HomeMy WebLinkAbout020399 PC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assifinnce to participate in this meeting, please contact the
office of the Community Development Deparbnent at (909) 6946400. Noliitcatjon 48 hours prior to a meeitng will enable the C~ty to make
reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35,104 ADA Title Iq
CALL TO ORDER:
FLAG SALUTE:
ROLL CALL:
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
February 3, 1999, 6:00 PM
43200 Business Park Drive
Council Chambers
Temecula, CA 92390
Reso Next In Order #99-
Chairperson Slaven
Guerriero, Naggar, Slaven, Soltysiak and Webster
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 no.__t 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
before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Approval of January 6, 1999 Minutes
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. PA98-0504 (Development Plan)
Edwards Theatres Circuit, inc.
40750 Winchester Road, within the Promenade Mall at the southeast
comer of Ynez Road and Winchester Road (State Highway 79
North)
To construct and operate an 87,962 square foot, multi-screen motion
picture complex
Exempt
Carote K. Donahoe
Approval
R:\WIMBERVG\PLANCOMM%AGENDAS\2-3-99 ,doc
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. PA98-0323 (Tentative Tract Map 28510),
Planning Application No. PA99--0015 (Amendment to Campoe Verdes
Specific Plan) and Planning Application No. PA99-0016 (General Plan
Amendment)
Woodside Homes (PA98-0323) and the City of Temecula (PA99-0015
& PA99-0016)
Northeast comer of Margarita Road and North General Keamy Road
(south of Winchester Road).
A Tentative Tract Map for 242 single family residential lots, a park s~te
and one commercial lot totaling approximately 71.1 acres within the
Campoe Verdes Specific Plan. An amendment to the existing
Campoe Verdes Specific Plan which primarily consists of increasing
the school site from 10 acres to 20 acres, resulting in a reduction of
81 residential parcels and a reduction to the park site in Planning
Area 1. Additionally, a portion of the residentially and park zoned
property is being changed to a commercial zoning classification. An
amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map for consistency with
the land use changes of the Campoe Verdes Specific Plan
amendment.
Addendum to the previously certified Environmental Impact Report No.
348 adopted for the Campoe Verdes Specific Plan.
Patty Andera
Approval
PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting:
February 17, 1999, 6:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California
R:\WIMBERVG\PLANCOMM\AGENDASX2-3-gg ,doc
ITEM #2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
JANUARY 6, 1999
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, January 6, 1999,
in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California,
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
Commissionere Guen'iem*, Naggar, Soltysiak, Webster*, and Chairwoman Slaven.
None.
Planning Manager Ubnoske,
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks,
Attorney Curiey,
Senior Planner Fagan,
Associate Planner Dcnahoe,
Project Planner Thomsley, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
*(Having to abstain with regard to Agenda Item No. 4, Commissioners Guerdere and Webster left the dais at 6:45 P.M.)
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mr. Charley Black, 42896 Via Alhamu, queried the City's minimum lot size for Industrial businesses at 40,000 square feet
(per submitted detailed material), expressing concern for developers and industrial businesses desirous of development
in Temecula on a smaller scale.
Chairwoman Slaven acknowledged that she had received the submitted material; suggested that Mr. Black set up an
appointment with Planning Manager Ubnoske; and thanked Mr. Black for his comments.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
Approval of Aclenda
Due to Commissioners Webster's and Guerdero's need to abstain with regard to Agenda Item No. 4, Chaint.,oman Slaven
recommended that the Commission consider Agenda Item No. 5 first.
MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to approve the agenda, as amended. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
2. Approvsl of Minutes - November 4, November t 8. and December 2. '1998
MOTION: Commissioner Guerdero moved to approve the minutes of November 4, 1998. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Naggar and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Commissioner Soltysiak who
abstained.
MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to approve the minutes of November 18, 1998. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Commissioner Soltysiak who
abstained.
It was noted that page 8, paragraph 7, of the December 2, 1998 minutes reflect the recommendation of the addition of
signalized intersections only if there were noted difficurty with the U-tum motion.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve the minutes of December 2, 1998, as amended. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Naggar and voice vote reflected unanimous approval, noting that Commissioner Webster
abstained, with regard to the last Agenda Item.
3. Director's Hearincl Update
No additional comments.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. Planninfl Application No. PA98-02'19 (Minor Conditional Use Permit)
This Agenda Item was heard out of order, see page 4.
5. Planninq Application No. PA98-0469 (Development Plan)
Request to construct a 50,050 square foot industrial (tilt-up concrete) building on a 2.7 acre lot for the
manufacturing of office and school furniture.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission
approve the requesL
By way of overheads, Project Planner Thornsley presented the staff repod (of record); with regard to site design, relayed
the location of the loading areas on the far ends of the project, screened with landscaping; with regard to parking, clarified
the request for a Minor Exception, permitted by the Development Code (Sec. 17.03.060 B.1); with regard to landscaping,
noted that staff is recommending that the Deodar tree, an Indian Cedar, be replaced with the uniform street tree, and that
the proposed landscape be consistent with the existing planting in the area; for Commissioner Webster, affirmed that the
projed will meet the Development Code, but not the Design Guidelines; noted, for Commissioner Naggar, regarding the
two driveways, that based on the location of the site and the consideration of the adjacent propedies, this proposed plan
will not be in accordance with the Design Guidelines; and reiterated the location of the loading docks, specifying the
screening, and relaying the location of the slopes and the adjacent uses.
Mr. John Herring. the applicant, noted for Chairwoman Slaven that with regard to landscaping, he was agreeable to
substitute any recommendation from staff or the Commission.
Chairwoman Slaven commended the proposed landscape plan, with regard to the drought-resistant planting.
Chairwoman Slaven closed the public headng.
With regard to landscaping, Chairwoman Slaven recommended maintaining the Deodar tree (although noting that
maintaining all four trees at the site may not be feasible), and expressed a desire to not replace it with the Privet shrub.
Commissioner Webster concurred with maintaining the Deodar tree. noting a concem being the size of the tree at full
growth, and concurred that replacement. if necessary. not be the Privet shrub.
With regard to landscaping. Planning Manager Ubnoske advised that if it were the Commission's desire, she would relay
the Commission comments to the City's Landscape Architect and continue to have him work with the applicant's landscope
architect.
Commissioner Webster relayed that Condition No. 16 (of record) adequately covered the landscaping issues. Chairman
Slaven cencurred, with the exception of section C, regarding replacement of the Deodar Cedar tree, and recommended
having staff work with the applicant's landscape plan.
Chairwoman Slaven re-opened the public headng in order for Mr. Magannco to address the Commission.
Mr. Vince Magannco, representing the applicant, reiterated that the applicant is agreeable to making landscape alterations
to the proposed site per Commission request. within the scope of reasonable monetary considerations; and noted that the
property owner of the two adjacent lots was present.
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks clarified, for Commissioner Naggar, with regard to the proposed driveways, that the
intent of the Design Guidelines would be to maintain on-site flow of traffic, noting that this particular site is at the end of
a cul-de-sac, and that the driveways provided the provision of separating the use. as follows: one ddveway for employee
and visitor parking, and one for the industrial podion of the project.
With regard to amhitectural concerns, Commissioner Webster, echoed by the Commission, recommended the
enhancement of additional texture on the wall elevations, and additional minor reveals. since this articulation could be
easily incorporated into the design.
Commissioner Soltysiak queried the cladty of the language of the Design Guidelines with respect to the application of the
provisions stated. specifically, regarding manufacturing-type facilities.
Concurring with Commissioner Webster's comments regarding the architectural enhancements, Chairwoman Slaven
recommended having staff work with the applicant on the specific improvements.
MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to dose the public headng; adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning
Application No. PA98-0469; adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA98-0469; and adopt
Resolution No. 99-O01 approving Planning Application No. PA98-0469 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained
in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, as follows:
RESOLUTION NO. PC 99-001
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPUCATION NO. PA98-0469 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
OF A 50,050 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING (TILT-UP CONCRETE) ON A 2.71 ACRE
LOT; LOCATED AT THE END OF COLT COURT SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF COLT
COURT AND WINCHESTER ROAD, KNOWN AS PARCELS 3 AND 4 OF PM 28471-'1 AND
ASSESSOWS PARCEL NOS. 909-360-003 AND 004.
modify
Condition No. 6 to include additional sandblasting and reveals on the architectural
elevations per staff recommendation
Condition No. 16, section C, to not replace the Deodar Cedartree per staff
recommendation
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
At this time, Agenda Item No. 4 was heard.
4, Plannincl Application No. PA98-0219 (Minor Conditional Use Pemqit)
Request to construct a wireless PCS facility consisUng Of a twelve (12) panel antenna mounted atop a
60-foot monopota constructed to simulate a pine tree ("monopine"), one (1) Global Positioning System
(GPS) antenna, and six (6) cabinets housing a base transceiver station (BTS) unit and other electronic
and battery equipmenL
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission
approve the request,
Commissioners Webster and Guerriero advised that they would be abstaining with regard to this Agenda Item and,
therefore, left the dais 6:45 P.M.
Associate Planner Donahoe presented the staff report (of record); relayed that the provision of the information the
Commission requested regarding this postponed matter at the December 16, 1999 Planning Commission meeting has
been provided, specifically, additional data on case law pertaining to cellular facilities, via agenda material, and the
summary of location site research material, via supplementa~ agenda material; and relayed that the Conditbns of Approval
have been amended per Commission input at the December 16, 1999 meeting.
Mr. Greg Morhson, representing the applicant, addressed the health concems assodated with this project, presenting data
from the American Cancer Society, clarifying that non-ionizing radiation (i.e., radio frequency waves) is not a carcinogen
and does not promote the growth of cancer once it has started; by way of overheads, presented a detailed overview of the
site selection process, the criteria used to determine potential site locations, and the rationale for the present proposed site
plan (per supplemental agenda material).
Mr. Paul Gonzalez, representing RCWD (Rancho Califomia Water District), provided a brief summap/of District Policy
regarding public posting of the proposed project, noting that this padicular project was noticed three limes; advised that
the revenue generated from this proposed project wll offset rate increases; and relayed that RCWD has corresponded with
Lany LeDoux, a concemed public member, inviting him to attend the RCWD Board meetings, and advising that RCWD
would specifically notice him regarding any future apptications for additional antennas at this particular site.
The following indNiduals spoke in oppositbn to the proposed project, pdmadly due to health concerns associated with the
radiowave emissions from the monopole:
Shawn Biede
Terry Hood
Robed Rasband
32016 Medot Crest
32040 Medot Crest
32044 Medot Crest
Chairwoman Slaven dosed the public headng.
Attorney Cudey advised that although the Commission had latitude regarding the typical land-use determination, there
were limitations regarding the Commission's action with regard to this particular project (spedfed in the egenda material);
dadfled Conditional Use Permits; reiterated the Findings for this particular project in the staff report; relayed that the
Commission's decision must be based on substantial evidence regarding those particular Findings; advised that with regard
to the land-use decision, due to the FCC (Federal Communication Commission) regulations, the Commission cannot deny
the project based on the radio frequency wave concems; and dadfled the PUC's (Public Utility Commission) state
constitutional ability to override the City's governing body's decision if the decision negatively affects its charge to ensure
facilitation of the public telecommunioation system.
Commissioner Naggar expressed difficulty voting on this particular project, noting that he had researched the legal
information Attorney Cudey had provided; commended the applicanrs diligence and efforts to cooperate with the
community; advised that in light of the tremendous negative community input relayed his vote would not be in favor of the
project, due to the negative impact on the neighborhood; his denial of the project would be based on the following: 1 )
inconsistency with the General Plan 2) incompatibility with the adjacent use, and 3) detrimental to the general welfare of
the community.
Commissioner Soltysiak expressed that although he had compassion for the community's noted cencem, since there was
deady a visible existing similar facility on the proposed site plan (noting its existence prior to the adjecent construction of
the homes), and the fact that the clustering of such facilitates is encouraged, and in light of the presented documented
rationale for the proposed site location, he would support the project.
Chairwoman Slaven dadfled the rationale for continuing the project at the December 16, 1999 Planning Commission
meeting; noted that the Commission's charge had been dadfled to make a determination based on the Findings (of record)
reiterated by Attorney Cudey, operating under the Laws of the State of California; for informational puq~oses. queded the
compatibility of the building of a residential area next to the existing facility; relayed that the proposed site plan will be
aesthetically pleasing, and an improvement of the existing use, and in light of the legal constraints and requirements of
the Commission, she would support the project.
MOTION: Commissioner Soltysiak moved to dose the public hea~ing; adopt a Notbe of Exemption for Planning Application
No. PA98-0219; and adopt Resolution No. 99-002 approving Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Condition Use Permit)
based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report, subject to the amended Conditions of Approval.
RESOLUTION NO. PC 99-002
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA98-0219 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT), TO CONSTRUCT A WIRELESS PCS
FACILITY CONSISTING OF TWELVE PANEL ANTENNAS MOUNTED ATOP A 60-FOOT
MONOPOLE, A GPS ANTENNA AND SIX CABINETS HOUSING A BTS UNIT AND OTHER
ELECTRONIC AND BATTERY EQUIPMENT, LOCATED AT THE RCWD WATER TANK SITE 3100
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOWS PARCEL NO. 953-060-022
The motion was seconded by Chairwoman Slaven and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of
Commissioner Naggar who voted n_g.o, and Commissionera Guerriere and Webster who abstained.
PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Planning Manager Ubnoske noted that since at the January :20, 1999, Planning Commission meeting Mr. Bob
Davis will be presenting the Traffic Circulation Update, the Commission could submit specific concerns and questions prior
to the meeting for submittal to Mr. Davis. Commissioner Naggar's desire for the provision of a glossaq/of terms at the
meeting was noted.
B. It was noted that since staff is reviewing the Wolf Valley Ranch and War Paw Ranch areas, the Commission muld
anticipate workshops associated with the aforementioned areas.
C. Chairwoman Slaven noted that since she was going out of town on Fdday, January 8, 1999, she would
appreciate the receipt of any material for the upcoming Planning Commission Meeting for review prior to her depadure.
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
A. Chairwoman Slaven noted that the American Planning Association is hosting a one-day conference on an
upcoming Saturday, relaying that these conferences are informative and enjoyable. Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed
that she would note Commissioner Naggar's desire to attend the conference.
B. With regard to Mr. Black's submittal (see page 1, under Public Cornrnents for reference), Ms. Ubnoske noted, for
Chairwoman Slaven, that staff has been in contact with Mr. Black, and appredated the additional information submitted,
relaying that staff will continue to communicate with Mr. Black.
C. For Commissioner Soltysiak. Attomey Cudey noted that although the next Planning Commission meeting will be
a workshop that the requirement of publie comments must be maintained; however, stated that it would be limited to the
time allotted to public comments at the onset of the meeting.
D. For Commissioner Soltysiak, with regard to the language of the Design Guidelines, specifically, conceming
conformance of the architectural standard for specific uses. Planning Manager Ubnoske noted that staff muld investigate
and expand the guidelines to improve the cladty.
ADJOURNMENT
At 7:44 P.M. Chairwoman Slaven formally adjoumed this meeting to Wednesday, Januap/20, '1999, at 6:00 P.M., in the
City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
Marcia Slaven, Chairwoman
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
ITEM #3
RECOMMENDATION:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
February 3, 1999
Planning Application No. PA98-0504 (Development Plan)
Prepared By: Carole K. Donahoe, Associate Planner
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
ADOPT Resolution No. 99- approving Planning Application No.
PA98-0504 (Development Plan) based upon the Analysis and
Findings contained in the Staff Report, and subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval
APPLICATIONINFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
Edwards Theatre Circuit, Inc.
Perkowitz + Ruth Architects
To construct and operate an 87,962 square foot, multi-screen
motion picture complex for Edwards 15 Cinemas
40750 Winchester Road, within the Promenade Mall at the
southeast corner of Winchester Road (State Highway 79
North) and Ynez Road
SP (Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan)
North: CC (Community Commercial)
South: BP (Business Park)
East: SP (Campos Verdes Specific Plan No. 1)
West: CC (Community Commercial)
Not requested
CC (Community Commercial), PI (Public Institutional Facilities)
and PO (Professional Office)
Vacant with the Promenade Mall under construction
North: Commercial development - Winchester Marketplace
under construction, Costco Center
South: Vacant
East: Vacant with the Power Center under construction
West: Commercial development - Palm Plaza
\\TEMEC_FS201\DATA~DEPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRPT~504pa98STAFFRpT.pC.doc
1
BACKGROUND
On July 7, 1997 the Planning Commission approved Planning Application No. PA97-0118
(Development Plan) for the Temecula Promenade Mall. The City Council affirmed that decision on
August 4, 1997. PA97-0118 identified the footprint for an 80,000 square foot entertainment
center/cinema. A condition was placed on the mall project requiring Planning Commission approval
of a Development Plan for the cinemas.
The architem for Edwards 15 Cinema submitted a pre-application package to the Planning
Department in September 1998, and staff comments were distributed on October 6, 1998. A formal
application submittal for this project was made on December 14, 1998. A Development Review
Committee meeting was held on January 7, 1999. The architect provided revised plans on January
12, 1999 and the project was deemed complete on January 20, 1999.
ANALYSIS
Site Plan
The Edwards 15 Cinema will be located at the southeast portion of the mall anchoring the
entertainment plaza at this location. The cinema's entrance will front the water feature and plaza
restaurants and shops. A 60-foot clear space lies between the plaza and cinema for Fire
Department access and a storm drain easement. The rear of the cinema will face the Mall Loop
Road, and Margarita Road further to the east. Trash, storage transformers and other utilities are
proposed at the rear of the building, with enclosures to screen them from public view. The cinema
anticipates minimal unloading of supplies from small trucks, generally during morning hours when
the cinema is closed.
The proposed cinema building is 7,962 square feet larger than originally approved, and the
conditions of approval for the mall allows for consideration of such an expansion through the
approval of a Development Plan. The expansion has caused minor revisions to the footprint,
eliminating 92 parking spaces and realigning drive aisles. The mall podion of the plan originally
provided 430 more parking spaces than required by the Development Code. Additionally, the future
anchor site will provide 113 spaces at the time that the mall opens on October 27, 1999. Staff
believes that the proposal still meets the intent of the originally approved plan.
The realignment has eliminated approximately 1,700 square feet of landscaping in the parking areas.
The loss of planter area is due to the shortened drive aisle and its relocation directly along the side
of the building. This configuration provides greater stacking control and still provides planters along
its length. The reconfiguration of the entertainment plaza provides for additional landscaping areas
totalling 3,873 square feet, for an overall net increase in landscape area of 2,173 square feet.
Access and Circulation
The cinema proposes a pedestrian drop-off area at the southern entry to the plaza. Vehicles have
two main access drives from the Mall Loop Road, as well as other access points throughout the
parking lot. Parking areas surround the cinema on all three sides. Pedestrian access from the mall
buildings crosses the entertainment plaza, including an escalator from the second story of the mall.
