HomeMy WebLinkAbout082090 PC AgendaAGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
VAIL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
AUGUST 20, 1990 - 6:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
Chairman Chiniaeff
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Chiniaeff
Hoagland,
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the
commissioners on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are
limited to three { 3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners
about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speaka form should
be filled out and filed with the Commissioner Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and
address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the
Planning Secretary before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3)
minute time limit for individual speakers.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Minute
1.1 Approve minutes of August 6, 1990.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
CBso No,:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Tentative Tract No. 23990
Dean AIstrup
Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates
Generally between La Serena Way and Margarita Road; on
the south side of Via La Vida
Subdivide 5.76 acres into 30 residential R-2 lots
Approval
PLANCOMM\AGN8-20
Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Tentative Parcel Map No, 26036
Won and Insoak Yea
RANPAC Engineering
On the west side of Enterprise Circle West, near the
terminus of Rider Way
2-lot industrial subdivision of a 1.79 acre parcel.
Buildings already exist on the site.
Approval
Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Plot Plan No. 5
Rancho California Partners
J. R. Miller and Associates
Northeast corner of Avenida Alvaratio and Aqua Vista Way
Construct a 11,050 square foot light manufacturing facility
on a .57 acre site.
Approval
Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Plot Plan No, 6
Rancho California Partners
J. R. Miller and Associates
Second parcel from the northeast corner of Avenida and
Aqua Vista Way
Construct a 12,950 square foot light manufacturing facility
on a .63 acre site.
Approval
Case No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Tentative Parcel Map 23969
Omdahl Enterprises
Kathleen Way, South of Rancho California Road
To subdivide Parcel 22 of Parcel Map 1825L~ into four
parcels.
Approval
Case No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Plot Plan 11621
Koll Business Center
North of Winchester Road, west of Ynez Road
To construct Phase II of an existing industrial project
buildings D, E, F, G, and H.
Approval
2
NON-PUBLIC HEARING
8. Case No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Reason for
Appeal:
Recommendation:
ITEMS
Appeal No. 6
Appeal the Planning Department~s DENIAL of the Palm
Plaza Sign Criteria Program
Bedford Properties
Southwest corner of Winchester and Ynez Roads
Sign criteria program denied by Planning Department on
June 19, 1990.
Uphold the Denial
e
Case No.:
Applicant:
R epresentati ve:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Plot Plan 69
Penfold Communications, Inc.
Bodnar Engineering
West if 1-15 and south of Front Street
Move and reduce an existing radio transmission tower
Approval
10o
Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Plot Plan No. 571Revised Permit
OPTO 22
Howard Oxley
u,30~u, Business Park Drive, south side of Business Park
Drive, approximately 3,000 feet northwest of Rancho
California Road
A 3,u,00 square foot 2nd story addition to an electronics
engineering facility on approximately 8 acres
Approval
11.
Case No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23299
Crosby, Mead, Benton
South of Highway 79, west of Margarita Road
Extension of time for Vested Tentative Tract Map No.
23299
Approval
Case No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Plot Plan No. 86
Inland Valley Cablevision
East side of La Serena Way, North of General Kearney
Road.
To construct a 60 foot receiving antenna tower with a 10
foot microwave dish.
Approval
DISCUSSION ITEMS
13. Other Business
ADJOURNMENT
Next meeting: Tuesday, September L~, 1990, 6:00 PM, Vail Elementary School, 29915
Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California.
ITEM ~1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
HELD AUGUST 6, 1990
A regular meeting of the Temecula Planning Commission was called to
order at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula,
California at 6:00 P.M. The meeting was called to order by
Chairperson Dennis Chlniaeff.
PRESENT: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Hoagland, Chiniaeff
ABSENT: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
Also present were Assistant City Attorney John Cavanauqh, Gary
Thornhill, Acting Planning Director, John Middleton, Senior Project
Maoaqer add Gail Zlaler, Minute Clerk.
pit 5b I C COMMENT
Frank Klein, 30180 Santiago Road, Temecula, addressed the
Commission with his concerns regarding the traffic problems in the
city and the use of non-tethered balloons for advertising. He also
reauested that the Commission look at the aesthetic appearance of
some cylindrical tanks structures constructed off of Front Street
which nP suo~esteo be camaflouoe~ in some way.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
],. Minutes
].l Commissioner Chjn]aeff entertained a motion to approve the
minutes of July ]6, 1990, with the following amendments.
Item 2, page 2, last paragraph, change the wording in
line three to read "west boundary".
Item 2, pa~e 3, third paragraph, Commissioner Ford
requeste~ a clarification of his position regarding the
the block wall on the southern boundary of the project.
Staff's recommendation was to eliminate the wall and
provide off-site landscape improvements and maintenance;
however, Commissioner Ford wanted to reiterate the
Commission's acceptance as long as the applicant can
work out landscape and maintenance of the area with the
surrounding property owners. If not, the applicant would
be required to construct the block wall on the southern
boundary.
MINUTES 8/06/90 -1- 8/14/90
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
AUGUST 6, 1990
The adjournment of the meeting of July 16, 1990, was
amended to reflect the next scheduled meeting to be the
joint meeting between the City Council and the Planning
Cornmission on Monday, July 30, 1990.
Commissioner Ford moved to approve the minutes as amended,
seconded by Commissioner Hoag]and and carried unanimously.
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford
Hoag]andChiniaeff
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
PUBI.IC HEARING ITF. MS
P{ot Plan No. 3, CbaDQe of Zone No. 3
Sam Reed, Senior Planner, presented Staff's Report.
