HomeMy WebLinkAbout020298 PC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in thle
meeting, please contact the office of the Community Development Department at (909) 694-6400.
Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure
accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title
CALL TO ORDER:
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
February 2, 1998, 6:00 PM
43200 Business Park Drive
Council Chambers
Temecula, CA 92390
Chairman Fahey
Reso Next In Order # 002
ROLL CALL:
Fahey, Guerriero, Miller, Slaven and Soltysiak
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on
items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you
desire to speak to the Commissioners about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request
to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address,
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Planning Secretary
befor¢ Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual
speakers.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Planning Commission Minutes from October 6, 1997 and January 5, 1998
m
Selection of a Ranning Commissioner to meet with a Representative of the Public Safety
Commission
4. Storage of Recreational Vehicles in Residential Zones
5. Director's Hearing Update
6. Rebel Rents
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
m
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. PA97-0237 (General Plan
Amendment and Zone Change)
City-initiated
South of State Highway 79 South, east of Pala Road
Cleanup General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
changing the designations from Office to Service
Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial, and from
Neighborhood Commercial to Service Commercial.
Negative Declaration
Carols K, Donshoe, AICP
Continue Off Calendar
R:\W/IMBERVG~PLANCOM/vI~AGENDAS\2-2-9g.WPD 1/28/98 vg~
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Case Engineer:
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. PA97-0398 (Development Plan)
Marie Callender's / Ed Deering
On the southwest corner of Rancho California and Ynez
Roads.
The design, construction and operation of a 8,684 sq. ft.
restaurant with associated parking and landscaping on
1.51 acres located.
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Patty Anders
Annie Bostre-Le
Approval
9. Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Case Engineer:
Recommendation:
Planning Application No.'s PA96-0258 (Revised Vesting
Tract Map 24182) and PA96-0259 (Revised Vesting
Tentative Tract Map)
CaI-Paloma del Sol, L.L.C. (Dean Meyer)
Generally located northwest of Butterfield Stage Road and
Highway 79 (S) within the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan (SP
219)
A revision to Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 24182 and
24183
This Project is exempt from further evaluation under CEQA
due to the previous certification of an Environmental
Impact Report for this site
John De Gange
Gerald Alegria
Approval
PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
OTHER BUSINESS
Next meeting:
To be determined - Regular Planning Commission meeting
ADJOURNMENT
R:~WI~MgERVG'XPLANCOIVfIqIXAGF_'N~DAS\2-2-98.WPD 1/28/98 vgw 2
MINUTES
FROM THE
OCTOBER 6, 1997
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
October 6, 1997
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular session at 6:00 P.M., on
Monday, October 6, 1997, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business
Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioners Guerriero, Miller, Slaven, and
Chairwoman Fahey (arrived at 6:06 P.M.).
Absent:
Commissioner Soltyaiak.
Also Present:
Planning Manager Ubnoske,
Community Development Director Thornhill,
Principal Engineer Parks,
Attorney Bill Curley,
Project Planner Donahoe,
Associate Planner Fagan, and
Minute Clerk Ballreich.
Because Chairwoman
the meeting.
Fahey had not yet arrived, Vice Chairwoman Slaven presided over
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
As per staff's recommendation, Commissioner Miller concurred with continuing Agenda
Item No. 5 (ZB Investment) to the October 20, 1997, Planning Commission meeting and offered
the following motion.
MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved for the approval of the Agenda as amended. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval
of those present (Commissioner Soltysiak absent and Chairwoman Fahey absent).
DIRECTOR'S HI;~,RING UPDATE
As per written material of record; no additional comments.
3. FINDING OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY FOR DYE
GOLF SERVICES. INC. (TEMEKUI
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission review the information in the staff
report end make the appropriate finding.
Project Planner Donahoe reviewed the request (as per written material of record);
described the proposed findings of support (of record); corrected the staff report, noting that
Temeku is one of two golf courses within City limits; and advised that the Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control requires an individual be a minimum age of 21 to sell or serve
alcoholic beverages.
At 6:06 P.M., Chairwoman Fahey arrived.
#
Acknowledging the information provided in the staff report and in light of his own
independent knowledge of the Temeku Golf Course, Commissioner Miller viewed the request
as a public convenience versus a public necessity and offered the following motion:
~ Commissioner Miller moved to make a finding of public convenience (as per
staff report). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slaven and voice vote of those
present reflected unanimous approval (Commissioner Soltysiak absent).
Chairwoman Fahey assumed the chair and presided over the rest of the meeting.
4. SPECIAL EVENTS POLICY
Referencing the staff report (of record), Planning Manager Ubnoske, in response to
Commissioner Miller, noted that staff will be more specific with regard to lead time in which
an application for a Special Event must be filed for a major/minor event and advised that the
Commission may continue to provide input with regard to the Special Events Handbook after
this meeting.
Because the proposed policy will ensure equality, Commissioner Slaven spoke in support
of clarifying the filing application procedure for special events.
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0170 {CONDITIONAL USE PERMITI
ZB INVESTMENT
Continued to the October 20, 1997, Planning Commission meeting; see page 2.
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA 97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PI
TEV, INC. {ZEV BUFFMAN|
The construction of a 103,564 square foot, 4,800 seat arena, and
associated improvements (herdscape, paring, landscaping, and
roadways).
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended by the Planning Department staff that the
Planning Commission approve the request subject to the recommended
conditions of approval.
By way of overhead projection, Associate Planner Fagan, reviewed the staff report (of
record)in detail, highlighting the Site Ran, Landscape Plan, Arena Elevations, and traffic issues;
advised that Phase I as 0roposed, only includes the arena and that any other future
development on the subject site will require a Development Plan/Conditional Use Permit as
mandated by the Westside Specific Plan.
Proceeding with a detailed review of Phase I (4,800 seat arena), Associate Planner Fagan
noted the following:
that the applicant intends to complete Phase I and II and its associated
components at the same time;
that typically, landscaping plans, irrigation plans and construction drawings (for
slope areas) are submitted to staff prior to the issuance of a building permit, but
in order to ensure timely revegetation of the slopes, staff has requested that
these plans, drawings and a bond, be posted prior to the issuance of a Grading
Permit;
that since the Planning Commission Workshop of August 18, 1997, the arena
elevations have been refined to ensure sufficient detail; that the elevations have
not changed in terms of design; that the highest point of the arena will be 75
feet which complies with the Specific Plan;
that the project will comply with the Specific Plan/General Plan standards;
that the mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
per the original Old Town Project will apply to the proposed project;
that the previously approved project, as identified in the EIR, was overall larger
in square footage area (including the hotel and arena);
that because of changes and additions made to the original project, staff was of
the opinion that an addendum to the previously certified EIR would be
appropriate.
Referencing a letter staff received on October 6, 1997, from Mr. Sam Pratt, Associate
Planner Fagan relayed Mr. Pratt's concerns with regard to this project such as traffic, noise/light
and consistency with the Specific Plan. Associate Planner Fagan noted that the Specific Plan
depicts a 4,800 seat arena.
With regard to the recommended Conditions of Approval (per staff report), Associate
Planner Fagan noted the following amendments with Principal Engineer Parks providing the
following clarification:
Condition No. I - that because the applicant has previously paid the Fish and
Game Fee of $1,328.00, it is recommended that this condition be modified to
require the applicant to pay only the $78.00 County administrative fee;
Condition No. 93 * that because this is a statement versus a condition, all
conditions from this point forward should be renumbered, deleting Condition No.
93.
That after a meeting with the applicant, the Public Works Department is
requesting the following modifications/deletions:
Condition No. 53 e. - "Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occul)arlcy (add), a traffic signal at the ..."
Condition No. 53 f. - "Affect the (add) full improvements of the
Main Street extension ..."
Condition No. 53 k. Delete (Undergrounding of proposed utility
distribution lines within the road right-of-way)
Principal Engineer Parks clarified that this standard condition is not
being deleted but that the requirement to bond for it prior to the
issuance of a grading permit is being deleted;
Condition No. 67 delete ("An Environmental Constraints Sheet
[ECS] shall be prepared to delineate identified environmental
concems end shall be permanently filed with the office of the City
Engineer...")
Principal Engineer Parks advised that a condition of this
nature would be attached to a Tract Map or Parcel Map.
Condition No. 72 * amend. "Private roads must be designed by
the Engineer of record (add), reviewed ..."
Condition No. 75 delete (Vehicular access shall be restricted on
Vincent Moraga Drive, Wastam Bypass Corridor, and First Street
other than shown on the approved site layout)
Principal Engineer Parks advised that a condition of this
nature should be imposed on the Tentative Map/Parcel Map,
not a Site Development Plan.
Condition No. 83 - amend. "The Developer shall affect
construction of full improvements ..."
Principal Engineer Parks clarified that the obligation has not been
deleted but that this amendment would permit the Developer to
have someone else complete the work.
Condition No. 84 - amend. "Sufficient parking for a local transit
system ..."
Planning Manager Ubnoske informed the Commissioners that the applicant has requested
the imposition of one additional condition: 'that if the applicant were to change, the plan shall
be readdressed by the City." Community Development Director Thornhill further clarified that
the applicant has requested this condition in order to limit this application to this sole applicant.
Attorney Curley recommended the following verbiage: 'that if the applicant who
submitted the application ceases to be the project proponent, the project will be returned to the
City for review and approval."
With regard to Condition No. 82 (the Developer shall complete the following
infrastructure improvements prior to issuance of any occupancy ..."), Commissioner Miller
expressed concern that the issuance of occupancy is not contingent upon the completion of
the lower SR 79 improvements. Principal Engineer Parks clarified that the construction of the
Western Bypass Corridor would be included in the County/City joint project (anticipated
completion date November/December 1998), which will relocate the intersection of Front Street
and SR 79 South, along with widening the interchange on- and off - ramps for Interstate 15
terminus at the proposed southerly extension of Vincent Moraga Drive. He further advised that
the applicant proposes to complete the arena and associated components by mid 1999; and
that the County/City project does not include widening of the bridge .and, therefore, should be
completed within 12 months.
In response to Commissioner Slaven, Principal Engineer Parks advised that Phase I has
not been conditioned to contribute additional funds, other than the Development Impact Fees,
toward the County/City joint project; that the Rancho California Road Bridge improvements are
part of the Specific Plan and part of the approved Tentative Tract Map; and that these
improvements are out to bid at this time.
Community Development Director Thornhill noted that a condition of the Specific Plan
requires the applicant to make a contribution toward the permanent improvements.
For Commissioner Slaven, Principal Engineer Parks confirmed that the applicant will
comply with the recommendation of the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) to relocate two bus
stops.
Mr. Zev Buffman, applicant, 40576 Via Herradura, Murrieta, commended Planning
Department staff on their efforts associated with this project and briefly reviewed the project,
noting that a tremendous amount of interest has been expressed by national tours/attractions
for the use of the proposed facility.
Mr. Randy Fleming, 43500 Ridge Park Drive, Temecula, Project Engineer, further
elaborated on specifics of the proposed project, noting the following:
Grading/engineering - heavily landscaped, creating a buffer to residents on Pujol
Street;
Arena area - flat grades;
Driveways - maintained a maximum of 6% slopes;
Retaining walls - minimized the design of any retaining walls on site --
four on site (maximum height 25 feet for the retaining wall located northwest of
the arena - next to the arena); all walls will be interlocking landscape walls with
the exception of the 25 feet wall which will be structural but will be landscaped;
Interior driveways - designed as per City of Temecula standards and regulations;
driveway width will be constructed as per City of Temecula standards and
regulations;
Northern driveway - steepest driveway on the property; staging vehicle parking
area will be out of sight of main entrance area;
Private driveway - transverses the property; will provide handicapped access
ramps, driveway approaches, and proper vertical site distances;
Driveway grades - dropped by approximately 20 feet which enabled the applicant
to minimize grades, creating safe sight distances and easy traffic circulation;
Storm drainage - consistent with original grading plan;
Transit stops - modified as per RTA;
Landscaping - entire front slope will not be graded but will be landscaped;
which, in some areas, exceed the Westside Specific Plan requirements; a
5 feet high landscaped berm, running the entire length of the slope, will be
constructed to mitigate visual as well as noise impacts of the arena;
Air-conditioned arena - will be enclosed to further lessen potential impacts on
view, light, and noise;
Lighting - consistent with the Mount Palomar Lighting Ordinance;
Access points -- Vincent Moraga Drive, First Street, major entryway, and two
secondary access points; that traffic effects resultant from the proposed project
on the City's infrastructure have been greatly minimized;
ADA requirements - access to Old Town will be achieved by way of Main Street;
In closing, Mr. Fleming concurred with the recommended conditions of approval and
expressed appreciation to the Planning Department staff for their efforts with regard to this
project.
Mr. Sergio Martinez, architect representing the applicant, resonding to Commissioner
Slaven, advised that a facility of this size could accommodate a three-to-four day rodeo as it
relates to livestock (housing, clean-up, etc).
Commissioner Guerriero requested that particular attention be paid to ensure proper
concealment of the scaffold lines.
With regard to landscaping, Mr. Glenn Schmidt, landscape architect representing the
applicant, provided a brief description of the proposed trees; reviewed proposed landscaping
for the Western Bypass Corridor slope, commenting on the use of hydroseed mix for a long-
term impact in addition to planting one-gallon shrubs every 80 square feet in order to provide
a more immediate landscaping impact. Mr. Schmidt advised that without the removal and
relocation of the two existing oak trees, they would be destroyed because of grading.
In response to Commissioner Guerriero, Mr. Bob Davis, traffic engineer representing the
applicant, described the design of the Western Bypass Road; referenced projected project
traffic; and commented on the typical rate of arrival time for special events.
Because the widening of Rancho California Road improvements will be completed prior
to the completion of Phase I, Principal Engineer Parks, responded to Commissioner Slaven,
reiterated that Phase I has not been conditioned to make a contribution toward these
improvements. Commissioner Slaven relayed her desire to ensure that the proposed project be
required to make the necessary contributions toward the needed improvements.
Further reviewing a condition of the Tract Map, Community Development Director
Thornhill advised, the applicant shall contribute to the City's improvement project in an amount
equal to the cost of the interim improvements. The applicant shall also contribute his share,
within 30 days of the City's award of the construction contract, for the ultimate improvements.
With regard to a previously recommended condition, Commissioner Miller stated
opposition to the installation of a freeway sign directing traffic to the proposed project by way
of lower SR 79. Community Development Director Thornhill commented on the difficulty in
obtaining Caltrans' approval for the installation of such a sign.
For Commissioner Slaven, Traffic Engineer Davis, as per his letter of August 28, 1997(of
record), clarified how additional traffic from the proposed project will assist in offsetting added
Mall traffic on Rancho California Road at the interchange and Ynez Road.
Mr. Buffman further elaborated on the traditional time schedule of shows, noting that
traditionally evening shows are scheduled between 7:30 P.M. and 8:30 P.M.; that family
attractions are scheduled on Saturday mornings and Saturday evening; that Union regulations
do not permit three
shows a day and that scheduling of weekday shows will not be consistent week after week.
He said the traffic study indicates one show a week (Friday); because Fridays are usually a
heavier traffic day, this day was chosen, for study purposes only, in order to reflect the worst-
case scenario; and that any manager of such a facility would stay away from scheduling an
event during peak hours.
Because Phase II of this project, in her opinion, will attract people at all times,
Commissioner Slaven requested that the applicant, at the time Phase II will be reviewed, be
prepared to address the cumulative affect of Phase I and Phase II.
In response to Chairwoman Fahey's concern, Mr. Buffman advised that in light of the
anticipated El Nino, grading will probably not commence until March of 1989 and completion
of the project would be around April/May 1999.
Responding to Commissioner Miller's suggestion to impose a condition requiring the
applicant to complete the SR 79 South improvements prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy, Mr. Buffman commented on the difficulty in obtaining funding from banks with the
imposition of such a condition.
Principal Engineer Parks reiterated that the signalization and widening of the on- and off-
ramps of interstate 15 at SR 79 South must be completed prior to Certificate of Occupancy.
Having followed this project since 1993, Mr. Dennis Frank, 27475 Ynez Road,
recommended approval of the project because of the short- and long-term benefits it provides
to the citizens and the City of Temecuia. He cited proper economic development of its
contribution to marketing the City of Temecula. As well as its direct economic benefit on the
Old Town residents. Mr. Frank noted that all issues of concern have been properly addressed.
With regard to Mr. Pratt's letter, Mr. Frank questioned the accuracy of Mr. Pratt's studies and
noted that Mr. Pratt is not a traffic engineer.
Having followed this project since 1993, Ms. Joan Sparkman, representing the Temecula
Chamber of Commerce and EDC, spoke in support of the project because of the economic and
aesthetic values the project will have on the community, she also noted that the proposed
conditions of approval address previously noted issues of concern; and confirmed Mr.
Buffman's comment with regard to bankers hesitancy to fund a project conditioned on specific
road improvements.
Having reviewed the staff report with regard to this project, Mr. Neil Cleveland, 28465
Front Street, business and property owner in Old Town, recommended approval based on the
imposed conditions of approval and noted that the proposed project would be of long-term
benefit to Old Town.
At 8:18 P.M., Chairwoman Fahey called a short recess and reconvened the meeting at 8:29
P.M.
Commissioner Slaven pleased with the proposed changes to the arena as well as the
entire project but stated she is continuing to express some concern with regard to the potential
traffic impact the project will have on the surrounding neighborhoods. She noted that traffic
is ever changing and cannot be totally controlled but the recommended conditions of approval
address the issues of concern relative to this project Commissioner Slaven stated as the City
continues to grow, it is incumbent on the governing body, particularly the City Council, to
address City-wide infrastructure problems.
Although he does not concur with traffic engineer Bob Davis, traffic engineer, that the
level of service under the SR 79 South bridge will rise to a service level of "C", Commissioner
Miller addressed Mr. Pratt's letter and noted considering a recent denial of an appeal initiated
by Mr. Pratt, during which similar traffic issues were addressed,he was not interested in
readdressing those traffic and environmental issues again.
In response to Commissioner Miller's recommendation, Principal Engineer Parks advised,
a standard condition of the Erosion Control Plan would impose a condition on the applicant,
requiring that any empty undeveloped pad must be hydroseeded or a building must be built prior
to occupancy.
With regard to a condition noted in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Commissioner
Miller expressed opposition to the City being held responsible for construction of a sound
attenuation wall in the event unacceptable noise levels (65dba) occur as a result of this project.
He noted that such a condition should be the responsibility of the applicant. Community
Development Director Thornhill confirmed that the intent of the condition was for the City to
monitor, not construct. He stated the Commission has the authority to amend the condition.
It was the consensus of the Commission to amend the condition, requiring the applicant to
construct the sound attenuation wall if necessary. The applicant expressed no opposition.
With regard to the relocation of the two existing 30 feet oak trees, Community
Development Director Thornhill, in response to Commissioner Miller, suggested that an arborist,
approved by the City, dictate the exact relocation of these two trees as well as determine a
time frame in which it could be determined whether or not these trees would be negatively
impacted by the move. Commissioner Miller requested that in the event these two trees die,
two 48" box specimen trees should be planted to replace the trees.
Mr. Buffman informed the Commissioners that a tree could be impacted by such a move
as long as 10 years later and voiced no objection to an arborist overseeing the relocation.
In closing, Chairwoman Fahey reviewed the amended/deleted conditions as earlier
referenced by staff; reiterated the Commission's amendment to the condition, requiring the
applicant to construct a noise attenuation wall if necessary; and commented on the
Commission's recommendation that an arborist oversee the relocation of the two oak trees; that
if these trees were to die, they be replaced with two 48" specimen trees; and that the arborist
make a determination as to whether or not the trees were negatively impacted by this move.
J~Q.TJD. J~ Commissioner Miller moved to adopt an addendum to an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) which was previously certified; to make Findings that a subsequent EIR or
Supplemental EIR were not required; to adopt Resolution No. 97-028, approving PA97-0298,
based upon analysis and findings contained in the staff report subject to conditions as modified
and added. He also moved to close the public hearing.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote of those present reflected
unanimous approval (Commissioner Soltysiak absent).
PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT
As per written material of record, Planning Manager Ubnoske responded to issues which
were previously addressed by the Commissioners. Commissioner Slaven expressed appreciation
to Planning Manager Ubnoske for addressing the issues and responding to the Commission in
a timely manner.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
In response to Commissioner Guerriero's objection to the number of campaign signs
placed in the public right-of-way or attached to fences -- locations which violate the Sign
Ordinance, Community Development Director Thornhill advised that a letter will be sent to all
candidates informing them of this issue and requesting them to comply and warning that all
illegal signs will be removed.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairwoman Fahey formally adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:50 P.M.
to Monday, October 20, 1997, at 6:00 P.M.
Linda Fahey, Chairwoman
Planning Manager Ubnoske
MINUTES
FROM THE
JANUARY 5, 1998
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
JANUARY 5, 1998
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular session at 6:01 P.M., on
Monday, January 5, 1998, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Vice Chairwoman Slaven presiding.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioners Guerriero, Miller, Slaven, and Soltysiak.
Absent:
Chairwoman Fahey.
Also Present:
Planning Manager Ubnoske,
Principal Engineer Parks,
Attorney Curley,
Project Planner Donahoe,
Assistant Planner Anders, and
Minute Clerk Ballreich.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A. With regard to the Winchester Meadows commercial development (discussed at the
December 15, 1997, Planning Commission meeting), Ms. CeCe Axton, 30169 Sierra Madre
Drive, representing the Temecula Valley Council PTA, informed the Commission that she had
requested to be notified, by staff, as to when this development would be discussed at the
Planning Commission. Because she was not notified of the December 15, 1997, hearing
date, Ms. Axton, at this time, emphasized the PTA Council's position and opposition with
regard to any commercial development selling alcoholic beverages within 600' of school
property. Vice Chairwoman Slaven advised that the Ralph's grocery store will be more than
600' from the neighboring school property. With regard to Area 3 of the Winchester
Meadows Development, Vice Chairwoman Slaven noted that no businesses have been
approved for this particular area.
With regard to the public notice signs for the Winchester Meadows development as well as
past developments, Ms. Axton relayed her observation that these signs may be up one day
and then down another day, noting that she had never seen a public notice sign up for the
Winchester Meadows development.
Advising that staff had been made aware of the problem with regard to the Winchester
Meadows development, Planning Manager Ubnoske noted that two signs were posted -- one
on Margarita Road and one on Winchester Road. Ms. Ubnoske stated that the matter would
be discussed with the individual contracted to post these signs, ensuring that these signs
are securely placed in the ground.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Because staff has recognized additional concerns with regard to the General Plan
Amendment and Zone Change (Agenda Item No. 5), Vice Chairwoman Slaven informed the
audience that this matter would be continued to the January 26, 1998, Planning
Commission meeting. Vice Chairwoman Slaven noted that testimony given at the December
15, 1997, Commission meeting is on record as reflected in the minutes.
At the direction of Attorney Curley, Planning Manager Ubnoske advised that any individual
who may be unable to attend the January 26, 1998, Commission meeting may provide
testimony at this time; otherwise, this public hearing would be continued.
In the event, an individual unforeseeably will not be able to attend the January 26, 1998,
Commission meeting, Vice Chairwoman Slaven advised that comments/concerns may be
submitted, in writing, to staff.
~ Commissioner Miller moved for the approval of the Agenda as amended
(continuing Agenda Item No. 5 to the January 26, 1998, Planning Commission meeting).
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote of those present
reflected unanimous approval (Chairwoman Fahey absent).
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - December I arid 15. 1997
MOTION'. Commissioner Miller moved for the approval of the December 1, 1997, Planning
Commission minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak and
voice vote of those present reflected unanimous approval (Chairwoman Fahey absent).
With regard to the December 15, 1997, Commission minutes, Commissioner Miller
requested that his motion on page 5 be rephrased as follows: "Commissioner Miller moved
that the Planning Commission make a finding of public convenience..."
MOTION.. Commissioner Guerriero moved for the approval of the December 15, 1997,
Planning Commission minutes as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Miller and voice vote of those present reflected unanimous approval (Chairwoman Fahey
absent).
3. DIRECTOR'S HEARING UPDATE
As per written material of record; no additional comments.
4. TVVENTY-FIVE FOOT PROPOSED POLE SIGN lLou Kashmere)
By way of pictures, Assistant Planner Anders reviewed the request (as per written material
of record), clarifying that the colors reflected in the Polaroid photograph more accurately
reflect the proposed colors than what is reflected in the color rendering; that the colors will
be more muted than the color rendering; and that the colors will be similar to those of the
wall sign.
In response to Vice Chairwoman Slaven's concern with regard to the actual colors, Planning
Manager Ubnoske advised that in order to accurately describe the Commission's preference
with regard to the use of colors, the Commission may reference the Polaroid photograph
versus the color rendering and request that the colors match those of the wall signs.
Advising that no Commission action would be necessary with regard to this item, Attorney
Curley clarified that this item was brought to the Commission for review and information
but that the Commission's discretion is limited.
In response to Commissioner Guerriero, Assistant Planner Anders noted that although the
proposed sign will have limited visibility from the freeway, the applicant is of the opinion
that once the upcoming freeway modifications are completed, the proposed pole sign (25'
high) will be visible from the freeway.
With regard to the Sign Ordinance (as approved by the Planning Commission), Planning
Manager Ubnoske, for Commissioner Miller, advised that the City Council would be
reviewing the Sign Ordinance within the near future, noting that the sign of discussion
would have to and does comply with the old County Sign Ordinance. Ms. Ubnoske, for Vice
Chairwoman Slaven, noted that a pole sign such as the one proposed would not comply
with the approved standards of the new Sign Ordinance as approved by the Planning
Commission.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0237 IGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
AND ZONE CHANGE)
Continued to the January 26, 1998, Planning Commission meeting; see page 2.
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0438 (AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO SPECIFIC
PLAN NO. 199)
Planning Commission consideration to correct the residential development
standards matrix by removing the lot coverage standard unintentionally
included during the processing of Amendment No. 3 to Specific Plan No. 199.
RECOMMENDATION
To approve the request.
Project Planner Donahoe reviewed the request (as per staff report of record).
Mr. Barry Burnell, representing the applicant, concurred with the staff report and relayed his
availability to answer questions and/or concerns.