Architecture
Staff finds the building design to be exciting and "entertaining." A variety of architectural features
provide interest and "movement" all along each building elevation. The roof line is linear, domed,
horizontal, and curved at various points of the building, with its highest element at 65 feet. The
Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan allows a maximum of 120 feet.
\\TEMEC_FS201~DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~504pa98STAFFRPT.PCdoc 2
The choice of colors and materials is impressive, with stone, slate, and polished granite accents
The proposal exceeds the Design Guidelines approved for the mall in these respects. Staff reviewed
the location and visibility of the cinema's roof-mounted equipment, and are satisfied that the parapet
walls will provide sufficient screening from ground view, or from the second story of the mall
However, due to the location of the pad site below the elevation of Margarita Road, public v~ew of
the entire roof of the cinema building is unavoidable along Margarita Road. The applicant has
agreed to paint the roof and all equipment thereon a color that blends with the surrounding
mountains, and staff feels that this method is satisfactory considering the distance of approximately
300 feet from Margarita Road.
Landscaping
The project will add to the landscaping master plan for the mall by providing planter areas on all four
sides of the building. The entrance planters are proposed to coordinate with and be consistent with
the entertainment plaza landscaping plan currently under review by staff. Landscaping at the rear
of the building is proposed to screen the utility and trash enclosures. The balance of the landscaping
provided by Edwards is intended to accent rather than screen the building elevations. In this case,
where the building architecture is neither monotonous nor expansive, staff believes that screening
of the building is unnecessary beyond that which is provided by the parking lot planter areas across
the drive aisles.
Siclnaqe and Neon LiOhtinq Plan
The applicant proposes signage on all four elevations. Additionally, movie marquees are
proposed on all but the rear elevation.
The applicant proposes to use exposed neon tubing as an architectural feature, as well as, to
highlight signage and building reveals. Staff has included neon lighting plans in the Commission
packets. The Temecula Regional Mall Specific Plan encourages the use of architectural lighting
that promotes nighttime identity and character, and specifically refers to exposed neon for its
dramatic effect. Staff finds that the proposed neon lighting plan is consistent with the Specific
Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The project site has been subject to extensive environmental review. An Environmental impact
Report (EIR) and an Addendum to the EIR were prepared and certified for the Temecula Regional
Center Specific Plan. Staff conducted an Initial Environmental Study (IES) for Planning Application
NO. PA97-0118 (Development Plan) and determined that the project was within the thresholds
established in the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report. Staff
determined that no further environmental analysis was required for the mall project. Since the
footprint for Edwards Cinema was considered under this previous analysis and since the current
proposal is consistent with the underlying approval, no further environmental analysis is required
at this time.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project provides the details of the building footprint approved with Planning Application No.
PA97-0118. The project, as proposed and conditioned, is consistent with the previously approved
footprint. The architecture of the building, site design, and access and circulation, meet and exceed
design guidelines for the malt and for the City. Landscaping is adequate to provide screening of
utility equipment. Signage and neon lighting is consistent with the Temecula Regional Center
Specific Plan. General Plan and Specific Plan (Zoning) consistency findings were made for the
\\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA~OEPTS',oLANNING\STAFFRPT~504pa98.STAFFRpT.pC.doc
3
underlying Development Plan for the mall, in Planning Application No. PA97-0118. Since the
footprint for Edwards Cinema was approved with the underlying Development Plan and because this
project is consistent with the underlying approval, these findings remain true for the current proposal,
Planning Application No. PA98-0504 (Development Plan). The project site has been subject to
extensive environmental review and no further analysis is required at this time.
FINDINGS
The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all
applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project is
consistent with all City Ordinances including the City's General Plan, Specific Plan No. 263,
and Ordinance No. 96-24 (An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Temecula,
California approving a Development Agreement approved as Planning Application No. PA96-
0333, between the City of Temecula, Forest City Development California, Inc. and LGA-7,
Inc.)
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety
and welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and meets the
standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public health,
safety and welfare.
The project site has been the subject of extensive prior environmental review and no
additional environmental review is needed for this project.
Attachments:
PC Resolution No. 99- - Blue Page 5
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 8
Exhibits - Blue Page 16
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
Vicinity Map
Zoning Map
General Plan Map
Site Plan
Landscape Plan
Elevations
Floor Plans
Color and Matedal Board (available at the hearing)
Neon Lighting Plan (under separate cover)
\\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA\DEPTS~LANNING\STAFFRPT~504pa98.STAFFRPT.PC.doc
4
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-
\\TEMEC_FS201 '~)ATA\DEPTS',PLANNING\STAFFRPT'~504pa98.STAFFRPT,PC,doC
5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 99~
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-
0504, DEVELOPMENT PLAN - THE CONSTRUCTION AND
OPERATION OF AN 87,962 SQUARE FOOT MULTI-SCREEN
MOTION PICTURE COMPLEX LOCATED AT 40750 WINCHESTER
ROAD, WITHIN THE PROMENADE MALL AT THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF WINCHESTER AND YNEZ ROADS
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA98-0118 (Development Plan), which included the
building footprint of the mall, power center and the cinema, was approved by the City Council on
August 4, 1997;
WHEREAS, Edwards Theatre Circuit, Inc. filed Planning Application No. PA98-0504
(Development Plan), in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA98-0504 was processed including, but not limited
to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA98-0504, on
February 3, 1999, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff
and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this
matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA98-0504;
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 and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
Section 2. Findin,qs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
PA98-0504 (Development Plan) hereby makes the following findings as required by Section
17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code;
A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with
all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project is consistent
with all City Ordinances including: the City's General Plan, Specific Plan No. 263, and Ordinance
No. 96-24 (An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Temecula, California approving a
Development Agreement (Planning Application No. PA96-0333) between the City of Temecula,
Forest City Development California, Inc. and LGA-7, Inc.).
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public
health, safety and welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and meets
the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public health,
safety and welfare.
\\TEMEC_FS201 ',DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~04pa98,STAFFRPT.PC.dOC
6
C. The project has been the subject of extensive prior environmental review and no
additional environmental review is needed.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The project site has been subject to extensive
environmental review. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and an Addendum to the EIR were
prepared and certified for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. Staff has conducted an
Initial Environmental Study (IES) for Planning Application No. PA97-0118 and determined that the
project was within the thresholds established in the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and that no further environmental analysis would be required for
the mall project. Since the footprint for the JC Penney Department Store was considered under this
previous analysis and since this current proposal is solely for the review and approval for the
elevations and landscape plan for the JC Penney Department Store, no further analysis is required
at this time,
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby conditionally approves
Planning Application No. PA98-0504 (Development Plan) for the construction and operation of an
87,962 square foot multi-screen motion picture complex located at 40750 Winchester Road, within
the Promenade Mall at the southeast corner of Winchester and Ynez Roads, subject to the project
specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of February, 1999.
Marcia Slaven, Chairperson
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 3'd day of February,
1999 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
\\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~504pa98.STAFFRPT PC doc
7
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
~\TFMEC_FS201~DATA'~DEPTS',.PLANNING~STAFFRPTLS04pa98.STAFFRPT,PC,dOc
8
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA98-0504 - Development Plan
Project Description:
Assessor's Parcel No.
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
To construct and operate an 87,962 square foot, multi-
screen motion picture complex within the Promenade
Mall, for Edwards 15 Cinema
910-130-047, -052, -053, -054, and 921-090-044, -048, -051,
-053, -054, -060, -061
February 3, 1999
August 4, 1999
PLANNING DIVISION
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant 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 Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and
California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour pedod the
applicant 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).
General Requirements
The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall 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,
judgemerits, 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.
The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "D"
(Site Plan), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning
Division.
4. Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "E" (Landscape Plan).
Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable
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
\\TEMEC_FS201~DATA~)EPTS~PLANNING\STAFFRpTL~:)4pa98.STAFFRpT.pC,doc 9
maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any
successors in interest,
Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "FI" and "F2" (Building
Elevations), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning
Division. All mechanical and roof equipment shall be screened from public view by
architectural features integrated into the design of the structure. For compliance purposes,
this requirement shall apply to ground view adjacent to the building.
The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the following list of
approved colors and materials as specified on Exhibit "H" (Color and Material Board),
contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Any
deviation from the approved colors and materials shall require approval of the Planning
Manager.
Materials
2.
3.
4.
5,
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17,
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Exterior Stone/Slate Veneer
Extedor Stone/Mixed Slate
One coat PMS Omega "Diamond Wall System" with 100% acrylic primer and finish
¼" fabricated reveal
Metal Canopy/AEP span flush wall panels
Tempered glazing
Aluminum Storefront
Decorative metal element see details
Exterior Stone/Polished Granite
Exterior Lighting Element
Foam shaped molding with one coat PMS
Marque Signage (N.I.C.)
Edwards Signage (N.I.C.)
Exterior finish over 4" foam
Ceramic tile
4'x4'x4" foam pop-out with ext. finish
Metal guardrail
Neon, NI.C.
Poster case, internally illuminated
Planter wall or low wall
ATM and night deposit drop
Exterior finish over 6" foam
Finish/Color
A. American slate -"Oasis Green"
B. Omitted
C. Omitted
D. Wainscotting
Random mixed broken slate
40% Cotta Brown
30% Red Slate
20% Black Rust Slate
10% Green Quartzite
Continuous 18" horizontal grout joint (TYP)
Vertical joints to be random
E. Paint: Frazee - 7495D - "Princely Purple"
\\TEMEC_FS201~DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT'~504pa98.STAFFRpT.pC.doc
10
G.
H.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
P.
Q.
R,
S.
T.
Paint: Frazee - 7750W - "Beach Basket"
Paint: Frazee - 8104M - "Green Plaza"
Paint: Frazee - 8181W - "Maison Blanche"
Paint: Frazee - 8241W - "Tenderfoot"
Paint: Frazee - 8405D - "Red Valerian"
Foam w/metal finish
Prefinished Metal: AEP-SPAN-Custom Copper
Mosaic Stone
Stone Veneer: MGT #GRN-2B - "Black Galaxy"
Polished Stainless Steel
Stone Veneer: MGT #GRN-6R - "Imperial Red"
Stone Veneer: MGT #MR-47Y - "Giallo Mitra"
LATCO NA-Gold
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.
The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department - Planning Division
for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color pnnts of approved Exhibit "H"
(Color and Materials Board) and of the colored rendering of the front elevation. All labels on
the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic pnnts
The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for the underlying Planning
Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan).
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
10. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule.
11.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval. These plans shall
conform substantially 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 identi~ the total
square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the
following items:
a. 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 irngation (in accordance with the approved plan).
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
12.
An Administrative Development Plan application for signage shall be required for any signage
not included on Exhibit "F1" or "F2," or as amended by these conditions.
A separate building permit shall be required for all signage identified on the approved
Exhibit "F" and "F2," or as amended by these conditions.
\\TEMEC_FS201~)ATA~DEPTS~PLANNING%STAFFRPT',504pa98.STAFFRPT.PC.dOC
13.
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.
14.
Performance secudties, 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.
15.
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.
16.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed
by this permit.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
17.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining
properfy or public rights-of-way. All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown
on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check
approval and shall comply with the requirements of City Ordinance No. 655 regarding light
pollution.
18.
Comply with applicable provisions of the 1994 edition of the Califomia Building, Plumbing and
Mechanical Codes; 1993 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24
Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal C~ode.
19.
Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance with
Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All street lights and other outdoor
lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and
Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon
adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
20.
A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to
the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation
Fees.
\\TEMEC_FS201~:)ATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRpTLq04pa98STAFFRPT,pC.doc
12
21. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction
work.
22. The Occupancy classification of the proposed buildings shall be A-2.1.
23. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
24.
All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide
all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1. 1998)
25 Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
26 Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry.
27. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement.
28.
Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire
alarm systems.
29.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1994
edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C.
30. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
31.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
32.
Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic
and mechanical plan for plan review.
33.
Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer
engineer are required for plan review submittal.
34. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility.
35.
A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the
building construction.
36.
Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls require separate
approvals and permits.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
The following are the Fire Department Conditions of Approval for this project. All questions regarding
the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Prevention Bureau.
37.
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, the Uniform
Building Code (UBC), Uniform Fire Code (UFC), and related codes which are in force at the
time of building plan submittal.
38. 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-I. The
developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at
20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 400 GPM for a
\\TEMEC_FS201~DATA~DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~04pa98.STAFFRPTPC doc 13
total fire flow of 1900 GPM with a 4 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted
dudng the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire
protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given
above has taken into account all information as provided. (UFC 903.2, Appendix Ill.A)
39.
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 El" outlets) on a looped system shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent
to public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 300 feet apart and shall be located no more
than 180 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
40.
As required by the Uniform Fire Code, when any portion of the building(s) is in excess of 150
feet from a water supply on a public street, on site fire hydrants are required. For this project
on site fire hydrants are required. (UFC 903.2)
41.
Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have
appmved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are
installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for
70,000 Ibs GVVV. (UFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2)
42.
Pdor 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. GVVV with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( UFC sec
902 and Ord 95-15)
43.
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)
44.
Prior to building construction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via all-
weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (UFC 902.2.1)
45.
Pdor to issuance of building permits, the developer shall fumish one copy of the water system
plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval pnor 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)
46
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)
47.
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)
\\TEMEC_FS201\DATA~DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRpT~504pa98.STAFFRpTpC.doc
14
48.
49.
50.
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 spnnkler 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)
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 pdor to installation. (UFC Article 10)
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)
PUBLICWORKS DEPARTMENT
No conditions of approval.
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
No conditions of approval.
OTHER AGENCIES
No conditions of approval.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance
with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be
subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant Name
\\TEMEC_FS201'OATA'OEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~504pa98.STAFFRPT.PC,dcc
15
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
EXHIBITS
\\TEMEC_FS201 ',DATA\DEPTSMc>LANNING~STAFFRPT~504pa98.STAFFRPT.PC,doc
16
CITY OF TEMECULA
DATE ST.
SITE
:NE'f RO.
CALIFORNfA RD
CASE NO. - PA98-0504 (EDWARDS CINEMA DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
EXHIBIT - A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE-FEBRUARY 3, 1999
VICINITY MAP
\\TEMEC_FS2Ol\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~04pa98STAFFRpT.pC.,~oc
CITY OF TEMECULA
~(-
SP
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - SP (TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN)
sc
CC
~rrCb~·
CC
r-"'l r' H ./
~.P//--J~y,,-""
-.-~ LM VL
·
\
BP <2K'C( BP
,, ~,.~
BP
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL), PI (PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL FACILITIES) AND PO
(PROFESSIONAL OFFICE)
CASE NO. - PA98-0504 (EDWARDS CINEMA DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - FEBRUARY 3, 1999
\\TI:MEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS~LANNING\STAFFRPT~O4pa98.STAFFRPTPC.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA98-0504 (EDWARDS CINEMA DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
EXHIBIT- D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - FEBRUARY 3, 1999
SITE PLAN
\\TEMEC_FS201\DATA%DEPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRPT',504pa98.STAFFRPTPC.dOC
CITY OF TEMECULA
J
CASE NO. - PA98-0504 (EDWARDS CINEMA DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
EXHIBIT- E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - FEBRUARY 3, 1999
LANDSCAPE PLAN
\\TEMEC_FS201 '~DATA~DEPTS~LANNING\STAFFRPT~504pa98.STAFFRpT.pC.dOC
CITY OF TEMECULA
Wes[ Elevation
CASE NO. - PA98-0504 (EDWARDS CINEMA DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
EXHIBIT- F1
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- FEBRUARY 3, 1999
ELEVATIONS
R:\STAFFRPT~504pa98.STAFFRPT.PC.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
North Elevation
South Elevation
CASE NO. - PA98-0504 (EDWARDS CINEMA DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
EXHIBIT- F2
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - FEBRUARY 3, 1999
ELEVATIONS
R:\STAFFRPT~504pa98.STAFFRPT.PC.dOc
CITY OF TEMECULA
Fi~'st Floor Plan
CASE NO. - PA98-0504 (EDWARDS CINEMA DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
EXHIBIT - GI FIRST FLOOR
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - FEBRUARY 3, 1999-
FLOOR PLAN
R:\STAFFRP'FX504pa98.STAFFRPT.PC.cloc
CITY OF TEMECULA
7
~ ~ :-!'.--i~-~-~:,:. ='.',:',','.',:~'.'.~;'.!: ..i..,.?ii ,.:='.,..,::~::==..........,,!~.,,,..'.;!::',:~"i-.;-¢:::"-~
~' ,_i:i~iii~ - ' .......... _::'i ....- '
:: \-- , ': rr ZZ-: '; ~ . ~::~,.~ :::::::::::::::::::::::
_ .....=" .... ' .... ':=:=;=' ' ';X~ ~
Mezzanine Level and Seating Plan
CASE NO. - PA98-0504 (EDWARDS CINEMA DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
EXHIBIT - G2 MF77ANINE LEVEL
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - FEBRUARY 3, 1999-
FLOOR PLAN
R:\STAFFRPT%504pa98.STAFFRPT.PC.doC
CITY OF TEMECULA
AVAILABLE AT THE HEARING
CASE NO. - PA98-0504 (EDWARDS CINEMA DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
EXHIBIT - H COLOR AND MATERIAL BOARD
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - FEBRUARY 3, 1999
R:',STAFFRPT%504pa98.STAFFRPT.PC.dOC
CITY OF TEMECULA
UNDER SEPARATE COVER
CASE NO. - PA98-0504 (EDWARDS CINEMA DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
EXHIBIT - I
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - FEBRUARY 3, 1999
NEON LIGHTING PLAN
R:\STAFFRPT~504pa98.STAFFRPT.PC.doc
25
ITEM #4
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Februa~ 3,1999
Planning Application No. PA99-0016 (General Plan Amendment); Planning Application
No. PA99-0015 (Amendment No. I to Campos Verdes Specific Plan including
Addendum No. 4 to the previously certified EIR No. 348) and Planning Application No.
PA98-0323 (Tentative Tract Map 28510).
Prepared By: Patty Anders, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT the Environmental Addendure No. 4 to the
previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR No
348) adopted for the Campos Verdes Specific Plan;
ADOPT Resolution No. 99- recommending approval of
Planning Application No. PA99-0016 (General Plan
Amendment); Planning Application No, PA99-0015
(Amendment No. I to Campos Verdes Specific Plan
including Addendum No. 4 to the previously certified EIR
No. 348) and Planning Application No. PA98-0323
(Tentative Tract Map 28510) based upon the Analysis and
Findings contained in the Staff Report subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval;
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Woodside Homes (PA98-0323 Tentative Tract Map), the City of
Temecula (PA99-0015 Amendment No. I to Campos Verdes
Specific Plan) and (PA99-0016 General Plan Amendment)
REPRESENTATIVES: Robert Bein, William Frost Inc.
PROPOSAL: Planning Application No. PA98-0323 (Tentative Tract Map 28510)
the subdivision of eight lots into 242 single family residential lots,
a park site and one commercial lot totaling approximately 71.1
acres within the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. Planning
Application No. PA99-0015 (Amendment No. I to Campos
Verdes Specific Plan) which consists of increasing the school site
from 10 acres to 20 acres, a reduction of 66 residential parcels, a
reduction to the park site, and changing a portion of the
residential and park zoned property to a commercial zoning
classification. Planning Application No. PA99-0016 (General
Plan Amendment) for consistency with the land use changes of
the Campos Verdes Specific Plan amendment.