He stated that the applicant, AdvaDced Cardjovascu]ar
Systems (ACS), was proposing to construct office and
manufacturing fac3]it]es, a tri-]eve] parking structure,
a service equipment housing structure, and reconfiqure
add reDave the existing Darkjog and asphalt areas to
accommodate required parking and landscaping.
Addi~iona]]v, applicant is reQuestjog a change of the
maximum height limitation from 50 to 75 feet.
John Midd]etoD clarified some of the information
in the staff report regarding the traffic study. He
stated that the impact reflected was based on full
employment and that Wijbur Smith and Associates,
traffic engineer for the project, had prepared an
addendum to the report looking at phased employment.
Staff concluded that because ACS operates On three
sn3fts, the a~dit3on of employees would be at low
levels until the improvements could be constructed for
the Mello-Roos.
Based on these findings, staff added Condition 33A which
states at such time that ACS implements Phase 2, the
Mello-Roos improvements would be constructed or ACS would
construct the necessary improvements.
MINUTES 8/06/90 -2- 8/14/90
PLANNING
COMMISSION MINUTES
AUGUST 6, 1990
David Olsen, Facilities Manager, ACS, 45981 Classic Way,
Temecu]a, provided a brief video of the proposed project
site. Mr. Olsen introduced the architects representing
ACS, A) Thomas, project manager, Ehrlich Rominger, 5000
Birch Street, Suite , Newport Beach, California.
Mr. Thomas spoke briefly in favor oi the building
expansion and introduced David Matthis Meyer, senior
project manager, also of Ehrlich Rominger. Mr. Meyer
presented exhibits of the proposed ACS facilities
and descriptions of the buildings, materials, etc.
Larry Markham, developer for the proiect, Markham and
Associates, 4]750 Winchester Road, Temecula, addressed
the Commission on some modifications to the staff report
concerns: page 6, applicant wou]d prefer or recommend
deleting "no access will be allowed on Apricot Road";
page 8, these improvements wou]d be phased per the
occupancy of the building; and regarding Conditions of
Approval{: No. 7, applicant offered an alternative
proposing that the number of parking spaces as referred to
]D the count based on the employee analysis would be used
for the required parking unless there would be a change in
]and use on the s~te where you could not designate the
number of employees; Condition No. 18, applicant does not
tee] these fees were apDl{icab]e, due to the site presently
being one large parking area; Condition No. 33A, applicant
accepted of interim road improvements on a phased basis;
Conditions No. 36, 42 and 48, applicant requested these
items be 3Dcjuded iD the funding for the Community
Facilities District (CFD) at such time they would take
D~ace.
Commissioner Chiniaetf opened the item for public
comment.
The following individuals spoke in favor of the project:
Allan McDonald, 43466 Manzano Drive, Temecula,
representing the Temecula Chamber of Commerce.
Jim Allmon, 43954 Gatewood Way, Temecula.
Bill Bopf, 29824 Front Street, Suite 106, Temecula.
MINUTES 8/06/90 -3- 8/14/90
PLANNING
COMjMISS1ON MINUTES
AUGUST 6, 1990
Commissioner Ford verified that Mr. Markham would include
Condition No. 49, in the CFD funding items and Mr, Markham
confirmed that it would.
Commissioner Hoag]and asked for clarification of Condition
No. 44 by staff. Mr. Markham requested that Condition No.
44 to be worded to say "as determined by the City
Engineer."
Commissioner Chiniaeff questioned staff whether or not the
Commission could waive the fee for the SKR in relation to
Condition No. 18. Gary Thornhill directed the question to
Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh, Mr. Cavanaugh
advised the Commission that they were at liberty to waive
the fee; bowever, the City Attorney's office had reviewed
the ordinance and exemptions to the ordinance and
coDc]uded that the project does not fall under the
exemptions for Waiving the fee, therefore it was the
A]ty Attorney's OP3njOn that this project should comply
with the ordinance.
Gary Thornhill addressed a couple of comments Mr. Markham
made to the staff report. ID relation to the issue of no
access to Apricot Road, Mr. Thornhill stated that staff's
concerns were with traffic congestion and turning
conflict however, they might suggest right-in and
rjobt-out turns for the traffic engineer's ultimate
decision. Also, regarding Condition No. 7 for parking
reouirements, Mr. Thornhill stated that the Condition
could be amended to read, "a minimum of 1,102 parking
spaces sba]] be provided in accordance with the sections
of the codes~ however, if the applicant can demonstrate
via a parking study, that a lesser number of parking
spaces would satisfy the concerns of the Planning
Department, it would be acceptable to staff.
John Middleton stated that Condition 48 was for area
wide improvements throughout the city and was being
applied to all developments at this time.
Doug Stewart, deputy traffic engineer, Condition 48
was established to cover costs of improvedments not
directly required by this facility.
MINUTES 8/06/90 -4- 8/14/90
PLANNING
COMMISSION MINUTES
AUGUST 6, 1990
Commissioner Chiniaeff asked if the fee had been
imposed at this time by the City Council and, if
could the fee be levied by the Commission.
not ,
Mr. Stewart advised the that the City Attorney had
reviewed Condition 48 and the wording was directly
from him.
Larry Markham suggested that as long as ACS receives
credit for any improvements that will be defined in the
overall city program which they are doing as part of the
CFD, Condition 48 would be acceptable. Mr. Stewart
stated that this would be acceptable to the city engineers
as we]].
Commissioner Fahey moved to close the public hearing,
seconded by Commissioner Boagland.
