HomeMy WebLinkAbout102099 PC AgendaIn compliance with tOe Americans with Disabili~ Act, if you need special assistance to participate in tOis meeljng, please contact tOe office
of the Community Development Department at (909) 694-6400. NotiOn 48 horn prior tO a meeting will enable tOe City to make
reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility tO thlt meeting [28 CFR 35,102.35.104 ADA Tlife Iq
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
October 20, 1999 @ 6:00 PM
43200 Business Park Ddve
Council Chambers
Temecula, CA 92590
Resolution Next In Order ~9-041
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Guerdero
FLAG SALUTE:
ROLL CALL:
Fahey, Guerriem, Mathewson, Naggar, and Webster
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissionera on items that are not listed
on the Agenda, Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the CommissioPars 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. Minutes from September 29, t 999
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
EnvironmentalAction:Determination of Consistency with a project for which
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified
Planner: Carole K, Donahoe, AICP
Recommendation: Approval
Planning Application No. PA99-0296 (Tentative Tract Map No.
24136)
Paseo Partners, LLC, Chris Chambers
North of DePortola Road, east of Margadta Road, west of Meadows
Parkway and south of Montelegro and Leena Way
The subdivision of 99.8 gross acres into 397 residential lots and 22
open space lots
an
\\TEMEC FSI01\VOLI~DEIYrS\PLANNING\WIMBERVG~PLANCOMM~AGENDAS\I999\I0-20-99-doc
1
m
Case No: Planning Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map
28627)
Applicant: Margadta Canyon, LLC
27740 Jefferson Ave., Suite, Temecula, CA 92590
Location: Located adjacent to Interstate 15, southwest of the intersection of Old
Town Front Street and Highway 79(S) [the future Western Bypass
Corridor] (Assessor's Parcel Number 922-210-047)
Proposal: Planning Application No. PA97-0307 is a proposal to subdivide an
approximately 37 acre parcel in 10 commercial lots and one open
space lot
Environmental Action:City Staff is recommending that an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) be prepared for this project
Case Planner: John De Gange
Recommendation: Denial
PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting:
November 3, 1999, 6:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park
Drive, Temecula, California, 92590
',\TEMEC_FSI01\VOLl\DEPTS\PLANNING\WIMBERVG~PLANCOMId~AGENDAS\199~\10-20-99.doc
2
ITEM #2
MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 29, 1999
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in an adjourned regular meeting
at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday September 29, 1999, in fie City Council Chambers of
Temecuia City Hall, 43200 Business Park Ddve, Temecula, California.
ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner Webster.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
Commissioners Fahey, Mathewson, *Naggar, Webster,
and Chairman Guerdero.
None.
Deputy City Manager Thornhill,
Planning Manager Ubnoske,
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks,
Attomey Cudey,
Senior Planner Fagan,
Associate Planner Donahce,
Project Planner Thornsley, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
*(Commissioner Naggar arrived at 6:44 P.M.)
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. ADDroyal of AClenda
MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to approve the agenda. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected approval with the
exception of Commissioner Naggar who was absent,
R:%PlanComm~minute$~092999
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Plannino AoDlication No. PA98-0447 (Tentative Parcel MaD) and PA99-0238
(Development Agreement)
Request to subdivide 6.31 acres of land into twenty-four (24) residential
lots and Planning Application No. PA99-0238 is a request for a
Development Agreement to allow a minimum five (5) foot side yard setback.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning
Commission approve the request.
Via overheads, Project Planner Thornsley presented fie staff report; noted the previous
approval of the odginal project in 1994 per the County standards for zoning, and the
subsequent expiration of the map; relayed the revisions in the City's zoning densities
revised at the time the General Plan was adopted; clarified the rationale for the request
for a Development Agreement; for Commissioner Webster, provided additional
information regarding the five-foot minimum side yard setbacks, noting the existing
terradng and banks located on vadous lots; and for Commissioner Mathewson, specified
the elevations, providing additional clarification with respect to the terracing.
Mr. George Judca, representing the applicant, for Commissioner Webster, provided the
rationale for the minimum setback proposel, noting the home marketing demands.
Ms. Karen Brooks. 29753 Calle Palmas, recommended the installation of single-stoW
homes and tree-lined streets in order not to lower the value of the adjacent properties.
For Commissioner Webster, Ms. Brook clarified that it was her desire to have the
applicant install a tree in the front yard of each of the proposed home, and to landscape
the sloped area on Via La Vida.
For Ms. Brooks, Commissioner Webster advised that the City's Development Code
requires the installation of trees on the individual lots.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Project Planner Thomsley provided assurance that the
landscape plan would be consistent with the existing landscaping in the area.
in response to Commissioner Fahey. Planning Manager Ubnoske confirmed that there is
no City Ordinance that would allow resthctions with respect to development of two-stoW
homes.
While acknowledging that per the Development Code standards no requirement could
be applied with regard to the single-stoW verses two-stoW development of residential
dwellings, Commissioner Webster noted that the side yard setback could be regulated;
relayed, howaver, that due to the consistency of the project with the surrounding
development, he was not strongly opposed to the minimum setback request,
Since the project was impacted by the City's transition between the pedod pdor to the
development of the Development Cede, and due to the project's consistency with the
R:%PlanComm~ninutes~092999
surrounding area, and the small size of the parcel, Commissioner Fahey relayed no
opposition to the proposal.
Commissioner Mathewson relayed concurrence with the previous Commission
comments.
MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to dose the public heating; adopt the Mitigated
Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA98-0447 (Tentative Tract Map) and
PA99-0238 (Development Agreement); adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for
Planning Application No. PA98-0447 (Tentative Tract Map) and PA99-0238
(Development Agreement); and adopt Resolution No. 99-035 approving Planning
Application No. PA98-0447 (Tentative Tract Map) based upon the Analysis and Findings
contained in the Staff Report, and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; and to
adopt Resolution No. 99036 recommending approval of Planning Application No. PA99-
0238 (Development Agreement) based upon fie Analysis and Findings contained in the
Staff Report.
RESOLUTION NO. 99-035
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA99-0238, BETWEEN THE CITY
OF TEMECULA AND HIRAM-HILL, LLC FOR
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 29036 (PARCELS 1-4 OF
PARCEL MAP NO. 13784 AND A PORTION OF LOTS
16-20 AND 26-28 OF TRACT MAP NO. 20882-3),
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF VIA LA VIDA
BETWEEN MARGARITA ROAD AND SOLANA WAY.
RESOLUTION NO. 99-036
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PLANNING
APPLICATION NO, PA98-0447 FOR TENTATIVE TRACT
NO. 29036 (PARCELS 1-4 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 13784
AND A PORTION OF LOTS 16-20 AND 26-28 OF TRACT
MAP NO. 20882-3), LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE
OF VIA LA VIDA BETWEEN MARGARITA ROAD AND
SOLANA WAY
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected approval
with the exception Commissioner Naggar who was absent.
3
R:~PlanCommlminutes~O929(lg
Planning ADDlication No, PA99-0274 (Development Agreement between Eli
Lilly and Company and the City of Temecula)
Request to approve a Development Agreement with Eli Lilly & Company,
RECOMMENDATION
it is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning
Commission approve the request.
Attorney Cudey presented the staff report (of record), clarifying the purpose and
specifications of the Agreement; for Commissioner Mathewson, relayed the subsequent
process if this Agreement would not be approved; provided clarification with respect to
the scope of the Agreement, noting the identified general range of anticipated land use
(denoted on page 5, Section 1.1.5 of the Agreement); further specified the standard
process of development per Section 3.1.3 regarding entitlements (page 8 of the
Development Agreement); relayed that fie language could be modified in Section 1.1.5
as a recommendation to the City Council (specifically referencing the phrase
objectionable to Commissioner Mathewson, on page 5, Section 1.1.5, whereby it was
recommended that the following be modified: the phrase the following changes will be
made, be replaced with the following changes may be made); advised that while the
Agreement creates the opportunity for a zoning change, it does not change it; noted that
if at a future point in time there would be a proposal for a zone change, the standard
process would be carded out, inclusive of the CEQA analysis; relayed the benefits for
the owner of the parcel associated with the Agreement; for Commissioner Webster,
reiterated the process of the standard land use process with respect to proposals within
this particular area, providing additional information regarding the denoted zoning.
Commissioner Fahey relayed that any proposal that would come forward would be
required to mitigate any negative impacts, in order to attain approval of the proposal.
Initially, Commissioner Mathewson relayed hesitance supporting the densities denoted
in the Agreement; recommended that the matter be postponed until the Housing
Element Update would be complete; and reiterated his desire to modify the language on
page 5, Section 1.1.5 of the Development Agreement.
Commissioner Fahey clarified the approval process of Development Agreements, and
the associated purview of the Commission; reiterated that any proposed project would
be required to mitigate any negative environmental impacts prior to approval; and
relayed her support of the Agreement.
4
R:%PlanComm~ninutes~092999
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to dose the public headng; approve the
Development Agreement, adopting Resolution No. 99-038 recommending approval of
Planning Application No. PA99-0274 based upon the Analysis contained in the Staff
Report; and adopts the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA99-0274,
with the attached modification to the Development Agreement,
RESOLUTION NO. 99-038
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-
0274 (DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT) BETWEEN THE
CITY OF TEMECULA AND ELI LILLY AND COMPANY
Modify-
On page 5, Section 1.1.5 of the Development Agreement replace the
phrase the following changes will be made with the phrase the
following changes may be made.
Commissioner Webster seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the
exception of Commissioner Naggar who was absent.
It was noted the Commissioner Naggar ardved at 6:44 P.M.
At 6:44 P.M. a shod recess was taken, and the meeting reconvened at 6:54 P.M.
R:%PlanContmtndnutes192991
Planninn ADOlication No. PA99-0284 (Development Plan) and Planninn
ADDlication No. PA99-0286 (Vestinn Tentative Parcel MaD No. 29431)
Planninn ADDlication No. PA99-0285 (SPecific Plan Amendment) Planninn
Application No. PA99-0283 (Development A;rcement)
1. Request to design, construct and operate a 276,243 square feet of retail
commercial uses, including a 131,848 square foot Home Depot Store, a
7,000 square foot automotive supply store, and 137,395 square feet of
village shopping space;
2, Request to subdivide 66,828 gross acres into seven (7) lots;
3. Request to Amend Amendment No. 7 to Specific Plan No. 219 {Paloma
del Sol), amending the following: land uses within Planning Area 1, 6,
and 8; the realignment and reconfiguration of Campanula Way between
De Portola Road and Meadows Parkway; the allocation of acreage
within Planning Area 1 from 32.3 acres to 35.0 acres; the allocation of
acreage within Planning Area 6 from 36.3 to 34.3 acres; the division of
Planning Area 6 into Planning Area 6A (22.3 acres, high density
residential, 9-12 dwelling units per acre, with a maximum of 268
dwelling units) and Planning Area 6B (12 acres, very high density
residential, 13-20 du/ac, with a maximum of 240 dwelling units),
resulting in an overell reduction of units from 590 to 508 dwellings; the
development of an active, private, geted senior community within
Planning Area 8 that includes a private recreation area; and an update
of Design Guidelines that incorporate the village vignettes and the
senior amenities.
4. Request for approval of a Development Agreement between the City
and del Sol Investment Co., LLC, a limited liability company.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning
Commission approve the request.
By way of overheads, Associate Planner Donahoe presented the staff report (via agenda
material); reviewed the specifications of the Specific Pan amendment, the proposed
Parcel Map, and the Development Plan, inclusive of the Development Agreement;
highlighted the site plan, focusing on the Home Depot site, noting the location of the
loading area, the ddve aisle, access, and the outdoor seasonal and permanent display
areas; specified the issues staff and the applicant have not agreed upon, as follows: a)
the applicant has proposed a 2500 square foot permanent outdoor display, while staffs
recommendation would be to reduce the area to 2300 square feet, noting that the
applicant has agreed to trellis this particular area, additionally, explaining the potential
location of the tool rental area, b) temporary outdoor seasonal sales area, noting the
City's process of permitting temporary uses, c) the elevations of the Home Depot
building. specifying the exposed extedor downspouts and staffs desire to achieve a
consistent visual appearance with respect to the adjacent Lucky's Grocery Store,
specifically recommending that the downspouts be installed on the intedor of the
building, and d) the proposed landscape plan which would not be consistent with the
Paloma del Sol Specific Plan; referenced the memorandum (per supplemental agenda
material), noting the modifications to the language of the Conditions of Approval
6
~:~NanComm%minutes%012991
(COA's); and presented fie proposed vignettes proposed by the applicant in order to
achieve a Village Center design.
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided clarification with respect to the parcel
lines, and the associated proposed turning motion; noted that staff would not
recommend a joint use access (specifically, in the area of Parcel No. 7); for Chairman
Guerriero, provided additional information regarding the traffic analysis with respect to
Highway 79 South, noting that the COA's adequately mitigate any impacts associated
with this proposed project; for Commissioner Mathewson, relayed that all the
surrounding developments were included in the traffic analysis associated with this
particular project, inclusive the County projects.
For the record, the Commissioners relayed that they had met with applicant outside of
the headrig in order to discuss the issues related to this particular project.
in response to Commissioner Mathewson's querying regarding the proposed Zoning
Ordinance, (denoted on pages 1-4 of the agenda material), Associated Planner
Donahoe provided clarification; provided additional information regarding staff's
recommendation regarding the landscape plan, noting the existing Specific Plan's
requirement for ten-foot planters at the ends of all parking aisles.
The apl~licant's representatives provided the followina presentations:
> Mr. Robert Davis, representing the applicant, for Commissioner Mathewson,
provided a detailed overview of the traffic analysis conducted with respect to this
particular project, inclusive of the incorporation of the impact of the adjacent residential
developments at build-out.
For Commissioner Webster, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that staff has not
reviewed the recently provided recommendations by the applicant to revise the
Conditions of Approval (per supplemental agenda material), noting that staff received the
information at the time of the headng.
