HomeMy WebLinkAbout041900 PC AgendaIn compliance with the Americar,~ with Disabilitie~ Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, pieese contact the office of the City Cletc (g0g) 694--E~· ~. ;. N~fication 48 hours prior to a meeting will
enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [2a CFR
35.102.35.104 ADA T~e II]
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
A REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
APRIL 19, 2000-6:00 P.M.
Next in Order:
Resolution: No. 2000-015
CALL TO ORDER:
FlagSalute:
Commissioner Telesio
Roll Call:
Fahey, Telesio, Webster and Chairman Guerdem
Mathewson absent
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission
on items that are listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each.
If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item no__t 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 for the record.
For all other aganda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the
Commission Secretary pdor to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three
(3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All mattare listed under Consent Calendar am considered to be routine and all will
be eneoted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unlless
Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the
Consent Calendar for separate action.
APProval of Aoenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of Al~dl 19, 2000.
R:~PLANCONII~0CO%4-19-00.dOC
1
2
3
4
Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve Minutes from February 2, 2000
Director's Headno Update
RECOMMENDATION
3.1 Receive and File
A westem theme silhouette on the street side elevation of the 'On the Border Restaurant'.
Plannino Application No. PA99-0079 (Development Plan~. on out lot "K' at the Promenade
Mall on the comer of Winchester Road and Ynez Road. - Thomas Thomsiev
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Request input from the Planning Commission.
5
Findino of Public Convenience or Necessity for the trasfer of a license for off sale
consumption of alcoholic beverages for Costco Whoiesale located at 26610 Ynez Road. -
John DeGanoe
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1
Staff recommends the Pinning Commission review the information included in this
report and make the finding of public convenience or necessity based upon the fact
that the applicant will be transferring an existing license along with the relocetion of
the business.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC. HEARING ITEMS
Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public
hearing or my appear and be beard in support of or in opposition to the approval of
the project(s) at the Ume of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you
my be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public
hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or
prior to, the public hearing.
R:%PLANC~as~00%4-19-00.doe ~-
2
6 Planning ADDlication No. PA98-0389 Cl'entative Tract MaD No. 291331 to subdivide 4.99
acres of land into eight (8~ residential lots - Thomas Thomslev
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-015
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA 98-0389 FOR TENTATNE TRACT MAP NO. 29133
(LOT I AND A PORTION OF LOT 1 OF TRACT NO. 8211),
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD 707 FEET
SOUTH OF CALLE HALCON AND YNEZ ROAD AND KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER NO. 945-060-024 AND
6.2 Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA98-0389
(Tentative Tract Map No. 29133); and
6.3 Adept the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA98-0389
(Tentative Tract Map No.29133).
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT
Growth Management Action Plan
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: May 3, 2000
R:~PLANCOMI,/AAgendas~000%4--1~-00.do¢
3
ITEM #2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 2, 2000
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on
Wednesday February 2, 2000, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula 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:
PUBLIC COMMENTS
NO Corrlments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Commissioners Fahey, Mathewson, Webster,
and Chairman Guer~ero.
None.
Planning Manager Ubnoske,
Attomey Cudey,
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks,
Senior Planner Fagan,
Senior Planner Hogan,
Associate Planner Donahoe,
Assistant Planner Anders,
Project Planner Thomsley, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
At this time, Deputy City Clerk Ballreich duly swore
In the newly appointed Planning Commissioner,
John Telesio.
It was noted that the Consent Calendar Items were considered separately.
I Approval of A.qenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of February 2, 2000.
R:Planningrninutes~020200
1
MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to approve the agenda. The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
2
Findin(3 of Public Convenience or Necessity for the Health Zone Natural Foods Store,
located at 41915 Motorcar Parkway, Suite A-C, at the northeast comer of Ynez Road and
Solana Way
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Support Finding of Convenience or Necessity
Associate Planner Donahoe provided a bdef overview of the staff report (via agenda material),
specifying the location of the use; and noted that this existing use was requesting to sell beer
and wine that was organically grown and certified.
Mr. Linda Brewer, representing the applicant, for Commissioner Mathewson, provided additional
information regarding the organic growth process and soil conditions for the grapes and hops
which were fermented to make the organic alcohol, noting that when the wine and beer was
produced there were no sulfates added; relayed that this particular store would be the only
business in southern Riverside County which had a selection of these projects; for Chairman
Guerdero, specified that the store would offer thirteen wine and six beer varieties; and noted
that the alcohol content was the same as regularly produced products (i.e., approximately 12%
for the wine, and 6% for the Peer),
Mr. Wayne Hall, 42131 Agena Street, noted that he was not necassadly opposed to this use
selling alcohol due to the sPecialty of its products; and relayed that for the record, that while this
use would not significantly impact the proliferation of existing alcohol establishments, that his
concern was regarding the clustering of alcoholic establishments.
MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to approve staff recommendation. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Fahey and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of
Chairman Guerdero who voted n.~o.
3 Re<~uest to Rescind Approval of Tentative Tract MaD No. 24136, Newland Communities,
located north of De Portola, east of Mar~3adta, west of Butterfield Sta~3e and south of
Leen8 Way
RECOMMENDATION
3.1 Approve.
Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that this item was placed on the agenda at the applicant's
request in order to have a formal action with respect to the rescinding of the map, clarifying that
this was not required.
Commissioner Webster noted that his rationale for requesting that this item be considered
separately was due to the verbal presentation denoted in the agenda packet.
R:Planningminutes~020200
2
Attomey Cudey noted that while this map would extinguish over a pedod of time without any
action, that this action would provide the property owner the flexibility to re-market the property
clear of any quedes regarding the pdor entitlement's existence or influence on the site.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Attorney Cudey clarified that the zoning would be unaffected
with respect to this action.
MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to approve staff recommendation. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
4
Plannine Application No. PA99-0382 {Lame Family Day Care Home Facility Ordinance)
Citywide ordinance amendine the Development Code - Senior Planner Dave Hoean
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 200O-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, AMENDING THE SEVERAL CHAPTERS OF THE
TITLE 17 RELATING TO THE STANDARDS FOR LARGE
FAMILY DAY CARE HOME FACITIIES" (PLANNING
APPLICATION PA99-0382)
Senior Planner Hogan presented a detailed overview of the staff report (of record), noting staff's
efforts to modify the existing ordinance regarding large family day care home facilities; advised
that the State governed the authodty in which local government could regulate these facilities,
relaying three approaches (per agenda material) the City could utilize in regulating the facilities,
as follows: Approach No. 1) to classify the facilities as a permitted use (with no additional
standards). Approach No. 2) to grant a non-discretionarypermit, which is an approval similar to
the process the City utilizes for granting businesses licenses, or Approach No. 3) to issue a
permit after notice was given to the property owners within a hundred foot parameter in order for
those individuals to have an opportunity to indicate whether or not they desired a public headng;
and noted that the agenda material was inclusive of three draft ordinances, one for each of the
three approaches, relaying that certain aspects of one draft ordinance could be added to
another.
Seeing that there ware no members of the public wishing to speak on this item, Chairman
GuerTiero closed the public headng at this time.
Based on previous Commission comments regarding large family day care home facility uses,
Commissioner Fahey, echoed by Commissioners Mathewson and Telesio, recommended that
R:Pianningminutes~020200
3
there be regulations associated with the permitting, and that there be a review and approval
process.
For Commissioner Telesio, Senior Planner Hogan specified that the cam of seven (7) children
constituted a large day care home fadlily, noting that fourteen (14) was the maximum number of
children permitted in the day care facilities per State law; and dadfled that small day care
facilities (constituting the care of less than seven (7) childran) were not required to be permitted.
Commissioner Webster relayed that this issue was being ddven by State law; advised that small
day care home facilities should be permitted in residential areas, noting his opinion that large
day care facilities did not belong in residential areas since this use was essentially a commercial
business; acknowledged that per State law, local government did not have the jurisdiction to opt
against permitting the large day care facilities in residential areas; recommended that the
Commission choose the draft ordinance, and approach option at tonight's meeting in order to
provide staff with the avenue to pursue, providing comments regarding modifications, and then
that the issue be continued in order for staff to address the requested revisions.
Chairman Guerdere relayed concurrence with continuing this item in order to obtain additional
date regarding specificity with regard to regulating square footage, play equipment. fencing, on-
street parking, restroom facilities, and in order to address the safety aspects of this matter.
Referencing State legislation, Attomey Cudey relayed the restricted parameters the State had
mandated with respect to the City's discretion; advised that the review process could be
inclusive of the following criteria: spacing concentration, traffic control, and parking and noise
control; relayed that the legislation precluded the City from plating restrictions on building
height, setbacks, or lot dimensions unless the same standard applied to all single family houses;
advised that CEQA review was inapplicable with respect to this matter; and concurred with the
recommendation that the Commission relay its recommended modifications, in order for staff to
researrJn the specific legal restrictions associated with regulating this use and for staff to bring
the matter back before the Commission.
In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries regarding an article he had recently read,
Attorney Cudey relayed that he could investigate pubfished articles regarding proposed
legislation which addressed the local judsdiction's concern regarding the lack of regulatory
power with respect to this matter, and update the Commission at the next meeting.
in light of the lack of regulatory power of the City, Commissioner Fahey relayed her reluctance
to recommend that the review and approval process be conducted at a public headng due to
that fact that it implied that the publids comments and concams could be tadored into the
governing body's derision on whether to permit the use, whereas in reality, the City had
extremely restricted jurisdiction with respect to these particular uses; reiterated that to conduct
the review process in a public headng implied that the public's comments would be taken into
consideration; and clarified that while she recommended a permitting process to ensure that
certain criteria was met, she was opposed to the review process being a public hearing.
in response to Commissioner Fahey, Attomey Cudey advised that if the review process were
conducted via an administrative level the same standards would apply, noting that the only
variant would be the entity permitting the use.
For Commissioner Telesio, Attorney Cudey dadfled the State mandates regarding the
regulations the City placed on the large day care home facilities, advising that there could be no
R:Planningminutes%020200
4
differentiation from the regulations placed on altemata residential structures; reiterated that the
State permitted the local jurisdictions to develop reasonable standards for the following: spacing
and concentration. traffic control, and parking and noise control. clarifying that those specific
areas could be regulated within reasonable standards with respect to the large family day cere
facilities; and specified the areas that could not be uniquely regulated for day cere facilities.
W'~h respect to noise control, for Commissioner Mathewson, Attorney Cudey dadfled the
parameters for restricting this impact; and for Commissioner Fahey, confirmed that if there was
analysis completed regarding the demand in the community, and the street capacity, then
objective criteda could be developed regarding the spacing of the uses.
Concurring with Commissioner Fahey's recommendation to concentrate on spacing parameters,
Chairman Guerdero relayed the number of these particular uses the State indicated was
needed.
For Chairman Guerdero, Attomey Cudey relayed that if the City could support reasonable
spacing and concentration standards via analysis and data, the City would be in compliance
with legislation.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Attomey Cudey clarified the 100-foot paremeter distance for
public notification, noting that it was a State standard.
In response to Commissioner Telesio's quedes regarding the standards denoted in Approach
Nos. 2, and 3 with respect to fenced play areas, and lighting standards, Senior Planner Hogan
relayed the efforts to apply vadous minimal standards. Attorney Cudey provided additional
information with respect to regulating these issues.
Commissioner Fahey reiterated her opposition with respect to the review process being
conducted at a public headng, noting that any public member could address his or her concems
regarding any matter at a Planning Commission meeting if they so desired; and relayed that she
strongly supported Approach No. 2 (denoted in the agenda material), advising that there be
additional specificity developed regarding regulating traffic and spacing.
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to have staff draft an ordinance based on
Approach No. 3 (per agenda material) and that staff investigate the development of specific
cdteda with regard to the following: spacing issues, on-site parking requirements, noise impacts,
the size of the play areas (inside and outside of a facility). Fire Marshall requirements. days and
hours of operation limitations, the number of supervisors required on a per child basis,
requirement to utilize the garage for the parking of the applicent's personal vehicles, Title 22
health and safety issues, and front yard fencing. based on the legal parameters appropriate for
this permitting process, and that the matter be continued in order for staff to investigate the
aforementioned issues. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote
reflected denial due to Commissioners Fahey, Guerdero, and Telesio voting no.
MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to have staff draft an ordinance utilizing Approach No. 2
(per agenda material), developing additional speci~city regarding the previously mentioned
issues (see above motlion), and that the matter be continued in order for staff to investigate the
requested regulatory issues from a legal standpoint. Chairman Guerdero seconded the motion.
(This motion was ultimately withdrawn.)
R:Planningrninutes%020200
5
For Commissioner Mathewson, Attomey Cudey provided additional information regarding
Approach No. 3.
For Commissioner Telesio, Senior Planner Hogan relayed that Approach No. 3 provided an
opportunity for public members to express their comments and concorns at a public headng
(i.e., Director's hearing).