Commissioner Fahey moved to approve staff's recommendation
and recommend that City Council adopt a Negative
Declaration for Plot Plan No. 1 and Change of Zone No. 3,
approve Change of Zone No. 3 and approve Plot Plan No. 1,
subject to the following:
Planning Department Conditions of APproval for Plot Plan
No. 1, items 1 thru 6 to remain as written, item 7
amended to provide a minimum of 1,102 parking spaces or
provide a parking study which determines the precise
number of parking spaces required, items 8 thru 35 to
remain as written, item 36 to be included in the CFD,
items 37 tbrn 41 to remain as written, item 42 to be
included 3. n the CFD, item 43 to remain as written, item
44 to read "as determined by City Engineer", items 45
tnru 47 to remain as written, item 48 to state credit
will be given to ACS for any costs already incurred
for this item, item 49 to be included in the CFD, items
50 thru 60 to remain as written and to include item
33A.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ford.
Commissioner Hoag]and moved to amend the motion presented
by Comlnissioner Fahey by deleting item 18. Assistant
City Attorney John Cavanaugh advised the Commission that
MINUTES 8/06/90 -5- 8/14/90
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
AUGUST 6, 1990
once a motion has been made and seconded, there needs to
be a vote on the motion; however, if someone wishes to
withdraw the motion and state a new motion, they may do
so. Commissioner Fahey declined to withdraw the motion.
The motion was carried unanimously.
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford
Hoagland,Chiniaeff
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
3. Tentative Tract No. 23209
Gary Thornhill brought it to the Commjssion's attention
that the staff report referred to the City Council and
should have referred to the Planning Commission.
Scoff Wr~Cbt presented staff's report for the subdivision
of an 80 acre site into 257 parcels wjtb a minimum lot
size of 8,000 square feet, which lies in close proximity
to Ca]liaway Vineyards. He stated that the project Was
aDDroved by the County Planning Department in February,
]990, with the recommendation that the City Council
receive and file; however, the Planning Staff had a
number of concerns and wrote the staff report as a
recommendation for denial to the City Council. City
Counci] referred the item to the Planning Commission
for their recommendation. Mr. Wright reviewed the
tentative tract map and Do~nted OUt the various concerns
staff has with the development. Mr. Wright indicated
fbat the P]annin~ Staff could recommend approval of the
project with a minimum lot size of one-half acre or as
a planned residential development with common open areas
adjacent to the vineyards which would allow for lots
smaller than one-half acre. He concluded with Staff's
recommendation that the Planning Commission deny the
application for Tentative Tract No. 23209 and adopt a
resolution incorporating the recommendation for denial.
Commissioner Chiniaeff asked if the item was coming to
toe Planning Commission on an appeal.
MINUTES 8/06/90 -6- 8/14/90
PLANNING
COMMISSION MINUTES
AUGUST 6, 1990
Gary Thornhill stated that this was a recommendation from
county staff whlcb the Planning Department reviewed and
modified.
Richard Cruzen, project engineer, Alba Engineering,
4~890 Enterprise Circle South, Temecu]a, responded to the
concerns addressed by staff in the their report. He
stated that the plan was originally submitted ~or 304 lots
and that the minimum lot size for the zone was 7200 square
feet. They modified their plans for the county to reduce
the number of homes as well as increase the minimum lot
s~ze to 8,000 square feet. He stated that due to the
grade on the surrounding projects and streets, they had
no choice but to qrade at the proposed levels. He also
a~dressed the issue o[ the SKR and SWAP, and ~elt they
were in conformante re~ardanq both issues. Mr. Cruzen
explained that only seven (7) oi the lots are adjacent
to the vineyards and they made these their largest lots.
Michael Lundin, a partner in the project, expressed his
confusion reqarding tO why this project was being
presented to the City Planning Department due to the fact
that they already bad County APProval. He stated that he
felt the development was appropriate for the area and
that they bad worked very hard with the County Planning
Department to create a desirable development which
addressed the concerns of county staff.
The following individuals spoke in opposition of
the proposed development:
Ray McLaughiin, 30021 Front Street, Temecula.
AuGray C~]urzo, Cj]urzo Winery, 43220 Calla Contento
Temecula.
Jim AllmoP, 43954 Gatewood Way, Temecula.
Ray Henderson, 31832 Poole Court, Temecula.
Dale Woodine, 40979 Alton Court, Temecula. Mr. Woodinq
presented a signed petition to the Planning Department
opposing the development.
MINUTES 8/06/90 -7- 8/14/90
PLia. NN I NG
COMMJSSION MINUTES
Pat Leohey, 40850 Alton Court, Temecu]a.
AUGUST 6, 1990
Mary Jones, 32085 Vista Dei Monte, Temecula.
Carol Killingsworth, 32185 Vista De] Monte, Temecu]a.
Kenton Crow]ey, 40970 Alton Court, Temecula.
Craig Weaver, Callaway Winery, 32720 Rancho California
Road, Temecu]a.
Jon Leiberg, attorney representing Callaway Winery, 27349
Jefferson Avenue, Suite 213, Temecula. Mr. Leiberg stated
they were in opposition of the development due to the
fact that the plans failed to provide an adequate buffer
between the project site and the vineyard and the tract
interferes with the natural a~r drajnaqe which would
create horticultural problems for the vineyard. He added
that the tentative tract proposes to buffer 8,000 square
feet with a 20 to 40 foot landscape strip and block wall
which they feel will lead to future conflict between
Callaway Vineyards and project residents. He also stated
that the proposed earth movement could block the flow of
air throuqh the natural water courses which flow westerly
through the vineyards and accross this tract.