· .- In response to Commissioner Naggar's references to the traffic mitigation report, Mr.
Davis provided an overview of the treffic conditions projected to be at build out, noting
that the Level of Service (LOS) would not go below Level D; for Commissioner
Mathewson, provided additional information regarding the timing of the proposed
Margadta Road improvements; for Chairman Guen'iero, relayed further information
regarding the proposed improvements with respect to the area south of Highway 79 in
the Wolf Valley, Pala Road area.
In response to Commissioner Naggar's comments, Deputy Director of Public Works
Parks clarified that Level of Service (LOS) D was an acceptable LOS per the City's
General Plan standards.
> Mr. Allan Davis, representing the applicant, provided additional information regarding
the Tentative Parcel Map; highlighted the site plan, parking, the village center design,
the overell proposed landscape plan, architectural design, access, and pedestrian flow;
relayed that due to previous Commission comments, revised entry designs have been
developed; further specified the landscape design; presented the newly revised design
plans, inclusive of the major and minor entryway statements.
7
R:~PtinComm~minutes~O92SS9
Chairman GuerTiero relayed that per his previous request, he would recommend
provision of a line-of-sight diagram from the major streets.
At 7:59 P.M. a short recess was taken, and the meeting reconvened at 8:12 P.M.
· - Mr. Kareem All, representing the applicant, noted the applicant's diligent efforts to
work with staff in order to develop elevations acceptable for the City of Temecula;
relayed the enhanced architectural elements, per staff recommendation; dadfled the
rationale for the location of the extedor downspouts in order to allow adequate intedor
space; presented the site elevations, and landscape plan; provided a bdef overview of
the general line-of-sight from the back of the building, inclusive of the three-foot lowered
elevation from the street, the two-foot perre, and the six-foot screen wall; provided
additional information regarding staffs recommendation to install trellis-work or
additional columns to the building frontage; with respect to the outdoor seasonal display
area, relayed the applicant's desire to have the fixed designated time-periods appreved
for seasonal sales which would be consistent year after year, in order to alleviate the
need to attain a Temporary Use Permit for each event; advised that the applicant would
be agreeable to redudng the size of the permanent outdoor display to 2300 feet, per
staffs recommendation; with respect to Commissioner Fahey's comments, relayed that
the applicant would be flexible with respect to the toss of one or two parking stalls in
order to enhance the entry statement; for Chairman Guerriero, specified the location of
the outdoor seasonal display area which would be utilized three times a year; reiterated
that the applicant would be flexible with respect to revising the number of parking stalls;
for Commissioner Mathewson, advised that he would need to further discuss with the
applicant the issue of flexibility with respect to relocating the outdoor seasonal display
area.
> Mr. Frank Cota, representing the applicant, for Commissioner Mathewson, advised
that the applicant would be agreeable to remaining flexible with respect to relocation of
the outdoor seasonal display area in order to attain improved internal circulation; for
Chairman Guerdero, relayed that the applicant would be agreeable to repladng the
outdoor chained-link fencing with a comparably pdced wrought iron look fencing
referenced by Chairman Guerriero; although the applicant would be willing to
accommodate staffs recommendation to install the downspouts on the intedor of the
building, relayed the restrictions which would be placed upon the intedor sparing; for
Chairman Guerdero, relayed that the applicant would be willing to add additional
texfudng or enhancements on the extedor of the building with respect to the extedor
downspouts in order to improve the negative aesthetic appearance.
· - By way of overheads, Mr. BarTy Burnell, representing the applicant, provided further
specification with regard to Parcel Area Nos. 6A, 6B, and 8, noting the reduction in
acreage with respect to Planning Area No. 6, specifying the reduction in density in the
northern area, specifically, reducing the multi-family area from the allowable 590 units to
the proposed 240-250 units; with respect to the parcel lines referenced by Deputy
Director of Public Works Parks, relayed that the applicant would be flexible with regard
to the location of the parcel line; advised that if the parcel line would be modified that the
units would be adjusted accordingly; provided additional information regarding the
parking lot landscaping, noting that there would be no objection to modifying the
landscape requirements in the Specific Plan if it was the desire of the Commission to do
so, in order to accommodate the curTent proposed landscape plan with respect to the
8
R:%Plan~omm~ml~utel~012999
Home Depot use, since them would be provision of additional shading in the parking lot
and the plan would restrict cut-though traffic in the parking lot; for Commissioner Naggar,
further clarified the reductions in the number of units in the multi-family area (Parcel No.
6), presenting the proposed plan, split into Parcel Nos. 6A and 6B, noting the reduction
of densities in the northern portion (Parcel No. 6A); relayed the current evaluating
process which may further reduce the densities per potential future development;
specified Planning Area No. 8, noting the potential Senior Housing Overlay, relaying that
this particular proposal would be presented to the Commission in the coming weeks; and
confirmed that there was a general reduction in the generation of traffic with respect to
development of a senior facility.
> Mr. Dean Meyer, representing the Newland Communities, relayed support of the
proposed project; and was available for questions and comments of the Commission.
> Ms. Patti Nahill, representing the applicant, presented the recommendations of the
applicant with respect to the requested revisions to the Conditions of Approval (COA's)
(per supplemental agenda material), reading the recommendations into the record; and
in response to Commissioner Naggar, relayed that it would be the applicant's desire for
the Commission to approve the revisions at this time.
· * Mr. Allan Davis relayed that with the above-mentioned modifications to the COA's,
the applicant would be in complete agreement with the terms of this project.
The community members addressed their concerns, as follows:
Mr. Timothy J. Miller, 45052 Corte Bella Donna, relayed that he had previously
addressed his concerns to Commissioners Guerdero, Naggar, and Webster; advised
that in his opinion the Home Depot use would not be a use consistent with the Village
Center concept; and referenced the General Plan with respect to description of the
design of the buildings in the Village Center concept (Section 6, paragraph B. of the
General Plan.)
Ms. Iris Abemathy, 43980 Margadta Road, noted her concerns with respect to flood
control and traffic issues associated with this particular proposal.
For Ms. Abemathy, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional
information regarding the flood channel; and invited Ms. Abernathy to come the Public
Works Department for additional information regarding the drainage analysis associated
with this particular area.
Mr. Stephen Corona, 33320 Highway 79, requested that the Commission not
approve the proposed project until a flood control channel was built, east of Butterfield
Stage Road in order to mitigate the increased flood hazard; read into the record a letter
addressing his specific concerns (submitted to staff dudng the September 29, 1999
Planning Commission meeting), noting the effect with respect to the Corona Ranch and
the Corona family parcels with regard to the negative impacts of the Newland
Communities development.
In response to Commissioner Naggar, Mr. Corona relayed that if the channel were
installed to mitigate the flooding issues that he would have no objection to the project,
R:~PlanConm~ninutes~09219i~
Mr. J. David Gardner, 43053 Teramo Street, voiced his concems, as follows: a) truck
traffic and the oil residue on the pavement due to the truck travel, b) recommended
concealing the extedor downspouts, c) suggested that the applicant add additional
landscaping on the padmeter of the parking area, d) with respect to the development of
Parcel Nos. 6A and 6B, recommended separating the areas in order to review each as
separate entities, e) relayed a prefaranca for condominiums verses apartments in the
multi-family area, noting that if apartments would be constructed, he would like
assurance that the residents would not utilize amenities paid for by the HOA, and f)
relayed that the eight-and-a-half by eleven inch (8 %" by 11") notice of public headng at
De Portola Road was an insufficient means of notidng this project.
Ms. Kim Bourgeois, 32914 Charrues Court, submitted for the record a petition
encompassing approximately 200 signatures opposing this padicular project, pdmadly
due to the potential for the construction of apartments in the multi-temiiy area.
Mr. Allan Davis relayed his concluding remarks, as follows: a) advised that the Home
Depot use would be consistent with the Village Center concept, as designed, and b)
requested that the Commission approve the revisions to the COA's, previously
mentioned.
For Chairman Guerriero, and Commissioner Mathewson, Deputy Director of Public
Works Parks provided additional information regarding the drainage issues referenced
by Mr. Corona.
Deputy City Manager Thomhill provided additional information regarding the entitlements
for this particular project, which had been solidified through the pdor Development
Agreements.
Chairman Guerdero advised that due to the significant issues that had not been
previously brought before the Commission (i.e., flooding, traffic, and CEQA
modifications), that the matter be continued.
Commissioner Naggar specified the assets of this particular project; noted the issues still
unresolved, as follows: traffic, flood control, Mr. Miller's comments regarding the Village
Center concept being implemented, and the request for revisions to the COA's; and
concurred with continuing the matter.
Commissioner Fahey advised that since this project had been reviewed by the
Commission in the conceptual phase of development, that if the Commission had
objections to the implementation of the Village Center concept that the comments should
have been addressed at that time; advised that in her opinion, the applicant has made
diligent efforts to incorporate the Village Center concept at this difficult site, noting the
restrictions associated with the site; concurred with continuing the matter due to the
outstanding issues, advising that the Commission provide direction to staff with respect
to issues of concern; recommended that staff address the language of the revisions to
the COA's, requested by the applicant; commended the applicant for their efforts to
modify the entry statements, advising that staff develop additional conditions for this
particular area; concurred with the applicent's request for approval for the fixed time
pededs for the outdoor seasonal sales area in order to alleviate the need for a
Temporary Use Permit; noted her confusion with respect to the administrative
development plan issue, advising that staff address the matter; concurred with the
lo
R:%PtanComm~'ninuteslg~'881
placement of the downspouts due to the applicant's clarified rationale for the extedor
installation, if additional enhancements are added to mitigate the negative visual
appearance; advised that if the applicant remains flexible with respect to the
recommendations of the staff and the Commission, the project could move forward;
relayed that the traffic analysis was adequate for this particular project; recommended
that the flooding issues be further investigated by staff in order to provided assurance
that the impacts have been adequately mitigated; and recommended that the matter be
continued to the October 6, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. and that the public
hearing be closed.
Relaying concurrence with Commissioner Fahey's comments, Commissioner
Mathewson concurred with the applicant's proposed landscape plan within the parking
lot area due to the additional shading and the provision to restdct cut-through traffic;
concurred with the installation of the downspouts on the exterior of the building,
requesting that staff provide recommendation with respect to specific additional
elements to be added in order to screen the visual appearance; commended staff for
their assiduous efforts with respect to this project; with respect to the proposed uses in
the Retail Village (denoted in 1B and in Village Court 1A) requested additional
information regarding the proposed liquor store, gourmet wine shop, and the evening
nursery school (with the hours of operation from 8:00 P.M. to 5:00 A.M.) uses; with
respect to Planning Area 1, 27 and 36 relayed objection to the Recycling Collection
facility use at this location; queried the deletion of the news store as a permitted use.
advising that this use would be an appropriate use for the Village Center concept.
Planning Manager Ubnoske advised that the applicant provide no further information
with respect to the project in order for staff to address the current issues of concern.
Due to the concern with respect to a proliferation of alcoholic establishments, Chairman
Guerriero requested that staff contact ABC to attain provision of a zoning map in order to
compare ABC's permitted alcoholic uses verses the current number of uses existing in
the area.
In response to Attomey Cudey's advisement that due to the time constraints, staff may
not be able to attain the data from ABC in a timely manner, Chairman Guer~ero offered
to assist in the matter of attaining the requested information due to his previous success
with respect to having queries addressed expeditiously with ABC.
Relaying concurrence with Commissioner Fahey's comments, Commissioner Naggar
requested that Mr. Davis provide, the following: a) a Level of Service map for the
projected Level of Service at five-ten years, b) data indicating the difference in the traffic
reduction due to the amended Specific Plan which would reduce the number of
proposed dwelling units in the multi-family area; requested additional information
regarding the issue of truck deliveries on Campanula Way and the effect upon the
adjacent residential area, querying whether restraints should be placed with respect to
the time of deliveries, and querying the impact with respect to the use of the adjacent
park.
For Chairman Guerdero, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that staff would
further investigate the above-mentioned matter, noting that Campanula Way had been
designed to adequately carry the weight of the trucks.
11
R:~qanComm~utesll2lll
For informational purposes, Commissioner Fahey relayed for the community that tthe
proposed developments within the Specific Plan would be brought forward for
Commission approval at a future point in time, relaying that the community could
address specific concerns at that point in time.
Due to the time constraints assodated with bdnging this issue beck to the Commission
in one week's time, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that staff may present
information verbally, or in the form of a memorandum in lieu of the standard staff report
procedure.
For Commissioner Mathewson, the applicant voiced no objection to continuing the
matter to the October 6, 1999 Planning Commission meeting.
MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to dose the public headng; continue the matter
to the October 6, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Fahey.
Chairman Guerdero requested that staff obtain a copy of the letter presented by Mr.
Corona in order to address the issues of concem.
At this time voice vote was taken reflecting unanimous approval
PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT
Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that the American Planning Association
Design Review Workshop had been rescheduled for November 13, 1999, noting
that the Commission would be e-mailed with further information.
For Chairman Guerriero, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that due to the
difficulties he has had in receiving data via e-mail, that she would send a note.
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
Commissioner Mathewson thanked staff for the City Tour provided for the
Commission on September 21, 1999.
Chairman Guerriero commended Assistant Project Planner Anders with respect
to her successful efforts associated with contacting the Van Daele Development
with respect to the raising of the tennis court fences which was a previous issue
of concem with regard to safety.
Due to the confusion regarding notification of the City Tour for the Planning
Commission, Chairman Guerdero requested that staff hold a workshop in order
to update the Commission with respect to the discussed issues and to address
any other Commission questions.
12
R:~PlanGomm%minute$~OI21Plle
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:44 P.M. Chairman Guerdero formally adjoumed this meeting to Wednesday,
October 6, 1999 at 6:00 P.M., in fie City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park
Ddve, Temecula.