Attorney Cudey advised that per City Code, a Directors headng decision was applicable for the
appeal process; for Commissioner Mathewson, relayed that with Approach No. 2 the Planning
Director would make an administrative derision and it would not go through the directors
headng process, noting that it would be the issuance of a non-discretionary permit; for
informational purposes, provided clarification with respect to a public member filing a wdt of
mandate, to appeal a decision on either side of this issue; and darffied that with Approach No. 3
the public would have an opportunity to express their comments at a hearing.
Commissioner Telesio relayed that while he was in favor of the pubtic being able to voice their
comments regarding this issue, if the local governing agency had no regulatory power a headng
would be ineffectual; and queded whether staff could address the regulatory issues,
investigating the range of authority legally permitted pdor to the Commission choosing Approach
Nos. 2, or 3.
It was noted that at this time that the previous motion was withdrawn.
MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to have staff research the regulatory issues previously
discussed (see page 5, under the first motion), and to continue this item in order for staff to
address these matters, and that the Commission would subsequently choose the approach
option to be pursued at the time the item was brought back to the Commission, and make
recommended revisions to the ordinance at that time. Chairman Guerdero seconded the motion
and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
It was noted that at 7:18 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 7:26 P.M.
5
Plannino APPlication No. PA99-0394 (Development Plan/Conditional Use Permit), located
on the east side of Ynez Road south of Winchester Road between the two mall entrances
- Project Planner Thomas Thornslev
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
R:Planningminute~%020200
6
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-007
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA99-0394 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN
AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 13,311 SQUARE FOOT CAR
WASH (CAR SPA) AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
CONVENIENCE MARKET/GAS STATION AND A 1,514
SQUARE FOOT LUBE SHOP, ON A 1.93 ACRE LOT LOCATED
ON THE EAST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD BETWEEN THE TWO
ENTRANCES TO THE PROMENADE MALL SOUTH OF
WINCHESTER ROAD, KNOWN AS A$SESSOR'S PARCEL NO.
910-320-039 & 040 AND LOTS P AND Q OF LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT PA98-0495 AND PARCEL MERGER PA99-0007
5.2
Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA99-0394 (Conditional
Use Permit/Development Plan) based on the Determination of Consistency with a
project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 - Subsequent EIR's and Negative
Declarations.
Via overhead maps and site plans, Project Planner Thomsley appdsed the Commission of this
particular project plan (of record), noting that staff and the applicant had worked diligently on
this project for the past six months; highlighted the location, and the access points; specified the
location and size of the car wash area, the convenience market/dell area, the post-wash area,
and the lube service area; relayed the constraints associated with this site and the solutions
staff and the applicant had developed (i.e., storm drain easement, view corridors); relayed the
internal traffic flow plan, and the provisions for parking which exceeded the requirements;
provided an overview of the architectural design which was consistent with the mall design,
specifying the enhanced articulation; noted that the overell site had twenty-three percent (23%)
of the site landscaped; and provided additional information regarding the signage plan.
For Commissioner Fahey, Senior Planner Fagan advised that staff was still in the process of
addressing transportation issues and the Park and Ride facility matter within this Specific Plan,
relaying that staff would update the Commission at a future date.
In response to Commissioner Telesio's comments regarding the intemal circulation at the site.
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks and Project Planer Thomsley provided additional
information.
With respect to the northerly driveway, for Commissioner Mathewson, Deputy Director of Public
Works Parks confirmed that there would solely be dght turn exit movements at this location; For
Chairman Guerhero, advised that there would be two Do not enter signs installed at this
location.
In response to Commissioner Mathewson's quedes regarding signage, Project Planer Thornsley
provided the size criteda for the pdmary and ancillary signs, relaying that the applicant would be
consistent with the requirements.
For Commissioner Telesio, Project Planner Thomsley provided additional information regarding
the monument signs.
R:Planningminutes~)20200
7
Mr. Robert Hellman, representing the applicant, relayed the alternate states that these facilities
were being developed in at this time (i.e., Texas, FIodda, and California); via overheads,
provided additional specifications regarding the sign plan; noted that there would be directional
signage guiding patrons as to where to queue for the various entities; for Commissioner Telesio,
provided additional information regarding the retionale for the number of queuing lanes leading
into the car wash; provided additional information with respect to the northerly driveway; and for
Commissioner Mathewson, advised that the post-wash area would be adequate in size for the
needs of the facility.
Mr. Patdck Fiedler, architect representing the applicant, provided an overview of the applicant's
work with staff which culminated into this particular proposal; with respect to signage, relayed a
desire to have that portion of the plan approved with the project, as well; for Commissioner
Webster, specified the area where customers could place air/watar in their vehicles; and
clarified the number of and location of the gasoline dispensers at the pump stations.
Mr. Ashok Gupta, owner of the property to the south of this particular site, relayed his concerns
as follows: 1) the impact this project would have on the shared driveway, and 2) the limitations
potentially placed on uses that would be feasible on his site due to the development of this
project; and for Commissioner Webster, confirmed that there was a reciprocal access easement
of both properties.
Project Planner Thomsley provided additional information regarding Mr. Gupta's site, specifying
the additional parking required for vadant uses; and advised that this particular project would not
be in conflict with the permitted uses for his property.
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks previded additional information regarding the circulation
at this site, noting that staff had reviewed Mr. Gupta's preliminary proposal, noting that there
were no conflicts at this point.
Commissioner Webster, echoed by Commissioner Mathewson, commended the architect for his
excellent work with respect to the style of the building; and noted that his concerns regarding
the circulation around the fueling station had been addressed.
Commissioner Mathewson relayed that there was a discrepancy between the landscaping
represented on the legend and the actual plan, speciflcelly, with respect to the liquid amber
trees; and requested staff to address the matter.
Chairman Guerdero recommended that rock be added to the base of the monument sign in
order to create consistency with the mall. Project Planner Thomsley provided assurance that
staff would work with the applicant regarding the design of the sign.
In response to Chairman Guerdero, Project Planner Thomsley relayed that there would be no
alcohol sold at this site.
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public headng; and to approve staff
recommendation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote
reflected unanimous approval.
R:Planningminutes~020200
8
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
Commissioner Mathewson requested staft to update the Commission with respect to the
landscaping on Margadta Road at the Power Center at the next meeting.
In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries regarding staff implementing a
project review process with respect to housing developments, Planning Manager
Ubnoske provided additional information, relaying that most of the development in the
City was within approved Specific Plans which would be inclusive of Design Guidelines;
and relayed that currently that are no residential guidelines in the City's Design
Guidelines, advising that staff would be addressing this matter at a future date.
After Commission discussion, Planning Manager Ubnoske requested the
Commissioners to check their schedules in order to reschedule the March 1, 2000
meeting to an alternate Wednesday in March, relaying that the matter would be further
discussed.
For Commissioner Webster, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that staff would
investigate the number of parking lot trees surrounding the mall in comparison to the
number denoted on the approved plan.
For Commissioner Telesio, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that at an upcoming
meeting a new criteda would be presented to the Commission with respect to the
Findings of Convenience of Necessity for alcohol uses; and with respect to
Commissioner Fahey's queries, Attorney Curiey relayed that there was a possibility that
the census could affect the boundaries on the ABC map.
Chairman Guerdero requested staff to address the expeditious completion of the mall
comer monument at Winchester and Ynez Roads.
With respect to truck traffic on Rancho California Road, Chairman Guerdero relayed that
loaded trucks were travelling in excess of 55 MPH; and due to the safety issues
associated with these speeds, requested that staff address the matter.
PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT
ReQuest for 1999 Results of Quadedv ABC Juvenile Decoy PreQrems
Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that she had included data with respect to this matter in the
agenda matedal per Commission request.
Uocomin~3 Planner's Institute
Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that registrations needed to be submitted by Friday
February 4, 2000 for all those who were interested in attending the conference.
Presentation of the Lennar Tour to Orehoe County
Via photographs, Project Planner Anders relayed the amhitectural treatments and styles viewed
at vadous Lennar Developments in Orange County dudng the recent tour, inclusive of the
R:Planningrninutes~020200
9
following elements: landscaped alleyways, unique mailbox units, trelliswork, landscaped
driveway treatments, front porch treatments, streetscapes, mixed roofing elements, window
treatments, vadant lot sizes, lake communities, and vaded elevations for lots; and for
Commissioner Fahey, Planning Manager Ubnoske and Project Planner Anders provided
additional information regarding the incorporation of alleys in developments. Subsequently, Ms.
Anders presented Chairman Guerdere's video of the tour.
ADJOURNMENT
At 8:57 P.M. Chairman Guerdero formally adjoumed this meeting to Wednesday, FebmaW 16,
2000 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Ddve, Temecula.
Ron Guerriero, Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
R:Planningminutes~020200
10
ITEM #3
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
April 19, 2000
Director's Hearing Case Update
Planning Director's Agenda items for March, 2000
Date Case No.
March 2, 2000 PA99-0500
March 2, 2000
March 9, 2000
PA00-0022
PA99-0505
Proposal
The construction of single
family homes on 140 lots
utilizing three two-story
models ranging in size from
2,263 to 2,676 square feet
within Tract 28482-1 &2
(Brookhaven)
The construction of single
family homes on 116 lots
utilizing three models ranging
in size from, 1,958 to 2,079
square feet within Tract
24182-3 (Monterey)
Product review for 104 single
family homes on 27.46 acres
'March 9,2000
March 23, 2000
March 23, 2000
PA99-0175
PA99-0205
PA99-0175
The subdivision and rough
grading of 53.41 acres into
10 industrial lots and one
open space lot
The design and construction
of a Recreational Vehicle
storage facility on 2.56 acres
behind the Hazit Market
The subdivision and rough
grading of 53.41 acres into
10 industrial lots and one
open space lot
Attachments:
1. Action Agendas - Blue Page 3
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\DIP, HEAR\MEMO\2000\March 2000.memo.d~c
Applicant
M-A Temeku
Hills
Development
Partners
Woodside
Homes Inc,
Trimark Pacific -
Temecula 5500
LLC
#50 Center City
Associates, LLP
George Weir
#50 Center City
Associates, LLP
Action
Approved
Approved
Appreved
Continued
Approved
Continued
off Calendar
A'FFACHMENT NO. 1
ACTION AGENDAS
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\D1RHEAR\MEMO~2000\March 2000.memo.doc
2
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 2, 2000 '1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
CALL TO ORDER: Dave Hogan, Senior Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior Planner on
items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire
to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak"
form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner before
that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
PUBLICHEARING
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
Planning Application No. PA99-0500 (Development Plans for Product
Review)
M-A Temeku Hills Development Partners (McMillin)
Northwest of the intersection of Meadows Parkway and Rancho
California Road within the Temeku Hills (Margarita Village) Specific
Plan Area.
The construction of single family homes on 140 lots utilizing three
two-story models ranging in size from 2,263 to 2,676 square feet
within Tract 28482-1 &2 (Brookhaven).
This project is exempt from further evaluation under CEQA due to
a prior finding of no significant environmental effect and the
resulting from the certification of the EIR for the Temeku Hills
(Margarita Village) Specific Plan.
John De Gange
Approval
APPROVED
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
Planning Application No. PA00-O022 (Development Plans for Product
Review)
Woodside Homes Inc.
Southeast of the intersection of Campanula Way and Meadows
Parkway (Paloma/Paseo del Sol Specific Plan).
The construction of single family homes on 116 lots utilizing three
models ranging in size from 1,958 to 2,079 square feet within Tract
24182-3 (Monterey).
This project is exempt from further evaluation under CEQA due to
a prior finding of no significant environmental effect and the
resulting from the certification of the EIR for the Paloma/Paseo del
Sol Specific Plan.
John De Gange
Approval
APPROVED
ADJOURNMENT
P: \PLANNING\DIRHEAR\2000\3-2-00. AGENDA .doc
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 9, 2000 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
CALL TO ORDER: Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior
Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3)
minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the
Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior
Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior
Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual
speakers.
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
Planning Application No. PA99-0505
Trimark Pacific - Temecula 5500, LLC
Westerly side of Butterfield Stage Road, north of De Portola
Road (Tract Map 24185)
Product Review for 104 single family homes on 27.46 acres
Exempt
Steve Griffin, Project Planner
Approval
APPROVED
2. Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Case Engineer:
Recommendation
ACTION:
ADJOURNMENT
Planning Application No. PA99-0175
#50 Center City Associates, LLP
Westerly of Diaz Road, between Dendy Parkway and Cherry
Street extended, at the extreme northwest corner of the City
of Temecula corporate boundaries (Assessor's Parcel No.
909-37-003)
The subdivision and rough grading of 53.41 acres into 10
industrial lots and one open space lot
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Steve Griffin, Project Planner
John Pourkazemi, Associate Planner
Approval
CONTINUED TO MARCH 23, 2000
F:\USERPUBL\PLANNING~DIRHEAR\2000\3-9~O.AGENDA.doc
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 23, 2000 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
CALL TO ORDER: Dave Hogan, Senior Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior
Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3)
minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the
Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior
Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior
Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual
speakers.