Expressing no objection to the overall development and/or the request, Ms. Evelyn Harker,
31130 S. General Kearny Road,//85 (Heritage Park), informed the Commission that as a
result of no sandbagging and the recent heavy rains, the south side of General Kearny Road
has been washed out which has resulted in numerous potholes. By way of pictures, Ms.
Harker further elaborated on this traffic safety issue. She requested that no further
development be permitted until the area of concern is sandbagged and until curbs and
gutters have been constructed.
Advising that the Public Works Department has been apprised of the matter, Principal
Engineer Parks informed the Commission and Ms. Harker that the applicant has expressed
cooperation with sandbagging the area of concern and that discussions are in progress with
the applicant as to completing the cul-de-sac, developing the maintenance area, and
completing the entire half width of General Kearny Road. With regard to the potholes, Mr.
Parks advised that those potholes in City-maintained areas would be addressed by the Public
Works Department.
MOTION.' Vice Chairwoman Slaven moved to make a Determination of Consistency with a
project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified and findings
made that a subsequent EIR would not be required and to adopt Resolution No. 98-OO1. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Miller and voice vote of those present reflected
unanimous approval (Chairwoman Fahey absent).
PC RESOLUTION NO. 98-001
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A
RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199, CONTAINING
1,526 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF LA SERENA WAY, EAST OF
MARGARITA ROAD, WEST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY, NORTH OF RANCHO
CALIFORNIA ROAD IPLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0438 -
AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199),' AND ADOPT AN
ORDINANCE ENTITLED 'AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199, REMOVING LOT
COVERAGE FROM THE MATRIX AND TEXT OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199
ZONING STANDARDS, CONTAINING 1,526 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED
SOUTH OF LA SERENA WAY, EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD, WEST OF
MEADOWS PARKWAY, NORTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD {PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA97-0438 - AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO.
199) .'
PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Because the Commission's January 19, 1998, meeting will fall on a holiday (Martin
Luther King, Jr. Day), Planning Manager Ubnoske advised that this regularly scheduled
meeting would be postponed to January 26, 1998, at 6:00 P.M.
B. In response to Planning Manager Ubnoske, Vice Chairwoman Slaven suggested that
the discussion of changing the Planning Commission meeting date be deferred to a meeting
at which all Commissioners are in attendance.
C. Referencing written material with regard to KFC/Shell station, Planning Manager
Ubnoske relayed staff's attempt to address all concerns raised by the Commissioners.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
NONe.
OTHER BUSINESS
NONe.
ADJOURNMENT
At 6:40 P.M., Vice Chairwoman Slaven formally adjourned this meeting to Monday,
J~quary 26. 1998. at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive,
Temecula.
Linda Fahey, Chairwoman
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
ITEM #3
SELECTION OF A
PLANNING COMMISSIONER
TO MEET W1TH A
REPRESENTATIVE OF
THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION
ITEM #4
MEMORANDUM
Planning Commission
FROM:
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
DATE:
February 2, 1998
SUBJECT: Storage of Recreational Vehicles In Residential Zones
Prepared by:
Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Department Staff Recommends the Planning
Commission:
Review the options presented by Staff, and direct Staff
regarding the storage of recreational vehicles in Residential
Districts
BACKGROUND
The City's Development Code was adopted on January 25, 1995 and included provisions for
the City to regulate on-site storage of recreational vehicles in residential zones. Prior to the
adoption of the Development Code, the enforcement was left to Homeowner's Associations
(HOA's) in areas where they existed in the City. In areas where there were no HOA's, no
regulations covered the on-site storage of recreational vehicles in residential zones. Since the
adoption of the Development Code, Code Enforcement staff have been enforcing this provision
of the Development Code based upon complaints from residents.
At the August 12, 1997 City Council meeting, Mayor Birdsall requested staff prepare a staff
report discussing the issue of recreational vehicle storage in residential districts. Staff brought
this report before the Council on September 23, 1997. At that meeting the City Council
directed staff to delete Section 17.24.020(D)(1 )(f) of the City's Development Code pertaining
to recreational vehicle storage in residential areas. This Section, which intends to allow
temporary on-site storage of recreational vehicles in residential zones states:
"Except as provided herein, vehicles parked within public view in required or
authorized parking areas within the front yard, corner side yard or side yard
abutting a street shall be parked or left standing for temporary periods of time
not to exceed five (5) consecutive days."
Since deletion of this Section of the Development Code would require an Ordinance
Amendment, this item was placed on the November 3, 1997 Planning Commission agenda.
However, upon further consideration, the Council directed staff to conduct additional research
on this matter. Staff requested this item be continued at the November 3, 1997 Planning
Commission meeting to the December 1, 1997 Planning Commission hearing. Staff requested
this issue be continued off-calendar at the December 1, 1997 meeting. Since that time, staff
has conducted research on this issue. The result of this research is provided below.
ANALYSIS
Research Conducted
Staff contacted over one dozen municipalities to determine how they address the issue of on-
site storage of recreational vehicles in residential zones. It was determined from this research,
that there are many approaches to regulate the on-site storage of recreational vehicles in
residential zones. The options presented below are in response to the comments made by
residents and are based upon regulations of other Cities. Staff is open to any other options the
Commission may suggest.
Option No. I - Utilize Current Code Provisions: Prohibition
This option would be to direct staff to utilize the current provisions contained in the
Development Code to prohibit long-term parking/storage of recreational vehicles in front yards
of residential zones. Recommendations received in letters from residents include: increased
enforcement by the City and the inclusion of significant penalties for infractions.
increased enforcement would require additional staff resources. As stated above, enforcement
of the Code was primarily driven by complaints received from residents. According to Code
Enforcement staff, enforcement of this item required approximately 30-40% of their staff hours
and would require the same if they were to pro-actively enforce the Ordinance. In order to
effectively enforce these regulations, one-half of a Code Enforcement staff person would be
required at the current time. The cost to the City (in 1998 dollars) would be $27,259.00
annually. This figure would likely be higher in future years. It should be noted that, if an
additional staff member is not added, other areas of code enforcement Will be impacted. In
addition, with the current residential growth in Temecula, at approximately 700 new homes per
year, the limited staff resources would be stretched even thinner.
Option No. 2 - Delete Section 17.24.020(D)[l)(f) of the City's Development Code: No
Regulation
This option would delete the current Development Code language, and result in the City not
regulating recreational vehicles on private property in residential zones. This option, which
would result in the same condition which existed before the adoption of the Development Code,
would place the burden for enforcement upon the individual HOA's, and would result in no
regulation in areas of the City where HOA's are inactive or do not exist. According to several
residents who have served on the Board of Directors for a HOA, enforcement is expensive, time
consuming and ineffective. Correspondence from several residents (see Attachment No. 1)
indicates that they are not in favor of this option, while one resident was in favor of this
method of regulation. At the request of the Council, staff contacted the City of Irvine and was
informed that they leave the enforcement of this regulation with the HOA's.
Option No. 3 - Modify Section 17.24.020 (D) of the Development Code: Prohibition with
Exemptions for Special Circumstances
Several cities (Palm Springs, Palm Desert and Poway) allow parking/storage of recreation
vehicles in a front yard, if it is not possible to store them in either the side or rear yard or a
separate garage. These cities allow a recreational vehicle to be parked in a front yard if the
area is paved. Palm Springs and Palm Desert require the owner to receive a permit to park the
recreational vehicle in the front yard area. To receive a permit, the Planning Department of
these cities provides written notice to property owners within 300 feet of the proposed location
of the recreational vehicle. Should a written objection be received or should the Planning
Department determine not to issue the permit, then the matter is referred to the Planning
Commission which holds a noticed public hearing with respect to the issuance of a permit.
This option would require additional staff time to process the applications. An application fee
would be assessed to the homeowner to offset staff time, materials and postage for the public
hearing. Code Enforcement staff also be required for violations. Given the current interest in
stronger regulations to prohibit the storage/parking of recreation vehicles on-site in driveways,
and the additional time requirements placed upon the current staff, this option does not appear
to achieve that objective.
On-Street Parking of Recreational Vehicles
One resident discussed prohibiting the storage of recreational vehicles on the street. On-street
parking is regulated by the State Vehicle Code and in enforced by the Police Department. The
code allows on-street parking as long as the vehicle is legally parked and is not left standing
longer than 72 hours. According to Code Enforcement staff, this regulation is directed more
towards inoperable vehicles and is easily and regularly avoided by those who move their
recreational vehicles within the time limits of the existing code provisions.
Correspondence Received
Since this item has appeared on the original City Council agenda, staff has received a number
of letters from residents regarding this issue. In addition, staff has received telephone calls and
talked to residents at the public information counter at City Hall. The letters have been
forwarded to the Commission or Council as they have been received. All but one letter were
in favor of maintaining the current regulations regarding the parking/storage of recreational in
residential zones. The letters have been included as Attachment No. 1 to this Staff Report.
Attachments:
1. Letters from Residents - Blue Page
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
LETTERS FROM RESIDENTS
cc: R. Bradley
G. Thornhill
October 24. 1997
Temecula Cky Council
Dear Council:
We have lived in Temecula for eight years and are proud to say there is very little to
complain about. Our City Council listens and acts for all our behalf.. In today's politics,
this is unusual and appreciated.
The issue of RV and boat paxking in our residential areas is of concern to us for two
reasons: (1) If our City Council can elect to not enforce the Codes of Record what other
laws and codes can they elect to not enforce? (2) With the "announcement" that this
code will not he enforced, we have in effect given an open invitation for more of what is
already a blight on our neighborhoods. Many times the parking of RV's and boats on the
driveways necessitates excessive automobile parking in the streets or cul-de-sacs.
Policing is not a problem if the fine for infraction is high enough and well published. A
$500.00 per day fine will clean up what is beginning to look like a resort parking lot
throughout our beautiful city.
Mr. RobeIts and Ms. Birdsell must start looking around more and listen to the electorate.
This city is larger than just Meadowview!
We applaud the efforts of Mr. Stone and Mr. Lindennan who on all issues have the pulse
of our entire emmaunity. Mr. Ford, you will do well to follow their examples. We urge
all of you to reconsider this issue and perform the job you were elected to do. Please obey
and enforce our laws; they are there for a good reason and it is not your job to excuse
them.
~ incerely,
40221 Tuolonme Court
909/699-6968
TEMECULA CITY MANAGER AND
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS
We thank the board members for hearing our plea on Monday
evening November 3rd, to stop permanent parking of RV'S
and boats on driveways, lawns and streets in residential
City Council members Mr. Stone, Lindermans and Roberts were
not aware of the seriousness of this problem until they
came to our neighborhoods. In fa[~ness to yourself and us
homeowner taxpayers, I urge you to give just 30 minutes of
your time and persoally come out and see what has happened
to this beautiful city. I recommend you drive the following
streets; Calle Medusa, Chauncey Way, Yardley Ct., Wellington
Circle and the worst of all Windsor Road.
The answer to this problem is not Home Owners Associations.
Its evident that HOA can not enforce this unless the city
invokes and enforces an ordinance to prohibit this sort of
thing --- and please realize that about one third of the
developments in our city do not have HOA,S. The California
vehicle code governing residential street parking is not
working. Also, niether is development code chapter 17.24
and chapter 10.32. They will never work until rewritten.
The penalty must be stronger than "Violation of any
provision of this subsection shall be punishable as an
infraction". We suggest it read "Violation of any provision
of this subsection shall be given a three day notice to
correct the infraction or be fined $100.00 per day until
corrected. After the third day the owner will be cited and
fined at rate of $100.00 per day until the infraction is
corrected. The vehicle, trailer, RV, boat etc may be
impounded at the cities descretion and the fine shall
continue until claimed and fine is paid."
It should be published in all local newspapers that this
ordinance would become effective in 30 days.
Please help us keep this city beautiful.
Edward V. and Evelyn D. Salitore
42733 San Julian Place
Temecula, Ca 92592
December 1, 1997
Honorable Councilman, Karel Lindermans
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, Ca 92589-9033
cc: Gary Thornhill
RE: CITY OF TEMECULA PARKING REGULATIONS OF MOTOR HOMES,TRAILERS
BOATS
Dear Councilman Lindermans:
We purchased our Lake Village home in 1973,the year Lake Village was founded.
In those early days beforethe Incorporation,Lake Village was a quiet,laid-back,
stow-moving off the beaten path community. The ideal setting that my wife Evelyn
and myself were looking for upon our retirement from the exciting and fast moving
life-style demanded by our ownership and administrative involvement in News-
paper and Text book publishing business in Los Angeles and Orange Counties.
Upon our retirement in 1978, we made the BIG MOVE to our small Rancho Calif.
(Lake Village) retirement home,worlds away we thought then,from the hectic,
never ending "Rat Race" of Los Angeles and Orange Counties.
During most of our almost 20 years of living here in Lake Village, we have owned
and parked our Motor Home in our driveway, without problems.
We heartily disagree with the JOHNNY COME LATELY DISGRUNTLED DISSIDENTS,that our
Motor Home is a blight and eyesore to our neighborhood.
However,we would gladly park it behind our fence it it were possible to do so.
unfortunately our lot is situated in such a way that it is impossible to park it
behind our fence.
We have a large investment in our Motor Home which is kept in excellent condition
at all times and is considered as one of our most cherished possessions. It is
furnished,packed and "ready to go" on short notice, which we take advantage of
quite often for weeks and months at a time.
Any thought of driving it to a storage lot, even if one were close by, between
trips and subjecting our Motor Home to burglaries, and vandalism is entirely out
of the question.
-more-
-2-
Temecula City Councilman Ed & Erie Salitore
IN CONCLUSION --FOOD FOR THOUGHT:
1)Motor Homes,trailers,boats, and recreational vehicles should be allowed to
be parked on driveways, when it is not feasible or possible to park them
behind the fenced or screened area of such property.
2) Most owners of Recreational vehicles are honest,law-abiding ,tax paying
civic minded citizens and a credit to our Comunity.
3) JOHNNY COME LATELY DISSIDENTS should not be encouraged in their unjust and
unwarranted self serving demands against all owners of Recreational Vehicles.
They knew what the conditions were relative to the policy of the City of
Temecula ,on Recreational Vehicles at the time they made the decision to move
here.
4) Where flagrant abuse of reasonable regulations exist, the parties responsible
for the abuse should be heId responsible.
In closing we are really happy to let you know we ~oted for you and have been
strong supporters of the actions and efforts of our City Council,including,and
ever since Incorporation.
Thanking you in advance for your kind indulgence, and it is our fervent hope that
you and all your loved ones are blessed with a Happy, Healthy,and better than ever
coming Holiday Season and New Year.
Sincerely,
~ ' ,/
Ed and Erie ore
42733 San Julian Pl.(Lake Village)
Temecula, Ca 92592
Phone: (909) 676-6355
ENCL:
CC:
Photograph enclosed showing our Motor Home as it is,parked in
our driveway.
Council Members
Birdsall
Cormerchero
Ford
~Lindemans
R6berts
Stone
Planning Comm.
Fahey
4 November 1997
Whom It May Concern
City of Temecula
NOV 10
Re: Attached Letter
We request that copies of the enclosed letter be provided to each member of
the City Council and Planning Commission before their next meetings on this
subject.
4 November 1997
Temecula City Council and
Temecula Planning Commission
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecnla, CA 92390
Re: Repeal of Section 17.24(D)(1)(f) of the City's Development Code Pertaining
to Recreational Vehicle Storage in Residential Areas
At a 3 November meeting of the Temecula Planning Commission the
referenced agenda item was withdrawn from consideration pending further
study of the issue. However, before moving on to the next agenda item, the
Planning Commission provided opportunity for the public to voice concerns
about the proposed repeal.
We would like to comment, in greator detail thsrx the three minute Commission
limit allows, on two issues raised during the public responses.
Enforcement: Three comments here. First: Commissioner Guerriero
asked about numbers of personnel needed to enforce the code. Why has the
code not been forcefully enforced to date? Had it been enforced with vigor the
number of persounel needed at this time would not be significant. Residents
would have been made aware of the inconveniences involved in violating the
code. Initial vigorous enforcement activities at this time might require
additional personnel to be used, but a lower level would ultimately be required.
The code enforcement must include significant penalties. Some people have to
be hit over the head with a 2 x 4 to get their attention.
Second: One speaker from a Homeowner's Association noted that asking the
HOAs to enforce parking regulations pits neighbor against neighbor, leading to
neighborhood feuds and hatred. He suggested that the City is the better
regulatory agency. Comment: Our experience in 3 HOAs over the last 16
years is that the speaker is right. Asking the HOAs to enforce parking
regulations on city owned streets can lead to feuds, anger, and, in extreme
cases -- violence. The city owns the sweets. The city has an enforceable code
on the books. The city should enforce it. Without that enforcement the HOAs
are forced into long, expensive, and sometimes losing legal battles with people
who have little regard for their neighbors, their neighborhood, or property
values. "Curb appeal" is a significant factor in home re-sale. A cluttered
neighborhood reduces curb appeal.
Third. Other cities can and do enforce the same or similar parking regulations.
Temecula can either help maintain the beauty of its neighborhoods or remove
the code and contribute to their deterioration.
RV. Roats. Etc. Stors s, e: We note that an agenda report concerning
this item states that the City's Code Enforcement Officers "have met with
resistance from property owners who have no where else to store their trailers,
RVs, and boats. However, the City is currently processing several applications
for self storage facilities. These are expected to provide additional storage
opportunities." Comment: Are the majority of City residents to be penalized
because some residents will not accept their responsibilities as citizens of
Temecula and (where they hve in HOAs) members of HOAs? Ignorance of the
law has never been a legal defense. People with RVs, trailers, boats, tanks,
giant earth movers, tar roofing trucks, elephants, and Siberian Yaks have a
responsibility that we all share -- to conform to all established laws, codes,
rules and regulations-- whether they like them or not.
We appreciate your consideration of these itsms as you move to
reconsideration of this issue. We urge retention of the code -- and its vigorous
enforcement.
Sincerely,
Temecula, CA 92592
693-0929
cc: The Californian
November 17, 1997
TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION:
This is one more concerned cltizen's appeal to
PLEASE, PLEASE retain and enforce the City's Develop-
ment Code pertaining to recreational vehicle storage
in residential areas, and illegal parking on City streets.
Please help the majority of the citizens,who love
Temecula, to maintain and enhance this beaUTIFUL CITY.
It will invite responsible growth and pride of owner-
ship. Street clutter and ugliness of RVs parked on
streets and in yards, add to deterioration of neighbor-
hoods. Property values decrease. Citizens who enjoy
~iving $~ f~!.~$~ained, beautiful neighborhoods,
with pride of ownership, will move out, and those who
do not care will move in. Home values will hit rock
bottom in these blighted neighborhoodS.
The appeal of John Lynn, published November 13th in the
Californian contains many points of concern, which we
share. The following curtion of his appeal, bears
repeating:
"Third: Other.cities can and do enforce the
same or similar parking regulations. Temecula
can either help maintain the beauty of the
neighborhoods or remove the code and contribute to
their deterioration."
Thank you for considering our concerns.
MRS. MARIE DUNN
30156 La Primavera,
Phone: 676-3059
Temecula
VXA FAX
20 October 1997
TO: Ctty Counct1 Members
City of Temecula
SIJajECT: Chapter 17.24 of Development Cede - Sectton 17.24.0Z0
Off-Street Parktrig and Loadtng
Ply name is Joanne Ph111tps and i reside, withRyhusband, 011vet at
30361 TradeWater Ct, in the City of Temecula,
The Ctty Council has had vartous discussions recently regarding Off-
Street Parktng, and more specifically as pertains to RVs, boats, etc..
Back on 6 August 1997 [ sent a FAX (copy attached) to He. Ctndy Ketrsey
Code Enforcement officer, for the Ctty of Temecula - regarding a
violation of the subject Cede, Section 17.24.020. This specifically
addresses the fact of motorhomes parktn9 on the street legally for a
5 day parted and then being able to move it to the other side of the
street and betng able agaln to leave it there for another 5 days, etc.
Zt is hard for mo to understand holt his can be allowed! We have a
beautiful city and you, as members of the Cft Council, a~g
~fs tyPe of unsfqhtly thtngs to occur, NON ~ THIS BE??????
We are members Of the The VIllages Home Owners Association group and
our CC&Rs restrlct overnight parking fn the streets - however, ft can-
not be enforce BECAUSE THE CZTY OF TENECULA ZS NOT MZLLING TO BACK US
UP. We, too,have a motor home - ftts parked behind gates (legaRy
according to our CC&RS) because we believe tn following the rules -
! know rules are made to be broken - but that Is not how ft should be.
Zf we leave our motorhome out parked tn our dHveway for a day or t~o
whtle we are getting ready to go on a trlp or are cleaning/washing
same and the homeowners association comes by and sees it there, we are
Immediately nottried to move same - and ft's on our own propertyl
Z belteve it is about tlmo that our Ctty Counct1 look out for the vast
majority of the Cttizens of this great city and decide to put a law into
affect that disallows overnight parking or continuous parktrig of motor-
homes, boats, btg trucks, etc. on our streets.
PLEASE TAKE NECESSARY ACTZON TO STOP THIS TYPE OF THZNG FRON RUZNZNG OUR
CZTYARD CAUSZNG PROPERTY VALUE TO GO IX)keN TO SAY NOTHZNG OF THE FACT
THAT ZT LOOKS ABSOLUTELY TERRZBLE - ZF k/E kUkNTED TO UVE LIKE TRASH
WE SURE NOUL/)N'T HAVE NOVED HERE.
£ZNCERELY, ~
~LIP~
(676-4466)
ViA FAX
20 October 1997
TO: CIty Council Members
Ctty of Temecula
SUBJECT: Chapter 17.24 of Development Code - Section 17.24.020
Off-Street Parking and Loadtrig
Ny name is Joanna Phtlltps and Z reside, with eW husband, 0liver at
30361 Tradewater Ct. in the City of Temecula.
The City Councfi has had various discussions recently regarding Off-
Street Parking, and more specifically as pertains to RVs, boats, etc..
Back on 6 August 1997 Z sent a FAX (copy attached} to Ns. Ctndy Kelrsey
Code Enforcement Officer, for t.he Ctt~ of Teg~cula - regarding a
vlolaMon of the subject Code, Section 17.24.020. This specifically
addresses the fact of motorhomes parktng on the street legally for a
5 day period and then being able to move it to the other side of the
street end being able agatn ~o leave tt there for another 5 d~Vs, etc.
It Is hard for me to understand how this can be altowed! Me have a
beautiful ctty and you, as members of the Cit Coundl, a~q
this type of unsfqhtly thtnqs to occur. HON ~A~ THIS
Ne are members of the The Vtllages Heme ONsets Association group and
our CC&Rs restrlct overnight parking In the streets - however, it can-
not be enforce BECAUSE THE CiTY OF TEMECULA iS NOT NILLING TO BACK US
UP. Ne, too,have a motor home - it ts parked behind gates (legally
according to our CC&Rs) because we believe in follewtng the rules -
i know rules are made to be broken * but that is not how it should be.
if we leave our motorhome out parked tn our driveway for a day or two
whtle We are getting ready to go on a trip or are cleaning/washing
same end the homeowners association comes by and sees tt there, we are
Immediately notified to move same - and tt's on our Nn propertyl
I believe it is about time that our CIty Counctl look out for the vast
majortry of the Citizens of thts great city and decide to put a law tnto
affect that disallows overnight parking or continuous parking of motor*
homes, boats, big trucks, etc. on our streets.
PLEASE TAKE NECESSARY ACTZON TO STOP THZS TYPE OF THING FRON RUINING OUR
CiTY AND CAUSZNG PROPERTY VALUE TO GO DOll TO SAY NOTHING OF THE FACT
THAT IT LOOKS ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE - IF ME NANTED TO LIVE LIKE TRASH
~/E SURE t~OULON'T HAVE MOVED HERE.
LiPS
(676-4466)
cc: G, Thornhill
2 December 1997
Linda Fahey
Chairwoman, Temecula Planning Commission
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
Dear Ms Fahey:
At the 1 December meeting of the Temecula Planning Commission discussion
pertaining to a section of the City's Development Code was "continued off
calendar". That section has to do with storage of recreational vehicles in
residential areas. A review of the doc-ments provided to the public at that
meeting indicates some Planning Commission and/or staff confusion regarding
the subject.
- The December 1 agenda provided to the public provides the following
regarding this subject:
"Proposal: ReJ)eal Section 1Z24(D)(1)(D of the City's
Development Code Pertaining to Recreational Vehicle (RV) Storage in
Residential Areas"
- A memorandum to the Planning Commission from Debbie Ubnoske,
Planning Manager provides the following concerning the same subject:
Subject: Planning Application No. PA97-0349 - Amendment
to Section 17.24.020(D )(1)(t) of the City's Development Code Pertaining to
Recreational Vehicle (RV) Storage in Residential Areas"
Ms Ubnoske -- in her "Background" section of the memo states
that "The City Council originally directed staff to amend Section ............... "
The subject was titled "Repeal" at the 3 November Planning Commission
meeting -- now it appears that a decision has been made without public notice
to modify the original subject to one of "Amendment". Further, the section of
the D6velopment Code cited is different. Did we miss notification by the
Planning Commission that the original subject had been changed? Has it been
changed? Was the original subject in error? Is the staff in error?
The public has a right to accurate information conceraing proposed changes; if
for no other reason than to be able to respond intelligently to those proposals.
Response to a proposed ~ is very different from that for an ~rnendment.
In regards the same subject -- but with a different focus:
When several people show up at a meeting of the Planning Commission
anticipating a discussion of a topic and are then notified that the subject is
being "continued off calendar" it can -- it does -- make those people suspicious
of the reasen(s) for the continuance. For exnmple:
- Is the Planning Commission just waiting for people to lose interest so
that they can do what they want without being in the spotlight of public
pressure?
- Are members of the Commission or their staff predisposed to repeal or
amend the section regardless of public opinion?
- Is pressure being exerted by the City Council?
I don't accuse either the City Council or the Commission or its staffof any of
these motives. I only list them as ways the public can -- and often does -- think
about their government. I would like to think that the reason for the
continuance has to do with an overworked staff who just haven't have enough
time to complete their task
Might I suggest that some explanation to the public is warranted when a
subject is "Continued off calendar"? There is a lot of public suspicion of
government today, both locally and nation wide. You could help reduce that
suspicion in Temecula by the simple act of providing a rational explanation of
the reasons.
A copy of my original letter to 'the City Council and the Planning Commission is
included. I wish to ensure that my views as a citizen of Temecula are
considered when the subject is again considered.