\\TEMEC_FS201~DATA~DEPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRPT%323pa98pc..doc I
LOCATION:
EXISTING GENERAL
PLAN DESIGNATION:
Generally located at the northeast comer of Margarita Road and
North General Kearny Read (south of Winchester Road).
LM (Low Medium Residential), CC (Community Commercial) and
O (Professional Office)
EXISTING ZONING:
SP (Campos Verdes Specific Plan)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
CC (Community Commercial)
LM (Low Medium Density Residential) & OS (Open
Space)
VL (Very Low Density Residential)
SP (Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan No. 263)
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Existing commercial and retail uses
Single-family residential currently under construction
and (OS) open space
Existing single-family residences
Temecula Regional Mall currently under construction
PROJECT STATISTICS
Existing Proposed ~
· Campos Verdes Specific Plan
Planning Areas· · Specific Plan Amendment No. 1
_. Acreage Acreage ............
1 Park 10.8 3 1
2 Commercial/Office/Detention Basin 13.7 21,4
3 Residential 12 14.6
4 Commercial 12 17.5
5 Residential 16.5 10.3
6 Residential 12.3 7.6
7 School Site 10.7 20
8 Residential 15.9 14.1
9 Residential 16 11.3
Roads 13 13
Total 132.9 132 9
Total Residential Area 72.7 57 9
The residential acreage in Planning Areas 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 has been reduced from 72.7
acres to 57.9. The total commercial area has increased by a total of 8 acres, 5.5 acres in
Planning Area 4 and 2,5 acres in Planning Area 2. The detention basin in Planning Area 2 has
also increased by 5.2 acres.
~TEMEC_FS201~DATA'{)EPTS~LANNING~STAFFRpT~323pa98pc.,doc
2
BACKGROUND
Planning Application No. PA98-0323 (Tentative Tract Map 28510) was submitted to the
Planning Department on July 23, 1998. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting
was held on August 27, 1998. Prior to the submittal of the map, the school site located within
the Specific Plan changed from a ten acre elementary school to a twenty acre middle school
This change resulted in a reduction of residential lots, reconfiguration of the planning area
boundaries, a reduction of the park site and an increase to the commercially zoned land. Due
to the extent of changes, the City initiated a Specific Plan Amendment to reflect these
changes. A General Plan Amendment is also required to amend the Land Use Map for
consistency with the changes made to the Specific Plan.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Planning Application No. PA98-0323 (Tentative Tract Map 28510) is for a large portion of the
Campos Verdes Specific Plan (71.1 acres) which includes the subdivision of 242 residential
lots, one commercial lot, and three open space lots
The City has initiated an amendment to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. The changes
include increasing the school site from 10 acres to 20 acres in Planning Area 7 due to the
school changing from an elementary school to a middle school. The increase to the school
site resulted in a reduction of 66 residential parcels and respectively, a reduction to the park
size in Planning Area 1 from 7.6 acres to 3.1. The residential acreage in Planning Areas 3, 4,
5, 6, 8, and 9 has been reduced from 72.7 acres to 57.9. The total commercial area has
increased by a total of 8 acres, 55 acres in Planning Area 4 and 2.5 acres in Planning Area 2.
The detention basin in Planning Area 2 has also increased by 5.2 acres. The City is also
proposing to amend the General Plan Land Use Map for consistency with the land use
changes of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan amendment.
ANALYSIS
Tentative Tract Map
Tentative Tract Map 28510 is proposing 242 single family residential lots, a park site and one
commercial lot totaling approximately 71.1 acres. The subdivision is consistent with the
density, minimum lot size, width and length as required in the development standards of the
Specific Plan
Tentative Tact Map 28510 shall be conditioned to the approval of Amendment No. I to the
Campos Verdes Specific Plan and the General Plan Amendment due to the proposed land use
changes of the Specific Plan. If the map is not approved, the development shall comply with
the original Campos Verdes Specific Plan land uses.
Specific Plan (Proposed Chancles)
The City initiated Amendment No. I to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan and the General Plan
Amendment to update the Land Use Map to achieve consistency with the land use changes of
the Specific Plan. All applicable texts, graphs. exhibits, etc. have been modified, as
necessary, to be consistent with the proposed Specific Plan and General Plan amendments
(see Attachment 1 of Exhibit A and Attachment I of Exhibit B). The primary changes to the
specific plan are as follows:
\\TEMEC_FS201~)ATA%DEPTS\PLANNING%STAFFRP'T~323pa98pc..doc
3
Planning Area 1:
The park site in Planning Area I has been decreased by 7.6 acres to 31 acres. The park site
will primarily serve Campos Verdes residents and not residents from other developer projects
as previously contemplated by the adopted Specific Plan.
Planninq Area 2:
This commercial/office/church/detention basin planning area has increased by 7.7 acres with
2.5 additional acres of commercial and 5,2 additional acres of detention basin.
Planninq Area 3:
This residential planning area has been decreased by 2.6 acres and one (1) residential parcel
Planning Area 4:
This commercial planning area has increased by 5.5 commercial acres.
Plannine Area 5:
This residential planning area has been reduced by 6.2 acres and twenty three (23) residential
parcels.
Planning Area 6:
This residential planning area was been reduced by 4.7 acres and twenty six (26) residential
parcels.
Planning Area 7:
This public institution are increased from ten (10) to twenty (20) acres due to the school
changing from an elementary school to a middle school.
Planning Area 8:
This residential planning area has been reduced by 1.8 acres and fourteen (14) residential
parcels,
Planninq Area 9:
This residential planning area has been reduced by 4.7 acres and two (2) residential parcels
The 8' multi-purpose trail located within the 40' wide paseo buffer was changed to an 8' trail
along the edge of the paseo.
The total residential component of the Land Use Plan has decreased in size from 72.2 acres to
57.9 acres, a reduction of 14.3 acres. The number of dwelling units has been reduced from
308 to 242, a reduction of 66 dwelling units. The commercial areas have been increased by a
total of 8 acres. 5.5 acres in Planning Area 4 and 2.5 acres in Planning Area 2.
The language on pages 111-17. 111-31,111-35, 111-39, 111-40, 111-42, 111-46 of the Specific Plan
regarding the detention basin, maintenance and ownership shall read as follows:
"Amendment No. 1 to the Specific Plan shall specify that the detention basin will be maintained
by the property owner for a minimum of five (5) years which is estimated to be the period for
the vegetation to be established. The City of Temecula Public Works Department may then be
responsible for maintenance. A Property Owners Association or the Temecula Community
Services District will maintain the drainage area behind the park site in Planning Area 1. The
drainage area behind the commercial office/church area of Planning Area 2 will be maintained
\\TEMEC_FS201 ~DATA~:)EPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~323pa98pc..doc
4
by the City of Temecula Public Works Department or assignee if the drainage channel is
constructed according to City Standards."
The changes have been reflected in the documents transmitted to the Planning Commission in
the form of redlined (shaded) items for additions to the Plan and strikeout items for deletions
(Attachment I of Exhibit B).
The Specific Plan Amendment and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all
mitigation measures identified within the original Environmental Impact Report No. 348 and all
the subsequent environmental addendures No. 1-4.
Community Inquiry:
Several members of the Roripaugh Hills Homeowners Association met with staff from the
Community Development, Public Works Department and Fire Department to discuss the
possibility of closing Sanderling Way, The residents submitted several letters of opposition
(see Attachment 3) to Sanderling Way being kept open as a through street (as approved in the
Campos Verdes Specific Plan). Staff met with the Roripaugh Hills Homeowners' president and
vice-president several times during the processing of this application. Staff explained that the
road issue was discussed and reviewed at length by the City Council prior to the approval of
the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. It was determined that Sanderling Way was necessary for
overall traffic circulation patterns within the City and emergency response. Staff indicated that
the closing of Sanderling Way is not part of the proposed changes to Campos Verdes Specific
Plan Amendment.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND EXISTING ZONING
The current General Plan land use designation is LM (Low Medium Residential), CC
(Community Commercial) and O (Professional Office). The zoning classification is SP
(Campos Verdes Specific Plan). Planning Application PA99-0016 (General Plan Amendment)
is proposing to amend the General Plan Land Use map to achieve consistency with the
changes in land use of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan Amendment No. 1. The zoning will
remain the same.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 348 was circulated for Campos Verdes Specific Plan;
however, prior to the City approving the Specific Plan or the EIR, three addenda to EIR 348
were prepared (see attached Addendum No. 4 for details of the prior addenda). 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. The comparative analysis of impacts and mitigation measures contained in the
environmental addendum concludes that the proposed changes to the Campos Verdes
Specific Plan are substantially the same as or less than the impacts analyzed in the certified
EIR. In addition, there is no new information that was not known at the time the EiR was
certified and completed. Therefore, Staff is recommending the Commission adopt Addendum
No. 4 to the previously certified EIR (No. 348) as no significant impacts or additional mitigation
\\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA%DEPTS~PLANNING\STAFFRPT~323pa98pc..doc 5
measures are required given the scope of changes to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan
Amendment No. 1.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
Planning Application No. PA98-0323 (Tentative Tract Map 28510) is the first tentative tract
map submitted in the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. The school site located within the specific
plan changed from a ten acre elementary school to a twenty acre middle school which resulted
in a reduction of residential lots, reconfiguration of the planning area boundaries, a reduction
of the park site and an increase to the commercially zoned land. Due to the extent of
changes, the City initiated a Specific Plan Amendment to update the document, and a General
Plan Amendment to amend the Land Use Map for consistency with the changes made to the
specific plan.
FINDINGS
Planninq Application No. PA99-0016 (General Plan Amendment)
Planning Application No.'s PA98-0016 (General Plan Amendment) as proposed ~s
compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community The proposed use ~s
in conformance with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of
the City. The project is consistent with all City Ordinances including: the City's
Development Code, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the
City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions.
The project is compatible with existing and surrounding uses. There are similar uses of
both commercial/retail and existing residential in the immediate area.
The proposed project will not have an adverse effect on the community because it
remains consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan.
Planninq Application No. PA99-0015 (Amendment No. I to Campos Verdes Specific Plan)
Planning Application No. PA99-0015, as proposed, is compatible with the health, safety
and welfare of the community. The proposed use is in conformance with all applicable
requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project is consistent
with all City Ordinances including: the City's Development Code, Ordinance No. 655
(Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping
provisions.
Planning Application No. PA99-0015 is consistent with the City's General Plan. The
proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the land use densities, housing.
circulation, open space, public safety, and community design goals and policies of the
General Plan.
The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project consists of a
modification to an existing Specific Plan, with decreases to the overall density and the
number of residential units, and a small increase to the commercial zoned property.
Ultimate development of the site will be consistent and compatible with the existing land
use in the area.
\\TEMEC_FS201'~DATA~,DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPTLt23pa98pC..dCc
6
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does
not represent a significant change to the planned land use of the area, due to the fact
that the proposed land use is consistent with the overall concept of Specific Plan No 1
The changes proposed in the approved Specific Plan were determined to be minor
based on an environmental Addendure (No. 4) to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 348). The changes do not increase the impacts
associated with the development or the overall intensity of the development as
analyzed in the original Environmental Impact Report. The environmental addendum
contained a comparative analysis of impacts and mitigation measures, This analys~s
concluded that the proposed changes to the Campos Vetdes Specific Plan are
substantially the same as or less than the impacts analyzed in the certified EIR. In
addition, there is no new information that was not known at the time the EIR was
certified and completed. Therefore, since there are no significant impacts beyond those
previously identified, the existing mitigation measures contained in the certified EIR No
348 shall be sufficient for this project.
Planninq Application No. PA98-0323 (Tentative Tract Map 28510)
The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecuia and with all
applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City The project ~s
consistent with all City Ordinances including: the City's Development Code, Ordinance
No. 655 (Mr. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping
provisions.
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health,
safety and welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances, and
meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the
public health, safety and welfare.
The proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. The
proposed land division of the project is consistent with the City's General Plan land use
designation and therefore meets the goals and policies of the General Plan.
The design or improvement of the proposed land division is consistent with applicable
general and Campos Verdes Specific Plans. 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 site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type of development.
The physical characteristics of the site (topography, drainage. access, circulation, etc.)
was specifically designed to accommodate the proposed land division.
The site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the proposed density of
the development. The project site is development in compliance with the City approved
Campos Verdes Specific Plan in terms of density, minimum lot area, width, depth,
circulation, etc. The proposed tentative tract map density is consistent with the General
Plan Land Use Map.
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
\\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA~DEPTS~PLANNING\STAFFRPT~323pa98pc,.doc
7
10.
wildlife or their habitat. The previously certified EIR (No. 348) contains mitigation
monitoring measures relative to fish, wildlife or their habitat. Tentative Tract Map 28510
is subject to the conditions of approval for the Campos Verdes Specific Plan and
corresponding Environmental Impact Report No. 348. An environmental addendum
was also submitted which contained a comparative analysis of impacts and mitigation
measures. This analysis concluded that the proposed changes to the Campos Verdes
Specific Plan are substantially the same as or less than the impacts analyzed in the
certified FIR. In addition, there is no new information that was not known at the time
the EIR was certified and completed. Therefore, since there are no significant impacts
beyond those previously identified, the existing mitigation measures contained in the
certified EIR No. 348 shall be sufficient for this project.
The project is conditioned to obtain all necessary permits and or clearances from the
applicable environmental agencies. It is determined that the project, as conditioned,
will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources. as
defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code.
The design of the proposed land division or the types of improvements are not likely to
cause serious public health problems. The project has been reviewed for conformance
with the City's General Plan and Specific Plan. 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. A land division may be approved if it is found that
alternate easements for access or for use will be provided and that they will be
substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection
shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a
court of competent jurisdiction. The project will take access from Margarita Road and
North General Kearny and will not obstruct any easements.
%\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA~:)EPTS~LANNING\STAFFRPTL323pa98pcdoc
8
Attachments:
1. PC Resolution No. 99 - General Plan Amendment (PA99-0016) and Specific Plan
Amendment (PA99-0015) - Blue Page 10
Exhibit A - Draft City Council Resolution Approving General Plan Amendment
(PA99-0016) - Blue Page 14
Exhibit I - Revised General Plan Land Use Map (PA99-0016) - Blue
Page 18
Specific Plan Amendment
Exhibit B '-
Exhibit 1 -
Exhibit 2 -
Draft City Council Ordinance No. 99-
No. I (PA99-0015) - Blue Page 19
Campos Verdes Specific Plan Amendment No. 1- (Under
Separate Cover)
Specific Plan Amendment No. I Conditions of Approval -
Blue Page 24
PC Resolution No. 99- for Tentative Tract Map 28510 (PA98-0232) - Blue Page 29
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 33
Letters from the Public - Blue Page 50
Environmental Addendum No. 4 - (Under Separate Cover)
Traffic Letter for the proposed Campos Verdes Specific Plan Amendment No. I - Blue
Page 52
City Council Minutes from September 13, 1994 Approving Campos Verdes Specific
Plan No. I - Blue Page 53
Exhibits - Blue Page 54
A. Vicinity Map
B. General Plan Map
C. Zoning Map
D. Proposed Land Use Map Zoning
R:~STAFFRPT~323pa98pc_dcc
9
ATTACHMENT NO. I
PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND
AMENDMENT NO. I TO THE CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN
~\TEMEC_FS201\DATA~DEPTS~PLANNING',STAFFRPTL~23pa98pC.,doc
10
ATTACHMENTNO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-
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 THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP
NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF MARGARITA ROAD
AND NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD (SOUTH OF
WINCHESTER ROAD) AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NOS. 910~130-056, 910-130-059, 910-130-060, 921-
090-052, 921-090-058, 921-090-059, 921-090-060 AND 921-090-
061 (PLANNING APPLICATION PA99-0016)" AND ADOPT AN
ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE
CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN (NO. 1) NORTHEAST OF
THE INTERSECTION OF MARGARITA ROAD AND NORTH
GENERAL KEARNY ROAD (SOUTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD)
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 910-130-056,
910-130-059, 910-130-060, 921-090-052, 921-090-058, 921-090-
059, 921-090-060 AND 921-090-061 (PLANNING APPLICATION
PA99-0015)"
WHEREAS, Section 65800 of the Government Code provides for the adoption and
administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules and regulations by cities to implement such
general plans as may be in effect in any such city; and
WHEREAS, Sections 65860 of the Government Code requires that a zoning ordinance
shall be consistent with the adopted general plan of the city; and
WHEREAS, that this Ordinance complies with all the applicable requirements of State
law and local ordinances; and,
WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, Temecula
Library, Pujol Street Community Center, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce;
and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on February 3, 1999, at which time
interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition.
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. FINDINGS (General Plan Amendment):
A. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of the proposed General
Plan Amendment, makes the following findings, to wit:
\\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~323pa98pc doc
1. Planning Application No. PA99-0016 (General Plan Amendment) as
proposed is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
2. The project is compatible with the surrounding land uses. Ultimate
development of the site will be residential, commercial, office and open space development in
an area that is comprised of a variety of residential and commercial uses.
3. The proposed project will not have an adverse effect on the community
because it remains consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan.
FINDINGS (Specific Plan Amendment)
A. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of the proposed General
Plan Amendment, makes the following findings, to wit:
1. Planning Application No. PA99-0015 (Amendment No. I to the Campos
Verdes Specific Plan) as proposed and conditioned is compatible with the health, safety and
welfare of the community.
2. Planning Application No. PA99-0015 (Amendment No. 1 to the Campos
Verdes Specific Plan) is consistent with the land use densities, housing, circulation, open
space, public safety, and community design goals and policies of the General Plan.
3. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property
because it does not represent a significant change to the planned land use of the site and ~s
consistent with the overall concept of Specific Plan No. 1.
4. The amendment to Specific Plan No. 1 does not increase the impacts
associated with the development of the overall intensity of the development as analyzed in
Environmental Impact Report No. 348.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVE A
RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP NORTHEAST OF THE
INTERSECTION OF MARGARITA ROAD AND NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD (SOUTH
OF WINCHESTER ROAD) AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 910-130-056,
910-130-059, 910-130-060, 921-090-052, 921-090-058, 921-090-059, 921-090-060 AND 921-
090-061 (PLANNING APPLICATION PA99-0016}" SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM THAT IS
ATTACHED TO THIS RESOLUTION AS EXHIBIT A; AND DOES HEREBY RECOMMEND
THAT THE COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC
PLAN (NO. 1) NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF MARGARITA ROAD AND NORTH
GENERAL KEARNY ROAD (SOUTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD} AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 910-130-056, 910-130-059, 910-130-060, 921-090-052, 921-
090-058, 921-090-059, 921-090-060 AND 921-090-061 (PLANNING APPLICATION PA99-
0015)" SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM THAT IS ATTACHED TO THIS RESOLUTION AS
EXHIBIT B.