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
ACTION
Planning Application No. PA99-0205 (Minor Conditional Use
Permit)
George Weir
44526 Pala Road
The design and construction of a Recreational Vehicle storage
facility on 2.56 acres behind the Hazit Market.
This project is exempt from further evaluation under CEQA
Section 15332 (In-fill Development Projects).
Thomas Thornsley
Approval
APPROVED
2. Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Case Engineer:
Recommendation
ACTION
ADJOURNMENT
Planning Application No. PA99-0175
#50 Center City Associates, LLP
Westedy of Diaz Road, between Dendy Parkway and Cherry
Street extended, at the extreme northwest corner of the City
of Temecula corporate boundaries (Assessor's Parcel No.
909-37-003)
The subdivision and rough grading of 53.41 acres into 10
industrial lots and one open space lot
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Steve Griffin, Project Planner
John Pourkazemi, Associate Planner
Approval
CONTINUED OFF CALENDAR
F:\USERPUBL\PLANNING\DIRHEARx,2000\3-234)0.AGENDA.doc
ITEM #4
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
April 19, 2000
A western theme silhouette on the street side elevation of the On The Border
Restaurant, Planning Application No. PA99-0079 (Development Plan), on Out-
lot "K" at the Promenade Mall on the corner of Winchester Road and Ynez
Road.
PREPARED BY:
Thomas Thornsley, Project Planner
RECOMMENDATION: Request input from the Planning Commission.
BACKGROUND:
In July of 1999, the Planning Commission turned down On The
Border Restaurant's request for a western theme mural measuring
12 foot by 26 foot on back of their building facing Winchester Road
(Planning Application No. PA99-0079).
PROPOSAL:
At this time, the restaurant is under construction and the applicant is interested in doing something
creative on the blank wall of their building where the mural had been proposed. Building
construction is approaching a critical point and the builder must commit to the final electrical and
fixture placement on that portion of the building as a request. They am requesting that the
Planning Commission consider their request to place a back lit silhouette of cowboys around a fire
on the wall of the building.
Attached is a color elevation of an On The Border Restaurant where the silhouettes are used as
building adornment. The "right" elevation is what they would like to have considered on their
Temecula restaurant. The silhouette is made of steel and is held off the building about six inches.
Neon lights will be mounted behind the silhouette casting a halo of light on the wall.
Attachment:
1. Building Elevations
X\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\DeptS\pLANNING\THORNT\994)79 OTB\PC memo 2.doe
ITEM #5
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMCULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
April 19, 2000
Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity for the transfer of a license for off
sale consumption of alcoholic beverages for Costco Wholesale (26610 Ynez
Road).
Prepared by:
John De Gange, Project Planner
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North: Retail Commercial within Specific Plan No. 263
(Temecula Regional Center)
South: Business Park within Specific Plan No. 263
(Temecula Regional Center)
East: Retail Commercial within Specific Plan No. 263
(Temecula Regional Center)
West: Light Industrial (LI) and Community Commercial (CC)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
CC Community Commercial
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North: The Promenade Mall Site
South: Vacant
East: Vacant
West: Palm Plaza
BACKGROUND
The applicant, Costco Wholesale, is requesting that the Planning Commission make a finding of
public convenience or necessity for the transfer of their current license for off sale consumption of
alcoholic beverages to their new location at 26610 Ynez Road. This finding is required as part of
the permitting process by the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ARC). State law
requires a local finding of public convenience or necessity before a beverage sales license will be
transferred/issued by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. The applicant is requesting a Type
21 permit which allows the general retail off sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits. This request
represents a transfer of Costco's existing Type 21 license from its current location at 40435
Margarita Road to it new location at 26610 Ynez Road, which is currently under construction
ANALYSIS
The Planning Commission has developed criteria to determine whether or not a finding of public
convenience or necessity can be made. The criteria and staffs preliminary responses are as
follows:
F:\DeptS%PLANNING\STAFFRPTXCostCOPN&C.pc .doc
Criteria to JustiN Makincl a Findincl of Public Convenience or Necessity
Q. Does the proposed establishment have any unique features, which are not found in other similar
uses in the community (i.e. types of games, types of food, and other special services)?
A. No. Costco is a wholesale retail store with general retail items and food items. This facility is
intended to serve the residential communities within the area as well as the within the region.
Q. Does the proposed establishment cater to an under-served population (i.e., Patrons of a
different socio-economic class)?
A. No. Costco serves all socio-economic classes.
Q. Does the proposed establishment provide entertainment that would fill a niche in the community
(i.e. comedy club, jazz club, etc)?
A. No. The sale of alcoholic beverages in this facility is not associated with entertainment. This
criterion is not applicable.
Q. Are there any geographical boundaries (i.e. rivers, hillsides) or traffic barriers (i.e. freeways,
major reads, major intersections) separating the proposed establishment from other
establishments ?
A. No. This facility is sited within the commercial core of the City which consists of a number of
different commercial uses some of which have on and off sate licenses to sell alcohol.
Q. Is the proposed establishment located in an area where there is a significant influx of population
during certain seasonal periods?
No. Population in the area is seasonally stable, but increasing as residential areas within the
vicinity develop. Influx may occur in the near future as a result of the completion of the Diamond
Valley Reservoir and its preposed recreational components.
Criteria to Not Justify Makincl a Findincl of Pubic Convenience or Necessity
Q. Is there a proliferation of licensed establishments within a quarter mile of the proposed
establishment?
A. No. The site lies within District 432-04 according to the Alcohol Beverage Control office in
Riverside. Twenty (20) licenses are allowed in this census tract, and thirty-three (33) active
licenses have been issued. Since this is a transfer of an existing license, approval of this
request will not add to the existing number of licenses in the overall area. This request will
remove an active license from District 432-02 and add an active license to District 432-04.
Q. Are there any sensitive uses (i.e. schools, parks, hospitals, churches) in close proximity (600
feet) to the proposed establishment?
A. No. There are neither churches nor schools within 600 feet of the proposed site.
Q. Would the proposed establishment interfere with the quiet enjoyment of their property by the
residents of the area?
A. It is unlikely that the proposed Costco will interfere with the five residences that are located
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~CostcoPN&C.pc.doc
2
within 600 feet to the east of the proposed facility.
Q. Will the proposed establishment add to law enforcement problems in the area ?
A. No. According to the Police Department, this request is not expected to create or exacerbate
law enforcement problems in the area.
Number of Similar uses within the Citv
There are currently 20 off sale licenses issued to grocery store/general retail uses within the City
of Temecula.
Number of other licensed establishments within 1 mile and 3 miles
There are seven (7) off-sale and fourteen (15) on-sale licenses within a one (1) mile radius of the
subject establishment. These licensed establishments include restaurants, bars, mini-marts and
grocery stores. The three mile (3) radius encompasses the remainder of the licensed
establishments within the City of Temecula.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission review the information included in this report and make
the finding of public convenience or necessity based upon the fact that the applicant will be
transferring an existing license along with the relocation of the business.
Attachments:
1. A. Vicinity Map - Blue Page 5
B. Zoning Map
C, General Plan
D. Radius Map for ¼ Mile, 1 Mile and 3 Miles
2. Correspondence from Costco Wholesale - Blue Page 6
F:~DeptS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~COStCOPN&C.pc.dOc
3
ATI'ACHMENT NO. I
VICINITY MAP
ZONING MAP
GENERAL PLAN
RADIUS MAP
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPTXCOStcoPN&C.pc.dOC
4
CITY OF TEMECULA
SUBJECT SITE
Costco - Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity
EXHIBIT A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: April 19, 2000
VICINITY MAP
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION
.0000~
'00000(
'0000¢
'O000
'000~
SUBJECT SITE
~00000~
OO0000~
00000(
)OOO0(
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION
Costco - Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: April 19, 2000
Costco Wholesale
Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity (26610 Ynez Road)
· Off Sale Ucenses
· On Site Sale Ucenses
i parcels
City Boundary
3000 0 30006000 Feet
March 1 O, 2000
Planning Commission
City of Temecula
Re: Public Convenience or Necessity
Dear Commissioners:
In compliance with Section 23958.4 of the California Business and Professions
Code, please consider the following information in support of a finding of Public
Convenience and Necessity for the relocation of our Temecula warehouse from 40435
Winchester Road to 26610 Ynez Road.
Costco Wholesale ("Costco") sells alcoholic beverages for off sale consumption at
its current Temecula warehouse location. Costco has a history of service to many
California communities and would continue to operate in the same manner it always has.
The community has been accustomed to the services provided by the current Temecula
warehouse and Costco only seeks to ensure the same level of amenities consistent with
our other location.
Costco's request to sell alcoholic beverages for off sale consumption will not
jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to public health, safety or general
welfare. The approval for this use should not create any significant detrimental impact on
the surrounding community. We do not believe it will hinder the achievement of the
community development goals, nor will it negatively affect the character or development
of the immediate neighborhood.
We respectfully request the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
find in support of Public Convenience and Necessity for the relocation of the Temecula
warehouse and determine that such finding will be served by the issuance of the license.
Sincerely,
COSTCO WHO ES E ! ' '/~AR ! 5 2000
Ri Olin
al Estate and Law
RJO/dkn
999 Lake Drive · Issaquah, WA 98027 ° 425/313-8100 · www. costco.com
ITEM #6
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Subject:
Planning Commis lone s
Debbie Ubnosk.~l:n~ineirng Manager
April 19, 2000
Planning Application No. PA98-0389 is a request for a Tentative Tract Map to
subdivide 4.99 acres of land into eight (8) residential lots on the east side of
Ynez Road, 707 feet south of Calle Halcon and Ynez Road (Assessor's Parcel
Numbers 945-060-024)
PREPARED BY:
RECOMMENDATION:
BACKGROUND:
Thomas Thornsley, Project Planner
That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council
approve PA98-0389 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29133).
This project was continued at the March 15, 2000, Planning
Commission Meeting at the request of the applicant to allow them
time to resolve problems they felt they would have acquiring needed
right-of-way. In their attempt to resolve this issue, minor alterations
were made that changed the street standard and its alignment and
the creation of an open space lot (ninth parcel). These changes
required new conditions that primarily came from Community
Services to address the open space lot. They have conditioned the
applicant to make all improvements to this lot for landscaping and
slope maintenance and require them to enter into the City's
maintenance program. Staff has updated the Conditions of Approval
and the Resolution to reflect these changes and the continuance
(copies attached). A copy of the original staff report package is also
attached to this memorandum.
Attachments:
1. PC Resolution No. 99- - Blue Page 2
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval (revised) - Blue Page 5
2. Tentative Tract Map No. 29133 - Blue Page 15
3. March 15, 2000, Planning Commission Staff Report - Blue Page 17
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\389PA98 PC memo 4-19.doc
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 00-
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRP'~389PA98 PC memo 4-19.doc
2
PC RESOLUTION NO. 00-
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BY THE CITY
COUNCIL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0389 FOR
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 29133 (LOT 1 AND A PORTION OF LOT
7 OF TRACT NO. 8211), LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE YNEZ
ROAD 707 FEET SOUTH OF CALLE HALCON AND YNEZ ROAD
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 945-060-024.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Temecuta has received an application
from J. Michael Lanni for planning Application No. PA98-0389 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29133);
and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission was scheduled to hold a noticed public hearing on
March 15, 200, on the issue of recommending approval or denial PA98-0389 (Tentative Tract Map
No. 29133); and,
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA98-0389 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29133) was
processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State
and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA98-0389
(Tentative Tract Map No. 29133) on March 15, 2000, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed
by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did, testify
either in support or opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at the request of the applicant, continued Planning
Applications No. PA98-0389 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29133) to the Planning Commission Headng
of April 19, 2000;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission continued Planning Application No. PA98-0389
(Tentative Tract Map No. 29133) on April 19, 2000, 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. PA98-0389;
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. Findinqs. That the Temecula Planning Commission, in approving Planning
Application No. PA98-0389 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29133, hereby makes the following findings
as required in the City's Subdivision Ordinance.
A. The proposed land division is compatible with the General Plan designation and
zoning. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The General Plan
Land Use designation for the site is L (Low Density Residential). Tentative Tract Map No. 29133
proposes eight (8) residential lots, which comply with the minimum lot size requirement of ¼ acre
and the unit density of .5 to 2 units per acre.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT%389PA98 PC memo 4-19.doc
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 the
City's General Plan, Development Code and Subdivision Ordinance. The project proposes one cul-
de-sac street taking access from Ynez Road, and is consistent with these documents. 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 project will take direct access from Ynez Road and will not obstruct
any easements.