Ron Guerdero, Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
13
ITEM #3
RECOMMENDATION:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
October 20, 1999
Planning Application No. PA99-0296 (Tentative Tract Map No. 24136, Amendment No, 2)
Prepared By: Carole K. Donahoe, AICP
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
1. ADOPT Resolution No. 99- approving Planning
Application No. PA99-0296 based upon the Analysis and
Findings contained in the Staff Report, and subject to the
attached, Conditions of Approval;
2. MAKE a Determination of Consistency with a Project for
Which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was Previously
Certified, and find that a subsequent EIR is not required
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
APPLICANT'S ENGINEER:
PROPOSAL:
APPLICATION INFORMATION
Paseo Partners, LLC
Chris Chambers
Mike Tylman, RBF Associates
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
To subdivide 99.8 gross acres into 396 residential lots and 21 open
space lots
North of DePortola Road, east of Margarita Road. west of Meadows
Parkway and south of Montelegro and Leena Way, within Planning
Area 8 of Specific Plan No. 219 - Paloma del Sol
Specific Plan No. 219 (Paloma del Sol), Planning Area 8
North: Specific Plan No. 219, residential uses
South: Specific Plan No. 219, residential and neighborhood park
East: Specific Plan No. 219, residential uses
West: Specific Plan No. 219, elementary school; PO Professional
Office
Not Applicable
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~96pa99,PC.doC
1
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: LM Low Medium Density Residential (3-6 dwelling units per acre),
and OS Open Space
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Residential
Paloma Neighborhood Park, Vacant
Residential
Joan Sparkman Elementary School, residential
BACKGROUND
The applicant submitted preliminary designs for the proposed senior project on May 19, 1999.
After meetings with staff from various departments, the applicant submitted a formal application
on July 23, 1999. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on August 26,
1999, and on September 8, 1999, staff received a revised map from the applicant.
On October 6, 1999, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve
Planning Application No. PA99-0285 (Amendment No. 7 to Specific Plan No. 219, Paloma del S~l.
Amendment No. 7 provides for the option to develop Planning Area 8 as a pdvate, active senior
community in Planning Area 8. The City Council is scheduled to consider Amendment No. 7 on
October 19, 1999. The Conditions of Approval for the proposed map require the Coundl's approval
of this enabling amendment.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Tentative Tract Map No. 24136 Amendment No. 2 proposes 417 lots on 99.8 acres, 21 of which
are open space lots that are either sloped areas, borders along the perimeter of the project, open
space paseos or a 4.7 acre private recreation center and clubhouse. The remaining 396 lots are
single family residential lots with a minimum area of 4,000 square feet, which is consistent with the
Senior Option for Planning Area 8 proposed by Specific Plan Amendment No. 7.
ANALYSIS
Circulation and Access
The project is designed to attract active seniors, with gated entry and pdvate streets. All interior
streets are proposed to be constructed in accordance with the five unique streetJsidewalk
landscape treatments proposed by Specific Plan Amendment No. 7. Parking circles at vadous
locations throughout the project will provide guest parking spaces. Access to the site is from
Meadows Parkway, DePortola Road and Pio Pico Road.
Slopes and Maintenance
Slopes shall be constructed at a ratio of 2:1 or less in accordance with the City's Development
Code. Perimeter slope areas along both public and private streets, adjacent to single family
residences, and within interior open spaces are proposed for maintenance by the homeowners'
association.
F:~Depts~PLANNING\STAFFRPT~296pa99.PC.doC
2
RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
There has been concem from adjacent residents regarding the possibility that apartments may be
constructed at the subject site. The City Council and Planning Commission received a petition with
190 signatures (unverified) during hearings on the specific plan amendment. Staff continued to
receive phonecalls prior to this headng, but once the caller was told about the proposed map for
a senior community, callers seemed satisfied, and were in favor of the project.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Environmental Impact Report No. 235 was prepared for Specific Plan No. 219 and was certified
by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on September 6, 1988. Addendure Nos. 1 and 2
were adopted by the City of Temecula City Council in 1992 and 1999 respectively. Addendure No.
3 is under consideration by the City Coundl on October 19, 1999. This project proposes no change
to the maximum number of units for Planning Area 8 as reviewed by Addendum No. 3.
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 circumstances under which the
project is being undertaken which require major revision in the EIR; or, new information, which was
not known at the time of the EIR was certified and complete becomes available. None of these
situations have occurred. In addition, the previously certified EIR and Addendures addressed the
number of lots for the site as proposed by Tentative Tract Map No. 24136, Amendment No. 2.
Therefore, no further environmental analysis is required. Staff is recommending that the
Commission make a determination of consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact
Report was previously certified.
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY
Tentative Tract Map No. 24136, Amendment No. 2 proposes a density of 3.97 dwelling units per
acre, and is consistent with the LM Low Medium Density Residential designation of the General
Plan, which allows 3 to 6 dwelling units per acre. The Map is also consistent with the zoning
standards within the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, Amendment No. 7.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
Tentative Tract Map No. 24136, Amendment No. 2 is designed to meet the standards of Specific
Plan No, 219, Paloma del Sol, Amendment No. 7. The map is consistent with the City's
Development Code and the City's General Plan, Therefore, staff recommends approval of the
map,
Tentative Tract Map No. 24136, Amendment No. 2 is proposed to replace Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 24136, Amendment No. 1, which was approved by the Riverside County Board of
Supervisors on May 23, 1989. Amendment No. 1 proposed 400 residential lots, open space areas
due to slopes, and streets constructed to County read standards, Staff recommends the approval
of the proposed project as a viable senior community alternative.
F:\DeptS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~.96pa99.PC.dOC
3
FINDINGS
The proposed land division and the design or improvement of the project is
compatible with the General Plan designation and consistent with Specific Plan No.
219. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The
General Plan Land Use designation for the site is LM Low Medium Density Residential (3-6
dwelling units per acre), and the map proposes 3.97 dwelling units per acre. The map
implements the zoning standards specified in Amendment No. 7 to Specific Plan No. 219.
The map proposes slopes no greater than 2:1, which is consistent with the City's
Development Code.
The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements is not likely
to cause serious public health problems. The project has been reviewed for
conformance with Specific Plan No. 219, the City's General Plan, Development Code,
Subdivision and Landscaping Ordinances. The project is consistent with these documents
and conditions of approval have been placed on the project accordingly to assure that the
development conforms to City Standards.
The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will not
conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use
of, property within the proposed land division. The map proposes access from
Meadows Parkway, DePortola Road and Pio Pico Road, and will not obstruct any
easements.
The map as proposed, conforms to the logical development of the site, and is
compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. Access and
circulation are adequate for emergency vehicles. The project has been reviewed by the
City's Traffic Engineer, Public Works Department and Fire Departments. These
departments have conditioned the map to ensure public health, safety and welfare.
The design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not likely
to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure
fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no known fish, wildlife or habitat on the project
site, and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. The site is surrounded
by development and is an inffil site. Furthermore, grading has already occurred at the site,
which is a portion of a larger specific plan. A DeMinimus impact Finding can be made for
this project.
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 5
Exhibit A, Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 6
Exhibits - Blue Page 7
B.
C.
D.
E.
Vicinity Map
Zoning Map
General Plan Maps
Surrounding Land Use
Tentative Tract Map No. 24136, Amendment No. 2
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1~Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRP'F~.~epa99.PC.doc
4
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~.96pa99.PC.dOc
5
ATTACHMENT NO. I
PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA99-0296 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 24136, AMENDMENT
NO. 2) TO SUBDIVIDE A 99.8 GROSS ACRE PARCEL INTO 396
RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 21 OPEN SPACE PARCELS LOCATED
NORTH OF DE PORTOLA ROAD, EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD,
WEST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND SOUTH OF
MONTELEGRO AND LEENA WAYS, WITHIN PLANNING AREA
8 OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219 (PALOMA DEL SOL) AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 950-471-001
THROUGH -021 AND 950-472-001 THROUGH -026 AND 950-473-
001 THROUGH -017 AND 950-481-001 THROUGH -015 AND 950-
482-001 THROUGH -024 AND 950-020-004, -027 AND -029
WHEREAS, Paseo Partners, LLC filed Planning Application No. PA99-0296 in accordance
with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code and Riverside County Land Use and
Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA99-0296 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. PA99-0296 on
October 20, 1999, at a duly noticed public headng as prascdbed by law, at which time the City staff
and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did, testify either in support or opposition to this
matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission headng and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA99-0296;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
by reference.
That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
Section 2. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission, in appreving Planning
Application No. PA99-0296, hereby makes the following findings as required in Section 7.1 of
County Ordinance No, 460:
A. The proposed land division and the design or improvement of the project is
compatible with the General Plan designation and consistent with Specific Plan No. 21 g. The site
is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The General Plan Land Use
designation for the site is LM Low Medium Density Residential (3-6 dwelling units per acre).
Tentative Tract Map No. 24136, Amendment No. 2 proposes 3.97 dwelling units per acre and the
proposed map is consistent with these standards. The map implements the zoning standards
specified in Amendment No. 7 to Specific Plan No. 219. The map proposes slopes no greater than
2: 1, which is consistent with the City's Development Code.
F:\DeptS\PLANNING\STAFFRP't'~.96pa99,RES-TM.PC.dOC
1
B. The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements is not likely
to cause serious public health problems. The project has been reviewed for conformance with
Specific Plan No. 219, the City's General Plan, Development Code, Subdivision and Landscaping
Ordinances. The project is consistent with these documents and conditions of approval have been
placed on the project accordingly to assure that the development conforms to City Standards.
C. The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the
proposed land division. The map proposes access from Meadows Parkway, DePortola Road and
Pio Pico Road, and will not obstruct any easements.
D. The map as proposed, conforms to the logical development of the site, and is
compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. Access and circulation are
adequate for emergency vehicles. The project has been reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer,
Public Works Department and Fire Department. These departments have conditioned the map to
ensure public health, safety and welfare.
E. The design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not likely
to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife
or their habitat. There are no known fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will
not affect any fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. The site is surrounded by development and is an infill
site. Furthermore, grading has already occurred at the site, which is a portion of a larger specific
plan. The project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlib resoumes,
as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. A DeMinimus Impact Finding can be
made for this project.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Environmental Impact Report No. 235 was
prepared for Specific Plan No. 219 and was certified by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors
on September 6, 1988. Addendum Nos. 1 and 2 were adopted by the City of Temecula City
Council in 1992 and 1999 respectively. Addendure No. 3 is under consideration by the City Council
on October 19, 1999. This project proposes no change to the maximum number of units for
Planning Area 8 as reviewed by Addendure No, 3.
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 circumstances under
which the project is being undertaken which require major revision in the EIR; or, new information,
which was not known at the time of the EIR was certified and complete becomes available. None
of these situations have occurred, In addition, the previously certified EIR and Addendums
addressed the number of lots for the site as proposed by Tentative Tract Map No. 24136.
Therefore, no further environmental analysis is required. Staff is recommending that the
Commission make a determination of consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact
Report was previously certified.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves Planning Application No. PA99-0296 (Tentative Tract Map No. 24136,
Amendment No. 2) for the subdivision of a 99.8 gross acre parcel into 417 lots located north of
DePortola, east of Margarita Road, west of Meadows Parkway and south of Montelegm and Leena
Way and known as Assessors Parcel Nos. 950-471-001 through --021 AND 950-472-001 through
-026 AND 950-473-001 through -017 AND 950-481-001 through -015 AND 950-482-001 through
F:\DeptS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~296pagg. RES-TM.PC.dOc
2
-024 AND 950-020-004, -027 AND -029,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 twentieth day of October, 1999.
Ron Guerriero, 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 twentieth day of
October, 1999 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
F:\DeptS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~296pa99,RES-TM.PC,dOC
3
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
F:\Depts\pLANNING\STAFFRPT~96pa99.PC,doC
6
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA99-0296 - Tentative Tract Map No. 24136 Amendment No. 2
Project Description:
The subdivision of 99.8 gross acres into 396 residential lots and 21
open space lots.
Assessor's Parcel Nos.:
950-471-001 through -021
950-472-001 through-026
950-473-001 through -017
950-481-001 through -015
950-482-001 through -024
950-020-004, -027, and -029
Approval Date:
October 20, 1999
Expiration Date:
October 20, 2001
PLANNING DIVISION
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning
Division a cashiers check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount
of Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to
file the Notice of Determination with a DeMinimus Finding for the Mitigated or Negative
Declaration required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code
of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the
applicant/developer has not delivered to the Community Development Department -
Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall
be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)).
General Requirements
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and
to all the requirements of Ordinance No. 460, unless modified by the conditions listed
below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City
Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days pdor to the expiration date.
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, judgements, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, void, annul, seek
monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the
approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT%296pa99.COA-TENT MAP,doc
1
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.
If Subdivision phasing is proposed, a phasing plan shall be submitted to and approved by
the Planning Director.
This project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be consistent with Specific Plan
No. 219, Amendment No. 7.
The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be subject to the Paloma Del
Sol Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement, recorded Instrument No.
62043.
The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation
measures identified within EIR No. 235.
The project shall comply with all applicable Conditions of Approval for Amendment No. 1
for Tentative Tract Map No. 24136 unless superceded by these conditions.
If required by these conditions or by the Planning Commission, the applicant shall revise
Exhibit E - Tentative Tract Map No. 24136, Amendment No. 2 to reflect the final conditions
of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning
Division staff, and submit five (5) full size copies and two (2) reduced 8" X 11" copies.
These documents shall be submitted with thirty (30) days of approval by the Commission.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
10.
A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning
Division.
11.
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal
Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by
providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid.
Prior to Recordation of the Final Map
12. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division:
a. A copy of the Final Map.
b. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes:
1)
This property is located within thidy (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_FS101~VOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~.96pa99.COA-TENT MAP.doc
2
2)
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 235 with Addendums were prepared
for this project and are on file at the City of Temecula Community
Development Department - Planning Division.
3) This project is within a liquefaction hazard zone.
4) This project is within a Subsidence Zone.
A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's)
1)
CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. The
CC&R's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining open
space, recreation areas, parking areas, pdvate roads, exterior of all
buildings and all landscaped and open areas including parkways.