\\TEMEC_FS201 ',DATA%DEPTS'~LANNING~TAFFRPTL323pa98pc..doc
12
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of February 1999.
Marcia Slaven, Chairperson
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 3rd day of
February, 1999 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
\\TEMEC_FS201~DATA~DEPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRPT'G23pa98pc.,doC
13
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 99-
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (PA99-0016)
~\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA~DEPTS~PLANNING\STAFFRPT~23pa98pc .d~c
14
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP
NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF MARGARITA ROAD
AND NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD (SOUTH OF
WINCHESTER ROAD) AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NOSo 910-130-056, 910-130-059, 910-130-060, 921-
090-052, 921-090-058, 921-090-059, 921-090-060 AND 921-090-
061 (PLANNING APPLICATION PA99-0016)".
WHEREAS, Section 65300 of the Government Code requires that cities adopt a
comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the jurisdiction as well
as any adjacent areas which, in the judgement of the city, bears a relationship to its plannsng;
and
WHEREAS, On November 9, 1993, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted
the General Plan.
WHEREAS, Sections 65350 of the Government Code permits a city to amend the
general plan and specific plans; and
WHEREAS, there is a need to amend the General Plan Land Use Map to accurately
reflect the changes to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan (Planning Application No. 99-0015);
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on February
3, 1999, and recommended that the City Council approve the attached amendments to the
General Plan Land Use Map; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on
1999 to consider the proposed General Plan Amendment; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. FINDINGS (General Plan Amendment/:
A. The City Council in approving the proposed General Plan Amendment, makes
the following findings, to wit:
1. Planning Application No. PA99-0016 (General Plan Amendment) as
proposed is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
2. The project is compatible with the surrounding land uses. Ultimate
development of the site will be residential, commercial, office and open space development in
an area that is comprised of a variety of residential and commercial uses.
\\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRpT~323pa98pc,doc
15
3. The proposed project will not have an adverse effect on the community
because it remains consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan.
Section 3. AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP
The City Council hereby amends the General Plan Land Use Designations on the
following parcels as specified below and as shown on Attachment I of Exhibit A Revised
General Plan Land Use Map):
A. For the parcel identified as APN 921-090-060: change a portion of this parcel
from the Land Use Designation of Low Medium Density (LM) Residential to Community
Commercial (CC); for the parcel identified as APN 921-090-058: change a portion of this parcel
from the Land Use Designation of Low Medium Density (LM) Residential to Low Medium
Density (L) Residential; and a portion of the parcel identified as APN 921-090-061 and APN
921-090-52 from the Land Use Designation of Open Space (OS) to Office/
Commercial/Church/Detention Basin.
B. For the parcel identified as APN 921-090-059, change the Land Use
Designation from Low Medium Density (LM) Residential to Public/Institutional Facilities (P)
Section 4. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City Council, based upon the information
contained in the original Campos Verdes Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR No.
348) and environmental Addendum (No. 4), finds that the proposed land use changes are
minor and that the changes did not increase the impacts associated with the development or
the overall intensity of the development as analyzed in the original Environmental Impact
Report. The environmental addendure contained a comparative analysis of impacts and
mitigation measures. This analysis concluded that the proposed land use changes to the
Campos Vetdes Specific Plan are substantially the same as or less than the impacts analyzed
in the certified EIR. In addition, there is no new information that was not known at the time the
EIR was certified and completed. Therefore, no significant impacts or additional mitigation
measures are required given the existing mitigation measures contained in the certified EIR
No. 348. The mitigation measures prepared for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be
applied to this project. The Environmental Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No.
348, therefore, is hereby adopted.
Section 5. SEVERABILITY The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of
this Resolution are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold
any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Resolution to be invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Resolution.
Section 6. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
\\TEMEC_FS201~)ATA'~E)EPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRPT~323pa98pc..cloc
16
Section 7. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this __th day of ,1999.
ATTEST:
Steven J, Ford, Mayor
Susan W, Jones, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City
Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of
,1999 by the following vote of the Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
CITY COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY COUNCILMEMBERS:
CiTY COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
~\TEMEC_FS201~DATA~DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRpT~323pa98pc.doc
17
EXHIBIT 1
REVISED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP
PA99-0016
\\TEMEC_FS201 ~DATA~,DEPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRPT~323pa98pc..doc
18
SC
SC
M~
v
BP
SC SC ""' ' CC
M
L
VL
/
PROPOSED LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT
EXHIBIT B
ORDINANCE NO. 99-__
CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 1
\\TEMEC_FS201 '~DATA~DEPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRPTL323pa98pc,.doc
19
EXHIBIT B
ORDINANCE NO. 98-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC
PLAN (NO. 1) OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, NORTHEAST OF
THE INTERSECTION OF MARGARITA ROAD AND NORTH
GENERAL KEARNY ROAD (SOUTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD)
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 910-130-056,
910-130-059, 910-130-060, 921-090-052, 921-090-058, 921-090-
059, 921-090-060 AND 921-090-061 (PLANNING APPLICATION
PA99-0015).
WHEREAS, Section 65800 of the Government Code provides for the adoption and
administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules and regulations by cities to implement such
general plans as may be in effect in any such city; and
WHEREAS, Sections 65860 of the Government Code requires that a zoning ordinance
shall be consistent with the adopted general plan of the city; and
WHEREAS, there is a need to amend the Campos Vetdes Specific Plan to accurately
reflect private property and to be consistent with the adopted General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on February
3, 1999, and recommended that the City Council approve the attached amendments to the
Campos Vetdes Specific Plan as shown in Attachment I of Exhibit B (Amendment No. 1 to the
Campos Vetdes Specific Plan); and
WHEREAS, that this Ordinance complies with all the applicable requirements of State
law and local ordinances; and
WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, Temecula
Library, Pujol Street Community Center, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce,
and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on
1999 to consider the proposed amendments to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. FINDINGS (Specific Plan Amendment)
A. The City Council in approving the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, makes
the following findings, to wit:
\\TEMEC_FS201~DATA~DEPTS~PLANNING\STAFFRPTL323pag8pc..doc
20
1. Planning Application No. PA99-0015 (Amendment No, I to the Campos
Verdes Specific Plan) as proposed and conditioned is compatible with the health, safety and
welfare of the community.
2. Planning Application No. PA99-0015 (Amendment No. 1 to the Campos
Verdes Specific Plan) is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's adopted General
Plan.
3. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property
because it does not represent a significant change to the planned land use of the site and ~s
consistent with the overall concept of Specific Plan No. 1.
4. The amendment to Specific Plan No. I does not increase the impacts
associated with the development of the overall intensity of the development as analyzed ~n
Environmental Impact Report No 348
Section 3. AMENDMENTS TO THE CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN: The City
Council hereby amends the Campos Verdes Specific Plan for the City of Temecula for as
specified below and as shown on Attachment I of Exhibit B (Amendment No. 1 to the Campos
Verdes Specific Plan):
A. The ten (10) acre elementary school site in Planning Area 7 has been increased
by ten (10) acres and will now accommodate a 20-acre middle school.
B The park site in Planning Area I has been decreased by 7.6 acres to 3.1 acres.
The park site will primarily serve Campos Verdes residents and not residents from other
developer projects as previously contemplated by the adopted Specific Plan.
C. The residential component of the Land Use Plan has decreased in size. The
residential area has been reduced from 72.2 acres to 57.9 acres, a reduction of 14.3 acres.
The number of dwelling units has been reduced from 308 to 242, a reduction of 66 dwelling
units. Planning Area 3 has been reduced from 76 to 75, Planning Area 5 decreased from 86
dwelling units to 63, Planning Area 6 decreased from 72 to 46 dwelling units, Planning Area 8
decreased from 56 dwelling units to 42, and Planning Area 9 decreased from 18 to 16 dwelling
units.
D. The commercial areas have been increased by a total of 8 acres. Planning
Area 4 which will consist entirely of retail commercial uses has increased by 55 acres, and the
commercial/office/church component of Planning Area 2 has increased by 25 acres.
Section 4. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City Council, based upon the information
contained in the Initial Environmental Study, finds that the changes proposed to the Campos
Verdes Specific Plan were determined to be minor based on an environmental Addendum (No.
4) to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 348). The
addendure concluded that the changes did not increase the impacts associated with the
development or the overall intensity of the development as analyzed in the original
Environmental Impact Report. The environmental addendum contained a comparative analysis
of impacts and mitigation measures. This analysis concluded that the proposed changes to
the Campos Verdes Specific Plan are substantially the same as or less than the impacts
analyzed in the certified EIR. In addition, there is no new information that was not known at
the time the EIR was certified and completed. Therefore, no significant impacts or additional
\\TEMEC_FS201~DATA~)EPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~323pa98pc,dOc 21
mitigation measures are required given the existing mitigation measures contained in the
certified EIR No. 348. The mitigation measures prepared for the Enwronmental Impact Report
(EIR) will be applied to this project. The Environmental Addendum to Environmental Impact
Report No. 348, therefore, is hereby adopted.
Section 5. SEVERABILITY The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of
this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold
any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance.
Section 6. NOTICE OF ADOPTION The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this
Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law.
Section 7. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after ~ts
passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall
publish a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall
be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption of this
Ordinance. Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish a
summary of this Ordinance, together with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and
against the Ordinance, and post the same in the office of the City Clerk.
Section 8. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this __ day of
,1999
ATTEST:
Steven J. Ford, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City
Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of
, 1999 by the following vote of the Council:
AYES:
CITY COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
CITY COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: CITY COUNCILMEMBERS:
\\TEMEC_FS201 ~DATA~DEPTS~LANNING\STAFFRPT~323pa98pc..doc
22
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
EXHIBIT I
CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN AMEN MENT NO. I
\\TEMEC_FS201~DATA~DEPTS\PLANNiNG\STAFFRPT~323pa98pc doc
23
EXHIBIT 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. I
~\TEMEC_FS201 ~DATA%DEPTS~LANNING\STAFFRPTL323pa98pc, .doc
24
EXHIBIT 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA99-0015 (Amendment No. I to Campos Verdes
Specific Plan including Addendum No. 4 to the previously certified EIR No. 348).
Project Description: Amendment No. 1 to Campos Verdes Specific Plan which
consists primarily of increasing the school site from 10 acres
to 20 acres, a reduction of 66 residential parcels, a reduction
to the park site, and a portion of the residentially and park
zoned property is being changed to a commercial zoning
classification.
Assessor's Parcel No.:
910-130-056, 910-130-059, 910-130-060, 921-090-052,
921-090-058, 921-090-059, 921-090-060 and 921-090-
061
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
Februa~ 3,1999
Februa~ 3,2001
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
General Requirements
Within Forty-Eight (48} Hours of the Approval of this Project
The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City
and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and
agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency
or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set
aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or
any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative
body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Specific Plan
Amendment which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period
and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including
but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). City shall promptly notify
the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought within this time
period. City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. Should the City
fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, developer/applicant shall not, thereafter
be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or
instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents.
The specific plan amendment and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply
with all mitigation measures identified within EIR No. 348 and all the subsequent
addenda I through 4.
~TEMEC_FS201~DATA~DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRpT~323pa98pc..doc
25
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The Applicant shall comply with the approved Conditions of Approval of the underlying
Specific Plan No. 1, Campos Verdes Specific Plan, which was approved on September
13, 1994.
Amendment No. I to the Specific Plan shall specify that the detention basin will be
maintained by the property owner for a minimum of five (5) years which is estimated to
be the period for the vegetation to be established. The City of Temecula Public Works
Department may then be responsible for maintenance. A Property Owners Association
or the Temecula Community Services District will maintain the drainage area behind the
park site in Planning Area 1. The drainage area behind the commercial office/church
area of Planning Area 2 will be maintained by the City of Temecula Public Works
Department or assignee if the drainage channel is constructed according to City
Standards. Otherwise, the drainage area will be the responsibility of the property owner
for maintenance. This language shall be substituted for the language regarding the
detention basin, maintenance and ownership as stated on pages 111-17, 111-31,111-35, III-
39, 111-40, 111-42, 111-46 of the Specific Plan Amendment No. 1.
COMMUNITYSERVICES DEPARTMENT
General Requirements
If any of the following conditions of approval differ from the Specific Plan text or exhibits, the
conditions enumerated herein shall take precedent.
All park and slope improvements shall be improved in conformance with the City of
Temecula Landscape Development Plan Guidelines and Specifications.
The City's park land dedication requirement for the Campos Verdes Specific Plan shall
be satisfied with the development and dedication of a 3.15 acre neighborhood park
located in Planning Area 1.
The actual design of the neighborhood park in Planning Area I shall be in substantial
conformance with the conceptual design identified within the Specific Plan. Prior to
submittal of construction plans, the developer shall meet with the Director of
Community Services to determine the location and specifications of the park amenities
to be provided on site.
The design of the park in Planning Area I shall provide for pedestrian circulation and
access for the disabled throughout the park.
Construction of the public park site and perimeter slopes/landscaping proposed for
dedication to the TCSD shall commence pursuant to a pre-job meeting with the
developer and TCSD Maintenance Superintendent. Failure to comply with the TCSD
review and inspection process may preclude acceptance of these areas into the TCSD
maintenance programs.
The developer shall maintain the park site and slopes/landscaping until such time as
those responsibilities are accepted by the TCSD.
%~TEMEC_FS201 ~DATA\DEPTS~LANNING\STAFFRPTL323pa98pc..doc
26
11.
12.
The park facility shall be dedicated to the City free and clear of any liens, assessments,
or easements that would preclude the City from using the property for public park
purposes. A policy of title insurance and a soils assessment report shall also be
provided with the transfer of the property to the City.
The open space/paseo area in Planning Area 9 shall be privately maintained by an
established Homeowners Association.
13.
Upon acceptance and transfer of the park improvements to the City, that portion of the
drainage area located adjacent to the park, and not considered as habitat restoration
area, shall be maintained by the TCSD. Maintenance for the remaining drainage
facilities shall be determined by the by the Department of Public Works upon
construction of the improvements to City standards.
14.
All exterior slopes contiguous to public streets that are adjacent to single famdy
residential development shall be offered for dedication to the TCSD for maintenance
purposes following compliance to existing City standards and completion of the
application process, All other slopes, open space, perimeter walls, and entry
monuments shall be maintained by the established Homeowners Association (HOA)
15.
Bike lanes shall be provided on site and designed to intercept with the City's Park and
Recreation Master Plan. Class I1 bike lanes, shall be constructed in concurrence with
the street improvements.
16
In return for park construction, the developer is entitled to receive a credit against the
park component of DIF based upon the actual cost of improving the park The
fee/credit issue shall be addressed pursuant to the execution of a park improvement
agreement between the applicant and the City prior to approval of the final map
17.
The developer shall file an application with the TCSD for the transfer of residential and
arterial street lighting into the respective maintenance program.
Prior to Approval of the Final Map:
18.
The developer or his assignee shall enter into an agreement and post security to
improve the proposed TCSD slope/landscape maintenance areas and the public park
facility located in Planning Area 1. All proposed TCSD slope/landscaping areas shall
be offered for dedication on the final map.
19,
Construction drawings for all proposed TCSD slope/landscape maintenance areas and
the public park site shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community
Services.
20.
A notice of intention to annex into the Temecula Community Services District Service
Levels B, C, and D shall be submitted to the TCSD prior to approval of the final map.
The property owner election costs involved in the district formation or annexation shall
be borne by the developer.
~\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~323pa98pc doc
27
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits:
21.
The park in Planning Area I shall be improved and dedicated to the City prior to the
issuance of the 78~h residential building permit for the overall project or within two (2)
years of the first phased lots, whichever comes first.
Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy:
20.
It shall be the developers responsibility to provide written disclosure of the existence of
the TCSD and its service level rates and charges to all prospective purchasers.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in
conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to
the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant Name
\\TEMEC_FS201~DATA~DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~323pa98pc..doc
28
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (28510)
\\TEMEC_FS201 ',DATA~DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~23pa98pc..doc
29
ATTACHMENTNO. 2
PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA98-0323 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28510) FOR THE
SUBDIVISION OF 242 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, A
PARK SITE AND ONE COMMERCIAL LOT WITHIN THE
CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN ON PARCELS
CONTAINING 71.1 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF MARGARITA ROAD AND NORTH GENERAL
KEARNY ROAD (SOUTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD), KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR°S PARCEL NO.S 910-130-056, 910-130-059,
910-130-060, 921-090-052, 921-090-058, 921-090-059, 921-090-
060 AND 921-090-061.
WHEREAS, Woodside Homes filed Planning Application No. PA98-0323 (Tentative
Tract Map 28510); and in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and
Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA98-0323 (Tentative Tract Map 28510); and
was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA98-0323
(Tentative Tract Map 28510); on February 3, 1999, 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. PA98-0323 (Tentative Tract Map 28510);
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1o That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No
PA98-0323 (Tentative Tract Map 28510); makes the following findings; to wit:
A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula
and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project
is consistent with all City Ordinances including: the City's Development Code, Ordinance No
655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the
public health, safety and welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances
and meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the
public health, safety and welfare.
\\TEMEC_FS201\DATA~DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~23pa98pc..doc
30
C. The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare
species or their habitats, including but not limited to plants, fish. insects, animals and b~rds
Such impacts were analyzed in the original Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 348) for the
Campos Verdes Specific Plan. The environmental addendum submitted with this application
concluded that the proposed changes to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan and Tentative Tract
Map 28510 are substantially the same as or less than the impacts analyzed in the certified
EIR. Therefore, no significant impacts or additional mitigation measures are required given the
existing mitigation measures contained in the certified EIR No. 348. The mitigation measures
prepared for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be applied to this project.
specific plans.
That the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and
E. That the design or improvement of the proposed land division ~s
consistent with applicable general and specific plans.
F. That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the
type of development.
G. That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the
proposed density of the development.
H, That the design of the proposed land division or the type of
improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems.
I. That the design of the proposed land division or the type of
improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access
through, or use of, property within the proposed land division. A land division may be
approved if it is found that alternate easements for access or for use will be provided and that
they will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection
shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of
competent jurisdiction.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The changes proposed to the Campos Verdes
Specific Plan, and respectively the configuration of Tentative Tract Map 28510, were
determined to be minor based on an environmental Addendure (No. 4) to the Campos Verdes
Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 348). The addendure concluded that the
changes did not increase the impacts associated with the development or the overall intensity
of the development as analyzed in the original Environmental impact Report. The
environmental addendure contained a comparative analysis of impacts and mitigation
measures. This analysis concluded that the proposed changes to the Campos Verdes Specific
Plan are substantially the same as or less than the impacts analyzed in the certified EIR. In
addition, there is no new information that was not known at the time the EIR was certified and
completed. Therefore, no significant impacts or additional mitigation measures are required
given the existing mitigation measures contained in the certified EIR No. 348. The mitigation
measures prepared for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be applied to this project.