Sincerely,
~Belalr
Temecula, CA 92592
693-0929
Enclosure
cc: fi//eemecula City Council
The Californian
4 November 1997
Temecula City Council and
Temecula Planning Commission
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
Re: Repeal of Section 17.24(DX1)(f) of the City's Development Code Pertaining
to Recreational Vehicle Storage in Residential Areas
At a 3 November meeting of the Temecula Planning Commission the
referenced agenda item was withdrawn from consideration pending further
study of the issue. However, before moving on to the next agenda item, the
Planning Comm~ ssion provided opportunity for the public to voice concerns
about the proposed repeal.
We would like to comment, in Feator detail than the three minute Commission
limit allows, on two issues raised during the public responses.
Enforcement: Three comments here. First: Commissioner Guerriero
asked about nnmhers of personnel needed to enforce the cede. Why has the
code not been forcefully enforced to date? Had it been enforced with vigor the
n-tuber of personnel needed at this time would not be significant. Residents
would have been made aware of the inconveniences involved in violating the
code. Irdtial vigorous enforcement activities at this time might require
additional personnel to be used, but a lower level would ultimately be required.
The code enforcement must include signfficant penalties. Some people have to
be hit over the head with a 2 x 4 to get their attention.
Second: One speaker from a Homeowner's Association noted that asking the
HOAs to enforce parking regulations pits neighbor against neighbor, leading to
neighborhood feuds and hatred. He suggested that the City is the better
regulatory agency. Comment: Our experience in 3 HOAs over the last 16
years is that the speaker is right. Asking the HOAs to enforce parking
regulations on city owned streets can lead to feuds, anger, and, in extreme
cases -- violence. The city owns the streets. The city has an enforceable code
on the'books. The city should enforce it. Without that enforcement the HOAs
are forced into long, expensive, and sometimes losing legal battles with people
who have little regard for their neighbors, their neighborhood, or property
values. "Curb appeal" is a significant factor in home re-sale. A cluttered
neighborhood reduces curb appeal.
Third. Other cities can and do enforce the same or similar parking regulations.
Temecula can either help maintain the beauty of its neighborhoods or remove
the code and contribute to their deterioration.
RV. Roats. Etc. Storage: We note that an agenda report concerning
this item states that the City's Code Enforcement Officers "have met with
resistance from property owners who have no whore else to store their trailers,
RVs, and boats. However, the City is currently processing several applications
for self storage facilities. These are expected to provide additional storage
opportunities. '° Comment: Are the majority of City residents to be penalized
because some residents will not accept their responsibilities as citizens of
Temecula and (where they live in HOAs) members of HOAs? Ignorance of the
law has never been a legal defense. People with RVs, trailers, boats, tanks,
giant earth movers, tar roofing trucks, elephants, and Siberian Yaks have a
responsibility that we all share -- to conform to all established laws, codes,
rules and regulations-- whether they like them or not.
We appreciate your consideration of these items as you move to
reconsideration of this issue. We urge retention of the code - and its vigorous
enforcement.
Sincerely,
M/M John Lynn
32237 Placer Belair
Temecula, CA 92592
693-0929
cc: The Californian
ITuesday Deceffect 9, 1997 12:~6pm -- From '310 377/J+68, -- Page 11
1Z/09/g7 13:23 PAX 310 377 4468 CITY OF E.H.E. ~]001
pARETNG OF E~EATI08 V~aCLZS IN TN~ CITY
OCTOBE~ 28, 1976
MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 1827(h)(1)
'NO MOTOR VEHICLE CAN B~ STORED OK PARKED EXCEPT IN AN BNTIEELY
ENCLOSED SPACE."
NUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 1827(h)(3)
'SUCH PARKING SPAEKS SHALL BE LOCATED IN THE REAR OF l~u~ FRONT
SETBACK LINE, EICKPT IN MOUN~ATN ARIAS OR RILLSIDE LOTS
CARA~ES NAY BE LOCATED IN THE FgONT YARD ~HEN APPROVED BY
PLANNINe C~HISSION,'
Ac the meeting of the City Council on OcCober 26, 1976, the following policy of
enforcement of the foregoing . Sections fo the Honlclpal Code (Zoning
Code...Dtrected the City Hanager=
TO ENFORCE THE ZONING CODE PROVISIONS RELATIVE TO PARKING OF
RECREATION VEHICLES IN FRONT YARD SETBACKS', SETTINC THE POLICY
THAT IF SUCH VEHICLE IS PAPd~U IN T~ SIDE OR BACK yARD BEHIND
THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND IS ADEQUATELY SCREENED FROM Vlgi/BY
FENCE, WALL OR SHRUBBERY IT NILL BE PERIiI'.t-re.D,
This policy statement to be placed in the Zoning Code in fronc of Article
Section 1827(h).
Fax ?4o~e 7671 Nee ·
November 15, 1997
Marcia Watkins
30152 ff/!a A/turaS Ddve
Temecula, Ca/ifornia 92S92
(909) 676-4920
Mr, Ron Bradley
City Manager
City of Temecuh
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Dear Mr. Bradley:
The issue of Recreational Vehicles (Campers, Boats, Trailers, Fifth Wheels, and Motor Homes) in
our residential area is of concern to me.
On Vilh Altoms Drive, where I live, there is a Recreational Vehicle parked in a driveway on blocks
to keep it level -- as it is being used as an exlra bedroom! Just a few houses beyond the mobile
badchamber, a welding business is opt~aling out of the garage, and unsightly old cars a~e being
worked on in the street and driveway. This was once a lovely neighborhood in a b,~,ajfui city, but is
now just one of many Temecula sweets .that is beginning to look run down and ragged.
I want to see the City Cede enforced, but the exisUng laws don't appear to be clear or enforceable, as
wrillen. Perhaps the vehicle code governing residential parking needs to be rewrit~n so that it is
CLEAR AND PRECISE and cames a HEm MONETARY PENAL TY; one STROJ~ EI~UGH to deter violators.
Let's strive to keep The City of Temecula a city we can all be proud off
Sincerely yours,
Marcia Watkins
ITEM #5
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
February 2, 1998
Director' s Hearing Case Update
Planning Director's Agenda item for January, 1998.
January 27 PA97-0422 Product Review (single family Warmlngton Homes California Approved
residences for Pasr, o del Sol
subdivision
Attachments:
1. Action Agenda - Blue Page 2
ATTACItME~NT NO. 1
ACTION AGENDA
R:~DIRHEARXMI~MO~2-2-gg.DH 1/28/98
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING
SPECIAL MEETING
JANUARY 27, 1997 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 Business Park Drive
Te~necula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
Dave Hogan, Senior Hanner
PUBLIC COMM~-NTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior
Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3)
minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the
Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior
Planner.
When you are 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 Senior
Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual
speakers.
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
Planning Application No. PA97-0422 (Development Plan -
Product Review)
Warmingon Homes California
East portion of Paloma del Sol Specific Plan (Tract 24186-2), the
area west of the intersection of Sunny Meadows Drive and Jerez
Lane off of Butterfield Stage Road.
Product Review (single family residences) for the Paseo del Sol
subdivision.
Consistent with the previously certified Env'tronmental Impact
Report for the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan.
Patty Anders, Assistant Planner
Approval
APPROVED
ADJOUP, NMENT
ITEM #6
TO:
FROM:
Debbie Ul~nosk~,~Planning Manager
DATE:
February 2, 1998
SUBJECT: Rebel Rents
The Community Development Department has received an application from Rebel Rents. Rebel
Rents has an option to purchase the lot between the hotel and Sunrise Market on Front Street south
of the Old Town area. This area is part of the Southside Specific Plan which is currently in
process. While the Specific Plan is in its preliminary stages, this use would be inconsistent with
what is being proposed. Staff has met with the applicant for Rebel Rents and expressed our
concerns about the use at this location. Staff has visited Rebel Rents' existing site in Temecula
and is concerned about the aesthetics of such a use on the proposed lot south of Old Town. The
applicant has agreed to accept a condition of approval that would prohibit the extending of
equipment for freeway visibility and has also agreed to do extensive landscaping. Staff has
explained that there is the possibility that this use may become non-conforming once the Southside
Specific Plan is adopted and the applicant has no problem with this.
I have attached a copy of the site plan and elevations. Your comments on this proposal would be
appreciated. I will have a colored elevation to show you at our meeting on February 2, 1998 and
would encourage you to call either me or Patty Anders to discuss what is being proposed.
ITEM #7
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
February 2, 1998
Planning Application No. PA97-0237 (General Plan Amendment and Zone Change)
Prepared By: Carole K. Donahoe and David Hogan
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission continue this case
off-calendar
PROPOSALS:
To amend the General Plan designation for the site from Office
and Neighborhood Commercial to Neighborhood Commercial, in
accordance with Exhibit A; and
To change the Zoning Map for the site from Professional Office
and Neighborhood Commercial to Planned Development Overlay
{PDO-1 ).
LOCATION:
East of Pala Road, south of State Highway 79 South
PROJECT STATUS:
This item was continued from the January 5, 1998, Planning Commission meeting. At this
meeting, this general plan amendment and zone change was continued to the next Commission
meeting. Based upon the Commission's discussion, staff needs additional time to review
design options for Pala Road and discuss these impacts with the affected properties. As a
result, staff recommends that this case be continued off-calendar until these issues have been
addressed. These items will be readvertised for a later public hearing at such time as the
project is ready for consideration.
ITEM #8
RECOMMENDATION:
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
February 2, 1998
Planning Application No. PA97-0398 (Development Plan)
Prepared By: Patty Anders, Assistant Planner
The Planning Department Staff recommends the
Commission:
1.
Planning
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application
No. PA97-0398;
ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning
Application No. PA97-0398;
ADOPT Resolution No. 98- approving Planning
Application No. PA97-0398 based upon the Analysis and
Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval.
Marie Calendar's / Ed Deering
Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
The design, construction and operation of a 8,684 square
foot restaurant with two outdoor patios totaling 1,185
square feet with associated parking, landscaping, and road
improvements.
The southwest corner of the intersection of Rancho
California and Ynez Roads.
Specific Plan: Rancho Highlands Specific Plan (#180);
Planning Area 2: Office/Professional
North:
HT (Highway/Tourist Commercial) and
PO (Professional/Office)
South:
SP (Rancho Highlands Specific Plan
Planning Area 2: Office/Professional and
Areas 4 and 5: Very High Density
Residential)
East:
SP (Specific Plan - Planning Area 1:
Office/Professional)
West:
SP (Rancho Highlands Specific Plan-Planning
Area 2: Office/Professional and Interstate
15)
PROPOSED ZONING:
Not requested
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: HTC (Highway/Tourist Commercial)
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES: North:
South:
East:
West:
Tower Plaza with existing restaurants and
commercial/retail development
Existing condominium development
Temecula Duck Pond/Oscar's Restaurant
Pond/Embassy Suites
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Area:
Total Site Area:
Building Area:
Landscape Area:
Parking/Paved Area:
Other Hardscape:
Parking Required:
Parking Provided:
Building Height:
Chimney Element Height:
2.57 acres (gross); 1.51 acres (net)
8,684 square feet (12%)
22,333 square feet (34%)
4,865 square feet (47%)
7,339 square feet (7%)
Eighty-seven (87) spaces
Ninety-one (91) spaces
Twenty-six (26) feet
Twenty-seven and one-half (27'-6") feet)
BACKGROUND
A pre-application meeting was held on September 25, 1997. The project was submitted to the
Planning Division of the Community Development Department on November 18, 1997. A
Development Review Committee (DRC) Meeting was held on December 11, 1997. All revised
elevations, site plans, grading plans and landscape plans were received by December 30, 1997.
The project was deemed complete on January 5, 1998.
A Notice of Filing sign was posted on December 13,1997, and a notice of public hearing sign
was posted on January 13, 1998. As a result of the two postings, staff received three calls
in opposition, and two calls in support of the project. No letters of support or opposition were
received by staff.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is a proposal for the design, construction and operation of a 8,684 square foot
restaurant with two outdoor patios of 1,185 square feet for a total dining area of 9,869 square
feet with associated parking, landscaping, and road improvements on a 1.51 acre parcel.
ANALYSIS
The subject site is located within Planning Area 2 of the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan
(#180). Planning Area 2 is zoned Office/Professional which allows restaurants as a permitted
use pursuant to Specific Plan No. 180, Amendment No. 1, adopted by the Riverside County
Board of Supervisors on July 18, 1988 (Resolution No. 88-398),
The restaurant is being proposed in front of the existing pond and Embassy Suites. The
building design is an English Tudor style with characteristics of an English Pub. Due to the
high visibility of the site, the applicant agreed to design a high quality building that would
enhance the immediate and surrounding area. Staff feels that applicant was successful in
designing a quality building for this highly visible location.
Architecture
The building is a one story, English Tudor design with elements of the English Pub style of
architecture. The building is a high quality, architecturally detailed building. The structure is
articulated with a variety of roof planes; building and clay tile roof colors; a variety of window
styles and sizes with wood stained trims of various colors; numerous shutters, awnings and
corbels with various accent colors; and extensive use of stone veneer trim on all elevations,
the fire place and the patio fences. There is a large bay window facing Rancho California Road
that further enhances the west elevation. There are also false windows with planters on the
east and west elevations that give the building the illusion of a second story.
The wall signage proposed is internally illuminated, red, channel letters typical of Marie
Calendar's franchise. Staff requested that the wall signs be changed to sandblasted, wood
or brushed metal lettering to better coordinate with the high quality building design. The
applicant contacted the Marie Calendar's franchise to request changing the wall sign material
to wood or brushed metal, but was not successful. The proposed monument sign is a double
faced, aluminum cabinet sign with allureinure, internally illuminated, red channel letters
encased in a stone veneer. The sign is approximately six feet in height and 50 square feet per
face.
The building is primarily two beige colors with a 3 Y= foot green trim at the base on the
building. There are plum colored canvas awnings with a light green and beige trim on three
elevations that coordinate with the building colors. Staff has requested, and the applicant
agreed, to tone down the red stain door facing Rancho California Road. The patio fences are
wrought iron and veneer stone with a glass wind screen on top. The height of the building is
26' and the fireplace chimney is the highest element at 27'-6". Overall, the building is in scale
with the surrounding development in terms of height, color, materials and quality.
Site Desian
The site is located on the highly visible southwest corner of Rancho California and Ynez Roads.
The main entrance of the building is oriented to face the corner of Rancho California and Ynez
Roads. Staff worked with the applicant at the pre-application stage to ensure that the building
would be set back approximately 40 feet from the corner to maintain the visual corridor along
Rancho California Road to the Temecula Duck Pond on the northeast corner of the intersection,
R:\STAFFRPTX398PA97.PCI 1129198 pa 3
The project will be accessed from Rancho Highlands Road. The parking is proposed behind the
building so that it will not be visible from Rancho California and will be screened with
landscaping and berming along Ynez Road. Eighty-seven parking spaces are required, and the
applicant is providing ninety-one (91) spaces. The applicant is also providing four (4)
motorcycle stalls and six (6) bicycle stalls.
The patio at the rear of the building was designed so that it will capture views of the existing
pond, immediately west of the proposed restaurant.
Traffic
The applicant submitted a traffic study that was reviewed by the City's traffic engineer. It was
determined that the project will result in a less than significant increase in vehicle trips;
however it will add to some additional increment of traffic congestion. However, 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 Ynez
and Rancho California Roads. To mitigate potential impacts, the applicant will be required to
pay development impact fees that will be used to address the need for traffic signals, road
improvements and public facilities. The project will also be conditioned to pay a cash deposit
for the design and construction of a half-width, raised, landscape median on Ynez Road to
control traffic patterns and movement onto Ynez Road. Moreover, the project will have
restricted ingress and egress (right-in, right-out only) from Rancho Highland Drive to control the
traffic flow to and from the development after Ynez Road is widened and the median is
installed.
The City has already allocated funds, and is in the design stage, to widen Ynez Road. The City
will be adding an additional north bound left turn lane, and an additional right turn lane on Ynez
Road which will help accommodate the existing traffic flow as well as the additional traffic
generated by the proposed development. After mitigation measures are performed, impact fees
paid, and City initiated improvements completed, it is anticipated that all traffic impacts will be
mitigated to a level of insignificance.
Landscaping
The applicant has worked with the City's contract Landscape Architect to ensure adequate
landscaping throughout the site which included appropriate interfacing with the adjacent pond
on the Embassy Suites site and along Rancho California and Ynez Roads. The applicant has
worked with Embassy Suites to allow Marie Calendar's to add additional landscaping between
the subject site and the pond area so that the landscaping would blend and not stop abruptly
at the property line. The Specific Plan does not have a minimum landscape requirement;
however, the applicant has landscaped thirty-four percent (34%) of the site.
R:\STAFF1LF'P,398PA97,PCI 1/29/98 pa 4
Letters from Community Organizations
Staff received a letter dated May 2, 1997 from the CRC Foundation expressing their
appreciation for being able to use the subject site for the "Taste of the Valley" event and
acknowledged they will have to relocate the event in future years. Staff also received a letter
dated May 1, 1997 from the Arts Council expressing that the applicant has been extremely
"forthright and very concerned with the future of this organization and Temecula in general".
As referenced, these organizations are not in opposition to the development of the site, but
expressed their gratitude for the opportunity to have utilized the site (Exhibit
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is HTC (Highway/Tourist Commercial) and
OP (Open Space). Existing zoning for the site is SP (Rancho Highlands Specific Plan: Planning
Area 2; Office/Professional). The Specific Plan was approved under the county and was
amended by the Board of Supervisors on July 18, 1988, which, in part, amended Planning Area
2 to allow restaurants and bars as a permitted use type (Resolution No. 88-398). The project
as proposed is consistent with the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan development standards, and
the General Plan Land Use zoning of HTC and OP by maintaining the existing pond area as open
SpaCe.
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, funded
road improvements and the Conditions of Approval for the project. Any potentially significant
impacts will be mitigated.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project is a proposal for the design, construction and operation of a 8,684 square foot
restaurant with two outdoor patios of 1,185 square feet for a total dining area of 9,869 square
feet on a 1.51 (net) acre parcel. The project will take access from Rancho Highlands Road with
restricted access. Although the Specific Plan does not have a minimum landscape requirement,
the applicant is landscaping thirty-four percent (34%) of the site. Staff feels the applicant has
designed a high quality building that will enhance the surrounding area and has maintained the
visual corridor along Rancho California Road by setting the building back from the intersection.
As proposed, the project is consistent with the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan (Planning Area
2: Office/Professional) and the General Plan Land Use designation of HTC (Highway/Tourist
Commercial) and OP (Open Space). Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated to a
level of insignificance.
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 applicable City Ordinances including: the amended Rancho Highlands
R:\STAFFRPTX398PA97.PC11/29/98 pa 5
Highlands Specific Plan No, 180, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. 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 applicable City
Ordinances, the amended Rancho Highlands Specific Plan, and meets the standards
adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public health, safety
and welfare.
Attachments:
3.
4.
5.
PC Resolution - Blue Page 7
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10
Initial Study - Blue Page 20
Mitigation MoUitoring Program - Blue Page 21
Association Letters - Blue Page 22
Exhibits - Blue Page 23
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
Vicinity Map
Zoning Map
General Plan Map
Site Plan
Landscape Plan
Building Elevations
Color and Material Board
Letters from Community Organizations
Sign Elevations
R:\STAFFRPT\398PA97.PCI 1/29/98 pa 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 98-
A~TACI-IlVIENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 98-
A RESOLUTION OF TIlE PLANNING COMMtqSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA97-0398 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) TO
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A 8,684 SQUARE FOOT
RESTAURANT WITH TWO OUTDOOR PATIOS OF 1,185
SQUARE FEET WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING,
LANDSCAPING, AND ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ON A 1.51
ACRE PARCEL LOCATED ON TBE SOUIltWF_~T CORNER
OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA AND YNEZ ROADS KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR*S PARCEL NO. 944-330011.
WHEREAS, Marie Calendar' s/Ed Deering filed Planning Application No. PA97-0398
(Development Plan) in accordance with the City of Temecula Genezal Plan, the Rancho Highlands
Specific Plan (#180) Amendment No. 1, and all applicable City Ordinances
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0398 (Development Plan) was processed
in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA97-0398
(Development Plan) on February 2, 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. PA97-0398 (Development Plan);
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. ~ The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
PA97-0398 (Development Plan) makes the following findings; to wit:
1. The proposed use is in conformante with the General Plan for Temecula and with
all applicable requirements of State law and applicable Ordinances of the City. The project is
consistent with all City Ordinances including: the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan (#180)
Amendment No. 1, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water
Efficient Landscaping provisions.
R:'STAFFRFI~98PA97.PCI 1/29/98 pa 8
2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public
health, safety and welfare. The project as proposed complies with the Rancho Highlands Specific
Plan (#180) Amendment No. 1 and all applicable City Ordinances, and meets the standards
adopted by the City of Temeeula designed for the protection of the public health, safety and
welfare.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates
that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions
of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby
adopted and a DeMinimus impact finding can be made for this project.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Planning App~cafion No. PA97-0398 (Development Plan) to design and construct a 8,684 square
foot restaurant with two outdoor patios of 1,185 square feet with associated parking, landscaping,
and road improvements on a 1.51 (net) acre parcel, located on the southwest comer of the
intersection of Rancho California and Ynez Roads and known as Assessor' s Parcel No. 944-330-
011 subject to Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incoxporated herein by this reference and made a
part hereof.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of February, 1998.
Linda Fahey, Chairman
I I-W~REBY 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 2nd day of
February, 1998 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:~STAFFRPT~98PA97.PC11/29/98
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA97-0398 (Development Plan)
Project Description: The design, construction and operation of a 8,684 square foot
restaurant with two outdoor patios of 1,185 square feet with associated parking,
landscaping, and road improvements on a 1.51 Inet) acre parcel.
Assessor's Parcel No,:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
944-330-011
February 2, 1998
February 2, 2000
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Community Development Department -
Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk
in the amount of Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) for the County administrative fee, to
enable the City to file the Notice of Determination with a DeMinimus Finding for the
Mitigated or Negative Declaration 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 Community
Development Department - Planning Division the check as required above, the approval
for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game
Code Section 711.4(c).
Within Thirty (30) Days of the Approval of this Project
Within thirty (30) days after the approval of this project, the applicant shall sign both
copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community
Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one signed set to the
Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. If the
applicant/developer has not delivered the signed set to the Community Development
Department - Planning Division as required above, the approval for the project granted
shall be void.
Within thirty (30) days after the approval of this project, the applicant shall revise
Exhibits "D, E, F, G", (Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Elevations, Color and Material Board)
to reflect the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community
Development Department - Planning Division staff, and submit five (5) full size copies
and two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of approved Exhibit "G" (Color
and Materials Board) and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "F", the colored
architectural elevations to the Community Development Department - Planning Division
for their flies. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be
readable on the photographic prints. If the applicent/develol~er has not delivered the
revised Exhibits reflecting the direction/conditions of approval of the Planning
Commission/Director required above, the approval for the project granted shell be void.
General Requirements
The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall and hereby
agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City's
own selection, the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any
agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers,
employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims,
actions, awards, judgements, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, void,
annul, seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in
furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof,
advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the
voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. City shall promptly notify the
both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this
condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The
City reserves its right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest
of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter
diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated
by this approval.
The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the approved
Mitigation Monitoring Program.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with the approved Exhibit
"D" (Site Plan), contained on file with the Community Development Department -
Planning Division, or as amended by these conditions.
Landscaping shall be provided in substantial conformance with the approved Exhibit "E"
(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. The continued maintenance of all
landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer.
Building elevations shall conform substantially with the approved Exhibit uF" (Building
Elevations), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning
Division, or as amended by these conditions. All mechanical and roof equipment shall
be screened from public view by architectural features integrated into the design of the
structure.
10.
The colors and materials for this project shall conform substantially with list of
approved colors and materials and with Exhibit 'G" (Color and Material Board), contained
R:~STAFFRPr~398PA97.PC11/29198 pa 1 ~
on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division, or as amended
by these conditions. Any deviation from the approved colors and materials shall require
approval of the Community Development Director.
Concrete Tile (roof)
Stucco (Main Building)
Stucco (Main Building)
Stucco (Accent Color)
Wainscot & Exist Doors
Accent Trim (North Elevation)
Glass (windows)
Wood Shutters
Wood Window Frames
Fascia
Canvas Awnings
Wrought Iron Fencing
Lifetime - Country Slate (per elevation)
Benjamin Moore #186," Medium Chamois"
Ben. Moore #177, "Light Chamois"
Ben. Moore #1495 'Light Green"
Benjamin Moore #8595D "Elm Court"
Benjamin Moore #184 "Cream"
Clear
Frazee #8046N 'Mutiny" and BM #8595D "Elm Court"
Frazee #7886N 'Rio Red" & #8905D "Glorious Plum"
Frazee #8745A 'Kayak Brown"
Sunbrella "Plum" with Seaspray & Cream Trim
Verdigris Light Railing
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
11.
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24, Habitat Conservation
of the Temecula Municipal Code by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that
ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
12. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid.
13.
An Administrative Development Plan application for signage shall be required for any
signage not included on Exhibits "D" and 'F", or as amended by ~hese conditions. A
separate building permit shall be required for all signage identified on the approved
Exhibits "D" and "F", or as amended by these conditions.
14.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to
the Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval. These plans
shall be in substantial conformance with the approved Exhibit "E", or as amended by
these conditions. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants
shall be shown. The 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 Temecula Fee Schedule at time of
submittal).
b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan.
Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water
Efficient Ordinance).
d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved
plan).
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
15.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with
the approved construction plans and shall 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.
16.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager, to
guarantee the maintenance of the plantings, in accordance with the approved
construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Community
Development Department - Planning Division for one year from final certificate of
occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been
maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Planning Manager, the bond shall be
released.
17.
Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal,
displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than
70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space
at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space
finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space
finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place,
at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches,
clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not
displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for
persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense.
Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning 909 696-3000."
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a
surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least
3 square feet in size.
18.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
19.
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.
20.
Submit at time of plan review complete exterior site lighting plans in compliance with
Ordinance Number 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35. Provide precise grading
accessibility.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to commencement of any
construction work.
Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
The occupancy classification of the proposed use shall be A-3 .
All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations.
Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1,
1994)
Where fixed or built-in seating, tables or counters are provided for the public, and in the
general employee areas, 5%, but never less than one, must be accessible. Provide
complete seating lay-out on floor plan at time of plan check.
Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry.
Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement.
Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting,
fire alarm systems.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the
1994 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C.
Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan at time of plan review unless approved by the Building Official.
Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss
manufacturers engineer are required for plan review submittal.
plan with plan check submittal to check for handicap
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.
R:~STAFFRFF~98PA~7.PCI 1/29/98 ps 15
General Requirements
36.
A Grading Permit for precise grading, including 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.
37.
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.
38.
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
39.
A Grading Ran 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.
40.
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.
41.
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.
42.
The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in
accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site
and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or
private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze
and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations
to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of
downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary
to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer.
43.
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
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.
R:~STAFFP, PT~ggPA~7.PC11/29/98 pa 16
45.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's
check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area
drainage plan fee. 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
46.
The Developer shall improve Ynez Road (Major Highway Standards - 100' R/W), from
Rancho California Road to Rancho Highland Drive, to include the installation of sidewalk
to City of Temecula Standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the Department of Public Works.
47.
The Developer shall install or provide a cash deposit for half width raised landscape
median on Ynez Road (Maior Highway Standards - 100' R/W) from Rancho California
Road to Rancho Highland Drive. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the
Department of Public Works.
48.
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.
49.
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.
50.
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.
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
51.
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
52.
All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and
City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
53.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken
shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public
Works.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the
Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy and use and Uniform
Building Code (UBC), Uniform Fire Code (UFC), and related codes which are in force at the time
of building plan submittal.
54.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings per UFC Appendix Ill.A, Table A-Ill-A-1. The
developer shall provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1500
GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure. The required fire flow
may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction
type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau.
(UFC 903.2, Appendix Ill.A)
55.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per UFC
Appendix Ill.B, Table A-Ill-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants
(6" x 4" x 2-2 ~" outlets) shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent to public
streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart and shall be located no more than
250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to an
hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the
system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (UFC 903.2, 903.4.2,
and Appendix Ill-B)
56.
If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection
prior to any building construction. (UFC 8704.2 and 902.2,2)
57.
Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved
Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or
any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be
an all weather surface designed for 70,000 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of
.25 feet. ( UFC sec 902 and 0rd 95-15)
58.
Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than
twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen
(13) feet six (6) inches. (UFC 902.2.2.1 and Ord 95-15)
59.
Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred
and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of
accommodating fire apparatus. (UFC 902.2.2.4)
60.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water
system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall
be: signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval
signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow
standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be
presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. 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 an individual lot. (UFC
8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1)
R:~STAFFRPl~98PA97.1~CI 1/'29/98pa 18
61.
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective
Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (UFC 901.4.3)
62.
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, all commercial buildings
shall display street numbers in a prominent location on the street side of the building.
The numerals shall be minimum twelve (12) inches in height for buildings and six (6)
inches for suite identification on a contrasting background. In strip centers, businesses
shall post the suite address on the rear door(s). (UFC 901.4.4 and Ord 95-15)
63.
Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage
and type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler
system. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval
prior to installation. (UFC Article 10, UBC Chapter 9 and Ord 95-15)
64.
Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement
for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire
alarm system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station.
Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation.
(UFC Article 10)
65.
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall
be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be
located to the right side of the main entrance door. The Knox-Box shall be supervised
by the alarm system. (UFC 902.4)
OTHER AGENCIES
66.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Temecula Police
Department's transmittal dated December 2, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
67.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District's transmittal dated September 11, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
68.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of
Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated December 9, 1997,
a copy of which is attached.
69.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside Transit
Agency's transmittal dated December 2, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
70.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District's transmittal dated December 22, 1997,
a copy of which is attached.
71.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside Transit
Agency transmittal dated December 2, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
72.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Municipal
Water District's transmittal dated January 22, 1998, a copy of which is attached.
R:~STAPFRPTL398PA97.PCI IF29/98 pa 19
Riverside Transit Agency
1825 Third Street
P.O. Box 59968
Riverside, CA 92517
Phone: (909) 684-0850
Fax: (909) 684-1007
December 2, 1997
City of Temecula
Ternecula Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Gentlemen:
The Riverside Transit Agency has completed a review of the following projects or
planning projects:
Case No. - PA97-0398
Case No. - PA97-0396
Planning Application No. PA97-0406
The proposed projects/plans do not impact RTA facilities or services at this time.
Sincerely,
Stephen C. Oller
Director of Operations
SCO:cam
cc: Planning files
'~ iqq7
DAVID P. ZAPPE
Gcncral Manager-Chief Engineer
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
City of Temecula
Plannin Department
43200 ~usiness Park Ddve
Temecula, California 92590
Ladies and Gentlemen:
1995 MARKET STREET
R/VERSIDE, CA 92501
909/275-1200
909/788-9965 FAX
7829.1
Re: PP, o
The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other ~and use cases in incorporated cities.
The District also does not plan cheek city land use cases. or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood
hazard reports for such cases. District comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of
specific interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities. other regional flood control and
draina e facilities which could be considered a logical component or extension of a master plan system. and District
Area ~;ainage 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 any wa
constitute or imply Distdct approvafor endorsement of the proposed project w~th respect to flood hazard, public healtK
and safety or any other such issue:
t.//' 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 Dmtrict plan check and
inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrabve fees will be
required.
This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be
considered regional in nature and/or a logical extension of the adopted
Master Drainage Plan. The Distdct would consider acceptin ownership of such facilities on wntten request
of the City, Facilities must be constructed to Distdct standards, and Distdct plan check and inspection wdl be
required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required.
This project is located within the limits of the Distdct's Iv~U~R. IF~Tfi F.E..K I F--H IS(Jj/--~ VALL'~A~a
whichever comes first. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of the actual
permit.
GENERAL INFORMATION
·
This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination S stem (NPDES) permit from the State Water
Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation, or other ~'r~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 Emergen.cy Management Agency (FEMA) mapped flood plain then the City should
require ~{~e applicant to rovide all studies, calculations, plans and other reformation required to meet FEMA
requirements, and should ~rther require that the 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 Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy.
If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is im acted by this project. the City should require the ap licant to
obtain a Section 1601/1603 A reement from the Ca~fomia Department of Fish and Game and a Clean Water Act
Section 404 Permit from the U.~. Army Corps of En ineers, or wdtten correspondence from these agencies indicating
the project is exempt from these requirements. Ag~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: IZ'ZZ'~7
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
DATE: December 9, 1997
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA97-0398 and has no
objections.
2. PRIOR TO PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL ISSUANCE:
a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering districts.
b) If there are to be any food establishments, (including vending machines), three complete
sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted including a fixture schedule,
a finish schedule and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the
California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law 2.
c) If there are to be any hazardous materials, a clearance letter from the Department of
Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Management Branch (694-5022) will be
required indicating that the project has been cleared for:
· Underground storage tanks, Ordinance # 617.4.
· Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance # 615.3.
· Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance # 651.2).
· Waste reduction management.
GD:dr
(909) 285-8980
cc: Doug Thompson, Hazardous Materials Branch
City of Temecula
Temecula Police Department
December 02, 1997
Planning Department
RE: PA97-0398
Marie Callender's Restaurant and Bakery
Case Planner: Patty Anders
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced project, the
Police Department recommends the following "officer safety" measures be provided
in accordance with City of Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized police safety
standards and codes:
Applicant shall ensure all hedges on the complex surrounding the building
be maintained at a height no greater than thirty-six (36) inches.
Applicant shall ensure all trees surrounding the building are kept at a distance
so as to deter roof accessability by would-be burglars.
All parking lots, driveways, and pedestrian walkways shall be illuminated
with a minimum maintained one (1 } foot-candle of light at ground level,
evenly dispersed, eliminating all shadows. All exterior lighting fixtures shall
be vandal resistant. All exterior lighting shall be controlled by photocells,
timers, or other means to prevent deactivation by unauthorized persons.
All exterior doors shall have their own vandal resistant light fixture installed
above. The doors shall be illuminated with a minimum maintained one (1)
foot candle of light at ground level, evenly dispersed.
Any public telephones located on the exterior of the building in the complex
shall be placed in a well-lighted, highly visible area, and installed with a "Call-
Out Only" feature to deter loitering.
All doors, windows, locking mechanisms, hinges, and other miscellaneous
hardware shall be of commercial or institutional grade.
Any graffiti painted or marked upon the premises shall be removed or painted
over within twenty-four (24) hours of being discovered.
The address for the location shall be painted on the roof using numbers no
less than four (4) feet tall, in a color which contrasts the background. If
placing of the addreso on the roof-top is not feasible, any ~'least traveled"
driveway adjacent to the building is acceptable. A third option is any flat
surface adjacent to the roof with sufficient room to paint the numbers four
(4) feet tall, in a color which contrasts the background is acceptable.
9. All roof hatches shall be painted "International Orange".
10.
Street address shall be posted in a visible location, minimum 12 inches in
height, on the street side of the building with a contrasting background.
11.
Upon completion of the building, a monitored alarm system shall be installed
and monitored 24-hours a day by a designated private alarm company to
notify the Police Department of any intrusion.
All questions regarding these conditions shall be referred to the Police Department
Crime Prevention & Plans section (909) 506-2626.
Ran
ht r
December 3, 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 3 OF PARCEL MAP 23624, APN 944-330-011,
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0398
Dear Ms. Anders:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within
the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water
service, therofore, 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.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
971SB:eb3041FO121FCF
c: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor
December 10, 1997 11:0~,lm -- FroP ,_~9t' '~8903, -- Page 2l
~EC-~-97 ~D 11:09 ~ ~, ~ .,T~ ~ F~ ~ 90L ~. ~ P.~
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
CITY OF h~tECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
A~ ~N: Paxty Anders
DATE: December g, ~997
~at of Eaviromncntal Health lm wview~ the Plot Pla~ No, PA97~0398 and h~ no
objections.
2. PRIOR TO PLAN CHECK SUBMYrTAL ISSUANCE:
a) "Will-serve !ct~s from ~z appropriate water ~n~ ~-~rln_o districts. -
b) ff th~ are to b¢ any food cslablishmcnts, Cmcluding v~nding machines), xhxee complete
sets of plans for ~nch food establishmca~ will i~ sul~nittcd including a fixtm~ schedule,
a finish schedule and a plumbing schedule in on:let to e, nsm'e compliance with the
California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law 2.
c) If tl~re a~e to be any hn~nrdous rnat~iaJs, a clearance l~ller from tk: Dq)artme, nt of
Environmental Health H~'~dous Materials Management Bran& (694-5022) w~l be
requited inaicaling that the project has been cleared for.
,Undergmund storage tanks, Ordinance#617.4.
,0 Ha~nlous Waste Generator ,Services, Oftlin:~nt~ ~ 615.3.
· I-lnTnrdous Was'lc Disclosure (in accordance with Ordlnanee # 651.2).
+ Wast~ l~:luction management.
GD:dr
(.<~)) 285-8980
cc: Doug Thompson, Hazardous Mal~-~da]s Branch
iThursday JarWery 22, 1998 1:501X -' From ,9096581803' -' Page 21
SENT BY:E il if D ; 1-22-g8; 1:40Pli; 9086581803-* 909894847'/;# 2
SUBJECT: PA97-0391, lVLurie ~du"l
The Dimzi~t has ~ t,%¢ subject project sire plan for t!~ ~.~ction of a s,6S4 square foot
restaurant, TbeDim-ictt~quire~thedevelopertoeontactourDistrlctCustomerServi=
ShouJd you have questions, please contact me at (909) 7r~.-1810, m 4467.
WAD/
Mail to: Post 0~,'- Brat L'.'.qO0 · b Jaciato. r'.,,r-.mh 925814300 'Fdephoae (90~) 92t-767~ " PIt (909) 929..0257
Ope~o~ ~ MfJnsenaac8 ~tec. 2270 TnunbJe ]trod, hnil. CA 92~7~ · Tiephoto (~0~) ~l-~777 · ~ [909) 928-4~177
ATTACHMENT N0.2
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
R:\STAFI~,PE39SPA97.1~l 1/29~981m 20
CITY OF TEMECULA
Environmental Checklist
1. Project Title:
2. Lead Agency:
3. Contact Person:
4. Project Location:
5. Project Sponsor:
6. General Plan Designation:
7. Zoning:
8. Project Description:
9. Surrounding Land Uses
and SeVdng:
10.
Other public agencies
whose approval is required:
Planning Application No. PA97-0398 (Developmere Plan)
City of Temecttla
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecnia, CA 92590
Patty Anders, Assistant Planner (909) 694-6400
Southwest corner of Rancho California and Ynez Roods.
Marie CaHendar's / Ed Deering
OS (Open Space/Recreation) & HTC (Highway/Tourist
Commercial)
SP (Specific Plan - Rancho Highlands Specific Plan No. 180;
Planning Area 2: Office/Professional)
The design, consWuctlon and operation of a 8,303 square foot
Marie Callendar's restaurant and bakery with two outdoor patios
of 1,185 square feet with associated parking and landscaping.
The project is located on a site lhat has been previously Faded and
impwved. The subject site is currently improved with tuff. There
is an existing pond and restaurant to the east, a hotel/restaurant and
pond to the southwest, existing restaurants/commercial/retail
development to the north, and existing condos to the south. Most
street improvements have been installed, and water and sewer are
in the vicinity.
Riverside County Fire Department, Riverside County Health
Department, Temecula Police Deparlment, Eastern Municipal
Water District, Rancho California Water District, Southern
California Gas Company, Southern California Edison Company,
General Telephone Company, and Riverside Transit Agency.
R:\CEQA~ggPA97.EI3 1/29/98 pa
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFliCTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the cheeklist on the following pages.
[ ] Land Use and Planning [ ] Hazards
[ ] Population and Housing [ ] Noise
[X] Geologic Problems [ ] Public Services
[X] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems
[ ] Air Quality [X] 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 find that allhough the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be
a significant effect in this ease because the miligation measures described on an attached sheet have been added
to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
PoL-olially
SiSni~ant
Pote~slly
Unless
No
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING, Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with general plan designation or zomng?
(Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17)
b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
c. Be incompatible with existing lend use in the vicimty?
(Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17)
d. Affect agficultural resources or operations (e.g. impactsto
soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)?
(Soume 1, Figure 5-4, Page 5-17)
e. Disruptordividethephysicalarrangementofanestablished
community (including low-income or minority e, ommtmity)?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal:
a. Cumulatively exceed offmial regional or local population
projects?
b. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area
or exten~xon of major infrastructure)?
c. Displace existing homing, especially affordable housing?
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
In or expose people to potential impacts involving?
a. Fault rupture? (Source l, Figure 7-1, Pg. 7-6)
b. Seismic ground shaking?
(Source 1, Figure 7-1, Pg 7-6)
c. Seismic groundfallure, mcludingliquefac~on?
(Som-ce 1, Figure 7-2, Pg. 7-8)
d. Seichc, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
e. Landslides or muaflows?
f. Erosion, chenges in t~pography or unstable s~d conditions
from excavation, grading or fill?
g. Subsidence of the land? (Source 2, Figure 7, Pg. 68)
h. Expansive so'fis? [ ]
I. Unique geologic or physical features?
4. WATER. Would the proposal result
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and mount of surface runoff?
b. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (Soume 1, Figure 7-3, Pg. 7-10, end
Figure 7-4, Pg. 7-12)
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[1
[x]
[x]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[x]
[]
Ix]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[l
[1
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[x]
[x]
[]
[]
ix]
[x]
ix]
[]
[x]
[x]
[]
Po~nfiaily
sig~s~x
significant
Unless
Sight
No
c. Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface
water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or
lurbidity)?
d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body?
e. Changes in currants, 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 Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h. impacts to groundwater quality?
I. Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
(Source 2, Pg. 263)
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
(Source 3, Pgs. 6-10 and 6-11, Table 6-2)
b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollulants?
c. Alter air movemant, 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)?
c. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(Source 4, Table 17.24(a), Pig. 17-24-9)
e. Hazards or barriers fur pedestrians or bicyclists?
f. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(Source 4, Chapter 17.24, Pg. 12)
g. Rail, watea'-bome or air traffic impacts?
[1 [1 [1 ~]
[1 [1 [] [x]
[1 [] [] ~]
[] [] [] ~]
[1 [] [] [X]
[] [1 [] ~]
[] [1 [] ~]
[] [1 [] [x]
[1 [] [] [~
[1 [1 [1 ~1
[1 [1 [] ['x]
[] [] [x] []
[] [] [] ~1
[1 [1 [] [x]
[] [] [1 [x]
[] [1 [1 ~]
11 [1 [1 ~1
[1 [] [1 Ix]
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORI~IATION SOURCES
Polentially
Significant
Po~ntially
Signi~cam
Uzdess
Mitigation
Sight
No
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a. Endangered, ltrcatcncd or rarc sp~cics or t, heir habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, ammals
and birds)? (Source 1, Page 5-15, Figure 5-3 )
b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(Source 1, Figure 5-3, Page 5-15)
c. Locallydesignatednaturaleommonities(e.goskforest,
eosstal habitat, etc.)? (Source 1, Figure 5-3)
d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, tipman and vernal pool)?
(Source 1, Figure 5-3)
e. Wildlffe dispersal or migration corridors?
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a. Conflict wilt adopted energy conservation plans?
b. Use non-renewal resources in a wastefil and mcfficiont
manner?
c. Result in lte loss of availability of a known mineral resource
ltat would be of future value to lte region end ltc residents
oflte State?
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemical or radiation)7 (Source 1, Figure 7-5, Pg. 7-14)
b. Possible interference wilt an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
e. The creation of any heallt hazard or potential heallt
hazard?
d. Exposure ofpeople to existing sources ofpotontial health
hazards?
e. Increase fire hazard in areas wilt timable brush,
grass, ortrecs?
10. NOISE~ Would the proposal result in:
a. increase in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure ofpeople to severe noise levels?
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
Ix]
[]
Ix]
[]
[]
R:\CEQAX398PA97.EIS 1/29/981M
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Potentially
Pot~mially
Signfficaat
Unl~
M~tig~ion
NO
11.
12.
PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the foBowing areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Maintenance ofpublic facilities, mcludingroads?
e. Other governmental services?
UTILrliES 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 tzcatment or distribution
facihties?
d. Sewer or septic tanks? (Source 2, Pg. 39-40) [ ]
e. Storm water &ainag~?
[ Solid waste disposal?
g. Local or regional water supplies?
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
b. Have a dmonsWable negative aesthetic effect?
c. Create light or glare?
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a. Disturb paleontological resources?
(Source 2, Figure 15, pg.70)
b. Disturbarchaeologicalresources?
(Source 2, Figure 14, pg. 67)
c. Affect historical resources?
d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e. Rcslrict cxisting 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?
[1
[1
[l
[1
[1
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[1
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[x]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[1
[1
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Significant
Pomaially
Signilkant
Unle$s
Mitigation
h~pora~d
Signiliant
No
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a. Does the proje~ 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 subnat community, 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 history
or prehistory? [ ]
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? [ ]
c. Dces the proje~ have impects that area in~vidually
limited, but eumulatively considerable? CCumulatively
considerable" means that the ineremantal ~ffects of a
project are considerable when viewed m connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects). [ ]
d. Does the project have envLronrnental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly? [ ]
17. EAIHJ~,R ANALYSES.
Norle.
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
Ix]
SOURCES
1. City of Tamecula General Plan.
2. City of Tamecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.
3. South Coast Air Quality Management DisWict CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
4. City of Tamecula Development Code
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Land Us~ and Plannin~
The proposed restaurant is consistent with the City's General Plan zoning of Highway/Tourist Commercial
(I-rrC) and Open Space (OP), and the Zoning designation of Specific Plan (SP). The subject site is located
within Planning Area 2 of the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan (#180) and is designated as
Office/Profession. Planning Area 2 was mended on july 18, 1988, by lhe Board of Supervisors (Resolution
No. 88-398), in pan, to allow restaurants in Planning Area 2, and the reconfigurafion and reduction of the
Open Space area at the southwest comer of Rancho California and Ynez Roads. There is an existing pond
adjacent to Rancho California Road, south of Ynez Road that will remain as an Open Space area. The
proposed restaurant use is a permitted use type pursuant to the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan (Planning
Area 2, Office/Professional), and is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation OF HTC and
the Zoning designation of Specific Plan.
l.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 Plan Land Use Designation
of Highway/Tourist Commercial (HTC) and Open Space (OP). Impacts from all General Plan Land Use
Designations were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report for GEIR) the General Plan. 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 E1R 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
enviroranental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. No significant effects
are anticipated as a result of this project.
i.e.
The proposed restaurant is compatible with surroundin~ restaurant, retail and commercial uses along Rancho
California and Ynez Roads.
l.d.
The proposed project is within a specific plan that is primarily developed with a hotel, residenthi
condominiums, and open space. No agricultural activity has occurred at the site for several years.
The project will net disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including low-
income or minority community). The project site is vacant. There is no established residential community
(ineludinE low-income or minority community) at this site. Furthermore, the site is a commercially zoned
property that does not allow residential developments. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of
this project.
Population and Hotruing
The project will not cumula~vely exceed official regional or local population projections. The restaurant
does net exceed the floor area ratio established for its zone. Since the project is consistent with the City's
General Plan, and is intended to serve the reeds of the existing residents, the proposed development 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.
R:\CEQAx395PA97,EX3 lt'29198pa
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 Community Commercial. The project will not
likely cause people to relocate to or within Temecula, but will serve the needs of existing residents.
Therefore, the project will not induce substantial growth in the area, and no significant effects are anticipated
as a result of this project.
The project will not displace any type of housing. The project site is vacant commercially zoned property;
therefore no housing will be displaced. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
Geologic Problems
3. a,b,c
f,h. The project may have a significant impact on people involving seismic Found shaking, seismic Found
failure, erosion, changes in topography or uostable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill and
expansive soils. The project is located in Soulhem California, an area which is seismically active. In
addition, the W'ddomar Fault line runs parallel to the subject's norfit property line along Ynez Road, and a
portion (approximately 80') of the fault lies within the subject parcel. The applicant submitted a 1993
Geotechnical report and reviewed as part of the application submittal. An updated gnotechnical report will
be required prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated
through building construction which is consistent with Uniform Building Cede standards and
recommendations contained in the geotechnical report will be used to determine appropriate conditions of
approval. The geotechnical 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 metion phase of the project and the project may result in changes in siltafion, deposition or erosion.
Erosion control techniques will be included as a condition of approval for the project. In the long-run,
hardscape 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 fitrough the use of landscaping and proper compaction of the soils. After mitigation
measures are performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of lifts project.
3.d
The project will not expose people to a seiehe, tsunami or volcanic hazard. The project is not located in an
area where any of these hazards could occur. No significant effects am anticipated as a result of this
project.
3.e
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.
Water
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.
The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface
runoff; bowever, these changes are considered less than significam. Previously permeable ground will be
rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. While
R:\CEQAX39gPA97.EIS lr29/ggpa
absorption rates and surface runoff will change, potential impacts shall be mitigated through site design.
Drainage conveyances will be required for the project to safely and adequately handle runoff which is
crea~L After mitigation measures are performed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
4.b.
The project will not have a impact to people or property to water related ba-ards such as flooding because
the project site is not located in a flood zone or floodway. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
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 PolluUmt Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading ~hall be pelTflitted until an NPDES Notice of
Intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements,
any petenfial irapacts can be mitigated to a level less than significant. No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
4.d,e.
The project will have a less fi'mn 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 hartscape and driveways. Due to the limited scale of the project, the additional amount of
drainage will net be considered significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
4.f-h.
The project will have a less than significant change in rite 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 substanlial reduction in the amount of groundwater water otherwise available
for public water supplies. According to information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report
for the City of Temecuia 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
viohtion. The project (8,303 square foot Marie Callender's restaurant and bakery with two outdoor patios
of 1,185 square feet) is below the threshold for potentially significant air quality impact (23,000 square feet)
established by South Coast Air Quality Management District (Page 6-1 I, 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.
The project will not expose sensitive raceplots to pollutsuts. There are no significant pollutants in proximity
to the project nor is it anticipated that the project will generato pollutauts. 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 elimate. 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.
5.d.
The project may create objecfional odors during the cometion phase of the project. These impacts will
be of short duration and are not considered significant.
Transportation/Circnlation
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 conlribute less than a five percent (5 % ) increase in existing
volumes during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour lime frames to the intersections of Ynez and Raneho
California Roads. The applirant will be required to pay development impact fees that will be used to address
the need for waffle signals, road improvements and public fae'tli~es. In addition, the City has allocated funds
and is in the design stage of widening Ynez Road. The City is adding an additional north bound left turn
lane and an additional fight turn land on Ynez Road which will help accommodate the existing Ixaffie flow
as well as the additional traffic generaled by the proposed development. The project will also be conditioned
to pay a cash deposit for the design and construction of a half-width raised, landscape median on Ynez Road
to control traffic patterns and prevent movement resixictions on Ynez and Rancho Highlands Roads.
Moreover, the project will have restricted in.~rr~ and egress (right-in, right-out only) from Rancho Highland
Drive to control the traffic flow to and from the development after Ynez Road is widened and the median
is installed. After mitigation measures are performed, impact fees paid, and City initiated improvements
completed, it is anticipated that all waffle impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
6.b.
The project will not result in hazards to safety from design features. The project is designed and partially
improved to current City standards. Therefore, the project 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 designed
to current City standards and has adequate emergency access. No significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
6.d.
The project will have sufficient parking capacity on-site as the development is in compliance with the
Specific Plan parking requirements. As a result, off-site parking will not be impacted. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.e.
The project will not result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bieyclists. Hazards or barriers to
bieyelists have not been included as part of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a restfit
of this project.
The project will not result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. The
proposed development does not impede the utilization or development of policies supporting alternative
modes of transportation. The design of the project includes spaces for motorcycles and bicycles. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.g.
The project will not result in impacts to rail, waterborne or air lraffic since none exists curren~y in the
immediate proximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Biological Re~urces
The project will not result in an impact to er~'hn~red, threatened or rare species or their habitats, including,
but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds. The project site has been previously Faded.
Currendy, lhere are no native species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of plants,
no relive vegetation on or adjacent to 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 harrier to the migration of
animals or deteriorate existing habitat. The project site is located within the Stephen' s Kangaroo ht 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.
