists. Hazards
or barriers to bicyclists have not been included as part of the project. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation. The project was transmitted to the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and
their response states: "The proposed project does not impact RTA facilities or services."
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project,
R:\STAFFRI~I74pA97.pC 8/6/97 kro 32
6.g.
The project will not result in impacts to rail, waterborne or air traffic since none exists
currently in the immediate proximity of the'project. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
Biological Resources
7.a.
The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or
their habitats, including, but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds, The
project site has been previously disturbed and graded. Currently, there are no native
species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of plants, no
native vegetation on the site. Further, there is no indication that any wildlife species
exist at this location. The project will not reduce the number of species, provide a
barrier to the migration of animals or deteriorate existing habitat. The project site is
located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. Habitat Conservation fees
will be required to mitigate the effect of cumulative impacts to the species. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
7.b.
The project will not result in an impact to locally designated species. Locally designated
species are protected in the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan; however, they are not
protected elsewhere in the City. Since this project is not located in Old Town, and
since there are no locally designated species on site, no significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not result in an impact to locally designated natural communities.
Reference response 7.b. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
7.d.
The project will not result in an impact to wetland habitat. There is no wetland habitat
on-site and the wetland adjacent to the site will not be disturbed. Reference response
7.a. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
7.e.
The project will not result in an impact to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The
project site does not serve as part of a migration corridor. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
Energy and Mineral Resources
The project will not impact and/or conflict with adopted energy conservation plans. The
project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to energy
conservation during the plan check stage. No permits will be issued unless the project
is found to be consistent with these applicable taws. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
8.b.
The project will result in a less than significant impact for the use of non-renewable
resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. While there will be an increase in the
rate of use of any natural resource and in the depletion of nonrenewable resource(s)
(construction materials, fuels for the daily operation, asphalt, lumber) and the
subsequent depletion of these non-renewable natural resources. Due to the scale of the
proposed development, these impacts are not seen as significant.
R:~STAFFR--gz~I74PAg'7.PC g/6/97k~ 33
9.b.
9.d.
The project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that
would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State. No known
mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the
State are located at this project site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
Noise
lO.a.
The project will result in a less than significant impact due to risk of explosion, or the
release of any hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions
since none are proposed in the request. There will be used tires stored in an enclosed
structure which are removed from the site on a regular basis for recycling. The
proposed use is regulated by both the Fire Department and the Department of
Environmental Health. Both entities have reviewed the project. The applicant must
receive clearance from the Department of Environmental Health prior to any plan check
submittal. The applicant must receive clearance from the Fire Department prior to the
issuance of a building permit. This applies to storage and use of hazardous materials.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency
evaluation plan. The subject site is not located in an area which could impact an
emergency response plan. The project will take access from a maintained street and
will therefore not impede any emergency response or emergency evacuation plans. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable health laws
during the plan check stage. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to
be consistent with these applicable laws. Reference response 9.a. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards. No
health hazards are known to be within proximity of the project. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not result in an increase to fire"hazard in an area with flammable brush,
grass, or trees. The project is two office buildings in an area of existing type uses and
structures located in the Business Park and Light Industrial zoning districts. The project
is not located within or proximate to a fire hazard area. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
The proposal will result in a less than significant increase to existing noise levels. The
site is currently vacant and development of the land logically will result in increases to
noise levels during construction phases as well as increases to noise in the area over the
long run. Long-term noise generated by this project would be similar to existing and
proposed uses in the area. No significant noise impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project in either the short or long-term.
R:XSTAFFRP~I74pA97.pC 8161~7 klb 34
lO.b.
The project may expose people to severe noise levels during the
development/construction phase (short run). 'Construction machinery is capable of
producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet which is considered very
annoying and can cause hearing damage from steady 8-hour exposure. This source of
noise will be of short duration and therefore will not be considered significant. There
will be no long-term exposure of people to noise. No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
Public Services
11.a,
b.
The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or
altered fire or police protection. The project will incrementally increase the need for fire
and police protection; however, it will contribute its fair share to the maintenance of
service provision from these entities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
11.c.
The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or
altered school facilities, The project will not cause significant numbers of people to
relocate within or to the City of Temecula and therefore will not result in a need for new
or altered school facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
11.d.
The project will have a less than significant impact for the maintenance of public
facilities, including roads. Funding for maintenance of roads is derived from the
Gasoline Tax which is distributed to the City of Temecula from the State of California.
impacts to current and future needs for maintenance of roads as a result of
development of the site will be incremental, however, they will not be considered
significant. The Gasoline Tax is sufficient to cover any of the proposed expenses.
11 .e. The project will not have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
governmental services. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Utilities and Service Systems
12.a.
The project will not result in a need for ~ew systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to power or natural gas. These systems are currently being delivered in
proximity to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.b.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to communication systems (reference response No. 12.a.). No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.c.
The project will not result in the need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.d. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks. While the project will have an
R:~STAF'J:'RPT~I74PA~7.}~C SlY/f/kjb 35
incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR?
for the City's General Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have indicated an ability
to supply as much water as is required in their services areas (p. 39)? The FEIR further
states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact
wastewater services (p. 40)." Since the project is consistent with the City's General
Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. There are no
septic tanks on site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
12.e.
The proposal will result in a less than significant need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to storm water drainage. The project will need to provide some
additional on-site drainage systems. The drainage system will be required as a condition
of approval for the project and will tie into the existing system. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.f.
The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to solid
waste disposal systems. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this
development can be mitigated through participation in any Source Reduction and
Recycling Programs which are implemented by the City. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
12.g.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to local or regional water supplies. Reference response 12.d. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Aesthetics
13.a.
The project will not affect a scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is not located
in a area where there is a scenic vista. Further, the City does not have any designated
scenic highways. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
13.b.
The project will not have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. The project is two
office buildings in an area of existing similar type uses and structures in the Business
Park and Light Industrial zoning districts.. The building are relatively consistent with
other designs in the area, and the proposed landscaping and added architectural
treatments will provide additional aesthetic ~nhancement. After mitigation measures
are performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
13.c.
The project will have a potentially significant impact from light and glare. The project
will produce and result in light/glare, as all development of this nature results in new
light sources. All light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar
Observatory. The project will be conditioned to be consistent with Ordinance No. 655
(Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
Cultural Resources
R:I'STAFFRPT~I?4PAg'7.PC 8/6/~/~ 36
14.a,b
The Eastern Information Center of the University of California at Riverside has reviewed
the project and a Phase I cultural resource study' identified no cultural resources within
the project site. The site has been previously graded and resources would have been
disturbed at that time; therefore, it is determined that no significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not have an impact on historical resources. No historic resources exist
at the site or are proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
14.d.
The project will not have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values. Reference response 14.b,c. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
14.e.
The project will not restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact
area. No religious or sacred uses exist at the site or are proximate to the site. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
F~¢creation
15.a,
b.
The project will have a less than significant impact or increase in demand for
neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The project will not cause
significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of Temecula. However,
it will result in an incremental impact or in an increase in demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities. The same is true for the quality or
quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
R:LSTAFFRPT~I74pA97.PC 816trl ~ 37
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
R:~STAFFRFI'XI'~4pAg"'LI~C 8/6/9'7 kIb 38
Mitigation Monitoring Program
pInnning Application No. PA97-4}174 CDevelopment Plan)
Geologic Problems
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaking.
Ensure that soil compac~on is to City Standards.
A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted
to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check.
Building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer.
Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits.
Department of Public Works and Building and Safety Department.
Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaking.
Utilize cometion techniques that are consistent with the Uniform
Building Code.
Submit consauction plans to the Building and Safety Deparunent for
approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Building and Safety Deparunent.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Specific Processes:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from
excavation, grading or fill.
Planting of slopes consistent with Ordinance No. 457.
Submit erosion control plans for approval by the Deparunent of Public
Works.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
DeparUnent of Public Works.
R:XSTAFFRPT~I74pA97.pC g/6/97 kJb 39
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Specific Processes:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Morntoting Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soll conditions from
excavation, Fading or fill.
Phnting of on-site landscaping ',hat is consistera with the Development
Code.
Submit landscape plans that include planting of slope to the Planning
Depa, h~ent for approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Planning Deparunem.
Expose people to the impacts from subsidence of land.
Ensure that soil compaclion is to City sumdards.
A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted
to the Department of public Works with the initial grading plan check.
Building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits and building permits.
Deparunent of Public Works and Building & Safety Depat hnent.
Expose people to the impacts from subsidence of land.
A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted
to the Deparunent of Public Works with the initial grading plan check.
Building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer.
Submit construction plans to the Building & Safety Deparunent for
approval.
Prior up the issuance of building permits.
Building & Safety Deparunent
R:~STAFFRFF~I74PAe/7,PC 81619'7 k~a 40
G~n~ral Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage partms
and the rate and amount of surfac~ runoff.
Methods of controlling runoff, from site so ti'mt it will not negatively
impact adjacent properties, including drainage conveyances, have been
incorporated into site design and will be included on the grading plans.
Submit grading and drainage plan to the Department of Public Works for
approval.
Prior to the issuance of grading permit.
Deparmaent of Public Works.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Mor~toring Party:
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality
(e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity).
An erosion control plan shall be prepared in accordance with City
requirements and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
shall be prepared in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) requirements.
The applicant shall submit a SWPPP to the San Diego Regional Water
Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) for their review and approval.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Department of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for S WPPP).
Transportation/Circulation
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monjtoring Party:
Increase in vehicle wips or traffic congestion.
Payment of Development Impact Fee for road improvements and traffic
impacts.
Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by,
and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecnia Municipal Code.
Prior to issuance of building permits.
Building and Safety Deparunent.
R:\STAFFRFI~I74pA97.PC gl6197 kb 41
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milesline:
Responsible Moniliring Party:
Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion.
Payment of Developn~nt Impact Fee for Signal Mitigation.
Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by,
and in accordanc~ wilh, Chapter 15.06 of lhe Temecuia Municipal Code.
Prior Io the issuance of occupancy permits.
Building and Safety ]D eparunent.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milesline:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Insufficient parking capacity on-sire or off-sit~.
Provide on-si~ parking spaces li accommoda~ the use.
Install on-si~ parking spaces.
Prior li the issuance of occupancy permits.
Department of Public Works, Planning Deparunent and Building &
Safety Department.
Biological Resources
General Impact:
Mi~gation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Endangered, threamned or rare species or their habitats (including but not
limimd to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds).
Pay Mitigation Fee for impacts li Stephens Kangaroo Rat.
Pay $500.00 per acre of disturbed area of Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat.
Prior to the issuance of a Fading permit.
Department of Public Works and Planning Depacunent
R:~STAFFRP~174PA~7.PC 816197klb 42
Public Services
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Pan'y:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
A substantial effect upon and a teed for new/altered governmental
selvices regardin5 fife protection. The project will incrementally
increase the need for fire protection; however, it will contribute its fair
share to the maintenance of service provision.
Payment of Development Impact Fee for Fire Mitigation.
Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by,
and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecuia Municipal Code.
Prior to the issuance of building permit.
Building & Safety Deparanent
A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered schools. No
significant impacts are anticipated.
Payment of School Fees.
Pay current mitigation fees with the Temecula Valley Unified School
District.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building & Safety Deparanent and Temecuia Valley Unified School
District.
A substantial effect upon and a need for maintenance of public facilities,
including roads.
Payment of Development Impact Fee for road improvements, traffic
impacts, and public facilities.
Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by,
and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecuia Municipal Code.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building and Safety Deparanent.
R:x. STAFFRJr~I74PA97.1~ S/6/97k~ 43
AESTHETICS
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
The creation of new light sources will result in increased light and glare
that could affect the Palomar Observatory.
Use lighting ~chnique~ that are consistent with Ordinance No. 655.
Submit lighting plan to the Building and Safety Deparanem for approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Building & Safety Department.
The creation of new light sources will result in increased light and glare
that could affect the Palomar Observatory.
Use lighting techniques that are consistent with Ordinance No. 655.
Submit lighting plan to the Building and Safety Deparunent for approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Building & Safety Deparanent.
R:XSTAFFRPTXI74pA97.pC 8/6/9~ klb 44
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
R:'~STAFFRP~I74pA97.pC 816/97 kl~ 45
CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECUUA -,
PL~J~12~G APPLICATION NO. PA97-0174 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT A
'L,~J~INING CO~VI]VIISSION DATE - August 18, 1997
R:\STAFFRF~174pA~7.PC 8/5/97 klb
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - BP (Business Park)
CC
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - BP (Business Park
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0174 (Development Plan)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 18, 1997
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLAN2VING APPLICATION NO. PA~7-0174 (Development Plan)
7~XHIBIT D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 18, 1997
SITE PLAN
R:~,STA~I74PA97.PC 8/6/97
CITY OF TEMECULA
e ee · e ee ee ee · e
WEST BUILDING ELEVATION ..... .~. 14
NORTH BUILDING ELEVATION .... .. ~ 3
SOUTH BUILDING ELEVATIONi ....... - 2j
__i
EAST BUILDING ELEVATIONI .... '-
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0174 (Development Plan)
EXH1BIT E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 18, 1997
ELEVATIONS
n..di.g
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0174 (Development Plan)
.EXHIBIT E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 18, 1997
ELEVATIONS
s..d~.g "~"
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA~7-0174 (Development Plan)
EXHrRIT F LANDSCAPE PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 18, 1997
R:~STAFFRPT~I74PA97.PC 816197 klb
ITEM #3
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 8, 1997
Planning Application No. PA97-0142 (Tentative Tract Map No. 23371- Revised)
Planning Application No. PA97-0143 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28526)
Planning Application No. PA97-0144 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28482)
Planning Application No. PA97-0160 (Amendment No.3 to Specific Plan No. 199)
Planning Application No. PA97-0161 (General Plan Amendment)
Planning Application No. PA97-0204 (Amendment end Restatement of Development
Agreement for Specific Plan No. 199, Village 'A")
Prepared By: Carole Donahoe, Project Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
MAKE a Determination of Consistency With a Project for Which an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was Previously Certified and Findings
that a Subsequent EIR is not required;
ADOPT Resolutions No. 97- through No. 97- recommending the
City Council approve Planning Application Nos. PA97-0161 (General Plan
Amendment), PA97-0160 (Amendment No.3 to Specific Plan No. 199),
and PA97-0204 (Amendment and Restatement of Development
Agreement for Specific Plan No. 199, Village "A") respectively, based
upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report; and
ADOPT Resolutions No. 97- through No 97- approving Planning
Application Nos. PA97-0142 (Tentative Tract Map No. 23371- Revised),
PA97-0143 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28526), and PA97-0144 (Tentative
Tract Map No. 28482) respectively, subject to the attached Conditions
of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Temeku Hills Development Partners, L.P.
McMillin Project Services, Inc.
REPRESENTATIVE:
Mr. Csaba Ko, Consultant
Mr. Barry Burnell, T & B Planning Consultants
Mr. David Jeffere, Rick Engineering
R:\STAFFRPTXI42PA97.B3 9/3/97 k~ 1
PROPOSAL:
To change the General Ran density designations from Low Medium Density Residential
(3-6 dwelling units per acre maximum) to Low Density Residential {0.5-2 dwelling units
per acre maximum) within Ranning Area 2; from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium
Density Residential (7-12 dwelling units per acre minimum) within Planning Area 38; and
from Medium Density Residential (7-12 dwelling units per acre maximum) to Low
Medium Density Residential (3-6 dwelling units per acre maximum) within Planning Area
40; all within Specific Plan No. 199 (Margarita Village).
B. To request approval of Amendment No. 3 to Specific Plan No. 199, Margarita Village.
To request approval of Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement for
Specific Plan No. 199, Village "A".
To subdivide 74.5 acres into 368 single family residential lots, 2 landscape lots and 2
open space/recreational lots (Tentative Tract Map No. 28482).
To subdivide 6.04 acres into 44 single family residential lots (Tentative Tract Map No.
28526).
To revise the subdivision of 118.3 acres within Tentative Tract Map No.23371 creating
474 single family residential lots and a park site.
LOCATION:
South of La Serena Way, east of Margarita Road, west of Meadows Parkway, north of Rancho
California Road, within the Margarita Village Specific Plan.
EXISTING & PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS:
Very Low/Rural Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Low Medium Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Neighborhood Commercial
Public and Institutional Facilities
Open Space/Recreation
0.2 to 0.4 dwelling units per acre maximum
0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre maximum
3 to 6 dwelling units per acre maximum
7 to 12 dwelling units per acre maximum
13 to 20 dwelling units per acre maximum
EXISTING ZONING:
Specific Plan
EXISTING LAND USE:
Temeku Hills Golf Course and Clubhouse, Fairway Point and Ironwood subdivisions, and vacant,
partially graded land.
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Area:
Existing Dwelling Units Allowed:
Proposed Number of Dwelling Units:
1,526 acres
4,047 units
3,922 units
(Reduction of 125 units)
Existing Acreage for Commercial Uses:
Proposed Acreage for Commercial Uses:
13.7 acres
6.2 acres (Reduction of 7.5 acres)
BACKGROUND
Specific Plan No. 199 (Margarita Village) was originally approved by the Riverside County
Board of Supervisors on August 26, 1986 through Resolution No. 86-355. Specific Plan
Amendment No. I was approved by the Board of Supervisors on September 6, 1988.
Subsequent to incorporation the Temecula City Council approved Specific Plan Amendment No.
2 on March 26, 1996, removing the "Retirement-Oriented Housing" restriction on a portion of
the site. Village "A" of the Specific Plan comprises the "Temeku" portion, and three vesting
tentative tract maps (VTTM) originally covered this portion - VTTM 23371, 23372 and 23373.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 23371 was divided into fifteen (15) phases, and six of the phases
have recorded.
The subject applications were submitted to the Planning Department on May 6, 1997 and May
14, 1997 and were all processed concurrently. The applicant met separately with the staff
from the Temecula Community Services Department, Planning Department and Department of
Public Works to clarify and resolve specific issues. A formal Development Review Committee
(DRC) meeting was held on June 18, 1997 and a follow up meeting was held July 17, 1997.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Planning ADIDlication No. PA97-0161 (General Plan Amendment)
The General Ran Amendment proposes to change the General Plan density designations to more
accurately reflect the reduction in housing units and the elimination of the Neighborhood
Commercial designation in Planning Area 38. The following table summarizes the proposed
changes to the General Plan as well as the three planning area changes propsed within the
Specific Plan:
Planning :Existing GP: Existing Density ~::: Proposed GP Proposed
Area # : ~ : :Designation ~ :! ~:: ::~ Range :;: : :!i :i~:Oesignation:: Density
2 Low Medium 3 - 6 du/ac
38 Neighborhood Commercial
40 Medium 7-12 du/ac
41 Low Medium 3 - 6 du/ac No Change 5.59
42 Medium 7 - 12 du/ac No Change 11.99
43 Low Medium 3 - 6 du/ac No Change 4.6
Planning Application No. PA97-0160 {Amendment No. 3 to Specific Plan No. 199)
Amendment No. 3 to the Specific Plan proposes to reflect the reduction of dwelling un!ts, the
elimination of commercial acreage at the northwest corner of Rancho California Road and
Meadows Parkway, the addition of a 12.5 acre public park at the southwest corner of La
Serena and Meadows Parkway, and revisions to roadway cross-sections, design guidelines and
development standards, all within Village 'A."
Planning ApPlication No. PA97-0204 (Amendment and Restatement of the Development
Agreement for Specific Plan No. 199. Village
The applicant proposes to amend and restate the Development Agreement (DA) for that portion
which covers Village 'A." The proposal updates the language of the DA with respect to the
Memorandum of Understanding approved by the City Council on May 1, 1996. Additionally,
adjustments are proposed reflecting the dedication of the 12.5 acre public park at the
southwest corner of La Serena Way and Meadows Parkway.
Planning Application No. PA97-0144 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28482)
The applicant has submitted Tentative Tract No. 28482 to subdivide 74.5 acres into 368 single
family residential lots, two landscape lots and two open space/recreational lots, on property
adjacent to Meadows Parkway and Rancho California Road. This map covers that portion of
the Specific Plan which was originally approved for Retirement Oriented Housing and
Neighborhood Commercial, and which had approved Vesting Tentative Tract Maps No. 23372
and 23373 covering the site. The Retirement Oriented Housing designation was removed under
Amendment No. 2, and the original VTTMs were allowed to expire on November 8, 1988.
Planning Application No. PA97-0143 {Tentative Tract MaD No. 28526)
The applicant has submitted Tentative Tract Map No. 28526 to subdivide 6.04 acres into 44
single family residential lots with a minimum lot size of 5,220 square feet, on the north side of
Rancho California Road, between Margarita Road and Meadows Parkway. This new map covers
a portion of recorded Tract Map No. 23371-3 which was originally designed for 62 dwelling
units with a minimum lot size of 3,500 square feet, on 7.5 acres for a density of 8.27 dwelling
units per acre.
Planning Application No. PA97-0142 {Tentative Tract Map No. 23371- Revised)
The applicant has submitted revisions to Tentative Tract Map No. 23371, covering Planning
Areas 34, 37, 41, 42 and 43, generally located south of La Serena Way, between Margarita
Road and Meadows Parkway. The new map has reconfigured the amount of acreage within the
Planning Areas, and redesigned the layout of lots generally to accommodate larger lots for
single family product types.
R:\STAFFRFl~I42PA97.PC 9/3197 ki 4
ANALYSIS
A. The following discussions refer primarily to the Specific Plan Amendment:
The 12.5 acre Public Park
The applicant has included a conceptual design for a 12.5 acre public park that meets the
requirements of the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD). The site is at the
intersection of La Serena and Meadows Parkway across from Rancho Elementary School, and
is accessible to vehicles both from La Serena and Meadows Parkway. Pedestrian access is also
provided from interior residential streets within Village 'A". The park is expected to offer a
variety of recreational amenitiee designed to meet the needs of the local residents, including
a junior Olympic swimming pool, picnic area, soccer and lighted softball fields, children's play
area and snack bar/restrooms. The park shall be constructed by the applicant to the standards
of the TCSD and dedicated for ownership and maintenance by TCSD.
Road and Public Facilities Revisions
Amendment No. 3 to the Specific Plan proposes revisions to the road and public facilities
system within Village "A" of the Specific Plan. Roadways are designed to be both public and
private, and proposed roadway cross-sections have been reviewed and accepted by the City
Engineer. Horizontal and vertical design criteria have been reviewed and deemed adequate in
light of existing constraints. Additionally, the Specific Plan includes design guidelines for golf
cart crossings within the text. The applicant also proposes to extend a reclaimed water main
onsite to use reclaimed water from Rancho California Water District (RCWD) for the golf course.
Marcluee Monumentation
The applicant proposes to use the main project monumentation at the intersection of Rancho
California Road and Margarita Road to present community service messages as well as
clubhouse and golf course events. During the marketing phase of the project, the marquee may
announce project openings and sales events, but pricing and terms-of-sale shall be strictly
prohibited. Staff believes that integrating this marquee sign into the project monumentation
is appropriate and supports the language in the Specific Plan.
Architectural Stvle
The applicant proposes a variation in architectural design from the originally approved
Spanish/Mediterranean to early California Spanish. The proposed style is compatible and
complimentary to portions of the specific plan already constructed, yet "updates" the specific
plan with contemporary features such as vaulted ceilings, gated entries, and balconies. Staff
supports the proposed changes.
Multi-Familv Area
Planning Area 42 is located adjacent to the golf course in the interior portion of Village "A". It
is proposed for high density residential development. However, the applicant has not
submitted a product design at this time. The lotring of the area is proposed to facilitate future
phasing and construction. No construction will occur without the proponent first filing
Development Plans for City review and approval. Without a separate Development Plan
R:XSTAFFRF~I42pA97.PC 9/3/r/k~ 5
approval, the applicant would be limited to the construction of single family detached homes
on each of the fifteen (15) lots proposed for Planning Area 42.
Slope Maintenance
The applicant has proposed that all perimeter slope areas along public streets and adjacent to
single family residential development be offered for dedication to the City as a maintenance
easement. All other interior slopes and open spaces are proposed for maintenance by the
homeowner's association. A color exhibit indicating the slope areas, maintenance
responsibility, and access points to these areas is included in the Commission packets, and an
enlarged exhibit will be displayed at the Commission's public hearing. The proposed
maintenance delineation is acceptable to the Community Services District.