2)
No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation,
association, property owner's group or similar entity has been formed with
the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which
have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common
facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to
meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty
to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such
entity shall operate under recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsory
membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of
assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services.
Recorded CC&R's shall permit enforcement by the City for provisions
required as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence
of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the city pdor
to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to
the City for public purposes.
3)
Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such
dwelling unit or lot, either (1) an undivided interest in the common areas and
facilities, or (2) a share in the corporation, or voting membership in an
association owning the common areas and facilities.
4)
In addition to the other provisions described in this section which must be
included in the CC&Rs, the applicant shall also include the following text in
the CC&Rs:
In the event of a conflict between the Conditions of Approval of the
land use entitlements issued by the City for the Tract or federal,
state or local laws, ordinances, and resolutions and these CC&Rs,
the provisions of the Conditions of Approval and federal, state or
local laws, ordinances, and regulations shall prevail, notwithstanding
the language of the CC&Rs.
These CC&Rs shall not be terminated, amended or otherwise
modified without the express written consent of the Planning
Manager of the City of Temecula.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRpT~.96pa99.COA-TENT MAP.doC
3
Consent of the City of Temecula
Condition 11 of the Conditions of Approval of Planning Application
No. PA99-0296 (Tentative Tract Map No. 24136, Amendment No. 2)
requires the City of Temecula to review and approval the CC&Rs for
the Tract. The City's review of these CC&Rs has been limited to a
determination of whether the proposed CC&Rs propedy implement
the requirements of the Conditions of Approval for the Tract. The
City's consent to these CC&Rs does not contain or imply any
approval of the appropriateness or legality of the other provisions of
the CC&Rs, including, without limitation, the use restrictions, private
easements and encroachments, pdvate maintenance requirements,
architecture and landscape controls, assessments, enforcement of
assessments, resolution of disputes or precadural matters. Subject
to the limitations set forth herein, the City consents to the CC&Rs.
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
Appreved as to Form:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLl\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~96pa99.COA-TENT MAP.doc
4
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
13. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division:
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans. The location,
number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans
shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify
the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be
accompanied by the following items:
1)
Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of
submittal).
2) One (1) copy of the approved grading plan.
3)
Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code
(Water Efficient Ordinance).
4)
Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the
approved plan).
5)
The locations of all existing trees that will be saved consistent with the
tentative map.
6)
Plans for 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:
a)
Front yards and slopes within individual lots pdor to issuance of
building permits for any lot(s).
b) Pdvate common areas prior to issuance of the first building permit.
c)
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.
d)
Shrub planting to completely screen perimeter walls adjacent to a
public right-of-way equal to sixty-six (66) feet or larger.
7) Hardscaping for the following:
a) Pedestrian trails within private common areas
b) Equestrian trails
b=
Wall and Fence Plans consistent with the Conceptual Landscape Plans showing the
height, location and the following materials for all walls and fences:
1)
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.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~96pa99.COA-TENT MAP,doc
5
2) Wrought iron or decorative block and wrought iron combination to take
advantage of views for side and rear yards.
3)
Wood fencing shall be used for all side and rear yard fencing when not
restricted by a and b above.
Precise Grading Plans consistent with the approved rough grading plans including
all structural setback measurements.
14.
Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision, however
solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Planning
Director approval.
Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits
15.
If deemed necessary by the Planning Manager, the applicant shall provide additional
landscaping to effectively screen various components of the project.
16.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall be 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 ofweeds, disease, or pests, The irrigation system shall be
properly constructed and in good working order.
17. Front yard and slope landscaping within individual lots shall be completed for inspection.
18.
Pdvate common area landscaping shall be completed for insDection prior to issuance of the
first occupancy permit within each phase of the map.
19.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager, to
guarantee the maintenance of the plantings within pdvate common areas for a period of
one year, 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.
20.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with pdor to occupancy or any use allowed
by this permit.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
The Department of Public Works recommends the following Conditions of Approval for this project.
Unless stated otherwise, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any
Government Agency.
General Requirements
21.
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.
\~TEMEC_FS101WOL1\DEPTS~PLANNING\STAFFRPT~296pa99.COA-TENT MAP.doc
6
22. A Grading Permit for either rough or predse grading shall be obtained from the Department
of Public Works pdor to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained
road right-of-way.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. The vehicular movement for the following locations shall be restricted as follows:
a. Meadows Parkway shall be restricted to a dght in/right out movement.
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:
26. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
b. Rancho California Water District
c. Eastern Municipal Water District
d. City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau
e. Planning Department
f. Department of Public Works
g. Riverside County Health Department
h. Cable 'IV Franchise
i, Community Services District
j. General Telephone
k. Southern California Edison Company
I. Southern California Gas Company
27. The following public improvements shall be designed to City of Temecula Public Works
standards unless otherwise noted.
a. Meadows Parkway (Major Highway Standards - 100' R/W) from De Portola Road
and Leena Way
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~296pa99.COA-TENT MAP.doe
7
1)
Install half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter. sidewalk,
street lights, drainage facilities. signing and striping. utilities (including but
not limited to water and sewer) and raised landscaped median
2) The raised landscaped median shall be continuous.
De Portola Road (Major Highway Standards - 100' R/W) from the westedy project
boundary and Meadows Parkway
1)
Install half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk,
street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but
not limited to water and sewer), raised landscaped median.
2)
The raised landscaped median shall be continuous with an opening to Street
Montetegro Way (Collector Road Standards - 66' R/W) between Pio Pico Road and
Leena Way
1)
Install half-width street improvements plus twelve feet, paving, curb and
gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and stdping, utilities
(including but not limited to water and sewer).
Leena Way (Collector Road Standards - 66' R/W) between Montelegro Way and
Meadows Parkway
1)
Install half-width street improvements plus twelve feet, paving, curb and
gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities
(including but not limited to water and sewer).
e. Traffic signals at the following intersections:
1)
Meadows Parkway and De Portola Road to include signal interconnect on
Meadows Parkway to Highway 79 South. The Developer is eligible to
receive credits for the Traffic Signals and Traffic Control Systems
component of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee for 100% of the
ultimate cost for the design and installation or as otherwise allowed in the
Public Fadlities Development Impact Fee Reduction Agreement dated July
14, 1998.
2)
Margarita Road and De Portola Road. The Developer is eligible to receive
credits for the Traffic Signals and Traffic Control Systems component of the
Public Facilities Development Impact Fee for 100% of the ultimate cost for
the design and installation or as otherwise allowed in the Public Facilities
Development Impact Fee Reduction Agreement dated July 14, 1998.
3)
De Portola Road and Street "A" to include signal interconnect on De Portola
Road between Meadows Parkway and Margarita Road. The Developer is
eligible to receive credits for the Traffic Signals and Traffic Control Systems
component of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee for 50% of the
ultimate cost for the design and installation of the traffic signal.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DEPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRPT~.96pa99.COA-TENT MAP.doC
8
All street improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement
transitions per Caltrans standards for transition to existing street sections.
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.
28.
Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design
of the street improvement plans:
Street centedine grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum
over A.C. paving.
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard No. 207A
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.
e. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees,
Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility,
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground. Easements shall be provided as required where adequate dght-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.
29.
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.
30.
Relinquish and waive right of access to and from the following roadways as approved on
the Tentative Tract Map:
a. Meadows Parkway with the exception of one opening
b. De Portola Road with the exception of one opening
c. Pio Pico Road with the exception of one opening
31.
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.
32.
All easements and/or dght-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public
or other appropdate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons
\\TEMEC_FSI01\VOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~296pa99.COA-TENT MAP.doc
9
such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
33.
Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is part of an
existing Assessment Distdct 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.
34. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid.
35.
An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the Final
Map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be recorded with the map.
A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and
approval.
36.
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.
37.
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.
38.
Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks
meander through private properly.
39.
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
40.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
b. Planning Department
c, Department of Public Works
41.
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.
42.
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
\\TEMEC_FS 101 ~VOL1 ~DEPTS\PLANNI NG\STAFFRPT~296pa99.coA-TENT MAP.doc
10
address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction
of engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections,
43.
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 pdvate,
drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an
adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or
private property. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all
facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm
water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project. The basis for analysis
and design shall be a storm with a recurrence interval of one hundred years.
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.
45.
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.
46.
The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work performed
on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as directed by the
Department of Public Works,
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
47. Tract Map No. 24136 shall be approved and recorded.
48.
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.
49.
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.
50.
The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and
all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06.
Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy
51.
Upon the first Certificate of Occupancy or as directed by the Director of Public Works, the
Developer shall install a traffic signal including signal interconnect at the following
intersections in accordance with City Standards:
~\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1~DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~99.COA-TENT MAP,doc
11
a. Margadta Road and De Portola Road with sufficient improvements to support
impacts from this development within the existing right-of-way.
b. Meadows Parkway and De Portola Road
c. De Portola Road and Street "A"
52. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
wdtten clearance from the following agencies:
a. Rancho California Water District
b. Eastern Municipal Water District
c. Department of Public Works
53. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
54. All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City
standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
55. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken due
to the construction operations of this project shall be rapaired or removed and raplaced to
the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
The TCSD has reviewed the aforementioned application for Tentative Tract Map No. 24136 and
conditions the project as follows:
General Conditions:
56. The City's Park Land dedication requirement shall be satisfied in accordance with the
Paloma Del Sol Development Agreement, Addendum No. I and Specific Plan No. 219.
57. All other private park facilities, perimeters slopes and parkway landscaping, paseos, open
space areas, and residential street lighting shall be maintained by an established
homeowner's association.
58. Prior to installation of the arterial street lights or issuance of building permits, whichever
comes first, the developer shall complete the TCSD application process and pay the
appropriate fees prior to transfer of the artedal street lighting into the appropriate TCSD
maintenance program.
59. Landscape construction plans for the raised median within Meadows Parkway and De
Portola Road shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services in
concurrence with the street improvement plans. Installation of the improvements shall be
in accordance with the TCSD inspection process.
60. A ten foot equestrian trail shall be constructed along De Portola Road in accordance with
standards identified in Specific Plan No. 219.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING%STAFFRP1~296pa99.COA-TENT MAP.dOC 12
61. It shall be the developer's responsibility to provide written disclosure of the existence of the
TCSD and its service level rates and charges to all prospective purchasers.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
Prior to the Issuance of a Building Permit
62. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley Unifed School District shall be
submitted to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School
Mitigation fees,
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.
63.
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
California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are
in force at the time of building plan submittal.
64.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for residential land
division per CFC 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 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. (CFC 903.2, Appendix ILIA)
65.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
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. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B)
66.
Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum tuming radius on any cul-
de-sac shall be forty-rive (45) feet. (CFC 902.2.2.2.3)
67.
If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection
prior to any building construction, (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2)
68.
Prior 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
80,000 Ibs GVVV. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2)
69. 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
\\TEMEC_FS101WOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRpT~296pa99.COA-TENT MAP.doe 13
weather surface designed for 80,000 Ibs. GVVV with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet.
( CFC sec 902 and Ord 99-14)
70.
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. (CFC 902.2.2.1 and Ord 99-14)
71.
Prior to building construction, dead end mad 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. (CFC 902.2.2.4)
72.
Pdor to building construction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via all-
weather surface roads, as appreved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1)
73.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water
system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be
signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature
block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards.
After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to
the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire
hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the apprepdate water agency prior to any
combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2
and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1)
74.
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers"
shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3)
75.
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. (CFC 902.4)
Special Conditions
76.
Streets C through X, BB through FF, Y and Z shall have parking on one side only, opposite
side shall be posted "CVC 22500.1 NO PARKING FIRE LANE".
77. Streets A and B shall be posted "CVC 22500.1 NO PARKING FIRE LANE"
78.
Cul-de-sacs on streets "1", "Y', "DD" and "E" shall be posted "CVC 22500.1 NO PARKING
FIRE LANE"
79.
rance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Planning
Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation fees.
OTHER AGENCIES
80.
Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control
District's trensmittal dated August 26, 1999, a copy of which is attached.
81.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside
Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated August 11, 1999, a copy of which
is attached.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DEPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRPT~96pa99.COA-TENT MAP.doc
14
82. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District's transmittal dated August 17, 1999, a copy of which is attached.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have mad, 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 Signature
\\TEMEC_FS101WOLl\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPl~296pa99.COA-TENT MAP.doc
15
DAVID P. ZAPPE
Gen~tal Manager-Chief Engineer
City of Temecula
Plannin De artmerit
posto i 9033
Temecula, California 92589-9033
Ladies and Gentlemen: Re:
I995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
909/955-1200
909/'/88-9965 FAX
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL i
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated
cities. The Distdct also does not lan check city land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or
other flood hazard reports for suchp cases. Disffict comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited
to items of specific ~nterest to the District including District Master Draina e Plan facilities other r ional flood
control and draina e facilities which could be considered a logical componen~or extension of a master peCan s stem,
and District Area 8rainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general n%~usre is
provided.
The District has not reviewed the proposed 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 ssue:
V/ This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are offer facilities of
regional Interest proposed.
This project involves Distdct Master Plan facilities. The District will acce t ownership of such facilities on
whtten request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District stan~rds, and Distlict plan check and
inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check inspection and edministrotive fees will be
requ red.
This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be
considered regional in nature and/or a I ical extension of the adopted
Master Drainage Plan. The District wo&l°~I consider accepting ownership of such aaht~es on tten request
t wnd nw~
of the City. Facilities must be constructed to Dis~ct standards and Dmtrict plan check and inspectio
be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be require .
This project is located within the limits of the Distdct's Area
Drainage Plan for which draina e fees have been adopted; a pl~cable tees should ~ paid Dy cashiers
check or money order only to ~e Flood Control District prior ~o~ issuance of building or gradin permits
whichever comes first. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of gthe actua[
permit.
GENERAL INFORMATION
This project ma re uiro a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES permit from the State Water
Resources Con~cr& ~oard. Clearance for grading moordation or other final approval should not be given until the
City has determ ned that the project has been granted a permit or s shown to be exempt.