7.c,
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 weftand habitat. There is no weftand habitat on-site or within
proximity to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not result in an impact to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site does
net serve as part of a migration corridor. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Enerf/and Mineral Rescmrces
8.a.
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 lhe plan check
stage. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. 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. There will be an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource during
conslruction (consmaclion materials, fuels for the daily operation, asphalt, lumber), as well as the depletion
of nonrenewable resource(s) 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.
8.c.
The project will not restfit in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future
value to the region and the residems 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.
The project will not result in a risk of explosion, or the release of any hazardous substances in the event of
an accident or upset condifiom since none are proposed in the request. The same is Irue for the use, storage,
wansport or disposal of any h-ardous or toxic materials. Large quantifies of these types of substances will
not be associated with this use. The Department of Environmenlal Health has reviewed the project and the
applicant must receive their clearance prior to any plan check submittal. This applies to storage and use of
hazardous materials. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
9.b.
The project will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency evaluation plan. The
subject site is not localed in an area which could impact an emergency response plan. The project will take
access from a maintained s~rcet 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 baTard or potential health ha T-qrd. The project wili
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 hws. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
9.d.
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 litis
project.
The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with ~ammable brush, grass, or ~ees.
The project is a restaurant in an area that is primarily developed. The project is not located within or
proximate to a fire hazard area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of Ibis project.
Noise
10.a.
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 or less than the existing commercial and restaurants to the north, east and west in the
immediate area. No significant noise impacts are anticipated as a result of this project in either the short
or long-term.
10.b.
The project may ~ 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 fxom 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
ll.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
comxibute ils fair share to the maintenance of service provision from these entities. No signi~eam impacts
are anticipated as a restfit of this project.
ll.c.
The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or restfit 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 net result in a need for new or altered school facilities. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
ll.d.
The project will have a less than significant impact for the maintenance of public facilities, including roads.
The project will be required to pay developraent impact fees and for a half-width, raised, landscape median.
Funding for maintenance of roads is derived from the Gasoline Tax which is distributed to the City of
Temeeula from the State of California. Impacts to current and future needs for maintenance of roads as a
restfit of development of the site will be incremental; however, they will not be considered significant. The
Gasoline Tax is soffieient 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 new system or sopplies, or sobstanthl alterations to power or
natural gas. These system are currently being delivered in proximity to the site. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.b. The~y~jeetwi~~notresultinaneedf~rnewsystemsorsupp~ies~~rsubstantia~a~terati~nst~communicati~n
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 incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final
Environmenial Impact Report (FE1R) for rite City's C-enoral Phn 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 signifiednay impact wastewater services
(p. 40)." Since the project is consistent with the City's Ganeral Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project. Them are no septic tanks on site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\CEQAX398PA97.EI8 1/29/98 pa
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 dralnaga 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.
13 .a.
The project will not have an impact on a scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is not located in an
area where there is a scenic vista. Further, the City does not have any designated scenic highways. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a restfit of this project.
13.b.
The project will not have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. The site is in an area of predominantly
retail (including restaurants)and commercial development of compatible zoning, and an existing
condominium project to the south. The design review process of the proposed development has mitigated
the potential significant visual impacts to the adjacent developments through requiring a high quality design
and materials given the subject' s high visib'dity located on the comer of Rancho California and Ynez Roads.
Moreover, the project has provided quality landscaping that coordinates with the existing hotel landscaping
to the west. Therefore, no significant impacts are antdeipated as a result of this project.
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 Hght Pollution). No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
Cultural Resources
14.a-c.
The project will not have an impact on paleontologieal, archaeological or historical resources. The site has
been disturbed from prior grading activity and any impacts to these resources would have been mitigated
during the grading process. 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.a,e. 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 fitis project.
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, but will prlmn~ly serve the needs of the existing residents. 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 Irue for the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or
opportunities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
R:~STAFFRPI~98pA97.1~l 1/29/98
Geologic Problem~
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Planning Application No. PA97-0398
(Development Plan)
Expose people to impacts from fanit rupture.
Ensure that soil compaction is to City Standards.
An updated soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted
to the Department of Public Works with the initial Fading plan cheek. Building
pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer.
Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits.
Deparanent of Public Works and Building and Safety Deparmaent.
Expose people to impacts from fault rupture.
Ensure lt~t the building is setback a minimum of 50' from the Wildomar Fault line.
Review site plan and grading plan for eomphanee with fault sethack requirements.
Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits.
Planning Department.
Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaking.
Utilize construction techniques ltut are consistent with the Uniform Building Cede.
Submit construction plans to the Building and Safety Deparlment for approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Building and Safety Department.
R:\CEQAX39$PA97.F..I~ 1/29/981~a
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Specific Processes:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Specific Processes:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring 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 soil conditions from excavation,
Fading or fill.
Planting of slopes consistent with Ordinance No. 457.
Submit erosion control plans for approval by the Department of Public Works.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Del~tha~nt of Public Works.
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading or fill.
Planting of on-site landscaping that is consistent with the Development Code.
Submit landscape plans that include planting of slope to the Planning Deparanent
for approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Planning Department.
Exposure of people or property to seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure,
landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake hazards.
Ensure that soil compaction is to City standards.
A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitled to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. Building pads shah
be certified by a registered Civil Engineer.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits and building permits.
Department of Public Works and Building & Safety Department.
Exposure of people or property to seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure,
landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake hazards.
U'Ulize conelion lechniques that are consistent with the Uniform Building Code.
Submit construction plans to the Building & Safety Depurunent for approval.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building & Safety Department
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Traq,s, portation/Circulation
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
The project will restfit in ¢hanEes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate
and amount of surface runoff.
Methods of controlling runoff, from site so that 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 Fading permit.
Depai unent of Public Works.
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of stwface 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
wilh 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 Fading permit.
Departmere of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP).
Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion.
Installation of half-width, raised, landscape median on Ynez Road.
Payment of a cash deposit for the design, conswuction and instalhtion of the
landscaped median on Ynez Read.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building and Safety Deparunent.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Biological Re, sources
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion.
Payment of Developm. ent Impact Fees 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 Cede.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building and Safety Depat'h~ent.
Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion.
Payment of Development Impact Fee for traffic signal mitigation.
Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in
accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temeeula Municipal Cede.
Prior to die issuance of building permit
Building and Safety Department.
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited
to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds).
Pay Mitigation Fee for impacts to Stephem Kangaroo Rat.
Pay $500.00 per acre of disturbed area of Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Department of Public Works and Planning Department
Public Service~
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
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 need for new/altered governmental services
regarding fire 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 th~ Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in
accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Cede.
Prior to the issuance of building portnit.
Building & Safety Department.
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 DisWict.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building & Safety Department and Temecnia Valley Unified School Dislxict.
A subslanfial effect upon and a need for maintenance of public facilities, including
roads.
Payment of Development Impact Fee for road improvements, waffle impacts, and
public facilities.
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 the issuance of buildinE permits.
Building and Safety Deparlment.
R:\CEQA~39gPA97.EIS l/'29/ggl~a
AESTI-IE, TICS
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Mouitodng 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 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 Department.
Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect.
Ensure a high quality architectural arst design that is compatibility with the existing
development.
Submit architectural plans that conforra with the existing development in terms of
design, style, materials and colors.
Prior to scheduling for public hearing.
Planning Deparlment.
R:\CEQAX398pA97.EI~ 1f29~98 pa
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
ASSOCIATION LETTERS
R:\STAPPRPI'~98PA97.1~C11/29/98pa 22
This One's for the Children
Mission Statement:
'Providing Quali~y Recrea~onaI Fac~itfes
and Programs for Ch~dren in the Temecula Vc~ley.'
Presidqnt
Melody Brunsting
First Vice-President
Tom Langley
Secretary
Voni Hunneman
Treasurer
Bob Crowther
,¢tors
· ,ard Albert
Steve Art
Kelly Burch
Dennis Chiniaeff
Myrna Crowther
Kelly Daniels
Timmy Daniels
Bob Danko
Pattie Deroeux
Geoffery Gaier
Terry Gavitt
John Hunneman
Katie Kobylski
Joann Markham
Lori Martin
Andrea Passow
Ron Roberts Jr.
AI Rubio
Joe Santos
Dave Stovall
Tracey Stovall
Alice Sullivan
Joan Tussing
'~'nessa Wierenga
,~ Wilson
May 2, 1997
To Whom It May Concern:
The CRC Foundation would like to express its appreciation to Ray Spehar, the
owner of the site of our "Taste of the Valley" event this year, benefiting children
from the Temecula Valley.
Mr. Spehar has graciously donated the use of his site and has shown great
sensitivity to our needs. We understand that in future years the event will need
to be relocated, but our appreciation for this years use is heartfelt!
Yours truly
~-, '.j
Thomas Langley,
CRC Founder
27475 Ynez Road, Suite 240 · Temecula, CA 92591
OF THE TEMECULA VALLEY
P.O. BOX 2337,0, TEMECULA. CA 92593 ~, (909}695-ARTS ~, fax: (94}9) 695-9438 4, em~fi: ~emam~'~..net
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Max' 1, I997
Mayor Patricia Birdsall
Temecula City Hall
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, California 92589-9033
Dear Mayor Birdsall.
The Arts Council of the Temecula Valley has been asked to
~wite a letter outlining the organization's experience xvith Mr. Ray Spehar ancL'or
his agent :Mr. Ed Andersen. I am pleased to say that we have found both of these
gentlemen forthright and veD, concerned about the future of this organization and
Temecula in general. Our request for use of the site at Rancho California and
Ynez Roads tbr last year' s Concert-on-the-Green xvas responded to with alacriw
and we were able to use the area without charge due to Mr. Spehar's generosity.
He even made it a pr,,orit)' to be present at the Concert. I have been assured that
barring the beginning of construction. the same will be true for the 1997 concert
which xviI1 be presented on September 21st. I xvish to have you and the other City
Council members know that our interacnon with both of the above mentioned
gentlemen has been most positive.
Sincerely,
BOARD CONSULTANTS
B~ and Je Bit~
Zev and VIiann gaffman
Jerrold M. Novotney
President
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
EXHIBITS
R:\STAPFRPT~98pA97.PCI 1/29/98
CITY OF TEMECULA
HOTEL
STTE PLAN
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0398 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
EXHIBIT A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: February 2,1998
SITE PLAN
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0398
EXHIBIT B
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: February 2, 1998
LANDSCAPE PLAN
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0398 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
EXHIBIT C GRADING PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: February 2, 1998
ITEM #9
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
February 2, 1998
Planning Applications PA96-0258 and PA96-0259
(Revisions to Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 24182 and 24183, respectively)
Prepared By: John De Gange, 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. 98- approving Planning Application Nos.
PA96-0258 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24182~ Revised) and
PA96-0259 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24183- Revised), subject
to the attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Meyer)
CaI-Paloma del Sol, LLC c/o Newland Associates, Inc. (Dean
REPRESENTATIVE:
Keith International Inc. (Tim Day)
PROPOSAL:
To revise the subdivision of 124.35 acres within Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.24182
creating 562 single family residential lots and 31 open space lots; and revise the subdivision
of 48.8 acres within Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.24183 creating 151 single family
residential lots and 4 open space lots.
LOCATION:
Generally located northwest of Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79(S) within the Paloma
del Sol Specific Plan.
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS:
Medium Density Residential
Medium High Density Residential
2 to 5 dwelling units per acre maximum
5 to 8 dwelling units per acre maximum
EXISTING ZONING:
Specific Plan
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant, partially graded land.
PROJECT STATISTICS
Acreage Number of
Residential Lots
VTTM 24182 124.35 562
VTTM 24183 48.8 151
Gross Density
4.5 DU's/Acre
3.1 DU's/Acre
Number of Open
Space Lots
31
4
BACKGROUND
Specific Plan No. 219 (Paloma del Sol) was originally approved by the Riverside County Board
of Supervisors on September 6, 1988. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24182 was originally
approved by the County Board of Supervisors September 26, 1986 and Vesting Tentative Tract
24183 was approved by the City of Temecula on October 21, 1991.
The current applications were submitted to the Planning Department on September 24, 1996.
A formal Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on October 16, 1996. It
was subsequently determined that the right-of-way widths and neighborhood entry locations
were inconsistent with the Specific Plan. As a consequence it was determined that a Specific
Plan Amendment would be need to be processed prior to the approval of these maps.
Amendment No. 6 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan was submitted on May 12, 1997 and
was approved by City Council on January 13, 1998.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Planning ADi;)lication No. PA96-0258 (Revision to Vesting Tentative Tract MaD No. 241
The applicant has submitted this revision to Vesting Tentative Tract No. 24182 to subdivide
124.35 acres into 562 single family residential lots, 31 open space/recreational lots, on
property adjacent to and extending from the northwest corner of Butterfield Stage Road and
Highway 79 (S). This map is included in Planning Areas 2, 3 and 4. The revision to this map
has been necessitated by the fact that Amendment No. 5 of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan
changed the land use of Planning Area 2 from High Density Residential (multi-family attached)
to Medium High Density Residential (single-family detached) which was a reduction of 204 total
units. The portion of Planning Area 2 designated high density in the earlier versions of the
specific plan was not previously included in the subdivision of VTTM 24182, consequently the
change in zoning for this portion of the site has necessitated that this area be incorporated
within this map as part of this revision. In addition, revisions to this map incorporate changes
in the location of various neighborhood entry points in Planning Areas 2, 3, and 4 which were
established in Amendment No. 6 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan.
R:',STAFFRPT~2582PA96,PC 1/29/98 jid 2
Planning AOolication No. PA96-0259 {Revision to Vesting Tentative Tract MaD No. 24193)
The applicant has submitted revisions to Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) 24183 to
subdivide 48.8 acres into 151 single family residential lots and four open space/recreational
lots, located at the southeast corner of Meadows Parkway and Campanula Way. Modifications
to the project's overall grading scheme created a situation where less fill material was available.
As a consequence the lots within this subdivision are at a somewhat lower in elevation than
was originally approved. This revision also reflects the actual right-of-way cross sections for
Campanula Way which were established by Amendment No. 6 of the Paloma del Sol Specific
Plan. The revision to this map also incorporates changes in the location of various
neighborhood entry points in Planning Area 5 which were established in Amendment No. 6.
ANALYSIS
The revisions proposed in these maps are minor and do not increase the number of units to be
built. The overall result is a reduction in the total number of units by 204 units. The proposal
to lower the elevation of the lots in VTTM 24183 is a function of fewer quantities of available
fill material resulting from a reduction in the total amount of grading for the overall project. The
revisions will actually lessen the impact associated with grading.
During the City Council and Planning Commission hearings for the Amendment No. 6 of the
Paloma del Sol Specific Plan concerns relating to off-site drainage were raised by an adjacent
property owner. In order to mitigate off-site drainage, the applicant constructed a detention
basin at the northwest corner of Highway 79 (S) and Butterfield Stage Road. The conditions
of approval for VTTM 24182 require that the detention basin or equivalent facility remain in
place until upstream drainage facilities are installed to mitigate off-site flows.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Environmental Impact Report No. 235 was prepared for Specific Plan No. 219 and was certified
by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on September 6, 1988. In addition, an
Addendum to that EtR was prepared in 1992 for Amendment No. 4 to the Paloma del Sol
Specific Plan.
It has been nine and one half (9.5) 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. 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.
According to Section 21166 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), no subsequent
or supplemental environmental impact report is required for the project unless one or more of
the following events occurs: substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require
major revisions of the EIR; substantial changes occur with respect to circumstance under which
the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the EIR; or, new
information, which was not known at the time of the EIR was certified and complete becomes
available. None of these situations have occurred; therefore, no further environmental analysis
is required. Staff is recommending that the Commission make a determination of consistency
with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report was previously certified.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The applicant's proposal to revise VTTM's 24182 and 24183 is a response to recent
amendments to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan including modifications to the land use which
affects the Planning Areas which include these maps, the location of neighborhood entry points,
the cross section of an adjacent right-of-way, and changes to the project's overall grading
scheme. All revisions to the map are incompliance with the City's General Plan, Development
Code, and are consistent with and meet the intent of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan as
recently amended.
FINDINGS
Pl~qning ADI)lication No.'s PA96-0258 aqd PA96-0259 (Revisions to Vesting Tentative Tract
MN) No.'s 24182 Rqd 24183. respectively}
The proposed land divisions and the design or improvement of the projects is consistent
with the General Plan designation and Specific Plan No. 219. The site is physically
suitable for the type and density of development. The General Plan Land Use
designations for the site are Medium Density Residential (2-5 dwelling units per acre)
and Medium High Density Residential (5-8 dwelling units per acre). Planning Areas 2,3
and 4 propose 562 residential parcels on 124 acres for a density of 4.5 units per acre
and is consistent with the Medium High density designation (VTTM 24182). Planning
Area 5 proposes 151 dwelling units on 48.8 acres for a density of 3.1 units per acre and
is consistent with the Medium density 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. 219, 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 Pauba Road,
Margarita Road, Highway 79 (S) and Butterfield Stage 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 project site has
R:~STAFFRPT~2582PA96.PC 1/29/ggjid 4
been previously graded and will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect
on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code.
Attachments:
Planning Commission Resolution PC98- - Blue Page 6
Exhibit A. Conditions of Approval for VTTM 24182 (Revised) - Blue Page 10
Exhibit B. Conditions of Approval for VTTM 24183 (Revised) - Blue Page 23
Initial Environmental Assessment dated November 20, 1997 - Blue Page 37
Previously Approved Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 45
Exhibits - Blue Page 46
B.
C.
D.
E.
Vicinity Map
General Plan Map
Specific Plan No. 219 - Land Use Map
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24182 - Revised
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24183 - Revised
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 98-
PA96-0258 AND PA96-0259
R:~STA~82PA96.PC 1/29/98jkl 6
ATTACHMENT NO.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 98-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO.'s PA96-0258 AND PA96-0259
(REVISIONS TO VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.
24182 AND 24183, RESPECTIVELY) LOCATED
GENERALLY NORTH WEST OF THIi; INTERSECTION OF
BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND HIGHWAY 79 (S),
WITHIN THE PALO MA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR*S PARCEL NO. 950-002-013, -020,
-021, -022, -023, -024 and -025.
WHEREAS, Cal-Paloma del Sol, LLC c/o Newland Associates, Inc. filed Planning
Application No.'s PA96-0258 and PA96-0259 in accordance with the City of Temecula General
Plan and Development Cede and Riverside County Land .Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which
the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No.'s PA96-0258 and PA96-0259 was processed in
the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. 's PA96-
0258 and PA96-259 on February 2, 1998, 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. 's PA96-0258 and PA96-259;
NOW, Tt!EREFORE, 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. FiRdiag~ 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:
R:~qTAFFRFIX~g2PA96.PC 1/29/98jid 7
1. The proposed land divisions and the design or improvement of the projects is
consistent with the General Plan designation and Specific Plan No. 219. The site is physically
suitable for the type and density of development. The General Plan Land Use designations for
the site are Medium Density Residential (2-5 dwelling units per acre) and Medium High Density
Residential (5-8 dwelling units per acre). Planning Areas 2,3 and 4 propose 562 residential
parcels on 124 acres for a density of 4.5 units per acre and is consistent with the Medium High
density designation 0rrlM 24182). Planning Area 5 proposes 151 dwelling units on 48.8 acres
for a density of 3.1 units per acre and is consistent with the Medium density designation.
2. 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. 219, 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.
3. 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 ms from Pauba Road, Margarita
Road, Highway 79 (S) and Butterfield Stage Road, and will not obstruct any easements.
4. 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.
5. 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 project site has been previously graded
and will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined
in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Environmental Impact Report No. 235 was
prepared for Specific Plan No. 219 and was certified by the Riverside County Board of
Supervisors. In addition, an Addendum to that EIR was prepared in 1992 for Amendment No.
4 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. Another Initial Environmental Assessment was prepared
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. Based upon that analysis, the project is consistent with the information
contained in the previously certified E1R. Due to the limited scope of the proposed changes to
the stxecific plan, there will be no effect beyond that which was reviewed in the previous analysis.
According to Section 21166 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report is required for the project unless one
or more of the following events occurs: substantial changes are proposed in the project which will
require major revisions of the ErR; substantial changes occur with respect to circumstance under
which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the ErR; or, new
R:XSTAFFRFIX~82PA96.PC 1/29/98jid 8
information, which was not known at the time of the EIR was certified and complete becomes
available. None of these situations have occurred; therefore, no further environmental analysis
is required. Staff is recommending the Commission make a determination of consistency with a
project for which an Environmental Impact Report was previously certified.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Planning Application No. 's PA96-0258 and PA96-0259 (Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No.'s 24182 and 24183, respectively) located north west of the intersection of Butterfield Stage
Road and Highway 79 (S), within the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan and known as Assessor' s
Parcel Nods: 950-12102-013, -020, -021, 4)22, -023, -024 and -025; subject to Exhibit A, attached
hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a paxt hereof.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTFD this 2nd day of February, 1998.
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 th~ii:~2nd day of
February, 1998 by the following vote of the Commission:
0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:~STAFFRFiX~82PAg~.PC 1/29t~8jkl 9
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PA96-0258
R:~STA~82PA96.PC 1/29/98jid 10
EXHtBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA96-0258 {Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24182-Revised)
Project Description:
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
The project consists of a revised Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 24182 (the subdivision of 124.35 acres within
creating 562 single family residential lots and 31 open
space lots)- Peloma del Sol
Various
February 2, 1998
To be determined by the Development Agreement
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. PA96-0258 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24182-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. 219
and its amendments unless superseded by these conditions of approval.
5. The tentative subdivision shall comply with all conditions of approval of the underlying
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24182 (approved by the Riverside County Board of
Supervisors), unless superseded, modified or deleted by these conditions of approval.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
6. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula
Municipal Code.
Prior to Recordation of the Final Map
7. 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.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
8. 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.
9. 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:
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.
R:~STAFFRPTL~582PA96.PC 1/29/98jld 12
10.
The applicant shall submit an acoustical analysis to the Planning Department for
approval. The analysis shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit for
any residential construction adjacent to arterial, major or secondary roadways. The
analysis shall contain recommendations to ensure that noise levels do not exceed 65dBA
for exterior and 45dBA for interior noise levels.
11.
Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision,
however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with
Planning Director approval.
Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits
12. Front yard and slope landscaping within individual lots shall be completed for inspection.
13.
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
14.
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.
15.
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.
16.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior
to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way.
17.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the California Department of
Transportation prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or
proposed State right-of-way.
18.
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 l~ming is indicated, the Developer shall
complete the following or have plans submitted and approved, subdivision improvement
agreements executed and securities posted:
P,:\STAFPP, PE2582PA96.FC 1/29/98jid 1 ~3
19.
20.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
· San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
· Rancho California Water District
· Eastern Municipal Water District
· Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
· City of Temecula Fire Bureau
· Planning Department
· Department of Public Works
· Riverside County Health Department
· Cable TV Franchise
· Caltrans
· Community Services District
· General Telephone
· Southern California Edison Company
· Southern California Gas Company
· Fish & Game
· Army Corps of Engineers
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 Campanula Way (Major Highway Standards - 100' R/W) to include
dedication of half-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street
improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage
facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and
sewer), 12' painted median.
Improve De Portola Road and Meadows Parkway (Major Highway Standards -
100' R/IN) to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way, installation of
half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights,
drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to
water and sewer), 12' raised landscaped median.
Improve "E", "X" and "C-C" (Collector Road Standards - 70' 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), 10' raised landscaped median..
Improve "A - D", "F - W", "Y", "A-A", "B-B", "D-D", "F-F", "G-G", "H-H", and "1-1"
(Local Road Standards - 60' 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).
Plans for a traffic signal at the intersection of Meadows Parkway/Campanula
Way_and De Portola Road/Campanula Way to include signal interconnect with
the signal at the intersection of Meadows Parkway and Campanula Way.
R:XSTAFFPJvI~2582PA~6.PC 1/29/98 jid 14
21.
All street improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement
transitions per CaI-Trans standards for transition to existing street sections.
In the event that Highway 79 South is not constructed by Assessment District
No. 159 prior to the final map recordation, the Developer shall construct or bond
for the improvements to provide for one-half street improvements, sidewalk,
street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not
limited to water and sewer), 14' raised landscaped median, plus one 12 foot lane
per modified City Standard No. 100A (142' R/W). The improvements shall be
constructed prior to occupancy.
In the event that Butterfield Stage Road is not constructed by Assessment
District No. 159 prior to the final map recordation, the Developer shall construct
or bond for the improvements to provide for one-half street improvements,
sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including
but not limited to water and sewer), 14' raised landscaped median, plus one 12
foot lane per modified City Standard No. 100 (110/86). The improvements shall
be constructed prior to occupancy.
In the event that De Portola Road, Campanula Way and Meadows Parkway are
not constructed by Assessment District No. 159 prior to the final map
recordation, the Developer shall construct or bond for the improvements to
provide for one-half street improvements plus one 12 foot lane per modified City
Standard No. 101 (100/76). The improvements shall be constructed prior to
occupancy.
Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the
design of the street improvement plans:
Street centerline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00%
minimum over A.C. paving.
Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard Nos. 207, 207A and/or
208.
Street lights shall be installed along the public streets shall be designed in
accordance with Ordinance No. 461.
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Nos.
400 and 401.
Cul-de-sacs and knuckles shall be constructed per the appropriate City Standards
ans a shown on the approved tentative map.
Design of street improvements shall extend a minimum of 300 feet beyond the
project boundaries to ensure adequate continuity of design with adjoining
properties.
g. Minimum centerline radii shall be in accordance with City Standard No. 113.
R:~TAFFRPT~2582PA96.PC 1/29/98jid 15
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
h. All reverse curves shall include a 100-foot minimum tangent section.
i. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
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.
A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer
and reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or
other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works.
Relinquish and waive right of access to and from State Highway 79 South, Meadows
Parkway, Campanula Way, De Portola Road and Butterfield Stage Road on the Final Map
with the exception of street intersections as delineated on the approved Tentative Tract
Map.
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.
Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is part
of an existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section.
Prior to City Council approval of the final map, the Developer shall make an application
for reapportionment of any assessments with appropriate regulatory agency.
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 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. The delineation of the area within the 100-year floodplain.
b. Special Study Zones.
c. Geotechnical hazards identified in the project's geotechnical report.
d. Archeological resources found on the site.
R:~STAI~PT~2582PA~.]~C 1/29/98jld 16
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the
subject property.