B. The following discussions refer primarily to the proposed tract maps:
Physical Constraints and Mao Design
The applicant's proposal to redesign portions of this partially developed specific plan is
constrained by the infrastructure already in place. The primary feature of the site, the Temeku
Hills Golf Course and clubhouse, is constructed and operational. In addition, many of the water
mains, storm drains and arterial street system (Rancho California Road, Margarita Road, La
Serena Way, Meadows Parkway, Honors Drive, Temeku Drive and Tee Drive) are also in place.
Lastly, the existing Metropolitan Water District easements traverse the site in a north-south
direction both on the western side and eastern side of the project, and traverse the site in a
east-west direction nearly through the middle of the project. These physical constraints
eliminate most alternatives and redesign optiones for the proposed maps.
Lot Length-to-Width Ratio
In several areas of the Temeku Hills project, proposed lots exceed the City's maximum length-
to-width ratio of 2:1 as established by Ordinance 460. In some cases, the standard ratio is
exceeded due to the amount of slopes on the lots. in all cases, the lots in question exceed the
minimum lot sizes required by the Specific Plan and, according to the applicant, will be
marketed as premium lots. The applicant has indicated that all lots will have a minimum flat
useable pad area that equals the area provided on a conforming lot. Tentative tract maps
previously approved for the site were granted a waiver from the length-to-width requirement.
The applicant requests the same consideration for these proposed maps. Staff supports their
request.
Rear and Side Yard Fencing
In several areas of Tentative Tract Map 23371, individual lots are proposed that are bordered
by more than the typical three adjacent properties. Due to the design of the lots, some lots
have as many as nine (9) neighbors. Staff was concerned that this could result in a confusing
and chaotic fencing arrangement in some circumstances. The applicant has addressed this
concern by providing common themed rear and side yard fencing within the tracts so affected
and by attempting to limit these situations to the maximum extent feasible. With this condition
in place staff has no further concerns with this issue.
Turn-in Garage Option
The applicant has proposed a turn-in style garage option for both standard vehicles and golf
cans for products constructed within Village "A.' Public Works has reviewed the feasibility of
this option, and for safety and ease of use, recommends that turn-in garages for standard
vehicles be permitted on lots with a frontage width of at least 45 feet. Staff supports this
design feature and believes that it will encourage a broader range of housing styles within the
community.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Environmental Impact Report No. 202 was prepared for Specific Ran No. 199 and was certified
by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on August 26, 1986. In conjunction with
Amendment No. 2 to the Specific Plan, a number of additional studies were undertaken to
update and complement the original EIR. The additional studies, a geotechnical study, traffic
study and a Kangaroo Rat trapping and update study, confirmed the validity of the original
analysis.
It has been eleven (11) years since the original environmental analysis was performed for this
project. Therefore, Staff prepared another initial Environmental Assessment to examine the
question of whether any impacts, beyond those analyzed in the previous EIR and subsequent
studies, would result from the proposed project, changes in circumstances, or from new
information. In areas where there was a potential change in circumstances, specifically traffic,
noise, and lighting, staff requested additional information from the applicant. Based upon
Staff's analysis, the project is consistent with the information contained in the previously
certified EIR. Due to the limited scope of the proposed changes to the specific plan, there will
be no effect beyond that which was reviewed in the previous analysis.
Under California Public Resources Code Section 21166 and Section 15162 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, no additional EIR is required unless additional
impacts not previously considered, or substantial increases in the severity of impacts, may
result from: substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project is undertaken
which would require a major revision in the EIR, or new information that could not have been
known at the time the EIR was prepared becomes available. None of these situations has
occurred; therefore, no further environmental analysis is required.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The applicant has proposed Amendment No. 3 to Specific Plan No. 199 in order to respond to
the demand for family-oriented housing and community amenities within the Temeku Hills
development. Overall, the proposal seeks to reduce the number of dwelling units allowed,
eliminate the commercial uses at the northwest corner of Rancho California Road and Meadows
Parkway, increase lot sizes, add a 12.5 acre public park and update the design guidelines for
Village "A." Staff supports the proposed changes because they enhance the Specific Plan and
the surrounding community.
FINDINGS
Planning AI)plica6on No. PA97-0161 (Generel Plan Amendment)
1. Planning Application No. PA97-0161 (General Plan Amendment) as proposed is
compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
2. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. Ultimate development of the site
will be residential development in an area that is comprised of a variety of residential
neighborhoods.
3. The proposed project will not have an adverse effect on the community because it
remains consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan.
Planning Al}plication No. PA97-0160 (Amendment No.3 to Specific PlAn No. 199)
Planning Application No. PA97-0160 (Amendment No. 3 to Specific Plan No. 199) as
proposed and conditioned is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
Planning Application No. PA97-0160 (Amendment No. 3 to Specific Plan No. 199) is
consistent with the goals and policies of the City's adopted General Plan.
The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project proposes a reduction
in the density and intensity of land uses. Ultimate development will be residential
development in an area that is comprised of a variety of residential neighborhoods.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property because it does
not represent a significant change to the planned land use of the site and is consistent
with the overall concept of Specific Plan No. 199.
The amendment to Specific Plan No. 199 does not increase the impacts associated with
the development or the overall intensity of the development as analyzed in
Environmental impact Report No. 202.
Planning Application No. PA97-0204 (Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement
for Specific Plan No. 199. Village A)
The development to be carried out pursuant to the Development Agreement is
consistent with the General Plan.
The Development Agreement and the development to be carried out hereunder complies
with all other applicable requirements of State law, City ordinances and Specific Plan
No. 199.
R:~TAFFRPT~142PA97.PC 9/3/~7 k~ 8
Planning Application No. PA97-0144 (Tentative Tract MN) No. 28482|
The proposed land division and the design or improvement of the project is consistent
with the proposed General Plan designation and Specific Plan No. 199. The site is
physically suitable for the type and density of development. The proposed General Plan
Land Use designations for the site are Low-Medium Density Residential (3-6 dwelling
units per acre) and Medium Density Residential (7-12 dwelling units per acre). Planning
Area 40 proposes 198 residential parcels on 40.1 acres for a density of 4.94 units per
acre and is consistent with the Low Medium designation. Planning Area 38 proposes
181 dwelling units on 29.3 acres for a density of 6.18 units per acre and is consistent
with the Medium designation.
The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements is not likely to
cause serious public health problems. The project has been reviewed for conformance
with Specific Plan No. 199, the City's General Plan, Development Code, Subdivision
and Landscaping Ordinances. The project is consistent with these documents and
conditions of approval have been placed on the project accordingly to assure that the
development conforms to City Standards.
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. The project will take access from La Serena Way,
Meadows Parkway, and Rancho California Road, and will not obstruct any easements.
The map as proposed, conforms to the logical development of the proposed site, and
is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
The design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat. There are no known fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site,
and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. The site is
surrounded by development and is an infill site. The project will not individually or
cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2
of the Fish and Game Code.
Planning/~plication No. PA97-0143 (Tentative Tract MN) No. 28526)
The proposed land division and the design or improvement of the project is consistent
with the City's General Plan and Specific Plan No. 199. The site is physically suitable
for the type and density of development. The project proposes reduction of dwelling
units from 62 to 44 residential parcels on 6.04 acres for a density of 7.28 units per
acre. This is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation for maximum
density on the site.
The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements is not likely to
cause serious public health problems. The project has been reviewed for conformance
with Specific Plan No. 199, the City's General Plan, Development Code, Subdivision
and Landscaping Ordinances. The project is consistent with these documents and
conditions of approval have been placed on the project accordingly to assure that the
development conforms to City Standards.
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. The project will take access from La Serena Way,
Meadows Parkway, Rancho California Road and Margarita Road, and will not obstruct
any easements.
The map as proposed, conforms to the logical development of the proposed site, and
is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
The design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements is not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or
their habitat. The project site has been previously graded and partially developed. There is
no fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish,
wildlife or habitat off-site. The project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse
effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code.
Planning Aoi}lication No. PA97-0142 (Tentative Tract M~ No. 23371- Revised)
The proposed land division and the design or improvement of the project is consistent
with the City's General Plan and Specific Plan No. 199. The site is physically suitable
for the type and density of development. The project proposes residential densities
consistent with the General Plan Land Use designations for Planning Areas 34, 35, 37,
41, 42 and 43. Tentative Tract Map No. 23371 was originally approved in 1988; the
revision proposes increased lot sizes and a new 12.5 acre park site.
The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements is not likely to
cause serious public health problems. The project has been reviewed for conformance
with Specific Plan No. 199, the City's General Plan, Development Code, Subdivision and
Landscaping Ordinances. The project is consistent with these documents and conditions
of approval have been placed on the project accordingly to assure that the development
conforms to Specific Plan and/or City Standards.
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. The project will take access from La Serena Way,
Rancho California Road, Meadows Parkway and Margarita Road, and will not obstruct
any easements.
The map as proposed conforms to the logical development of the proposed site, and is
compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
The design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements is not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife
or their habitat. The project site has been previously graded and partially developed.
There is no fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any
fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. The project will not individually or cumulatively have
an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and
Game Code.
R:\STAFFRFTXI42pA97.PC ~/3/9'7 Hh 10
Attachments:
1. Planning Commission Resolution for Planning Application No. PA97-0161 (General Plan
Amendment ) - Blue Page 12
2. Ranning Commission Resolution for Ranning Application No. PA97-0160 (Specific Plan
Amendment No. 3) - Blue Page 16
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 20
3. Planning Commission Resolution for Planning Application No. PA97-0204 (Amendment
and Restatement of Development Agreement for Specific Plan No. 199, Village uA") -
Blue Page 21
A. Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement for Specific Plan No.
199, Village A - Blue Page 24
4. Planning Commission Resolution for Planning Application No. PA97-0144 (Tentative
Tract Map No. 28482) - Blue Page 25
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 29
5. Planning Commission Resolution for Planning Application No. PA97-0143 (Tentative
Tract Map No. 28526) - Blue Page 30
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 34
6. Planning Commission Resolution for Planning Application No. PA97-0142 (Tentative
Tract Map No. 23371-Revised) - Blue Page 35
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 39
7. Initial Environmental Assessment dated August 20, 1997 - Blue Page 40
8. Exhibits - Blue Page 41
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
Vicinity Map
General Plan Map
Existing Specific Plan No. 199 o Land Use Map
Proposed Specific Plan No. 199 - Land Use Map
Maintenance Responsibility Exhibit
Tentative Tract Map No. 28482
Tentative Tract Map No. 28526
Tentative Tract Map No. 23371 - Revised
R:\STAFFRPTX142PA~7.!mC 9~]/97 klb 11
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 97-
PA97-0161
R:',STAFFRPT~142PA97.1~C 9/3/97 k~ 1 ~)
ATFACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 97-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
~ CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PIANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA97-0161 GENERAL PLAN AlV~NDMENT ON PARCELS
TOTALING 82.4 ACRES LOCATED NORTH AND SOUTH
OF LA SERENA WAY, EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD,
WEST AND EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY, NORTH OF
RANClIO CALIFORNIA ROAD, W1THIN ~ MARGARITA
VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN
WHIIIEAS, Temeku Hills Development Partners, L.P. filed Planning Application No.
PA97-0161 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0161 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA97-0161
on September 8, t997, 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, ff any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating
to Planning Application No. PA97-0161;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMt~SION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. Eiadiag~ The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of Planning
Application No. PA97-0161, makes the foliowing findings; to wit:
A. Planning Application No. PA97-0161 (General Plan Amendment) as proposed is
compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
B. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. Ultimate development of the
site will be residential development in an area that is comprised of a variety of residential
neighborhoods.
R:\STAFFRF~I42PA97.PC 9/3/~7 kib 13
C. The proposed project will not have an adverse effect on the community because
it remains consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted City General Plan.
Section 3. F. nvironmental Compliance. Environmental Impact Report No. 202 was
prepared for Specific Plan No. 199 and was certified by the Riverside County Board of
Supervisors. In conjunction with Amendment No. 2 to the Specific Plan, a number of additional
studies were undertaken to update and complement the original ErR. The additional studies, a
geotechnical study, traffic study and a Kangaroo Rat trapping and update study, confirmed the
validity of the original analysis.
It has been eleven (11) years since the original environmental analysis was
performed for this project. Therefore, Staff prepared another Initial Environmental Assessment
to examine the question of whether any impacts beyond those analyzed in the previous EIR and
subsequent studies would result from the proposed project, changes in circumstances, or new
information. In areas where there was a potential change in circumstances, specifically traffic,
noise, and lighting, staff requested additional information from the applicant. Based upon Staff' s
analysis, the project is consistent with the information contained in the previously certified EIR.
Due to the limited scope of the proposed changes to the specific plan, there will be no effect
beyond that which was reviewed in the previous analysis.
Under California Public Resources Cede Section 21166 and Section 15162
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, no additional EIR is required
unless additional impacts not previously considered, or substantial increases in the severity of
impacts, may result from: substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which would require a major revision in the EIR, or new information that could not
have been known at the time the EIR was prepared becomes available. None of these situations
has occurred; therefore, no further environmental analysis is required.
R:~STAFFIlFI~I42pA97.1~C 9/3197 k!~ I 4
Seaion 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of September, 1997.
Linda Fahey, Chairm~n
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 8th day of
September, 1997 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PC RESOLUTION 97-
PA97-0160
R:\ST~I4IPAg~.PC 9/3/97 klb 16
ATrACI-IM~NT NO. 2
PC RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMI.qSION OF
~ CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMM!~.NDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA97-0160 (SPECIFIC PLAN AMEND~ NO. 3) FOR
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199 CONTAINING 1,~26 ACRES
GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF LA SERF~A WAY,
EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD, WEST OF Mlq'~.4~DOWS
PARKWAY, NORTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD
WltERFAS, Temeku Hills Development Partners, L.P. fried Planning Application No.
PA97-0160 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0160 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA97-0160
on September 8, 1997, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time
interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in suppen or in opposition;
WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating
to Planning Application No. PA97-0160;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMIRSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES IlF-qOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. ~ The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of Planning
Application No. PA97-0160, makes the following findings; to wit:
A. Planning Application No. PA97-0160 (Amendment No. 3 to Specific Plan No. 199)
as proposed and conditioned is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
B. Planning Application No. PA97--0160 (Amendment No. 3 to Specific Plan No.
199)is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's adopted General Plan.
C. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project proposes a
reduction in the density and intensity of land uses. Ultimate development will be residential
development in an area that is comprised of a variety of residential neighborhoods.
R:\STAFFRPT~I42pA97.PC 93/97 klb 'l 7
D. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property because it
does not represent a significant change to the planned land use of the site and is consistent with
the overall concept of Specific Plan No. 199.
E. The amendment to Specific Plan No. 199 does not increase the impacts associated
with the development or the overall intensity of the development as analyzed in Environmental
Impact Report No. 202.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Environmental Impact Report No. 202 was
prepared for Specific Plan No. 199 and was certified by the Riverside County Board of
Supervisors. In conjtmefion with Amendment No. 2 to the Specific Plan, a number of additional
studies were undertaken to update and complement the original EIR. The additional studies, a
geotechnical study, traffic study and a Kangaroo Rat trapping and update study, contimed the
validity of the original analysis.
h has been eleven (11) years since the original environmental analysis was
performed for this project. Therefore, Staff prepared another Initial Environmental Assessment
to examine the question of whether any impacts beyond those analyzed in the previous EIR and
subsequent studies would result from the proposed project, changes in circumstances, or new
information. In areas where there was a potential change in circumstances, specifically traffic,
noise, and lighting, staff requested additional information from the applicant. Based upon StafFs
analysis, the project is consistent with the information contained in the previously certified EIR.
Due to the limited scope of the proposed changes to the specific plan, there will be no effect
beyond that which was reviewed in the previous analysis.
Under California Public Resources Cede Section 21166 and Section 15162
of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, no additional EIR is required
unless additional impacts not previously considered, or substantial increases in the severity of
impacts, may result from: substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which would require a major revision in the EIR, or new information that could not
have been known at the time the EIR was prepared becomes available. None of these situations
has occurred; therefore, no further environmental analysis is required.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Planning Application No. PA97-0160 Specific Plan Amendment No. 3 to Specific Plan No. 199
generally located south of La Serena Way, east of Margarita Road, west of Meadows Parkway,
north of Rancho California Road, within the Margarita Village Specific Plan, subject to Exhibit
A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof.
R:\STAFFRFI'q42pA97.PC 9/3/97
Section S. PASSED, APPROVEB AND ADOPTED this 8th day of September, 1997.
Linda Fahey, Chairman
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 8th day of
September, 1997 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNINGCOMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:~STAFFRPTXI42pA97.pC 9/3/97 k~ 19
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PA97-0160
R:~STAFFRPT~142PA97.FC 9/3/97 Idb 20
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA97-0160 (Amendment No. 3 to Specific Plan No. 199)
Project Description:
A reduction of dwelling units from 4,047 units to 3,922
units; a reduction of acreage proposed for commercial
development from 13.7 acres to 6.2 acres (eliminating the
commercial uses on 7.5 acres at the northwest corner of
Meadows Parkway and Rancho California Road) all with
Specific Plan No. 199 - Margarita Village
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
General Requirements
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. PA97-0160 (Amendment No. 3 to Specific Plan No. 199) which action is brought
within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division
13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seo., 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.
The applicant shall comply with all underlying conditions of approval for Specific Plan
No. 199 and its amendments unless superseded by these conditions of approval.
The text of Amendment No. 3 to Specific Plan No. 199 shall conform with Exhibit No.
, "Margarita Village Amendment No. 3 of Margarita Village Specific Plan No. 199,"
dated August 1997, or as amended by these conditions.
The text of Amendment No. 3 to Specific Plan No. 199 Zone Standards shall conform
with Exhibit No. , "Margarita Village Amendment #3 to Margarita Village SP Zone
Standards," dated August 1997, or as amended by these conditions.
Maintenance of common areas and slope areas shall be provided in accordance with
Exhibit F - Maintenance Responsibility Exhibit.
R:'~STAFIrI1P'D,160PA97.COA 9/3/97 ¢d 1
No construction shall occur within Planning Area 42 of Specific Ran No. 199 without
the proponent first filing Development Plans for City review and approval, unless single
family detached homes are proposed on each of the fifteen (15) lots.
Turn-in garages for standard vehicles are limited to lots with a frontage width of 45 feet
or wider.
Within Thirty {30) Days From the Second Reading of The Ordinance Approving the Amandmant
8. The applicant shall submit the Amended Specific Plan text to the Planning Department.
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
Community Services offers the following Conditions of Approval for the aforementioned
Specific Plan Amendment for Temeku Hills:
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:
The park land dedication requirement (Quimby) for the Temeku Hills Development shall
be satisfied with the development and dedication of a 12.5 acre community park located
within Planning Area 44.
10.
The design of the community park in Planning Area 44 shall be in conformance with the
conceptual design identified within the Specific Plan. The actual park size shall be
determined upon submittal of the subdivision maps for the area.
11.
Ballfield lighting shall be provided at the Community Park to allow for night use of the
playing fields. The developer, or his successor, shall provide a disclosure to all properties
adjacent to the Community Park regarding the use of ballfield lighting.
12.
All proposed public park facilities shall provide for pedestrian circulation and
handicapped accessibility pursuant to the American Disability Act (ADA) Standards.
13.
The installation of all landscape materials and irrigation equipment for the public park
sites, slope areas, parkway landscaping, and landscaped medians shall be in
conformance with the City of Temecula Landscape Development Plan Guidelines and
Specifications.
14.
Construction of the community park, medians, and perimeter slope areas proposed for
dedication to the TCSD shall commence pursuant to a pre-job meeting with the
developer and the City Maintenance Superintendent. Failure to comply with the TCSD
review and inspection process may preclude acceptance of these areas into the TCSD
maintenance program.
15.
Park facilities, and/or other recreational areas, intended for transfer to the City "in-fee"
shall be dedicated free and clear of any liens, assessments, or easements that would
preclude the City from using the property for public park and/or recreational purposes.
A policy of title insurance and a soils assessment report shall also be provided with the
dedication of the property.
R:~STAFFRYrNI60pA97.COA 9/3/97
16.
The developer shall complete the TCSD application and dedication process prior to the
acceptance of street lighting and perimeter slopes areas into the respective TCSD
maintenance programs. The developer shall maintain the park facilities, slopes, and
medians until such time as those responsibilities are accepted by the TCSD or other
responsible party.
17.
All exterior slopes contiguous to public streets that are adjacent to single family
residential development shall be maintained by an established homeowner's association
until such time as those responsibilities are offered and accepted by the TCSD for
maintenance purposes. All other interior dopes, open space, perimeter walls, and entry
monumentation shall be maintained by the homeowner's association.
18.
Slopes and landscaping adjacent to commercial development shall be maintained by the
property owner, or other approved private maintenance association.
19.
Bike lanes and recreational trails shall be provided on site and designed to intercept with
the City's Park and Recreation Master Plan. Class II Bike Lanes shall be completed in
concurrence with the street improvements.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
20.
Prior to recordation of final maps, landscape construction drawings for any respective
public park, slopes, and landscaped medians proposed for dedication to the City shall
be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services.
21.
If the community park has not been completed prior to the recordation of the final map
for Planning Area 44, then the developer shall enter into an improvement agreement
and bond for the park improvements prior to recordation of said map.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS:
22.
The community park in Planning Area 44 shall be improved and dedicated to the City
prior to the issuance of 608th overall residential building permit within Village A.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
23.
Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within each phased map, the
developer shall submit the most current list of Assessor's Parcel Numbers assigned to
the final project.
24.
It shall be the developer's responsibility to provide written disclosure of the existence
of the TCSD and its service level rates and charges to all prospective purchasers.
I have read, understand and accept the above Conditions of Approval.
Applicant Name
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
PC RESOLUTION NO. 97-
PA97-0204
R:\STAFFRPT~142PA~.PC 913197 kro 2 1
ATrACHIV~-NT NO. 3
PC RESOLUTION NO. 97-
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECO~ING THAT ~
CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA97-021M ASIENDMENT AND RESTATFAMENT OF
DEVELOPMENT AGRERMENT FOR SPECIFIC PLAN NO.
199, VILLAGE A (MARGARITA VILLAGE)
~, Temeku I-Iills Development Partners, L.P. fled Planning Application No.
PA97-021M in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WltgREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0204 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WIIBIEAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA97-0204
on September 8, 1997, 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 desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating
to Planning Application No. PA97-0204;
NOW, TIIRREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. ~ The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of Planning
Application No. PA97-0204, makes the following findings; to wit:
A. The development to be carried out pursuant to the Development Agreement
is consistent with the General Plan.
B. The Development Agreement and the development to be carried out
hereunder complies with all other applicable requirements of State law, City ordinances and
Specific Plan No. 199.
Section 3. F. nviron mental Corrtpl iance. Environmental Impact Report No. 202 was
prepared for Specific Plan No. 199 and was certified by the Riverside County Board of
Supervisors. In conjunction with Amendment No. 2 to the Specific Plan, a number of additional
studies were undertaken to update and complement the original FIR. The additional studies, a
R:XSTAFFRPTNI42PA97.PC 9/3197 klb 22
geotechnical study, traffic study and a Kangaroo Rat trapping and update study, confirmed the
validity of the original analysis.
It has been eleven (11) years since the original environmental analysis was
performed for this project. Therefore, Staff prepared nothe Initial Environmental Assessment
to examine the question of whether any impacts beyond those analyzed in the previous EIR and
subsequent studies would result from the proposed project, changes in circumstances, or new
information. In areas where there was a potential change in circumstances, specifically traffic,
noise, and lighting, staff requested additional information from the applicant. Based upon Staff s
analysis, the project is consistent with the information contained in the previously certified EIR.
Due to the limited scope of the proposed changes to the specific plan, there will be no effect
beyond that which was reviewed in the previous analysis.
Under C~lifomia Public Resources Cede Section 21166 and Section 15162
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, no additional EIR is required
unless additional impacts not previously considered, or substantial increases in the severity of
impacts, may result from: substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which would require a major revision in the EIR, or new information that could not
have been known at the time the EIR was prepared becomes available. None of these situations
has occurred; therefore, no further environmental analysis is required.
Seaion 4. PASSED, APPROVEEl AND ADOPTED this 8th day of September, 1997.