If this project involves a Federal EmergenCy Management Agency (FEMA mapped flood plain, then the Ci should
require the applicant to provide all studies calculations, plans and o~ter reformation required to me~ FEMA
requirements, and should further require tha{ the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision CLOMR)
pdor to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMRI pdor to
occupancy.
If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is im acted by this project, the City should require the a licent to
obtain a Section 1601/1603 Agreement from the CaE~omia Department of Fispn. and Game arfd a Clean P~ater Act
Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or written co espondence tom these a encies
indicating the prpject is exempt from these requ~raments. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quail Ce~cation
may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board pdor to issuance of ~e Corps 404
permit.
c:
STUART E. MCKIBBIN
Senior Civil Engineer
Date: a, -L~, - ~
August 11, 1999
City of Temecula Planning Department
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
ATTN: Carole Donahoe, AICP, and Matthew Fagan, AICP
RE: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24136-F PA99-0296:
MAP NO. 23432.
(409 lots)
PARCELS 4,5, &6 OF PARCEL
Dear Gentlemen:
1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed Tentative Tract Map No. 24136-F and
recommends:
A water system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as approved by the water
company' and the Health Department. Permanent prints or' the plans of the ~vater system shall be
submitted in triplicate, with a minimum scale not less than one-inch equal's 200 ~et. along with
the original drawing to the City of Temecula. The prints shall show the ilaternal pipe diameter,
location of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and joint specifications, and the size of the main at the
junction of the new system to the existing system. The plans shall comply in all respects with Div.
5. Pan 1, and Chapter 7 of the Califonaia Health and Safety Code, California Administrative Code,
Title 11. Chapter 16. and General Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of
California, when applicable. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and water company
with the following certification: "I certi~, that the design of the ~vater system in Tentative Tract
Map No. 24136-F, is in accordance with the water system expansion plans of the Rancho California
Water District and that the water services, storage, and distribution system will be adequate to
provide water service to such Tract Map". This certification does not constitute a guarantee that it
will supply water to such Tract Map at any specific quantifies. flows or pressures for fire protection
or any other pttrpose. This certification shall be signed by a responsible official of the
water company. The plans must be submined to the City of Temecula to review at least TWO
WEEKS PRIOR to the recluest tbr the recordation of the final man.
This subdivision has a statement from Rancho California Water District agreeing to serve domestic
water to each and every. lot in the subdivision on demand providing satisfactory financial
arrangements are completed with the subdivider. It will be necessar,.' for financial arrangements to
be made PRIOR to the recordation of the final map.
Local Enforcement Agency * PO. B~x 1280, Riverside, CA 92502-1280 * (909) 955-8982 · FAX (909) 781-9653 · 4080 Lemon Street, 9'~ Floor, Riverside, CA 92501
Land U,e and Water Engineering * PG Box 1206, Rive~ide, CA 92502-1206 * (909) 955-8980 * FAX (909) 955-8903 * 4080 Lemon Street, 2nd Floor, Rivetside, CA 92501
City of Temecula Planning Dept
Page Two
Attn: Carole Donahoe, Matthew Fagan
August 11, 1999
4. This subdivision is within the Eastern Municipal Water District and shall be connected to the
sewers of the District. The sewer system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as
approved by the Eastern Municipal Water District, the City of Temecula and the Health
Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the server system shall be submitted in triplicate.
along with the original drawing, to the City of Temecula. The prints shall show the internal pipe
diameter, location of m',mholes, complete profiles. pipe and .joint specifications and the size of the
sewers at the j unction of the new system to the existing system. A single plat indicating location of
sexier lines and waterlines shall be a portion of the sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall be
signed by a registered engineer and the sewer district with the fbllowing ceaification: "I certil~,'
that the design of the sewer system in Tract Map No. 24136-F, is in accordance with the sewer
· system exp,'msion plans of the Eastern Municipal Water District and that the waste disposal system
is adequate at this time to treat the anticipated wastes fi'om the proposed Tract Map". The plans
must be submitted to the City of Temecula to review at least two weeks PRIOR to the request for
the recordation of the final map.
5. It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be completely ~natized PRIOR to recordation oC
the final map.
6. It will be necessaD' for the annexation proceedings to be completely ~nalized PRIOR to the
recordation of the final map.
7. Additional approval ti-om Riverside Count?.' Environmental Health Department ~vill be required lbr
all tenants operating a food facility or generating any hazardous waste.
Sincerely',
Gregor Dellenbach, Environmental Health Specialist IV
GD:dr
(909) 955-8980
cit?swr.doc
August17,1999
Ms. Carole Donahoe, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Ddve
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula. CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAILABILITY
TRACT NO. 24136
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0296
Dear Ms. Donahoe:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service,
therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements
between RCWD and the property owner.
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
99~SB: mr136~F012-T3~FCF
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
EXHIBITS
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~296pa99,PC.dOC
7
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0296 (TTM 24136, Amdmt #2)
EXHIBIT - A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - October20, 1999
VICINITY MAP
R:%STAFFRP'D296pa99, PC.doc
9
CITY OF TEMECULA
roject Site
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - SP-3: Specific Plan No. 219 (Paloma del Sol)
LM .
~,,,'
EXHIBIT C * GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - LM (Low Medium Density Residential, 3-6 dwelling units per acre) & OS Open Space
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0296 (Tentative Tract Map No. 24136, Amendment No. 2)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - October 20, 1999
R;%STAFFRPT%296pa99.PC,doc
10
CITY OF TEMECULA
:' SP-4
Project .. , ::,.:
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0296 (TTMap No. 24136, Amdmt #2)
EXHIBIT - D SURROUNDING LAND USE
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - October 20, 1999
R:~STAFFRPT~296pa99,PC.doc
11
CITY OF TEMECULA
PASEO DEL SOL
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24136
AMENDMENT #2
CIIY OF TEMECULA, COUNIY OF Rfi/Er~IDE, STATE OF CAUFOI~NIA
pLANNING AREA 8
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-O296
EXHIBIT- E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - October 20, 1999
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24136. AMDMT #2
R:~STAFFRPT~296pa99, pC,doc
12
ITEM #4
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
October 20, 1999
Planning Application No. PA97-0307
(Tentative Parcel Map 28627)
Prepared By: John De Gange, Project Planner
RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
1. MAKE a determination based on the Findings contained within the Initial
Study prepared for this project that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
be prepared in order to address the potentially significant impacts identified
within the analysis of this Initial Study;
2. ADO~ Resolution No. 99- denying Planning Application No. PA97-0307
(Tentative Parcel Map 28627), based upon the Analysis and Findings
contained in the staff report.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Margarita Canyon LLC
REPRESENTATIVE: Lohr & Associates/Markham and Associates
PROPOSAL: To subdivide an approximately 37 acre parcel into 10 commercial lots
and one open space lot (TPM 28627).
LOCATION: Adjacent to Interstate 15, southwest of the intersection of Old Town
Front Street and Highway 79 (S)/ Western Bypass Corddor
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
R:\STAFFRPT~307PAg?.PC,doc
HTC (Highway/Tourist Commercial)/OS (Open Spaca)
HT (Highway/Tourist Commercial)/OS-C (Conservation)
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant
HT (Highway/Tourist Commercial)
OS-C (Conservation)/HR (Hillside Residential)
Interstate 15
OS-C (Conservation)/HR (Hillside Residential)
North: Gas Station/Mini-Mart
South: Vacant
East: 1-15, Commercial retail canter, apartments, single-family
residencas
West: Vacant
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Acreage for the Project (Gross)
Total Acreage for the Project (Net)
Number of Lots
Number of Open Space Lots
Average Lot Size (gross)
Average Lot Size (net)
Minimum Lot Size
36.8 acres
12.61 acres
10
1 (10.48 acres )
2.46 acres
1.26 acres
1.04 acres (gross)
0.51 acres (net)
BACKGROUND
An application for this project was formally submitted on September 8, 1997. A Development
Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on October 9, 1997, with written comments being
provided shortly after. From the initial DRC meeting, staff has requested that the applicant supply
various items and specified studies to evaluate the impacts associated with the project. The
applicant has supplied all the items which have been requested sinca the time the application was
submitted; however, it is staff's determination that the traffic study prepared by the applicant's traffic
consultant still inadequately addresses the traffic impacts generated by the project and has not
proposed adequate mitigation for these impacts. Consequently, the application has not yet been
deemed complete. Despite this, the applicant has requested that the project be brought forward
to the Planning Commission.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project is a subdivision of approximately 37 acres into ten commercial lots and one open
space lot. The site is located adjacant to Interstate 15 to the east, Murdeta Creek to the west and
Temecula Creek to the south. The applicant is proposing to extend Old Town Front Street from
its current intersection with the future Western Bypass Corridor into the project site ultimately
terminating in a cul-de-sac. As proposed, all the lots for development will front and take access
from the extension of Old Town Front Street.
The project proposes ten commercial lots ranging in size from 1.08 to 11.29 gross acres (0.51 to
4.64 net acres). Lots 7,8,9 and 10 all have significant areas which are within the 100-year
Floodway (Zone AE) and these areas are being excluded from development. The open spaca lot
which comprises 10.48 acres consists mainly of the Muraleta and Temecula Creek Channels. The
applicant is proposing to keep this area as open spaca in perpetuity with the future possibility that
ownership can be transferred over to an appropriate agency or can be used for a mitigation land
bank.
ANALYSIS
Biological Issues
The project site is approximately 37 acres of vacant property which includes portions of the
Murrieta and Temecula Creek Channels. A biological impact report for the project site was
prepared. This report reveals that the ultimate development of the proposed project site will result
R:\STAFFRFF\307PAg7.PC.doc
2
in the removal of 30 acres of onsite Non-Native Grassland, the removal of approximately 0.5 acre
of the total Riversidian Sage Scrub onsite, and the preservation of the entire six acres of Riparian
Woodland within the boundaries of the project site.
It has been determined that impacts to biological resources and the loss of this habitat as a result
of this project will not be significant because: 1 ) the 30 acres of non-native grassland which will be
removed is not considered a significant resource; 2) the six acres of Riparian Woodlands will be
preserved; 3) and of the one acre of Riversidian Sage Scrub, 0.5 acres will be preserved on site
and the other 0.5 acres will be mitigated with the purchase of off-site property.
The Riparian Woodlands and jurisdictional wetlands will be preserved with the exception of 0.07
acres of area associated with a small unnamed drainage channel which bisects the site and flows
into Murdeta Creek as identified within a Wetlands Delineation study for the project site conducted
by LSA Associates. For this small area, the applicant will be required to mitigate through obtaining
a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to the Federal Clean Water
Act and a Section 1601 Streambed Alteration Permit from the California Department of Fish and
Game.
The project site contains significant biologicel resources and the proposed project has the potential
to impact these biological resources. However, these impacts should not be significant if the
mitigation measures described above and appropriate conditions of approval for this project are
implemented.
Traffic Issues
The development of the proposed project is expected to cause a substantial increase to traffic
volumes on State Route 79 South/Western Bypass between Old Town Front Street and the
Interstate 15 (I-15) interchange. Although the traffic study and subsequent revisions prepared by
Robert Kahn, John Kain and Associates Inc. indicates acceptable intedm operating conditions, it
is Staffs opinion that the proposed location of the project's access will adversely impact traffic flows
in the vicinity of the project, the Interstate 15/State Route 79 interchange and Old Town Front
Street. Congestion and unsafe vehicular movements can be expected at intersections within the
project's vicinity due to substandard intersection spacing (160 feet) between 1-15 Southbound
Ramp and Old Town Front Street, and the traffic volumes generated by the proposed project (7,909
ADT).
Another concern is the increase in conflicting movements due to the spacing between the 1-15
Southbound Ramps and the proposed project's access. Because of the short distance between
intersections and the projected heavy left-turn movements into the project, 1-15 Southbound
vehicles wishing to access the site could be forced into hazardous merging situations. This situation
could also cause the traffic to back-up on 1-15 while waiting to get to the left-turn pocket in order
to access the site. The antidpated heavy left-tum movement into the site (307 vehicles dudng p.m.
peak hour) and tack of adequate storage, could also cause gddlock at the I-15 Southbound ramp.
It should be noted that that a traffic signal at the intersection of Old Town Front Street and 79 South
is not needed until Western Bypass Corridor is constructed. However, the access to the site as
proposed, will necessitate operation of the traffic signal at the intersection of Old Town Front Street
and 79 South which is 160 feat west of the I-15 Southbound off-ramp. For reference, the spacing
between the intersections of Front StreetJJefferson Avenue and 1-15 Southbound ramp is
approximately 600 feet on Rancho California Road and 400 feet on Winchester Road.
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.doc
3
Throughout the processing of this project Staff has maintained that the traffic study and subsequent
revisions submitted for the project have not adequately addressed the traffic issues discussed
above nor has adequate mitigation measures been proposed. Consequently, the Initial Study
prepared for this project recommends the preparation of an Environmental impact Report due to
the significant impacts associated with associated with the project traffic.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Study was prepared for this project and distributed on October 1, 1999. Findings within
this initial study indicate that the proposed project will significantly increase traffic volumes and
coupled with the fact that there is substandard and limited spacing between the intersection of Old
Town Front Street (where the project will take access) and the 1-15 southbound ramp signal,
congestion and unsafe vehicular movements will result and hazardous merging situations will be
created. As a consequence, this project may have a significant effect on the environment and it
is recommended that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be required.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The proposed project is consistent with a majority of the General Plan's policies and is also
consistent with the zoning standards regarding the HTC district as specified in the Development
Code. The project, however, does not comply with the General Plan Circulation Element Policy
1.2 which requires an evaluation of potential traffic impacts associated with new development prior
to project approval, and requires adequate mitigation measures pdor to, or concurrent with, project
development; and Policy 1.4 which requires new development to pursue trip reduction and
transportation systems management measures to reduce and limit congestion at intersections and
along streets within the City.