The Environmental Addendure to Environmental Impact Report No. 348, therefore, is hereby
adopted.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
approves Planning Application No. PA98-0323 (Tentative Tract Map 28510) for the subdivision
%~TEMEC_FS20f~DATA'{)EPTS~LANNING~STAFFRpT~323pa98pc..doc
31
of 242 single family residential lots, a park site and one commercial lot within the Campos
Verdes Specific Plan on parcels containing acres 71.1 acres located at the Northeast corner of
Margarita Road and North General Kearny Road (south of Winchester Road), known as
Assessors Parcel No.s 910-130-056, 910-130-059, 910-130-060, 921-090-052, 921-090-
058, 921-090-059, 921-090-060 and 921-090-061 subject to Exhibit A, attached hereto, and
incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of February, 1999
Marcia Slaven, Chairperson
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Ternecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 3rd day of
February 1999 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAINED:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
\\TEMEC_FS201~DATA~DEPTS~LANNING~TAFFRPTLt23pa98pC..cioC
32
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 28510 (PA98-0323)
~TEMEC_FS201'~DATA%DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~323pa98pC doc
33
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA 98-0323 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28510)
Project Description:
The subdivision of a 71.1 acre parcel into 242 single
family residential lots, a park site and one commercial
lot within the Campos Verdes Specific Plan.
Assessors Parcel No.:
910-130-056, 910-130-059, 910-130-060, 921-090-052,
921-090-058, 921-090-059, 921-090-060 and 921-090-
061
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
February 3, 1999
February 3, 2001
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
General Requirements
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or
money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand Three
Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars ($1,328.00) which includes the One Thousand Two
Hundred and Fifty Dollar ($1,250.00) fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section
711.4(d)(3) plus the Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee, to
enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Mitigated or Negative
Declaration required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(a) and California
Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the
applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as
required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of
condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
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.
3. The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City
and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and
agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency
or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents. to attack, set
aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or
any agency or instrumentality thereof. advisory agency, appeal board or legislative
body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Specific Plan
Amendment which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period
and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including
\\TEMEC_FS201~DATA~)EPTS~PLANNING%STAFFRpT~323pa98pc..doc 34
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, a phasinq plan shall be submitted to and approveci
by the Planning Director.
This project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be consistent with Specific
Plan No. I (Campos Verdes Specific Plan Amendment No. 1).
The map is subject to the approval of Planning Application No. PA99-0015
(Amendment No. 1 to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan) and Planning Application No.
PA99-0016 (General Plan Amendment). If the map is not approved by the Planning
Commission and subsequently the City Council, the map shall comply with the orlg~na~
Campos Verdes Specific Plan approval.
,
The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation
measures identified within EIR No. 348 and all the subsequent addenda 1 through 4
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning
Director.
All paleontology/archaeology review is subject to the mitigation measures contained ~n
the previously certified Environmental Impact Report (No. 348).
10,
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report, compliance with the
Conceptual Landscape Plans for this stage of the development.
11.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
Prior to Recordation of the Final Map
12. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Manager:
a. A copy of the Final Map
b. A copy of the Rough Grading Plans
c. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes:
1)
This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar
Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with
the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory
recommendations, Ordinance No. 655.
~\TEMEC_FS201~DATA~DEPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRpT~323pa98pc..doc
35
2)
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No, 348 and its subsequent addenda
was prepared for this project and is on file at the City of Temecula
Planning Department.
3) This project is within a dam inundation area.
4) This project is within a liquefaction hazard zone.
13.
Construction landscape plans shall be submitted that are consistent with City standards
and the approved conceptual plans including automatic irrigation for all landscaped
areas and complete screening of all ground mounted equipment from the view of the
public from streets and adjacent property. In addition, the following information shall be
required:
All landscaping excluding Temecula Community Services District (TCSD)
maintained areas and front yard landscaping which shall include, but may not
be limited to pdvate slopes and common areas.
Shrub planting to completely screen perimeter walls adjacent to a public right-of-
way equal to sixty-six (66) feet or larger.
c. Hardscaping for the following:
1) Pedestrian trails within private common areas
2) Equestrian trails
3)
The height, location and the following materials for all walls and fences
where there is a discrepancy, the Campos Verdes Specific Plan shall
take precedence:
a)
Decorative block for the perimeter of the project adjacent to a
Public Right-of-Way equal to sixty-six (66) feet or larger and the
side yards for corner lots.
b)
Wrought iron or decorative block and wrought iron combination to
take advantage of views for side and rear yards.
c)
Wood fencing shall be used for all side and rear yard fencing
when not restricted by a and b above.
4) All existing trees that will be saved consistent with the tentative map.
14. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's)
CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Manager. The
CC&R's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining open space,
recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, exterior of all buildings and all
landscaped and open areas including parkways.
b. 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
\\TEMEC_FS201%DATA\DEPTS%PLANNINGLSTAFFRPT~23pa98pc,,doc 36
rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities ~n the
development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of
such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said
mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate under
recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of
lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs
of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&R's shall permit
enforcement by the City for provisions required as Conditions of Approval. The
developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and
receive approval of, the city prior to making any such sale This condition shall
not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes.
Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such
dwelling unit or lot, either (1) an undivided interest in the common areas and
facilities, or (2) a share in the corporation, or voting membership in an
association owning the common areas and facilities.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
15.
17.
A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be
submitted to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School
Mitigation fees.
The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Manager:
a. Construction landscape plans consistent with the City standards and the
approved Conceptual Landscape Plans including automatic irrigation for all
landscaped areas and complete screening of all ground mounted equipment
from the view of the public from streets and adjacent property for:
b. Front yards and slopes within individual lots prior to issuance of building permits
for any lot(s).
c. Private common areas prior to issuance of the 78th building permit.
d. Wall and fence plans consistent with the Conceptual Landscape Plans.
e. Precise grading plans consistent with the approved rough grading plans
including all structural setback measurements.
The Model Home Complex Development Plan (if applicable) which includes the
following:
a. Site Plan with off-street parking
b. Construction Landscape Plans
c. Fencing Plans
d. Building Elevations
e. Floor Plans
\\TEMEC_FS201~DATA~DEPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRPT~323pa98pc..doc
37
f. Materials and Colors Board
18. RooFmounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision,
however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted w~th
Planning Manager approval.
19. The applicant shall demonstrate by a written report that all mitigation measures
identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the
development.
Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits
20. If deemed necessary by the Planning Manager, the applicant shall provide additional
landscaping to effectively screen various components of the project.
21. Front yard and slope landscaping within individual lots shall be completed for
inspection.
22 Private common area landscaping shall be completed for inspection prior to issuance of
the 78th occupancy permit.
23. The applicant shall sign an agreement and/or post a bond with the City to insure the
maintenance of all landscaping within private common areas for a period of one year
24. All the Conditions of Approval shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the D~rectors
of Planning, Public Works, Community Services and Building and Safety.
25 The applicant shall demonstrate by a written report that all mitigation measures
identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the
development.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
26. The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the appropriate staff
person of the Department of Public Works.
General Requirements
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. 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
\\TEMEC_FS201'~DATA~DEPTS~LANNING~STAFFRPT~323pa98pc..doc
38
30.
31.
32.
33.
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:
As deemed necessar,/by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall recewe
written clearance from the following agencies:
B
B
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
Rancho California Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
City of Temecula Fire Bureau
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
Riverside County Health Department
Cable TV Franchise
Community Services District
General Telephone
Southern California Edison Company
Southern California Gas Company
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 Verde Lane (Principal Collector Highway Standards - 78' 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).
b=
Improve Streets A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, Camino Campos Verdes,
Sanderling Way and Starling Street (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).
Install a traffic signal at the intersections of Margarita RoadNerde Lane and
North General Kearny Road/Camino Campos Verdes to include signal
interconnect with the signal(s) at the intersection(s) of Margarita Road, North
General Kearny Road. Design shall also include a warrant analysis for the
signals and if warrants are met, shall be installed by the Developer.
\\TEMEC_FS201~DATA\DEPTS~PLANNING%STAFFRPT~323pa98pc..doc
39
The Developer is eligible for Development Impact Fee credit for 50% cost of
design and construction of the traffic signal at Margarita RoadNerde Lane.
A School Zone signing and stdping plan, per Caltrans standards, shall be
designed by a registered Civil Engineer for the school site within this project and
included with the street improvement plans for the project. Design shall also
include a warrant analysis for a flashing yellow beacon and if warrants are met.
shall be installed by the Developer.
34.
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.CC and 1.00%
minimum over A.C paving.
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.
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Nos
400 and 401.
Design of street improvements shall extend a minimum of 300 feet beyond the
project boundaries to ensure adequate continuity of design with adjoining
properties.
f. Minimum centerline radii shall be in accordance with City Standard No. 113.
g. All reverse curves shall include a 100-foot minimum tangent section.
h. All street and driveway centedine intersections shall be at 90 degrees,
All units shall be provided with zero clearance garage doors and garage door
openers if the driveway is less than 18 feet in depth from back of sidewalk.
Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for m~nimum sight distance and visibility.
All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed
through curb outlets per City Standard No. 301.
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.
35. 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.
%~TEMEC_FS201'~DATA~DEPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRpTL323pa98pC..dOC 40
36
37.
38.
Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Verde Lane, Margarita Road and
North General Kearny Road on the Final 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.
39.
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.
40. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid.
41.
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 and Pubhc
Works 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.
42.
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.
43.
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.
44.
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.
\\TEMEC_FS201'~:)ATA'~DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT',323pa98pc,.doc
41
45. 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.
46
Bus bays will be provided at all existing and future bus stops as determined by the
Department of Public Works.
47.
This development must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip Reduction
Plan" in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01
48.
Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be
delineated and noted on the Final Map.
49.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage
facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the Final Map if they are located within the
land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for
review and recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage
facilities located outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage
easements and shown on the Final Map. A note shall be added to the Final Map stating
"drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions."
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
50.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
Riverside County Health Department
Community Services District
General Telephone
Southern California Edison Company
Southern California Gas Company
51.
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.
52.
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.
53.
A Geotechnical Report shall be prepared by a registered engineer or engineenng
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.
\',TEMEC_FS201 ~DATA~DEPTS~PLANNING\STAFFRPTL323pagBpc, doc
42
54.
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 bas~s
for analysis and design shall be a storm with a recurrence interval of one hundred
years.
55.
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.
56.
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.
57.
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.
58.
The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work
performed on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as
directed by the Department of Public Works.
59.
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
60. Final Map shall be approved and recorded.
61.
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.
62.
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.
63.
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.
\\TEMEC_FS201~DATA~:)EPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRPTL323pa98pC..dOC
43
Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy
64.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
[]
[]
B
Rancho California Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
Department of Public Works
65.
66
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and pubhc
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City
standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
67.
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.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
68
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, the
Uniform Building Code (UBC), Uniform Fire Code (UFC), and related codes which are
in force at the time of building plan submittal.
69.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for residential land
division per UFC Appendix Ill.A, Table A-Ill-A-1. The developer shall provide for this
project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20 PSI residual operating
pressure with a 2 hour duration. 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. The Fire Flow as
given above has taken into account all information as provided. (UFC 903.2. Appendix
Ill.A)
70.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per UFC
Appendix Ill. B, Table A-Ill-B-1. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2 1/2" outlets) shall be
located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent 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 a 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)
71.
Maximum cuPde-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any
cul-de-sac shall be forty-five (45) feet. (UFC 902.2.2.2.3)
72.
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)
\~TEMEC_FS201~DATA~DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~23pa98pc.,doc
44
73.
Pdor to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have
approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent
roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather
surface for 70,000 Ibs GVW. (UFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2,2)
74.
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 Ord 95-15)
75.
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)
78.
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)
77.
Prior to building construction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via
all-weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (UFC 902.2 1)
78.
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 minsmum
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)
79.
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)
80.
All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access reads or gates
obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid
entry system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (UFC 902.4)
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
General Requirements:
81.
The City's parkland dedication requirement shall be satisfied with the development and
dedication of a 3.15 acre neighborhood park, more specifically identified as Lot No
244. Said park site shall include the following amenities: Tot lot, picnic tables, shade
structure, parking lot, security lighting and open play areas. Actual construction plans
shall be required prior to final map approval.
82.
The installation of all slopes, medians, park facilities and landscaped areas shall be ~n
conformance with the City of Temecula Landscape Development Plan Guidelines and
Specifications.
\~TEMEC_FS201 ~DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPTL323pa98pc,doc
45
83.
Construction of the park site, slopes and landscaped medians proposed for dedication
to the City shall commence pursuant to a pre-job meeting with the developer and the
TCSD Maintenance Superintendent. Failure to comply with the TCSD review and
inspection process may preclude acceptance of these areas into the TCSD
maintenance programs.
84.
Extedor slopes adjacent to residential development along North General Kearny Road
Margadta Road, Verde Lane and Winchester Road shall be maintained by line
developer or the homeowners' association (HOA) until such time as those
responsibilities are offered and accepted by the TCSD for maintenance purposes.
85
The open space buffer and trail area, interior slopes. perimeter walls, and entry
monumentalion shall be maintained by a private homeowners association (HOA)
86.
Upon acceptance and transfer of the park improvements to the City, that portion of the
drainage area located adjacent to the park, and not considered as habitat restoration
area, shall be maintained by the TCSD Maintenance for the remaining drainage
facilities shall be determined by the Department of Public Works upon construction of
the improvements to City standards.
87.
Class II bike lanes shall be provided along North General Kearny Road and Margarita
Road unless otherwise indicated by the City Engineer.
Prior to Approval of the Final Map:
88.
All proposed TCSD maintained slopes areas adjacent to North General Kearny Road,
Margarita Road, Verde Lane and Winchester Road shall be offered for dedication to
the TCSD on the final map as a slope maintenance easement.
89.
Landscape construction drawings for the park site, landscaped medians, and proposed
TCSD slope maintenance areas shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of
Community Services.
90.
The developer shall enter into an agreement and post security to improve the 3 15
acre neighborhood park facility (lot no. 244) and the proposed TCSD slope
maintenance areas.
91.
The developer shall enter into an agreement with the City in order to receive fee credits
towards the parks component of the City's current Development Impact Fee (DIF) for
those park facility improvements which exceed the park land dedication requirements.
Said agreement shall be based upon actual construction costs to be reviewed and
approved by City staff.
92.
The developer shall file a notice of intention with the TCSD to initiate election
proceedings for the annexation and acceptance of residential street lighting and slope
maintenance areas into the respective TCSD maintenance programs. All costs
associated with the election and annexation process shall be borne by the developer
Failure to comply with this process will require that said maintenance responsibilities
are accepted by the HOA
~TEMEC_FS201~)ATA~DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~323pa98pc..doc
46
Prior to Issuance of Buildincl Permits:
93. The 3.15 acre park shall be improved and dedicated to the City prior to issuance of the
78~h residential building permit for the overall project, or within two (2) years of map
recordation for the first phased lots, whichever comes first.
94. The park facility shall be dedicated to the City free and clear of any liens, assessments,
or easements that would preclude the City from using the property for park purposes
A policy of title insurance and a soils assessment report shall also be provided with the
transfer of the property to the City.
95. Prior to issuance of building permits or installation of the street lights, whichever comes
first, the developer shall pay the appropriate energy fees related to the transfer of said
street lights into the TCSD maintenance program.
Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy:
96. It shall be the developers responsibility to provide written disclosure of the existence of
the TCSD and service level rates and charges to all prospective purchasers.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
Prior to Recordation of the Final Map
97. The developer shall apply for lot/parcels address assignment.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits:
98. The followinQ fees shall be paid to the Building and Safety Department:
a. Library Fees
b. Fire Mitigation Fees
c. Regional Statistical Area (RSA) Fees
d. Development Agreement Fees
e. City Building Plan Review Fees
f. City Consistency Check Fees
g. School Fees (made payable to the Temecula Unified School District)
h. Other Fees
The applicant shall apply for Bulldine Plan Review and Consistency Check.
A copy of the approved Acoustical Analysis shall be submitted to the Building and
Safety Department to ensure compliance with 65 dBA for exterior and 45 dBA for
interior noise levels.
99.
100.
\\TEMEC_FS201 ~DATA~DEPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRPT%323pa98pc..doc
47
101.
The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1991 edition of the Uniform
Buildinq, Plumbincl and Mechanical Codes; 1990 National Electrical Code; California
Administrative Code Title 24 Energy and Handicapped Regulations and the Temecula
Municipal Code.
102. The applicant shall submit at time of plan review, complete exterior site lighting plans in
compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
103. The applicant shall obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal
for plan review.
104. The applicant shall provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original
signature on plans submitted for plan review of model homes.
105. The applicant shall provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel
schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review for models.
OTHER AGENCIES
106. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing
schematic and mechanical plan for plan review.
107.
The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations outlined ~n
the Riverside County Health Department's transmittal dated August 25, 1998, a copy of
which is attached.
108.
The applicant shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined in the
Riverside County Flood Control Distnct's letter dated September 9, 1998, a copy of
which is attached. If the project lies within an adopted flood control drainage area
pursuant to Section 10.25 of City of Temecula Land Division Ordinance No. 460,
appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities shall be collected by the
City prior to issuance of Occupancy Permits.
109. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern Municipal
Water District transmittal dated August 18, 1998, a copy of which is attached.
110. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Rancho California
Water District transmittal dated August 18, 1998, a copy of which is attached.
111. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Riverside Transit
Agency trensmittal dated September 15, 1998, a copy of which is attached.
112.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Temecula Valley
Unified School District transmittal dated November 23, 1998, a copy of which is
attached.
\\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA~DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT',323pa98pc..dcc
48
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in
conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to
the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant Name
\\TEMEC_FS201 ~DATA~DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~323pa98pC, dOc
49
luesday November 24, 1998 11:]5am -~ Page 1'
11/24/98 12:23 FAX
TEMECULA VALLEY USD
TEMECULA VALLEY
Unified School District
SUPERINTENDENT
DavidD. Aimell
{~OOl
Paffi S~mm
November23, 1998
Ms. Patty Anders
City of Temegula Planning Department
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT: School Mitigahon for Campos Verdes Specific Phn: Map 28510
Dear Ms. Andors:
'l]~e Tcmccula Valley Unified School District will require school facilities mitigation for the above Tentative Map
in accordance with the rifles set forlh in SBS0.
Sincerely,
Tcmecula Valley Unifie,d School District
~orC?miator of Facffities Services
31350 Ra~cho Vista Road / '[emecula, CA 92592 / (909) 676~2661
September 15, 1998
Ms. Patty Anders
City of Temecula
Temecula Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula. CA 92590
Riverside Transit Agency
1825 Third Street
PO Bo× 59968
Riverside, CA 92517
Phone: (909) 684-0850
Fa×: (909) 684-I007
Dear Ms. Andezs:
RTA presently provides transit service on Winchester Road via RTA Route 23A. which currently
stops near the intersection of Winchester and Margarita Road just outside the project boundary.
We currently do not provide service to the area in Tract 28510. however, based on the size of
this development and our own plans for future growth, we are requesting that bus turnouts be
incorporated into the general design. Ideal sites for the bus turnouts would be at the following
locations:
Winchester Road Farside Margarita Road
Margarita Road Farside Campos Verde Lane
If possible, we would also like to request that pedestrian openings be provided near the turnout
locations specified above. Paved, lighted and handicapped accessible pedestrian accessway
consistent with ADA standards should be provided between the stop and the project site. I can
indicate the exact locations for the ramouts as the project progresses.