Linda Fahey, Chairman
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 8th day of
September, 1997 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie lYonoske, Secretary
R:XSTAFFRPTxI42PA97.PC 9/3/97 Jab 23
EXHIBIT A
AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
FOR SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199, VILLAGE A
RECORDED AT THE REQUEST OF
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO
City Clerk
City of Temecu|a
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
(Space Above Line For Recorder's Use)
A2VIENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199, VILLAGE A
PLANNING AREAS 33 to 38, 40 to 44 and 46
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA 97-0204
"MARGARITA VILLAGE"
TEMEKU HILLS DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, L.P~
UDC HOMES, INC.
AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA
and
TEMEKU HILLS DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, L.P.
and
UDC HOMES, INC.
This Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement ("Agreement") is
entered into by and among the City of Temecula, a California Municipal Corporation ("City")
and Temeku Hills Development Partners, L.P., a California limited parmership CTemeku
Hills"), and UDC Homes, Inc. a California corporation ("UDC"). Temeku Hills and UDC are
sometimes referred to hcrein collectively as "Owner."
RECITALS
A. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65864, seq. ("Development
Agreement Statutes"), Margarita Village Development Company (Buie-Rancho California and
Nevada-Rancho Califomia) and others and the County of Riverside, California ("County")
entered into Development Agreement No. 5 recorded in the Official Records of Riverside
County, California on November 7, 1988, as Instrument No. 325515 ("Development
Agreement No. 5").
B. Development Agreement No. 5 encompasses a project formerly located within
County approved S. pecific Plan No. 199 known as "Margarita Village," a mixed use
subdivision, (the "Original Project"), to be developed on property which came within the
municipal boundaries of the City when the City incorporated on December 1, 1989. This
Agreement encompasses only a portion of the Original Project, a 472 acre residential
development located in a portion of Specific Plan No. 199, Village A, known as Temeku
Hills Golf and Country Club (the "Project"). The balance of the Original Project covered by
Development Agreement No. 5 not included within this 472 acre portion of Specific Plan No.
199, Village A, is not amended or impacted by this Agreement.
C. Pursuant to the provisions of the Development Agreement Statutes, the City
became the successor-in-interest to the County under Development Agreement No. 5 upon
incorporation of the City. Pursuant to Temeku Hills obtaining title to the Project as recorded
in the Official Records of Riverside County, California on May 3, 1996 as Instrument
No. 162332, and UDC obtaining title to a portion of the Project from Temeku Hills as
recorded in the Official Records of Riverside County, California on April 18, 1997, as
Instrument No. 132180, and pursuant to the provisions of Development Agreement No. 5,
Temeku Hills and UDC became successors-in-interest to the "Owner" described in
Development Agreement No. 5.
D. Pursuant to Section 65868 of the Development Agreement Statutes, the City
and Owner propose to restate and amend Development Agreement No. 5 to substitute this
Agreement for Development Agreement No. 5, but only to the extent Development
Agreement No. 5 pertains to the Project.
mcmillin\combined.da/l
8536.11011090397 -2-
E. Pursuant and subject to the Development Agreement Statutes, the City's police
powers and City Resolution No. 91-52, City is authorized to enter into binding agreements
with persons having legal or equitable interest in real property located within the City's
municipal boundaries or sphere of influence thereby establishing the conditions under which
such property may be developed in the City.
F. By entering into this Agreement, City shall bind future Members of the City
Council of City by the obligations specified herein and further limit the future exercise of
certain governmental and proprietary powers of Members of the City Council. Likewise,
Owner shall bind its successors in interest to the obligations specified in this Agreement.
G. The terms and conditions of this Agreement have undergone extensive review
· by the staff of the City, the Planning Commission of the City, and the City Council of the
City and have been found to be fair, just, and reasonable.
H. The City finds and determines that it will be in the best interest of its citizens
and the public health, safety and welfare will be served by entering into this Agreement.
I. All of the procedures and requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act relevant to this Agreement have been met.
J. Riverside County Ordinance No. 659, as adopted by the City, establishes public
facilities impact fees for residential development within City CRSA Fees"). City requires
these revenues to tuitigate the impact of development. City requires RSA Fees from
development of the Property in order to complete capital projects to mitigate the impact of the
Project.
K. Development Agreement No. 5 provided for public facilities and services
impact fees ("County Development Agreement Fees") higher than the RSA Fees. These
higher fees, particularly during the present economic situation, unduly discourage and delay
development and thereby prevent City from ever receiving the County Development
Agreement Fees or RSA Fees. Consequently, after extensive study, and public input and
hearings, the City has adopted a Development Impact Fee for detached units of $2,934 per
unit and for attached units of $2,114 per unit. Therefore, the City is willing to reduce the
County Development Agreement Fees for residential development in the Project to the level
contemplated by this Agreement.
L. City and Owner acknowledge that development of the Project will result in the
generation of municipal revenue, for public infrastructure facilities and the enhancement of the
quality of life, including recreation facilities for present and future residents of the City. The
benefits to the City and Owner contemplated by development of the Project include without
limitation:
.j
mcmillin\combined.da/l
8536.0Ol/090397 -3-
(D
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
completion of vacant lots in Project;
payment of signal mitigation fees;
payment of library fees;
payment of park fees;
payment of Fire Protection Impact Fees; and
payment of Street System Impact Fees.
All of the fees described above are a part of, and included within, the Public Facilities Fee
contemplated herein.
M. The City and Owner acknowledge that due to the present economic situation,
none of these benefits to the City are possible unless the Project proceeds with development.
N. The City Council of the City has approved this Agreement by Ordinance
No. adopted on , and effective on ("Effective Date").
On the Effective Date, Development Agreement No. 5 shall be terminated and of no further
force and effect as to the Project only, having been replaced by this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE in consideration of the above Recitals and of the mutual
covenants hereinafter contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged and incorporated herein, the parties agree:
1. Definitions. In this Agreement, unless the context otherwise requires, the
following words at2d phrases shall have the meaning set forth below:
1. I "City" is the City of Temecula.
1.2 "City Public Facilities Fee" is an amount established by Ordinance of
City as more particularly defined in Section 12.3 of this Agreement.
1.3 "City's Quimby Requirement" means Owner's obligation to dedicate
park land or pay in lieu park fees under Riverside County Ordinance No. 460.93, as the same
was incorporated by reference into the Temecula Municipal Code by Ordinance No. 90-04, as
more particularly defined in Section 12.2 of this Agreement.
1.4 "County" is the County of Riverside.
1.5 "County Development Agreement Fee" means the County public
facilities and services mitigation fee set forth in Section 4.2 of Development Agreement
No. 5.
1.6 "Development Agreement Fee" means the development agreement fee
set forth in Section 12.6 of this Agreement.
.j
rncmillin\combined.da/l
8536.0011090397 -4-
1.7 "Development Exaction" means any requirement of the City in
connection with or pursuant to any Land Use Regulation or Existing Development Approval
for the dedication of land, the construction of improvements or public facilities, or the
payment of fees in order to lessen, offset, mitigate or compensate for the impacts of
development on the environment or other public interests.
1.8 "Development Plan" means the Existing Development Approvals.
1.9 "Effective Date" means the date upon which the Ordinance approving
this Agreement becomes effective. Absent a referendum challenge, such date is thirty (30)
days following the date the City Council adopted such Ordinance.
1.10 "Existing Development Approval(s)" means those certain development
approvals relating to the Property in effect as of the Effective Date, including, without
limitation, the "Existing Development Approvals" listed in Exhibit A, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference, which were approved by the County.
1.11 "Existing Land Use Regulations" means those Land Use Regulations
listed on Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which are a
matter of public record on the Effective Date of this Agreement.
1.12 "Financing District" means a Community Facilities District formed
pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (California Government Code
Section 53311 ~.t s,eq., as amended); an assessment district formed pursuant to Landscaping
and Lighting Act of 1972 (California Street and Highways Code Section 22500 et seq. as
amended); a special assessment district formed pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911
(California Streets and Highway Code Section 10102, as amended); or any other special
assessment district existing pursuant to Sate law formed for the purpose of financing the cost
of public improvements, facilities, services and/or public facilities fees within a specific
geographical area of the City.
1.13 "Hazardous Substance" shall include, without limitation, any ~ammable
explosives, radioactive materials, asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls, chemicals know~t to
cause cancer or reproductive toxicity, substances described in Civil Code Section 2929.5(e)(2),
as it now exists or as subsequently amended, pollutants, contarninants, hazardous wastes, toxic
substances or related materials. Notwithstanding the foregoing, "Hazardous Substances" shall
not include substances customarily used in developing, operating or maintaining developments
similar to the project, provided all such substances are usod, stored, and disposed of in
accordance with all applicable laws.
8536.001/090397 -5-
1.14 "Land Use Regulations" means all ordinances, resolutions, codes, rules,
regulations, and written official policies of City, governing the development and use of land
including without limitation: the permitted use of land; the density or intensity of use;
subdivision requirements; the maximum height and size of proposed buildings; the provisions
for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes; and the design, improvement, and
construction standards and specifications applicable to the development of the Property.
"Land Use Regulations" does not include any County or City ordinance, resolution, code, rule,
regulation, or official policy, governing:
(a) The conduct of businesses, professions, and occupations;
(b)
Services District;
Taxes, assessments and rates and charges of the City's Community
(c) The control and abatement of nuisances;
(d) The granting of encroachment permits and the conveyance of rights and
interest which provide for the use of or the entry upon public property;
(e) The exercise of the power of eminent domain.
1.15 "Owner" means Temeku Hills Development Partners, L.P., a limited
parmership, UDC Homes, Inc., a California corporation, and any successors in interest to
Temeku Hills and UDC
1.16 "Project" is the development of the Property in accordance with the
Development Plan.
1.17 "Property" is the real property described in Exhibit C, attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference.
1.18 "Remaining Units" means all remaining residential dwelling units within
the Project after the 6081h such residential unit, all as more particularly described in Section
12.5(b) of this Agreement.
1.19 "RSA Fee" means the fee established by County Ordinance No. 659,
adopted by City by Ordinance No. 90.04.
1.20 "Subsequent Development Approvals" means all development approvals
required subsequent to the Effective Date in connection with development of the Property.
1.21 "Subsequent Land Use Regulation" means any Land Use Regulation
applicable to the Property adopted and effective after the Effective Date of this Agreement.
mcmil[in\combined.da/I
8536.001/090397 -6-
2. Interest of Owner. Owner represents that it has the fee title interest in the
Property and that all other persons holding legal or equitable interest in the Property are to be
bound by this Agreement.
3. Exhibits. The following documents referred to in this Agreement are attached
hereto, incorporated herein, and made a part hereof by this reference:
Exhibit Desi~,nation
Description
B.
C.
D.
Existing Development Approvals
Existing Land Use Regulations
Legal Description of the Property
Assignment and Assumption of
Development Agreement
Notice From Mortgagee
Fee Matrix
4. Term.
4.1 The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and
shall extend for a period of ten (10) years thereafter, unless this Agreement is terminated,
modified or extended by circumstances set forth in this Agreement or by mutual consent of
the parties hereto.
4.2 This Agreement shall terminate and be of no force and effect upon the
occurrence of the entry of a final judgment or issuance of the final order after exhaustion of
any appeals, directed against the City as a result of any lawsuit filed against directing the City
to set aside, withdraw, or abrogate the approval by the City Council of the City of this
Agreement.
5. Assignment.
5.1 Ric, ht to Assic, n. The Owner shall have the right to sell, transfer, or
assign the Property in whole or in part (provided that no such partial transfer shall violate the
Subdivision Map Act, Government Code Section 66410, et seq., or Riverside County
Ordinance No. 460, as the same was incorporated by reference into the Temecula Municipal
Code by Ordinance No. 90-04) to any person, partnership, joint venture, firm, or corporation
at any time during the term of this Agreement; provided, however, that any such sale,
transfer, or assignment shall include the assignment and assumption of the rights, duties, and
obligations arising under or from this Agreement and be made in strict compliance with the
following conditions precedent:
(a) No sale, transfer, or assignment of any right or interest under this
Agreement shall be made unless made together with the sale, transfer, or assignment of all or
a part of the Property. Owner agrees to provide specific notice of this Agreement, including
the record or document number, where a true and correct copy of this Agreement may be
racrnillin\combined.tla/1
8536.001/090397 -7-
obtained from the Riverside County Recorder, in any grant deed or other document purporting
to transfer the title or an interest in the Property during the term of this Agreement or any
extension thereof.
(b) Concurrent with any such sale, transfer, or assignment, or within fifteen
(15) business days thereafter, the Owner shall notify City, in writing, of such sale, transfer, or
assignment and shall provide City with an executed agreement, in the form attached hereto as
Exhibit D, by the purchaser, transferee, or assignee and providing therein that the purchaser,
transferee, or assignee unconditionally assumes all the duties and obligations of the Owner
under this Agreement.
Any sale, transfer, or assignment not made in strict compliance with the
foregoing conditions shall constituted a default by the Owner under this Agreement.
Notwithstanding the failure of any purchaser, transferee, or assignee to execute the agreement
required by Paragraph (b) of this Subsection, the burdens of this Agreement shall be binding
upon such purchaser, transferee, or assignee, but the benefits or this Agreement shall not inure
to such purchaser, transferee, or assignee until and unless such agreement is executed.
5.2 Release of Transferring Owner. Notwithstanding any sale, transfer, or
assignment, a transferring Owner shall continue to be obligated under this Agreement unless
such transferring Owner is given a release in writing by the City, which release shall be
provided by the City upon the full satisfaction by such transferring Owner of ALL of the
following conditions:
(a) The Transferring Owner no longer has a legal interest in all or any part
of the Properly except as a beneficiary under a deed of trust.
(b) The Owner is not then in default under this Agreement.
(c) The Owner or purchaser has provided City with the notice and executed
agreement required under Paragraph (b) of Subsection 5.1 above.
(d) The purchaser, transferee, or assignee has provided City with security
equivalent to any security previously provided by the Transferring Owner to secure
performance of its obligations hereunder.
(e) The Transferring Owner has reimbursed the City for any and all City
costs associated with Owner's transfer of all or a portion of the Properly.
5.3 Termination of Agreement with Respect to Individual Lots uoon Sale to
Public and Comoletion of Construction. Notwithstanding Subsection 5.1, or any other
provisions of this Agreement, this Agreement shall terminate with respect to any lot ai~d such
lot shall be released and no longer be subject to this Agreement without the execution or
recordation of any further document upon satisfaction of both of the following conditions:
(a) The lot has been finally subdivided and individually (and not in "bulk")
sold or leased (for a period longer than one year) to a member of the public or other ultimate
user; and
(b) A Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for a building on a lot, and
the fees set forth in this Agreement have been paid.
5.4 Subseouent Assignment. Any subsequent sale, transfer, or assignment
after an initial sale, transfer, or assignment shall be made only in accordance with and subject
to the terms and conditions of this Section.
6. Mortgagee Protection. The parties hereto agree that this Agreement shall not
prevent or limit Owner, in any manner, at Owner's sole discretion, from encumbering the
Property or any portion thereof or any improvement thereon by any mortgage, deed of trust,
or other security device securing financing with respect to the Property. City acknowledges
that the lenders providing such financing may require certain Agreement interpretations and
modifications and agrees upon request, from time to time, to meet with the Owner and
representatives of such lenders to negotiate in good faith any such requested interpretation or
modification. City will not unreasonably withhold its consent to any such requested
interpretation or modification provided such interpretation or modification is consistent with
the intent and purposes of this Agreement and provided further that the City will be entitled
to exercise its discretion in accordance with applicable law. Owner shall reimburse City for
any and all of City's reasonable costs associated with the negotiations, interpretations, and
modifications with~n~ thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice from City.
Any Mortgagee of the Property shall be entitled to the following rights and privileges:
(a) Neither entering into this Agreement nor a breach of this Agreement
shall defeat, render invalid, diminish, or impair the lien of any mortgage on the Property
made in good faith and for value, unless otherwise required by law.
(b) The Mortgagee of any mortgage or deed of trust encumbering the
Property, or any part thereof, which Mortgagee has submitted a request in writing, in the form
as attached hereto as Exhibit E, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, to
the City in the manner specified herein for giving notices, shall be entitled to receive written
notification from City of any default by the Owner in the performance of the Owner's
obligations under this Agreement.
(c) If City timely receives a request from a Mortgagee, in the form set forth
on Exhibit E, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, requesting a copy of
any notice of default given to the Owner under the terms of this Agreement, City shall
endeavor to provide a copy of that notice of default to the Mortgagee within ten 10 days of
sending the notice of default to the Owner. The Mortgagee shall have the right, but not the
obligation, to cure the default during the remaining cure period allowed such party under this
Agreement. City shall have no liability for damages or otherwise to Owner, Owner's
successor, or to any Mortgagee or successor thereof for the failure to provide such notice.
8536.001/090397 '9-
(d) Any Mortgagee who comes into possession of the Property, or any part
thereof, pursuant to foreclosure of the mortgage or deed of trust, or deed in lieu of such
foreclosure, shall take the Property, or pan thereof, subject to the terms of this Agreement.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, no Mortgagee shall
have an obligation or duty under this Agreement to perform any of the Owner's obligations or
other affirmative covenants of the Owner hereunder, or to guarantee such performance,
provided however, that to the extent that any covenant to be performed by Owner is a
condition precedent to the performance of a covenant by City, the performance thereof shall
continue to be a condition precedent to City's performance hereunder, and further provided
that any sale, transfer or assignment by any Mortgagee in possession shall be subject to the
provisions of Section 5.1 of this Agreement. The term of the Agreement shall not be
extended based on the fact that a Mortgagee holds title to the Property for all or any part of
the term of this Agreement.
(e) Any Mortgagee who comes into possession of the Property, or any
portion thereof, pursuant to subsection (d) above and who elects not to assume the obligations
of the Owner set forth herein shall not be entitled to any rights to develop which have or may
have vested as a result of this Agreement.
7. Binding Effect of A~,reement. The burdens of this Agreement bind and the
benefits of the Agreement inure to the successors-in-interest to the parties to it in accordance
with the provisions of and subject to the limitations of this Agreement.
8. Project as a Private Undertakin~/Relationshil~ of Parties. It is specifically
understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the development of the Project
is a private development, that neither party is an independent contracting entity with respect to
the terms, covenants, and conditions contained in this Agreement. No parmership, joint
venture, or other association of any kind is formed by this Agreement. The only relationship
between City and Owner is that of a government entity regulating the development of private
property and the owner of such property.
9. ChanEes in Proiect. No change, modification, revision, or alteration of Existing
Development Approvals may be made without the prior approval of the City. City may
expand the permitted uses for the Property without amending this Agreement so long as
Owner or Owner's successor retains his/her/their existing entitlements.
10. Timing of Development. The parties acknowledge that Owner cannot at this
time predict when, or the rate at which, the Property will be developed. Such decisions
depend upon numerous factors which are not within the control of Owner, such as market
orientation and demand, interest rates, absorption, completion and other similar factors. Since
the California Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo, 37 Cal.3d
465 (1984), that the failure of the parties therein to provide for the timing of development
resulted in a later-adopted initiative restricting the timing of development to prevail over such
parties, it is the parties' intent to cure the deficiency by acknowledging and providing that the
Owner shall have the right to develop the property in such order, at such rate, and at such
mcmillin\combirtd.da/l
8536,001/090397 -10-
times as the Owner deems appropriate within the exercise of its subjective business judgment,
subject only to any timing or phasing requirements set forth in the Development Plan.
11. IndemniW and Cost of Litigation.
11. I Hold Harmless. Owner agrees to and shall hold City, its officers,
employees, agents, and representatives harmless from liability for damage or claims for
damage for personal injury including death and claims for property damage which may arise
from the direct or indirect operations of the Owner or those of its contractor, subcontractor,
employee, agents, or other person acting on its behalf which relate to the Project, regardless
of whether or not City prepared, supplied, or approved plans or specifications for the Project.
This indemnification requirement shall survive the termination or expiration of this
Agreement.
11,2 Third ParW Litigation Concernin~ A~,reement. Owner shall indemnify,
protect, defend, at its expense - including attomey's fees, and hold harmless City, its officers,
employees, or agents against any loss, cost expense, claim, or counter-claim, complaint, or
proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Agreement or the approval
of any permit granted pursuant to this Agreement brought by any third party. City shall
promptly notify Owner of any such claim, action, or proceeding and City shall cooperate in
the defense. If City falls to promptly notify Owner of any such claim, action, or proceeding,
or if City fails to cooperate in the defense, Owner shall not thereafter be responsible to
defend, indemnify, or hold harmless City. City may in its discretion participate in the defense
of any such claim,, action, or proceeding.
11.3 Environmental Assurances. Owner shall indemnify, protect, defend with
counsel approved by City, and hold harmless City, its officers, employees, agents, assigns, and
any successor or successors to City's interest from and against all claims, actual damages
(including but not limited to special and consequential damages), natural resources dataages,
punitive damages, injuries, costs, response, remediation, and removal costs, losses, demands,
debts, liens, liabilities, causes of action, suits, legal or administrative proceedings, interests,
fines, charges, penalties and expenses (including but not limited to attorneys' and expert
wimess fees and costs incurred in connection with defending against any of the foregoing or
in enforcing this indemnity) of any kind whatsoever paid, incurred, or suffered by, or asserted
against, City or its officers, employees, or agents arising from or attributable to any repair,
cleanup, or detoxification, or preparation and implementation of any removal, remedial,
response, closure, or other plan (regardless of whether undertaken due to governmental action)
concerning a HaTnrdous Substance or hazardous wastes at'any place within the property which
is the subject of this Agreement. The foregoing indemnity extends beyond the term of this
Agreement and is intended to operate as an agreement pursuant to Section 107(e) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CCERCLA"),
42 U.S.C. Section 9667(e), and Califomia Health and Safety Code Section 25364, and their
successor statutes, to insure, protect, hold harmless, and indemnify City from liability.
8s 36. oo l /ogo39v -1 I-
11.4 Release. Owner, for itself, its successors and assignees, hereby releases
the City, its officers, agents, and employees from any and all claims, demands, actions, or
suits of any kind or nature arising out of any liability, known or unknown, present or future,
including, but not limited to, any claim or liability, based or asserted, pursuant to Article I,
Section 19 of the California Constitution, the Fifth Amendment of the United States
Constitution, or any other law or ordinance which seeks to impose any other liability or
damage, whatsoever, upon the City because it entered into this Agreement or because of the
terms of this Agreement.
11.5 Reservation of Ri~,hts. With respect to Sections 11.1 through 11.4
herein, City reserves the right to either (1) approve the attorney(s) which Owner selects, hires,
or otherwise engages to defend City hereunder, which approval shall not be unreasonably
withheld, or (2) conduct its own defense, provided, however, the Owner shall reimburse City
forthwith for any and all reasonable expenses incurred for such defense, including attorney's
fees, upon billing and accounting therefor.
11.6 Survival. The provisions of this Section 11.1 to 11.6, inclusive, shall
survive the termination of this Agreement.
12. Public Benefits. Public Improvements and Facilities.
12.1 Intent. The parties acknowledge and agree that this Agreement confers
private benefits on the Owner which should be balanced by commensurate public benefits.
Accordingly, the p, arties intend to provide consideration to the public to balance the private
benefits conferred on the Owner by providing more fully for the satisfaction of the public
needs resulting from development of the Project.
12.2 Ouimbv Recluirement. Temeku Hills shall satisfy its obligations to
dedicate park land or pay in lieu park fees under Riverside County Ordinance No. 460.93, as
the same was incorporated by reference into the Temecula Municipal Code by Ordinance
No. 90-04 CCity's Quimby Requirement") as follows:
(a) Temeku Hills shall dedicate to the City land for a fully improved park to
be used for recreational purposes in accordance with the City's Quimby Requirement, in a
size to be determined as set forth below, prior to the issuance of the 6081h building permit for
residential dwelling units in the Project. The size of the park described above in this Section
12.2(a) shall be calculated in the following manner:
(i) Multiply the number of dwelling units in the Project by 2.59 (the
average number of persons per dwelling unit), and then divide that sum by 1,000.
(ii) Multiply the quotient obtained by the calculation in subparagraph (i)
above by five (5) (the number of acres required per 1,000 people).
(iii) The result of the multiplication obtained in sub-paragraph (ii)
above shall constitute the size of the park to be dedicated by Temeku Hills to the City, subject
to reduction for the credits set forth in Section 12.2(b) below.