It is staffs determination that although the traffic study and its subsequent revisions prepared by
the applicant's traffic engineer indicate an acceptable intedm operation condition, the project as
currently proposed will increase traffic volumes, cause congestion and unsafe vehicular
movements, and create hazardous merging situations. For these reasons, staff is recommending
that the Planning Commission deny the project as it is presently proposed based on the Findings
within the Initial Study that this project could potentially have a significant effect on the environment
because the traffic study and its subsequent revisions prepared by the applicant's traffic engineer
do not adequately address the traffic issues discussed above and adequate mitigation measures
have not been proposed.
FINDINGS (For Denial)
Planning Application No. PA97-O307 (Tentative Parcel Map 28627)
The proposed land division and the design or improvement of the projects is consistent with
the General Plan land use designations of Highway/Tourist Commercial and Open Space.
The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. This project
proposes ten commercial and one open space parcels on approximately 37 acres and
therefore is consistent with the Highway/Toudst Commercial and Open Space
designations. The project as proposed is not consistent with the General Plan Circulation
Element Policies 1.2 which requires an evaluation of potential traffic impacts associated
with new development pdor to project approval, and requires adequate mitigation measures
prior to, or concurrent with, project development; and Policy 1.4 which requires new
R:\STAFFRPTX307PA97.PC.doc
4
development to pursue trip reduction and transportation systems management measures
to reduce and limit congestion at intersections and along streets within the City.
The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements could potentially
cause serious public health problems in that the proposed project will significantly increase
traffic volumes, coupled with the fact that there is substandard and limited spacing between
the intersection of Old Town Front Street (where the project will take access) and the I-15
southbound ramp signal. As a consequence, congestion and unsafe vehicular movements
will result and hazardous merging situations will be created.
The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within
the proposed land division. The project will take access from the extension of Old Town
Front Street at the Western Bypass Corridor, and will not obstruct any easements.
The map as proposed, conforms to the logical subdivision of the site,; however, the it is not
compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community in that the proposed project
will significantly increase traffic volumes and coupled with the fact that there is substandard
and limited spacing between the intersection of Old Town Front Street (where the project
will take access) and the 1-15 southbound ramp signal. As a consequence, congestion and
unsafe vehicular movements will result and hazardous merging situations will be created.
The subdivision is, however, compatible with the surrounding areas and the site will be
developed pursuant to the General Plan, and the Development Code, both of which
regulate commercial parcels and development.
The design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements could potentially be
mitigated by the mitigation measures contained within the biological impact study conducted
for this project. As a consequence, the project is not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
Damage to any known fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site or off-site could be
potentially mitigated.
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 6
Initial Study - Blue Page 10
Exhibits - Blue Page 39
A, Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan Map
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING',STAFFR.FI~307PAgT,PC.do¢
A'R'ACHMENT NO, 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-
R:\STAFFRPT~307PA97.PC.dOC
6
ATFACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-
0307 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28627), ADJACENT TO
INTERSTATE 15, SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF OLD
TOWN FRONT STREET AND HIGHWAY 79 (S)/ WESTERN
BYPASS CORRIDOR (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 922-
210-047)
WHEREAS, Margarita Canyon LLC filed Planning Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative
Parcel Map No. 28627) in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code
and Riverside County Subdivision Ordinance, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS. Planning Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map 28627) 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. PA97-0307
(Tentative Parcel Map 28627) on October 20, 1999, at a duly noticed public headng as prescribed
by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did, testify
either in support or opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission headng and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. PA97-0307;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
by reference.
That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
Section 2. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission, in approving Planning
Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map 28627), hereby makes the following findings as
required in Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. 460.
A. The proposed land division and the design or improvement of the projects is
consistent with the General Plan land use designations Highway/Tourist Commercial and Open
Space. The project as proposed is not consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element
Policies 1.2 and 1.4. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. This
project proposes 10 commercial and one open space parcels on approximately 37 acres and
therefore is consistent with the Highway/Tourist Commercial and Open Space designations.
B. The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements could
potentially cause sedous public health problems in that that the proposed project will significantly
increase traffic volumes and coupled with the fact that them is substandard and limited spacing
between the intersection of Old Town Front Street (where the project will take access) and the I-15
southbound ramp signal, congestion and unsafe vehicular movements will result and hazardous
merging situations will be created.
R:\STAFFRPTX307PA97.PC.doc
7
C. The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the
proposed land division. The project will take access from the extension of Old Town Front Street
at the Western Bypass Corridor, and will not obstruct any easements.
D. The map as proposed, conforms to the logical subdivision of the site,; however, the
it is not compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community in that the proposed project
will significantly increase traffic volumes and coupled with the fact that there is substandard and
limited spacing between the intersection of Old Town Front Street (where the project will take
access) and the I-15 southbound ramp signal, congestion and unsafe vehicular movements will
result and hazardous merging situations will be created. The subdivision is, however, compatible
with the surrounding areas and the site will be developed pursuant to the General Plan, the
Development Code, all of which regulate commercial parcels and development. Future
development of commercial lots potentially will be compatible and sensitive to surrounding
development. The proposed subdivision potentially could provide adequate access and circulation
for emergency vehicles and may not impact existing circulation or emergency vehicle access.
E. The design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements could
potentially be mitigated so that it is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or
substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. Damage to any known fish,
wildlife or habitat on the project site or off-site could be potentially mitigated.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance An Environmental Initial Study was prepared for
this project. Findings within this initial study indicate that the proposed project will significantly
increase traffic volumes and coupled with the fact that there is substandard and limited spacing
between the intersection of Old Town Front Street (where the project will take access) and the 1-15
southbound ramp signal, congestion and unsafe vehicular movements will result and hazardous
merging situations will be created. As a consequence, this project may have a significant effect
on the environment and it is recommended that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be required.
Section 4. PASSED, DENIED AND ADOPTED this twentieth day of October, 1999.
Ron Guerriero, Chairperson
R:~STAFFRFI'X307pA97.pC.dOc
8
' 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 twentieth day of October, 1999
by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secreta~
R:\STAFFRPTX307PA97.PC.~oc
9
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
INITIAL STUDY
R:\STAFFRPT~30/PAg'7.PC.doc
I0
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Environmental Checklist
Project Title
Lead Agency Name and Address
Contact Person and Phone Number
Project Location
Project Sponsor's Name and Address
General Plan Designation
Zoning
Description of Project
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
Other public agencies whose approval
required
Planning Application No. PA97-0307 - Tentative Parcel Map 28627
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
John De Gange, Project Planner
(909) 694*6400
Adjacent to Interstate 15, southwest of the intersection of Old Town
Front Street and Highway 79 (S)/ Western Bypass Corridor
Margarita Canyon LLC
27740 Jefferson, Suite 200, Temecula, CA 92590
Highway/Tourist Commercial (HTC)
Highway/Tourist Commercial (HT)
A proposal to subdivide an approximately 37 acre parcel into 10
commercial lots and one open spaca lots (TPM 28627)
The project site is approximately 37 acres of vacant property which
includes a portion of the Murrieta and Temecula Creek Channels.
The site is adjacent to Interstate 15 to the east, commercial areas to
the north across the future Western Bypass Corridor, a vacant open
spaca area across Temecula Creek to the south, and a vacant area
zoned Hillside Residential area to the west across Murrieta Creek.
Riverside County Fire Department, Riverside County Health
Department, Temecuia Police Department, Eastern Municipal Water
District, Rancho California Water District, Southern California Gas
Company, Southern California Edison Company, General Telephone
Company, and Riverside Transit Agency
Location Map
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.dec
11
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Agricultural Resources Population and Housing
Air Quality
Biological Resources Water
Cultural Resources
Geologic Problems
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Eadier Analyses
Determination
(To be completed by the lead agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant impact on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will nc
be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by
the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required
~ find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant
unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1 ) has been adequately analyzed in
an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially
significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an eadier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature
Date
John De Gange. Project Planner
Printed name
For
R: \STAFFRPTX307PA97. PC .doc
12
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
C,
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcropping, and histodc building
within a state scenic highway?
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Potentially
Sigrdf~ent
Impact
Less Than
Significant WRh
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Comments:
1.a.
No Impact. The project site is adjacent to Interstate 15 and the ultimate development of the site will not
directly impact any scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is not located in an area where there is a
scenic vista. Further, the City does not have any designated scenic highways. As a consequence no
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project or the future development of the site.
1.b.
No Impact. There are no designated scenic resources in the vicinity of the project site. The project site
includes a portion of the Murdeta Creek Channel, however, the project as proposed will preserve the
channel and all future development will not directly impact the channel. There are no scenic resources
within the project site within the view of a scenic highway. As a consequence, no significant impact to
scenic resources will result from the proposed project or the future development of the site.
1.C,
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is approximately 37 acres of
vacant properb/which includes a portion of the Murrieta and Temecula Creek Channels. A majodty of the
site is composed of disturbed non-native grassland (30 acres). The remaining portion of the site is
comprised of Riparian Woodland (six acres) and Riversidian Sage Scrub plant communities (one acre).
The portion of the site which consists of drainage channels could potentially have significant visual
character given the presence of Riparian Woodland vegetation. The ultimate complete development of
all 37 acres of the property would significantly degrade the visual character and quality of the site and
surrounding properties. As mitigation, the project proposes to preserve the entire six acres of Riparian
Woodland and one half acre of the one acre portion of the Riversidian Sage Scrub. For the one half acre
of Riversidian Sage Scrub that will be developed, the project proponent will be required to purchase one
half acre of Riversidian Sage Scrub off-site in compliance with the requirements of the California
Department of Fish and Game's Natural Communities Conservation Program (NCCP) [based on the
Evaluation Logic Flow Chart contained in Attachment "A" of the Biological Impact Report]. After mitigation,
any potential impacts could be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
1.d.
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Though this project only represents a subdivision
of the property into commercial lots, the ultimate buildout on the property will have a potentially significant
impact from light and glare. The project will produce and result in light/glare, as all development of this
nature results in new light sources. All light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar
Observatory. The project will be conditioned to be consistent with Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance
Regulating Light Pollution). After mitigation, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
R:~STAFFR,FT%307PA97.PC.doc
13
2. Agricultural Resources. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional mode'
to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
Convert Pdme Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitodng
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
Conflict with the existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
farmland, to non-agricultural use?
No
Comments:
2a. ,2c. No Impact. The project site is not currently in agdcultural production and in the histodc past has not ever
formerly been used for agricultural purposes. In addition this property is not considered prime or unique
of Farmland of statewide importance pursuant the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency or the City of Temecula's General Plan. In addition, the project will not
involve changes in the existing environment which would result in the conversion of farmland to non-
agricultural uses. Therefore, there is no significant impact related to this issue.
2b.
No Impact. The project site does not have an agricultural zoning designation by the City of Temecula, ano
the site is not regulated by a Williamson Act contract. As a consequence there is no impact related to this
issue.
R:\$TAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.dec
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable quality
,management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
~/ould the project:
Issues and Supporting Infon~atio~ Sot~,es
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors?
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
Less Than
Potentlily Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Comments:
3.a.
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project represents only a subdivision of vacant property into
commercial lots; however, the analysis within this document has evaluated the potential development of
the site with commercial uses. The project as proposed will comply with State and national ambient air
quality standards. Although the project exceeds the air quality management policies in the current Air
Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and emissions thresholds established in South Coast Air Quality
Management District's (SCAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April 1993), the City of Temecula's
General Plan EIR has addressed development of the site and proposed adequate mitigation for any
impacts. The analysis provided in 3b. below, discusses the project's compliance with the AQMP.
Therefore, no significant impacts related to conflicts with air quality plans will result from the proposed
proiect
3.b.
Less Than Significant Impact. This project represents only a subdivision of vacant property into
commercial lots; however, this analysis has evaluated the potential development of the site with
commercial uses. The project proposes to provide for 12.61 net acres of developable land. Pursuant to
the City of Temecula's Development Code this site can ultimately be developed with 164,788 square feet
of commercial uses based on a target Floor Area Ratio of 0.30. Though this figure exceeds the
SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Apdl 1993) threshold for impacts associated with commercial
development, this figure is consistent with target Floor Area Ratio (FAR) anticipated within the City's
General Plan. The General Plan established target floor area ratios within various land uses in order to
determine the intensity of uses and the impacts upon the environment. The General Plan EIR evaluates
the impacts of development at the target FAR. The analysis conducted for this project assumes that the
ultimate development of the site will be at the target FAR for the Highway/Tourist zoning district. tt is
anticipated that the development of the site will be less than the densities anticipated by the General Plan
and analyzed within the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR has established mitigation measures
for impacts associated with air quality through The General Plan's policies and guidelines. Consequently
a less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.dOC
3.c.
3.d.
3.8.
Less Than Significant Impact, As discussed in item b. above, though the project when ultimately
developed, will exceed the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Apdl 1993) thresholds for impacts
associated with commercial development, the City of Temecula's General Plan EIR has addressed the
impacts to air quality for a project on this site and established appropriate mitigation measures. Therefor,
all potential impacts resulting from cumulative net increases of any cdteria pollutants have been address
within the policies and guidelines of the City of Temecula's EIR and mitigated for. As a consequence a
less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project.
No Impact. The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. There are no significant
pollutants in proximity to the project nor is it anticipated that the project will generate pollutants. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No Impact. Though this project only represents a subdivision of the property into commercial lots, the
ultimate buildout on the property may create objectionable odors during the construction phase of the
project. These impacts, however, will be short in duration and are not considered to be significant.
Consequently no impacts would result from this project.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on any ripadan habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect of faderally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Lass Than
Potentially Significant With Less Tryart
Significant Mitigation Sig~cant No
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.dOC
CommeRts:
4.a.,b.,d.
Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is approximately 37 acres of
vacant properly which includes a portion of the Muraleta and Temecula Creek Channels. A majodty of the
site is composed of disturbed non-native grassland (30 acres). The remaining portion of the site is
comprised of Riparian Woodland (six acres) and Riversidian Sage Scrub plant communities (one acre).