D. The map as proposed, conforms to the logical subdivision of the site, and is compatible
with the health, safety and welfare of the community. The subdivision is compatible with the
surrounding areas as the site will be developed pursuant to the General Plan, and the Development
Code, all of which regulate residential parcels and development. Future development of residential
units will be compatible and sensitive to the surrounding residential development. In addition, the
proposed subdivision provides adequate access and circulation for emergency vehicles and will
not impact existing circulation or emergency vehicle access. The project as conditioned, will
comply with the City's Development Code, General Plan and subdivision requirements.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates
that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions
of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby
granted.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Planning Application No. PA98-0389 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29133) located on the east side of
Ynez Road 707 feet south of Calle Halcon and Ynez Road, and known as Assessor's Parcel No,
945-060-024.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of April, 2000,
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 19th day of April,
2000 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~389PA98 PC memo 4-19.doc
4
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~389PA98 PC memo 4-19.doc
5
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA98-0369 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29133)
Project Description:
The subdivision of 4.99 acres of land into eight (8) lots
zoned Low Density Residential.
Development Impact Fee Category: Residential
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
945-060-024
April 19, 2000
April 19, 2003
PLANNING DIVISION
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division
a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount
of Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to
file the Notice of 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 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 appmved in accordance with the State Map Act and City
Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior 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
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.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT%389PA98 PC memo 4-19.doc
4. If subdivision phasing is proposed, a phasina plan shall be submitted to and approved by
the Planning Director.
5. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation
measures contained in the projects Mitigation Monitoring Program.
6. After grading all slopes shall be planted in accordance with the City's Slope Planting
Guidelines. Jute netting will be required on all slopes greater than ten linear feet.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
7. A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning
Department.
8. 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
9. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes:
a. This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar
Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California
Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations, Ordinance No.
655.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
9. 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
10. 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.
11. A Grading Permit for either rough or precise grading shall be obtained from the Department of
Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road
right-of-way.
12. 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,
13. All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for
consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall
be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars,
Prior to Approval of the Final Map, unless other timing is indicated, the Developer shall
complete the following or have plans submitted and approved, subdivision improvement
agreements executed and securities posted:
14. 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
F:\Depts~PLANNING\STAFFRPT~389PA96 PC memo 4-19.doc
?
Eastern Municipal Water District
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
Riverside County Health Department
Cable TV Franchise
Community Services District
General Telephone
Southern California Edison Company
Southern California Gas Company
Fish & Game
Army Corps of Engineers
15. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula General
Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the
Department of Public Works:
a. Improve Ynez Road (Secondary Highway Standards - 88' R/W) to include
dedication of half~width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street
improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities,
signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer).
b. Improve Street A (Local Road Standards - 50' R/W) to include dedication of full-
width street right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements, paving,
curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping,
utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer).
c. All street improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement
transitions per Caltrans standards for transition to existing street sections.
16. Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of
the street improvement plans:
a. Street centerline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum
over A.C. paving.
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard Nos. 207 and/or 208.
c. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets shall be designed in
accordance with Ordinance No. 461.
d. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Nos.
400, 401and 402.
e. Design of street improvements shall extend a minimum of 300 feet beyond the
project boundaries to ensure adequate continuity of design with adjoining
properties.
f. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
g. 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.
h. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed
through curb outlets per City Standard No. 301,302 or 303.
i. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV
shall be provided underground. Easements shall be provided as required where
adequate right-of-way does not exist for installation of the facilities. All utilities
shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility
provider.
j. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~389PA98 PC memo 4-19.doc
8
17. 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.
18. Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Ynez Road on the Final Map.
19. 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.
20. All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public or
other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such
offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of
Public Works.
21. Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is part of an
existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section. Prior to City
Council approval of the Final Map, the Developer shal! make an application for reapportionment
of any assessments with appropriate regulatory agency.
22, Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid.
23, An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the Final Map
to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be recorded with the map. A copy of
the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department and Public Works Department for
review and approval. The following information shall be on the ECS:
a. The delineation of the area within the 100-year floodplain.
b. Special Study Zones.
c. Geotechnical hazards identified in the project's geotechnical report.
d. Archeological resources found on the site.
24. 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.
25. The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests,
and if he or she should fail to do so, the Developer shall, prior to submittal of the Final Map for
recordation, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to the Subdivision
Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462.5. Such agreement shall provide for payment by
the Developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required
in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these costs shall be in the form of
a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the Developer, at the
Developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement
of the appraisal.
26. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be
provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed
in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. Telephone, cable TV, and/or security
systems shall be pro-wired in the residence.
27. The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit
shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements.
28. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated and
noted on the Final Map.
29. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities,
utilities, etc., shall be shown on the Final Map if they are located within the land division
boundary, All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and recorded
F:\DeptS\PLANNING\STAFFRP'R389PA98 PC memo 4-19.doc
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
30. 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. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
c. Planning Department
d. Department of Public Works
e. Riverside County Health Department
f. General Telephone
g. Southern California Edison Company
h. Southern California Gas Company
31. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City of
Temecula standards and appreved 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.
32. A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Civil or Soils Engineer and submitted to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all
soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered
structures and preliminary pavement sections.
33. A Geotechnical Report shall be prepared by a registered engineer or engineering geologist and
submitted to the Department of public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report
shall address special study zones and identify any geotechnical hazards for the site including
location of faults and potential for liquefaction. The report shall include recommendations to
mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction.
34. A Drainage Study shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The study shall identify storm
water runoff quantities expected from the development of this site and upstream of the site.
It shall identify all existing or proposed off-site or on-site, public or private, drainage facilities
intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of
receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property. The study shall
include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing
of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall be provided as part of
development of this project. The basis for analysis and design shall be a storm with a
recurrence interval of one hundred years.
35. 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.
36. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money
order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full
Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new
charge needs to be paid.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRP"~389PA98 PC memo 4-19.doc
]0
37. The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work performed on
adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as directed by the
Department of Public Works,
38. All lot drainage shall be directed to the driveway by side yard drainage swales independent of
any other lot.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
39. The Final Map shall be approved and recorded.
40. 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.
41. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the California 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.
42. 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
43. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written
clearance from the foltowing agencies:
a. Rancho California Water District
b. Eastern Municipal Water District
c. Department of Public Works
44. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
45. All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City
standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
46. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken due to
the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
47. 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.
48. 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 during the approval process to reflect changes
in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire
Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as
provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A)
F:\DeptS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~389PA98 PC memo 4-19,doc
49. 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)
50. Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul-de-
sac shall be forty-five (45) feet, (CFC 902.2.2.3)
51. 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)
52. 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)
53. Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire
Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion
of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather
surface designed for 80,000 Ibs, GVVV with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( CFC sec
902)
54. 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, The map shows a road cross section of paving of 32 feet, this will allow parking
on one side only. The side with no parking to be painted red and marked "No parking Fire
Lane CVC 22500.1 ". Fire hydrants to be placed on this side of the street. (CFC 902.2.2.1)
55. Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred and
fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of
accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4)
56. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system
. plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be: signed
by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and
conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans
are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention
Bureau for signatures, The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and
accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being
placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association
24 1-4.1)
57. 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)
COMMUNITY SERVICES
General Requirements
58. A Class II bike lane on Ynez Road shall be completed
improvements.
~n concurrence with the roadway
F:\Depts\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~389PA98 PC memo 4-19.doc
12
59. Prior to installation of residential and arterial street lighting or issuance of building permits,
whichever comes first, the developer shall pay the appropriate energy fees related to the
transfer of said street lights into the TCSD maintenance program.
60. The developer or his assignee shall be responsible for the slope and landscape improvements
within the Ynez Road parkway and Open Space Lot No. 9 until such time as those
responsibilities are approved and accepted by the TCSD.
61, Construction of the slope and landscaping improvements within the Ynez Road parkway and
Open Space Lot No. 9 shall commence pursuant to a pre-construction meeting with the
developer and the TCSD Maintenance Superintendent. Failure to comply with the TCSD
review and inspection process may preclude the acceptance of these areas into the TCSD
maintenance program.
62. All perimeter walls, interior slopes and entry monumentation shall be constructed outs,de of the
proposed TCSD maintenance areas and maintained by the property owner.
63. Upon completion and acceptance of the improvements within Open Space Lot No. 9, the
developer shall transfer fee title of said property to the City, free and clear of any liens or
encumbrances. A policy of title insurance shall be provided with the transfer of said property
to the City.
Prior to Approval of the Final Map
64. Prior to approval of the final map, the developer shall satisfy the City's parkland dedication
requirement (Quimby) through the payment of in-lieu fees equal to .11 acres of parkland. The
fees shall be calculated by multiplying the required parkland by the City's then current
appraised land valuation as established by the City Manager.
65. The developer shall file a notice of intention with the TCSD to initiate election proceedings for
the transfer and acceptance of residential street lighting and slope maintenance responsibilities
into the respective TCSD maintenance programs. All costs associated with this process shall
be borne by the developer.
66. The proposed landscaped parkway adjacent to Ynez Road and Open Space Lot No. 9 shall be
identified a proposed TCSD maintenance area and offered for dedication on the final map.
67. Landscape construction drawings for the Ynez Road Parkway and Open Space Lot No. 9 shall
be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services.
68. The developer shall post security and enter into an agreement to improve the Ynez Road
parkway and (:)pen Space Lot No. 9.
Prior to Cetti~cate of Occupancy
89. Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, the applicant or his assignee shall submit
the most current list of Assessor's Parcel Numbers to the final project.
70. The developer shall provide wdtten disclosure of the existence of the TCSD and its service level
rates and charges to all prospective purchasers.
OTHER AGENCIES
71. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water
District's transmittal dated September 28, 1998, a copy of which is attached.
72. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Municipal Water
District's transmittal dated November 17, 1998, a copy of which is attached.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRP'R389PA98 PC memo 4-19.doc
73. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Temecula Valley Unified
School District's transmittal dated October 13, 1998, a copy of which is attached.
74. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Department of Fish and
Game transmittal dated October 21, 1998, a copy of which is attached.
75. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Flood
Control District transmittal dated October 6, 1998, a copy of which is attached.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance
with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be
subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant's Signature
Date
Name printed
F:\DeptS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~389PA98 PC memo 4-19,doc
]4
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO, 29133
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRP"I~389PA98 PC memo 4-19.doc
15
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
MARCH 15, 2000, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~389pA98 PC memo 4-19.doc
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
March 15, 2000
Planning Application No. PA98-0389 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29133)
Prepared By: Thomas Thornsley, Project Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BY THE CITY
COUNCIL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0389 FOR
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 29133 (LOT 1 AND A PORTION OF LOT
7 OF TRACT NO, 8211), LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE YNEZ
ROAD 707 FEET SOUTH OF CALLE HALCON AND YNEZ ROAD
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 945-060-024; AND
ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Application
No. PA98-0389 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29133); and
ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application
No. PA98-0389 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29133).
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
J. Michael Lanni
Planning Application No. PA98-0389 is a request for a
Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 4.99 acres of land into eight
(8) residential lots.
Located on the east side of Ynez Road, 707 feet south of
Calle Halcon and Ynez Road (Assessor's Parcel Numbers
945-060-024)
L-2 (Low Density Residential)
North: M (Low Medium Density Residential)
South: L-1 (Low Density Residential)
East: L-1 (Low Density Residential)
West: SP-8 [Specific Plan 8 (Rancho Highlands)]
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~389pa98,doc
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: L (Low Density Residential)
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North: Low Medium Density Residential
South: Low Medium Density Residential
East: Low Medium Density Residential
West: Medium Density Residential.
BACKGROUND
Planning Application No. PA98-0389 for Tentative Tract Map No. 29133, with 8 lots, was submitted
on September 18, 1998. (The City previously approved this map in 1991 under Tentative Tract
Map No. 24172. One Extension of Time was processed for this map in 1993 and the map officially
expired in 1997.) Development Review Committee (DRC) meetings were held on October 15, 1998
and November t 1, 1999. The first review determined that the map submitted was the old map that
had expired and was prepared by a firm no longer in business. The applicant was informed that
a new map would have to be prepared so that there would be an official engineer of record for the
map. The map was deemed complete on February 28, 2000.
ANALYSIS
Access and Circulation
The subdivision proposes one cul-de-sac street taking access from Ynez Road. All lots are on the
south side of the street or the end of the cul-de-sacs. No lots take access from Ynez Road.