(b) The park described in Section 12.2(a) above shall be reduced in size by
the following credits:
(i) An acreage credit determined by multiplying the size of the park
determined in accordance with Section 12.2(a) by twenty-five percent (25%) for the Temeku
Hills Golf Course located within the Project.
(ii) A 2.5 acre credit for Veterans Park.
(ii) An acreage credit of 1.10 acres determined by multiplying the 2.2
acre common recreational facilities located within the Project by fifty percent (50%).
(c) By way of example only, if the number of dwelling units in the Project
is 1,449, the size of the park to be dedicated by Temeku Hills to the City pursuant to this
Section 12.2 shall be as follow:
1,449 dwelling units x 2.59 persons, divided by 1,000, multiplied by 5 acres = 18.76
acre park;
18.76 acre park, less the following credits:
(4.69) acre credit (25% golf course credit x 18.76 acre park)
(2.50) acre credit for Veterans Park
(1.10) acre credit for the common recreational facilities (2.2 acres x 50%).
10.47 acre park required
(d) Upon dedication of the land for a park as provided in Section 12.2 (a)
above, Temeku Hills shall design and complete construction of park improvements thereon
similar to other public parks of the same size and classification prior to the issuance of the
6081h building permit for residential dwelling units in the Project.
12.3 Public Facilities Fee. In lieu of the County Development Agreement
Fee, Owner shall pay the City Public Facilities Fee for residential units as follows:
(a) For each detached dwelling unit, the amount of Two Thousand Nine
Hundred and Thirty-Four Dollars ($2,934.00), inclusive of Street System Impact Fees
($729.00), Traffic Signal and Traffic Control System Fees ($109.00), Parks and Recreation
Impact Fees ($1,611.00), Corporate Facilities Impact Fees ($222.00), Fire Protection Impact
Fees ($55.00) and Library Impact Fees ($208.00).
8536.001/090397 ' 13 -
(b) For each attached dwelling unit, the amount of Two Thousand One
Hundred and Fourteen Dollars ($2,114.00), inclusive of Street System Impact Fees ($511.00),
Traffic Signal and Traffic Control System Fees ($77.00), Parks and Recreation Impact Fees
($1,209.00), Corporate Facilities Impact Fees ($118.00), Fire Protection Impact Fees ($42.00)
and Library Impact Fees ($156.00).
The City Public Facilities Fee shall be paid as provided in Section 12.8 below.
Owner expressly acknowledges the existence and holding in the case of Kaufman and Broad
Central Valley, Inc. v. City. of Modesto, (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1577, as it applies to later
adopted fees. Owner hereby waives for himself, and for any successor thereto, the right to
challenge the validity or amount of any such other public facilities fees which are enacted and
applied to residential development projects in the City. Such waiver applies to the Project
after the City Public Facilities Fee has been enacted by the City and applied to residential
development projects in the City. Owner acknowledges and agrees that the City would not
have entered into this Agreement if its application or operation would limit in any way the
City's ability to develop and apply a Comprehensive Public Facilities Fee Program to this
Project. Owner further acknowledges and agrees that the waiver provided herein applies not
only to this Agreement, but to any rights Owner may have under any vesting map filed and
deemed complete under the vesting maps statutes, Government Code Section 66498.1 et seq.
Finally, Owner agrees that the institution of any legal action by Owner, or any successor
thereof, to challenge the validity, amount, or application of the City Public Facilities Fee,
including paying such fees "under protest" pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 et
seq., shall constitute a material breach and default under this Agreement entitling the City to
summary termination hereof.
12.4 Public Facilities Fee Adjustment. The fees required by Section
12.3 above shall be adjusted annually during the term of this Agreement on the anniversary of
the Effective Date in accordance with the changes in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban
Consumers in the Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside Area (hereinafter CPI) published monthly
by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The annual adjustment shall be calculated in the
following manner:
(a) Divide the CPI for month and year of the Effective Date into the CPI
for the month immediately preceding the anniversary in which the fees are to be adjusted.
(b) Multiply the quotient obtained by the calculation in sub-paragraph (a)
above times the fees to be adjusted.
(c) The result of the multiplication obtained in sub-paragraph (b) above
shall constitute the fees payable during the succeeding year.
If the CPI specified herein is discontinued or revised during the term of this
Agreement, such other government index or computation with which it is replaced shall be
used in order to obtain substantially the same result as would have been obtained if the CPI
had not been discontinued.
8536.001/090397 -14-
In no event shall the fees after adjustment be less than the fees set forth in
Section 12.3 above.
12.5 Public Benefits and Credits. In consideration of Temeku Hills
dedicating, designing and improving a public park, providing the existing Veterans Park and
setting aside substantial private usable open space within the Project, all as more specifically
set forth in Section 12.2 above, Temeku Hills shall be entitled to an offset against the Park
and Recreation Impact Fees paid by Temeku Hills as a component of the City Public
Facilities Fee for the actual costs expended by Temeku Hills for the design and construction
of the park described in Section 12.2 above (as evidenced by actual third party invoices),
including a reasonable overhead burden of 10% of such actual costs (the "Park Fee Offset").
As a result of the Park Fee Offset, the Park and Recreation Impact Fees paid as a component
of the City Public Facilities Fee shall be affected in the following manner:
(a) Eliminated for the first 608 building permits issued to Owner for
residential dwelling units within the Project; and
(b) Eliminated for the number of building permits issued to Temeku Hills
for residential dwelling units constructed in excess of 608 units until such time as the Park
Fee Offset has been exhausted.
(c) By way of example only, assuming the cost to improve the park
described in Section 12.2 above is One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000),
and the Park and Recreation Impact Fee, including the Development Agreement Fee, is
$1,772.10, the number of building permits in excess of 608 units to be issued to Temeku Hills
for which the Park and Recreation Impact Fees component of the City Public Facilities Fee
would be eliminated as a result of the Park Fee Offset is as follows:
$1,772.10 park fee x 608 dwelling units = $1,077,436.80
$1,500,000 park improvements - $1,077,436.80 = $422,563.20 Park
Fee Offset
$422,563.20 Park Fee Offset + $1,772.10 park fee = 238.45 building
permits in excess of 608 issued for which no Park and Recreation
Impact Fees would be paid (for a total of 846.45 building permits for
which no Park and Recreation Impact Fees would be paid including the
first 608 building permits)
12.6 Develovment Ac, reement Fee. In consideration of the City granting to
Owner the rights and benefits contained within this Agreement, Owner shall pay to the City a
development agreement fee in an amount equal to ten percent (10%) of each component of
the City Public Facilities Fee described in Section 12.3(a) or 12.3(b), as the same may be
increased from time to time pursuant to Section 12.4 above (the "Development Agreement
Fee"). The Development Agreement Fee shall be added to the City Public Facilities Fee and
paid as provided in Section 12.8 below.
12.7 Fee Matrix. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a Fee Matrix showing the
City Public Facilities Fee, and the individual components thereof, the credits applicable to the
City Public Facilities Fee, and components thereof, and the Development Agreement Fee.
12.8 Timing. The.City Public Facilities Fee shall be paid at the time of
issuance of building permits for each residential unit constructed on the Property. Collection
of any and all interim Public Facilities Fees, or component thereof (or when combined with
the Park and Recreation Impact Fees) paid by the Owner for all home units constructed prior
to adoption of this Agreement, in surplus to those fees contained herein, shall be credited to
Owner.
12.9 Other ADvlicable Fees.
(a) Owner also shall pay all other customary and typical development
exactions, for a project of this size and nature, in existence as of the Effective Date and
throughout the tenln' of this Agreement, not included in the City Public Facilities Fee, pursuant
to provisions of City ordinances and resolutions in existence when paid.
(b) The parties hereto agree that to the extent the applicable Stephen' s
Kangaroo Rat and drainage fees have not been paid prior to the execution of this Agreement
by both parties, those fees remain applicable to the Project.
I2.10 Public Works. If Owner is required by this Agreement or any other
obligation, to construct any public works facilities which will be dedicated to City or rmy
other public agency upon completion, and if required by applicable laws to do so, Owner
shall perform such work in the same manner and subject to the same requirements as would
be applicable to City or such other public agency should it have undertaken such construction.
8536.(~011090397 -16-
12.11 Preference. In the event the City approves, enacts or applies a City
Public Facilities Fee or any component thereof, in an mount which is less than the amount(s)
provided in Section 12.3 above, or if the City approves, enacts or applies a City Public
Facilities Fee or any component thereof, for any other detached residential dwelling units in
an amount which is less than applicable to the Project, or if the City approves, enacts or
applies a Development Agreement Fee which is less than provided in this Agreement, or if
the City approves, enacts or applies any other fee which serves the same or similar purposes
of the Development Agreement Fee, or the City Public Facilities Fee in an amount which is
less than provided in this Agreement, the City shall adjust the amounts of the City Public
Facilities Fee, and/or Development Agreement Fee applicable to the Project to equal the lesser
fee amount(s). If any attached dwelling units are constructed in the Project, the City agrees to
apply the adopted components and fees for attached residential units with the same
proportional adjustments and credits as set forth in Section 12 of this Agreement.
13. Reservation of Authority.
13.1 Limitations, Reservations, and Excevtions. Notwithstanding any other
provision of the Agreement, the following Subsequent Land Use Regulations shall apply to
the development of the Property:
(a) Processing fees and charges imposed by City to cover the estimated
actual costs to City of processing applications for Subsequent Development Approvals.
(b) . Regulations goveming construction standards and specifications
including without limitation, the City's Building Code, Plumbing Code, Mechanical Code,
Electrical Code, and Fire Code.
(c) Regulations which are NOT in conflict with the Development Plan.
Any regulation, whether adopted by initiative or otherwise, limiting the rate or timing of
development of the Property shall be deemed to conflict with the Development Plan and shall
therefore not be applicable to the development of the Property.
(d) Regulations which are in conflict with the Development Plan, provided
Owner has given written consent to the application of such regulations to development of the
Property.
13.2 Subsequent Development A13Drovals. This Agreement shall not prevent
City, in acting on Subsequent Development Approvals, from applying the Subsequent Land
Use Regulations which do not conflict with the Development Plan, nor shall this Agreement
prevent City from denying or conditionally approving any Subsequent Development Approval
on the basis of the Existing or Subsequent Land Use Regulations not in conflict with the
Development Plan.
mcmiLlin\combined.da~l
8536.001/090397 -17-
13.3 Modification or Suspension bv State or Federal Law. In the event that
State or Federal laws or regulations enacted after the Effective Date of this Agreement
prevent or preclude compliance with one or more of the provisions of this Agreement, such
provisions of this Agreement shall be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply
with such State or Federal laws or regulations. In that event, however, this Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect to the extent it is not inconsistent with such laws or regulations
and to the extent such laws or regulations do not render such remaining provisions impractical
to enforce.
13.4 Regulation by Other Public A~eneies. It is acknowledged by the parties
that other public agencies not within the control of City possess authority to regulate aspects
of the development of the Property separately from or jointly with City and this Agreement
does not limit the authority of such other public agencies.
13.5 Tentative Tract May Extension. Pursuant to the provisions of
Section 66452.6 of the Government Code, any current or future tentative subdivision map(s)
or tentative parcel map(s) (vested or regular) approved as a part of implementing the
Development Plan, including without limitation Revised Tentative Tract Map 23371, shall be
extended to expire at the end of the term of this Agreement.
13.6 Vesting Tentative Maps. If any tentative or final subdivision map, or
tentative or final parcel map, heretofore or hereafter approved in connection with the
development of the property, is a vesting map under the Subdivision Map Act (Government
Code Section 6641.0, et seq.) and Riverside County Ordinance No. 460, as the same were
incorporated by reference into the Temecula Municipal Code by Ordinance No. 90-04, and if
this Agreement is determined by a final judgment to be invalid or unenforceable insofar as it
grants a vested fight to develop to the Owner, then and to that extent the rights, obligations,
and protections afforded the Owner and City respectively, under the laws and ordinances
applicable to vesting maps shall supersede provisions of this Agreement. Except as set forth
immediately above, development of the Property shall occur only as provided in this
Agreement, and the provisions in this Agreement shall be controlling over conflicting
provisions of law or ordinances concerning vesting maps.
13.7 Tentative Tract Maps - Perimeter Walls. The conditions of approval for
tentative subdivision map(s) or tentative parcel map(s) (vested or regular) approved as a part
of implementing the Development Plan shall be amended to provide that the construction of
perimeter walls and installation of landscaping and irrigation systems, that would otherwise be
required to be completed prior to the construction of any residential dwelling units, shall be
constructed in phases as the adjacent tracts are developed within the Project.
13.8 Maintenance of Proiect Landscalve Areas. Owner shall form a
homeowners' association which shall maintain all landscape areas within the Project including,
without limitation, all block walls and entry monuments located within the Project.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City acting through its Community Services District and
upon compliance with all applicable laws including, without limitation, any necessary public
voting procedures, shall consider maintaining all exterior landscape areas (excluding block
mcmillin\combined.da/I
8536.001/090397 - 18-
walls and entry monuments) within the Project adjacent to main collector streets having
widths of sixty-six feet (66') or larger. Unless these areas are accepted by the City's
Community Services District for maintenance, they will be maintained by the homeowner's
association.
13.9 Maxgarita Road Reimbursement. Owner's obligation to reimburse the
City for the cost of constructing certain roadway improvements to the east side of Margarita
Road from Rancho California Road to La Serena shall be $185.00 per residential unit
applicable to the first 800 residential units constructed in the Project, all as more specifically
set forth in that certain Reimbursement Agreement recorded in the Official Records of
Riverside County on July 14, 1994, as Instrument No. 281356.
13.10 Modified Street Sections. The Existing Development Approvals
incorporate the conversion of previously designated "private streets" within the Project to
public streets. To accommodate the conversion of private streets to public streets within the
Project, and as more fully set forth in the Existing Development Approvals, the City has
approved one type of{nodified street sections for Tracts 23371-1 through 23371-7, and
another type of modified street sections for the remainder of the Project.
13.11 Park Improvement Agreement and Security. For park improvements,
recreation facilities, slopes and landscaping proposed for dedication to the City's Community
Services District pursuant to this Agreement, Owner shall enter into an Improvement
Agreement and post securities for said improvements concurrently with the recordation of the
tracts where the improvements are located.
14. Development of the Provertv, Vesting, Termination of Develovment A~reement
No. 5
14. I Rights to Develov. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, including
payment of the City Public Facilities Fee and the Development Agreement Fee, the Owner
shall have a vested right to develop the Property in accordance with, and to the extent of the
Development Plan. The Project shall remain subject to all Subsequent Development
Approvals required to complete the Project as contemplated by the Development Plan. Except
as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the permitted uses of the Property, the density and
intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and provisions for
reservation and dedication of land for public purposes shall be those set forth in the
Development Plan. In exchange for the vested right to develop pursuant to this Agreement,
Owner expressly waives for himself and for any successor thereto, the right to challenge or
contest the validity of any condition of approval attached to any entitlement which is a part of
the Development Plan.
14.2 Effect of A~reement on Land Use Regulations. Except as otherwise
provided under the terms of this Agreement, including the payment of the City Public
Facilities Fee, the rules, regulations, and official policies governing permitted uses of the
Property, the density and intensity of use of the Property, the maximum height size of
proposed buildings, and the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications
8536,001/090397 '19-
applicable to development of the Property shall be Existing Land Use Regulations. City shall
exercise its lawful reasonable discretion in connection with Subsequent Development
Approvals in accordance with the Development Plan, and as provided by this Agreement
including, but not limited to, payment of the City Public Facilities Fee and the Development
Agreement Fee. City shall accept for processing, review, and action all applications for
Subsequent Development Approvals, and such applications shall be processed in the normal
manner for processing such matters. City may, at the request of Owner, contract for planning
and engineering consultant services to expedite the review and processing of Subsequent
Development Approvals, the cost of which shall be borne by Owner.
14.3 Changes and Agreements. The parties acknowledge that refinement and
further development' of the Project will require Subsequent Development Approvals and may
demonstrate that changes are appropriate and mutually. desirable in the Existing Development
approvals. In the event the Owner finds that a change in the Existing Development Approvals
is necessary or appropriate, the Owner shall apply for a Subsequent Development Approval to
effectuate such change. If approved, any such change in the Existing Development Approvals
shall be incorporated herein as addendum to this Agreement and may be further changed from
time to time as provided in this Section. Owner, shall, within thirty (30) days of written
demand by City, reimburse City for any and all reasonable costs, associated with any
amendment or change to this Agreement that is initiated by Owner or Owner's successor '-
without regard to the outcome of the request for amendment or change to this Agreement.
Unless otherwise required by law, as determined in City's reasonable discretion, a change to
the Existing Development Approvals shall be deemed "minor" and not require an amendment
to this Agreement provided such a change does not:
(a) Alter the permitted uses of the Property as a whole, except as provided
in Section 9 hereof, or,
(b) Increase the density or intensity of use of the Property as a whole; or,
(c) Increase the maximum height and size of permitted buildings; or,
(d) Delete a requirement for the reservation or dedication of land for public
purposes within the Property as a whole; or,
(e) Constitute a project requiring a subsequent or a supplemental
Enviroumental Impact Report pursuant to Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code.
14.4 Termination of Development Agreement No. 5. Both the City and the
Owner agree that on the Effective Date of this Agreement, Development Agreement No. 5
shall be terminated and of no further force or effect as to this Project only, having been
replaced by this Agreement.
mcmillin\combined.da/l
8536.001/090397
15. Periodic Review of Compliance with A~reement.
(a) Pursuant to City Resolution No. 91-52, as it may be subsequently
amended, City shall review this Agreement at least once during every twelve (12) month
period from the Effective Date of this Agreement. The Owner or successor shall reimburse
City for the reasonable and necessary costs of this review, within thirty (30) days of written
demand from City.
(b) During each periodic review by City, the Owner is required to
demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement. The Owner agrees to
furnish such evidence of good faith compliance as City in the exercise of its discretion may
require.
16. Financin~ District. Upon the request of Owner, the parties shall cooperate in
exploring the use of special assessment districts and other similar Financing Districts for the
financing of the construction, improvement, or acquisition of public infrastructure, facdities,
lands, and improvements to serve the Project and its residents, whether located within or
outside the Property. It is acknowledged that nothing contained in this Agreement shall be
construed as requiring City or City Council to form such a district or to issue or sell bonds.
17. Agreement or Cancellation of Agreement. This Agreement may be amended or
canceled in whole or in part only by mutual consent of the parties and in the manner provided
for in Government Code Section 65868. If an amendment is requested by the Owner or its
successor, the OwOer/successor agrees to pay City any Development Agreement processing fee
then in existence as established by City Council Resolution, or if no such fee is established, to
reimburse City for the actual and reasonably necessary costs of reviewing and processing the
Agreement within thirty (30) days of written demand from City -- without regard to City's
action on such amendment.
18. Enforcement. Unless amended or canceled as herein provided, this Agreement
is enforceable by any party to it, notwithstanding a change in the applicable general or
specific plan, zoning, subdivision, or building regulations adopted by the City.
19. Events of Default. Owner is in default under this Agreement upon the
happening of one or more of the following events or conditions:
(a) If a warranty, representation, or statement made or furnished by Owner
to City is false or proves to have been false in any material respect when it was made;
(b) More than forty-five (45) days have passed since City's making of a
written request to Owner for payment or reimbursement for a fee or service authorized or
agreed to pursuant to this Agreement.
(c) A finding and determination by City that upon the basis of substantial
evidence the Owner has not complied in good faith with one or more at the terms or
conditions of this Agreement.
mcmillin\combined,da/l
8536.130 1109039'/
20. Procedure Upon Default.
(a) Upon the occurrence of an event of default, City may terminate or
modify this Agreement in accordance with the procedure adopted by the City.
(b) City does not waive any claim of defect in performance by Owner
implied if on periodic review the City does not propose to modify or terminate this
Agreement.
(C)
Non-performance shall not be excused because of a failure of a third
person.
(d) Non-performance shall be excused only when it is prevented or delayed
by acts of God or an emergency declared by Governor.
(e) All other remedies at law or equity which are not otherwise provided
for in this Agreement or in City's regulations governing development agreements are available
to the parties to pursue in the event there is a breach.
21. Remedies. In general, each of the parties hereto may pursue any remedy at law
or equity available for the breach of any provision of tiTis Agreement, except that City, and its
officers, employees and agents, shall not be liable in damages to Owner or to any assignee,
transferee of Owner, or any other person, and Owner covenants not to sue or claim any
damages for breac.h of that Agreement by City. It is acknowledged by the parties that City
would not have entered into this Agreement if it were to be liable in damages under or with
respect to this Agreement or the application thereof Owner, for himself or any successor
thereto, expressly waives the right to seek damages against the City or any officer, employee
or agent thereof, for any default or breach of this Agreement.
22. Attorneys Fees and Costs. If legal action by either party is brought because of
breach of this Agreement or to enforce a provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party is
entitled to reasonable attorneys fees and court costs.
23. Notices. All notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be in
~witing and delivered in person or sent by certified mail postage prepaid and presumed
delivered upon actual receipt by personal delivery or within three (3) days following deposit
thereof in United States Mail. Notice required to be given to City shall be addressed as
follows:
To City:
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Attention: City Clerk
mcmillin\combined.da/l
8536.1201/090397 -22-
With a copy to:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
Richards, Watson & Gershon
A Professional Corporation
333 So. Hope Street, 38th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1469
Notices required to be given to Owner shall be addressed as follows:
To Owner:
Temeku Hills
Temeku Hills Development Partners, L.P.
2727 Hoover Avenue
National City, CA 91950
Attention: James H. Hunter, Senior Vice President
With a copy to:
Lorenz Alhadeff Cannon & Rose, LLP
27555 Ynez Road, Suite 203
Temecula, CA 92591
Attention: Samuel C. Alhadeff, Esq.
UDC:
UDC Homes, Inc.
438 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 112B
San Diego, CA 92108-3546
Attention: Jon Werner, Division President
With a copy to:
Hecht, Solberg, Robinson & Goldberg
600 West Broadway, 8th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Attention: Darryl O. Solberg, Esq.
A party may change the address by giving notice in writing to the other party in the manner
provided for herein, and thereafter notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new
address.
24. Cooperation. City agrees that it shall accept for processing and promptly take
action on all applications, provided they are in a proper form and acceptable for required
processing for discretionary permits, tract or parcel maps, or other land use entitlement for
development of the Project in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. City shall
cooperate with Owner in providing expeditious review of any such applications, permits, or
land use entitlement and, upon request and payment of any costs and/or extra fees associated
therewith by Owner, City shall assign to the Project planner(s), building inspector(s), and/or
other staff personnel as required to insure the timely processing and completion of the Project.
mcmillin~combincd.da/l
853&O01/090397 -23-
25. Miscellaneous Provisions.
25.1 Recordation of A~,reement. This Agreement and any amendment or
cancellation thereof shall be recorded with the County Recorder by the City Clerk within the
period required by Section 65868.5 of the Government Code.
25.2 Entire A~,reement. This Agreement sets forth and contains the entire
understanding and agreement of the parties, and there are no oral or written representations,
understandings or ancillary covenants, undertakings or agreements which are not contained or
expressly referred to herein. No testimony or evidence of any such representations,
understandings or covenants shall be admissible in any proceeding of any kind or nature to
interpret or determine the terms or conditions of this Agreement.
25.3 Severability. If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this
Agreement shall be determined invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of this
Agreement shall not be affected thereby to the extent such remaining provisions are not
rendered impractical to perform taking into consideration the purposes of this Agreement.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the provision of the Public Benefits set forth in Section 12 of
this Agreement, including the payment of the fees set forth therein, are essential elements of
this Agreement and City would not have entered into this Agreement but for such provisions,
and therefore in the event such provisions are determined to be invalid, void or unenforceable,
this entire Agreement shall be null and void and of no force and effect whatsoever.
25.4 Interpretation and Governin~ Law. This Agreement and any dispute
arising hereunder shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State
of California. This Agreement shall be construed as a whole according to its fair language
and common meaning to achieve the objectives and purposes of the parties hereto, and the
rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the draining party
shall not be employed in interpreting this Agreement, all parties having been represented by
counsel in the negotiation and preparation hereof.
25.5 Section Headin~,s. All section headings and subheadings are inserted for
convenience only and shall not affect any construction or interpretation of this Agreement.