A biological impact report for the project site was prepared by Principe and Associates in December of
1997. This study reveals that the ultimate development of the proposed project site will result in the
removal of all 30 acres of onsite Non-Native Grassland, the removal of approximately 0.5 acres of the total
Riversidian Sage Scrub onsite, and the preservation of the entire six acres of Riparian Woodland within
the boundaries of the project site. The study determined that the habitat within the Non-Native Grassland,
however is not considered to be a significant biological resource and the loss of this habitat is not
considered to be significant.
Development of the project site will also result in the removal of 0.5 acres of the one acre total of
Riversidian Sage Scrub which is considered a Sensitive Natural Plant Community. The study determined
that based on the Evaluation Logic Flow Chart included within the Southem California Coastal Sage Scrub,
Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP), Conservation Guidelines (Calif. Dept. of Fish and
Game, Nov. 1993), the onsite Riversidian Sage Scrub has a lower potential value for long-term
conservation given the fact that it is unoccupied by the Coastal California Gnatcatcher, and given that it
is a small isolated patch with no linkage to any other similar habitat.
The project site also contains six acres of Riparian Woodlands and jurisdictional wetlands. As proposed;
however, the project preserves almost the entire area with exception of 0.07 acres of area associated with
a small unnamed drainage channel which bisects the site and flows into Murrieta Creek as identified within
a Wetlands Delineation study for the project site was conducted by LSA Associates. For this small area
the applicant will be required to mitigate through obtaining a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act and a Section 1601 Streambed
alteration Permit from the California Department of Fish and Game.
As mitigation for potential impacts created by the proposed project to the 30 acres of Non-Native Grassland
and the one acre of Riversidian Sage Scrub the applicant shall be conditioned to: 1 ) comply with the
requirements established in the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Long-term Habitat Conservation Plan, pdmadly
through the payment of a mitigation fee; 2) preserve the 0.5 acre portion of Riversidian Sage Scrub on site
and mitigate the loss of the other 0.5 acres with the purchase of off-site habitat at a ratio of 1:1 as deemed
appropriate by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game in compliance with
the interim goals established within the NCCP Program; 3) preserve the entire six acres of Riparian
Woodlands habitat; 4) comply with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service protocol and obtain clearance for the
Endangered Quino Checkerspot Butterfly by conducting additional field surveys pdor to the issuance of
grading permits to determine if the host plant for the species are present in which case an adult survey
would be required; 5) design future development plans so that surface waters and spills drain away from
Murrieta and Temecula Creeks in order to avoid runoff contamination; 6) install utility extensions
underground; 7) revegetate all graded and disturbed areas near the channels with native tree and plant
species in order to reduce impacts from the project; 7) the applicant shall be required to prepare a
Biological Mitigation Plan to insure project compliance to the mitigation measures contained in this
document.
With the implementation of the above mentioned mitigation measures and associated conditions of
approval for this project, the impacts associated with project would be reduced to less than significant.
4.c. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. In October of 1998 a Wetlands Delineation study
for the project site was conducted by LSA Associates. The study determined that approximately 5.62
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.dec
4.e.
acres of the site met the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers cdteda for jurisdictional wetlands and 5.93 acres
fell within the jurisdiction of the Calif. Department of Fish and Game. Of the acreage delineated as
jurisdictional wetlands a 0.07 acre portion of the site is proposed to be tilled which will result in the loss of
wetlands and dparian habitat. The lost wetlands area will be from a small unnamed drainage chan,-
which runs through the canter of the project and flows into Murrieta Creek. The wetlands areas wit
Murrieta and Temecuia Creeks will be unaffected.
The loss of the wetlands/jurisdiction waters will require the project proponent to obtain a 404 Permit from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act and a Section
1601 Streambed alteration permit administered by the California Department of Fish and Game. As
mitigation for the lost wetlands the applicant will be required to obtain the necessary permits from the
above referenced agencies prior to the issuanca of grading permits. After mitigation, this project would
have a less than signiticant impact.
No Impact. The City of Temecula does not have any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, therefore there is no impact associated with this project relative to this issue.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project is located within the fee area for the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat
(SKR) Long-Term Habitat Conservation Plan. All development within this fee area is required to pay a
mitigation fee. This project will be required to pay a mitigation fee for the SKR. In addition, the subject site
contains approximately one acre of Riversidian Sage Scrub which placas the property within the jurisdiction
of the NCCP program. The project will be conditioned to comply with all requirements of the NCCP
program or develop their own habitat plan under the provisions of the NCCP. As a consequence a less
than significant impact is anticipated.
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.dOC
18
5. C~3LTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting information Sources
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in Section 1506.5?
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 1506.57
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Potentially
Significant
Impac~
Less Than
SignificaeT[ With
Mitigation
incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
,/
Comments:
5,a.
No Impact. Based on a previously conducted Phase I cultural resource study it has been determined that
there are no known historical resources on site, which the project would impact based on a previous. As
a consequence no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
5.b.d.
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The General Plan and an earlier
Archaeological Investigation conducted by the Archaeological Research Unit at the University of Califomia
at Riverside in December of 1988 identifies a sensitive archaeological area along Murrieta Creek which
may extend into the subject site. Due to the potential for deposits in the area and at the recommendation
of the UCR Eastern Information Center (within correspondence dated October 13, 1997), future
development of the proposed site will be required to conduct a Phase II archeological investigation on site
prior to the approval any development project. It is anticipated that when future development is proposed
on the site and a Phase II archaeological study is conducted that this study would propose mitigation to
address any significant impacts that may occur. As a consequence a less than significant impact is
anticipated.
5.c.
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The General Plan identifies that the area
could potentially be within a highly sensitive paleontological area. Due to the potential for deposits in the
area, future development of the proposed site will be conditioned to have an on site-monitor during grading
operations. The potential for future significant impacts will be determined and fully mitigated when future
development proposals are considered. As a consequence, a less than significant impact is anticipated.
R:\STAFFRPT~307PA97.PC.dOC
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project?
Issues and Supporting Infofn~tion Sources
Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the dsk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault. as delineated on ,/
the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ~'
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ,/
iv) Landslides? ,/
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ,/
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or ,/
that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1801-B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
e. Have soil incapable of adequately supporting the use of ,/
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
Comments:
6. a.i.No ImpacL There are no known or identified earthquake faults as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.a.ii, iv,b., and d.
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. There may be a potentially significant
impact from seismic ground shaking, ground failure, soil erosion, or expansive soils.. Although, there are
no known fault hazard zones on the property, the project is located in Southem California, an area that is
seismically active. Any potential significant impacts will be mitigated through building construction, which
is consistent with the Uniform Building Code standards. Further, the project will be conditioned to provide
soil reports prior to grading and recommendations contained in this report are followed during construction.
The soil reports will also contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil, which will serve to
mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure,
liquefaction, subsidence and expansive soils. After mitigation measures are performed, a less than
significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project.
6.c.,a.iii
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The ultimate development of the site may
have a significant impact on people involving liquefaction and subsidence or unstable soil conditions fro-
excavation, grading or fill. Potential impacts could be mitigated by compliance with State of Califon
Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone development criteria and construction in accordance with the Uniform
Building Code standards. A soils report shall be required as part of the development and shall contained
R:\STAFFRFF\307PA97.PC.doc
20
6.8.
recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant
impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure (including liquefaction), erosion, changes in
topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill and expansive soils. Erosion control
techniques will be included as a condition of approval for development projects at the site. Potential
unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill will be mitigated through the use of landscaping and
proper compaction of the soils. After mitigation measures are performed, a less than significant impact
is anticipated as a result of this project..
No Impact. Septic sewage disposal systems are not proposed for this project. The ultimate development
of the site will be required to hook up to the existing public sewer system. Therefore, no impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPTX3071~A97.PC.doc
21
7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
C,
issue~ and Supporting information Sources
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transportation, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Crate a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Expose people or structures to a signiricant dsk or loss,
injury or death involving wildland rites, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Incorporated
Significant
Impact
No
,/
,/
,/
,/'
Comments:
7.a.
No Impact. Though this project only represents a subdivision of the property into commercial lots, the
ultimate buildout of the property will involve construction. Construction associated with the development
of the property will involve the use of chemical agents, solvents, paints and other hazardous materials that
are associated with construction activities. The amount of these chemicals present dudng construction,
however, is limited and is not considered a significant hazard. As a consequence, no significant impact
is expected form the routine use and disposal of these materials.
7.b.
No ImpacL The future development of the site will be commercial uses. It is anticipated that the future
uses within the project site will not store or house large quantities of hazardous material that would create
a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accidr
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. No impacts are anticipat,
as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.doc
22
7.c.
7.d.
7.e. ,f.
7.g.
7.h.
No Impact. Future development of the project site will be with commercial uses. This site is not within
one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The operation of construction equipment and
machinery dudng the development of this site may emit some hazardous emissions and or handle some
hazardous material. However, these emissions and matedal should be of limited quantities over a short
duration of time. Since this project site in not within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school,
and will not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste, no impacts are anticipated.
No Impact. This project site is not nor is it located near a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Govemment Code Section 65962.5 that would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public
or private airstrip. No impact upon airport uses will result from this proposal.
No Impact. The project will take access from maintained public streets and will therefore not impede
emergency response or evacuation plans. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No Impact. This project site is adjacent to 1-15 to the east and Murdeta Creek to the west. Though the
site is located in the vicinity of large open space areas, it is not located in a high fire area. As a
consequence no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRFI~307PAg'7.PC.doc
23
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
Le=sTnan
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitig~tio~ Signi~cmt
,f
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been granted)?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site ,/
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the site ,/
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or dver, or substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or off-sita?
e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the ,/
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No
Comments:
8.a. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project will not violate any water
quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The subdivision, and subsequent development, will
be required to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an
NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the
NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level less than significant. With
mitigation a less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project.
R:~STAFFRPT~307pA97,PC.dOC
24
8.b.f.
8.c.d.
6,e,
8.g.
' 8.h.i.
8.j.
No Impact. The project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a Iowedng of the local
groundwater table level. The project will not have an affect on the quantity and quality of ground waters,
either through direct additions or withdrawals or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations
or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability. Further, censtroction on the site will not be
at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground waters or aquifer volume. No impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or dver, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion or siltation and/or flooding on- or off-site. Some changes to
absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff is expected whenever
development occurs on previously permeable ground. Previously pen'neable ground will be rendered
impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. While absorption rates
and surface runoff will change, potential impacts shall be mitigated through site design. Drainage
conveyances will be required for the project to safely and adequately handle runoff which is created. A
less than significant impact is associated with this project.
Less Than Significant Impact. Due to the small scale of the proposed subdivision, and ultimately the
future commercial development, the project will not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources
of polluted runoff. The project will be conditioned to accommodate the drainage created as a result of the
subject site. in addition, the project will be conditioned so that the drainage will not impact surrounding
properties. A less than significant impact is associated with this project.
No Impact. This project represents a subdivision of property into commercial parcels. Since no residential
property is effected, no impact is associated with this project.
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project may expose people or
property to water related hazards such as flooding. According to the Riverside County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District, the project site is in area which is subject to severe flood hazard from Muftieta
Creek. Further, the site is located within the limits of the 100-year (Zone AE) floodplain/floodway as
delineated on Panel No. 060742 0010B of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps issued in conjunction with the
National Flood Insurance Program administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
In its current configuration; however, the project is designed with all pads for future development being
elevated above the floodway/floodplain. This project and all future development of the site will be
conditioned so that the developer will be required to file a floodplain development permit with the
appropriate approvals from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District if any
portion of the site is to be developed within the floodplain. In addition, future development will be
conditioned to pay a mitigation charge to the Murdeta Creek/Temecula Valley Drainage Plan.
In addition, the project is located within a dam inundation area as identified in the City of Temecula General
Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. Impacts can be mitigated by utilizing existing emergency
response systems and by assuring that these systems continue to maintain adequate service provision
as the City develops. With the incorporation of mitigation measures a less than significant impact is
anticipated as a result of this project.
No Impact. The project site will not be subject to inundation by sieche, tsunami, or mudflow as these
events are not known to happen in this region, No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA~7.PC.doc
25
9. Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
issues and Supporting Inforlnation Sources
Physically divide an established community?
Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan. local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect?
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
Significant
Imect
No
./
,/
Comments:
9a.,b.
No Impact. The subject site is vacant and is bordered by Murrieta Creek on the west and Interstate 15
on the east. These two features provide an existing physical barrier to the surrounding properties to the
east and west. The property to the north is comprised primarily of existing commercial uses. The
properties to the west and south are vacant and zoned Open Spaca. Therefore, the proposed subdivision
of this property will not conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance). As a consequence no impact is associated with this project.
9.c.
Less Than Signif;cant Impact. The project is located within the fee area for the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat
(SKR) Long-Term Habitat Conservation Plan. All development within this fee area is required to pay
mitigation fee. This project will be required to pay a mitigation fee for the SKR. In addition, according
a biological study conducted by Principe and Associates in December of 1997 the subject site contains
approximately one acre of Riversidian Sage Scrub which places the property within the jurisdiction of the
NCCP program. The project will be conditioned to comply with the NCCP program or develop their own
habitat conservation plan under the provisions of the NCCP program. As a consequence a less than
significant impact is anticipated.
R:XSTAFFRlrF\307PA97.PC.dOC
26
10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important ,/'
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
No
Impact
Comments:
10.a.b. No Impact. The project will not result in the loss of available, known mineral resources nor in the loss of
an available, locally important mineral resource recovery site. The State Geologist has classified the City
of Temecula a classification of MRZ-3a, containing areas of sedimentary deposits, which have the potential
for supplying sand and gravel for concrete and crushed stone for aggregate. However, these areas are
determined as not containing deposits of significant economic value based upon available data in reports
prepared in accordance with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975. No impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRFl'\307PA97.PC.doc
27
11. NOISE. Would the project result in:
Issues and Supporting Infonnmion Source
Exposure of people to severe noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
NO
Impact
Comments:
11.a.