The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property
interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the Developer shall, prior to submittal of
the Final Map for recordation, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements
pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462.5. Such
agreement shall provide for payment by the Developer of all costs incurred by the City
to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision.
Security of a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount
given in an appraisal report obtained by the Developer, at the Developer's cost. The
appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal.
A copy of the grading and improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and
hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District for approval prior to recordation of the final map or the
issuance of any permit. A permit from Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District is required for work within their Right-of-Way.
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
Riverside Transit Authority and as approved by the Department of Public Works.
Pedestrian access with sidewalks shall be provided from the cul-de-sac terminus of
street "G - G" to the adjacent public street.
This development must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip Reduction
Plan" in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01.
Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks
meander through private property.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities,
utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division
boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and
recorded as directed by the 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:~STA,~I~,J~582PA~.I~C 1/29/98jid 17
39.
If phasing of the map for construction is proposed, legal all-weather access as required
by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract boundary to a paved City maintained
road.
40.
An interim detention basin has been constructed on the southern portion of Phase 5 and
the Final Phase of Tentative Tract 24182, The existing detention basin or an equivalent
facility shall remain in place until such time that upstream drainage facilities are
constructed to convey offsite storm flows to an adequate outlet. Any revisions to the
existing detention basin and appurtenant drainage facilities shall be approved by the
City.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
41.
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
Caltrans
Community Services District
General Telephone
Southern California Edison Company
Southern California Gas Company
42.
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.
43.
A 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.
A 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.
45.
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
R:~STAFFRFI't2582PA96.PC 1/29/ggjid 18
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.
46.
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.
47.
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.
48.
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
49. Final Map shall be approved and recorded.
50.
A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review
and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for
location and elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing
compaction and site conditions.
51.
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.
52.
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.
Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy
53.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
Department of Public Works
54.
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
55.
All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City
standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
R:~STAFFRPT/2552PA96.PC 1/'29/9gjid 19
56.
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
57.
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 DiBbled Access Regulations and the Temecula
Municipal Code.
58. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
59.
Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan for plan review.
60.
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.
61.
Based on submitted documents, the occupancy classification of the proposed use shall
be R-3, U-1.
62.
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:
63.
The City's park dedication requirement (Quimby) shall be satisfied with the development
and dedication of a 5.0 acre neighborhood park in future Tract No. 24188, as identified
within the Paloma Del Sol Development Agreement, Addendum No. 1, and Planning Area
29A in Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 6.
64.
All other private park facilities, perimeter slopes and parkway landscaping, paseos, and
open space areas shall be maintained by an established homeowners' association.
65.
The developer shall complete the TCSD application process and pay the appropriate fees
prior to the acceptance of street lighting and landscaped medians into the respective
TCSD maintenance programs.
66.
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.
R:~T~82pA96.PC 1/29/98jid 20
FIRE DEPARTMENT
The Fire Prevention Bureau requires the following fire protection measures to be provided in
accordance with the Uniform Fire Code and the City of Temecula Ordinances.
67.
Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed
by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use,
Uniform Building Code (UBC), Uniform Fire Code (UFC), and related codes which are in
force at the time of building plan submittal.
68.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all residential buildings per UFC Appendix Ill.A, Table A-Ill-A-1. The
minimum fire flow for one and two family dwellings less than 3,600 square feet shall
be 1000 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure. Dwellings in
excess of 3,600 square feet shall not be less than that specified in Table A-Ill-A-1 of the
UFC. (UFC 903.2, UFC Appendix Ill-A)
69.
Prior to construction, approved standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2 ~" outlets) shall be
located at each street intersection and be spaced not more than 500 feet apart, with no
portion of any lot frontage further than 250 feet from a fire hydrant. (UFC 903.2,
903.4.2 and Appendix Ill-B)
70.
The water mains shall be capable of providing a potential fire flow of 1,000 GPM for a
2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, which must be available prior to
any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot.
71.
If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection
prior to any building construction. (UFC 8704.2 & 902.2.2)
72.
Prior to construction, dead end road ways and streets which have not been completed
shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (UFC 902.2.2.4)
73.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water
system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review. Plans shall be: signed by a
registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and
conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the
plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire
Prevention Bureau for signatures. 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 an individual lot. (UFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and
National Fire Protection Association 24 sec. 1-4.1)
74.
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective
Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations in accordance with City
specifications. (UFC 901.4.3)
75.
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, all residential dwellings
shall display street numbers in a prominent location on the street side of the residence
in such a position that the numbers are easily visible to approaching emergency vehicles.
The numbers shall be located consistently on each dwelling throughout the
R:~STAFFRPT~2582PA96.PC 1/29198 jid 2 1
development. The numerals shall be no less than four (4) inches in height and shall be
contrasting in color to the background. (UFC 901.4.4 and Ord 95-15)
OTHER AGENCIES
76. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Rancho California
Water District's transmittal dated July 9, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
77. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Riverside Transit
Agency transmittal dated July 17, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
78. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the California
Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) transmittal dated July 17, 1997, a copy of
which is attached.
79. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Riverside County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District's transmittal dated July 22, 1997, a copy
of which is attached.
80. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Riverside County
Department of Environmental Health transmittal dated July 24, 1997, a copy of which
is attached.
I have read, understand and accept the above Conditions of Approval.
Applicant Name
R:~STAFFRFI'~2382PA~.PC 1/29/98jid 22
Board of Direc~rs:
Michael P~ McMHlan
Csaba F. Ko
July 9, 1997
Mr. John De Gange, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAILABILITY
PARCEL MAPS 24182 AND 24183
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0158
Dear Mr. De Gange
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. Any existing RCWD facilities that require
relocation due to the development of this project will be the
responsibility of the developer.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing
an Agency Agreement which assigns water management dghts, 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:eb123-2/F012/FCF
C: Laude Williams. Engineering Services Supervisor
July 10, 1997
Riverside 'Trmnsit Agency
1825 Third Street
P.O. Box 59968
Riverside, CA 92517
Phone: (909) 684-0850
Fax: (909) 684-1007
Mr. John De Gange
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92550
RE: Planning Application No.'s PA97-0158, PA96-0258, & PA96-0259.
Dear Mr. De Gange:
Pursuant to the City's previous mquesl referenced October 9, 1996 , RTA staff concluded a plan
review for projects PA96-0258 & PA96-0259. In our initial review, we recommended for PA96-
0258 a tomout on the far-side (East side) of the intersection of "AA" Street and De Portola Road,
and for PA96-0259 a tumout on the far-side (North side) of "F" Street and Meadows Parkway.
The Applicants most recent amendment to the above referenced plans does not include or address
the recommended transportation amenities. The Riverside Transit Agency believes addition of
these amenities to the project during initial construction will be advantageous and beneficial to
the surrounding development. We would urge that the Applicant be encouraged to do so.
Sincerely,
Stephen C. Oller
Director of Operations &
Transportation Resource Development
SCO:AM:cam
STATE OF CALIFOiNIA~SINF, SS, I'RANSIIOR'I'ATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
-DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Matthew Fagan
Project Planner
Planning Department
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Dear Mr. Fagan:
July 17,
~' ij JUL,,J/~]S97 jU'
08-Riv-79-16.0/17.3
Public Notice/Application No. 97-00275-ES
(Paseo Del Sol)
We have reviewed the above-referenced document and request
consideration of the following comments:
This project appears to be part of a project previously
seen by this office as "Paloma del Sol" and to which we
responded in our letter of July 17, 1996. If this is not
true please advise this office of same. If it is true,
all conditions mentioned in said letter still apply.
· Please send all forthcoming plans and specifications to
this office for our review and comment.
If you have any questions, please contact Cecil Karstensen
at (909) 383-5922 or FAX (909) 383-7934.
Sincerely,
Transportation Planning
CC:
Dr. Eric Stein, ACOE
Cathy C. Avila, HQS Structures Reviewer
P. Lambert, D8 Hydraulics
Mr. James Delhammer, Newland Associates LLC
Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc.
STATE OF CAUFORNIA--BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 8, P.O. BOX 231
N BERNAROINO, CALIFORNIA 92402
J909) 383-5959
PETE WILSON, Governor
July 17, 1996
08-Riv-79-17.3
Mr. Matthew Fagan
Associate Planner
Temecula Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Dear Mr. Fagan:
Planning Application No. PA96-0106 and
Planning Application No. PA96-0107
We have reviewed the above-referenced documents and request
consideration of the following comment:
It has been mutually discussed that the ultimate plan
for State Route 79 (SR 79) in the project area is a six
(6) lane, limited-access facility within a 134' right
of way over a new alignment. The City of Temecula
should develop policies and procedures to preserve the
needed right of way, and maintain and improve the
current facility.
A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the
State of California, Dc~artm.~nt of Transportation
(Caltrans) and the city of Temeculawas finalized on
November 13, 1995. This MOU serves as a guideline
for ne4w development and .dpgrade or realignment of
SR-79.-~he following excerpts are from this MOU:
Route 79 is planned for up to three lanes in each
direction for through traffic and up to two lanes
in each direction for local circulation.
Realignment may be necessary upon future
development along Route 79.
Mr. Matthew Fagan
July 17, 1996
Page 2
The City shall hereafter protect the right-of-way
for said realignment by limiting development
approvals for South Route 79 as follows:
a. Intersections will be spaced at 1/4 mile
increments and limited access driveways at
1/8 mile spacing from Interstate 15 (I-15) to
Anza Road.
Concerning drainage, care should be taken when
developing this project to preserve and perpetuate the
eyist~n~ ~j~ge pattern of the sta~e highway.
Particular consideration must be given to cumulative
increased storm runoff to insure that a highway
drainage problem is not created.
This project will require an encroachment permit if
there is any work, including work pertaining to:
access, grading, and drainage, within the State highway
right of way; the Department of Transportation would be
a responsible agency and may require certain measures
be provided as a condition of permit issuance.
The developer must obtain an encroachment permit from
the District 8 Permits Office prior to beginning work.
Their address and phone number are listed below:
Encroachment Permits
California Department of Transportation
P. O. Box 231
San Bernardino, CA 92402
(909) 383-4536
at
If you have any questions, please contact
(909) 383-5922 or FAX (909) 383-7934.
-- Sincerely,
Cecil Karstensen
Original Signed By ~wanuel V. Aggreh for
ROBERT G. HARVEY, Chief
Office of Riverside County
Transportation Planning and
Public Transportation
CAK:cl
DAVID P. ZAPPE
Gcncral Managcr-Chicf F, nginccr
City of Temecula
Plannin Department
43200 ~usiness Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Ladies and Gentlemen:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
1995 MARKET STI(EE]
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
909/275-1200
909/788-9965 FAX
782-9, I
Re:TR.Iq0:c~/-/,/~3 (/2/~cF~ -01~)
JUL 2 8 1997
The District does not normally mcomrnend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities.
TheDist~cta~s~d~esn~tp~ancheckcityisndusecases~orpr~vtdeS`~a~eDlvisi~n~fReal'5~ab=fettersor~ther~d
hazard reports for such cases. District comments/rations for such cases are normally limited to items of
spedtic interest to the DISlfict including District Master Plan facilities, other km~l tlood control and
~eam~inage Plan fee~ (development mtgalici fees). In eddion, infommtion of a general nature is provided.
This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The Distrk~ will ownership of such fadlitie$ on
written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed fo Oisffict :m~ar~s and Disffict plan check and
inspection will be required for Distrial acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be
required.
This project PrOm channels. storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter. or other radiities that could be
. s ,on. =''
deferred, at ttm time of issuance of the a~l permit.
GENERAL INFORMATION
This project may mq_ulre a National Pollutant Discharge Bimlnation stem (NPDES) _l~.rmit from the State Water
Resources Contml B0atd. Cfearancaforgracli recor~tation, oroi~ner~l appfoval sh0bld notbegiven unblthe City
has determ ned that the project has been gra~ngt~ a permit or is shown to be exempt.
If ~iS pro'ect involves a Federal Emergen.cy Management Agency (FEMA ma tiood plain, then the City should
require ~e applicant to ide all studes, cal~ulalions. plans end o~ ~f~N~tlon _required to meet FEMA
mquiremsnts, and should ~ r~:luim that the applicant oblain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior
to grading, recordation or other anal approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) p~or to occupancy.
If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is im acted by this pro' the City should require the a licant to
obtain a Section 160111603 A reement from the Cnar'~mia Departrne~J~ Fish and Game and a Clean P~ter Act
Section 404 Permit from the U.~. Army Corps of En inesrs, or wffi'ten correspondence from the agencies indicating
the project is exemph'rom these requirements. A~lean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Ceilffication may pe
rsquire~t from the local Califomia Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit.
Very tnjly yours,
STUART E. MCKIBBIN
Senior Civil Engineer
TO:
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
DATE: July 24, 1997
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ATTN: John De Gange
~.~p JUL 3 t 1991
FROM:
JOHN C. SILVA, P.E., Senior Public Health Engineer _
# PA96-0258.,& PA96-0259
RE: A97-0158-PALOMA del SOL AMENDMENT 6 AND
(Revision to Tentative Tract Map No. 24182 & 24183, respectively) '
WATER/SEWER: John C. Silva. P.E.. Senior Pub!ic Health Engineer
Our comments to the above project will remain as stated on 07-16-96.
If you should have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
JCS:dr
(909) 275-8980
enclosure
FROI%{
RE:
County of Riverside
DEPARTI~ENT OF EhWIRONM. ENTAL HEALTH
CITY OF TEMECULA PLA2',rNrlNG DEPARTMENT
ATTN: Debbie LPonoske
JOHN SILVA, P.E., Senior Public Health Engineer
PALOMA del SOL (Formerly The Meadows at Rancho Califorriia)....:
DATE: July 16, 1996
· ,/LjL 3 ]_ 1997
FFATER/SEV/ER: (John Silva. P.E.. Senior Public Health Engineer)
The following conmaents are offered regarding the proposed project:
WATER SlIPPLY - Rancho California Water District and Eastern Municipal Water District will
both serve the project. The estimated volurne of water needed to serve the various activities should
be provided.
SEWER SYSTEIVl -Eastem Municipal Water District will provide sanitary sewer service to the
entire project. The waste water Mll be treated at Eastern's Rancho California Regional Water
Reclamation Facility. The estimated volume of wastewater generated from the project needs to be
provided.
RECLAI.MED WATER:
Page III. - 30 of the documents advises that 251 acres of overall recreation and open space is
available to the project. Included will be 86 acres for the Rancho California Sports Complex; 28
acres for "Greenbelt/Paseo Systems;': Etc.
The estimated volume of reclaimed water needed to serve this project needs to be calculated. In
doing so, Eastern Municipal \Vater District can project the demand for reclaimed water usage
throughout the project. It is entirely possible that the water supply demand could equal the
reclaimed water demand(s). Therefore, no fresh water or domestic drinking water would be needed
to irrigate the development.
If you should have any further questions regarding the above document, please do not hesi't~ie
to contact me at (909) 275-8980.
JS:dr
EXHIBIT B
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PA96-0259
R:\STAFFRP'f~S2PA96.PC 1/29/ggjid ~)3
EXHIBIT B
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Banning Application No. PA96-0259 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24183 -Revised)
Project Description:
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
The project consists of a revised Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 24183 (the subdivision of 48.8 acres creating
151 single family residential lots and 4 open space Iots)-
Psioma de/Sol
Various
February 2, 1998
To be determined by the Development Agreement
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. PA96-0259 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24183-Revised) which action is
brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code,
Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et see., 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. 219
and its amendments unless superseded by these conditions of approval.
R:\STAFFRPT12582PA96.PC 1/29/98 jid 24
5. The tentative subdivision shall comply with all conditions of approval of the underlying
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24183 (approved by the City Council on October 23,
1991 ), unless superseded, modified or deleted by these conditions of approval.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
6. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula
Municipal Code.
Prior to Recordation of the Final Map
7. 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.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
8. 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.
9. 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.
R:'~STAFFRFT~582PA96.1~C 1/29/ggjid 25
10. The applicant shall submit an acoustical analysis to the Planning Department for
approval. The analysis shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit for
any residential construction adjacent to arterial, major or secondary roadways. The
analysis shall contain recommendations to ensure that noise levels do not exceed 65dBA
for exterior and 45dBA for interior noise levels.
11. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision,
however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with
Planning Director approval.
Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits
12. Front yard and slope landscaping within individual lots shall be completed for inspection.
13. 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
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior
to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way.
17. All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated
for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site
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
agreements executed and securities posted:
18. 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
R:~TAI~FRPT/2582PA96.PC 1/'29/98jld 26
19.
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
City of Temecula Fire Bureau
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
Riverside County Health Department
Cable TV Franchise
Caltrans
Community Services District
General Telephone
Southern California Edison Company
Southern California Gas Company
Fish & Game
Army Corps of Engineers
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:
improve De Portola Road and Meadows Parkway (Major Highway Standards -
100' RRV) to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way, installation of
half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights,
drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to
water and sewer), 12' raised landscaped median.
improve Campanula Way (Major Highway Standards - 100' R/W) to include
dedication of half-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street
improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage
facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and
sewer), 12' painted median.
Improve "F", "G" and "H" (Collector Road Standards - 70' 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), 10' raised landscaped median..
Improve "A , "B", "C", "D", and "E" (Local Road Standards - 60' 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).
Plans for a traffic signal at the intersection of Meadows Parkway/Campanula
Way_and De Portola Road/Campanula Way to include signal interconnect with
the signal at the intersection of Meadows Parkway and Campanula Way.
All street improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement
transitions per CaI-Trans standards for transition to existing street sections.
R:',STAFFRF'~2582pA96.1*C 1/29/98jid
g. In the event that De Portola Road, Campanula Way and Meadows Parkway are
not constructed by Assessment District No. 159 prior to final map recordation,
the Developer shall construct or bond for the improvements to provide for one-
half street improvements plus one 12 foot lane per modified City Standard No.
101 (100'/76'). The improvements shall be constructed prior to occupancy.
20° Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the
design of the street improvement plans:
a. Street centerline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00%
minimum over A.C. paving.
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard Nos. 207, 207A and/or
208.
c. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets shall be designed in
accordance with Ordinance No. 461.
d. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Nos.
400 and 401.
e. Cul-de-sacs and knuckles shall be constructed per the appropriate City Standards
and as shown on the approved tentative map.
f. Design of street improvements shall extend a minimum of 300 feet beyond the
project boundaries to ensure adequate continuity of design with adjoining
properties.
g. Minimum centerline radii shall be in accordance with City Standard No. 113.
h. All reverse curves shall include a 100-foot minimum tangent section.
i. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
j. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
k. All 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.
21. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer
and reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or
other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works.
22. Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Meadows Parkway, Campanula Way,
and De Portola Road on the Final Map with the exception of street intersections as
delineated on the approved Tentative Tract Map.
R:~ST~J82PA~6.PC 1/29/98jid 28
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
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.
Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is part
of an existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section.
Prior to City Council approval of the final map, the Developer shall make an application
for reapportionment of any assessments with appropriate regulatory agency.
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 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. The delineation of the area within the 100-year floodplain.
b. Special Study Zones.
c. Geotechnical hazards identified in the project's geotechnical report.
d. Archeological 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.
The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property
interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the Developer shall, prior to submittal of
the Final Map for recordation, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements
pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462.5. Such
agreement shall provide for payment by the Developer of all costs incurred by the City
to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision.
Security of a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount
given in an appraisal report obtained by the Developer, at the Developer's cost. The
appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal.
A copy of the grading and improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and
hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District for approval prior to recordation of the final map or the
issuance of any permit. A permit from Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District is required for work within their Right-of-Way.
R:~,STAFFRFI'~J82PA96.1~C 1/29/98jld 29
31.
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.
32.
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.
33.
Bus bays will be provided at all existing and future bus stops as determined by the
Riverside Transit Authority and as approved by the Department of Public Works.
34,
This development must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip Reduction
Plan" in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01.
35.
Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks
meander through private property.
36.
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."
37.
If phasing of the map for construction is proposed, legal all-weather access as required
by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract boundary to a paved City maintained
road.
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
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
Riverside County Health Department
Caltrans
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.
R:\STAFFRFI'~582PA96.FC 1/29/98jid 30
40.
A 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.
A 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.
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
46. Final Map shall be approved and recorded.
47.
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.
48.
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.
R:',STAFFP, P'F~582pA96.PC 1/29/98 jid :3 1
49.
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.
Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy
50.
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
51.
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
52.
All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City
standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
53.
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
54.
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.
55. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
56.
Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan for plan review.
57.
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.
58.
Based on submitted documents, the occupancy classification of the proposed use shall
be R-3, U-1.
59.
Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record, the truss manufacturers
engineer, are required for plan review submittal.
R:~TAPPRPr~582PA96.FC 1/29/98jid 32
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
Community Services has reviewed the revised tentative map application and has the following
conditions of approval:
General Requirements:
60.
The City's park dedication requirement (Quimby) shall be satisfied with the development
and dedication of a 5.0 acre neighborhood park in future Tract No. 24188, as identified
within the Paloma Del Sol Development Agreement, Addendum No. 1, and Planning Area
29A in Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 6.
61.
All other private park facilities, perimeter slopes and parkway landscaping, paseos, and
open space areas shall be maintained by an established homeowners' association.
62.
The developer shall complete the TCSD application process and pay the appropriate fees
prior to the acceptance of street lighting and landscaped medians into the respective
TCSD maintenance programs.
63.
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.
64. The developer shall comply with the following parkway landscaping conditions:
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall secure approval of
proposed landscaping and irrigation plans from the City Engineering and Planning
Department. All landscaping and irrigation plans and specifications shall be
prepared in a reproducible format suitable for permanent filing with the City
Engineering Department.
be
The developer shall post a landscape performance bond which shall be released
concurrently with the release of subdivision performance bonds, guaranteeing
the viability of all landscaping which will be installed prior to the assumption of
the maintenance responsibility by the Homeowner's Association.
The developer, the developer's successors-in-interest or assignees, shall be
responsible for all parkway landscaping maintenance until such time as
maintenance as taken over by the established Homeowners Association.
The developer shall comply with the standards and exhibits in Specific Plan No.
219, Amendment No. 1.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
The Fire Prevention Bureau requires the following fire protection measures to be provided in
accordance with the Uniform Fire Code and the City of Temecula Ordinances.
R:~STAFFRPT~82PA~.]~C IF~)~)Sjld 33
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed
by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use,
Uniform Building Code (UBC), Uniform Fire Code (UFC), and related codes which are in
force at the time of building plan submittal.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all residential buildings per UFC Appendix Ill.A, Table A-Ill-A-1. The
minimum fire flow for one and two family dwellings less than 3,600 square feet shall
be 1000 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure. Dwellings in
excess of 3,600 square feet shall not be less than that specified in Table A-Ill-A-1 of the
UFC. (UFC 903.2, UFC Appendix Ill-A)
Prior to construction, approved standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2 ~" outlets) shall be
located at each street intersection and be spaced not more than 500 feet apart, with no
portion of any lot frontage further than 250 feet from a fire hydrant. (UFC 903.2,
903.4.2 and Appendix Ill-B)
The water mains shall be capable of providing a potential fire flow of 1,000 GPM for a
2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, which must be available prior to
any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot.
If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection
prior to any building construction. (UFC 8704.2 & 902.2.2)
Prior to construction, dead end road ways and streets which have not been completed
shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (UFC 902.2.2.4)
Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water
system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review. Plans shall be: signed by a
registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and
conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the
plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire
Prevention Bureau for signatures. 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 an individual lot. (UFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and
National Fire Protection Association 24 sec. 1-4.1 )
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective
Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations in accordance with City
specifications. (UFC 901.4.3)
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, all residential dwellings
shall display street numbers in a prominent location on the street side of the residence
in such a position that the numbers are easily visible to approaching emergency vehicles.
The numbers shall be located consistently on each dwelling throughout the
development. The numerals shall be no less than four (4) inches in height and shall be
contrasting in color to the background. (UFC 901.4.4 and Ord 95-15)
R:~STAFFRP'i'~5821~A96.1~C 1/29/98jid 34
OTHER AGENCIES
74.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Rancho California
Water District's transmittal dated July 9, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
75.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Riverside Transit
Agency transmittal dated July 17, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
76.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the California
Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) transmittal dated July 17, 1997, a copy of
which is attached.
77.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Riverside County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District's transmittal dated July 22, 1997, a copy
of which is attached.
78.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Riverside County
Department of Environmental Health transmittal dated July 24, 1997, a copy of which
is attached.
I have read, understand and accept the above Conditions of Approval.
Applicant Name
R:~STAF'FRPI'~2~82PA~.PC 1/29/98jld 35
Wmr
John F. Hennigar
General Manager
Kenneth C. Dealy
July 9, 1997
Mr. John De Gange, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
',,! JUL 1 i 1997 ;.
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAILABILITY
PARCEL MAPS 24182 AND 24183
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0t58
Dear Mr. De Gange
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within
the boundaries of Rancho Califomia 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. Any existing RCWD facilities that require
relocation due to the development of this project will be the
responsibility of the developer.
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:eb 123-2/F012/FCF
C: Laurie Williarns, Engineering Services Supervisor
July 10, 1997
Riverside 'Traesit Agency
1825 Third Street
P.O. Box 59968
Riverside, CA 92517
Phone: (909) 6~4-0850
Fax: (909) 654-1007
Mr. John De Gange
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92550
RE: Planning Application No. 's PA97-0158, PA96-0258, & PA96-0259.
Dear Mr. De Gange:
Pursuant to the City's previous request referenced October 9, 1996 , RTA staff concluded a plan
review for projects PA96-0258 & PA96-0259. In our initial review, we recommended for PA96-
0258 a turnout on the far-side (East side) of the intersection of"AA" Street and De Portola Road,
and for PA96-0259 a turnout on the far-side (North side) of "F" Street and Meadows Parkway.
The Applicants most recent amendment to the above referenced plans does not include or address
the recommended transportation amenities. The Riverside Transit Agency believes addition of
these amenities to the project during initial construction will be advantageous and beneficial to
the surrounding development. We would urge that the Applicant be encouraged to do so.