Mr. Leiberq provideO the Commission with photographs of
the vineyards and excerpts from articles relating to
studies performed on air flow and horticultural problems
to SlipPOrt these findings.
Commissioner Ford questioned Callaway's options if the air
flow was blocked.
Mr. Weaver stated that they would have to utilize winU
turbines for air flow.
Commissioner Ford asked if there was a Right-To-Farm
provision and Mr. Weaver stated that there was.
Commissioner Chiniaeff stated that the grades on the
Serena tract were the same grade as the vineyard and
questioned if they would oppose the same grade level
for this tract.
La
MINUTES 8/06/90 -8- 8/14/90
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 6, 1990
Mr. Leiberg stated that they would not oppose the
same grade ]eve].
Gary Fat]and, Marlborough Development, 27851 Rancho
California Road, Temecu]a. Mr. Fat]and stated that
approximately three years ago when Marborough was drawing
their tentative tract map, the applicant was also
drawing their tentative map, and approached Marlborough
Development, for their approval in utilizing their
property for drainage and also for grade acceptance.
Mr. Fat]and stated at that time they gave their
tentative acceptance; however, they do not agree with
ProPosed grade of this tentative tract map which they
feel could have a negative affect on their project
and would not give a grade acceptance letter as
presented. He also stated that they would also have to
see the proposed drainage for the plan before giving their
approval.
Nr. Cruzen addressed some of the concerns expressed jn
OPposition Of the project. He stated that he felt they
had satisfactorily addressed all of staff's concerns,
as we]l] as the Commission's, and encouraged the
their approval.
Commissioner Fahey explained that the City Planning
Department Was reviewing this item was due to the concerns
the City Council had exnressed upon receiving this item.
Gary Thornbill brougnt to the CommissioD's attention a
memo from Ross Ge]]er stating that the Commission's action
would be a specific recommendation to the City Council.
Commissioner Fahey moved to close the public hearing,
seconded by Commissioner Hoagland.
Commnssloner Ford moveG to approve staff's recommendation
ano recommend to the City Council to deny Tentative Tract
No. 23209, seconded by Commissioner Fahey and carried
unanimously.
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Hoagland,Chiniaeff
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
MIMUTES 8/06/90 -9- 8/14/90
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
4. Tentative Tract No. ~3990, Plan No. 11222
4.3
AUGUST 6, ]990
Gary Thornbill advised the Commission that the applicant
has requested that this item be continued to the August
20, 1990 Planning Cor~nission meeting, to allow for a
public bearing.
Commissioner Blair moved to continue Tentative Tract No.
23990, Plan No. 11222, to August 20, 1990, seconded by
Commissioner Ford and carried unanimously.
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford
Hoagland,Chiniaeff
NOES: 0
NO~ PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
5. ADDed] No. 6
5.3
COMMISSIONERS: None
Gary Thornbill advised the Commission that the applicant
has reouested that this item be continued to allow for
more discussion with Planning Department.
Commissioner Fabey moved to continue Appeal No. 6 to
Aucn~st 20, ]990. seconded by Commissioner Ford and carried
by the following vote.
Hoaqland
NOES:
DISCUSSION ITEMS
6,
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey,
Chiniaeff
1 COMMISSIONERS:
Interim Change of Zone Policy
Gary Thornhill requested that the Commission make a
recommendation to the City Council regarding the
interim policy for Zone Changes.
After discussion, the Commission recommended that
they see the re-zoning independent of the application;
however, they would like the flexibility to review
Ford,
MINUTES 8/06/90 -10- 8/14/90
PLi~NING COMMISSION MINUTES
AUGUST 6, 1990
the application if it looked like something the Commission
could consider. Contmissioner Blair added that they would
like to see the zone change separately if there was a current
case. Commissioner Chin~aeff clarified the Commission's
point by stating that the decision would be based on the
use at the p~rticular zone, and if the Council did not
approve of the use, do not approve the zone change, unless
it was conditional.
Gary Thornhill also advised the Commission on the status of
the fO]]OWiDg items:
Aqenda Packets
The Planning Department is attempting to get these out by
Wednesdays and they are in the process of developing a draft
scbecu]e of the aQenda to be d~strjbuted prior to the agenda
packages being issued for the Commission's review. Staff made
the recommendation that "ADDrOVa] of the AQeDda" be added to
the aqenda items.
Reso]ut]ons
The C~tV AttorneY, Scott FieJd, has drafted a set of
Resolutions to be used by the Planning Commission and the City
Councij, for adopting resojutions iD the future.
John Cavanaugh explained that state law requires that the time
of apDea] starts at the date the Commission makes an order,
therefore the purpose of the Resolution is to create a clear
record or the action.
SKR
A committee has been formed, and has recommended to the member
agencies that Temecu[a become a participant and directed these
aaencles to sjqn tne GPA and we should be a part5cipant in the
next few weeks.
M~. Tbornh~]l stated t~at the ]0A permit has been issued by the
government however. the State has modified their permit and it
will be a couple of weeks before it will be resolved.
MINUTES 8/06/90 -11- 8/14/90
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES aUGUST 6, 3990
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner CbiDiaeli eDtertained a motion to adjourn the meeting
at 9:30 P.M. Commissioner Hoagland moved to adjourn, seconded by
CommjssloDer Ford add carried unanimously. Next scheduled meeting
to be held Monday, August 20, ]990, 6:00 P.M. at Vail Elementary
School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula.
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairman
Secretary
M1NUTES 8/06/90 -12- 8/14/90
ITEM #2
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 20, 1990
Case No.: Tentative Tract No. 23990
Recommendation: Adoption of Negative Declaration
Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
P R OPOSA L:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Dean Alstrup
Robert Bein, William Frost 8 Associates
Subdivide 5.76 acres into 30 residential R-2 lots.