Development Standards
Pursuant to Table 17.06.040, of the City of Temecula's Development Code, the minimum lot size
for Low Density Residential zoned parcels is .5 acre gross lot area. The proposed parcels range
in size from 20,000 square feet to 25,391 square feet. All lots are consistent with the Development
Code's lot sizes requirements of .5 to 1.0 acres net. The subdivision proposes to have 1.6 dwelling
units per acre (du/ac), which is within the General Plan's range of .5 to 2 du/ac.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have
a significant impact on the environment. There will not be a significant effect in this case. The
mitigation measures described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, and the Conditions of
Approval that have been added to the project provide mitigation, and a Negative Declaration is
hereby granted.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The proposed map provides adequate access, circulation and developable lots. The proposed lots
comply with the minimum lot size requirements of the Low Density Residential zoning classification
pursuant to Chapter 17, Table 17.06.040 of the Development Code. The parcels are consistent with
the General Plan Land Use Map and the zoning map. Therefore, staff recommends approval of
Tentative Tract Map No. 29133 based upon the following findings:
\\TEMEC_FS101WOL1\DeptS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~389pa98.dOC
FINDINGS
The proposed land division is compatible with the General Plan designation and zoning. The
site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The General Plan Land
Use designation for the site is L (Low Density Residential). Tentative Tract Map No. 29133
proposes eight (8) residential lots, which comply with the minimum lot size requirement of
.5 acre (gross) and the unit density of .5 to 2 units per acre.
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 the
City's General Plan, Development Code and Subdivision. The project proposes one cul-de-
sac street taking access from Ynez Road, and is consistent with these documents.
Conditions of approval have been placed on the project accordingly to assure that the
development conforms to City Standards.
The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within
the proposed land division. The project will take direct access from Ynez Road and will not
obstruct any easements.
The map as proposed, conforms to the logical subdivision of the site, and is compatible with
the health, safety and welfare of the community. The subdivision is compatible with the
surrounding areas as the site will be developed pursuant to the General Plan, and the
Development Code, all of which regulate residential parcels and development. Future
development of residential units will be compatible and sensitive to the surrounding
residential development. In addition, the proposed subdivision provides adequate access
and circulation for emergency vehicles and will not impact existing circulation or emergency
vehicle access. The project as conditioned, will comply with the City's Development Code,
General Plan and subdivision requirements.
Attachments:
1. PC Resolution No. 99- - Blue Page 4
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 7
2. Exhibits - Blue Page 16 A. Vicinity Map
B. General Plan Map
C. Zoning Map
D. Tentative Tract Map No. 29133
3. Initial Environmental Study - Blue Page
4. Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFF~PT~389pa98.dOc
3
A'R'ACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 00o
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~389pa98-doc
4
PC RESOLUTION NO. 00- ....
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BY THE CITY
COUNCIL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0389 FOR
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 29133 (LOT 1 AND A PORTION OF LOT
7 OF TRACT NO. 8211), LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE YNEZ
ROAD 707 FEET SOUTH OF CALLE HALCON AND YNEZ ROAD
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 945-060-024.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula has received an application
from J. Michael Lanni for Planning Application No. PA98-0389 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29133);
and,
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA98-0389 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29133) was
processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State
and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA98-0389
(Tentative Tract Map No. 29133) on March 15, 2000, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed
by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did, testify
either in support or 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. PA98-0389;
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. PA98-0389 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29133, hereby makes the following findings
as required in the City's Subdivision Ordinance.
A. The proposed land division is compatible with the General Plan designation and
zoning. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The General Plan
Land Use designation for the site is L (Low Density Residential). Tentative Tract Map No. 29133
proposes eight (8) residential lots, which comply with the minimum lot size requirement of ¼ acre
and the unit density of .5 to 2 units per acre.
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 the
City's General Plan, Development Code and Subdivision Ordinance. The project proposes one cul-
de-sac street taking access from Ynez Road, and is consistent with these documents. 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 project will take direct access from Ynez Road and will not obstruct
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~389pa98.doc
5
any easements.
D. The map as proposed, conforms to the logical subdivision of the site, and is
compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. The subdivision is compatible
with the surrounding areas as the site will be developed pursuant to the General Plan, and the
Development Code, all of which regulate residential parcels and development. Future development
of residential units will be compatible and sensitive to the surrounding residential development.
In addition, the proposed subdivision provides adequate access and circulation for emergency
vehicles and will not impact existing circulation or emergency vehicle access. The project as
conditioned, will comply with the City's Development Code, General. Plan and subdivision
requirements.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates
that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions
of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby
granted.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Planning Application No. PA98-0389 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29133) located on the east side of
Ynez Road 707 feet south of Calle Halcon and Ynez Road, and known as Assessor's Parcel No.
945-060-024.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of March, 2000.
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 15th day of March,
2000 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1~Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRP'~389pa98.dOC
6
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
\\TEMEC_FS101WOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~389pa98.ClOC
?
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA98-0389 (Tentative Tract Map No, 29133)
Project Description:
The subdivision of 4.99 acres of land into eight (8) lots
zoned Low Density Residential.
Development Impact Fee Category: Residential
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
945-060-024
March 15, 2000
March 15, 2003
PLANNING DIVISION
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division
a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount
of Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to
file the Notice of 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 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 prior 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
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.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRP'I~389pa98.doc
8
4. If subdivision phasing is proposed, a phasina alan shall be submitted to and approved by
the Planning Director.
5. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation
measures contained in the projects Mitigation Monitoring Program.
6. After grading all slopes shall be planted in accordance with the City's Slope Planting
Guidelines. Jute netting will be required on all slopes greater than ten linear feet.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
7. A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Ptanning
Department.
8. 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
9. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes:
a. This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All
proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of
Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations, Ordinance No. 655.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
9. 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
10. 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.
11. A Grading Permit for either rough or precise grading shall be obtained from the Department
of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained
road right-of-way.
12. 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.
13. All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated
for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and
shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
Prior to Approval of the Final Map, unless other timing is indicated, the Developer shall
complete the following or have plans submitted and approved, subdivision improvement
agreements executed and securities posted:
14. 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
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRP'R389pa98,doc
d. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
e. City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau
f. Planning Department
g. Department of Public Works
h. Riverside County Health Department
i. Cable TV Franchise
j. Community Services District
k. General Telephone
I. Southern California Edison Company
m. Southern California Gas Company
n. Fish & Game
o. Army Corps of Engineers
15. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecuia
General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by
the Department of Public Works:
a. Improve Ynez Road (Secondary Highway Standards - 88' R/W) to include
dedication of half-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street
improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities,
signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer).
b. Improve Street A (Local Road Standards - 60' RAN) to include dedication of full-
width street right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements, paving,
curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping,
utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer).
c. All street improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement
transitions per Caltrans standards for transition to existing street sections.
d. Unless otherwise approved the following minimum cdteria shall be observed in
the design of the street improvement plans:
e. Street centerline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00%
minimum over A.C. paving.
f. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard Nos. 207 and/or 208.
g. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets shall be designed in
accordance with Ordinance No. 461.
h. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Nos.
400, 401and 402.
i. Design of street improvements shall extend a minimum of 300 feet beyond the
project boundaries to ensure adequate continuity of design with adjoining
properties.
j. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
k. 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.
I. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed
through curb outlets per City Standard No. 301,302 or 303.
m. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable 'IV
shall be provided underground. Easements shall be provided as required where
adequate right-of-way does not exist for installation of the facilities. All utilities
shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility
provider.
n. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed.
16. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other
disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works.
\\TEMEC_FS101~VOL1\DeptS\PLANNING~STAFFRpT~389pa98.dOC
10
19.
20.
21,
22,
23.
24,
25.
26.
27.
28.
Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Ynez Road on the Final Map.
Corner property line cut off for vehicular sight distance and installation of pedestrian
facilities shall be provided at all street intersections in accordance with Riverside County
Standard No. 805.
All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public
or other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons
such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is part of an
existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section. Prior to
City Council approval of the Final Map, the Developer shall make an application for
reapportionment of any assessments with appropriate regulatory agency.
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid.
An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the Final
Map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be recorded with the map. A
copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department and Public Works
Department for review and approval. The following information shall be on the ECS:
a. The delineation of the area within the 100-year floodplain.
b. Special Study Zones.
c. Geotechnical hazards identified in the projecrs geotechnical report.
d. Archeological resources found on the site.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject
property.
The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property
interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the Developer shall, prior to submittal of the
Final Map for recordation, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant
to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462.5. Such agreement shall
provide for payment by the Developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site
property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these
costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report
obtained by the Developer, at the Developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been
approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal.
All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be
provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and
constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. Telephone, cable TV,
and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in the residence.
The Developer shall notify the Cify's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit
shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements.
Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated
and noted on the Final Map.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities,
utilities, etc., shall be shown on the Final Map if they are located within the land division
boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and
recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities located
outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and shown on
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~389pa98.doc
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 Gradin9 Permits
29. 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. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
c. Planning Department
d. Department of Public Works
e. Riverside County Health Department
f. General Telephone
g. Southern California Edison Company
h, Southern California Gas Company
30. 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.
31. A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Civil or Soils Engineer and submitted to
the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check, The report shall
address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction
of engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections.
A Geotechnical Report shall be prepared by a registered engineer or engineering geologist
and submitted to the Department of public Works with the initial grading plan check. The
report shall address special study zones and identify any geotechnical hazards for the site
including location of faults and potential for liquefaction. The report shall include
recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction.
A Drainage Study shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The study shall identify
storm water runoff quantities expected from the development of this site and upstream of
the site. It shall identify all existing or proposed off-site or on-site, public or private,
drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an
adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or
private property. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all
facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm
water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project. The basis for analysis
and design shall be a storm with a recurrence interval of one hundred years.
The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading
and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and
subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check
or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan
fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this
property, no new charge needs to be paid.
The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work pe~ormed
on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as directed by the
Department of Public Works.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
\\TEMEC_FS101WOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRP'~389pa98.doC
12
37. All lot drainage shall be directed to the driveway by side yard drainage swales independent
of any other lot.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
38. The Final Map shall be approved and recorded.
39. 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.
40. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the California 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.
41. 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
42. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Rancho California Water District
b. Eastern Municipal Water District
c. Department of Public Works
43. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
44. All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City
standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
45. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken due
to the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and replaced to
the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
46. 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.
47. 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 during the approval
process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection
measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has
taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A)
46. 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
\\TEMEC_FS101WOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~389pa98.doC
49.
50.
51.
52.
53,
54,
55.
56.
spaced at 500 feet apart and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the
street or Fire Department access read(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)
Maximum cul-de~sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet, Minimum turning radius on any cup
de-sac shall be forty-five (45) feet. (CFC 902,2.2.3)
If construction is phased, each phase shall provide appreved access and fire protection
prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2)
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)
Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have appreved Fire
Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any
portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all
weather surface designed for 80,000 Ibs. GVVV with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet.
( CFC sec 902)
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)
Prior to building construction, dead end read 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)
Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water
system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be:
signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature
block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards,
After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to
the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire
hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any
combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901,2.2.2
and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1 )
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers"
shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations, (CFC 901.4.3)
COMMUNITY SERVICES
General Requirements
57. A Class II bike lane on Ynez Road shall be completed in concurrence with the roadway
improvements.
58. Prior to installation of residential and arterial street lighting or issuance of building permits,
whichever comes first, the developer shall pay the appropriate energy fees to the TCSD.
59. All slopes, parkway landscaping and open space shall be maintained by a homeowners
association or the property owner.
Prior to Approval of the Final Map
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~389pa98.doc
60, Prior to approval of the final map, the developer shall satisfy the City's parkland dedication
requirement (Quimby) through the payment of in-lieu fees equal to .11 acres of parkland.
The fees shall be calculated by multiplying the required parkland by the City's then current
appraised land valuation as established by the City Manager.
61. The developer shall file an application with the TCSD to initiate election proceedings for the
transfer and acceptance of residential street ',ighting responsibilities into the TCSD
maintenance program.
Prior to Certificate of Occupancy
62. Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, the applicant or his assignee shall
submit the most current list of Assessor's Parcel Numbers to the final project.
63. The developer shall provide written disclosure of the existence of the TCSD and its service
level rates and charges to all prospective purchasers.
OTHER AGENCIES
64. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District's transmittal dated September 28, 1998, a copy of which is attached,
65. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Municipal
Water District's transmittal dated November 17, 1998, a copy of which is attached.
66. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Temecula Valley
Unified School District's transmittal dated October 13, 1998, a copy of which is attached.
67. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Department of Fish
and Game transmittal dated October 21, 1998, a copy of which is attached.
68. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County
Flood Control District transmittal dated October 6, 1998, a copy of which is attached.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval, I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance
with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be
subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant's Signature
Date
Name printed
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DeptS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~389pa98.dOC
September 28, 1998
Thomas Thornsley, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAILABILITY
TRACT NO. 24172
APN 945-060-002 ~,~, ?
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0398--'
Dear Mr. Thornsley:
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
981SB:mC2301FO12-T61FCF
c: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor
EASTERN MUNICIPAL
WATER DISTRICT
Board of Directors
R~chard R Hall
Marion ~ ~,shle}
Cla>ton A Record. Jr,
R,}dger D Siems
Director oj the
~Ietropolitan ~}ater
District 4,'io. Calif,
Chester C Gilbert
Jtlseph J Kuebter, CPA
November 17, 1998
City of l'emecula
Planning Department
P. O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Re: Sanitary Sewer Service Availability for Tentative Tract Map ' :
Dear Sir:
The District is writing to confirm a "will serve" for a subdivision of 5 acres into
residential parcels. The availability of service will be contingent on limiting
conditions existing beyond EMWD's control, or a determination by the developer
to be cost-ineffective. The District advises the developer to contact the District' s
Customer Service Department at (909)928-3777 for existing facilities capacities
and other conditions of service.