This request will supercede our previous letter dated August 31, 1998. After speaking with the
developer it has bee,',. decided t!:," ab,',,~e requested FAts Vlmou*s ',votlld be a be~er choice
buses and passengers.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. Please keep us updated on the status of this
request and should you require additional information or specification, please call.
Sincerely.
Ileen Matute,
Planning Analyst
im/PDEV#189
DAVID P. ZAPPE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
1995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
909/275-1200
909/'/88-9965 FAX
511g0.1
C~ of Temecula
P annin De rtment
9033
Temecula. California g2589-g033
A.e.eon: P. T'r '7'
The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated
cities. The District also does not an chec~ ~ land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or
other flood hazard ra.pgtts for sutchplcases. Dist,'ict co meats/recommendations for such coses am normally limited
to items of spedtic interest to the District indud'n ist/ict Master Dreina · Plan facilitja$, other ionsi flood
control and draina e facilities which could be consicnlgered a loglea compone~or axfension of a mastarr pe~p an s tam
and District Area k~rainage Plan fees (davelopme I mitigation fee$). in addition, information of a general n~¥usra is
provided.
The District has not reviewed the proposod project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any way
constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public
health and safety or any other such issue:
V/'' This pm. ject would not be impacted hy District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are othar facilities of
regional ratarest proposed.
This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will acca t ownershi of such facilities on
whiten request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District lfan~lP-lrd$, and ~District plan check and
inspection will be require:l for District acceptance. Plan check inspection and administrative fees will be
requ red.
This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that Could be
cons~demcl regional in nature and/or a I ical extension of the adopted
be requir~cl ifor District acceptance. P. lan check. inspedionn and administrative fees will be required.
This project is located within the limits of the District's ~,q/_rT~ ~ ~r_~c T~H EGU~./~ Area
Drainage Plan for which draina e fees have been adop e~ appllaaDl. f'/~s sh Id Ice paid by cashier's
actual permit.
GENERAL INFORB~ATION
This project ma uire a N,~tional Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDE$ permit from the Sfate Water
Re$oume$ Oon~'olrle~oard. Clearenca for grading recordation, or other final approve?should not be given until the
City has determined that the project has been granted a berm I or is shown to be exempt.
If this pro'ect involves a Federal Emergen~ Management Agency (FEMA mapL~ flood plain, then the O' should
require ~le applicant to provide all studies calculations ~ans and o~'ler information required to m~e~ FEI~,
re!:luirements and should further require th;,j the a plicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision OLOM R)
prior to grad ng, reaordation or other fine approva~PoPf the project, and a Letter of Map Rev s on (LOM R(~ prior
oCCupancy.
If a natural watercourse or m~pped flood plain is im acted by this project the City should require the a licant to
obtain a Section 1~0111803 Agreement from the Oa~mia Department oj' Fish and Game and a Clean PV~ater Act
Section 404 Permit from lhe U.8. Army Cor~s of Engineers or whrten Con'espoedenca from these a encie$
indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quaff Oer~cation
may be required from the Io031 Oalifemia Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of ~e Corps 404
perTnit.
Very truly yours,
STUART E, MCKIBBIN
Senior Civil Engineer
Date: ~ ' ~ ' ~ ~
TO:
FROM
RE:
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
DATE: August 25, 1998
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ATTN: Patty Anders, Assistant Planner
~/~GREGOR DELLENBACH. Environmental Health Specialist IV
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 28510
The Department of Environmental Health is unable to submit tentative recommendations until
receipt of the requested supplemental information concerning water and sewer availability.
GD:dr
(909) 955-8980
standl9.doc
CALIFORNIA
HISTORICAL
RESOURCES
INFORMATION
SYSTEM
Eastern Inlormatlon Center
Department of Anthropotogy
University of California
Riverside, CA 92521-0418
Phone (909) 787-5745
Fax (909) 787-5409
August 18, 1998
Patty Anders
City of Temecula
Planning Department
P. O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Case No.:
Applicant:
PA98-0323(Tentative Tract Map 28510)
Woodside Homes/RBF: Bill Greens
Dear Ms. Anders:
Please find enclosed our comments for one project transmittal as requested by the Planning
Department. If you have any questions, please contact the Eastern Information Center at
(909) 787-5745.
PA98-0323 ..................................... August 27, 1998
Sincerely,
Jennifer Bybee
information Officer
Enclosure
CALIFORNIA
RISTORICAL
RESOURCES
INFORMATION
SYSTEM
Eastern Information Center
Department of Anthropology
University of California
Riverside, CA 92521-0418
Phone (909) 787-5745
Fax (909) 787-5409
CULTURAl, RESOURCE REVIEW
RE: Case Transminal Reference Designation:
Records at the Eastern Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System have
been reviewed to determine if this project would adversely affect prehistoric or historic cultural resources:
The proposed project area has not been surveyed for cultural resources and contains or is adjacent to known cultural
resource(s). A Phase I study is recommended.
Based upon existing data the proposed project area has the potential for containing cultural resources. A Phase I study
is recommended.
A Phase I cultural resource study (MF #
) identified one or more cultural resources.
The project area contains, or has the possibility of containing, cultural resources. However, due to the nature of the
project or prior data recovery studies, an adverse effect on cultural resources is not anticipated. Further study is not
recommended,
Phase I cultural resource study (MF # .~l~ ) identified no cultural resources. Further study is not recommended.
There is a low probability of cultural resources. Further study is not recommended,
If, during construction, cultural resources are encountered, work should be halted or diverted in the immediate area while
a qualified archaeologist evaluates the fmds and makes recommendations.
Due to the archaeological sensitivity of the area, earthmoving during construction should be monitored by a professional
archaeologist.
The submission of a cultural resource management report is recommended following guidelines for Archaeological
Resource Management Reports prepared by the California Office of Historic Preservation, Preservation Planning Bulletin
4(a), December 1989.
Phase !
Phase II
Phase III
Phase IV
Records search and field survey
Testing [Evaluate resource significance; propose mitigation measures for "significant" sites.]
Mitigation [Data recovery by excavation, preservation in place, or a combination of the two.]
Monitor earthmoving activities
COMMENTS:
If you have any questions, please contact us.
Eastern Information Center
aan o
Watar
August18,1998
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
TRACT NO. 28510
APN 910-130-056, APN 910-130-059 AND APN 910-130-
060; APN 921-090-052, APN 921-090-058, APN 921-090-
059, APN 921-090-060, AND APN 921-090-061
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0323
Dear Ms. Anders:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within
the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water
service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial
arrangements between RCWD and the property owner.
If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for
fees and requirements.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing
an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to
RCWD.
If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services
Representative at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
98/SB:mc176/F012-T1/FCF
c: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
LETTERS FROM THE PUBLIC
\\TEMEC_FS201~DATA~DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~323pa98pc.doc
50
January 26, 1999
City of Temecula
Planning Group
I am a resident in Roripaugh Hills. I moved here three years ago and have
seen the changes take place. I live here with my husband and two children
11 and 14. My son was hit by a car on Roripaugh Road three years
ago. Ever since then we have been fighting to get some kind of help to slow
traffic down. With the new High School it's been worse. Now the mall plus
the new Middle School. You want to make our area opened to more traffic
and trouble. This is not fair to our small community. Opening Sanderling
Street will not help the city but kill our value of life. I understand
Meadowview has gotten out of street opening and I can't understand that
one. Oh ! I can,but not really ,I guess it's who you know. Please DO NOT
OPEN SANDERLING OR ROR1PAUGH TO ANY MORE PROBLEMS!
Instead we need some help slowing people down and keeping our children
safe.
Thank you in advance
Mrs. Connie Constable
JAN
January4, 1999
RECEIVED JAN 0 7 1999
Ms. Joanne Carlson, Pres., of Roripaugh Hills Homeowners Assoc.
29379 Rancho California Road., Ste 206
Temecu/a, ca 92592
Dear Ms. Cadson:
As a resident of Rodpaugh Hills we are very concerned about the increased
traffic to our area with the widening of Winchester Road and the installation of a
traffic light at Roripaugh Road. Our children that live and play in our area aFS
a/ready in danger from speeding traffic on Rorlpaugh Road. The opening of
Sanderling Way would increase the danger of traffic to our children by 500 cars a
day. We know that Rorlpaugh Road will be used as a short cu~ to the High
school and Ra/phs Shopping Center.
We moved especially to this tract because of high profile of safety and seclusion
this tract had to offer. We are incraas/y disappointed with all the so can
'~romises' made to the tract and now being informed of this new Development
going in and using our street ways. We feel that the people that buy into the
Woodside Development wob/d be better off using the Margarlta Road for the
entrance.and exit to their property.
40173 Stading St.
Temecula, CA 92591
Martie V. Scott
27563 Sanderling Way
Temecula, CA 92591
December7,1998
Joanne Carlson, President RHOA
c/o Ava~on
29379 Rancho Califoraia Rd.
Temecula, CA 92591
Dear Mrs. Carlson~
As a concerned homeowner in Rofipaugh Hills I strongly protest the opening of Sanderling way.
I am concerned with the safety of our childtea in this community. A~ you may ~ [a~ow Sanderling Way
ends at Roripaugh Hills Road, where the toddlcrs playground and pool area located as well as the school bus
stop for our local elementary school children. If Sanderling Way is opened to from the Campus Vcrdes
Project I fear we wilt se~ an increase in traffic accidents, vandalism, and first and foremost the safety cfour
children will definitely be cornpromised.
Since the opening of Chaparral High School I have noticed and increase in vamialism and speeding through
our area. Our dues have now been increased to coverthe cost e~Hc. ed by vandals in our neighborhood.
Opening Sanderling Way will further hurt our community not help our community. I purebased my home
here to get away from traffic and vandalism. I want to continue five in a quiet and sa~e community. I only
hope all the homeowners of Roripaugh Hills voice their concerns and protest loud and clear to the Planning
Commission as I and my neighbors have since we are the homeowners who will be seriously impacted by
this. However eveNone' s children, grandchildren and the community as a whole will suffer the
consequences if this plan is approved.
Martie V. Scot~
December 7, 1998
Ms. Joanne Carlson, Pres. ,RHOA
c/o Avalon
29379 Rancho Calif- Road Ste 206
Temecula, Calif. 92592
Dear Ms- Carlson,
We have been informed that the city has decided to reopen the
specific plan of the CAMPUS VERDES PROJECT for consideration.
As a resident of Roripaugh Hills for 7 years we are very
concerned about the impact on e~ area being adjacent to the
project.
We have noticed the increased traffic ~o our area since the:
widening of Winchester Road and the installation of a traffic
light at Roripaugh Road. Our children that live and play in
our area are already in jeopardy from speeding traffic on
Roripaugh Road. The Opening of Sanderling Way would increa:se
the danger Of ~raffic to our children by 500 cars a day.
We }chow that Roripaugh Road will be used as a short cut to the
High School as 'well as the Ralphs Shopping Center.
We had been told in the past that the Campus Verdes Project;
was supposed to be a low density development and we find that
242 residences would be unfair and unacceptable to the people
of the Roripaugh Hills'Home Owners Association.
We feel that the people that buy into the Woodside Development
would be better off using the Margari~a Road for ~he entrance
and exit to their property.
S i ncerely,
Dolores and Simon Aman
°40165 Starling St.
Temecula, Ca. 92591
1999
Dec. 3, 1998
Joanne Carlson
President, Roripaugh Hills Owners Association
c/o Avalon
29379 Rancho California Road, Suite 206
Temecula, CA 92592
Dear Ms. Carlson,
We own a home in Roripaugh Hills at 39800 Roripaugh Road. We originally
bought in Roripaugh because it was a nice and seemingly quiet residential
development, and traffic was at a minimum. We are very distres.sed to learn that
Sanderling Way may go through, adding manv more cars to the residential streets
of the neighborhood!
Please pass our concerns regarding this on to the Planning Commission. We hope
that Sanderling Way does not go through and that Starling Street remains as a fire
access road only. Thank you for your work on our behalf on this matter!
Sincerely,
Dennis & Mary Ettlin
310 370-6475
Tami Hartz 01veda
27551 Sanderling Way
Temecula, CA 92591
December 8, 1998
Joanna Carlson
president, R~OA
c/o Avalon
29379 Rancho California Road,
Tomecola, CA 92591
Ste. 206
Dear Joanne:
I'm writing this letter in response to the development of Campus
Verdes development and the city's plan of opening up Sanderling
Way to through traffic.
AS a resident, living on Sanderling Way, and as a Realtor in the
area, I do not want this road opened. I liked to voice my
concerns and would volunteer my time to going door to door if you
think a petition would help the cause.
I'm sure my concerns are not only my own but are shared with th~
other 450 residents who live in Roripaugh Hills, Has the city
took in consideration the problems that could result in the
opening up of Sanderling Way and the destruction that could occur
to our small neighborhood?
Sanderling Way is a culvasac built going up a small hill. The
kids in the neighborhood ride their bikes daily down this hill--
pedaling as fast has they can. So far, to my knowledge, nobody
has been hit, as of yet. I personally have had to attend no a few
kids in the neighborhood who have fallen--including my own.
Sanderling Way is also at the end of an already built tot lot. we
have enough concern with the speeding down Roripaugh Road and the
kids crossing back and forth to the park without getting hit--let
alone opening up more traffic coming down Sanderling Way.
Sanderling Way and the tot lot is also the pick up and drop off of
school bused children. Just the other day, the bus driver had to
yell at someone for speeding down Roripaugh and not coming to ~
stop when the bus had its red lights flashing.
Since the opening Of the new Chaparral High School, I have
personally no=iced an increase in traffic and young drivers--
driving way too fast for our children safety. If the city gives
the go ahead open up Sanderling Way, how many more speeders to we
have to live with before an accident happens?
Four hundred and fifty residents live in a development that
includes lighted tennis courts, two pools and a tot lot. It's a
community that is filled with children. The only traffic this
neighborhood needs is from its own residents and visitors.
If the residents of Campus Verdes need to get out--the developer
should build its own road exiting onto Margarita or N. Gernal
Kearny. I thought that is why Margarita Rd was widened'to support
the traffic for new development end the mall. If it can't support
it--then maybe we should not be building anymore homes or
commercial properties until the roads we have can support the
traffic without having to open up small neighborhood roads and
turning them into high traffic short cuts.
That,s all we need is more traffic, traffic, traffic to deal with
in our own neighborhood let alone having to deal with it on the
main roads. Is there no peace here in Temecula?' Must we make our
front yards a thoroughfare too? Must developmen~ continue at a
pace that it destroys are firs= built neighborhoods? The
neighborhoods where most of us have lived peacefully for the. last
ten years or so. Let's keep our kids safe, our property val~es
up, and our neighborhood traffic for residents only. Or maybe
now it's time to reconsider gating our community to protect it
from developers and city planners and stop their infringement.
You can bet they don't live here.
Joanne, please let me know, if I can be of service and what else
can be done to stop the city's plans to open up Sanderling Way.
Do we need to get a petition or protest going?
Sincerely,
~ami Hartz Olveda
Wright
27525 Jefferson Ave.
Ternecula, CA 92590
Business 909-694-5300, Ext. 360
Fax 909-694-5401
Pager 909-414-3465 ~M.
Resic3ence 909-676-8279
Tami Hartz Olveda
REALTOR*
Sixth Armored Division Association
Mr. & M~.Geuqle F. VonKan~r
411193 ~',/,~tg St
Teme;Ub
CA 92591
Dale and Jeanne Dadan
2751(:) lark Court 4, "rernecula, CA 9259'1 · USA
Phone 9CG/6GG-Q134 · Fax ~
JanuaW 26,1999
City of Temecula Planning Division
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
RE: Campus Verdes
Dear Sir/Madam:
JAN 2 5 7999 '/
As homeowners in the Roripaugh Hills Home Owners Association Tract, we strongly urge the Planning
Commission to reconsider opening Sanderling Way into the Woodside Homes Developments which would
cause a pass through Roripaugh Hills. We have been residents in Temecula for over 10 years and have
seen the traffic flow increase at an alarmingly rate. We enjoy the safety of the residential neighborhood of
Roripaugh Hills and feel that the opening of Sandealing Way would have a negative impact on our
community.
At the base of Sandealing Way is the bus stop for the children who attend Nicolas Elementary School. There
is also a park where the children play in safety. The width of Roripaugh Road is such that we already have a
problem with speeding cars and the increase traffic that a connecting read would cause will endanger the
lives of our children and residents, and cause accidents as people cut through our neighborhood. When
Chaparral High School opened, no students were driving, but on its second year of opening, more cars
began appearing and with the third year approaching, many more teenagers will be cuffing through
Rodpaugh Hills to get to school or to leave school, many of them will be racing each other and witnessed on
City streets presently.
With the opening of the middle school, traffic will be increased with parents taking their children to school
since no bus service is provided to those children within a 2 mile radius. When the mall opens, many
residents from Summerfield, Amberwood, Portofino and Martinque developments will also cut through
Roripaugh Hills to avoid the traffic lights and delays caused by the traffic congestion on Winchester Road.
While I appreciate that the City is attempting to ease the burden of the traffic flow problem that the City is
experiencing, I do not feel it is fair to jeopardize the lives and safety of the residents of Roripaugh Hills to
make your traffic flow plan work. Residents of Roripaugh Hills have the same concams that Meadowview
residents had which enabled them to keep North General Kearney closed, and our case is no different.
I hope that the Planning Commission will reconsider and close Sandealing Way when they approve the
revised Specific Plan for Campus Verde's. The City of Temecula is doing a fine job and hopefully will put the
needs and concams of all the residents above an opportunity to provide a five-minute short cut.
Sincerely,
Joanne Cadson
Homeowner
KATHRYN A. BUDD
27598 Sanderling Way - Temecula, CA 92591
909-699-7173
January 26~ 1999
City of Temecula
Planning Commission
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula. CA 92590
lIE: Planrang Application Nos. PA98-0323. PA99-0015, PA99-0016
JAN 2 5 399
Dear Planrang Contrmssiom
This letter is in opposition to the cotmeeting of Sanderling Way through the new Campus Verdes Development for the
following reasons:
Increased traffic through Roripaugh Hills
a. New' development will add approximately 484 more cars/trips through Roripaugh Hills
(242 homes x 2 cars per household)
b. Summerfield, Ambenvood, Porto~no and other surrounding developments will cot through Roripaugh Hills to
get to the new Middle School.
c. Meadowview residents will cot through to drive kids to the High School and new surrounding shopping
centers.
d. Roripaugh Hills will become a cut through for the new mall. to either get to the mall or avoid mall traffic.
e. Increased bus/maintenance traffic from the Bus Barn to the new Middie School
f. Speedway between the Middle School and High School.