Generally between La Serena Way and Margarita
Road; on the south side of Via La Vida
R-2 Restricted Single Family Residential
North: R-2
South: R-1-10,000
East: R-1
West: R -2
Restricted Single Family
Residential
Single Family Residential
10,000 square foot lots
Single Family Residential
Restricted Single Family
Residential
No change proposed.
Single Family Residential on all sides.
Site Size:
No. of Lots:
Minimum Permitted
Lot Size:
Maximum Permitted
Density:
Proposed Average
Lot Size:
Proposed Density:
Minimum Allowed
Front Setback:
5.76 acres
30
No minimum
No maximum
7,52~, sq.ft.
5.2 units per acre
18 feet
STAFFRPT\TT23990
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
This project was originally submitted to the County
of Riverside on October u,, 1989. It was initially
reviewed at the County Land Development Committee
(LDC) on November 2, 1989, February 22, 1990,
and April 26, 1990. An incomplete file was
transmitted to the City of Temecula in May of 1990,
and the application was deemed complete on July 6,
1990, after receipt of building elevations and the
Traffic Study.
Zoninq Requirements
The project consists of a 30 lot residential
subdivision on a 5.76 acre site. The existing zoning
on the site is R-2, Restricted Single Family
Residential. This zoning classification encourages
the creative utilization of street designs and lot
areas and allows a high degree of flexibility in terms
of lot size and dimensions. Cul-de-sacs and
curvilinear streets are strongly encouraged, and
those design features are primary design features
of this project. The project is somewhat limited in
terms of size and so is limited in terms of design
alternatives. All thirty (30) proposed lots extend
from one double headed cu-de-sac which connects to
Via La Vida, a sixty-six {66) foot wide residential
collector street.
Lot Size
The lots vary in gross size from LL950 square feet to
11,95u, square feet. The average lot size is 7,52~,
square feet. A table has been attached as an
exhibit which shows the mix of unit types, percent
of lot coverage, total lot area, setbacks, and total
useable area per lot.
Architecture
The project contains 3 different floor plans with
differing elevations. The architecture is
contemporary, and reminiscent of California
Craftsman bulking and massing techniques.
Rooflines are more gradual than normal, buildings
are box-like, and porches and verandas are utilized
freely.
Staff considered the design unique, but was
concerned that side elevations may need more
windows or articulation. No redesign, however,
has been requested of the applicant.
2
The architecture is substantially different from
adjoining properties which Staff considers an asset
to the neighborhood.
Gradinq and Drainaqe
Approximately one-third of the lots will be graded
to drain to the back of the project in order to
intercept the existing 30" storm drain which has
been constructed in the southwest corner of the
project. Staff noted an additional 18" storm drain
located southerly of the project on Lot 31 of Tract
No. 20153, which currently drains onto the subject
property. This project has been conditioned to
complete that previously planned connection. At
this time a small, immature rlparlan area is
developing between the two existing drains. This
area exists now as a result of the focused runoff
and nuisance water flowing between the two drains.
Vegetation consists primarily of willow-llke large
shrubs. This low area's elevation is approximately
1,109 feet above sea level and is the lowest area on-
site. The grading plan proposes to move
approximately 31,000 cubic yards of earth, most of
which will be removed from the central and westerly
high spots on the tract and filled into the low area
at the southern end of the project site.
Adjacent Properties and Gradinq Alternatives
The project is not substantially altering the existing
slopes on the east side of the project. Easterly lot
lines have previously been adjusted to put the
property line at the top of slope, which is
considered the best situation.
The slope on the west side of the property will be
cut approximately in half, which is considered
beneficial, although property lines located at toes of
slopes can be troublesome in terms of maintenance,
privacy, and flow of nuisance water. More
extensive earth excavation and removal could
reduce that slope, but the benefits are not
particularly significant.
The situation at the southern end of the project
could affect adjoining properties in that the low
area, previously discussed, will be filled with
approximately twelve ~12) feet of fill, which will
spill over onto the north-facing slope of Tract
20153. Concern from at least one property owner
has been expressed. No filling or grading may
3
SWAP AND GENERAL PLAN
CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
occur on adjacent properties without expressed
authorizationfromaffectedpropertyowners. Other
design options on this property line could include a
retaining wall or downslope. The project has been
conditloned to resolve the situation prior to the
issuance of grading permits or map recordatlon.
Earth Export
Approximately 11,000 cubic yards of earth are
planned for removal from the site.
The Land Use Designation exhibit from the
Southwest Area Community Plan targets this area
for residential development at 2-~, units per acre.
This map proposes a density of 5.2 units per acre.
The SWAP has been adopted as a policy guide by the
City of Temecula. The Land Use Designation
suggested by SWAP is less intense than proposed by
Tentative Tract No. 23990. Staff has reviewed and
attached lot sizes and dimensions on all four sides of
the project ~ see attached Assessor Parcel Maps ) and
generally found that the project has lots of equal
size to tracts located to the west and north, and
somewhat smaller than found to the immediate south
and east.
The project is consistent with development
standards of the existing zone.
Probability of consistency with the City's future
General Plan is considered likely by the Staff. The
Planning Commission and the City Council maintain
the authority to determine whether projects are
likely to be consistent with the future General Plan,
and each project considered by these bodies must be
considered on their own merit until a new General
Plan is adopted.
A preliminary environmental assessment was
performed by the County of Riverside Planning
Department prior to transmittal of the case to the
City of Temecula. That assessment was completed
by the City Planning Staff. The following areas of
potential impact were reviewed in detail.