Less Than Significant Impact. This project site is designated for commercial development. The site is
currently vacant and development of the land logically will result in increases to noise levels during
construction phases as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run. However, long-term noise
generated by this project would be within the limits of the General Plan standards for commercial
development. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
11.b.
No Impacts. Development of the project site will be with commercial uses. It is anticipated that the uses
conducted on site will not generate activities which would expose persons to or generate excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. No impacts are anticipated.
11.c.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project will ultimately result in the development of the site with
commercial uses which will create noise levels greater than that currently emanating from the vacant land.
However, those noises will not be substantial nor constant and are not anticipated to create a substantial
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
Therefore, only less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
11.d.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project may result in temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise
levels during construction. Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA
at 100 feet which is considered annoying. However, this source of noise from construction of the project
will be of short duration and therefore would not be considered significant. Furthermore, construction
activity will comply with City ordinances regulating the hours of activity in residential areas. A less than
significant impact would be anticipated.
R:XSTAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.doc
28
11 .e.f. No Impact. This project is not within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, therefore, people
residing in the project area will not be exposed to excessive noise levels generated by an airport.
Consequently no impact is anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.doc
29
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
PotentiaJly
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impac~
No
Impact
Comments:
12.a.
No Impact. The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The
project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designation of Highway/Tourist
Commercial (HT). The proposed subdivision will eventually result in the development of commercial uses,
which will cause some people to relocate to, or within the Temecula area. However, due to its limited scale,
it will not induce substantial growth beyond what is projected in the City's General Plan. No significant
effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.b.c. No Impact. The project will not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing as the site is
vacant property zoned Highway/Tourist Commercial (HT). Therefore, the project will neither displat
housing nor people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing. No impacts are anticipated.
a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.dOc
30
13.: PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered Government services in any of the following areas:
issues and Supporting information Sogrce$
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associates with the provisions of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for any of the
public services?
b. Fire protection? '/'
c. Police protection? '/
d. Schools? '/
e. Parks? '/
f. Other public facilities? '~
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant NO
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Comments:
13.a.,b.,c.,e.,f.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a
need for new or altered fire, police, recreation or other public facilities. The project will incrementally
increase the need for some services. However, the project will contribute its fair share through the City's
Development Impact Fees to the maintenance or provision of services from these entities. Due to the
project's relative small scale, less than significant impacts are anticipated,
13.d.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a
need for new or altered school facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate
within or to the City. The cumulative effect from the project will be mitigated through the payment of
applicable School Fees. Less than significant impacts are anticipated.
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.dOC
14. RECREATION. Would the project:
issues and Supporting Infornlation Sources
Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require ,/
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Less Than
Potentiadiy Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant NO
impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Comments:
14.a.b. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will have a less than significant impact in the demand for
neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The project will not cause significant
numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of Temecula. However, it will result in an incremental
impact or in an increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The
same is true for the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.dOC
32
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity
ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections?
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Result in inadequate emergency access?
Result in inadequate parking capacity?
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks?
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
Comments:
15.a.
Potentially Significant Impact. The development of the project and its proposed access on the south
side of Highway 79 South/Western Bypass at Front Street, will cause a substantial increase in traffic and
could have potential for significant impact at this intersection and the 1-15 southbound ramps.
Due to the substandard and limited spacing between the intersection of Old Town Front Street and 1-15
southbound ramp signal (160 feet) and the high traffic volumes generated by the project (7,909 ADT),
congestion and unsafe vehicular movements could be expected at intersections in the vicinity of the
project.
Although the traffic study prepared by the applicants consultant and its subsequent revisions indicate an
acceptable interim operation conditions, staff believes that the site access as proposed, will adversely
impact the traffic flow in the vicinity of the project at the I-15 interchange.
15.b.
Potentially Significant Impact. This project could potentially cumulatively exceed the level of service
standard (LOS "E") established within the County's Congestion Management Plan (CMP). State Highway
79(S), and Interstate 15 are roads which are within the County's CMP. Though the traffic study conducted
by the applicanrs traffic engineer states otherwise, City staff has determined that this project will be
responsible for a significant increase in traffic volumes. This increase in traffic volumes coupled with the
close spacing between the intersection at the extension of Old Town Front Street and Western Bypass
Corridor with the southbound on and off ramps for 1-15, may lead to congestion and gridlock on State
Highway 79(S) and could potentially cause southbound traffic on 1-15 to back up. As a consequence a
potentially significant impact may result from this project.
15.c. No ImpacL Neither the subdivision of the project site nor the future development of this property will result
in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
R:\STAFFRPT\307PAg7.PC.doc
33
results in substantial safety risks. This site is not within the French Valley Airport's flight overlay distdct
and therefore will have no impact on the project.
15.d.
15.e.
15.f.
15.g.
Potentially Significant Impact.. The proposed project could substantially increase hazards due ',
location of the intersection of the extension of Old Town Front Street and the Western Bypass Corridor ,~
terms of its spacing with the southbound on and off ramps for I-15. After reviewing the traffic study and
subsequent revisions prepared by the applicant's traffic engineer, City staff has determined that will
generate significant traffic volumes. These increased traffic volumes coupled with the close spacing
between the intersection at the extension of Old Town Front Street and Western Bypass Corddor with the
southbound on and off ramps for 1-15, may lead to significant traffic congestion. The added congestion
combined with close spacing of the Old Town Front Street and 1-15 ramps could result in unsafe vehicular.
The traffic study submitted for this project does not adequately address this issue, therefore this project
could have a potentially significant impact.
Less Than Significant Impact. This project is a subdivision of vacant property into commercial lots and
as a consequence it is difficult to determine what the ultimate impacts on emergency access will be at this
time. All subsequent development projects on parcels within this project will be evaluated to determine
the impacts to emergency access. Future development of the site will be conditioned to meet all applicable
standards in place at the time of development. Emergency access to nearby uses will not be affected by
this project given that the project is generally surrounded by undevelopable properties. As a consequence
the project will have a less than significant impact.
No Impact. This project represents a subdivision of vacant land into commercial lots, no specific
development is being proposed at this time. Consequently it is not possible to determine specific parking
requirements for the site, however, any subsequent development of the proposed parcels will be required
to comply with the City's Development Code parking requirements for commercial uses. Therefore, no
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project as proposed does not currently conflict with adopted policies,
plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. When future development is proposed for the
site, individual projects will be reviewed to determine if the provision of alternative transportation
opportunities will be appropriate. As a consequence, a less than significant impact is anticipated.
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.dOC
34
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
Lets Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigatio~ Significant
Impact Incoq)orated Irnl~ct
issues and Supporting information Sources
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water ,/'
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal
needs?
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
NO
Comments:
16.a.,b., e.
No Impact. The project will not exceed wastewater treatment raquiraments, require the construction of
new treatment fadlities, nor affect the capacity of treatment providers. The project will have an incremental
effect upon existing systems. However, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's
General Plan states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact
wastewater services." Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project. Moreover, the project will be conditioned to comply with the
Regional Water Quality Control Board standards that will be monitored by the Department of Public Works.
No significant impacts are anticipated.
16.c.
No ImpacL The project will not result in the need for new storm water drainage facilities. The development
of the tract will require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities on site that will
connect to the existing system currently in place along Old Town Front Street at the northern end of the
site. The design of the existing system is sufficient handle this project and will not require the expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Drainage fees
are required by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to reimburse the
county for the Murdefa Creek/Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan. No significant impacts are anticipated.
16.d. No ImpacL The project will not significantly impact existing water supplies nor require expanded water
entitlements. The project will have an incremental effect upon existing systems. While the project will have
an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's
R:XSTAFFRPT\307PA97.PC,dOC
35
General Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have indicated an ability to supply as much water as is
required in their services areas (p. 39)." The FEIR further states: "implementation of the proposed
General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services (p. 40)." Since the project is consistent
with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. There a'
no septic tanks on site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of t
project.
16.f.g. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not result in a need for new landfill capacity. Any potential
impacts from solid waster created by this development can be mitigated through participation in Source
Reduction and Recycling Programs, which are implemented by the City. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.doc
36
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a,
Issues and Supporting Informnation Sources
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number of
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major pedods of
California history or prehistory?
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects?
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Potentidly
Significant
Impact
Significam
Impact
NO
Impact
Comments:
17.a.
Less Than SigniFicant With Mitigation Incorporated. The ultimate development of the site has potential
to impact habitat for fish or wildlife species. The project proposes to disturb 0.5 acres of Riversidian Sage
Scrub, however, if the project were approved mitigation measures would be included to reduce this to a
less than significant impact. In addition, the project proposes to disturb 0.07 acres of wetlands. If
approved the project would be conditioned to mitigate this impact by obtaining a Section 404 Permit from
the Army Corps of Engineers and a Section 1601 Permit from the Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game. A less
than significant impact would result if mitigation measures are incorporated.
17.b.
Potentially Significant Impact. The project could have a potentially significant impact with respect to
traffic impacts. City staff has determined that the project could potentially generate increased traffic
volumes which could cumulatively effect traffic in the vicinity of the project.
17.c.
No ImpacL This project and the future development of the site will not have environmental effects that
would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly. The subdivision is
designed and will be developed consistent with the Development Code and General Plan. If approved,
no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT~307PA97.PC.doc
37
18. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR,
or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or
negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following
on attached sheets.
C=
Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review,
Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above check list were within the scope
of and adequately analyzed in an eadier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state
whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and
the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project,
18.a.
18.b.
18.c.
No eadier analyses spedfically related to this project site were used. However, a number of studies were
conducted for a previous subdivision (Tentative Parcol Map 23987) which included this properly. These
studies include: "A Reevaluation of Archaeological Sites Recorded on TPM 23987" prepared by The
Archaeological Research Unit at UCR (December 1988); A Biological Assessment conducted by Tierra
Madre Consultants (October 1988); A Stephens Kangaroo Rat Study conducted by Friesen Biological
Surveys for TPM 19851 (undated); two Geotechnical Investigations conducted by Schaefer Dixon
Associates (April 1988 and February 1989).. With the exception of the amheological study, none of these
studies were used in this analysis due to their age. Reference was only bdefly made to this document.
The City's General Plan and Final Environment Impact Report were used as a referenced source in
preparing this Initial Study
There were no earlier impacts which affected this project.
The recommendation of this Initial Environmental Study is that an Environmental Impact Report be
prepared. As a consequence no Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared.
2.
3.
4.
5.
SOURCES
City of Temecula General Plan,
City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.
South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
The City of Temecula Development Code.
Focused Traffic Analysis for TPM 28627 prepared by RKJK & Associated - May 1999 (with subsequent
amendments)
Biological Impact Report for TPM 28627 prepared by Principe & Associates - December 1997
Delineation of Wetlands and Jurisdictional Waters for TPM 28627 prepared by LSA Associates -
October 1998
A Reevaluation of Archaeological Sites Recorded on TPM 23987 prepared by The Archaeological
Research Unit at UCR (December 1988)
R:',STAFFRPT~307PA97.PC.doc
38
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
EXHIBITS
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.doc
39
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0307
(Tentative Parcel Map 28627)
EXHIBIT A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -OCTOBER 20, 1999
VICINITY MAP
F:~:)CptS\PLANNING%STAFI~07PA97.PC .doc
38
CITY OF TEMECULA !
EXHIBIT B -ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - HT (HIGHWAY/TOURIST COMMERCIAL)/
OS-C (CONSERVATION)
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - HTC (Highway/Tourist Commercial)/OS (Open Space)
CASE NO. - PA97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map 28627)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - OCTOBER 20, 1999
F:XDepts\PLANNINGXSTA~TRF1~307PA97.PC.doc
39
b compliance vdth b Americas wit Diseblllco Act, If you eteed special assistance to patldpato in thin meeting, please contact the
ofikeoftheCommunayDevdopmentDepadmentatp09)694-6400. NoUtlcatJon,lghourspdortoameeUngwlenabletheCItytomake
__ reasonaide ansugefseeth th ensure e,:_,'_,,s_d. bil;ty in that rneeUng [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II]
ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
October 20, f999 @ 6:00 PM
43200 Business Park Drive
Council Chambers
Temecula, CA 92590
ResoluUon Next In Order #99-041
CALL TO ORDER:
Chaiq~erson Guerriem
FLAG SALUTE:
ROLL CALL:
Fahey, Guerriem, Mathewson, Naggar, and Webster
PUBMCCOMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of lhe public can address the commissioners on items that are not listed on
the Ageeda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners about an item
not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission SecretaPy.
When you are called to speak, please come fortNard and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be fded 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
ACTION:
APPROVED 4-0, FANEY ABSENT
Minutes from September 29, 1999
ACTION: APPROVED 4-0
PUBUC HEARING ITEMS
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
Planning Application No. PA99-0296 (Tentative Tract Map No.
24136)
Paseo Partners, LLC, Chds Chambers
North of DePortola Road, east of Margarita Road, west of Meadows
Parkway and south of Montelegro and Leena Way
The subdivision of 99.8 gross acres into 397 residential lots and 22 open
space lots
Determination of Consistency with a project for which an Environmental
Impact Repod (EIR) was previously certified
Carole K. Donahoe, AICP
Approval
CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 17, 1999, 5-0
4. Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting:
Pinning ApplicaUon No. PA97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map 28627)
Margarita Canyon, LLC
27740 Jefferson Ave., Suite, Temecula, CA 92590
Located adjacent to Interstate 15, southwest of the intersection of Old
Town Front Street and Highway 79(S) [the future Westem Bypass
Corridor] (Assessor's Parcel Num bet 922-210-047)
Planning Application No. PA97-0307 is a proposal to subdivide an
approximately 37 acre parcel in 10 commerdal lots and one open space
lot
City Staff is recommending that an Environmental Impact Repod (EIR)
be prepared for this project
John De Gange
Denial
CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 3, 1999, 5-0
November 3, 1999, 6:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Ddve,
Temecula, California, 92590
F:~DEPTS~PLANNING\wimbervg\plancomm\agendae~1999\10-20-99,clo~
2