Sincerely,
Warren Back
Civil Engineer
Customer Service
WAB:jr
2270 Trumble Road Pc~st Office Box 8300 Pegis. CA 92572-8300 Tel {909) 928-3777 Fax 19091928-6177
TEMECULA VALLEY
Unified School District
SUPERI!JTENDENT
Dav,o 5 AHmen
October 13, 1998
Mr. Thomas Thornsley
City of Temecula Planning Department
P.O. Box 9033
Temecuta, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT: PA98-03" ',
Dear Mr. Thomsley:
Temecula Valley Unified School District requests a signed school facilities mitigation agreement on Case
No. PA98-03~ in accordance with City Resolutions 95-36 and 96-119. A blank agreement is enclosed.
Sincerely,
Temecula Valley Unified School District
~dinator of Facilities Services
OCT ',- 6 1998
31350 Rancho V~sta Road Temecula. CA 92592 / (909) 676-2661
STATE OF CAUFORNIA. BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT I, 4t4 W. 4ffi STREET, 6th FLOOR
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401-1400
P~T'E V',qLSON. Govem~
October 19, 1998
08-Riv-15-4.12
Mr. Thomas Thornsley
Case Planner
43200 Business Park Drive
PO Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Dear Mr. Thornsley:
Planning Application 98-0Z~
We have reviewed the above referenced documents and request consideration of
the following comments:
Caltrans supports economic growth and orderly land use development;
however, new development must pay its fair share for upgrading infrastructure
facilities needed to serve the development. This infrastructure includes State
highways and freeways. It also includes both direct and cumulative traffic
impacts. All jurisdictions should take measures available to fund improvements
and reduce total trips generated. In view of the fact there are limited funds
available for infrastructure improvements, we recommend the City of Temecula
take the lead in developing a fair-share mechanism in which each project can
fund improvements for the decrease in Level of Service (LOS) for which it is
responsible.
Please send a copy of the plot/site plan depicting all existing and proposed
facilities, structures, vegetation, adjacent street (with centerlines and driveways),
etc. and with a vicinity map.
JI:;T .~ 0 t998
Mr. Thomas Thornsley
October 19, 1998
Page 2
If you have any questions, please contact Garrett Miyahira at (909) 383-6212 or FAX
(909) 383-5936.
Sincerely,
LINDA GRIMES, Chief
Office of Regional Planning/
Forecasting/Public Transportation
State of California - The Resource ency
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
http://www. dfg.ca.gov
Eastern Sierra-Inland Deserts Region
330 Golden Shore, Suite 50
Long Beach, Califomia 90802
(562) 590-5113
October 21, 1998
Mr. Thomas Thornsley, Project Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
P.O. Office Box 9033
Temecula, California 92589-9033
Dear Mr. Thornsley:
Project Notice
The Department of Fish and Game (Department) appreciates this opportunity to
comment on the above-referenced project, relative to impacts to biological resources. To
enable Department staff to adequately review and comment on the proposed project, we
recommend the following information be included in "any environment document prepared for
the proposed project:"
A complete assessment of the flora and fauna within and adjacent to the project area,
with particular emphasis upon identifying endangered, threatened, and locally unique
species and sensitive habitats.
A thorough assessment of rare plants and rare natural communities, following
the Department's May 1984 Guidelines for Assessing Impacts to Rare Plants
and Rare Natural Communities (Attachment 1).
A complete assessment of sensitive fish, wildlife, reptile, and amphibian species.
Seasonal variations in use of the project area should also be addressed.
Focused species-specific surveys, conducted at the appropriate time of year and
time of day when the sensitive species are active or otherwise identifiable, are
required. Acceptable species-specific survey procedures should be developed in
conSultatiOn with the Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Rare, threatened. and endangered species to be addressed should include all
those which meet the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) definition
(see CEQA Guidelines, § 15380).
Mr. Thomas Thornsley, Project Planner
October 21, 1998
Page Two
The Department's California Natural Diversity Data Base in Sacramento should
be contacted at (916) 327-5960 to obtain current information on any previously
reported sensitive species and habitat, including Significant Natural Areas
identified under Chapter 12 of the Fish and Game Code..
A thorough discussion of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts expected to adversely
affect biological resources, with specific measures to offset such impacts.
CEQA Guidelines, § 15125(a), direct that knowledge of the regional setting is
critical to an assessment of environmental impacts and that special emphasis
should be placed on resources that are rare or unique to the region.
Project impacts should be analyzed relative to their effects on off-site habitats.
Specifically, this should include nearby public lands, open space, adjacent
natural habitats, and dpadan ecosystems. Impacts to and maintenance of
wildlife comdor/movement areas, including access to undisturbed habitat in
adjacent areas, should be fully evaluated and provided.
The zoning of areas for development projects or other uses that are nearby or
adjacent to natural areas may inadvertently contribute to wildlife-human
interactions. A discussion of possible conflicts and mitigation measures to
reduce these conflicts should be included in the environmental document.
A cumulative effects analysis should be developed as described under CEQA
Guidelines, § 15130. General and specific plans, as well as past, present, and
anticipated future projects, should be analyzed relative to their impacts on similar
plant communities and wildlife habitats.
The document should include an analysis of the effect that the project may have
on completion and implementation of regional and/or subregional conservation
programs. Under § 2800- §2840 of the Fish and Game Code, the Department,
through the Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) program, is
coordinating with local jurisdictions, landowners, and the Federal Government to
preserve local and regional biological diversity. Coastal sage scrub is the first
natural community to be planned for under the NCCP program. The Department
recommends that the lead agency ensure that the development of this and other
proposed projects does not preclude long-term preserve planning options and
that projects conform with other requirements of the NCCP program.
Jurisdictions participating in the NCCP should assess specific projects for
consistency with the NCCP Conservation Guidelines.
Mr. Thomas Thornsley, Project Planner
October 21, 1998
Page Three
A range of alternatives should be analyzed to ensure that alternatives to the proposed
project are fully considered and evaluated. A range of alternatives which avoid or
otherwise minimize impacts to sensitive biological resources should be included.
Specific alternative locations should also be evaluated in areas with lower resource
sensitivity where appropriate.
Mitigation measures for project impacts to sensitive plants, animals, and habitats
should emphasize evaluation and selection of alternatives which avoid or
otherwise minimize project impacts. Off-site compensation for unavoidable
impacts through acquisition and protection of high-quality habitat elsewhere
should be addressed.
The Department considers Rare Natural Communities as threatened habitats
having both regional and local significance. Thus, these communities should
be fully avoided and otherwise protected from project-related impacts
(Attachment 2).
The Department generally does not support the use of relocation, salvage,
and/or transplantation as mitigation for impacts to rare, threatened, or
endangered species. Department studies have shown that these efforts are
experimental in nature and largely unsuccessful.
A California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Permit must be obtained, if the project
has the potential to result in "take" of species of plants or animals listed under CESA,
either during construction or over the life of the project. CESA Permits are issued to
conserve, protect, enhance, and restore State-listed threatened or endangered species
and their habitats. Eady consultation is encouraged, as significant modification to the
proposed project and mitigation measures may be required in order to obtain a CESA
Permit. Revisions to the Fish and Game Code, effective January 1998, require that the
Department issue a separate CEQA document for the issuance of a CESA permit
unless the project CEQA document addresses all project impacts to listed species and
specifies a m!tigation monitoring and reporting program that will meet the requirements
of a CESA permit. For these reasons, the following information is requested:
Biological mitigation monitodng and reporting proposals should be of sufficient
detail and resolution to satisfy the requirements for a CESA Permit.
A Department-approved Mitigation Agreement and Mitigation Plan are required
for plants listed as rare under the Native Plant Protection Act.
5. The Department opposes the elimination of watercourses and/or their channelization or
conversion to subsurface drains. All wetlands and watercourses, whether intermittent or
Mr. Thomas Thornsley, Project Planner
October 21, 1998
Page Four
perennial, must be retained and provided with substantial setbacks which preserve the
dpadan and aquatic values and maintain their value to on-site and off-site wildlife
populations.
The Department has direct authority under Fish and Game Code § 1600 et seq.
in regard to any proposed activity which would divert, obstruct, or affect the
natural flow or change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake.
Early consultation is recommended, since modification of the proposed project
may be required to avoid or reduce impacts to fish and wildlife resources.
A discussion of potential adverse impacts from any increased runoff,
sedimentation, soil erosion, and/or urban pollutants on streams and
watercourses on or near the project site, with mitigation measures proposed to
alleviate such impacts must be included.
The Department holds regularly scheduled pre-project planning/early consultation
meetings. To make an appointment, please call our regional office at (562) 590-5137.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Questions regarding this letter and further
coordination on these issues should be directed to Mr, Raul Roddguez, Fishery Biologist. at
(909) 597-1008.
Sincerely,
Curt Taucher
Regional Manager
Attachments
cc: See attached list
Mr. Thomas Thornsley, Project Planner
October 21, 1998
Page Five
cC:
Mr. Kevin-Barry Brennan
Department of Fish and Game
Idyllwild, California
Mr. Raul Roddguez
Department of Fish and Game
Chino Hills, California
Mr. Jim Dice
Department of Fish and Game
Borrego Springs, Califomia
Ms. Dee Sudduth
Department of Fish and Game
Jamul, California
Mr. William Tippets
Department of Fish and Game
San Diego, California
Mr. Jeff Neuman
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Carlsbad, California
Mr. Eric Stien
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Los Angeles, California
State Clearinghouse
Sacramento, California
DAVID P. ZAPPE
C~m:raJ Managcr-ChicfEngin~r
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
- 1995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 9250!
909/275-1200
909/788-9965 FAX
51180.1
City of Temecuta
Plannin De artment
Post ~fl~6,e ~x 9033
Temecula, California 92589-9033
Attention: 'T/-tOM Pt..% "7"/'/0~N5 LE 7
Ladles and Gentlemen: Re:
The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cam in incorporated
cities. The Disffict also does hot an check ~ land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or
other flood hazard mpqrts for et~cases. Disffict comrne~ts/recommendations for such ca.see are normally limited
to items of spqcffic interest to the Disffict indudin Dlab'ict Master Dmina · Plan facilities. other ional flood
control and draina · facilities which could be consi~gerad a logical componen~lor extension of a mastern~p:n s tern,
and Distdct Area 8rainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition. information of a general nsa~re 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 issue:
v//' This pm. ject would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of
regional ~ntemst proposed.
This project involves Distdct Master Plan fadtitles. The District will acce ownershi of such facilities on
writtan request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District stan~tar~e. and ~l~s~ct plan check and
inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be
required.
This project prqposes 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 wohl°~'J consider accepting ownershi of such tacfi~tles on written request
of the City. Facilities must be constructed to Dlaffict standards, and ~ct ~an check and inspection will
be required for District acceptance Plan check. inspection and administrative fees will be required
V/' This pnject is located within the limits of the Disthct's U TA
.rai.... P,an .. which drai...,.s h.v..en
check or money order onl to ~;e Flood Control District or C~t prior to issuance k.~bu~lilding or grading
permits whichever comes ~t. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of the
actual porTniL
GENERAL INFORMATION
This project mar uire a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES permit from the State Water
Resources Co~ie"~card. Clearance for grading, recordation, or other final apprevalshould not be given until the
City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt.
requirements and should furl~er require that the a plicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision CLOMR)
pdor to grad ng, recordation or other final appreva~Pof the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR(~ pdor to
occupancy.
If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is im acted by this project the City should require the a iicent to
obtain a Section 160111603 Agreement from the Ca~i~mia Depament oi' Fish and Game and a Clean P~eter Act
Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or written correspondence from these a endes
indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quaff Cer~cation
may be required from the local Cafifomia Regional Water Quality Control Board pdor to issuance of ~t~e Corps 404
permit.