Traffic Impacts
A Traffic Study was performed for the project by
Wilbur Smith Associates in February, 1990. The
principle findings of the report found that 1992
cumulative traffic volumes would be affected by a
very small increment. The closest intersection {Via
La Vida/Solana Way) would generate a ~,.7% increase
in existing peak-hour volumes. Other nearby
intersections {Margarita Road/Via La Vida and
Margarita Road/Solana Way) would result in a 3.6%
increase in existing peak-hour volumes.
Projected 1992 levels of service with or without the
project were projected to be LOS B or better at
intersections in the study area.
The report was accepted as adequate by the Traffic
Engineering Section. Conditions relative to
roadway improvements have been attached to the
project.
Archeoloqy
The County of Riverside requested that an
Archeology Study be performed. The study was
performed and has been deemed acceptable. No
resources are contained on-site.
Paleontoloqy
The fossiliferous Pauba Formation is found
throughout the area and contains valuable paleo-
resources which should be recovered if encountered
during grading operations. Conditions have been
attached to mitigate potential impact.
BiolocJ. y
A focused Stephenms Kangaroo Rat walk over was
performed by Tierra Madre Consultants. The SKR
was found to be absent from the subject site. The
site is in the historic range of the SKR; however,
and impact fees will be collected on a per acre basis.
The small, immature riparlan habitat is not believed
to be a significant or natural feature. It appears to
be an outgrowth of focused runoff and nuisance
water resulting from development patterns to the
south and east. No significant impact to native
biota is expected.
Environmental Conclusion
Staff has concluded that no significant impact to the
environment will occur as a result of site
development, and a Negative Declaration has been
recommended for adoption.
FINDINGS:
The site plan and subdivision for Tentative
Tract No. 23990 provides for the placement of
dwellings on individual lots and creates a
variety in the street scene, balancing the
distribution of height and bulk of individual
dwellings relative to other dwellings
throughout the subdivision. Short,
curvilinear cul-de-sacs are utilized in favor
of straight, grid-like interior street
patterns.
A basic level of useable and total open space
has been provided on individual lots to meet
the needs of future residents.
The project will result in a variety of housing
opportunities and provide for diversity in
design.
There is a reasonable probability that
Tentative Tract No. 23990 will be consistent
with the City's future General Plan, which
will be completed within a reasonable time in
accordance with State Law.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future and adopted General Plan, if the
proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan.
The proposed use or action complies with
State planning and zoning laws.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configurations, circulation
patterns, access, and density.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare.
Tentative Tract No. 23990 is compatible with
surrounding land uses. The harmony in
scale, bulk, height, density, and coverage
creates a compatible physical relationship
6
10.
11.
12.
13.
with adjoining properties.
The proposal will not have an adverse affect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the Initial
Study for this project.
The design of the subdivision is consistent
with the State Map Act in regard to future
passive energy control opportunities. Units
have significant southern exposure which
allows for passive heating opportunities.
Deciduous landscaping can be utilized to allow
solar penetration in winter and shading in
summer,
The design of the subdivision, the type of
improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed projects.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with this application are herein
incorporated by reference.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for
Tentative Tract No. 23990, based on the
analysis and findings contained in the Initial
Study and Staff Report.
APPROVE Tentative Tract No. 23990, based
on the analysis and findings contained in the
Staff Report, subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval.
w lII
/
/
/ ~
" b
February 28. 1990
I:OBT. BEIN, WM. FROST
Riverside County Service Area 443
JEANINE R. OVERSON, DIRECTOR
29377 Rancho California Road. Suite 405 - Temecula. CA 92390
[7'14] 699-0235
Ms. Holly Weatherby
Assistant Planner
RBF and Associates
28765 Single Oak Drive. Suite 250
Temecula. CA 92390
RE: Tract 23990
Dear ~. Weatherby:
As per your request thi~ letter is to elaborate on Riverside County Service Area
I43's pclicy on acceptance of internal slopes for maintenance.
As a customary rule, the CSA will not -qccept internal slopes 4ue to the fact the}'
may not be of u%e and/o~ benefit to tie entire project and/oz general public.
The slope of conc,~rn s,'ems to [)enefit -illly a fe~ home ,)wllers. therefore, a
reque.~t f~:r the C'i\ to accept this slope must come from Riverside Cou,lty Counsel.
Should ycv have any qu,.sti.;c~ ple=Ise feel free to ,;all this office direct.
JRO/rls
:IiVE:DiDE county
pl. nnirK DEP, RCnlEnC
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (E.A.) NUMBER: --Fq-~'~'~/;
PROJECT CASE TYPE(S) AND NUMBERS(S): "7'f< ~ ~/~
APPLICANT'S NAME: /)Z~-J]'/,--;/L-/D'~x/4>
NAME OF PERSON(S) PREPARING E~.: L ~,/',Z A4}t~' r0f~/~'_d-~a:D/t /
STANDARD EVALUATION
MODULE NUMBER(S):
I. PROJECT INFORMATION
B. TOTAL PROJECT AREA: ACRES
C. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.(s):
; or SQUARE FEET
- ~' :'d,' ~'
. ,,,-- ,
D. EXISTING ZONING: ~"_
E. PROPOSED Z0. NING:
J
F. STREET REFERENCES: ,
IS THE PROPOSAL IN CONFORMANCE?
IS THE PROPOSAL IN CONFORMANCE?
,'/"4 '-:' ,',, ~'.',2
II. COMPREHENSNE GENERAL PLAN OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION DESIGNATION
Check the appropriate option(s) below and proceed accordingly.