25.6 Singular and Plural. As used herein, the singular of any word includes
the plural.
25.7 Joint and Several Obligations. If at 'any time during the term of this
Agreement the Property is owned, in whole or in part, by more than one Owner, all
obligations of such Owners under this Agreement shall be joint and several, and the default of
any such Owner shall be the default of all such Owners. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no
Owner of a single lot which has been finally subdivided and sold to such Owner as a member
of the general public or otherwise as an ultimate user shall have any obligation under this
Agreement except as provided under Section 5 hereof.
mcmillin\combined.dajl
8536.001/090397 -24-
25.8 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of the
provisions of this Agreement as to which time is an element.
25.9 Waiver. Failure by a party to insist upon the strict performance of any
of the provisions of this Agreement by the other party, or the failure by a party to exercise its
rights upon the default of the other party, shall not constitute a waiver of such party's right to
insist and demand strict compliance by the other party with the terms of this Agreement
thereafter.
25.10 No Third-Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into
for the sole protection and benefit of the parties and their successors and assigns. No other
person shall have any right of action based upon any provision of this Agreement.
25.11 Force Majeure. Neither party shall be deemed to be in default where
failure or delay in performance of any of its obligations under this Agreement is caused by
floods, earthquakes, other Acts of God, fires, wars, riots or similar hostilities, strikes and other
labor difficulties beyond the party's control (including the party's employment force),
government regulations, court actions (such as restraining orders or injunctions), or other
causes beyond the party's control. If any such events shall occur, the term of this Agreement
and the time for performance by either party of any of its obligations hereunder may be
extended by the written agreement of the parties for the period of time that such events
prevented such performance, provided that the term of this Agreement shall not be extended
under any circumstances for more than five (5) years.
25.12 Mutual Covenants. The covenants contained herein are mutual
covenants and also constitute conditions to the concurrent or subsequent performance by the
party benefitted thereby of the covenants to be performed hereunder by such benefitted party.
25.13 Successors in Interest. The burdens of this Agreement shall be binding
upon, and the benefits of this Agreement shall inure to, all successors in interest to the parties
to this Agreement. All provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable
servitude and constitute covenants running with the land. Each covenant to do or refrain from
doing some act hereunder with regard to development of the Property: (a) is for the benefit of
and is a burden upon every portion of the Property; (b) runs with the Property and each
portion thereof, and (c) is binding upon each party and each successor in interest during
ownership of the Property or any portion thereof.
25.14 Counterparts. This Agreement may 'be executed by the parties in
counterparts, which counterparts shall be construed together and have the same effect as if all
of the parties had executed the same instrument.
25.15 Jurisdiction and Venue. Any action at law or in equity arising under
this Agreement or brought by an party hereto for the purpose of enforcing, construing or
determining the validity of any provision of this Agreement shall be filed and tried in the
Superior Court of the County of Riverside, State of California, and the parties hereto waive
all provisions of law providing for the filing, removal or change of venue to any other court.
mcmillin\combined.da/l
8536.0011090397 -25-
25.16 Further Actions and Instruments. Each of the parties shall cooperate
with and provide reasonable assistance to the other to the extent contemplated hereunder in
the performance of all obligations under this Agreement and the satisfaction of the conditions
of this Agreement. Upon the request of either party at any time, the other party shall
promptly execute, with acknowledgment or affidavit if reasonably required, and file or record
such required instruments and writings and take any actions as may be reasonably necessary
under the terms of this Agreement to carry out the intent and to fulfill the provisions of this
Agreement or to evidence or consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement.
25.17 Eminent Domain. No provision of this Agreement shall be construed to
limit or restrict the exercise by City of its power of eminent domain.
25.18 A~reement for Service of Process. In the event owner is not a resident
of the State of California or it is an association, partnership or joint venture without a
member, parmer or joint venmrer resident of the State of California, or it is a foreign
corporation, then in any such event, Owner shall file with the Planning Director, upon its
execution of this Agreement, a designation of a natural person residing in the State of
California, giving his or her name, residence and business addresses, as its agent for the
purpose of service of process in any court action arising out of or based upon this Agreement,
and the delivery to such agent of a copy of any process in any such action shall constitute
valid service upon Owner. If for any reason service of such process upon such agent is not
feasible, then in such event Owner may be personally served with such process out of this
County and such service shall constitute valid service upon owner. Owner is amenable to the
process so served, .submits to the jurisdiction of the Court so obtained and waives any and all
objections and protests thereto.
26. AuthoriW to Execute. Each party hereto expressly warrants and represents that
he/she/they has/have the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of his/her/their
corporation, partnership, business entity, or governmental entity and warrants and represents
that he/she/they has/have the authority to bind his/her/their entity to the performance of its
obligations hereunder.
tncmiltin\combinecLda/l
8536.CO1/090397 -26-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Agreement has been executed by the authorized
representatives of the parties hereto.
"CITY"
City of Temecula
ATTEST:
By:
Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
[Notary Required]
[SIGNATURES CONTINUE ON NEXT PAGE]
mcmillin\combine~.da/l
8536.0011090397 -27-
"OWNER"
Temeku Hills:
Temeku Hills Development Partners, L.P.,
a California limited partnership
By:
McMillin Project Services, Inc.,
a California corporation, as Attorney-in-fact
Under Durable Power of Attorney
By: (,is .....
Its:
(dd~)
Its:
UDC Homes, Inc.,
a California corporation
By:
Its:
[Notary Required]
Its:
(tide)
mcmillin\combined.da/l
8536.0011090397
ALL PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF
SS
On , 1997, before me,
a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the
person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that
he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which
the person(s) acted; executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature
SEAL
[]
[]
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER
INDIVIDUAL(S)
OFFICER(S) (TITLE[S]):
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
PARTNER(S)
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
TRUSTEE(S)
SUBSCRIBING WITNESS
GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHER:
Chairperson
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
Name of person(s) or entity(ies)
8536.001/090397 -29-
ALL PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF
SS
On , 1997, before me,
a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the
person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that
he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which
the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature
SEAL
[]
[]
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER
INDIVIDUAL(S)
OFFICER(S) (TITLE[S]):
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
PARTNER(S)
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
TRUSTEE(S)
SUBSCRIBING WITNESS
GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHER:
Chairperson
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
Name of person(s) or entity(ies)
mcmillin\combined.da/l
8536.001/090397 -30-
ALL PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF
SS
On , 1997, before me,
a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the
person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that
he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which
the person(S) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature
SEAL
[]
[]
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER
INDIVIDUAL(S)
OFFICER(S) (TITLE[S]):
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
PARTNER(S)
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
TRUSTEE(S)
SUBSCRIBING WITNESS
GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHER:
Chairperson
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
Name of person(s) or entity(ies)
mcmillin\combined.da/l
8536.0~1/090397 '3 1 -
ALL PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF
SS
On , 1997, before me,
a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the
person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that
he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which
the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature
SEAL
[1
[1
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER
INDIVIDUAL(S)
OFFICER(S) (TITLE[S]):
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[1
PARTNER(S)
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
TRUSTEE(S)
SUBSCRIBING WITNESS
GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHER:
Chairperson
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
Name of person(s) or entity(ies)
mcmillln\combined.da/1
as36.0m/o~397 -32-
ALL PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF
SS
On , 1997, before me,
a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the
person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that
he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
Ms/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which
the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature
SEAL
[]
[]
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER
INDIVIDIdAL(S)
OFFICER(S) (TITLE[S]):
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
PARTNER(S)
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
TRUSTEE(S)
SUBSCRIBING WITNESS
GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHER:
Chairperson
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
Name of person(s) or emity(ies)
mcmillin\combined.tta/l
8536.001/0~O397 -33-
ALL PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF
SS
On , 1997, before me,
a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the
person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that
he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which
the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal,
Signature
SEAL
[]
[1
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER
INDIVIDUAL(S)
OFFICER(S) (TITLE[S]):
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
PARTNER(S)
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
TRUSTEE(S)
SUBSCRIBING WITNESS
GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHER:
Chairperson
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
Name of person(s) or entity(ies)
mcmillin\combined.da/l
8536,001/090397
ALL PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF
SS
On , 1997, before me,
a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the
person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that
he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which
the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature
SEAL
[]
[]
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER
INDIVIDUAL(S)
OFFICER(S) (TITLE[S]):
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
PARTNER(S)
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
TRUSTEE(S)
SUBSCRIBING WITNESS
GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHER:
Chairperson
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
Name of person(s) or entity(ies)
EXHIBIT A
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS
General Plan - Low, Low Medium and Medium Density Residential
Soeci~c Plan - County of Riverside Ordinance No. 460, Specific Plan No. 199 (Margarita
Village)
Land Divisions-
Final Tract Map No. 23371-1
Final Tract Map No. 23371-2
Final Tract Map No. 23371-3
Final Tract Map No. 233714
Final Tract Map No. 23371-5
Amended Tentative Tract Map No. 23371
Tentative Tract Map No. 28482
mcmillin\combined.daq
8536.001/090397 -36-
EXHIBIT B
EXISTING LAND USE REGULATIONS
General Plan Land Use designation is Low, Low Medium and Medium Density Residential.
Specific Plan 199 (Margarita Village)
mcmiltin~combined.da/l
ss3~,co~/o9o3~7 -37-
EXHIBIT C
LEGAL DESCRIFrlON
mcmHlin\combincd,da/l
S536.0011090397 -38-
EXHIBIT D
ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF DEVELOP1VIENT AGREEMENT
ss36.o0~/o9o397 -39-
EXHIBIT E
REQUEST FOR NOTICE OF DEFAULT UNDER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Development Agreement:
Amendment and Restatement
of Development Agreement
Specific Plan No. 199, Margarita Village
Planning Application No.
Dam:
To: City of Clerk and Planning Director, City of Temecula
Pursuant to Sections 6(b) and (c) of the above-referenced Amendment and Restatement
of Development Agreement, request is hereby made by as Mortgagee for
the property (or portion thereof) to receive copies of any Notice of Default issued by City
against Owner in accordance with the terms and conditions of such Amendment and Restatement
of Development Agreement. Copies of any such Notices should be mailed to the following
address:
(Mortgagee)
(Person/Department)
(Address)
(City/State/Zip)
(Telephone No.)
A copy of this Notice should be filed with the project file to insure proper and timely
notice is given. Under the terms of the Amendment and Restatement of Development
Agreement, as Mortgagee is entitled to receive copies of any Notice of Default
within ten (10) days of sending any such Notice to Owner. Failure to send any such Notice
may have serious legal conseouences for the City.
This request is to remain in effect until revoked by as Mortgagee
or the Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement is Terminated.
The person executing this document on behalf of the Mortgagee warrants and represents
that the entity he/she represents is a bona fide Mortgagee of the property and is entitled to
receive copies of Notices of Default under the Amendment and Restatement of Development
Agreement.
8536,001/090397
The undersigned declares the above information is true and correct under the penalty of
perjury under the laws of the State of California.
Dated: , 1997
Mortgagee
By:
(signature)
Its:
(printed name)
(title)
[Notary required]
This Notice is to be sent to both the City Clerk and Planning Director for the City of Temecula
at P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, Ca 925989-9033 or such other location as Temecula City Hall may
be located in the future.
mcmillin\combined.da/l
8536.001/090397 -41 -
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
PC RESOLUTION NO. 97-
PA97-0144
R:\STAFFRF~I42pAg'7.PC 9/3/97klb 25
ATTACHlVIENT NO.
PC RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA97-0144 (TF_aNTATIVE TRACT MAP
NO. 28482) LOCATI~SOUTH OFLA SERENA WAY, EAST
OF MARGARITA ROAD, WEST OF MEADOWS
PARKWAY, NORTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD,
WITHIN ~ MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 953-035-007,
953--060-008, -009, and -028.
WttFI!EAS, Temeku Hills Development Partners, L.P. fled Planning Application No.
PA97-0144 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County l~nd Use
and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0144 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA97-0144
on September 8, 1997, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time
interested persons had an oppommity 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 desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all facts
relating to Planning Application No. PA97-0144;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMIRSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. FAadiag~ That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby 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:
1. The proposed land division and the design or improvement of the project
is consistent with the proposed General Plan designations and Specific Plan No. 199. The site is
physically suitable for the type and density of development. The proposed General Plan Land Use
R:\STAFFRPT~I42PA97.PC 9/3/97 klb 26
designations for the site are Low-Medium Density Residential (3-6 dweRing units per acre) and
Medium Density Residential (7-12 dwelling units per acre). Planning Area 40 proposes 198
residential parcels on 40.1 acres for a density of 4.94 units per acre and is consistent with the Low
Medium designation. Planning Area 38 proposes 181 dwelling units on 29.3 acres for a density
of 6.18 units per acre and is consistent with the Medium designation.
2. The design of the proposul land division or proposed improvements is not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat. There are no known fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the
project will not affect any fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. The site is surrounded by development
and is an in~ll site. The project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on
wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code.
3. The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements is not
likely to cause serious public health problems. The project ha~ been reviewed for conformance
with Specific Plan No. 199, the City's General Plan, Development Code, Subdivision and
Landscaping Ordinances. The project is consistent with these documents and conditions of
approval have been placed on the project accordingly to assure that the development conforms to
City Standards.
4. 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. The project will take access from La Serena Way,
Meadows Parkway, and Rancho California Road, and will not obstruct any easements.
5. The map as proposed, conforms to the logical development of the proposed
site, and is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Environmental Impact Report No. 202 was
prepared for Specific Plan No. 199 and was certified by the Riverside County Board of
Supervisors. In conjunction with Amendment No. 2 to the Specific Plan, a number of additional
studies were undertaken to update and complement the original EIR. The additional studies, a
geotechnical study, traffic study and a Kangaroo Rat trapping and update study, confirmed the
validity of the original analysis.
It has been eleven (11) years since the original environmental analysis was
performed for this project. Therefore, Staff prepared another Initial Environmental Assessment
to examine the question of whether any impacts beyond those analyzed in the previous EIR and
subsequent studies would result from the proposed project, changes in circumstances, or new
information. In areas where there was a potential change in circumstances, specifically traffic,
noise, and lighting, staff requested additional information from the applicant. Based upon Staffs
analysis, the project is consistent with the information contained in the previously certified EIR.
Due to the limited scope of the proposed changes to the specific plan, there will be no effect
beyond that which was reviewed in the previous analysis.
R:~TA~142PA97.PC 9/3/97 Idb 27
Under California Public Resources Code Section 21166 and Section 15162 of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, no additional FJR is required unless
additional impacts not previously considered, or substantial increases in the severity of impacts,
may result from: substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project is undertaken
which would require a major revision in the FiR, or new information that could not have been
known at the time the EIR was prepared becomes available. None of these situations has
occurred; therefore, no further environmental analysis is required.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Planning Application No. PA97-0144 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28482) located south of La
Serena Way, east of Margarita Road, west of Meadows Parkway, north of Rancho California
Road, within the Margarita Village Specific Plan and known as Assessor' s Parcel No. 953-035-
007, 953-060-008, -009, and -028, subject to Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein
by this reference and made a part hereof.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of September, 1997.
Linda Fathey, Chairman
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 8th day of
September, 1997 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\$TAFFRPTX142PA97.1~C 9/3/97k~ 28
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PA97-0144
R:~STAFFRF~I42PA97.PC 9131rl k~ 29
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA97-0144 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28482)
Project Description:
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
A residential subdivision of 74.5 acres into 368 single
family lots, two landscape lots end two open
space/recreational lots within Planning Are 40 of Specific
Plan No. 199 - Margarits Village
953-035-007, 953-060-008, -009, and -028
September 8, 1997
November 8, 2000 or as amended by Development
Agreement (PA97-0204)
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. PA97-0144 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28482) which action is brought within the
appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter
4 (Section 21000 et SPa., 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.
If subdivision phasing is proposed, the applicant shall submit a phasing plan to the
Planning Manager for approval.
e
The tentative subdivision shall comply with all requirements of Specific Plan No. 199
and its amendments unless superseded by these conditions of approval.
5. The tentative subdivision shall be covered by Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
and Homeowner Association requirements already established for other residential
subdivisions within Village A of Specific Plan No. 199.
Maintenance of common areas and slope areas shall be provided in accordance with
Exhibit F - Maintenance Responsibility Exhibit.
Turn-in garages for standard vehicles are limited to lots with a frontage width of 45 feet
or wider.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
The applicant shall submit a copy of the Rough Grading plans to the Planning Director
for approval.
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula
Municipal Code.
10.
The applicant shall submit construction landscape plans to the Planning Department for
review and approval. The plans shall be consistent with City standards 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
including:
Landscaping on all sloped areas and common areas.
Front yard landscaping.
The height, location and materials for all walls and fences along rear and side
yards of individual interior lots. Fencing shall be installed at the toe of slopes.
Prior to Recordation of the Final Map
11. The applicant shall submit the following to the Planning Director for approval:
A copy of the Final Map
A copy of the Rough Grading Plans
A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes:
"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."
The applicant shall submit a copy of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
(CC&R's) for review and approval by the Planning Department, Public Works
Department and the City Attorney.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
12.
The applicant shall submit a receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School
District to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School
Mitigation fees.
13. The applicant shall submit the following to the Planning Director for approval:
a. Precise grading plans consistent with the approved rough grading plans including
all structural setback measurements.
b. The Temporary Use Permit application for a Model Home Complex (if applicable)
which includes the following:
i. Site Plan with off-street parking
ii. Construction Landscape Plans
iii. Fencing Plans
iv. Building Elevations
v. Floor Plans
vi. Materials and Colors Board
c. A Development Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Director
for the housing product.
14. The applicant shall submit an acoustical analysis to the Planning Department for
approval. The analysis shall be submitted prior to the issuance of the first building
permit for the project. The analysis shall contain recommendations to ensure that noise
levels do not exceed 65dBA for exterior and 45dBA for interior noise levels.
15. 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.
Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits
16. Front yard and slope landscaping within individual lots shall be completed for inspection.
17. 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.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The Department of Public Works recommends the following Conditions of Approval for this
project. Unless stated otherwise, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost
to any Government Agency.
General Requirements
18. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map 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.
19. A Grading Permit for either rough or precise 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.
R:~STAFFRP~I44PA97.COA 9/3/97
20.
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.
21.
All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated
for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site
and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
Prior to Approval of the Final Map, unless other timing is indicated, the Developer shall
complete the following or have plans submitted and epproved, subdivision improvement
agreements executed and securities posted:
22.
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
Community Services District
General Telephone
Southern California Edison Company
Southern California Gas Company
23.
The Developer shall construct the following public and private improvements to
standards approved within Specific Plan Amendment No.3 unless otherwise noted.
Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works:
Improve Meadows Parkway from Rancho California Road to meet and match
existing northerly improvements to Major Highway Standards (100' R/W) to
include dedication of full-width right-of-way; installation of half-width paved
street improvements plus full raised traffic safety island, 12-foot paved travel
lane easterly of centerline and an eight-foot D.G. shoulder; curb and gutter;
sidewalk; street lights; drainage facilities; signing and striping; utilities (including
but not limited to water and sewer).
Improve Royal Birkdale Drive to Modified Local Standards (65.5' R/W) to include
dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of full-width street
improvements including 12-foot raised traffic safety island, paving, curb and
gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities
(including but not limited to water and sewer).
CE
Improve all private interior streets to Modified Local Standards (50' R/W), with
the exception of Streets "A" and "J" (66'R/W) to include dedication of full-width
street right-of-way (in addition to 16' raised median for Streets "A" and "J"
exclusively), installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and
R:~STAFFRPT~I44PA~7.COA 9/3197 lab 4
gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities
(including but not limited to water and sewer).
Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the
design of the street improvement plans, as specified in City Standards and Specific Plan
Amendment No.3:
Minimum street centerline radii shall be 250 feet, except as modified through the
Specific Plan.
Street centerline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00%
minimum over A.C. paving. Maximum street grade shall not exceed 12%.
Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard Nos. 207, 207A and/or
208.
Street lights shall be installed along the public streets and designed in
accordance with Ordinance No. 461.
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with Modified City
Standard Nos. 400 and 401 to a standard width of 4.5 feet contiguous with face
of curb.
f. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
All units shall be provided with zero clearance garage doors and garage door
openers if the driveway is less than 18 feet in depth from back of sidewalk.
Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV
shall be provided underground. Easements shall be provided as required where
adequate right-of-way does not exist for installation of the facilities. All utilities
shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility
provider.
j. Cul-de-sac geometries shall meet current City Standards.
Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Rancho California Road and Meadows
Parkway on the Final Map with the exception of interior street openings as approved by
the Department of Public Works.
Corner property line cut off for vehicular sight distance and installation of pedestrian
facilities shall be provided at all street intersections in accordance with Riverside County
Standard No. 805.
R:~STAFFRP~I44PA97.COA 9,'3/97 lab 5
10.
11.
12.
13.
All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the
public or other appropriate agency 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.
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid.
An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the final
map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be recorded with the final
map. 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. Special Study Zones.
b. Geotechnical hazards identified in the project's geotechnical report.
c. Archeological and paleontological resources found on the site.
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.
All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall
be provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and
constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. Telephone, cable
TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in the residence.
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.
Bus bays will be provided at all existing and future bus stops as determined by the
Department of Public Works.
Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be
delineated and noted on the final map.
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."
R:~TAFFRPT~I44PA97.COA 9/'1/97 klb 6
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
14.
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
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
Riverside County Health Department
Community Services District
General Telephone
Southern California Edison Company
Southern California Gas Company
15.
A Grading Ran shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City
of Temecula standards and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any grading. The plan shall incorporate adequate erosion control
measures to protect the site and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion.
16.
An updated Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Civil or Soils Engineer and
submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The
report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections.
17.
An updated Geotechnical Report shall be prepared by a registered engineer or
engineering geologist and submitted to the Department of public Works with the initial
grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and identify any
geotechnical hazards for the site including location of faults and potential for
liquefaction. The report shall include recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground
shaking and liquefaction.
18.
A Drainage Study shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The study shall identify
storm water runoff quantities expected from the development of this site and upstream
of the site. It shall identify all existing or proposed off-site or on-site, public or private,
drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an
adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public
or private property. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy
of all facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the
storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project. The basis
for analysis and design shall be a storm with a recurrence interval of one hundred years.
19.
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:~STAFFI~T~144pA~7.COA 9,'3/97 klb 7
20.
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.
21.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area
Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is
payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District prior to
issuance of any permit. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has
already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
22.
The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work
performed on adjoining properties. The tetters or easements shall be in a format as
directed by the Department of Public Works.
23.
All lot drainage shall be directed to the driveway by side yard drainage swales
independent of any other lot.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
24. The corresponding Final Map shall be approved and recorded.
25.
A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review
and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for
location and elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing
compaction and site conditions.
26.
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code,
the approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards
and accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall be in
substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan.
27.
The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding dated April 23,
1996.
Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy
28.
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
29.
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
30.
All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City
standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
R:~STAFFILPT~I44PAP7.COA 9/3/97 Ir. lb 8
31.
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 Director of Public Works.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
32.
Comply with applicable provisions of the 1994 edition of the California Building,
Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1993 National Electrical Code; California
Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula
Municipal Code.
33. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
34.
Provide electrical plan including loan calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan for plan review.
35.
Prior to building permit issuance, approval must be obtained from the Water District,
Sanitation District, Public Works Department, Fire Department, Planning Department and
Building Department.
36.
Based on submitted documents, the occupancy classification of the proposed use shall
be R-3, U-1.
37.
Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record, the truss manufacturers
engineer, are required for plan review submittal.
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
Community Services has reviewed the revised tentative map application and has the following
conditions of approval:
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:
38.
The park dedication requirement (Quimby) shall be satisfied with the development and
dedication of the community park identified in Specific Plan 199, Amendment No. 3.
39.
The installation of all slopes and landscaped medians shall be in conformance with the
City of Temecula Landscape Development Plan Guidelines and Specifications.
40.
Construction of the community park, slopes and landscaped medians proposed for
dedication to the TCSD shall commence pursuant to a pre-job meeting with the
developer and the City Maintenance Superintendent. Failure to comply with the TCSD
review and inspection process may preclude acceptance of these areas into the TCSD
maintenance program.
41.
The developer shall complete the TCSD application process prior to the acceptance of
street lighting and perimeter slope areas into the respective TCSD maintenance
programs. The developer shall maintain the slopes and landscaped medians until such
time as those responsibilities are accepted by the TCSD or other responsible party.