Sincerely,
Stephen C. Oller
Director of Operations &
Transportation Resource Development
SCO:AM:cam
~EPART~ENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Matthew Fagan
Project Planner
Planning Department
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Dear Mr. Fagan:
July 17,
'i;"i' JUL,-1/8/19S7 iU'
08-Riv-79-16.0/17.3
Public Notice/Application No. 97-00275-ES
(Paseo Del Sol)
We have reviewed the above-referenced document and request
consideration of the following comments:
This project appears to be part of a project previously
seen by this office as ~Paloma del Sol" and to which we
responded in our letter of July 17, 1996. If this is not
true please advise this office of same. If it is true,
all conditions mentioned in said letter still apply.
· Please send all forthcoming plans and specifications to
this office for our review and comment.
If you have any questions, please contact Cecil Karstensen
at (909) 383-5922 or FAX (909) 383-7934.
Sincerely,
Transportation Planning
co:
Dr. Eric Stein, ACOE
Cathy C. Avila, HQS Structures Reviewer
P. Lambert, D8 Hydraulics
Mr. James Delhammer, Newland Associates LLC
Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA--BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 8, ~P.O. BOX 231
N BERNARDENO, CALIFORNIA 92402
(909) 383-5959
PETE WILSON, Governor
July 17, 1996
08-Riv-79-17.3
Mr. Matthew Fagan
Associate Planner
Temecula Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Dear Mr. Fagan:
Planning Application No. PA96-0106 and
Planning Application No. PA96-0107
We have reviewed the above-referenced documents and request
consideration of the following comment:
It has been mutually discussed that the ultimate plan
for State Route 79 (SR 79) in the project area is a six
(6) lane, limited-access facility within a 134' right
of way over a new aligument. The City of Temecula
should develop policies and procedures to preserve the
needed right of way, and maintain and improve the
current facility.
A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the
State of California, D~artm.~nt of Transportation
(Caltrans) and the-city of Temeculawas finalized on
November 13, 1995. This MOU serves as a guideline
for neW development and .dpgrade or realignment of
SR-79.-~he following excerpts are from this MOU:
Route 79 is planned for up to three lanes in each
direction for through traffic and up to two lanes
in each direction for local circulation.
Realignment may be necessary upon future
development along Route 79.
Mr. Matthew Fagan
July 17, 1996
Page 2
The City shall hereafter protect the right-of-way
for said realignment by limiting development
approvals for South Route 79 as follows:
Intersections will be spaced at 1/4 mile
increments and limited access driveways at
1/8 mile spacing from Interstate 15 (I-15)
Anza Road.
to
Concerning drainage, care should be taken when
developing this project to preserve and perpetuate the
e~ist~n~ ~j~age pattern of the state highway.
Particular consideration must be given to cnmula{ive
increased storm runoff to insure that a highway
drainage problem is not created.
This project will require an encroachment permit if
there is any work, including work pertaining to:
access, grading, and drainage, within the State highway
right of way; the Department of Transportation would be
a responsible agency and may require certain measures
be provided as a condition of permit issuance.
The developer must obtain an encroachment permit from
the District 8 Permits Office prior to beginning work.
Their address and phone number are listed below:
Encroachment Permits
California Department of Transportation
P. O. Box 231
San Bernardino, CA 92402
(909) 383-4536
at
If you .have any questions, please contact Cecil Karstensen
(909) 383-5922 or FAX (909) 383-7934.
Sincerely,
ROBERT G. HARVEY, Chief
Office of Riverside County
Transportation Planning and
Public Transportation
CAK:cl
DAVID P. ZAPPE
General Managc~-Chicf Engineer
City of Temecula
Plannin Department
43200 ;~usiness Park Drive
Temecula, Califomia 92590
Ladies and Gentiemen:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
1995 MARKET STI(EE'I
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
909/275-1200
909/788-9965 FAX
- 7782~. I
~i JUL g 8 1997
........
The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions Or other land use cases in incarpomted cities.
TheDistricta~s~d~esnotplancheckci~tylanduse~ases~Orpmvide~tsteDivisi~n~fRealEstat~et~mOr~therfio~d
hazard reports for such cases. District comments/recomTndations for such cases am normally limited to items of
spedtic interest to the District includMg District Master ' Plan facilities, other ional flood control and
The Distzk:t has not revlawed the roposed projecHn detall mxl the foliowing checked comments do not in an wa
and safety or any other s~!
This w~u~dn~tbeimpactedbyDisthc~MaslarDminagePisnfad~rii~snOrare~therfad~ies~fregi~na~
This project involves Dishtot Master Plan facilities. The District willownership of such fadlles on
written request of the City. Fadrles must be constmctad to District ma~a~s and ~ plan check and
inspection will be required for District a,:~_~,;~fanca. Pin check, inspedion and administrative fees will be
required.
This project prom channels, storm drains 36 i~ or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be
mqui~-dit~· Disbict acceptance. Plan=eck, inspection and administrative fees will be required.
This pmj_~. is located within the limits of the District's Area
Dmina Plan forwhlch dminage fees have been adopted; fees should loe pald to the Hood Control
Dia~n's~orC' 'orto~nala of the pro ect, orina~e/c~ab~iscaseofa I map or subdivisinn prior to
deferred, at the tim of issuance of the actual permit.
GENERAL INFORMATION
If this pro' involves a Federal Emergen.cy Management Agency (FEMK ma.pl~d flood plain, then the City should
require ~eapplicant to all stud~se calculations plans and o~er ~nformation required to meet FEMA
requirernenis, and should .~v~_~uire that ~q~ 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 Revision (LQMR) pdor to occupancy.
If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is im acted this proj the City should require the a lie, ant to
Section 404 Permit from the U.~. Army Corps of En ineers, Or written correspondence from these agendes indicating
the project is exempt'from these requirements. A ~lean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Cedification my be
requirei:l from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit.
VeW truly yours,
STUART E. MCKIBBIN
Senior Civil Engineer
Date: '~ ' ~-~"~ "7
TO:
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ATTN: John De Gange
DATE: July 24, 1997
p JUL. 3 t 1997
FROM:
JOHN C. SILVA, P.E., Senior Public Health Engineer _
RE: A97-0158-PALOMA de SOL AMENDMENT 6 AND PA96-0258,~& PA96-0259
(Revision to Tentative Tract Map No. 24182 & 24183, respectively) '
WATER/SEWER: John C. Silva. P.E.. Senior Public Health Engineer
Our comments to the above project will remain as stated on 07-16-96.
If you should have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
In TR BUTED
JCS:dr
(909) 275-8980
enclosure
FRO~i
RE:
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENWIRONMENTAB HEALTH
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ATTN: Debbie Ubnoske
JOHN SILVA, P.E., Senior Public Health Engineer .;
/~PALOMA del SOL (Formerly The Meadows at Rancho Califo/nia).
DATE: July 16, 1996
,jLiL 3 1 199'7
T{zATER/SEWER: (John Sih, a. P.E,. Senior Public Health Engineer)
TII ITED
The following conwnents are offered regarding the proposed project:
WATER SUPPLY - Rancho California Water District and Eastem Municipal Water District will
both serve the project. The estimated volume of water needed to serve the various activities should
be provided.
SEWER SYSTEh{ -Eastem Municipal Water District will provide sanitary sewer service to the
- :--entire project. The waste water x~ll be treated at Eastern's Rancho California Regional Water
Reclamation Facility. The estimated volume of wastewater generated from the project needs to be
provided.
RECLAImlED ~VATER:
Page IlL - 30 of the documents advises ~hat 251 ac~es of overall recreation and open space is
available to the project. Included will be 86 acres for the Rancho California Sports Complex; 28
acres for "Greenbelt/Paseo Systems;" Etc.
The estimated volume of reclaimed water needed to serve this project needs to be calculated. In
doing so, Eastern Municipal Water District can project the demand for reclaimed water usage
throughout the project. It is entirely possible that the water supply demand could equal the
reclaimed water demand(s). Therefore, no fresh water or domestic drinking water would be needed
to irrigate the development.
If you should have any finher questions regarding the above document, please do not hesi't~e
to contact me at (909) 275-89g0.
JS:dr
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DATED NOVEMBER 20, 1997
R:L~TAFFRPT~Sg2PA96.~C 1/29/98jid 36
CITY OF TEMECULA
Environmental Checklist
10.
Project Title:
Revisions to Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 24182 and
24183
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Contact Person and Phone Number: John De Gange, (909) 694-6400
Project Location:
North and west of the intersection of SR79 South and
Butterfield Stage Road
Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Cal-Paloma del Sol, LLC c/o Newland Associates, Inc.
9404 Genesee Avenue, Suite 230
La Jolla, CA 92037
General Plan Designation:
Paloma del Sol Specific Plan
Zoning: SP (Specific Plan)
Description of Project:
The project consists of a revised Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No.24182 (the subdivision of 124.35 acres within
creating 562 single family residential lots and 31 open
space lots); and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.24183
(the subdivision of 48.8 acres within creating 15 1 single
family residential lots and 4 open space lots). This Initial
Study will be conduetad using the previously Certified
Environmental Impact Report OEIR) and EIR Addendure as
baselines for the analysis.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Single-family residences
Vacant/Single-family residences
Single-family residences and vacant
Single-family residences; Arco AM/PM
Other public agencies whose approval is required: Riverside County Fire Department, Rancho
California Water District, Eastern Municipal Water District, California Department of Transportation,
Temecuia Valley Unified School District, Riverside County Health Department, Riverside County
Flood Contwl and Water Conservation District
This Initial Environmental Study has been prepared to compare the impacts of the proposed General Plan
/h'nendments sad the Specific Plan Amendments to the original General Plan EIR and Specific Plan EIR. Only
those environmental impacts beyond those identified m the original environmental documentation will be
R:WFAFFRP'l~Sg~pA96.PC l/'29mjid 37
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
hnpact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Land Use and Planning
Population and Housing
Geologic Problems
Water
Air Quality
Transportation/Circulation
Biological Resources
Energy and Mineral Resources
Hazards
] Noise
] Public Services
] Utilities and Service Systems
Aesthetics
] Cultural Resources
] Recreation
] Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation, I find that the proposed project MAY have a si~oni~cant effect(s) on the
environment, but significant effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards and have been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. No further analysis
is required.
R:XSTASg2pA96.PC lt29tggjid 3~
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Pot~ti~y
Significant
Po~mti~ly
Unlas
Signifi~tnt No
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
b. Conflict with apphcable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
d. Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impa~ts to
soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible lend uses)?
e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (including low-income or minority community)?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would b~ prolu~al:
a. Cemulativcly exceed official regional or local population
projects?
b. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area
or extension ofmajur in~-eslructure)?
c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving?
a. Fault rupture?
b. Seismic ground shaking?
c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
e~ Landslides or mudflows?
£ Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions
form excavation, grading or ti117
g. Subsidence of the land?
h. Expansive soils?
I. Unique geologic or physical features?
[] [] [] ~]
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [1 [~
[] [1 [] [~
[1 [] [] [x]
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [] [~
[1 [1 [1 Ix]
[] [1 []
[] [] []
[] [] []
[1 [] [] [x]
[] [] [] Pq
[1 [1 []
[1 [1 [1
[1 [] [1 [x]
[] [] [] [x]
R:\STAFFRFrX2582PA96.PC 1/29/98jid 39
pomPally
Unlms
Signifiaat No
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and mount of surface runoff?
b. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding?
Discharge into surface 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
body?
e. Changes in cur~nts, or the course or direction of water
movements?
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
dkeet additions or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial
loss of groundwater recharge capability7
g Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h. Impacts to groundwater quality?
I. Substantial reduction in the emoont of groundwater
othc~'~as~ available for public water supplies?
AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
Violate any air quality standard or conlxibute to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
b. Expososonsitivereeeptorstopollutants?
c. Alter air movement, moisaam or temperature, or cause
any change in climate?
d. Createobjeotionableodors?
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCUI~TION.
Would the proposal result in:
a. hacreasevehicle~psortra~ccongestion?
b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves
or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses)?
c. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
[1 [1 [] Pq
[] [] [] Ix]
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [] [xq
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [] Ix]
[1 [] [] [~
[] [] [] [x]
[1 [] [] [x]
[1 [] [] [~
[] [] [] [x]
R:XSTAFI~,PTL~S2PA96.PC 1/29/ggjid 40
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Significant
Po~eati~lly
Unle~
Sight
No
d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
f. Conflicts with adopted pohcies supporting alternative
tram~portation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g. Rail, waterborne or air IraEric 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, animals
and birds)?
b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c. Locally designated natural communities (e. g. oak forest,
coastal habitat, etc.)7
d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, ripman and vernal pool)?
e. Wildlife dispersal or migration oomdors?
8. ENERGY AND MI/~IERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with adopted energy ennservatien plans?
b. Use nen-renewai 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. A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: off, pestleides,
chemical or radiation)?
b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
c. The oreation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard?
[1
[1
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[]
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
Ix]
Ix]
[x]
[x']
[x]
Ix]
R:\STA~g2pA96.PC 1/29/gSjid 41
Po~j~Hy
Po~m~lly
NO
d. Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health
hazards?
e. Increase fire hszard in areas with I3,mm,ble brush.
grass, or trees?
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a. Increase in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have sm effect
upon, or result In a need for new or altered government
servicu in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection7
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Maintenance ofpublic facilities, including roads?
e. Other governmental services?
12. Ijlli~rll~S AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result In st need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the fo]lowing utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Local or regional water irealment or distribution
fa(flities?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid was~ disposal?
g. Local or regional water supplies?
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
b. Have a demonstrable negaftve aesthetic effect?
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[1
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[1
[]
[x]
[x]
R:~STA~82pA~6.PC 1/29/9g jid 42
polmlillly
pol~l~lly
SiSni~e~t
Mifi~atio~
heoqx~r~d
No
c. create ~ghi or
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposfi:
a. Disturb palcontological resources7
b. Disturb archaeological resources?
c. Affect historical resources7
d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential
impact area7
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 SIGN/~'ICANCE.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduea 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 mimal community, 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 history
or prehistoty?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals 7
Does the project have impacts that area individually
limited, but eumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project ere considerable when viewed in connection with
~he effects of past projects, the effects of other ~t
projects, and the effects of probable future projects).
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
direc~y or indirectly?
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[xq
Ix]
[x]
[x]
[x]
Ix]
R:',STAFFRFIX~S2PA96.PC 1/29/98jld 43
17. EABI,II~.RANALYSES.
The City of Temecula General plan EIR was certified on November 9, 1993. Environmental Impact
Report No. 235 was prepared for Specific Plan No. 219 and was certified by the County Board of
Supervisors. It has been vine and one half (9.5) years since the environmental analysis was performed
for this project. In addition, an Addendure to that EIR was prepared in 1992 for Amendment No. 4 to
the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. The project covlnin~ a number of minor changes and modifications
to the Specific Phn that do not increase the scope, scale or magnitude of the previously approved
development. Based upon this information, it is Staffs opinion that due to the scope of the proposed
General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ame~lment, there will be no effect on the previous analysis.
According to Section 21166 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), no subsequent or
supplemental environmental impact report is required for the project unless one or more of the following
everas occurs: substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the
EIR; substantial Chan~oe~ oCcm' with respect to circumstance under which the project is being undertaken
which will require major revisions in the EIR; or, new information, which was not known at the time of
the EIR was certified and complete becomes available. None of these situations have occurred;
therefore, no further environmental analysis is required. Staff is recommending the Commission make
a determination of consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report was previously
certified.
R:~STAFFRPTd$82PA96.PC l/'29/ggjid 44
ATTACHMENT N0.3
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\STAI~RP]'x2582pA~6.]~C 1/29/98jid 45
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTHENT
SUBDIVISION
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 24182
AJHENDED NO. I
STANDARD CONDITXONS
· The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County of
Rherslde, Its agents, officers, and empToTees from any claim, actton, or
proceeding agatnst the County of Rherstde or Its agents, officers, or
employees to attack, set aside, votd, or annul an approval of the County
of RIverside, Its advtsory agendes, appeal boards or legislative body
concerning Vesting Tentative Tract No. 24]82 Amended No, 1 which action ls
brought about within the ttee period provtded for tn California Government
Code Sectton 66499.37. The County of Riverside will promptly nottry the
subdivider of any such c]atm, actton, or proceeding agatnst the Cobnty of
Rherslde and will cooperate fully tn the defense. If the County falls to
promptly notify the subdhtder of any such clatm, action, or proceeding or
fatls to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shal] not,
thereafter, be responsible to defend, tndemnlfy, or hold harmless the
County of RIverside.
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California
Subdivision Hap Act and to 811 the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule
A, unless modtfted by the conditions listed below.
Thts conditionally approved tentathe map wtll exptre two years. after the
County of RIverside Board of Supervisors approval date, unless extended as
provtded by Ordinance 460.
e
The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all
the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Hap Act and
Ordinance 460.
5. The subdivider shall submtt one copy of a soils report to the RIverside
f
County Surveyor's 0 ftce and two coptes to the Department of Buildtrig and
Safety. The report shall address the sotls stability and geological
condlttons of the stte.
6. Zf any grading ts proposed, the subdivider shall subett one prtnt of a
comprehensive gradtng plan to the Department of Buildtrig and Safety. The
plan shall comply wtth the Untform Butldlng Code, Chapter 70, as amended
by Ordinance 457 and as may be additionally provided for tn these
conditions of approval.
YESTIE TENTATZVE TItACT NO. 24]82, Amd. af]
Coedtttons of Approval
A gradtng permtt shall be obtained from the Deparl~ent of Butldtng and
Safety prtor to commencement of any gradtrig outstde of county maintained
road rtght of way.
Any delinquent property taxes shall be puld prtor to rocordatton of the
ftnal map.
The subdivider shall comply with the street Improvement recomendattons
outltned tn the Riverside County Road Degertment's letter dated 5-10-89 a
copy of which ts attached.
Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provtded from the tract
map boundary to a County maintained road.
All road easements shall be off, rod for dedication to the publlc and shall
conttnue tn force untt1 the governing body accepts or abandons such
offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved
by the Road Commissioner. Street names shall be subject to approval of
the Road Commissioner.
Easements, when ~equlrod for roadway slopes. dratnage facilities.
utilities, etc., shall be shown on the ftnal map tf they are located
within the land divlston boundary. All offers of dedication and
conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as dtrocted by the County
Surveyor.
Water and sewerage dtsposal facilities shall be Installed tn accordance
wtth the provisions set forth tn the Rheastee County Health Department's
letter dated 5-25-89 a copy of whtch ts attached.
14. The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommendations
outltned by the RIverside County Flood Control Dtstrtct's letter dated
6-Z9-89 a copy of which Is attached. if the land dtvlslon 11es wtthtn an
adopted flood control drainage area pursuant to Sectton 10.25 of Ordinance
460, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities
shall be collected by the Road Coemdsstoner.
Z5. The subdivider shall comply wtth the ftre l,q~rovemnt recommendations
outltned tn the County Ftro ~rshal's letter dated 5-4-89 a copy of which
ts attached.
Subdivision phestng, Including any proposed coffmwn open space area
Improvement phastng, tf applicable, shall be subject to Planntng
Department approval. Any proposed phastng shall provide for adequate
vehicular access to all lots tn each phase, and shall substantially
conformto the tntent and purpose of the subdhtston approval.
VESTZNG TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 24182, ~ncl. li
Conditions of Approval
Page 3
The subdivider and ali successors in interest shall comply wtth
provisions of hvelopment Agreement No, 4 and Specific Plan No, 219,
Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following:
the
]) lots Z-275 shall be a mtnimum size of 4,000 square feet, Lots 276-443
shall be a minimum of 5,000 square feet,
2)
Corner lots and through lots, tf any, shall be provided with additional
area pursuant to Section 3,8B of Ordinance 460 and so as not to contain
less net area than the least amount' of net area tn non-corner and
non-through lots,
3) Lots created by this subdivision shall be tn conformance with the
development standards of the Spectftc Plan zone.
4)
5)
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free
condition and shall be either planted with !riterim landscaping or
provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the
Director of Building and Safety,
Trash bins, loading areas and incidental storage areas, located
recreation or commercial areas, shall be located away and visually
screened from surrounding areas with the use of block walls and
landscaping,
6) Bike racks and bike lockers tn sufficient quantity shall be provided in
convenient locations to facilitate bike access to recreation or
commercial areas.
Prtor to RECORDATZON of the final map the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
a. Prior to the recordatton of the final mp the applicant shall submit
written clearances to the Riverside County Road and Survey Department
that all pertinent requirements outlined in the attached approval
letters from the following agencies have been met:
County Fire Oeparment
County Flood Control
County Itealth Department
County Parks Department
b)
A property owners' association with the unqualified right to assess the
o~ers of the tndhtdual untts for reasonable maintenance cost~ shall
be established and continuously maintained. The association sbe11 have
the right to 1ten the property of the owners who default tn the pa~nent
of thetr assessments. Such 1ten shall not be subordinate to any
encumbrance other than a ftrst deed of trust provided such deed of
trust ts mde in good fatth and for value and ts of record prior to the
1ten of the association.
VESTIN 1T]ITATIVE IlACT NO. 24182, Md. t~1
Conditions of .4pprmral
Page 4
Prtor to recordatton of the ftnal subdivision rap, the subdivider shall
submtt the follo~ing documents to the Planntng Department for revtew,
whtch documents shall be subject to the approval of that department and
the Offtce of the County Counsel:
1) A declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions; and
2)
A sample document conveying tttle to the purchaser of an Individual lot
or untt whtch provtdes that the declaration of covenants, conditions
and restrictions ts tncortorated theretn by reference.
The declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions submitted for
revte~ shall (a) provide for a mintmum term of 60years, (b) provide for
the establlsbment of a property owners' association comprised of the owners
of each Individual lot or untt, (c) p~ovtde for ownership of the common
area by either the property owners' association or the owners of each
Individual lot or untt as tenants tn common and (d} contain the following
provisions verbatim:
"Notwithstanding any p~ovislon In this Declaration to the contrary,
the following provision shall apply:
The property owners* association established heroin shall manage and
continuously meln~atn the 'common area', more particularly described
as Lots A through U on Vesting Tract ~p No. 24182 ~mended No. 1,
attached hereto, and shall not sell or transfer the 'Commn area', or
any part thereof', absent the prior ~rttten consent of the Planntng
Dtrector of the County of RIverside or the County's
successor-in-interest.
The property owners' association shall have the right to assess the
owners of each Individual lot or unit for the reasonable cost of
maintaining the 'caNnon area' and shall have the rtght to 1ten the
property of any such owmer who defaults tn the payment of a.
maintenance assessment, An assessment 1ten, once created, shall be
prtor to el} other 1tens recorded subsequent to the nottce of
assessment or other document treattrig the assessment lien.
Thts Declaration shaT1 not be ter.dnated, 'substantially' amended or
property deannexed therefrom absent the prtor wrttten consent of the
Planntng Otrector of the County of Rherstde or the County's
t A proposed amendment shall be considered
successor- n-Interest.
'substantial' tf tt affects the extent, usage or motntenance of the
'common area'.
In the event of any confltct between thls Declaration and the Articles
of IncoPporatton, the Bylaws or the property owners' association Rules
and Regulations, if an~, thts Declaration shall control."
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NG. 24Z82, ted. i111
Coalitions of ~provel
Page 5
Once approved, the declaration of covenants, conditions and
restrictions shall be recorded at the same time that the final map ts
recorded.
21. The developer shall comply wtth the following parkway landscaping
conditions:
Prtor to recordatlon of the ftnal mp the developer shall ftle an
application wlth the County for the formation of or annexation to, a
parkway maintenance dtstrtct for Vesting Tentathe Tract No. 24182
Amended No. 1 tn accordance wtth the Landscaping and Lighting Act of
1972, unless the project is wtthtn an existing parkway maintenance
dtstrtcto
z).
I~tor to the issuance of butldtng permits, the developer shall secure
approval of proposed landscaping and irrigation plans from the County
Road and Planning Department. All landscaping and 1rrigation plans and
specifications shall be prepared in a reproducible format suitable for
permanent ftling vrlth the County Road Department.
3)
The developer shall post a landscape performance bond which shall be
released concurrently with the release of subdivision performance
bonds, guaranteetn9 the vt-ablllty of all landscaping whtch will be
Installed prior to the assumption of the maintenance responsibility by
the district.
4)
The developer, the developer's successors-In-Interest or assignees,
shall be responsible for all parkway landscaping maintenance until such
time as maintenance is taken over by the district.
5) The developer shall comply with the standards and exhibits in Specific
Plan No. 219.
22. The backs of coeeerctal betldlngs sha11 tnclude mture landscaping so as.
to be vtsually shielded from the adjoining property.
23 The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all
slopes, landscaped areas and Irrigation system untt1 such tlma h
as tose
operations are the responsibilities of other parttes as approved by the
Planntng DIrector.
24. Street ltghts shall be protided vlthtn the subdhtston tn accordance wtth
the standards of Ordinance 461-and the follokring:
1)
Concurrently wtth the ftllng of subdivision Improvecent plans wtth the
Road Department, the develober shall secure approval of the proposed
street 11ght layout first free the Road Departaent's traffic engineer
and then from the appropriate uttltty purveyor.
fiSTIS TENTATIVE TRACT Iffi. 24182, Aid.
Coedgtfons of Approval
Page 6
2)
Following approval of the street 11ghttng layout by the Road
Department's trefftc engineer, the developer shall also ftle an
application ~th LAFCO for the formation of a street 11ghttng dhtrtct,
or annexation to an extsttng 11ghttng district, unless the stte ~s
wtthtn an extstlng 11ghttng district.
3) Prfor to recordatton of the ftnal map, the develober shall secure
conditional approval of the street Hghttng application from LAFCO,
unless the stte ts wtthtn an extsttng l~ghttng dtstrfct.
4) All street lights and other outdoor 11ghttng shall be shown on
electrical plans submitted to the Department of Butldlng and Safety for
plan check approval and shall comply wtth the requirements of RIverside
County Ordinance No. 655 and the RIverside County Comprehensive General
Plan.
Prtor to recordatton of the ftnal map, an Environmental Constratnt~ Sheet
(ECS) $hall be prepared In conjunction with the ftnal map to delineate
identffted environmental cencerns and $hall be permanently filed wfth the
office of the County Surveyor. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to
the Planntng Department for rev$ew and approval. The approved ECS shall
be forwarded wtth coptes of the recorded final map to the Planntng
Department and the Department of Butldtng and Safety.
The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints
Sheet: "County Slope Stability Report No, 122 was prepared for this
property and Is on file at the RIverside County Planntng Department,
Specific ttems of concern fn the report are as follows: Slope
Stability."