5 ,rd
STUART E. MCKIBBIN
Senior Civil Engineer
Da,e: l D- ~, -
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
EXHIBITS
F:\DeptS\pLANNING\STAFFRPT~389pa98.doc
16
CITY OF TEMECULA
PROJECT SITE I
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA98-0389 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29133)
EXHIBIT A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 15, 2000
VICINITY MAP
F:\DeptS\PLANNING\STAFFF{PT~389pa98.dOC
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B
DESIGNATION - L-2 (Low Density Residential)
ZONING MAP
0000000000
00
EXHIBIT C
DESIGNATION - L (Low Density Residential)
CASE NO. - PA98-0389 (Tentative Tract Map 29133)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 15, 2000
F:\DePts\PLANNING\STAFFRp'IR389pa98.dOC
18
GENERAL PLAN
CITY OF TEMECULA
i I , TT"/
:'i:'::l' I
'elluli. ll
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA98-0389 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29133)
EXHIBIT D TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 15, 2000
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~389pa98.doc
19
ATI'ACHMENT NO. 3
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT%389pa98.doc
20
City of Temecula
Planning Department
PROJECT:
DISTRIBUTION DATE:
CASE PLANNER:
Agency Distribution List
Planning Application No. PA98-0389 (Tentative Tract Map 29133)
February 9, 2000, to March 1, 2000
Thomas K. ThornsIcy
CITY OF TEMECULA:
Building & Safety ................................(X)
Fire Department ..................................(X)
Sheriff ..............................................( )
Parks & Recreation (TCSD) ................... ( )
Planning, Advance ...............................( )
Public Works .....................................(X)
STATE:
Caltrans ............................................(X)
Fish & Game .....................................
Mines & Geology ................................
Regional Water Quality Control Bd ..........
State Clearinghouse ..............................
State Clearinghouse (10 Copies) ..............
Water Resources .................................
FEDERAL:
Acmy Corps of Engineers ...................... (
Fish and Wildlife Service ......................(
REGIONAL:
Air Quality Management District .............(
Western Riverside COG ........................(
.......... (
CITY OF MURRIETA:
Planning ............................................( )
RIVERSIDE COUNTY:
Airport Land Use Commission ................. ( )
Engineer ...........................................(X)
Flood Control ....................................(X)
Health Department ..............................(X)
Parks and Recreation .............................( )
Planning Department .............................( )
Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA) ..... ( )
Riverside Transit Agency .......................( )
........... ()
UTILITY:
Eastern Municipal Water District ............. (X)
Inland Valley Cablevision .......................( )
Rancho CA Water District, Will Serve ...... (X)
Southern California Gas ................ (X)
Southern California Edison ....................(X)
Temecula Valley School District ...............)
Metropolitan Water District ....................)
OTHER:
Pechanga Indian Reservation ...................)
Eastern Information Center .....................)
Local Agency Formation Comm ............... )
RCTC ..............................................)
Homeowners' Association ...................... ( )
\\TEMEC_FSI01\VOLBDeptSXPLANNING\CEQA\447pa98 NOP.dO~
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Notice of Proposed Negative Declaration
PROJECT:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
DESCRIPTION:
Planning Application No. PA98-0389, (Tentative Tract Map No. 29133)
Michael Lanni, 21 Old Course Dr, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Located on the east side of Ynez Road 707 feet south of the intersection of Calle
Halcon and Ynez Road (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 945-060-002)
A request to subdivide 4.77 acres of land into eight (8) residential lots on a cul-de-
sac street.
The City of Temecula intends to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project described above.
Based upon the information contained in the attached Initial Environmental Study and pursuant to the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); it has been determined that this
project as proposed, revised or mitigated will not have a significant impact upon the environment. As
a result, the Planning Commission intends to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project.
The mitigation measures required to reduce or mitigate the impacts of this project on the environment
are included in the project design and/or the Mitigation Monitoring Program which is attached to this
Notice and will be included as part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project.
The Comment Period for this proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is February 9, 2000, to March
1, 2000. Written comments and responses to this notice should be addressed to the contact person listed
below at the following address: City of Temecula, P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033. City
Hall is located at 43200 Business Park Drive.
The public notice of the intent to adopt this Mitigated Negative Declaration is provided through:
__X The Local Newspaper. __X Posting the Site. __X Notice to Adjacent Property Owners.
If you need additional information or have any questions concerning this project, please contact the
Project Planner, Thomas Thornsley at (909) 694-6400.
Prepared by:
(Signature)
Thomas K. Thornsley, Project Planner
(Name and Title)
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
Tentative Tract Map No. 29133 (Planning Application No. PA98-
0389)
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033,
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Thomas Thornsley, Project Planner
(909) 694-6400
Located on the east side of Ynez Road 707 feet south of the
intersection of Calle Halcon and Ynez Road (Assessor's Parcel
Numbers 945-060-002)
J. Michael Lanni, 21 Old Course Dr., Newport Beach, CA 926612
Low Density Residential (L)
Zoning
Low Density Residential (L-2)
Description of Project
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
Other public agencies whose approval
is required
PA98-0389 is a request to subdivide 4.77 acres of land into eight (8)
residential lots.
North: Single family residential
East: Single family residential
South: Single family residential
West: Single family residential
None.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\CEQA\389pa98 new IES.doc
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.
,f
Land Use Planning
Population and Housing
Geologic Problems
Water
Air Quality
Transportation/Circulation
Biological Resources
Energy and Mineral Resources
Hazards
Noise
Public Services
Utilities and Service Systems
Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
None
Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect 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 not
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
I 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 impacts(a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier 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
Printed name
\\TEME C_ -'-~ ! 01 \VOL 1 \Depts\PLANNING\CEQA\389pa98 new IES .doc
2
1. Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information 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?
Potentially
Signlhcant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Less Than
No
CommeFits;
1,a,
The project will not disrupt of divide the physical arrangement of an established community. The
project site is vacant and surrounded by single family homes. The development of this site will be
consistent with the surrounding properties. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
1.b.
The project will not conflict with applicable General Plan designation, environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. The project is consistent with the City's General
Plan land use designation of L (Low Density Residential .5-2 du/acre) as well as the zoning of L-2 (Low
Density Residential .5-.1 du/acre). Impacts from all General Plan land use designations were analyzed
in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan. Agencies with jurisdiction within the
City commented on the scope of the analysis contained in the EIR and how the land uses would impact
their particular agency. Mitigation measures approved with the EIR will be applied to this project where
necessary. Further, all agencies with jurisdiction over the project are also being given the opportunity
to comment on the project, and it is anticipated that they will make the appropriate comments as to how
the project relates to their specific environmental plans or policies. The project site has been not been
previously graded; however, services are available into the area. There will be no impacts on adopted
environmental plans or policies.
1.C.
The proposed project will not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan. The site has been grubbed for weed abatement and fire protection due
to its proximity to adjacent residential units. This site is not within any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural com~nunity conservation plan. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
\\TEMEC_FS 101 \VOL1 \Depts\PLANNING\CEQA\389pa98 new IES.doc
3
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a. 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)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
! elsewhere?
[c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Potent~atlv
Potentially S~gnificant Less Than
Signihcant Unless M~tigat~on Significant
Impact Incorporated ~mpact
No
Impact
Comments:
2,a.
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 Low Density Residential
(L). The proposed subdivision will eventually result in the development of new single family
homes, which will cause some people to relocate to, or within Temecula, However, due to its
limited scale (eight lots), it will not induce substantial growth beyond what is projected in the
City's General Plan. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
2.b, c. The project will not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing as the site is
vacant property zoned Low Medium Density Residential. Therefore, the project will neither displace
housing nor people necessitating the construction of replacement housing. No impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
\\TEMEC FS101\VOLl\Depts\PLANNING\CEQA\389pa98 new IES.doc
4
3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project?
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
issues and Supporting information Sources
Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
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.
Strong seismic ground shaking?
Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Landslides?
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
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 (1998), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
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?
Potentially
S~gnihcant
Impact
Unless Mitrgat~on
Incorporated
No
The Wildomar earthquake fault is plotted through this property on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. Because of the proximity of the fault line the owner had a
Preliminary Geotechnical Fault Investigation carried out by Leighton and Associates, Inc. The
results of this report dated August 23, 1988, indicated that there was no evidence of active
faulting in the exploratory trenches excavated on site. This report wac approved by the Riverside
County Engineering Geologist, Steve Kupferman, on march 20, 1990. Mr. Kupferman reaffirmed
the validity of this report in a fax to the project planner dated January 13, 2000. After mitigation
measures are performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
iii, b., and d.
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 Southern 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, no
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
\\TEMEC_FS101 \VOL1 \Depts\PLANNING\CEQA\389pa98 new IES.doc
5
3.a. iv, c.
The City's General Plan does not identify the subject site as being within an area of subsidence,
landslides or liquefaction hazards. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Septic sewage disposal systems are not proposed for this project. The project will be required to
hook up to the existing public sewer system. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation S~gn~hcant
d. ,f
Issues and Supporteng information Sources
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)?
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?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site?
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?
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
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?
NO
f. ,/
g. ~ ~
I j' Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Corflments;
4.a. 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
%',TEMEC_FS101%VOL1%DeptS\PLANNING\CEQA~389pa98 new IES.doc
6
4.b.,f.
4.c,d.
4.j.
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. No impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
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 lowering 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,
construction 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.
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 river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation and/or flooding on-site 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 permeable ground will be rendered impervious
by construction of buildings, accompanying hard scape 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. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Due to the small scale of the proposed subdivision, and ultimately the future single family
residential 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. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will have no impact on people or property to water related hazards such as flooding
because the project site is located outside of the 1 O0 year floodway and the dam inundation area
as identified in 'the City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. No impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
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.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DeDts\PLANNING\CEQA\389Da98 new IES.doc
7
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
issues and SupporI~ng Information Sources
Conflict with or obstruct imptementation 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?
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
IncorOorated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
,f
NO
,/
,/
,/
Comments:
The project will not conflict with applicable air quality plans nor violate air quality or pollution standards.
The project proposes to subdivide a 4.99 acres into 8 residentially zoned lots. The subdivision, and
future development, are anticipated to be within the number of dwelling units threshold for potentially
significant air quality impact established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District as
depicted in SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Source 3) page 6-10, Table 6.2. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
5.d.
There are no known sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations in the immediate vicinity. The future
development of the project for single family homes will create minor pollutants during the grading and
construction phase of the project emanating from fugitive dust and small quantities of construction
equipment pollutants. These impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant. The
future residents are not likely to generate significant pollutants. Therefore, impacts will be less than
significant as a result of this project.
5,e.
The project may create objectionable odors during the grading and construction of single family home,
however, these impacts are anticipated to be of short duration and should have less than a significant
impact.
\\TEMEC_FS101 \VOL1%DeptS%PLANNING\CEQA\389pa98 new IES.doc
8
6. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
C=
Issues and SuODortjng 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
ImDaC~
NO
Comments:
6.a, b. There will be an increase in vehicle trips on adjacent streets once the proposed subdivision
6.c
6.d
6.e.
6.f
is
developed. Due to the number of lots the vehicle trip count per, the City's Traffic Engineer and
the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) estimates the total vehicle trips per day for 8 single-
family residences would be approximately 80 daily trips, The City's Traffic Engineer indicated that
the future single family development will have a less than significant impact to the existing road
system due to the maximum capacity of the existing road system, The existing roadways have
been developed in anticipation of the proposed residential development, No further traffic studies
were required for this project, The development of tract will be required to contribute traffic
signal and public facility development impact fees prior to the issuance of any building permits.
No significant impacts are anticipated.
Neither the tract map 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 results in substantial
safety risks. This site is not within the French Valley Airport's flight overlay district and therefore will
have no impact on the project.
The project will not result in hazards to safety from design features. The project is designed to current
City standards and does not propose any hazards. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or inadequate access to nearby uses. The
project is designed to current City standards and has adequate emergency access. The project does
not interfere with access to nearby uses and will install improvements to Ynez Road. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The proposed project is for the subdivision of land; therefore no parking is required. Subsequent
development of the proposed parcels will be required to comply with the City's Development
Code parking requirements for the residential use. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
\\TEMEC_FS 101 \VOL 1 \DeptS\PLANNING\CEQA\389Da98 new IES ,doc
9
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
C,
Issues and Supl~omn9 inforrnat~on 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 DeparLment of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian 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 federally 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?
Comments:
7.a-d.
7.e.
7.f.
The project site for the tract map does not lie within in an area designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service as potential habitat for any Federally listed endangered species. The project will not result in
an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, including, but not limited to
plants, fish, insects, animals and birds. The project site has been previously disturbed and graded.
Currently, there are no native species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of
plants, no native vegetation on the site. Further, there is no indication that any wildlife species exist at
this location. The project will not reduce the number of species, provide a barrier to the migration of
animals or deteriorate existing habitat. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not result in an impact to locally designated species. Locally designated species are
protected in the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan; however, they are not protected elsewhere in the
City. Since this project is not located in Old Town, and since there are no locally designated species on
site, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. The project will be
conditioned to comply with provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat
Conservation) which requires payment of the Stephens Kangaroo Rat fee. No impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
\\TEMEC_FS 101 \VOL 1 \DeptS\PLANNING\CEQA\389Da98 new IES .dec
10
8. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
~ssues and Suppomng Information Sources
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?
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?
Comments:
8.a,b. 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.
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
i Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transportation, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Create 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?
\\TEMEC_FS 101 ~VOL 1 \DeDts\PLANNING~CEQA\389pa98 new IES.doc
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
No
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Comments:
The project is for the future development of single family homes in a residential area. The streets
leading to this subdivision are not transportation routes designated for commercial haulors who
may be transporting hazardous materials. Because the property and the surrounding area are and
will be used for single family homes, this project is not likely to create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
9.b.