All or pad of the project site is in "Adopted Specific Plans," 'REMAP' or "Rancho Villages Community
Policy Areas". Complete Sections III, IV (B and C only), V and VI.
dAII or pad of the project site is in "Areas Not Designated as Open Space". Complete Sections Ill, IV
(A, B and D only), V and VI.
r-i All or part of the project site has an Open Space and Conservation designation other than those mentioned
above. Complete Sections III, IV (A, B, and E only), V and VI.
295-70 (New 12/87)
IIll. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS AND RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
Indicate the nature of the proposed land use as determined from ~ descriptions as found in COmprehensive General Plan Figure
VI.3 (Circle One). This information is necessary to detarrnine the appropriate land use suitability ratings in Section III.B.
NA - Not Applicable
Critical Essential Normal-High Risk Normal-Low Risk
Indicate with 8 yes (Y) or no (N) whether any efwironmental hazard and/of resource issues may significanfiy affect or be affected
by the proposal. All referenced figures ~re contained in the COmprehensive General Plan. For any issue marked yes (Y) write
additional data SOurces, agencies consulted, find ings Of fact and any miUgation measures under Section V./dec, where indicated.
circfa the appropriate land use suitability or noise acceptability rating(s). (See definitions at bottom of this page).
HAZARDS
Hazard Zones (Fig. VL1 )
NA PS U R (Fig. VI.3)
Liquefaction Potential Zone (Fig. VI.1 ) 13.
NA S PS U R (Fig. VI.4)
Groun shakingZone(FigW.ll 14.
NA S PS U R (Fig. VI.5)
Slopes (Riv. Co. 800 Scale Slope Maps)~'/Cr,./~, 15. /
Landslide Risk Zone (Riv. Co. 800 Scale
Seismic Maps or On-site lnepection) 16. ~}
NA S PS U . <Fig. W.61
Rockfall Hazard (On-site Inspection) 17.
Conservation Service Soil Surveys)
Erosion (U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation 20.
Wind Ersosion & Blowsend (Fig. VI.1,
Ord. 460, Sec. 14.2 & Ord. 484) 23. P~
Dam Inundation Area (Fig. VI.7) 24.
Floodplains (Fig. VLT) 25.
NA U R (Fig. VI.8)
. .. Airport Noise (Fig. 11.18.5, 11.18,11
& V1.12 & 1984 AICUZ Report, M.A.F.B.)
NA A B C D (Fig, V1.11)
Railroad Noise (Fig. VI.13 - VI.16)
NA A B C D (Fig, V1.11)
.. Highway Noise(Fig. Vl.17-VI.29)
NA A B C D (Fig, VI.11 )
Other Noise
NA A B C D (Fig, VL11)
. .. Project Generated Noise Affecting
Noise Sensitive Uses (Fig. VI.11 ) ~
Noise Sensitive Project (Fig. VI.11 ) i
Air Quality Impacts From Project
Project Sensitive to Air Quality
· . Water Quality Impacts From Project
Project Sensitive to Water Quality
Hazardous Materials and Wastes
Hazardous Fire Area (Fig. VI.30 - VL31 )
Other
Other
31. N
Agriculture (Fig. VI.34 - VI.35)
In or Near an Agricultural Preserve
(Riv. Co. Agricultural Land Conversation
Contract Maps)
Wildlife (Fig. VI.36 - VI.37)
Vegetation (Fig. VI.38 - VI.40)
Mineral Resources (Fig. VI.41 - VI.42)
Energy Resources (Fig. VI.43 - VI.44)
RESOURCES
35. 'Y/
36,
37.
Scenic Highways (Fig. VI.45)
Historic Resources (Fig. VI.32 - VL33)
Archaeological Resources t~lz.~,. Lf
(Fig. VI.32 - VL33 & VI,46 - VI.48)
Paleontoiogical Resources
(Paleontoiogical Resources Map)
Other
Other
Definitions for Land Use Suitability and Noise Acceptability Ratings
NA - Not Applicable S - Generally Suitable PS - Provisionally Suitable
U - Generally Unsuitable R - Restricted A - Generally Acceptable
B - Conditionally Acceptable C - Generally Unacceptable D - Land Use Discouraged
395-70 (New 12/81) 2
IV. LAND USE DETERMINATION
A. Complete this pad unless the project is located in "Adopted Spe~ffic Plans", "REMAP" or "Rancho
Villages Community Policy Areas,"
1. OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION MAP DESIGNATION(s):
2. LAND USE PLANNING AREA:
4. COMMUNI~ ~UCY AR~ IF ANY:
s. COMMu. PLA., ANY:
6. COMMUNITY PLAN DESIGNATION(s), IF ANY: ~,_z-/
7. SUMMARY OF POLICIES AFFECTING PROPOSAL:
B. F~ra~pr~ects~inidcatewithayes(Y)~rn~(N)whetheranypub~icfaci~itlasand/~rservicesissuesmaysignificantlya~ec~
or be affecled by the proposal. All referenced figures are contained in the Comprehensive General Plan. For any issue
marked yes el), write data SOurces, agencies consulted, findings of fact, and mitigation measures under Section V.
PUBUC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Sec, V Existing, Ranned & Required Roods)
2./"'J Bike Trails (Fig. IV.12 - IV. 13) ~1~:~
3. h~-I Water (Agency Letters)
12
4. h'-I Sewer (Agency Letters) 13
5. ~ Fire Servioos(Fig. IV. 16 - 1V.18)
6. tl Shedff Services (Fig IV.17 - IV. 18)
7. Schode (Fig. V,17- v, lel
le:
8. ~kJ Solid Waste (Fig. IV.17 - IV.18)
9. ~',J Parks and Recreation (Fig. IV.19 - IV.20) 17.