Prtor to the tssuance of GRADING PEI4ITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
Prior to the tssuance of grading permtts, the applicant shall comply
vtth Ordinance No, 663 by paytng the fee requtred by that ordinance,
Should Ordinance No, 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habttat
Conservation Plan prtor to the po3ment of the fees required by
Ordinance No, 633, the applicant shall pay the fee requtred under the
Habttat Conservation Plan Is Implemented by County ordinance or
Pesolutton,
$hall be replaced on a to one {Z) basts as approved by the
Planntng D~rector, Replacement trees $hall be noted on approved
landscaping plans,
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT I10. 24182, MId. tl
Conditions of Approval
Page 7
The following tree preservation guidelines shall be ~ncorporated tn the
projects approved gradtrig, butldtng and landscaping plans as
appropriate:
Every effort shall be mde to prevent encroachment of structures,
gradtrig or trenching wtthtn the drtpllne or twenty-five (25) feet
of the trunk of any trees, whichever ts greater.
If encroachment within the drtpltne ts unavoidable, no more than
one thtrd of the root area shall be disturbed, graded or covered
wtth Impervious materials. The root area ts considered to'extend
beyond the drtpltne a dtstance equal to one half the radtus.
Building, grading or improvements shall not occur wtthtn ten (10)
feet of any tree trunk.
Retatnlng walls shall be constructed where necessary to preserve
natural grade at least one-half the dtstance between the trunk and
the drtplfne. HaTls shall be destgned wtth a post or catsson
footlng rather than a continuous foottrig to mtntmtze root damage.
Alteration of natural drainage shall be avotded to the greatest
extent possible.
Runoff channelled near trees shall not substantially change normal
sol1 motsture characteristics on a seasonal basis.
Runoff shall not be directed towards the base of trees so that the
base of the trees rematn In wet soll for an extended pertod.
Hhere natural topography has been altered, drainage away from
trunks shall be provtded where necessary to ensure.that water wtll
not stand at the crown.
Sedlmentatton and stltatton tn the drainage Nays shall he
controlled where necessary to avotd ft111ng around the base of the
tees. _
Land uses that mould cause excessive sotl compact,on wtthtn the
h
drtpltne of trees s all be avoided. Zf the areas are planned for
recreation, provide tratls to restrict compactton to a small area.
Heavy use under trees shall be avotded unless measures to mtntm~ze
compactton are undertaken.
10. Landscaping or Irrigation shall not be Installed wtthtn ten (10)
feet of any trees.
VESTING TE]rrATIVE TRACT NO. 24182, kid.
Cedtttom of/pproval
Page 8
de
All extsttng nattve specteen trees on the subject property shall be
preserved ~nerever feasible. Ihere they cannot be preserved they shall
be relocated or 'replaced wtth specteen trees as approved by the
Planntng DIrector. Replaceeent trees shall be noted on epproved
landscaping plans.
if the project Is to be phased, prtor to the approval of grading
permits, an overalT conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to the
Planning Director for approval. The plan shall be used as a guideline
for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual phases of
development and shall include the foilwing:
1. Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and
sedtmentatton during and after the grading process.
2) Approximate time frames for gradtrig and tdenttflcatton of areas
whtch may be graded during the higher probability rain months.of
January through March
3) Preliminary pad and roadway elevations
4) Areas of temporary grading outstde of a particular phase
Driveways shall be designed so as not to exceed a fifteen
grade.
percent
g. Gradtng plans shall confom to Board adopted Htllside Development
Standards: All cut and/or fill slopes~ or Individual combinations
thereof, whtch exceed ten feet tn vertical heightshall be modified by
an appropriate combination of a special terracing (benchtng) plan,
t 3
increased slope ratio ( ,e,, :~), retaining ~alls, and/or slope
planting combined with Irrigation, All drheways shall not exceed a
fifteen percent grade,
h. Al1 cut slopes located acUacent to ungraded natural terrain and
exceeding ten (lO) feet in verttcal he ght shall be contour-graded
incorporating the following grading techniques:
The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the
angle of the natural terrain.
2) Angular forms shall be dtscoureged. The graded fom shall reflect
the natural rounded terrain.
3) The toes and tops of slopes shall he rounded vrlth curves with
radii designed tn proportion to the total height of the slopes
where dratnage and stability permit such rounding.
Vr~rlNG TENTATIVE TBACT SO. :~4182. Md. #1
Condttl~s of Approval
PaOe 9
4)
~here cut or ftll slopes exceed 300 feet in horizontal length, the
horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved in a continuous,
undulattng fashion.
t. The backs of commercial buildings shall tnclude mature landscaping so
as to be vtsually shtelded from the adjoining property.
Natural features such as water courses, specimen trees and significant
rock outcrops shall be protected in the siting of individual building
pads on ftnal grading plans.
Prior to the issuance of grading pemtts, the developer shall provide
evidence to the Director of Building and Safety that all adjacent
off-stte manufactured slopes have recorded slope easements and that
slope maintenance responsibilities have been asstgned as approved by
the Director of Butlding and Safety·
Prior to the tssuance of grading emits, a quallfied paleontologist
shall be retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the
proposed gradtng wtth respect to potential paleontologtcal impacts·
Shou]d the paleontologist find the potential ts high for impact to
significant resources, a pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist
and the excavation and grading contractor shall be arranged. When
necessary, the paleontologist or representative shall have the
authority to temporarily divert, rsdlrect or halt grading acttvtty to
allow recovery of fosstls.
Prior to the tssuance of BUZLDING PERNZTS the following conditions shall
be satisfied:
The project shall comply with the requirements of Development
Agreement No. 4.
2) Prior to the submittal of buildtrig plans to the Department of Buildtrig
and Safety for residential lots backtrig up to secondary roadways or
~der roaMys, an acoustical study shall be performed by an
acoustical engtneer to establish appropriate mttt atton measures t at
shall be applled to Individual delltrig untts vtth~n the subdivision
to reduce ambtent tritertot riotie levels to 45 Ldn. (Amended -
Planntng Commission - July 26, 2989).
3)
Prior to the tssuance of butldtng per.fits, composite landscaping and
Irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planntng Deparment approval.
The plans shall addross all areas and aspects of the tract roqutrtng
landscaping and Irrigation to be 1natalled Including, but not 11mtted
to, parkway planting, street trees, slope planting, and Individual
front yard landscaping per the roqutrements of Spectftc Plan No. 2Z9.
VESTlIE TENTATIVE IRACT NO, 24182, MCl. tl
COmfitlOsS of Aplmr~val
Page lO
4) All dwellings to be constructed
destgned and constructed with fire
approved b~ the Count~ Fire Iqarshal.
wtthtn thts subdivision shall be
retardant (Class B) roofs as
5)
Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted wtthln the
subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving
devtces shall be permitted wtth Planntng Department approval,
6) Roof-mounted equipment shall be'shielded from view of surrounding
property.
7) Buildtrig separation between all buildings 4nel,d4nS excluding
fireplaces shall not be less than ten (10) feet. (Amended by Planntng
t July 26,
Comm sston 1989)
8) All street stde yard setbacks shall be a mtntmum of ten (ZO) feet.
9) All front yards shall be provtded with landscaping and automatic
Irrigation,
1o)
Prior to the issuance of butldtng permtts detatled common open space
area landscaping and Irrigation plans shall be submitted for. Planning
Department approval for the phase of development tn process. The
plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide
for the following:
Permanent autenattc Irrigation systems shall be Installed on all
landscaped areas requiring irrigation,
Landscape screening where required shall be destgned to be opaque
up to a mtnteum height of stx (6) feet at mturtty.
All uttltty service areas and enclosures shall be screened from
vtw with landscaping and decorative parrters or beffle
treatments, as epproved by the Planntng DIrector. Utilities shall-
be placed underground.
4. Parkeys and landscaped butldtng setbacks shall be landscaped to
provtde vtsual scroentng or a transition tnto the primary use area
of the stte. Landscape elements shall tnclude earth bermtng,
ground cover, shrubs and specimen trees tn conjunction with
meandering sidewalks, benches end other pedestrian amentries where
appropriate as approved by the Planntng Department.
5. Landscaping plans shall Incorporate the use of spedmen accent
trees at key vtsual focal paints wtthtn the project,
VESTING TE]ITATIVE TRACT NO. 24182, Md. I1
COndtttO~S Of Airoval
Page Zl
Where street trees cannot be planted wtthin rlght-of-way of
tnterlor streets and pro3ect parkways due to Insufficient road
right-of-way, they shall be planted outside of the road
right-of-way.
7. Landscaping plans shall Incorporate native and drought tolerant
plants where appropriate.
8. All existing spectmen trees and significant rock outcroppings on
the subject property shall be shown on the project's grading plans
and shall note those to be removed, relocated and/or retained.
9. All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow
growing trees shall be steel staked.
ZO. The plans shall conform to those shown in Specific Plan 2Z9.
28. Prtor to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PEI~q/TS the following conditions shall
be satisfied:
I) Wall and/or fence locations and materials shall conform to the
approved wall and fence treatment plan tn Specific Plan No. 219.
2)
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with
approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If
seasonal conditions do not permit planting, interim landscaping and
erosion control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning
Director and the Director of Building and Safety.
3)
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with
approved plans and shall be verified by a Planning Department field
inspection.
4)
Not withstanding the preceding conditions, wherever an acoustical
study ts required for noise attenuation purposes, the heights of all
requSred ells shall be detemtned by the acoustical study where
applicable,
5)
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed throughout the subdivision in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance 461 end Specific Plan No.
219.
6) Street trees shall be planted throughout the subdivision in accordance
with the standards of OrdtMnce 460 and Specific Plan No. 219.
29. Prior to the tssuance of a building pemtt, the subdivider shall prepare
and submit a written report to the Planning Director of the County of
Riverside demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval and
VEST]JIG TENTATIVE 11tACT I10, 24182,
Conditions of
Page 12
mitigation measures of thts map and E.A. No. 3364Z whtch must be satisfied
prtor to the tssuance of a butldtng pera~t.
The Planntng DIrector my requtre Inspection or other monitoring to assure
such compliance.
CO:gs
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No:
24183
Project Description: 155 Sinale Family
Residential: 30oen Soace: and 1 Park
Assessor's Parcel No.: 923-023-002
Planning Deoartment
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision
Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule A, unless
modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in
accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request,
if made 30 days prior to the expiration date.
This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the
approval date by the City Council, unless extended as provided by Ordinance
460.
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final
map.
Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract map
boundary to a City maintained road.
Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area
improvement phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning Depa~b.ent
approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access to
all lots in each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and purpose
of the subdivision approval.
A copy of the final grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department
for review and approval. All on-site cut and fill slopes shall:
a. Be limited to a maximum slope ratio of 2 to 1.
b. Be contour-graded to blend with existing natural contours.
s~srAl~u,.~.4~ ssv~'~.cc2 3 8
10.
11.
c. Be a part of the downhill lot when within or between individual lots.
All slopes over three (3) feet in height shall be landscaped and irrigated
according to the City Development Code. An erosion control landscaping plan
demonstrating methods of erosion protection for these slopes shall be prepared
by a qualified professional; and shall be submitted to the City Planning
Department for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits.
The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations
outlined in the County Health Department's transmittal dated November 13,
1990, a copy of which is attached.
All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of
Technology, Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as outlined in the
Southwest Area Plan.
This subdivision shall comply with Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1.
Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following:
Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the
development standards_ of Planning Area 5 as provided Specific Plan No.
219, Amendment No. 1.
b. Lots 1-155 shall be a minimum size of 4,000 square feet.
Corner lots and through lots, if any, shall be provided with additional
area pursuant to Section 3.8B of Ordinance 460 and so as not to contain
less net area than the least amount of net area in non-corner and non-
through lots.
Trash bins, loading areas and incidental storage areas, located in
recreation areas, shall be located away and visually screened from
surrounding areas with the use of block walls and landscaping.
Bike racks and bike lockers in sufficient quantity shall be provided in
convenient.locations to facilitate bike access to recreation areas.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free
condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided
with other erosion control measures as approved by the Director of
Building and Safety.
s~rm~ssv'r~.cc~ 3 9
12.
13.
14.
The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes,
landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations are
the responsibilities of other parties as approved by thq Planning Director.
The subdivider and all successors in interest shall comply with the provisions
of Development Agreement No. 4 and Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment
No.1.
Prior to recordation of the final map, an Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS)
shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to delineate identified
environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed with the office of the
City Engineer. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning
Department for review and approval. The approved ECS shall be forwarded
with copies of the recorded final map to the Planning Department and the
Department of Building and Safety.
15. The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet:
This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar
Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with
the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory
recommendations.
County Slope Stability Report No. 122 was prepared for this property
and is on file at the Planning Department. Specific items of concern in
the report are as follows: Slope Stability.
16. The developer shall comply with the following parkway landscaping conditions:
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall secure
approval of proposed landscaping and irrigation plans from the City
Engineering and Planning Department. All landscaping and irrigation
plans and specifications shall be prepared in a reproducible format
suitable for permanent filing with the City Engineering Department.
The developer shall post a landscape performance bond which shall be
released concurrently with the release of subdivision performance bonds,
guaranteeing the viability of all landscaping which will be installed prior
to the assumption of the maintenance responsibility by the district.
The developer, the developer's successors-in-interest or assignees, shall
be responsible for all parkway landscaping maintenance until such time
as maintenance as taken over by the Community Services District.
S~STAFI~,T,241S3VTM.CC~ 4 0
17.
The developer shall comply with the standards and exhibits in Specific
Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1.
Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
If the project is to be phased, prior to the issuance of grading permits,
an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning
Director for approval. The plan shall be used as a guideline for
subsequent detailed grading plans for individual phases of development
and shall include the following:
1. Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and
sedimentation during and after the grading process.
Approximate time frames for grading and identification of areas
which may be graded during the higher probability rain months of
January through March.
3. Preliminary pad and roadway elevations.
4. Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase.
All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded natural terrain and exceeding
ten (10) feet in vertical height shall be contour-graded incorporating the
following grading techniques:
The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the
angle of the natural terrain.
Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall reflect
the natural rounded terrain.
The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves with
radii designed in proportion to the total height of the slopes where
drainage and stability permit such rounding.
Where cut or fill slopes exceed 300 feet in horizontal length, the
horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved in a continuous,
undulating fashion.
S~TAI~P. PT~4iUVT~-CC~ 4 1
18.
19.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall provide
evidence to the Director of Building and Safety that all adjacent off-site
manufactured slopes have recorded slope easements and that slope
maintenance responsibilities have been assigned as approved by the
Director of Building and Safety.
.Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be
retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed
grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. Should the
paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a
pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading
contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or
representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt
grading activity to allow recovery of fossils.
Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
The project shall comply with the requirements of Development
Agreement No. 4.
Prior to the issuance of building permits detailed common open space
area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning
Department approval for the phase of development in process. The
plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for the
following:
Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all
landscaped areas requiring irrigation.
Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be
opaque up to a minimum height of six {6) feet at maturity,
All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from
view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle
treatments, as approved by the Planning Director. Utilities shall
be placed underground.
Parkways shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a
transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscape
elements shall include earth berming, ground cover, shrubs and
specimen trees. Front yards shall be landscaped and street trees
planted.
s~s'rAmum24~Bv'ru.cc2 42
Wall plans shall be submitted for the project perimeter. Wooden
fencing shall not be allowed on the perimeter of the project. All
lots with slopes leading down from the lot shall be provided with
gates in the wall for maintenance access.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent
trees at key visual focal points within the project.
Where street trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of
interior streets and project parkways due to insufficient road right-
of-way, they shall be planted outside of the road right-of-way.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant
plants where appropriate.
All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow
growing trees shall be steel staked.
No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit
within the project boundary until the developer's successor's-in-interest
provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures.
A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) per lot/unit shell be deposited
with the City as mitigation for public library development.
Prior to the submittal of building plans to the Department of Building and
Safety an acoustical study shall be performed by an acoustical engineer
to establish appropriate mitigation measures that shall be applied to
individual dwelling units within the subdivision to reduce ambient interior
noise levels to 45 Ldn.
All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required
elements from the subdivision's approved fire protection plan as
approved by the County Fire Marshal.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and
irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval.
The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requiring
landscaping and irrigation to be installed including, but not limited to,
parkway planting, street trees, slope planting, and individual front yard
landscaping.
Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the
subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices
shall be permitted with Planning Department approval.
h. Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall comply
with the design guidelines of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1.
All street side yard setbacks shall comply with the design guidelines of
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1.
All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and a manually
operated permanent underground irrigation system.
Prior to the issuance of building permits for Lots 1-155, a plot plan shall
be submitted to the Planning Department pursuant to Section 18.30 of ·
Ordinance No. 348 accompanied by all applicable filing fees, as a plot
plan that is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act and
is not transmitted to any governmental agency other than the City
Planning Department. The plot plan shall ensure the conformance of the
final site development with the Design Guidelines of Specific Plan No.
219, Amendment No. 1, and shall contain the following elements:
A final site plan showing the lots, building footprints, all setback,
and floor plan and elevation assignments to individual lots.
One (1) color and materials sample board (maximum size of 8 x
13 inches by 3/8 inch thick) containing precise color, texture and
material swatches or photographs (which may be from suppliers'
brochures). Indicate on the board the name, address and phone
numbers of both the sample board preparer and the project
applicant, tract number, and the manufacturer and product
numbers where possible (trade names also acceptable).
One (1) copy of the architectural elevations colored to represent
the selected color combinations, with symbols keyed to the color
and materials board. The written color and material descriptions
shall be located on the elevation.
Said plot plan shall require the approval of the Planning Director prior to
the issuance of any building permits for lots included within the plot
plan. The submittal of plot plans prior to the issuance of building permits
may be phased provided:
A separate plot plan shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for each phase, which shall be accompanied by
appropriate filing fees.
20.
21.
22.
Each individual plot plan shall be approved by the Planning
Director prior to the issuance of building permits for lots included
within that plot plan.
Prior to the issuance of building permits for Lot 156, a plot plan shall be
submitted to the Planning Department pursuant to Section 18.30 of
Ordinance No. 348 accompanied by all applicable filing fees, as a plot
plan that is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act and is
transmitted to any governmental agencies other than the City Planning
Department. The plot plan shall ensure the conformance of the final site
development with the Design Guidelines of Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 1.
Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall
be satisfied:
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with
approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal
conditions do not permit planting, interim landscaping and erosion
control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning Director
and the Director of Building and Safety.
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with
approved plans and shall be verified by City field inspection.
Not withstanding the preceding conditions, wherever an acoustical study
is required for noise attenuation purposes, the heights of all required
walls shall be determined by the acoustical study where applicable.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the
provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that
ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a
Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance
No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation
Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Temecula, its agents, officer, and employees from any claim, action, or
proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officer, or employees to
attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Temecula, its
advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 24183, which action is brought within the time period
provided for in California Government Code Section 66499.37. The City of
Temecula will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or
s~rAmnu, n24~uvT~.cc2 45
23.
24.
25.
26.
28.
proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense.
If the City fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or
proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, ~the subdivider shall not,
thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of
Temecula.
The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site
property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the developer shall at
least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an
agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code
Section 66462 at such time as the City acquires the property interests required
for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the
developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property
interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of
these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an
appraisal report obtained by the developer, at the developer's cost. The
appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the
appraisal.
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
provided. Telephone, cable TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in
the residence.
Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the developer or his assignee shall meet
with the TCSD staff and enter into an agreement as to the proposed site
location of the required 2.0 acres of improved parkland.
Prior to the issuance of the 50th building permit, the developer or his assignee
shall improve and dedicate said 2.0 acres of improved parkland to the TCSD.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
29. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Depa~b uent and the Department of Public Works prior
to final approval of the tract maps. The CC&R's shall include liability insurance
and methods of maintaining the open space, recreation areas, parking areas,
drainage facilities, private roads, and extedor of all buildings.
30. No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation,
association, property owner's group, or similar entity has been formed with the
right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have
any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in
the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses
of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of
said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate
under recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsory membership of all
owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meet
changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&R's shall
permit enforcement by the City of Provisions required by the City as Conditions
of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this
requirement to, and receive approval of, the City prior to making any such sale.
This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes.
31.
Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such
dwelling unit or lot, either (1) an undivided interest in the common areas and
facilities, or (2) as share in the corporation, or voting membership in an
association, owning the common areas and facilities. '
32.
Maintenance for all landscaped and open areas, including parkways, shall be
provided for in the CC&R's.
33.
Within forty-eight (48) hours of the approval of the project, the
applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check
or money order payable to th~ County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand,
Two Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars ($1,275.00), which includes the One
Thousand, Two Hundred, Fifty Dollars ($1,250.00) fee in compliance with AB
3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(2) plus the Twenty-
Five Dollar ($25.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the
Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152
and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight (48) hour
period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the
check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void
by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
Riverside County Fire Deoa,~,,,ent
34.
Schedule a fire protection approved standard fire hydrants, (6"x4"x2 1/2")
located one at each street intersection and spaced no more than 330 feet apart
in any direction, with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from
a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for 2 hours duration at 20
PSI.
35.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system 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 plans are signed
by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire
Depa, b~lent for signature.
36.
The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and
accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building
material being placed on an individual lot.
37.
Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the
City of Temecula, a cash sum of 9400.00 per lot/unit as mitigation for fire
protection impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment,
he/she may enter into a written agreement with the County deferring said
payment to the time of issuance of the first building permit.
Department of Public Works
The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Department of
Public Works.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
38.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the developer shall
receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern municipal Water District;
Riverside County Flood Control District;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Depa, b~ent of Public Works;
Riverside County Health Department;
CATV Franchise; and
Temecula Community Services District.
S~STA~qU"rU41SmV'rM,CC2 4 8
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
45.
46.
47.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, all road easements
and/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall
continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All
dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department
of Public Works.
Streets B,C,D,E,and F shall be improved with 40 feet of asphalt concrete
pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the
dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 104, Section
A (60'/40').
Streets G,H, and I shall be improved with a ten foot (10') median strip bounded
by 20 feet of asphalt concrete pavement on each side, or bonds for the street
improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance
with County Standard No. 104, Section A (70'/50').
In the event that full improvements for Meadows Parkway, De Portola Road and
Street A are not constructed by Assessment District 159 prior to the final map
recordation, the developer shall construct or bond for the improvements to
provide for one-half street improvements plus one 12 foot lane I~er Riverside
County Standard No. 109 (100'/76')o The improvements shall be constructed
prior to occupancy.
Vehicular access shall be restricted on Meadows Parkway, De Portola Road and
Street "A" and so noted on the final map with the exception of Public street
intersections as approved by the Depa~'b~ent of Public Works or shown on the
tentative map.
Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No.
805.
Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be dedicated to the City where
sidewalks meander through private property.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage
facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located
within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances
shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works.
The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be
executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements
in conformance with applicable City standards.
S~'TAmV'r~lSSV'm. CC2 49
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and
gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing,
stdping, traffic signal systems, and other tra_ffic control devices as
appropriate.
b. Storm drain facilities.
c. Landscaping (street and parks).
d. Sewer and domestic water systems.
e. All trails, as required by the City's Master Plans.
f. Undergrounding of existing and proposed utility distribution lines.
The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated
with adjoining developments.
Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. 461 and as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the
Department of Public Works a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation
towards traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time
of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written
agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a
building permit.
Street names shall be subject to the approval of the Depa~bhent of Public
Works.
The minimum centerline radii shall be 300 feet or as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a
minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment
as approved by the Department of Public Works.
55. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent.
SXgrA~,Fr~nV~M.CC~ 5 0
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
All driveways shall conform to the applicable County of Riverside standards and
shall be shown on the street improvement plans in accordance with County
Standard 400 and 401 (curb sidewalk).
All driveways shall be located a minimum of two (2) feet from the property line.
The subdivider shall submit two (2) prints of a comprehensive grading plan to
the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building
Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions
of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 24" x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil
Engineer.
A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and
submitted at the time of application for grading plan check.
The subdivider shall submit two (2) copies of a soils report to the Department
of Public Works. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. All
drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Department of Public
Works.
On-site drainage facilities, located outside of road right-of-way, shall be
contained within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note shall be
added to the final map stating "Drainage easements shall be kept free of
buildings and obstructions."
A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final map, along with
supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations should be submitted to the
Riverside County Flood Control District and to the City of Temecula Department
of Public Works for review.
The subdivider shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing
onto or through the site. In the event the Department of Public Works permits
the use of streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Article XI of
Ordinance No. ~-60 will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street
capacity, or use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the subdivider
shall provide adequate facilities as approved by the Department of Public
Works.
Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CATV Franchises of the
Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time of
street improvements.
s~s'r~mu, r~4xuvTM.cc~ 5 3.
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
R:\STAI~]~'I~25g2PA96.PC ]/29/ggjid 46
CITY OF TEMECULA
;;' ;~.~. '
/', .
PROJECT S, ITE'~'~ ·
PA L 0 M A D E L SO L
CASE NO. - PA96-0258 and PA96-0259
EXHrRIT A
P__LANNING COMMISSION DATE - FEBRUARy 2, 1998
R:XSTA~$2PA96.PC Ifz7/98jkl
CITY OF TEMECULA '
LM
LM
m
LM
VL
VL
HTC
i
0
S~, 79S
CASE NO. - PAg(P0258 and PA96-0259
EX/H!{IT B
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - FEBRUARY 2, 1998
GENERAL PLAN MAP
R:~TAPtrRFf'~Sg2PA96.PC 1//7/98
CITY OF TEMECULA
_,~P-~ L 0 M A D E L SO
L
SPECIFIC LAND USE PLAN
AMENDMENT ~6
L
CASE NO. - PA96-0258 and PA96-0259
EXHIRIT C SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219 - LAND USE MAP
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - February 2, 1998
CITY OF TEMECULA -
Vesting Tentative TreQI Map No. 24182
CASE NO. - PA96-0258
EXI-IrRIT - D REVISED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 241RL
PLANNING ,COMMISSION D_A_TE -February 2, 1998
R:~TAFFRPT~g2PA96.PC 1/27/98j~
CITY OF TEMECULA
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24183
cuy ,f
CASE NO. - PA96-0259
EXtHRIT - E REVISED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24183
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - FEBRUARY 2, 1998