42.
Exterior slopes adjacent to Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway shall be
maintained by an established homeowner's association until such time as those
responsibilities are offered and accepted by the TCSD for maintenance purposes. All
other interior slopes, open space, perimeter walls, and entry monumentation shall be
maintained by a homeowner's association.
43.
Bike lanes shall be provided on site to intercept with the City's Park and Recreation
Master Plan. Class II bike lanes shall be completed in concurrence with the street
improvements.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF FINAL MAPS:
44.
Prior to recordation of the final map, landscape construction drawings for the slopes
and landscaped medians proposed for dedication to the City shall be reviewed and
approved by the Director of Community Services.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS:
45.
Prior to the installation of street lights or issuance of building permits, whichever comes
first, the developer shall pay the appropriate fees to the TCSD for the dedication of
arterial and residential streets into the appropriate TCSD maintenance program.
46.
The community park shall be improved and dedicated prior to the issuance of the 608th
overall residential building permit within the Temeku Hills development.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
47.
It shall be the developer's responsibility to provide written disclosure of the existence
of the TCSD and its service level rates and charges to all prospective purchasers.
48.
Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within each phased map, the
developer shall submit the most current list of Assessor's Parcel Numbers assigned to
the final project.
OTHER AGENCIES
49.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern Municipal
Water District's transmittal dated May 16, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
50.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Rancho California
Water District transmittal dated May 21, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
51.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Riverside County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District's transmittal dated June 26, 1997, a
copy of which is attached.
I have read, understand and accept the above Conditions of Approval.
Applicant Name
R:L~TAFFRYI~144PA97.COA 9/3/97 lab ] 0
.,astern J Lunicipa{ / ter District
May 16, 1997
Riverads Ccunh' Health Dop=_.~jTlent
c/o Rick Engineering Company
3050 Chicago Avenue
Suite 100
Riverside, CA~ 92507
Gentlemen:
RE: Availability of Sanitary Sewer Se~ce for Tentalive Tract 28482 . We hereby advise you relative to
the availability of unitary sewer service for the above referenced proposed development as foliowe:
The property to be occupied by the subject proposed development 18 PRESENTLY LOCATED within the
boundary lines of this Disbicrs Improvement District No. U'~ and is eligible to receive sanitary sewer service,
Upon submittal of plane for review ~e District will determine the following:
1 ) Major off-site fadffijes may be required to sen/e this project.
Sanitary sewer service will be made available to the subject property provided:
1) The developer completes all necessary financial and other arrangements therefore, as
determined by the Distiict. with the DisMct by November 1998
2) That no UMITING CONDITIONS exist which ARE BEYOND this DISTRICTS CONTROL or
CANNOT BE COST-EFFECTIVELY and/or reasonably setterrod by the District, which
conditions may include but are not limited to, acts of God, REGULATORY AGENCY
REQUIREMENTS or decisions, or legal actions initiated by others;
If you have any questions or comments regarding the foregoing. do not hesitate to dontact this office.
Sincerely, ~,
Assistant Director of Customer Service
RECEIVED
HAY201997
IPaC-J( ENGINEERING CO
Mail to: Post Office Box 8300 San Jacinto, California 92581-8300 Telephone (909) 925-7676 Fax (909) 929-0257
Main Office: 2045 S. San Jacinto Avenue, San .lacinto Customer Service / Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue, Hernet, CA
Operations & Maintenance Center: 2270 Trumble Road, Perris, CA 92571 Telephone (909) 928-3777 Fax (909) 928-6177
May 21,199
Board of Dtrector~;
Ms. Carole Donahoe, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
By
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAILABILITY
TRACT MAP 28482
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0144
Dear Ms. Donahoe:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within
the boundaries of Rancho California Water Distdct (RCWD). Water
service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial
arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. The Developer
should contact RCWD concerning facility requirements, upsizing the
required facilities, and the relocation of any District facilities.
If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD
for fees and requirements.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing
an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any,
to RCWD.
If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services
Representative at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
97/SB:eb097-2/F012/FEF
c: Laurie Willlares, Engineering Services Supervisor
Rancho California Water District
DAVID P. ZAPPE
Gcacnd Manager-Chief Engineer
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
City of Ternecula
Planni Department
43200r~Jsiness Park Ddve
Temecula, California 92590
Attention: C~}I~.OL~
Ladies and Gentlemen:
1995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE. CA 92501
909/275-1200
909/788-9965 FAX
7829.1
The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities.
hazard reports for such na~e~. DistriCt comments/recommend~ions for such nase~ am normally limiteel to ifams of
s_pqcitic interest to the District inc~.'. District Master Dmina Plan fadltiids, other iorml flood control and
Area~P~inage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is provided.
V//This project would not be impacted by Disthct Master Chainage Ran facilities nor are other radiities of regional
interest proposed.
This project involves District IVlaster Plan facilities. The Dist~ct will acce ownership of such facilities on
written request of the City. Fadlities must be constructed to Dist~ct sten~s, and Dmtzict plan check and
inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be
required.
This project prom channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be
considered raglone in nature and/Or a Ic~gical extension of the adopted
Master Drainage Plan. The District would consider acceptin ownership of such facilities on writfan rectuest
of the C' . Fddlities must be constmctecl to District standar~gs: and District plan check and inspection will be
requi~l~6r District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required.
deferred, at the tim of issuance of the actual permit. '
GENERAL INFORMATION
This project my require a National Pollutent Discharge Biminetion stem (NPDES) permit from the State Water
Resources Control BOard. Clearance far gmdi , recordation, Or ~h~l approval should not be given Un,I the CAb/
has determined that the project has been grann~ a permit or is shown to be exempL
If this pm'ect involves a Federal Emergen.cy Management Agency (FEMA mapped flood plain, then the City should
require ~e applicant to rovide all studms, calcutalions, plans and o~tt~r information required to meat FEMA
reduiremnts, and should ~rther require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior
to grading, recordalion or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revisio~n (LO MR) prior to occupancy.
If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is im cted by this project, the City should require the a ticant to
obtain a Section 160111G03 A reement from the C;~i~mia Department of Rsh and Game and a Clean P~:ter Act
Section 404 Permit from the U.~. Army Corps of Fn ineers, or written correspondonce from these agencies indicating
the project is exempffrom these requirements. A ~lean Water Act Section 401 Water Qual~ Certification may b~
required from the local California Regional Water Quality Centsol Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit.
Very truly yours,
STUART E. MCKIBBIN
Senior Civil Engineer
Date:/u2 - ~2 ' ~
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
PC RESOLUTION NO. 97-
PA97-0143
R:~STAFF~PT~142PA97.PC 9/3/97 k~ 30
ATTACHM~-NT NO. 5
PC RESOLUTION NO. 97-
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA97-0143 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
NO. 28526) LOCATED SOUTH OF LA SERENA WAY, EAST
OF MARGARITA ROAD, WEST OF MEADOWS
PARKWAY, NORTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD,
WITHIN THE MARGARITA VILLAGE SPF_~IFIC PLAN
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 953-260-001
through -009 and 9~3-270-001 through -008
WHEREAS, Tcmeku Hills Devclopment Partners, L.P. fried Planning Application No.
PA97-0143 in accordance with the City of Temecula G-e~eral Plan and Riverside County Land Use
and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0143 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WI~REAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA97-0143
on September 8, 1997, 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 desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all facts
relating to Planning Application No. PA97-0143;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. ~ That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby 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:
1. The proposed land division and the design or improvement of the project
is consistent with the City's General Plan and Specific Plan No. 199. The site is physically
suitable for the type and density of development. The project proposes reduction of dwelling units
from 62 to 44 residential parcels on 6.04 acres for a density of 7.28 units per acre. This is
consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation for maximum density on the site.
2. The design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements is not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or
wildlife or theft habitat. The project site has been previously graded and partially developed.
There is no fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish,
wildlife or habitat off-site. The project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse
effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code.
3. The design of the proposed land divi~ion or the type of improvements is not
likely to cause serious public health problems. The project has been reviewed for conformante
with Specific Plan No. 199, the City's General Plan, Development Code, Subdivision and
Landscaping Ordinances. The project is consistent with these documents and conditions of
approval have been placed on the project accordingly to assure that the development conforms to
City Standards.
4. 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. The project will take access from La Serena Way,
Meadows Parkway, Rancho California Road and Margarita Road, and will not obstruct any
easements.
5. The map as proposed, conforms to the logical development of the proposed
site, and is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the co~ inunity.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Environmental ~ npact Report No. 202 was
prepared for Specific Plan No. 199 and was certified by the Riverside County Board of
Supervisors. In conjunction with Amendment No. 2 to the Specific Plan, a number of additional
studies were undertaken to update and complement the original EIR. The additional studies, a
geotechnical study, traffic study and a Kangaroo Rat trapping and update study, confumed the
validity of the original analysis.
It has been eleven (11) years since the original environmental analysis was
performed for this project. Therefore, Staff prepared another Initial Environmental Assessment
to examine the question of whether any impacts beyond those analyzed in the previous EIR and
subsequent studies would result from the proposed project, changes in circumstances. or new
information. In areas where there was a potential change in circumstances, specifical:' .-tffic,
noise, and lighting, staff requested additional information from the applicant. Based upo; aff's
analysis, the project is consistent with the information contained in the previously certifie, ilR.
Due to the limited scope of the proposed changes to the specific plan, there will be no effect
beyond that which was reviewed in the previous analysis.
Under California Public Resources Code Section 21166 and Section 15162 of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, no additional EIR is required unless
R:~STAFFRFBI42PA97.PC 9/3197
additional impacts not previously considered, or substantial increases in the severity of impacts,
may result from: substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project is under~k~n
which would require a major revision in the FIR, or new information that could not ha~e been
known at the time the FIR was prepared becomes available. None of these situations has
occurred; therefore, no further environmental analysis is required.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Planning Application No. PA97-0143 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28526) located south of La
Serena Way, east of Margarita Road, west of Meadows Parkway, north of Rancho California
Road, within the Margarita Village Specific Plan and known as Assessor' s Parcel Nos. 953-260-
001 through -009 and 953-270-001 through -008, subject to Exhibit A, aUached hereto, and
incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of September, 1997.
Linda Fahey, Chairman
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 8th day of
September, 1997 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\STAFFRF~I42PA97.PC 9~J/97 k~ 33
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PA97-0143
R:XSTAFFRPTX142pA97.PC 9/3/97 kJb 34
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA97-0143 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28526)
Project Description:
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
A residential subdivision of 6.04 acres into 44 single
family lots with a minimum lot size of 5,220 square feet,
within Planning Area 36 of Specific Plan No. 199 -
Margarita Village
953-260-001 through -009 and
953-270-001 through -008
September 8, 1997
November 8, 2000 or as amended by Development
Agreement (PA97-0204)
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. PA97-0143 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28526) which action is brought within the
appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter
4 (Section 21000 et seo., 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 harmlese the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers,
employees, or agents.
If subdivision phasing is proposed, the applicant shall submit a phasing plan to the
Planning Ma. nager for approval.
The tentative subdivision shall comply with all requirements of Specific Plan No. 199
and its amendments unless superseded by these conditions of approval.
R:~TAFFRFI~I41P,s.97.COA 9/3/97
5. The tentative subdivision shall comply with the conditions of approval for the underlying
Tentative Tract Map No. 23371.
Maintenance of common areas and slope areas shall be provided in accordance with
Exhibit F - Maintenance Responsibility Exhibit.
Turn-in garages for standard vehicles are limited to lots with a frontage width of 45 feet
or wider.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
The applicant shall submit a copy of the Rough Grading plans to the Planning Director
for approval.
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula
Municipal Code.
10.
The applicant shall submit construction landscape plans to the Planning Department for
review and approval. The plans shall be consistent with City standards 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
including:
Landscaping on all sloped areas and common areas.
Front yard landscaping.
The height, location and materials for all walls and fences along rear and side
yards of individual interior lots. Fencing shall be installed at the toe of slopes.
Prior to Recordation of the Final Map
11, The applicant shall submit the following to the Planning Director for approval:
A copy of the Final Map
A copy of the Rough Grading Plans
A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes:
"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."
The applicant shall submit a copy of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
(CC&R's) for review and approval by the Planning Department, Public Works
Department and the City Attorney.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
12.
The applicant shall submit a receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School
District to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School
Mitigation fees.
R:'~TAFFRPT~I43PA97.COA 9/3/97 ext 2
13. The applicant shall submit the following to the Planning Director for approval:
Precise grading plans consistent with the approved rough grading plans including
all structural setback measurements.
The Temporan/Use Permit application for a Model Home Complex (if applicable)
which includes the following:
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
Site Plan with off-street parking
Construction Landscape Plans
Fencing Plans
Building Elevations
Floor Plans
Materials and Colors Board
A Development Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Director
for the housing product.
14.
The applicant shall submit an acoustical analysis to the Planning Department for
approval. The analysis shall be submitted prior to the issuance of the first building
permit for the project. The analysis shall contain recommendations to ensure that noise
levels do not exceed 65dBA for exterior and 45dBA for interior noise levels.
15.
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.
Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits
16. Front yard and slope landscaping within individual lots shall be completed for inspection.
17.
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.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The Department of Public Works recommends the following Conditions of Approval for this
project. Unless stated otherwise, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost
to any Government Agency.
General Requirements
18.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map 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.
19.
A Grading Permit for either rough or precise 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.
R:'~TAFFRPTxI43PA97.COA 9/3/97 c,d 3
20.
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.
21.
All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated
for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site
and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
Prior to Approval of the Final Map, unless other timing is indicated, the Developer shall
complete the following or have plans submitted and approved, subdivision improvement
agreement executed and securities posted:
22.
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
Metropolitan 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
Community Services District
General Telephone
Southern California Edison Company
Southern California Gas Company
23.
The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula
General Plan standards and Specific Plan Amendment No.3 unless otherwise noted.
Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works:
Improve Crystallaire Drive to Modified Local Standards (41.5' R/W) to include
dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of full-width street
improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk (northerly side only), street
lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited
to water and sewer).
24.
An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the
parcel\final map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be recorded
with each final map. 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. Special Study Zones.
b. Any geotechnical hazards identified in the project's geotechnical report.
c. Any archeological and paleontological resources found on the site.
R:~STAFFRi~143pA97.COA 9/3/97 c,d 4
25.
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.
26.
All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall
be provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and
constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. Telephone, cable
TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in the residence.
27.
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.
28.
Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be
delineated and noted the final map.
29.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities,
utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division
boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and
recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities
located outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and
shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating "drainage
easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions."
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
30. The corresponding Final Map shall be approved and recorded.
31.
A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review
and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for
location and elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing
compaction and site conditions.
32.
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code,
the approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards
and accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall be in
substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan and Specific Plan
Amendment.
33.
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
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Metropolitan Water District
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
Riverside County Health Department
34.
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.
35.
The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading
and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards,
Specific Ran Amendment and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
36.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area
Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is
payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District prior to
issuance of any permit. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has
already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
37.
The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work
performed on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as
directed by the Department of Public Works.
38.
All lot drainage shall be directed to the driveway by side yard drainage swales
independent of any other lot.
39.
The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding dated April 23,
1996.
Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy
40.
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
41.
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
42.
All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City
standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
43.
Comply with applicable provisions of the 1994 edition of the California Building,
Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1993 National Electrical Code; California
Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula
Municipal Code.
44, Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review,
45.
Provide electrical plan including loan calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan for plan review.
R:~TAFFRPT~143PA97.COA 9/3/97 c,d 6
46.
Prior to building permit issuance, approval must be obtained from the Water District,
Sanitation District, Public Works Department, Fire Department, Planning Department and
Building Department.
47.
Based on submitted documents, the occupancy classification of the proposed use shall
be R-3, U-1.
48.
Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record, the truss manufacturers
engineer, are required for plan review submittal.
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
Community Services has reviewed the revised tentative map application and has the following
conditions of approval:
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:
49.
The park dedication requirement (Quimby) shall be satisfied with the development and
dedication of the community park identified in Specific Plan 199, Amendment No. 3.
50.
The installation of all slopes and landscaped medians shall be in conformance with the
City of Temecula Landscape Development Plan Guidelines and Specifications.
51.
Construction of the community park, slopes and landscaped medians proposed for
dedication to the TCSD shall commence pursuant to a pre-job meeting with the
developer and the City Maintenance Superintendent. Failure to comply with the TCSD
review and inspection process may preclude acceptance of these areas into the TCSD
maintenance program.
52.
The developer shall complete the TCSD application process prior to the acceptance of
street lighting and perimeter slope areas into the respective TCSD maintenance
programs. The developer shall maintain the slopes and landscaped medians until such
time as those responsibilities are accepted by the TCSD or other responsible party.
53.
Exterior slopes adjacent to Rancho California Road shall be maintained by an established
homeowner's association until such time as those responsibilities are offered and
accepted by the TCSD for maintenance purposes. All other interior slopes, open space,
perimeter walls, and entry monumentation shall be maintained by a homeowner's
association.
54.
Bike lanes shall be provided on site to intercept with the City's Park and Recreation
Master Plan. Class II bike lanes shall be completed in concurrence with the street
improvements.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF FINAL MAPS:
55,
Prior to recordation of the final map, landscape construction drawings for the slopes
and landscaped medians proposed for dedication to the City shall be reviewed and
approved by the Director of Community Services.
R:~TAFFKI>T~I43PA97.COA 9/3/97 cd 7
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS:
56.
Prior to the installation of street lights or issuance of building permits, whichever comes
first, the developer shall pay the appropriate fees to the TCSD for the dedication of
arterial and residential streets into the appropriate TCSD maintenance program.
57.
The community park shall be improved and dedicated prior to the issuance of the 608th
overall residential building permit within the Temeku Hills development.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
58.
It shall be the developer's responsibility to provide written disclosure of the existence
of the TCSD and its service level rates and charges to all prospective purchasers.
59.
Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within each phased map, the
developer shall submit the most current list of Assessor's Parcel Numbers assigned to
the final project.
OTHER AGENCIES
60.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern Municipal
Water District's transmittal dated May 16, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
61.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Rancho California
Water District transmittal dated May 21, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
62.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Riverside County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District's transmittal dated June 26, 1997, a
copy of which is attached.
I have read, understand and accept the above Conditions of Approval.
Applicant Name
R:~TAFFRPT~I43PK97.COA 9/3/97
r,,astern ./Yi. un icipa[ / ter District
~/~PAL k
May16,1997
Riverside County Health Department
c/o Rick Engineering Company
3050 Chicago Avenue
Suite 100
Riverside, CA 92507
Gentlemen:
RE: Availability of Sanitary Sewer Service for Tentative Tract 28526 . We hereby advise you relative to
the availability of sanitary sewer sewice for the above referenced proposed development as follows:
The property to be occupied by the subject proposed development IS PRESENTLY LOCATED within the
boundary lines of this Dis~cts Improvement District No. I)-8 and is eligible to receive sanitary sewer service,
Upon submittal of plans for review the District will determine the following:
1) Major off-site facilies may be required to serve this project.
Sanitary sewer sendice will be made available to the subject property provided:
1)
The developer completes all necessary financial and other arrangements therefore, as
determined by the DistTict, with the District by November 1998
2)
That no LIMITING CONDrRONS existwhich ARE BEYOND this DISTRICTS CONTROL or
CANNOT BE COST-EFFECTIVELY and/or reasonably satisfied by the District, which
conditions may include but are not limited to, acts of God, REGULATORY AGENCY
REQUIREMENTS or decisions, or legal actions initiated by others;
If you have any questions or comments regarding the foregoing, do not hesitate to cbntact this office.
Sincerely,
Roberi N. Spra;jlirr
Assistant Director of Customer Se~ce
RECEIVED
RAY 2 O 1997
tC4( ENGINEF..RiIG C,O.
Mail co. %st Office Box 8500 San .~acinto, California 92581-8300 Telephone (909) 92%7676 Fax (909) 929-0257
Main Of~ce: 2045 S. San Jacinco Avenue. San Jacinco Cuscomer Service / Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue, Hernet, CA
Operations ~ Maintenance Center: 2270 Trumble Road. Pcrris, CA 92571 Telephone (909) 928-3777 Fax (909) 92B-6Z77
John F. Hennlgar
Phillip L Forbes
May 21,199
Ms. Carole Donahoe, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY
TRACT MAP 28526
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0t43
Dear Ms. Donahoe:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within
the boundaries of Rancho California Water Distdct (RCWD). Water
service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial
arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. The Developer
should contact RCVVD concerning facility requirements, upsizing the
required facilities, and the relocation of any District facilities.
If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD
for fees and requirements.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing
an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any,
to RCWD.
If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services
Representative at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E
Development Engineering Manager
971S8:ebO97-31FO121FEF
C: LaUrie Willlares, Engineering Services Supervisor
Rancho California Water District
DAVID P. ?-APPE
Gcacr, d Managcr-ChicrEnginccr
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
City of Temecula
Plannin Department
43200 ~Jsiness Park Drive
Temecula, Calibmia 92590
Attention: C,/~OLF~ .-~0 HAHO~'
Ladies and Gentlemen:
1995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
909/275-1200
909/788-9965 FAX
7829.1
The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in ir.x~omted cities.
TheDistricta~s~d~esn~tp~ancheck~tylandusecases~rpr~vide~ta~Divi~i~n~fReaiE~i~latte~r~
specific interes to the District including District Master D * Plan fecilles, other ioni flood control and
Aroa~eminage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addifort, infomtalion of a general nature is provided.
and safety or any other s~
~" This project woukl not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan idities nor are other fedlilies of regional
interest proposed.
This project involves Disfaffi:t Master Plan facilities. The District will ownemh~ of such facilities on
dtfen request of the C~. Facilities must be constructed to District ma°ca~; and D,sbict plan check and
i~spection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and adrninish~dive fees wilt be
required.
This project propames channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in dlarneter, or other fecilities that could be
considered regional in nature and/or a logical extension of the adopted
Master Dra'_ma~q_ Plan. The District woul~l consider accepti ownership of such facilities on written rea,..~.t
of the C . Fadlitlas must be cortstmcted to Dist~t ste~da~ and Dts/ct plan check and inspeCUon wdl be
requi~lit~ Disb~ _~>~__ptanca. Plan check, inspection and adrninistrmive fees will be requiied.
Dts~'t~orC ortofinal rovalofthe orin~ofa orsubdlvisionpriorfo
deferred, at the time of issuance of the actual permit. ' '
GENERAL INFORMATION
This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination S stem (NPDES) permit f~om the State Water
ResourcesContml Board. Cleamnce for grad' ,reoordafon, orolher]{Vn~appmvalshoUldnofbegivenunlqfimeCAty
has d.termined that thahesa pe.,.t or is to be axom.L
If this pro'ect involves a Federal Emergen?y. Management Agency (FEMA ~ flood plain, then the City should
require ~e applicant to ide all studms, calculations plans and o~mr mfommation ~_uired to meet FEMA
requirements, and shcokl ~r~r require that the applicant obtain a Cond~ Letter of Map_ Revision (CLOMR) prior
to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy.
Section 404 Permit fn:wn the U.A~. Ammy Corps of En ineem, or writien correspondence from these agencies indicating
b ~
the proje~_ is exempt'from these _requirements. A~lean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Ceffification may be
requ'red from the local California Regional Water Qualib/Control Board prior to issuance of the Coqos 404 permit.
STUART E MCKIBBIN
Senior Civil Engineer
Date: {t?'~.-~' q7
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
PC RESOLUTION N0.97-
PA97-0142
R:\STAFFRP~I42PA97.PC 9/3/97 ILl 35
ATrACI-IMENT NO. ~
PC RESOLUTION NO. 97-
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA97-0142 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
NO. 23371 REVISED) GENERALLY LOCATEI} SOUTH OF
LA SERENA WAY, EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD, WEST
OF MEADOWS PARKWAY, NORTH OF RANCHO
CALIFORNIA ROAD, WITHIN ~ MARGARITA
VHJ~AGE SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199
WHEREAS, Temeku Hills Development Partners, L.P. filed Planning Application No.