Safety Concerns
Roripaugh Hills is a residential neighborhood and not conducive to heavy traffic
The intersection of Sande~ing Way and Roripaugh Road include the following:
a. An elementary school bus stop that services approximately 60 children twice a day plus 1 Kindergarten stop.
b. Playgrounctrr ot Lot geared towards children ages 3-14 years old
c. Pool with Toddler pool catering to families
d. Blind curve
Increasing the traffic through Roripaugh Hills is putting our children and community at risk. All of the increased traffic
would end up right where our children play. I am asking that you reconsider your previous decision and vote to close
Sanderling Way.
ff the Conumssion is looking for ways to ease traffic on this side of Temecula I suggest they reconsider opening North
General Kearney, This road was designed to handle the heavier traffic flow and does not endanger children/families the
way opening Sanderling Way does.
PLEASE DO NOT MAKE OUR STREET A CUT THROUGH FOR ALL OF TEMECULA!!
Thank you for your consideration. ff you have any questions, or need help getting community support for putting North
General Kearny through please call me at the above number.
City of Temecula
Planning Commission
43174 Business Park Dr.
Temecula, Calif.
Re: Carnpos Verdes, Temative tract # 28510
Members;
January 26. 1999
JAN 2 6 1999
We live in the Roripaugh Hills neighborhood on Mimulus Way. Our home overlooks the area
where Woodside Homes plans to place 247 new houses, a major shopping area. a park, church
and numerous other commercial occupancies. Our yard will be adjoined by lots # 40 and 41 in this
proposed tract. In fact the head of our bed is a mere 40 feet from where heavy earth movers will
travel.
As you can well imagine we do have concerns. They are classi~es as follows:
1. Vehicular access and safety.
The construction of 2 other residential projects along Margarita between Solaria and Winchester,
the mall construction and adjacent business construction has added volumes to the traffic density
on Winchester Road. There are somewhere between 7 to 10 new traffic signals that will be added
to this drive to accommodate the mall area, The delays along Winchester increase dally.
The proposed tract will join and extend Sanderling and Starling streets. Both are existing streets
in our neighborhood. At first blush this would seem to pose no problem. however a look at the
larger picture is in order.
Currently our neighborhood is accessed by only I street, Roripaugh which connects with a signal
on Winchester and a stop sign on Nichols Rd. This street provides access to each end of
Chaparral High school. This High School will meet irs full student load in Sept. 1999.
Additionally a middle school will be opened for classes in the 1999-2000 school year at the comer
of N. General Kearny and Camino Campos Verdes. Camino Campos Verde will be the street
where the schools parking lot, bus pick-up point and inclement weather drop off area will be
concentrated. The most direct travel route between these two campus's and the district
transportation center is thru our neighborhood. Additionally the most direct rome available for
the middle school fi'om any of the homes along Nichols Rd., and the new neighborhoods along
Winchester North of Nichols is thin our neighborhood, bypassing the busy intersections of
Winchester and Margadta and Margarita and N. General Kearney. This traffic will overload the
streets in our neighborhood. These same streets from single family homes where children play
everyday.
The City of Temecula is quite proud of the progress that is being accomplished in the
construction of the Overland bridge bypass to the 1-15 fleeway which will terminate at Margarita
near N. Gen. Kearny. N. Gen. Kearny DOES NOT continue on to Nichols rd. due to political
considerations posed by the affluent occupants of Meadowview. The intersection of Winchester
and Margarita is immediately adjacent to our neighborhood. On this single intersection is the
major mall, a 15 screen movie theater, the only Costco in the region. Ralphs grocery, and a Lowes
home improvement store and provides access to over 100 other business' large and small.
Traffic is already at a near standstill at the intersection of Winchester and Inez Traffic
enforcement is lackluster with 4 traffic motorcycles dividing the city into enforcement
quadrangles. ANY congestion, or other restriction such as a traffic collision or construction in
this intersection will result in heavy traffic being detoured thru our residential streets for the
duration of the delay. Without the continuation of N. Gen. Keamey thru to Nichols Rd. then
there is no other logical route for the detours to take. Our neighborhood will be asked to take on
the burden of bypass traffic traveling between the business' along Inez, Winchester, Margarita. the
Overland bypass The auto mall, Guident, 2 schools, thousands on exsisiting and proposed
residents and the freeway anytime there is a delay along Winchester between Nichols Road and
the 1-15.
SOLUTIONS:
1. Delay construction of the Campos Verdes Project until N. General Kearney road is completed
to Nichols Rd.
2. Erect gates at the neighborhood interface between Roripaugh Hills and Campos Verde at
Sanderling Rd. and Starling until N. Gen. Keamy is completed to Nichols Rd.
2. The Exsisting bridle trail between the developments;
There is a 15 foot bridle trail that extends from Sanderling west along the rear the houses along
Mimulus Way ending behind 40231 Mimulus Way. This trail will terminate at the junction of Lots
46 and 47 in the Campos Verde Development in a "blind alley" as no continuation into the new
neighborhood is accommodated. This "trail will be from 8 feet above grade at Sanderling to 20
feet below exsisiting grade at it's terminus for the homes along Mimulus. At this termination will
be placed a open pipe draining into the flood control system. The rear of the Campos Verde
homes from lot's 35 to 41 will slope down into this area. This will amount to a dirt lined drainage
ditch with an opening into the pipes of the drainage system. This trail will be below the level of
the yards on both sides and vehicular accessible from Sanderling providing a perfect place for
clandestine activities that includes weeds, dumping of refuse, criminal activities and unseen
entrance to the mar of homes along this trail
Concurrently the rear of lots 47 thru 56.will have a "V" notch between the two neighborhoods
to accommodate the differences in the elevations. This will produce the same results in this "V".
Also at 40243 Mimulus Way there is a concrete channel that extends from the curb line on
Mimulus Way to the rear of the property. This ditch is the low point for watershed in our
neighborhood and this ditch would prevent flooding in the event that the storm drain system were
to plug up or be inadequate.. The homes behind this address are to be placed higher than the
homes along Mimulus way. This will create a dam with the potential of flooding our homes while
the Campos Verde homes remain high and dry.
SOLUTIONS;
1. Quick Deed the bridal trail adjacent Roripaugh homeowners along Mimulus Way.
2. Extend/expand drainage system accommodate exces iwater flows along Mimulus Way at it's
"worst case scenario" .
3. Remove the drainage ditch at 40243 Mimulus Way and restore the yard Woodside Homes
expense.
4. Grade all affected yards along Mimulus way to "level' with exsisting backyard levels and
replace all affected fences. landscape and irrigation.
4. Provide drainage between Roripaugh and Campos Verdes tracts where grade elevations are
different so that no yard becomes flooded.
5. Provide no open ended pipes leading into the flood control system that might attract children.
3. Noise and pollution.
As I have stated, our home is a few feet away fi'om where heavy equipment will travel and
construction will occur over the life of this project. Currently we have the construction on 4
projects underway in our area. The apartments at Solana and Margarita. The homes adjacent to
those apartments, the middle school and of course the Mall and it's accouterments. The result is
that we have been bombarded with noise and dust from II of this. The tractors start up at 5:30 AM
and maintenance of them occurs at night. We have generators with lights at the school project.
As work progresses hammering, and other loud noises permeate our home. The City of Temecula
has a noise ordinance that the Sheriffs office is reluctant to enforce. They refer us to the cities
Code enforcement office who does not work past normal weekday hours and weekends. As s
Fire~ghter/Paramedic in Los Angeles, I come home quite tires tiom time to time. My early
morning sleep has been interrupted many time with the current projects. and our home has been
covered in dust for the last year. With a project going on 50 feet away, this interruption in our
lives will become much worse.
SOLUTIONS;
A. The city must notify all workers and residents of the ordinances the are in effect regarding
noise levels and hours including work starting and stopping times and dust control measures.
B. The developer must provide a mechanism to address noise and dust issues immediately that
occur before or after the regulated work hours.
C. The City must instruct the Riverside County sheriff office that it must enforce the ordinances
within a reasonable time during hours that code enforcement personal are unavailable.
D. The City must provide an after hours contact if the above measures are unavailable.
David & Laura Barron
40223 Mi~tulus Way
Temecula, Ca[if. 92591
909-693-4~86
Tuesday January 26, 1999 3:51Fm -- From ~909 699 05221 -- Page 2~
Jan-26-99 16: 21, Avalon Hanage~nt Group,
909 699 0522
P.02
ITuesday January 26, lW9 ,~:51Fm -* From r909 6gg 05221 -- Page 3[
· 3an-26-99 16:22 Avalon_ H_anagement Gt*oup,
909 699 0522
P.03
Michael A. Budd
27598 SandedingWay
Temecula, CA 92591
Janua~ 26,1999
City of Temecula
Planning Commission
43200 Business Park Ddve
Temecula, CA 92590
Planning Application Nos. PA98-0323, PA99-015, PA99-0016
Dear Sir or Madam:
I am writing this letter in opposition to specific items in the aforementioned planning applications,
specifically the through connection of Sandealing Way from the Rodpaugh Hills development to
the Campus Verdes Development.
If Sandealing Way is made into a through street, it will become the north/south bypass for traffic
that wishes to avoid the Promenade Mall. When the plan for Sandealing Way was originally
proposed the regional mall was not yet planned. Sandealing Way will also become the pdmary
cut through for parents taking their children to the new middle school being built within Campus
Verdes.
We believe connecting North General Keamy would better solve the city traffic issues, as was
the original plan, and as all the published maps show. North General Keamy was designed to
handle the heavy volume of traffic in that there are no homes facing the street.
Has the Planning Commission considered that Sandeding Way intersects Rodpaugh Road at a
bus stop area, as well as a park designed for kids 5-1 4yrs old, and a community pool area which
has a Toddler pool, all of which increase the need for small children to cross at this intersection.
The homeowners of Rodpaugh Hills have previously filed complaints regarding the volume and
speed of traffic on Rodpaugh Road, asking for stop signs which have been denied, now the city
wants to increase the volume of traffic.
As a precedence for keeping Sandealing Way closed, we refer the Planning Commission to the
fact that the residence of Meadowview, which includes several city council members, have been
able to either block off or to have speed bumps added to all streets that would have allowed
traffic to flow through their development, i.e. Kahwea, N. General Keamy and Calle Pina Colaria
to mention a few.
Michael A. Budd
January 26. 1999
--- "' "~' i~SS ,.
To the City of Temecula: The Planning Commission,
Please seriously reconsider the opening of Sanderling Wax' as a
possible access way to the new Mall, and/or the new housing developments
that are proposed to be built close by. There are so many reasons to
reconsider. I feel the most important reason is our high population of
children in this area. This housing development has attracted mainly families
with children and teens ... that is a lot due to the fact that we have a high
school. two pools, tennis courts and a big play-park. The play park is located
right at the entrance of Sanderling Way! Also, the children love to ride their
bikes up and down Sanderling Way because of it's decline. We constantly
see the police stopping cars to give citations as cars speed thur this area,
mostly on our main road Roripaugh, because they can use it as a short cut
thru from Nicolas Rd., to closer to the main city. We have quite a problem in
this area with these speeding individuals who do not live in this area and do
not care about our children, or even the many people who walk their dogs
thru our streets. This is exactly what will happen if you open up another exit
(short cut), only it will be far worse. Sanderling Way would become an even
more desirable way to get thru!, and these cars certainly don't want to stay at
25mph... so they will try to sneek thru quickly. This area will become a high
traffic area, and as I have already stated, this is a very family/children
concentrated housing development.
Please take all of us into consideration.
Debora and Leonnard Roth
Roripaugh Hills Home Owner
Dr. Michael R Shaver
27586 Sanderling Way
Temecula, CA 92591
City of Temecula
Planning Commission
January 25, 1999
Dear Sirs,
I am writing to express my concern about the proposal to make Sanderling Way a major
thoroughfare. This concerns me because my opinion is that Roripaugh Road and
Sanderling Way will become a shortcut to the new mall and the new middle school. I am
very happy living in a small community where I feel that my family is safe. I feel that all of
this would change should the proposal to open Sanderling Way to through traffic be
approved
I understand that the General Plan always had Sande~ing Way as a through street and I
have no concerns with that. My concern stems from the fact that North General Kearney
was supposed to become a major artery for this area of Temecula and as we are all aware
it has yet to become a through street. I feel the impact of that will be increased traffic on a
street with eleven homes, hardly what I would consider an appropriate place to put a
major thoroughfare for our city.
My greatest concern is for the safety of my family and other families living in my
neighborhood, particularly all the children. As it stands, Roripaugh Road is already a
shortcut for a lot of people and speeding is a regular occurrence despite the regular
presence of the City of Temecula Police Department. Increasing traffic would just serve
to worsen a problem that in a real concern to me and my family. Before making your
decision on this matter please consider the effect it will have on the people already here,
and not completely of the people living in the new communities being built in our area. I
understand that our city is going through a lot of growing pains and I understand that, but
I would be very disappointed if this would bring the end to our small community for the
convenience of the city.
Thanks for your consideration.
Dr. Michael R. Shaver
· ,-.i; 6 7999
January 26, 1999
~ity of Temecula
[lanning Jommision
I strongly object to the rezoning of the area contiguous to
noripaugh Hills from ~tarling to :~imulus. afew years sgs, the
6ity ~ouncil assure~ the many ~oripaugh home o~ers present that
this area would be low density, You now have planned for over
iifty houses To be built between otarling and Eimulus on forty five
and forty seven foot lots; with no cul-de-sacs or common areas in
between. This means that many children in the ares will play with
bicycles and skate-boards on jtarling; a natural slope to RoriDaugh.
~e have already had some near misses. ~lso, this long line of houses,
on such narrow lots is not consistant with the planning cf i{oripaugh
Hills.
In regard to the opening of ~anderlin~; twice a day children
board buse~,-on both sides of Roripaugh at the intersection of ,~and-
erling and i<oripaugh. You can count on, at least, one hundred more
vehicles from the aforementioned area using this street for access.
~h~o. because of the lack of common areas and proximity of these
houses, it will inntease the vandalism and cleanup of common areas
~aid for by Roripaugh Hills home owners.
it may not alleviate the total problem,
sides rezoning this area back to lo~ density,
Dot open janderling or jtarling.
but i beg you to con-
and praythat you will
5olores J. ~rr
~02~2 ~tarling ~t.
12-4-98
TO: Joarme Carlson
FROM: Kirk and Lori Bates
27459 Rosebay Ct.
Temecula
JAN 2 6 1999
We want to go on record that we agree with the Board requesting that Sanderling
Way does not go through, and that Starling St. remains as a fire access, only. We hope the
Planning Commission will consider the children that play at the park end pool that will be
in danger if Sanderling Way opens; for it will increase traffic considerably at axe
intersection of Roripaugh and Sande~ing. We hope the Commission will help the
developer of the 242 new homes to see the importance to build new roads that will exit
off on Margarita therefore putting no more traffic pressures on residential streets. If
Sanderling is opened up the potential for more speeding high school students to and fro
Chaparral High will greatly increase, not to mention the traffic caused by the new
shopping center(Ralphs). Roripaugh Hills needs no more traffic on its already busy !ittle
streets. Speeds on Roripaugh Rd. already well exceeds the 25 mph posted limit. We'
would like to see it patrolled more often to remind folks that it is a residential zone t:nd
not an extention of Hwy. 79. Each community should have it's own ways of egress
without effecting the neighboring commtmity. Thank- You for your intelligent
consideration of this traffic concern.
Kirk and Lori Bates
l~oae 909 694.1475
Fax 555-9876
Home Phone 909 694.1195
Judy, Bnmo
~ ~_~ '~,, l Rivehide
6 1999
January 26. 1999
Ci.ty of Temecula Planning Contrmsion: re Campus Verdes Rd.
To whom it may concern,
I have resided at 40215 Mdmulus way for nine years, this is a very quiet street with many, many children. including
my o~71. To think that you City Planners are actually going to try putting Campus Vetdes through is outrageous.
What ever happened to putting through N. General; Keamey ? Too many City council members live in
Meadowview I suppose. Or maybe its an artery too lodgieal for the city of Temecula. You already know exactly
what will happen with the traffic cutting through Roripaugh Hills PA, on to Sanderling to Campus Verdes. Also
using Mimulus as another bypass. Remember there is a tot lot, a bus stop, and many children that live and play on
and near Rotipaugh Rd. and Sanderling. You better rethink this artery.
Sincerly,
t'
1/18/99
JAN 2 6 1999 '
Temecula City Cormell/Planning Commission
% Kathy Budd
2?598 Sanderling Way
Temecula. CA 92591
Gentleman.
I am writing this letter to protest the proposed opening of Sanderling Way and/or Starling Stn~ to additional traffic due
to the proposetl Campos Verde project. The addilional non resident thru traffic on Rofipaugh Road that this project
would produce is not tenable. Homeowners off of Nienlas Road all the way to Calle Medusa would use Rofipaugh
Road as a short cut to get to the new mall. Rofipaugh Road is already a fleeway due to non resident traffic.
The vandalism to association property by non residents is already out of enntrol. These costs are born by the 439
residents who live m Roripaugh. The Roripaugh home owners do not want the additional traffic and or vendalisn at our
pools, teams courts or common ereas that Campos Verde would produce flour eonxmumty were 1o be opened up to this
project..
We have been told that the fa'e department requires requires mggss thro Rofipaugh into Campos Verde. fthe new
middle s~hool located on General Kearny has adequate rue access then Csmpos Verde with access off of Mergarita and
General Keamy would certainly have adequate ftre access. Currently there is a project under construction in that back
of Meadowview adjacent to Valle Olvera. These homes back up to General Keamy but do not have ingress or egress on
General Keamy. Fire equipment will need to wind all the way thro Meadowview to get to these homes. The city should
open up General Keamy thru Meadowview to Nicolas Road.
I am suggesting that the Roripaugh Hills Homeowners Association hire an attorlney and sue both the builder of
C ampos Verde and the City of Temecula ff either of our streets ere opened up to Campos Verde and Mall tra~c.
Sinc~e~l~y,
Bruce Weckesser
Roripaugh Hills
27441 Bolandra court
Temecula, CA 92591
January26,1999
Hierholzer
27574 Sande~ing Way
Temecula. Ca. 92591
Home Phone (909) 699-3037
' :.i Z 6 1999 ;/
To whom it may concern:
This letter is in regards to the proposed opening of Sande~ing Way in the Roripaugh Hills tract. As a resident whose
home is on Sanderling Way, I am fully opposed to the opening of the street. The unnecessary traffic this will cause
will be excessive, especially for a quiet neighborhood full of small children. We already have many people who do
not follow the 25 mile an hour residential speed limit and opening Sanderling to provide access to a new school will
only heighten this problem. In addition, we have a community pool and children's playground at the end of
Sanderling and increased traffic could promote a higher level of danger for the many residents and children who
access those facilities. With residents and their children's' safety in mind, I feel it would be a bad decision to open
Sanderling Way and I fully oppose it.
Lisa Hierholzer
January 26, 1999
Dear City Planning Commission,
My family resides on Mimulus Way, in the Roripaugh Hills development. It has been
brought to my attention that you plan to put a major artery through this development,
Sanderling into Campus Verde's. I strongly feel that this plan has not been well thought
out, due to the amount of children in this area, this could become a hazard with all of the
cut through traffic that will be surely using this artery to get to there destinations. We
hope that you reconsider this faulted plan.