The future development associated with this project will be single family homes. As such it is
reasonably expected that residents will not 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 accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. No
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
9.c.
The future use of this project site is designated for single family homes. This site is not within one-
quarter mile of an existing school. The operation of construction equipment and machinery during the
development of this site may emit some hazardous emissions and or handle some hazardous material.
However, these emissions and material should be of limited quantities over a short duration of time.
Although, this project site in within one-quarter mile of an existing school, it will not continue to emit
hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste, therefore, no impacts are anticipated.
9.d.
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 Government 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.
9.e, f. 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.
9.g. 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.
9.h. This project site in an area entirely surrounded by existing single family homes and is not adjacent
to any wildlands. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
\\TEMEC_FS101 \VOL1 \Delats\PLANNING\CEQA\389pa98 new IES.doc
10. NOISE. Would the project result in:
f,
Issues and Supporung Information Sources
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 : J
S~gnificant ~ Less Than
Unless Mitigation p S~gnsficant ~ NO
Comments:
10.a.
This project site is designated for the development of single family homes. 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
residential development. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
10.b.
This project site is designated for the development of single family homes. There will be no
activities on this site that would exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels. No impacts are anticipated.
10.c.
The project will ultimately result in the development of 24 single family homes which will create
some noise levels over that currently emanating from the vacant land. However, those noises will
not be substantial nor permanent 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.
lO.d.
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 very 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. No significant impacts are anticipated.
10.e. 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 to excessive noise levels generated by an airport.
\\TEMEC_FS101 \VOL1 \DeptS\PLANNING\CEQA\389pa98 new IES,doc
13
11. 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:
Isst.le$ and SuPPorting Information Sources
'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?
NO
, linDact
c. Police protection?
d. ',Schools? ,/'
e. Parks? ,/'
f' i Other public facilities? ,/'
Comments:
11.a.,
b., c., e. and f.
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 these 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
its small scale, less than significant impacts are anticipated.
11.d.
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.
\\TEMEC_FS 101 \VOL1 \DeptS\PLANNING\CEQA\389pa98 new IES.doc
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
~ssues 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?
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?
Less Than
Signihcant
12.a.,
b. and e.
The project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements, require the construction of new
treatment facilities, 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.
12.c.
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 Via La Vida and at the southwest comer 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 Murrieta Creek/Temecuia Valley Area Drainage Plan. No significant
impacts are anticipated.
12.d. 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 Generat Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have indicated an ability to
~\TEMEC_FS 101 \VOL 1 \Depts\PLANNI NG\CEQA\389pa98 new IES .doc
supply as much water as iS required in their services areas (p. 39)." The FEIR further states:
"implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater
services (p. 40)." Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. There are no septic tanks on site or proximate
to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project,
12.f,g. The project will not result in a need for new landfill capacity. Any potential impacts from solid
wastar 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.
13, AESTHETICS. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant
impact Incorporated impact
No
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcropping, and historic 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?
Comments:
13.a.
The project will not affect a scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is not located in an area where
there is a scenic vista. The City does not have any designated scenic highways. No impacts are
ar~ticipated as a result of this project.
13.b-c.The project site has no unique physical attributes, therefore the future development will not
substantially degrade any scenic resources, or alter the visual character. When the residential
structures are built, the design of the homes will be reviewed by the Planning Department to ensure
compatibility with the surrounding area and a high quality architectural design. Therefore, no impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
13.d.
The project will have a potentially significant impact from light and glare. The project will produce and
result in light and glare with the installation of new light sources. All light and glare has the potential to
impact the Mount Palomar Observatory. The future development of the project site will be conditioned
to comply with Ordinance No. 655 Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution. After mitigation is performed,
less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
\\TEMEC_FS101 ~VOL1 \DeptS\PLANNING\CEQA\389pa98 new IES.doc
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Issues an~ Supoorhng informarson 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 1506.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of format cemeteries?
Less Than
Signdlcant
Impact
No
Comments:
14 a thru d
The site is located in an area that has high archaelogical sensitivity pursuant to the General Plan
(Source 1, Figure, 5-6). Figure 5-7 of the General Plan indicates that the subject site is located within
an area of potential paleontological sensitivity. The Eastern Information Center of the University of
California at Riverside (UCR) has reviewed the project and has determined that a Phase I cultural
resource study identified no cultural resources. UCR recommends that if, during construction, cultural
resources are encountered, work should be halted or diverted in the immediate area while a qualified
archaeologist evaluated the finds and makes recommendations. Therefore, with appropriate mitigation
measures placed on the project and review of UCR, a less than significant impact is anticipated as a
result of this project.
15. RECREATION. Would the project:
Potentsally
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
Issues and Supporting information 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?
No
Comments:
15.a,b. The project will have an impact on the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational
facilities, or affect existing recreational opportunities. However, the project will be conditioned to pay in-
lieu (Quimby) fees, which will be used for park land acquisition of future park land and/or improvements
of existing parks. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
',\TEMEC_FS 101 \VOL1 \DeptS\PLANNING\CEQA\389pa98 new IES.doc
16. Agricultural Resources. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Info{mat~on Sources
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring 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?
Less Than
Significant
impact
Impact
Comments:
16a,c.
The project site is not currently in agricultural production and in the historic 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. Therefore,
there are no impacts related to this issue,
16b.
The project site does not have an agricultural zoning designation by the City of Temecula, and the
site is not regulated by a Williamson Act contract. As a consequence there are no impacts related
to this issue.
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Issues and Supporting Information 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 periods 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?
Potentially
Potentially Signihcant Less Than
Significant UnlessMitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
NO
Impact
\%TEMEC_FS101 \VOL1 \DeptS\PLANNING\CEQA%389pa98 new IES.doc
18
Cornmerits;
17.a.
This site has been previously graded and is completely surrounded by residential development and
does not contain any viable habitat for fish or wildlife species. This is an in-fill development and it
does not 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 periods of California
history or prehistory. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
17.b.
The cumulative effects from the project are not considered significant because the subject site is
being development in conformance with the City of Temecula's General Plan and Development
Code. All cumulative effects for the various land uses of the subject site as well as the
surrounding developments were analyzed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Given
the projects consistency with the General Plan and Development Code, the cumulative impact
related to the development of the 8 residential lots will not have a significant impact.
17.c.
The tract map and the future development of single family homes will not ha~,e 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. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
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.
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 earlier 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. No eadier analyses specifically related to this project site were use. The City's General Plan and Final
Environment Impact Report were used as a referenced source in preparing this Initial Study
18.b. There were no earlier impacts which affected this project.
18.c. The mitigation measures are addressed in the Mitigation Monitoring Program which is attached.
SOURCES
(Available in the Temecula Planning Department)
City of Temecula General Plan.
City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.
South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
\\TEMEC_FS101 \VOL1 \Depts\PLANNING\CEQA~389pa98 new IES,doc
19
A'R'ACHMENT NO. 4
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
\\TEMEC_FS101WOL1\Depts\PLANNING%STAFFRPT~389pa98.doc
21
Geoloaic Problems
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Planning Application No. PA98-0389
(Tentative Parcel Map No. 29133)
Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaking.
Ensure that soil compaction is to City Standards.
A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted
to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check.
Building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer.
Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits.
Department of Public Works and Building and Safety Department.
Expose people to impacts from seismic ground failure, including
liquefaction.
Ensure that soil compaction is to City Standards.
A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted
to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check.
Building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer.
Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits.
Department of Public Works and Building and Safety Department.
Expose people to risks to life or property due to expansive soils.
Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform
Building Code.
Submit construction plans to the Building and Safety Department for
approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Building and Safety Department.
',~TEMEC_FS101\VOL1~Depts\PLANNING\CEQA\447pa98 M.M. Pgm..doc
1
Water
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
The project will violate water quality or waste discharge requirements
An erosion control plan shall be prepared in accordance with City
requirements and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
shall be prepared in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) requirements.
The applicant shall submit a SWPPP to the San Diego Regional Water
Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) for their review and approval.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Department of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP).
The project will substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
An erosion control plan shall be prepared in accordance with City
requirements and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
shall be prepared in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) requirements.
The applicant shall submit a SWPPP to the San Diego Regional Water
Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) for their review and approval.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Department of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP).
Transportation/Circulation
General impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion.
Payment of Development Impact Fee for road improvements and traffic
impacts.
Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by.
and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of tile Temecula Municipal Code.
Prior to the issuance of building permits,
Building and Safety Department.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion.
Payment of Development Impact Fee for traffic signal mitigation.
Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by,
and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code.
Prior to the issuance of building permit.
Building and Safety Department.
\\TEMEC_FS101%VOL1\Depts~PLANNING\CEQA\447pa98 M.M. Pgm..doc
2
Biolooical Resources
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but
not limited to plants, fish, insects. animals and birds).
Pay Mitigation Fee for impacts to Stephens Kangaroo Rat.
Pay $250. per unit of disturbed area of Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Department of Public Works and Planning Department.
Noise
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Expose people to a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels.
Construction activity shall comply with City ordinances regulating the
hours of activity in residential areas.
City inspectors shall periodically monitor the construction site to ensure
compliance.
During active construction of the site.
Building & Safety Department and Department of Public Works.
Public Services
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered schools. No
significant impacts are anticipated.
Payment of School Fees.
Pay current mitigation fees with the Temecula Valley Unified School
District.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building & Safety Department and Temecula Valley Unified School
District,
General Impact: A substantial effect upon and a need for maintenance of public facilities,
including roads.
Mitigation Measure: Payment of Development impact Fee for road improvements, traffic
impacts, and public facilities.
Specific Process: Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by,
and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code.
Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Responsible Monitoring Party: Building and Safety Department.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\CEQA~447pa98 M.M. Pgm,.doc 3
Aesthetics
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
The creation of new light sources will result in increased light and glare
that could affect the Palomar Observatory.
Use lighting techniques that are consistent with Ordinance No. 655.
Submit lighting plan to the Building and Safety Department for approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Building & Safety Department.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1%DeptS~PLANNING\CEQA\447pa98 M.M. Pgm..doc
4
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will
enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR
35.102.35.104 ADA Title II]
AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
A REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
APRIL t9, 2000 - 6:00 P.M.
Next in Order:
Resolution: No. 2000-015
CALL TO ORDER:
Flag Salute:
Commissioner Telesio
Roll Call:
Fahey, Telesio, Webster and Chairman Guerdero
Mathewson absent
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission
on items that are listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each.
If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item no.._.~t 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 for the record.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the
Commission Secretary pdor to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three
(3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will
be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless
Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the
Consent Calendar for separate action.
Approval of AQenda - APPROVED 3-2, FAHEY AND MATHEWSON ABSENT
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of Apdl 19, 2000.
F:~Dep~%pLANNING~.oLANCOMM%Agendas~2000~4-19-O0.doc
1
2 Minutes - APPROVED 3-2, FAHEY AND MATHEWSON ABSENT
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve Minutes from February 2, 2000
3 Director's Headno Update - APPROVED 3-2. FAHEY AND MATHEWSON ABSENT
RECOMMENDATION
3.1 Receive and File
COMMISSION BUSINESS
4
A western theme silhouette on the street side elevation of the "On the Border Restaurant",
Plannin~ Application No. PA99-0079 (Development Plan), on out lot "K" at the Promenade
Mall on the comer of Winchester Road and Ynez Road. - Thomas Thomslev -
PROVIDED INPUT. MATHEWSON ABSENT
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Request input from the Planning Commission.
5
Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity for the transfer of a license for off safe
consumption of alcoholic beveraaes for Costco Wholesale located at 26610 Ynez Road. -
John DeGanQe - APPROVED 4-1, MATHEWSON ABSENT
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1
Staff racemmends the Planning Commission review the information included in this
report and make the finding of public convenience or necessity based upon the fact
that the applicant will be transferring an existing license along with the relocation of
the business.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before 8 public
hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of
the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you
may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public
hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or
prior to, the public hearing.
F:%Dept~%PLANNING%PLANCOMM%Agendas~(X)O~4-19-OO.d(x;
2
6
Plannine Application No. PA98-0389 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29133) to subdivide 4.99
acres of land into eight (8} residential lots - Thomas Thomslev - APPROVED 4-1,
MATHEWSON ABSENT
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-015
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA-APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA 98-0389 FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29133
(LOT I AND A PORTION OF LOT 7 OF TRACT NO. 8211),
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD 707 FEET
SOUTH OF CALLE HALCON AND YNEZ ROAD AND KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER NO. 945-060-024 AND
6.2
6.3
Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA98-0389
(Tentative Tract Map No. 29133); and
Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA98-0389
(Tentative Tract Map No.29133).
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT
Growth Management Action Plan
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: May 3, 2000
F:~Dei~s~pLANNING~LANCOMM%AgendaaL-~000~4-19-00. doc
3