PA97-0142 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use
and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
~, Planning Application No. PA97-0142 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WltEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA97-0142
on September 8, 1997, 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;
WIIEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all facts
relating to Planning Application No. PA97-0142;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. Eiadia~ That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the
foliowing findings:
A. Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. 460, no subdivision may be
approved unless the following findings are made:
1. The proposed land division and the design or improvement of the project
is consistent with the City's General Plan and Specific Plan No. 199. The site is physically
suitable for the type and density of development. The project proposes residential densities
consistent with the General Plan 1 ~nd Use designations for Planning Areas 34, 35, 37, 41, 42 and
R:~STAFFRPTXI42pA97.YC 9l}/97 lab 36
43. Tentative Tract Map No. 23371 was originally approved in 1988; the revision proposes
increased lot sizes and a new 12.5 acre park site.
2. The design of ~ proposed land division or proposed improvements is not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat. The project site has been previously graded and partially developed.
There is no fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish,
wildlife or habitat off-site. The project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse
effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code.
3. The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements is not
likely to cause serious public health problems. The project has been reviewed for conformance
with Specific Plan No. 199, the City's General Plan, Development Code, Subdivision and
Landscaping Ordinances. The project is consistent with these documents and conditions of
approval have been placed on the project accordingly to assure that the development conforms to
Specific Plan and/or City Standards.
4. 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. The project will take access from La Serena Way,
Rancho California Road, Meadows Parkway and Margarita Road, and will not obstruct any
easements.
5. The map as proposed conforms to the logical development of the proposed
site, and is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
Section 3. F. nvironmental Compliance. Environmental Impact Report No. 202 was
prepared for Specific Plan No. 199 and was certified by the Riverside County Board of
Supervisors. In conjunction with Amendment No. 2 to the Specific Plan, a number of additional
studies were undertaken to update and complement the original EIR. The additional studies, a
geotechnical study, traffic study and a Kangaroo Rat trapping and update study, confirmed the
validity of the original analysis.
It has been eleven (11) years since the original environmental analysis was
performed for this project. Therefore, Staff prepared another Initial Environmental Assessment
to examine the question of whether any impacts beyond those analyzed in the previous EIR and
subsequent studies would result from the proposed project, changes in circumstances, or new
information. In areas where there was a potential change in circumstances, specifically traffic,
noise, and lighting, staff requested additional information from the applicant. Based upon Staffs
analysis, the project is consistent with the information contained in the previously certified EAR.
Due to the limited scope of the proposed changes to the specific plan, there will be no effect
beyond that which was reviewed in the previous analysis.
Under California Public Resources Code Section 21166 and Section 15162 of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidefines, no additional EIR is required unless
R:\STAFFRFFH42pA97.PC 9/3/97 Idb 37
additional impacts not previously considered, or substantial increases in the severity of impacts,
may result from: substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project is undertaken
which would require a major revision in the ErR, or new information that could not have been
known at the time the EI~ was prepared/becomes available. None of these situations has
occurred; therefore, no further environmental analysis is required.
Section 4. Condition.~. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Planning Application No. PA97-0142 (Tentative Tract Map No.23371 Revised) located south of
La Serena Way, east of Margarita Road, west of Meadows Parkway, north of Rancho California
Road, within the Margarita Village Specific Plan, subject to Exhibit A, attached hereto, and
incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of September, 1997.
Linda Fithey, Chairman
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 8th day of
September, 1997 by the foliowing vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\STAFFRP~I42PA97.PC 9/3/97 klb 38
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PA97-0142
R:~TAFFRPT~I42PA9?.FC 9F3/97 F~ 39
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA97-0142 (Tentative Tract Map No. 23371-Revised)
ProjectDescription:
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
A residential subdivision covering Planning Areas 34, 37,
41, 42 and 43 all with Specific Plan No. 199 - Margarita
Village
Various
September 8, 1997
November 8, 2000 or as determined by Development
Agreement (PA97-0204)
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. PA97-0142 (Tentative Tract Map No. 23371-Revised) which action is brought
within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division
13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seo., 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.
If subdivision phasing is proposed, the applicant shall submit a phasing plan to the
Planning Manager for approval.
The tentative subdivision shall comply with all requirements of Specific Plan No. 199
and its amendments unless superseded by these conditions of approval.
The tentative subdivision shall comply with all conditions of approval of the underlying
Tentative Tract Map No. 23371, unless superseded by these conditions of approval.
6. Maintenance of common areas and slope areas shall be provided in accordance with
Exhibit F - Maintenance Responsibility Exhibit.
7. No construction shall occur within Planning Area 42 of Specific Plan No. 199 without
the proponent first filing Development Plans for City review and approval, unless single
family detached homes are proposed on each of the fifteen (15) lots.
8. Turn-in garages for standard vehicles are limited to lots with a frontage width of 45 feet
or wider.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
9. The applicant shall submit a copy of the Rough Grading plans to the Planning Director
for approval.
10. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula
Municipal Code.
11. The applicant shall submit construction landscape plans to the Planning Department for
review and approval. The plans shall be consistent with City standards 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
including:
a. Landscaping on all sloped areas and common areas.
b. Front yard landscaping.
c. The height, location and materials for all walls and fences along rear and side
yards of individual interior lots. Fencing shall be installed at the toe of slopes.
Prior to Recordation of the Final Map
12. The applicant shall submit the following to the Planning Director for approval:
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:
"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."
d. The applicant shall submit a copy of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
(CC&R's) for review and approval by the Planning Department, Public Works
Department and the City Attorney.
R:XSTAFFRFl~142PA97.COA 9/3197 ell 2
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
13.
The applicant shall submit a receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School
District to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School
Mitigation fees.
14. The applicant shall submit the following to the Planning Director for approval:
Precise grading plans consistent with the approved rough grading plans including
all structural setback measurements.
The Temporary Use Permit application for a Model Home Complex (if applicable)
which includes the following:
Site Plan with off-street parking
Construction Landscape Plans
Fencing Plans
Building Elevations
Floor Plans
Materials and Colors Board
A Development Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Director
for the housing product.
15.
The applicant shall submit an acoustical analysis to the Planning Department for
approval. The analysis shall be submitted prior to the issuance of the first building
permit for the project. The analysis shall contain recommendations to ensure that noise
levels do not exceed 65dBA for exterior and 45dBA for interior noise levels.
16.
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.
Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits
17. Front yard and slope landscaping within individual lots shah be completed for inspection.
18.
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.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The Department of Public Works recommends the following Conditions of Approval for this
project. Unless stated otherwise, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost
to any Government Agency.
General Requirements
19.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map 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.
20.
A Grading Permit for either rough or precise 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.
21.
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.
22.
All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated
for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site
and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
Prior to Approval of each Find Map, unless other timing is indicated, the Developer shall
complete the following or have plans submitted end approved, subdivision improvement
agreements executed end securities posted:
23.
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
Metropolitan Water District
City of Temecula Fire Bureau
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
Riverside County Health Department
Cable TV Franchise
Community Services District
General Telephone
Southern California Edison Company
Southern California Gas Company
24.
The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula
General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved
by the Department of Public Works:
For Tr. 23371-9 & Tr. 23371-10 {whichever records first):
improve La Serena Way from westerly phase boundary of unit 10 to Temeku
Drive to Secondary Highway Standards (88' R/W) to include dedication of full-
width street right-of-way; installation of half-width street improvements plus
overlay of existing northerly half-street to satisfaction of the Public Works
Director; full section paving; curb and gutter; sidewalk; street lights; drainage
R:LSTAFFRYI~142PA97.COA 9/3/97 c41 4
facilities; signing and striping; utilities (including but not limited to water and
sewer).
For Tr. 23371-11 & Tr. 23371-13 Iwhichever records first):
Improve La Serena Way from westerly boundary of Unit 10 to Meadows Parkway
to Secondary Highway Standards (88' R/W) to include dedication of full-width
street right-of-way; installation of half-width street improvements plus overlay
of existing northerly half-street to satisfaction of the Public Works Director; full
section paving; curb and gutter; sidewalk; street lights; drainage facilities;
signing and striping; utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer).
For Trs. 23371-9. 23371-11. 23371-12 & Tr. 23371-F (whichever records first):
Improve Temeku Drive to match existing improvements constructed per Unit 1
(MWD right-of-way) to La Serena Way to Modified Collector Standards (62' R/W)
to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way; installation of full-width
street improvements; full section paving; curb and gutter; sidewalk; street lights;
drainage facilities; signing and striping; utilities (including but not limited to
water and sewer).
For Trs. 23371-11 & 23371-13 (whichever comes first)
Improve Meadows Parkway from existing improvements to southerly boundary
of Unit 11 to Major Highway Standards (100' R/W) OR meet and match
improvements completed per Tract. No. 28482. In either case, obligation
includes dedication of full-width right-of-way; installation of half-width paved
street improvements plus full raised traffic safety island, 12-foot paved travel
lane easterly of centerline and an eight-foot D.G. shoulder; curb and gutter;
sidewalk; street lights; drainage facilities; signing and striping; utilities (including
but not limited to water and sewer).
Improve all interior streets to Modified Local Standards (50' R/W) to include
dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of full-width street
improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage
facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and
sewer).
25.
All street improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement
transitions per CaI-Trans standards for transition to existing street sections.
26.
Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the
design of the street improvement plans, as specified in City Standards and/or Specific
Plan Amendment No.3:
Minimum street centerline radii shall be 250 feet, except as modified through the
Specific Plan.
Street centerline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00%
minimum over A.C. paving. Maximum street grade shall not exceed 12%.
R:~TAFYRI~142PA97.COA 9r3/97 cd 5
Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard Nos. 207, 207A and/or
208.
Street lights shall be installed along the public streets and designed in
accordance with Ordinance No. 461.
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with Modified City
Standard Nos. 400 and 401 to a standard width of 4.5 feet contiguous with face
of curb.
All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
All units shall be provided with zero clearance garage doors and garage door
openers if the driveway is less than 18 feet in depth from back of sidewalk.
Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV
shall be provided underground. Easements shall be provided as required where
adequate right-of-way does not exist for installation of the facilities. All utilities
shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility
provider.
Cul-de-sac geometries shall meet current City Standards.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Margarita Road (Unit 8); La Serena
Way (Units 8,9,10, 11 and 13); Meadows Parkway (Units 11 and 13)on the respective
Final Maps with the exception of interior street openings as approved by the Department
of Public Works.
Corner property line cut off for vehicular sight distance and installation of pedestrian
facilities shall be provided at all street intersections in accordance with Riverside County
Standard No. 805.
All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the
public or other appropriate agency 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.
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid.
An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with each
final map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be recorded with each
final map. 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. Special Study Zones.
b. Geotechnical hazards identified in the project's geotechnical report.
c. Archeological and paleontological resources found on the site.
32.
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.
33.
All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall
be provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and
constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. Telephone, cable
TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in the residence.
34.
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.
35.
Bus bays will be provided at all existing and future bus stops as determined by the
Department of Public Works.
36.
Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be
delineated and noted each final map.
37.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities,
utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division
boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and
recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities
located outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and
shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating "drainage
easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions."
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
38.
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
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Metropolitan Water District
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
Riverside County Health Department
Community Services District
General Telephone
Southern California Edison Company
Southern California Gas Company
39.
A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City
of Temecula standards and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any grading. The plan shall incorporate adequate erosion control
measures to protect the site and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion.
40.
An updated Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Civil or Soils Engineer and
submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The
report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections.
41.
An updated Geotechnical Report shall be prepared by a registered engineer or
engineering geologist and submitted to the Department of public Works with the initial
grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and identify any
geotechnical hazards for the site including location of faults and potential for
liquefaction. The report shall include recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground
shaking and liquefaction.
42.
A Drainage Study shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The study shall identify
storm water runoff quantities expected from the development of this site and upstream
of the site. It shall identify all existing or proposed off-site or on-site, public or private,
drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an
adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public
or private property. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy
of all facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the
storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project. The basis
for analysis and design shall be a storm with a recurrence interval of one hundred years.
43.
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.
44.
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.
45.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area
Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is
payable to the 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
already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
46.
The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work
performed on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as
directed by the Department of Public Works.
47.
All lot drainage shall be directed to the driveway by side yard drainage swales
independent of any other lot.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
48. The corresponding Final Map shall be approved and recorded.
R:',STAFFR!rI~I42P.A97.COA 9/387 c,d 8
49.
A Precise Grading Ran shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review
and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for
location and elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing
compaction and site conditions.
50.
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code,
the approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards
and accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall be in
substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan.
51.
The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding dated April 23,
1996.
Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy
52.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
Department of Public Works
53.
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
54.
All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City
standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
55.
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 Director of Public Works.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
56.
Comply with applicable provisions of the 1994 edition of the California Building,
Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1993 National Electrical Code; California
Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula
Municipal Code.
57. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
58.
Provide electrical plan including loan calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan for plan review.
59.
Prior to building permit issuance, approval must be obtained from the Water District,
Sanitation District, Public Works Department, Fire Department, Planning Department and
Building Department.
R:~STAFFP, J~TX14ZPA97.COA 9/3/97
60. Based on submitted documents, the occupancy classification of the proposed use shall
be R-3, U-1.
61.
Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record, the truss manufacturers
engineer, are required for plan review submittal.
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
Community Services has reviewed the revised tentative map application and has the following
conditions of approval:
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:
62.
The park dedication requirement (Quimby) shall be satisfied with the development and
dedication of the community park identified as Lot No. 475 in future Tract no. 23371 -
13.
63.
The design of the community park shall be in conformance with the conceptual design
identified within Specific Plan No. 199, Amendment No. 3. The actual size of the park
shall be determined upon submittal of the final map for Tract No. 23371-13.
64.
Ballfield lighting shall be provided within the community park to allow for night use of
the playing fields. The developer shall provide a disclosure to all properties adjacent to
the park regarding the use of ballfield lighting.
65.
The community park shall provide for pedestrian circulation and handicapped
accessibility pursuant to the American Disability Act (ADA) Standards.
66.
The installation of all slopes and landscaped medians shall be in conformance with the
City of Temecula Landscape Development Plan Guidelines and Specifications.
67.
Construction of the community park, slopes and landscaped medians proposed for
dedication to the TCSD shall commence pursuant to a pre-job meeting with the
developer and the City Maintenance Superintendent. Failure to comply with the TCSD
review and inspection process may preclude acceptance of these areas into the TCSD
maintenance program.
68.
The community park shall be dedicated to the City free and clear of any liens,
assessments, or easements that would preclude the City from using the property for
public park purposes. A policy of title insurance and a soils assessment report shall also
be provided with the dedication of the property.
69.
The developer shall complete the TCSD application process prior to the acceptance of
street lighting and perimeter slope areas into the respective TCSD maintenance
programs. The developer shall maintain the park facility, slopes and landscaped medians
until such time as those responsibilities are accepted by the TCSD or other responsible
party.
70.
Exterior slopes adjacent to Margarita Road, La Serena Way, Meadows Parkway, and
Rancho California Road shall be maintained by an established homeowner's association
R:~TAFFRPTX142PA97.COA 9/3/97 g4 ] 0
until such time as those responsibilities are offered and accepted by the TCSD for
maintenance purposes. All other interior dopes, open space, perimeter walls, and entry
monumentation shall be maintained by a homeowner's association.
71.
Bike lanes shall be provided on site to intercept with the City's Park and Recreation
Master Plan. Class II bike lanes shall be completed in concurrence with the street
improvements.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF FINAL MAPS:
72.
Prior to recordation of the respective final map, landscape construction drawings for the
community park, perimeter slopes and raised landscaped medians shall be reviewed and
approved by the Director of Community Services.
73.
If the community park has not been completed prior to the recordation of future Tract
No. 23371-13, then subdivider shall enter into an agreement and bond for park
improvements prior to recordation of said map.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS:
74.
Prior to the installation of street lights or issuance of building permits, whichever comes
first, the developer shall pay the appropriate fees to the TCSD for the dedication of
arterial and residential streets into the appropriate TCSD maintenance program.
75.
The community park in future Tract No. 23371-13 shall be improved and dedicated prior
to the issuance of the 608th overall residential building permit within the Temeku Hills
development.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
76.
It shall be the developer's responsibility to provide written disclosure of the existence
of the TCSD and its service level rates and charges to all prospective purchasers.
77.
Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within each phased map, the
developer shall submit the most current list of Assessor's Parcel Numbers assigned to
the final project.
OTHER AGENCIES
78.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern Municipal
Water District's transmittal dated May 16, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
79.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Rancho California
Water District transmittal dated May 21, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
R:~STAFFRPTx142PA97.COA 9/3/97 cd 1 ]
80.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Riverside County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District's transmittal dated June 26, 1997, a
copy of which is attached.
I have read, understand and accept the above Conditions of Approval.
Applicant Name
R:~STAFFRF~I42PA97.COA 9/3/97
r.,astern ,/V unicipal W ter District
Ch~m&lh~m~Jt.
May 16, 1 997
Riverside County. Health Department
do Rick Engineering Company
3050 Chicago Avenue
Suite 100
Rivemide, CA 92507
GenUemen:
RE: Availability of Sariitsry Sewer Service for Tentative Tract 23371 . We hereby advise you relative to
the availability of sanitary sewer service for the above referenced proposed development as follows:
The property to be occupied by the subject proposed development IS PRESENTLY LOCATED '.~ffiin the
boundary lines of this Districts Improvement Dis~ct No. U-8 and is eligible to receive sanitary sewer service,
Upon submittal of plans for review the District will determine the following:
1) Major off-site facilities may be required to serve this project.
Sanitary sewer service will be made available to the subject property provided:
1) The developer completes all necessary financial and other arrangements therefore, as
determined by the Disthct. wiffi the District by November 1998
2) That no LIMITING CONDITIONS exist which ARE BEYOND this DISTRICT'S CONTROL or
CANNOT BE COST-EFFECTIVELY and/or reasonably satisfied by the Dis~ct which
conditions may include but are not limited to, acts of God. REGULATORY AGENCY
REQUIREMENTS or decisions, or legal actions initiated by others;
If you have any questions or comments regarding the foregoing, do not hesitate to contact this office.
Assistant Director of Customer 8e~ce
RECEIVED
Ma. , nose Office Box 8300 San Jacinto. California 92581-8300 Telephone (909) 925-7676
Main Ott- ' 2045 S. San Jacinto Avenue, San Jacinto Customer Service / Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue, Henact, CA
Operations & Maintenance Center: 2270 Trumblc Road. Pertis, CA 92571 Telephone (909) 928-3777 Fax (909) 928-6177
HAY201997
RiCK ENGINEERING CO.
Fax (909) 929-0257
F
('saba F, KO
May 21,199
Ms. Carole Donahoe, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
lIED
SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY
TRACT MAP 23371-REVISION
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0'142
Dear Ms. Donahoe:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within
the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water
service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial
arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. The Developer
should contact RCWD concerning facility requirements, upsizing the
required facilities, and the relocation of any District facilities.
If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD
for fees and requirements.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing
an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any,
to RCWD.
If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services
Representative at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
971SB:ebO97-1/FO121FEF
C: Laurie V~lliarns, Engineering Services Supervisor
Rancho California Water District
DAVID P. ZAPPE
City of Temecula
Plannin Department
43200 ~Jsiness Park Ddve
Temecula, Califomia 92590
Attention: ("_~ R,O~.~
Ladies and Gentlemen:
1995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
909/275-1200
909/788-9965 FAX
7829. I
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRIC'I
,7)0 N ":"; .....
Re:'r F/FW t o:
The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incoq~omted cities.
The Disth~t a~s~ d~es not plan ~he~k ~ity land use ~ases~ or provide State Division ~f Real Estate ~ettere ~r ~ther ~d
hazard reports for such cases. Disb'k:t comrnents/~ forsuch cases am normally limited to items of
spedtic interest to the Disffict including District Master Plan fadlities, olher ona flood control and
Area l_r~-ainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In additioit, infot~nation of a general nature is provided.
The Dist~t has not rev'~N~:l the roposed project in detail and the ,fol~.* checked comments do not in an wa
This project would not be impacted by DistriCt Master Drainage Plan fadrdies nor are other fadlilies of regional
interest proposed.
This project involves District Master Plan fadlies. The District wi acce ownership of such facilities on
' wdtten mquast of lhe City. Facilities must be constructed to District stan~t~s, and Disltict plan check and
inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be
required.
This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other fadlitjes that could be
' considered regional in nature and/or a logical extension of the adopted f sVA ~c
Master Dminag~ Plan. The DistriCt would consider acceptin ~ ouch tacilit~es on written req.u. ast
of the C' . Fitities must be consth~ted to DistriCt ~Stt~Kl~, and Dlatitot plan check and inspection will be
requi~-~i~r Disfrict accepfance. Plan check, inspedion and administrative fees will be required.
v'/Thisprojectislocat~lwithinthelirnitsoftheDis'stcfsr~ T/~/' 't6K/'~'M6CL/CPI
deferred, at the time of issuance of the actual bem~it.
GENERAL INFORMATION
This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination S stem (NPDES) parmR f~om the State Water
Resources Conlml Board. Clearance for gradi , mcordation, or other ~v& approval should not be given until the City
has determined that the project has been granln~ a penl~t or is shown to be exenlpL
If this pro'ect involves a Federal Emergen.oJ Management Agency (FEMA ma.pl:~l flood plain, then be City should
require ~{~e applicant to rovioe all studies, calculaDons, plans and o~r information required to meet FEMA
requirements, and should ~rlher require that lhe applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior
to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revisio.n (LOMR) pdor to occupano/.
If a natural wateroourae or mapped flood plain is im acted by this project. the City should require the a licant to
obtain a Section 1601/1603 A reement from the C;fifomia Deparlment of Fish and Game and a Cleen P~ter Act
Section 404 Permit from the U.~. Army Corps of E ineers, or written correspondence from these agencies indicating
the project is exempt'from these requirements. ~r~laan Water Act Section 401 Water Qualib/Ceffification may be
required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit.
Senior Civil Engineer
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DATED AUGUST 20, 1997
R:~STAFFRFI~I42PA97.FC 9/3/97 klb 40
CITY OF TEMECULA
Environmental Checklist
1. PrOject Title:
Planning Application No. PA97-0142 (Tentative Tract Map No. 23371- Revised)
Planning Application No. PA97-0143 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28526)
Planning Application No. PA97-0144 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28482)
Planning Application No. PA97-0160 (Amendment No.3 to Specific Plan No. 199)
Planning Application No. PA97-0161 (General Plan Amendment)
Planning Application No, PA97-0204 (Amendment and Restatement of Development
Agreement for Specific Plan No. 199, Village A)
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Tamecula, CA 92590
Contact Person and Phone Number:
PrOject Location:
Carole K. Donahoe, Project Planner (909) 694-6400
South of La Serena Way, east of Margarita Road, west of Meadows Parkway, north of Rancho
California Road, within the Temeku Hills Specific Plan (formerly Margatita Village)
Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
McMillin Project Services, Inc., 2727 Hoover Avenue, National City, CA 91950
General Plan Designations:
Very Low/Rural Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Low Medium Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Neighborhood Commercial
Public and Institutional Facilities
Open Space/Recreation
Zoning: Specific Plan
Description of Project:
(.2 to .4 dwelling traits per acre maximum)
(.5 to 2 dwelling tatits per acre maximum)
( 3 to 6 dwelling units per acre maximum)
(7 to 12 dwelling units per acre maximum)
(13 to 20 dwelling umts per acre maximum)
To change the General Plan density designations from Low Medium Density Residential to
Low Density Residential within Planning Area 2, from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium
A,
R:\CEQA\160PA97.IES gt20~71db 1
10.
Density Residential within Planning Area 38, and ~-om Medium Density Residential to Low
Medium Density Residential Within Planning Area 40, all within Specific Plan No. 199.
To request approval of Amendment No. 3 to Spedtie Plan No. 199, Temeku Hills (formerly
Margarita Village).
To request approval of Amendment and restatement of Development Agreement for Specific
Plan No. 199, Village A)
To subdivide 74.5 acres into 368 single family residential lots, 2 landscape lots and 2 open
space/recreational lots.
To subdivide 6.04 acres into 44 single family residential lots.
To revise the subdivision of 118.3 acres within Tentative Tract Map No. 23371, creating 474
single family residential lots, and 1 park site.
Environmental Impact Report No. 202 was prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan and
certified by the County Board of Supervisors. It has been nine (9) years since the environmental
analysis was performed for this project. Therefore, Staff prepared another Initial Environmental
Assessment to examine the question of whether any impacts beyond those analyzed in the previous EIR
would result ~om the proposed project, changes in circumstances, or new information. In areas where
there was apotential change in circumstances, specifically traffic, noise, and lighting, staff requested
additional information ~om the applicant, which was submitted as an Addendum to EIR No. 202.