Sincefly,
/-.'-,,Z
)f~
L,2,~
OCOn C,, hc'pqc~
%cf~n5
, k3~ ~"~ o,
you
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
TRAFFIC LETTER FOR THE PROPOSED
CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. I
~\TEMEC_FS201\E)ATA~)EPTS%PLANNING~STAFFRPT%323pa98pc.dOC
52
DEC-22-S8 TUE ~6:51 P~ ~ILB~R S~[T~ ~SSEC]~TES F~X NO. ?14~781i:9 P. 02
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS · PLANNERS
December 22. t99g
Mr. Nate Pulley
Project Mana.g~r
W'oodside Homes of C-~V:or~ia~ Luc
30211 Banderas, Suite 130
Fumcho SantaMargarim, CA 92688
Campos Verdes Specific Plan Update - Ci~ Planning Department Questions Ccncevrdnd
Consi~ency With The Spedfie Plan 'ElK Traffic Study Findings
Dear Mr. Pugsley:
In response to questions raised by City of Texnect~a Planning DepazTzaem staff, Wilbux Smith
Associates (WSA) ~ prepared the following discussion of cotnistenc3' between pomntia] traffic
impaz~s associated witb zhe currently proposed Carapog Vetdes Specific Plaa and traffic impacts
ad~e~ed in the original Campos Verdes Spedfie Plma EIR Truffle Study. The issues addressed
heroin include: a cnm,na'~e analysis of the land use componenL% trdfic generation impacts; and
an assessment of ccmsis~ucy, ~om a pote=tial traffic iraFact pe='spec~ve.
Overview of Specific Plan SIR Traffic Impact Stud).
Tb.c Campos Ve~xtt~ Specific Plan E[R Traffic Impact Study preVared for Specific Plan 1 included
an aaalysis of the project impi~:m at ful2 dcvdopment of r, he ~ite The analysis assumed an
approx'imae rixac-year d~velcr~ment schedule for the Campos V~des project. During this
devebpmem period, it was consexvativcly assumed that all of the approved Spedfie Pla=s withill
the City Of Temecula and surrounding area of influence would also build out. Additionally, the
tz~_~c study assumed bufid out of a]l planned (but nc~ yet .aptEovex]) projects witMn an hppfordmate
m'O-rrfle r:~lias ofthe project. This included significant planned proj~cm such as Winchester Hi/Is
(S.P. 225), Temecula Regional Center (S.P. 263), and Whlches~ Meadows. Atthough these off-
sk~ dgvelol:m2e~ assumptions acamally reixesen/c~d a forecast year which was well beyond the nine-
year time frame (year 2000) identified in the study, it was important tc consider t.h¢ ~tir~:ze
cumulative effects of these projccm on traffic flows m the study ar~a. It is clear at this t/me that
some of these projects w]II not ]jkely ix buik-ollt for another tea ye~s.
DE0-22-98 TUE C8:52 PM
5.L'. Na~c Pug31~
December
Pa~e 2
WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FAX NO. 714~781109
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
P. 33
The Specific Plan El traffic m~nl!sis employed the use of a refined version of the SWAP
conpum--b~d traffic forecasting model wh.'ch later was modified and mfmcd ~B the Ci~ of
Tcrnecuh Gcnc~l Plan Circulation Element Traffic Mod~I. The traffic forecasting modal allowed
tbr a more gale assessment of long-term cumuhr{ve d~vclopmem a-afilc impacts in fie ~-'cimty
of the Campos Verdgs project. The traffic aualysis included an ~,aluadon of weekday daily, a.m.
pea.k-hor~r, and p.m. p~k-hour conditions.
Land use assnmFdoas and associated trip genecation est/rmates for the orig{aally aSproved Carmpos
vetdes Specific Plan ~e given in the ~c~he, d Tables I through 3. Trip gancradc~ rains used in
the specific plan ~'tudy wet= based ou "typical" daily mtcs developed by the Insti.natc of
Traspcrmnon Eng/zxcers for the indvidual laud use ca;gories. Peak-hour lrip geucrat~on for
project sire was ~-m.~l ly dgv~loped ,,~thjn the traffic forecast modc!/ng procedure
Recc~Kmded lo~g-rang~ roadv~y i~ovcm~t ue=is in th~ vicinity of ~e Foje~ (which res~d
ff~ the s~c plm~ Md-ont ~d c~,,~ ~ deveIopm~t ~'~c ~mp~z gysis) ~cluded:
(1) ~ ~d~g of N~ Cm=~ K~v Ro~ m g Secon~ R~'ay ~; (2) ~e
~/ng of N~ R~ m ~ .~al st~; (3) ~he wid~mg of W~t~ Ro~ to full
Ur~l An~ g~; ~ (3) ~c gnnHT~ of~gadta Road im~ccdons at No~ ~]
Kegy ~d CmFc, s V~d~ ~e,
Currently Proposed Carnpos ~.rde, s Specific Plan
Table 4 summarizes the currently proposed la~d use for the Campos V~des Specific Plan_ B~ild-
out of the project i$ expected to occm' within a five to six-year period (by 2005). Trip generation
for the carenil3· prcf~ed Campes Vetdes Specific Plan is based on the most current edificra of the
l_nstitute of Transpotmdoe Engineers Trip Geuerazion. Daily and peak-hour rlp generation forthe
proposed Frojeer is presented in Table 5.
Consistency with the Campos Vetdes Specific Plan ErR Traffic Study
The utxhted traffic generation study, has maintained consistency with the original Specific Plan
Traffic Stady The upcL~e~d traffic generation study differs fxom ~e earlier ~ady m tha~ it
DEC-22-98 TUE 56:52
~h'. Nate PugsIcy
Dcccraber 22, t 998
Pag~ 3
WILBUR S~ITH ~SSOCIaTES FaX NO.
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
7149781109 P, 04
incorporates new tx-ip g~erar4on research data and reflects actual Jevelopment proposals (e.g.
proposed home imp, ove_ment~ar:b,vare sup~smre within tZ~e c, oran~cr~al conic0 which are knc~n
at this time.
The mcst ..gar_opn~,2ze measure of consi.~ter~.', from a traffic Lmpact persiaecrive, ~hould be based on
a comparison of traffic generalion, Table~ 2 and 3 provide a gummary of vehicle aip gev. eragion
assumpti<ms mctuded inthc bri~nvj Sped~c lPlan EIl~,Traffic Stud'/. The referenccd dev¢lopment
areas are depieaed in Figure 1..Ait/xougk ttte con~ntion eftand use development areas within the
Specific ?Jan has been modified in the current development proposal, the modifications are
relatively minor and still allow for a cornpro-Lore of tr'-Z~c generatkm impael:; on a sub-ar:a ba~i~
Tae original EIR Traffic Study was based on a total trip generation of 16, 184 daily trips, 997 a.m.
peak-ho~ trips, ar.d 1,179 pro. peak-hour trips
As shc~vn in Table 5, Mp generation for the currently proposed Carnpos Verdes Specific Plan falls
within the diy an d p.m. peak hour trip generation m'tals mcluded in Cue original Specific Plan ElK
Traffic Study Dally vehicle wip generauon i$ estimated at I2,070 vehicle trips and eveni,~g peak-
hour trip generation is estimated to be 1,I23 vehicle trips. During the mcrrnmg peak hour, the
curreatly proposed Specific Plan is estimated 1o geaerale a total cf 1,067vehicle rips. Thi~ is 70
'vehicle trips gxeater than was estix~ated in the original Spec~fi c Plan EIR Traffic Study k should
be noted that the currently prop>sod middle school in Ar~a 6, with a typical enrollment of 1,050
students, results in a gut~,'tantially hi~dacr morning peak hour trip geraerati on thaa was estimated for
the residential use a..tsumed in the origim~l =affic study a~d has a higher trip gerarraticm than the
~-lemenmry ~chool included in the aplyroved Specific Plan. Although ~e total morning peak houx
trip generaion is slightly higher for ~he current pro~ect, the mp ggneration estimate should be
considered as $ve since no trip red~on h~s be~n assumed for internal trip making or pass-
by ~rips associased with school traffic.
tn tetras or7 the recommetded accesa co~figuraZicn, the updated Specific Plan is generally consistera
with the original Spe~fic Plan EIK Minor differences can be noted in a=, igs of the assumed on-site
circulation layout however internal accessibility has been malntair. ed. This is important to the
elimination of mmecessary traffic circ,,l~cm on the adjacent street system when travelLing between
land use areas w~thin the Specific Plan site.
DE¢-~2-98 TE ~8:53 P~
Mr Nate PugsleT.
I)ecsmber 22, 1998
Page 4
~:Ij]UR SMITH ~SSOCI~TES FAX NO, 714978II09
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
P. 3E
Mes~ of the recommended roadway improvemourn m ~he vici-~it~, of the si~ are either. completed cr
are CUlTenL!y ,j~der cor~stnlc6oIl. A new siglla] will be insta!ircd at the intersection of Margarlt.~
Road and North General Kearny by the fourth qum-cer of i999, when the Promenade Mall opens.
A new signal ca Marga:ita 'at Campos Verdes Lane would be timed to correspond to either the
development of the POw¢': Center component of the Regional C:ter pt~Dpe~y. (on the we~l side of
Nhrgm'ita Ro~) or th~ Campas Vca-d_es com~nc~ dal center ~'ite (on Yh¢ east s~d¢ of Mm-garita Road).
The w~demng of No~lh C_,tmera] Kearny Road would Ijkeiy bc accomplished in two phases. FCmt
the intersection approach would be widened to coinado with the open4n~ of the Prcca2r'na& Mhll
and th:n the renmindtw of ~e North General Kearny (along the project frontage) would be widemeal
as ~e Csrnpos Verdes project is ds-vej. oped.
Based on \VgA's assesm'r~'nt, r~ic in~pm.~ ~ocami wiE~ the cm-ren~y proposed CaraFes Ve~les
Specific Pba sin: is consistent w~h the origin'.d Specific PI2r, EIR Traffic Study.
Should you or City of Iemecula Planning Departmost s~aff have any questions concerning t. his
evaluation, please feel frec to contact mc
Sincerely,
~.!,'n ,RIj'R SMITI=I ASSOCIATES
Rob~.-rt A. Davis
Principal Transportation pL~,~ne, r
R.~D: tad
Enclosure
DE¢-~2-'98 TUE ~6:53 ?N ~iLBUR SNITH ~SSO¢IATES FRX NO. 714~781109 P. 3a
A. BY PLANNING AREA,
Developm~m Tentative
PT~mg Fraet No. Acrc~
25213
Arc~ 1 Pacel 8 & 9 13.~
Table 1
'Assumed Land Use
Campos Verdcs
Size Unit
Area 2 Parcel ? 10,4 93 Net Ac
t ~qn,d USe
Space
Cc~er~al Office
Area 3 P~c~l 4~5 & 6 22,2 377
Axca 4 Pacd t 13.5 10
Ar~a 5 Parr. d 2 & 3 15.7 267
Area 6 25214 27.1 141
Area 7 25215 21 65
Total 123
D.U.'s* blulti Farofly Residential
Net Ac Neighborhood Retail Center
D,U.'s
D.U.'s
D.U.'s
Multi Family R~idemtial
Sir, gle Family Residential
Single Family Residential
B. BY LAND USE CATEGORY
Land Use
SingIt Family Re~idemial
Multi Family Residential
Neighborhood Retail Center
Commercial Office
i Siz~
2O6
644
13.5
10.4
Unit
D.U.'s
Ac,
DE0-22-~6 TUE 3E:53 PM WILBUR S~ITH ASSOCIATES F~X NO. 714~7~1109 P. g7
Table 2
Vehicle Trip Generation Rates
Campea Verdes
Single Fsm{ly
Multi-Fam~y
Retail:
Nei,~aborhoed Center (Am. 1!0
DU ,i ~
LOCATION OF
LAND USE
Ph~ng Arm 6 & 7
Planning Areas 3 & 5
Area 4
Harming Area 2
. DEC-22-9~ TUE E6:54 PM WILBUR SMITH ~SOC[RIY_,S FAX NO. 7149781109 P, ge
DEC-22-98 TUE ~E:54 PM WILBUR SMITH ~SSOCIBTES F~ NO. 7NS78iI09 P. 99
o
_.1
LU
LLI
1'-'
LU
n- o · Lu
~-rr ~
0u3
,DEG-22-aB TUE G8:54 P~ ~[LBUk SMITH ASSOCIATES F~X NO. 714~7811S9 P. IZ
aEC-22-se~ FUE L:b;ss Vrl WiL~uk .5~1i t'h aSS~I,-',FES F~X NO. 714i7811Z9 P. 11
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APPROVING THE
CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN ON SEPTEMBER 13, 1994
~\TEMEC_FS201 ~DATA~DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~323pa98pc.,dOc
53
24.
Si;)ecific Plan No. 1 (Camoos Verdesl. Environmental ImDact ReOort 348. and Change of
Zone No. 5617
City Attorney Peter Thorson explained that three members of the Council have a conflict
of interest; Councilmember Mu~oz because of his work with Kernper, Mayor Roberrs,
based on his residence in Meadowview and Councilmember Birdsall because she also
resides in Meadowview. Mr. Thorson explained that the "Rule of Necessity" applies in
this case and lots would be drawn to determine who would vote on this issue.
City Clerk June Greek distributed lots, two of which had the word "no" printed on it and
one which had the word "yes". Councilmember Birdsall received the paper with the
"yes" on it. City Attorney Thorson declared Councilmember Mu~oz and Mayor Roberrs
Mi nutee\9\ 13\94 * 1 O- 11/O7 196
Council Minutes September 13. 1994
disqualified and Councilmember Birdsall requalified. He advised that Councilmember
Birdsall should not participate in discussion, but only vote on the issue.
Director of Planning Gary Thornhill presented the staff report and stated that the
Meadowview Homeowners Association supports this project.
Mayor Pro Tem Stone opened the public hearing at 9:50 PM.
Ed Mowles, 27595 Dandelion Court, spoke in opposition to the connecting of both
Starling or Sanderling Way through Roripaugh Hils.
Dennis Chiniaeff, 27555 Ynez, No. 201, spoke in favor of the project, stating he feels
it will be of benefit to the community.
Councilmember Parks asked if a traffic analysis was done on the connecting roads.
Principal Engineer Ray Casey answered the issue is one of access rather than volume.
Jim Gremanis, 40212 Starling Street, spoke in opposition of connecting Starling and
Sanderling Way through Roripaugh Hills.
Dave Gallagher, representing the Temecula Valley Unified School District, requested the
Council delay approval of t~is specific plan until a satisfactory mitigation plan between
the applicant and the school district is reached.
Councilmember Parks stated that the conditions of approval of the tentative map allow
this condition to be placed.
Eric Doring, Attorney for the Temecula Valley Unified School District, stated that
contradictory conditions exist and requested that time be given over the next two weeks
to address these concerns.
City Attorney Thorson stated that the Conditions of Approval clearly state there will not
be any development until a mitigation agreement is reached.
Donna Vedra, 40257 Mimulus Way, spoke in opposition of opening Starling Street and
Sanderling Way.
Aletha Herron, 27479 Senna Court, spoke in opposition to the opening of Starling Street
and Sanderling Way.
Dennis Chiniaeff, 27555 Ynez, No. 201, stated it is a difficult decision regarding the
streets and he does not have a preference one way or the other. He said the City
Attorney has adequately addressed the school issue and stated Kernper has worked with
the school district and will continue to do so.
Minutes\9\13\94 -11 - 11/07/96
CiW CounQil Minutes September 13.1994
Mayor Pro Tem Stone called a recess at 10:35 PM to change the tape. The meeting was
reconvened at 10:36 PM.
Mayor Pro Tem Stone suggested placing a fire gate at Sanderling and eliminating
connecting Starling into Roripaugh.
Councilmember Parks stated he would support closing the interconnect at Starling with
a fire gate and allowing for pedestrian and bicycle traffic, but would prefer to open
Sanderling Way.
It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Stone to approve
staff recommendation on 24.1 as follows.
24.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 94-93
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
CERTIFYING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 348 ADOPTING FINDINGS
OF FACT AND STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION AND
APPROVING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AND THE ADDENDA TO
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 348 ON PROPERTY LOCATED
SOUTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD AND EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES:
3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Parks, Stone
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz, Roberts
It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stone to approve
staff recommendation 24.2 as follows:
24.2 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 94-26
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING
LAND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC PLAN NO. I (CAMPOS
VERDES) LOCATED SOUTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD AND EAST OF MARGARITA
ROAD
Minutes\9\13\94 -12- 11/07/96
City Council Minutes Scotember 13.1994
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Parks, Stone
NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz, Roberts
It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stone to approve
staff recommendation 24.3 as follows:
24.3 introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 94-27
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MA OF SAID CITY IN THE
CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION CONTAINED IN CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5617
CHANGING THE ZONING FROM R-R (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) AND A-2-20 (HEAVY
AGRICULTURE, 20 ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE) TO SP (SPECIFIC PLAN) ON
PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD AND EAST OF
MARGARITA ROAD
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Parks, Stone
NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz, Roberts
It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stone to approve
staff recommendation 24.4, and approve an amendment to the Specific Plan to close
the interconnect at Starling with a fire gate and to allow for pedestrian and bicycle
traffic, and to open the connection at Sanderling Way.
24.4 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 94-94
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN NO. I (CAMPOS VERDES) PROPOSING 308 SINGLE
Minutes\9%13%94 - 13- 11 IO7/96
City Council Minutes Sentember 13.1994
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS, 19.8 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL\OFFICE~CHURCH
USES, A 5.8 ACRE DETENTION BASIN, A 10.8 ACRE PARK, A 10.7 ACRE
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, AND 13.0 ACRES OF ON-SITE ROADWAYS, LOCATED
SOUTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD AND EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 2
NOES: 1
ABSENT: 0
ABSTAIN: 2
COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Parks
COUNCILMEMBERS: Stone
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz, Roberrs
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
EXHIBITS
\\TEMEC_FS201 ~DATA~DEPTS'~PLANNING~STAFFRPT~323pa98pc..doc
54
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA99-0016
EXHIBIT- A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - FEBRUARY 3, 1999
\\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~323pa98pc doc
55
VICINITY MAP
CITY OF TEMECULA
<::) · .~.OS"~.~.P.,.~ BP
NC
C ' .
/
.~ BP
/
k SC
P
CC 0
~- -.-~
,,/<' BP BP H
.L
CASE NO. - PA99-0016
EXHIBIT o B
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - FEBRUARY 3, 1999
GENERAL PLAN MAP
\\TEMEC_FS201~DATA~DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPTL323pa98pc doc
56
CITY OF TEMECULA
SP
SP
CASE NO. - PA99-0016
EXHIBIT- C
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - FEBRUARY 3, 1999
ZONING MAP
\\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS~PLANNING%STAFFRPTL323pa98pc.doc
57
CITY OF TEMECULA
SC VL
.7' /
CASE NO. - PA99-0016
EXHIBIT- D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - FEBRUARY 3, 1999
PROPOSED LAND USE MAP ZONING
R:\STAFFRPT~323pa98pC,.dOC
58