Based upon StaflFs analysis, the project is consistent with the information contained in the previously
certified EIR. Due to the limited scope of the proposed changes to the specific plan, there will be no
effect beyond that which was reviewed in the previous analysis.
Under California Public Resources Cede Section 21166 and Section 15162 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, no additional EIR is required unless additional impacts
not previously considered, or substantial increases in the severity of impacts, may result from:
substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which would require a
major revision in the EIR, or new information that could not have been known at the time the EIR was
prepared becomes available. None of these situations has occurred; therefore, no further environmental
analysis is required.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The site is surrounded by residential subdivisions to the west and north, and partially developed
residential subdivisions to the east and south. Commercial development has occurred to the west, as
well as an occupied mobile home park. The project site is partially developed with a golf course and
golf amenities, residences, parks, schools, post office, church and open space.
Other public agencies whose approval is required:
Riverside County Fire Department, Department of Environmental Health, and Flood Control; Eastern
Municipal Water District, Rancho Califorma Water District; Temecula Valley Unified School District,
the Gas Company, Southern California Edison Company, General Telephone Company, Riverside
Transit Agency.
R:\CEQA\160PA97.1ES 8/20/97klb 2
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially SiEni~cant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
[ ] Land Use and Planning [ ] HaTaTds
[ ] Population and Housing [ ] Noise
[ ] Geologic Problems [ ] Public Services
[ ] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems
[ ] Air Quality [ ] Aesthetics
[ ] Transportation/Circulation [ ] Cultural Resources
[ ] Biological Resources [ ] Recreation
[ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance
[X] None
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
[XI
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant on the environment, that none of the
conditions described in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR. have occurred; therefore, the previous analysis
performed under EIRNo. 202 and certified by the County Board of Supervisors adequately addresses
all impacts from this project. Staff is recommending the Planning Commission and the City Council
Make a Determination of Cousistency With a Project for Which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
was Previously Certified and Findings that a Subsequent EIR is not required.
Signature
Pnnted Name
Date D/77
R:\CEQA\160PA97.1ES F20/97 klb 3
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Pot~i,aly
Signifiam
Poknltially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
lacoqx>rated
Sight
NO
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with the proposed general plan designation or zoning?
b.Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(Source l, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17 )
d. Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to
soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)
e. Disrapt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (including low-income or minority commumty)?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal:
a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projects?
b. Induce substantial growth m an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area
or emension of major infrastructure)?
c Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential hnpacts involving?
a. Fault rapture?
b Seismic ground sh'akmg?
c Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d, Seiche, tsunarm, or volcanic hazard?
e. Landslides or mudflows?
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions
form excavation, grading or fill?
g Subsidence of the land?
h Expansive soils?
i Unique geologic or physical features?
[1
[]
[l
[l
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[1
[]
El
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[]
[1
ix ]
Ix]
[x]
[x]
Ix]
[x]
ix]
{x]
ix]
ix]
ix]
ix]
ix]
ix]
ix]
ix]
Ix]
R:\CEQA\I60PA97.1ES g~20/97klb 4
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Pot~fially
Significant
PotentiMly
Significant
Unlesl
Mitigation
Incorporate~
Si~nific, ant
lm~ct
No
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and mount of surface runoff'?
b. Exposureofpeopleorpropertytowaterrelatedhazards
such as flooding?
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface
xvater quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)?
d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body?
e, Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements?
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial
loss of groundwater recharge capability?
g Altereddirectionorrateofflowofgroundwater?
h impacts to groundwater quality?
1. Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a Violate an), air quality,' standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
b Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
c. Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause
any change in climate?
d Create objectionable odors?
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
b Hazards to safety from design features (e. g. sharp curves
or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses)?
[]
[]
[1
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[)
[]
[l
[]
[1
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
Ix]
Ix]
[x]
Ix]
[x]
Ix]
[x]
Ix]
ix]
Ix]
[x]
[x]
[x]
[x]
[x]
R:'/CEQA\I60PA97.1ES 8/20/971db 5
Potentially
Signff'~c~nt
Potentially
Sig~'tcant
Unle~
Mitigation
Incorporated
Significant
Imps~t
NO
c. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e. Hazards or baniers fur pedestrians or bicyclists?
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a. Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, annuals
and birds)?
b Locallydesigxtated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c Locally designated natural commumties (e.g. oak forest,
coastal habitat, etc.)?
d Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, fiparian and vernal pool)?
e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient
manner?
c Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of future value to the region and the residents
of the State?
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a. Ariskofaccidentalcxplosionorreleaseofhazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemical or radiation)?
b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
c. The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard?
[]
[]
[]
[]
(]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[)
[]
[]
Ix]
[x]
[x]
[x]
ix]
ix]
Ix]
Ix]
[x]
[x]
ix]
ix]
[x]
ix]
Ix]
ix]
R:\CEQA\160PA97.1ES g/20/97klb 6
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFOIhMATION SOURCES
Pol~mially
Significant
Impn~t
Poteatially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
h~orpor~d
L~sThan
Si~ificant
Impact
d. Exposure ofpeople to existing sources ofpotential health
hazards?
e. Increase f~re hazard in areas with ~ammable brush,
grass, or lrees?
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a. Increase m existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would/he proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c, Schools?
d. Maintenance ofpublicfacilities, including roads?
e Other governmental services?
12. UTILITHi;S AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies~
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
d Sewer or septic tanks?
e, Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste disposal?
g. Local or regional water supplies?
13. AESTHli;TICS. Would the proposal:
a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Ix]
Ix]
[x]
[x]
Ix]
[x]
ix]
ix]
[x]
[x]
[x]
ix]
[x]
[x]
[x]
[x]
[x]
[x]
R:\CEQA\I60PA97.1ES 8/20/97 klb 7
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impa~t
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Significant
c. Create light or glare?
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a. Disturb paleontological resources?
b. Disturb archaeological resources?
c. Affect historical resources?
d Have the potential to cause a physical change which would
affect tmique ethnic cultural values?
e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential
impact area?
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities?
b Affect existing recreational opportunities?
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal commumty, reduce the number of restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California histo0'
or prehistoO'?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
Does the project have impacts that area individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? CCumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects).
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[l
[]
[x]
Ix]
[x]
Ix]
ix]
[x]
ix]
[x]
ix]
ix]
Ix]
R:\CEQA\I60PA97,1ES 8/20/97 lib 8
17. EAI~I,11~,R ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D).
Earlier analyses used: Environmental Impact Report No. 202 was prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan and
certified by the County Board of Supervisers. It has bccn me (9) years since the environmental analysis was performed
forthis project. Therefore, Staff prepared another Initial Environmental Assessment to examine the question of whether
any mapacts beyond those analyzed in the previous EIR would result from the proposed project, changes in circumstances,
or new information.
SOURCES
1. City of Tcmecula General Plan.
2 City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.
3 South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
Addendure to EIER No. 202 dated July 16, 1997
R:\CEQA\160PA97.1ES 8/20/97klb 9
EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST JUDGEMENTS
The following checklist judgements list the level of impact anticipated from the proposed project.
These judgements are made against the baseline of the adopted Specific Plan. The checklist
judgements address the question of whether the proposed project revisions would result in
additional impacts, not previously addressed in the previously certified EIR.
1. Land Use Planning
a)
No Impact. The proposed changes to Planning Areas 41,42 and 43 are consistent with the
General Plan designations and zoning in these areas. Other proposed changes include an
amendment to the General Plan designations in order to maintain consistency with the General
Plan and zoning. The project will decrease density in Planning Area 2 from 3-6 dwelling units
per acre to 2 dwelling units per, which is consistent with the proposed Low density
designation. Planning Area 40 will decrease density from 7-12 dwelling units per acre to 4.94,
which is consistent with the proposed Low Medium density designation. The project proposes
a change from Neighborhood Commercial uses in Planning Area 38 to Medium density
residential uses at 6.18 dwelling units per acre.
b)
No Impact. The proposed project will not conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. The proposed project does not
introduce new land uses nor propose development in areas not previously designated for
development. Overall, the proposed project decreases the density of the previously approved
specific plan in both dwelling units per acre and intensity of use. Therefore, staff has
determined that the proposed project does not affect previously adopted environmental plans
or policies.
c)
No Impact. The proposed project will not be incompatible with existing land uses in the
vicinity. Most of the adjacent land uses in the area are also residential. No buffering is
required.
d)
No Impact. The proposed project revises portions within a specific plan that is already partially
developed with golf course, schools, churches, parks and residential development. No
agricultural activity has occurred at the site for several years.
e)
No Impact. The proposal will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community. The proposed project is consistent with the adopted Specific Plan and will not
disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of the community in an manner that is different than
contemplated in the Specific Plan. The proposed project, in fact, is intended to enhance the
physical arrangement of the Temeku Hills community.
2. Population and Housing
a)
No Impact. The proposal will not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projects. The proposed project is consistent with the adopted Specific Plan and decreases the
amount of density. It is therefore consistent with official regional and local projections.
b)
No Impact, The proposal will not induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly beyond that previously analyzed in the previously certified EIR for the Specific Plan.
The proposed project is consistent with the adopted Specific Plan,
R:\CEQA\I60PA97.1ES 8/20/97 klb 10
c) No Impact. The proposal will not displace existing housing, especially affordable housing. The
proposed project site is currently vacant.
3. Geologic Problems
a)
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts from fault rupture beyond
those impacts described in the previously certified EIR. This is because the proposed project is
within the scope of the ElF{ and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan.
b)
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impact from seismic ground shaking
beyond those impacts described in the previously certified EIR. This is because the proposed
project is within the scope of the EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan.
c)
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts from seismic ground failure
or liquefaction beyond those impacts described in the previously certified EIR. This is because
the proposed project is within the scope of the EIR and is consistent with the approved
Specific Plan.
d)
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts from a seiche, tsunami or
volcanic hazard beyond those impacts described in the previously certified EIR. This is
because the proposed project is within the scope of the EIR and is consistent with the
approved Specific Plan.
e)
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts from landslides or mudflows
beyond those impacts described in the previously certified EIR. This is because the proposed
project is within the scope of the EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan,
f)
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts from erosion, changes in
topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill beyond those impacts
described in the previously certified EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the
scope of the EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. No additional significant
geotechnical information regarding the project site, erosion, soil or grading related impacts
have been developed since certification of the EIR.
g)
No Impact. The proposal will not result in an impact due to subsidence of the land. The
proposed project is within the scope of the previously certified EIR and is consistent with the
approved Specific Plan. No additional significant geotechnical information regarding the
project has been developed since certification of the EIR. Therefore, no additional impacts
beyond those described in the EIR are anticipated.
h)
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts from expansive soils beyond
those described in the previously certified EIR. This is because the proposed project is within
the scope of the EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. No additional
significant geotechnical information regarding the project has been developed since
certification of the EIR.
I)
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to unique geologic or
physical features beyond those impacts described in the previously certified EIR. This is
because the proposed project is within the scope of the EIR and is consistent with the
approved Specific Plan.
R:\CEQA\I60PA97.IES g/20/97 Idb ], ],
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
~)
Water
No Impact. The proposal will not result ~n any additional changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff beyond those impacts described in the
previously certified EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the EIR
and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan.
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flooding beyond that described in the previously certified EIR.
This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the EIR and is consistent with the
approved Specific Plan.
No Impact. The proposal will not result ~n any additional discharge into surface waters or
other alteration of surface water quality beyond that described in the previously certified EIR.
This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the EIR and is consistent with the
approved Specific Plan.
No Impact. The proposal will not result ~n any additional changes in the amount of surface
water in any water body beyond that described in the previously certified EIR. This is because
the proposed project is within the scope of the EIR and is consistent with the approved
Specific Plan.
No Impact. The proposal will not result ~n any additional changes in currents, or the course or
direction of water movements beyond those described in the previously certified EIR. This is
because the proposed project is within the scope of the EIR and is consistent with the
approved Specific Plan.
No Impact. The proposal will not result ~n any additional change in the quality of ground
waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by
cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability beyond that
described in the previously certified EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the
scope of the EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan.
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional alteration to the direction or rate of
flow of groundwater beyond that described in the previously certified EIR. This is because the
proposed project is within the scope of the EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific
Plan.
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to groundwater quality
beyond that described in the previously certified EIR. This is because the proposed project is
within the scope of the EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan.
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional substantial reductions in the amount
of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies beyond that described in the
previously certified EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the EIR
and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan.
R:\CEQA\160PA97.1ES 8/20/97 klb 12
b)
c)
d)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Air Quality
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional potential to violate any air quality
standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation beyond that described in
the previously certified EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the
EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan.
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional exposure of sensitive receptors to
pollutant beyond that described in the previously certified EIR. This is because the proposed
project is within the scope of the EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan.
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional alteration of air movement, moisture
or temperature, or cause any change in climate beyond that described in the previously
certified EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the EIR and is
consistent with the approved Specific Plan.
No Impact. The proposal will not result in the creation of any additional objectional odors
beyond that described in the previously certified EIR. This is because the proposed project is
within the scope of the EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan.
Transportation/Circulation
No Impact. A subsequent Traffic Impact Assessment was prepared on June 27, 1997, by
Wilbur Smith Associates to assess the vehicle trip generation impacts of Specific Plan
Amendment No. 3. This Assessment was submitted for the project and reviewed by Staff.
The Assessment concluded that the reduction of dwelling units associated with Amendment
No. 3 would generate approximately 735 fewer daily vehicle trips than the previously approved
Specific Plan with Amendments. The Assessment further noted that the proposed project
would generate 4,273 fewer trips than what is assumed by the City of Temecula's General
Plan Circulation Element Traffic Model (GPCETM). The Assessment also concluded that the
elimination of the commercial center would result in the reduction of an additional 4,000 daily
vehicle trips relative to both the GPCETM and the previously approved Specific Plan.
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional hazards to safety from design
features beyond those described in the previously certified EIR. This is because the proposed
project is within the scope of the EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan.
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional inadequacies for emergency access or
access to nearby uses beyond those described in the previously certified EIR. The project will
result in a reduction in the existing inadequacies for emergency access or access to nearby
uses by improving circulation in the area. Since the proposed project is within the scope of
the EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan, no impacts are anticipated.
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional insufficiencies to parking capacity on-
site or off-site beyond those described in the previously certified EIR. Since the proposed
project is within the scope of the previously certified EIR, reduces the intensity of uses, and is
consistent with the approved Specific Plan, no impacts are anticipated.
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists beyond those described in the previously certified EIR. This is because the proposed
project is within the scope of the EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan.
Additionally, the proposed park plan included with the project has been designed to encourage
R:\CEQA\160PA97.1ES 8/20/97 klb 13
fl
g)
b)
b)
c)
pedestrian routes separate from vehicular routes. Tentative Tract Map No. 28482 included
with the project has been designed with walkways that connect cubde-sacs to the street
system encouraging pedestrian routes through the residential area.
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional conflicts with adopted policies
supporting alternative transportation beyond those described in the previously certified EIR.
See Response 6.e. above.
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional conflicts with rail, waterborne or air
traffic beyond those described in the previously certified EIR. This is because the proposed
project is within the scope of the EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan.
Biological Resources
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to endangered, threatened or
rare species or their habitats beyond those described in the EIR. This is because the proposed
project is within the scope of the EIR, is consistent with the approved Specific Plan, and
proposes uses in areas previously slated for development.
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to locally designated species
beyond those described in the previously certified EIR. See Response 7.a. above.
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to locally designated natural
communities beyond those described in the previously certified EIR. See Response 7.a.
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to wetland habitat beyond
that described in the previously certified EIR. See Response 7.a. above.
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to wildlife dispersal or
migration corridors beyond that described in the previously certified EIR. See Response 7.a.
above.
Energy and Mineral Resources
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional conflicts with adopted energy
conservation plans beyond those described in the previously certified EIR. This is because the
proposed project is within the scope of the EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific
Plan.
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts from the use of non-renewal
resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner beyond that described in the previously certified
EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the EIR and is consistent with
the approved Specific Plan.
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to which would result in the
loss of availability of a known resource that would be of future value to the region and the
residents of the state beyond that described in the previously certified EIR. This is because the
proposed project is within the scope of the EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific
Plan.
R:\CEQA\160PA97,1ES g/20/971db 14
9, Hazards
a)
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to a risk of accidental
explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemical or radiation) beyond those described in the previously certified EIR. This is because
the proposed project is within the scope of the EIR, eliminates the commercial uses at the site,
and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan.
b)
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to or in a possible
interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan beyond those
described in the previously certified EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the
scope of the EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan.
c)
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to in the creation of any
health hazard or potential health hazard beyond that described in the previously certified EIR.
This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the EIR and is consistent with the
approved Specific Plan.
d)
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to expose people to existing
sources of potential health hazards beyond that described in the previously certified EIR. This
is because the proposed project is within the scope of the EIR and is consistent with the
approved Specific Plan.
e)
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or increases to fire hazards in
areas of flammable brush, grass, or trees beyond that described in the previously certified EIR.
This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the EIR and is consistent with the
approved Specific Plan.
10. Noise
Noise impacts will occur during grading and construction of the project Impacts during
construction will be lessened by controlling the time construction activities are allowed to take
place.
a)
No Impact. A revised Noise Evaluation was prepared on July 15, 1997 by Wilbur Smith
Associates to assess the noise impacts generated from traffic and the community park
proposed by Specific Plan Amendment No. 3. The Evaluation concluded that noise walls
ranging from 2 feet to 5 ~ feet should be constructed between the street and certain
residential lots along Margarita Road, Rancho California Road, La Serena Way, Meadows
Parkway and various internal streets within Village "A." The Specific Plan calls for perimeter
"community walls" along all public streets which are designed at a minimum height of 5 %
feet, and are an appropriate sound attenuation measure already incorporated into the project.
The Evaluation also analyzed the potential noise impacts related to the park and concluded that
the park would not generate significant noise impacts, provided that an amplified public
address system is not used at the park.
b)
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional exposure of people to severe noise
levels beyond those described in the previously certified EIR. This is because the proposed
project is within the scope of the EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan.
R:\CEQA\t60PA97.1ES 8/21F971db 15
11. Public Services
a)
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result in a need for new ot
altered fire protection services beyond those described in the previously certified EIR. This is
because the proposed project is within the scope of the EIR, decreases the density and
intensity of uses, and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan.
b)
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result in a need for new or
altered police protection services beyond those described in the previously certified EIR. See
Response 11 .a. above.
c)
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result in a need for new or
altered schools beyond that described in the previously certified EIR. This is because the
proposed project is within the scope of the EIR, decreases the density of residential
development, provides school sites, and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan.
d)
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result in a need for new or
altered maintenance of public facilities, including roads beyond that described in the previously
certified EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the EIR and is
consistent with the approved Specific Plan.
e)
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result in a need for other
new or altered governmental services beyond that described in the previously certified EIR.
This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the EIR and is consistent with the
approved Specific Plan.
12. Utilities and Service Systems
a)
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result in a need for new
systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to power or natural gas beyond those described
in the EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the EIR and is
consistent with the approved Specific Plan.
b)
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result in a need for new
systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to communication systems beyond those
described in the previously certified EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the
scope of the EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan.
c)
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result in a need for new
systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities beyond that described in the previously certified EIR. This is because the
proposed project is within the scope of the EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific
Plan.
d)
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result in a need for new
systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to sewer or septic systems beyond that
described in the previously certified EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the
scope of the EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan.
R:\CEQA\160PA97.IES 8/20/97 lab 16
e)
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result in a need for new
systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to storm water drainage beyond that described
in the previously certified EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the
EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan.
f)
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result in a need for new
systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to slid waste disposal beyond that described in
the previously certified EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the
previously certified EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan.
g)
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result in a need for new
systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water supplies beyond that
described in the previously certified EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the
scope of the previously certified EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan.
13. Aesthetics
a)
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional increase or affect to a scenic vista or
scenic highway beyond that described in the previously certified EIR. This is because the
proposed project is within the scope of the previously certified EIB and is consistent with the
approved Specific Plan.
b)
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect beyond those described in the previously certified EIR. This is because the proposed
project is within the scope of the previously certified EIR and is consistent with the approved
Specific Plan.
c)
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts from light and glare beyond
that described in the previously certified EIR. This is because the proposed project is within
the scope of the previously certified EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan.
The proposed community park is designed to front La Serena Way, with a school across the
street. The park proposes to include walkway lighting and lighted softball fields. The level of
onsite lighting and fixtures shall comply with any and all applicable requirements and policies
of the City of Temecula and the Mount Palomar Observatory. Additionally, the lighting of the
softbali fields shall be limited to nighttime hours until 10:00 p.m,
14. Cultural Resources
a)
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to paleontological resources
beyond those described in the previously certified EIR. This is because the proposed project is
within the scope of the previously certified EIR, proposes development in areas previously
slated for development, and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan.
b) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to archaeological resources
beyond those described in the previously certified EIR. See Response 14.a. above.
c) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to historical resources
beyond that described in the previously certified EIR. See Response 14.a. above.
d)
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values beyond that described in the previously
certified EIR. See Response 14.a. above.
R:\CEQA\160PA97.1ES g/'20/~7kJb ]7
e)
No Impact, The proposal will not result in any additional impacts which would restrict existinr' "'
religious or scared uses within the potential impact area beyond that described in the
previously certified EIR. See Response 14.a. above.
15. Recreation
a)
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or an increase in the demand
for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities beyond those described in the
previously certified EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the
previously certified EIR, proposes additional recreational facilities not previously included in the
project, decreases the residential density of the project, and is consistent with the approved
Specific Plan.
b)
No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts affecting existing recreational
opportunities beyond those described in the previously certified EIR. See Response 15.a.
above.
R:\CEQA\160PA97.1ES 8/20/97 Idb ] 8
ATTACHMENT NO. 8
EXHIBITS
R:XSTAFFRIr~142PA97.PC 9/3/~7 klb 41
CITY OF TEMECULA
RANCHO
iSiTE~::~ ~s~,~
Cj~LIFO~NIJ' ~
N.T.S.
CASE NO. - PA97-0142, 143, 144, 160, 161, 204
EXHIBIT A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - SEPTEMBER 8, 1997
R:\STAFFRI~I42PA97,1'C 9/3/97
CITY OF TEMECULA
VL
OS
P
LM
LM
~ P
LM
LM ~ LM
CASE NO. - PA~7-0142, 143, 144, 150, 161, 204
EXIHRIT B
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - SEPTEMBER 8, 1~)7
GENERAl, PLAN MAP
CITY OF TEMECULA
STATISTICAL SUMMARY
t AND USE
PARK I
-~,.
CASE NO. - PA_97-0142, 143, 144, 160, 161, 204
EXHrRIT C EXISTING SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1~) - LAND USE MAP
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - September 8, 1~)7
R:\STAFFRPT~142pA97.PC 9/3/97
CITY OF TEMECULA
VICINITY MAP
M
STATISTICAL SUMMARY
LAND USE AC~c
SUB TOIA, 8
CASE NO. - PA97-0142, 143, 144, 160, 161, 204
EXHIBIT D PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199 - LAND USE )
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - SEPTEMBER 8, 1997
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY
MAINTENANCE
RESPONSIBILITY
EXHIBIT
LEGEND
CASE NO. - PA97-0142, 143, 144, 160, 161, 204
EX/~R IT E MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - SEPTEMBER 8, 1997
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA97-0142, 143, 144, 160, 161, 204
EXHIBIT - F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - SEPTEMBER a, 1997
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2?
R:\STAPFRPTXI42PA97.pC 9/3/97 k~
CITY OF TEMECULA
::
J J
CASE NO. - PA97-0142, 143, 144, 160, 161, 204
~" .. EXHIBIT - G
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - SEPTEMBER 8, 1997
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 28526
R:\STAFFRP~I42PAg'/.PC 9/~/97
CITY OF TEMECULA '
CASE NO. - PA97-0142, 143, 144, 160, 161, 204
EXHIBIT - H TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23371 REV' ' "~
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - SEPTEMBER S, 1997
R:\STAI~P, Ic~I42PA97.PC 9/3/9'7
PLANNING MANAGER' S REPORT