Equestrian Trails (Fig. IV.19 - IV.24/
Riv. Co. 800 Scale Equestrian Trafi Maps)
Utilities (Fig. IV.25 - IV.26)
Libraries (Fig. IV.17 - IV.18)
Health Services (Fig. IV.17 - IV.18)
Airports (Fig. 11.18.2 - 11.18.4,
11.18.8 - IL18.10 & IV.27 - IV.36)
Disaster Preparedness
City Sphere of Influence
Other
If all or part of the project is located in "Adopted Specific Plans", "REMAP" or "Rancho Villages Community Policy
Areas", review in detail the specific policies soplying to the proposal, and complete the following:
1. State the relevant land use designation(s):
N. LAND USE DETERMINATION (continued)
D. ff all or pad of the project site is in "Areas not Designated as Open Space", and is not in a Community Plan, complete
questions 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7. Complete questions 4, 5, 6 and 7 it it is in a Community Plan.
(i.e. residential,_commerclal, etc.)
2:
Current land use nategory(les) for the site based on existing conditions. Also indicate land use type
3. ff D.1 differs from D.2, will the difference be resolved at the ~sd~:? Explain:
Commu,ity Plan designation<sl: ~'--~ IX. ~. f--- . - .~'v'j ~V'Vz:)
Is the proposed project consistent with the policies and designations of the Community Plan?
6. Is the proposal compatible with existing and proposed surrounding land uses?
,.not`expla,.: r EI, I.'1
7. Based on this initial study, is the p oposel s'stent wit teh~Comprehensive General Plan?
ff not, reference by Section and Issue Number those isaues id ~
· ' g inconsistencies:
E. If all or pad of the project site is in an Open Space and Conservation designation, complete the following:
1. State the designation(s):
2. le the propoeal consistent with the designation(s)? ff not, explain:
3. Based on this initial study, is the proposal consisent with the Comprehensive General Ran?
ff not, reference by Section and Issue Number those issues identifying inconsistencies:
V. INFORMATION SOURCES, FINDINGS OF FACT AND MITIGATION MEASURES
A. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED BEFORE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CAN BE COMPLETED:
SECTION/
ISSUE NO.
DATE DATE ADEQUACY
INFORMATION INFORMATION INFORMATION D~gTr. RMINATION
REQUIRED REQUESTED RECEIVED (YES/NO,DATE}
B. For each issue marked yes (Y) under Sections III.B and IV.B, identify the Section and issue number and do the
following, in the format as shown below:
1. List all additional relevant data sources, including agencies consulted,
2. State all findings of fact regarding environmental concerns.
3. State specific mitigation measures, it identifiable without requiring an environmental impact repod (E.I.R)
4. If additional information is required before the environmental assessment can be completed, refer to
Subsection A.
5. If additional sheets are needed to complete this section, check the box at the end of the section and attach
the necessary sheets.
SECTION/
ISSUE NO. SOURCES, AGENCIES CONSULTED, FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MEASURES:
295-70 (New 12/87)
V. INFORMATION SOURCES, FINDINGS OF FACT AND MITIGATION MEASURES (continued)
SECTION/
ISSUE NO. SOURCES, AGENCIES CONSULTED, FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MEASURES:
D See a~ached pages.
Vl. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DETERMINATION:
I"'l The project will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration may be
prepared.
/[~t (or)
The project could have a significant effect on the environment; however, there will not be a significant
effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in Section V have been applied to the
project and a Negative Declaration may be prepared.
(or)
r-I The project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report
is required.b~~
N~r;r~ Ds,e: '7- '7 i ~7 ~
295-70 (New 12/87) 6
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23990
Council Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
Planninq Department
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision
Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance ~,60, Schedule A, unless
modified by the conditions listed below.
This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the City
Council approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance 1~60.
The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all the
requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance
L~60.
The subdivider shall submit one copy of a soils report to the Riverside County
Surveyor~s Office and two copies to the Department of Building and Safety.
The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the
site.
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final
map.
Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract
map boundary to a County maintained road.
All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall
continue in force until the governing body accepts or abandons such offers.
All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the City
Engineer. Street names shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities,
etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land
division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be
submitted and recorded as directed by the City Engineer.
Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area
improvement phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning Department
approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access
to all lots in each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and
purpose of the subdivision approval.
STAFFRPT\TT23990
10. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following:
11.
Corner lots and through lots, if any, shall be provided with additional
area pursuant to Section 3.88 of Ordinance ~,60 and so as not to contain
less net area than the least amount of net area in non-corner and
through lots.
Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the
development standards of the R-2 {Restricted Single Family) zone.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free
condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or
provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the
Director of Building and Safety.
Prior to recordation of the final map, the subdivider shall submit the following
documents to the Planning Department for review, which documents shall be
subject to the approval of that department and the City Attorney:
a. A declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions; and
A sample document conveying title to the purchaser of an individual lot
or unit which provides that the declaration of covenants, conditions and
restrictions is incorporated therein by reference.
The declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions submitted for
review shall {a ) provide for a minimum term of 60 years, {b ) provide for
the establishment of a property ownersm association comprised of the
owners of each individual lot or unit, {c) provide for ownership of the
common area by either the property ownersm association or the owners
of each individual lot or unit as tenants in common and {d) contain the
following provisions verbatim:
"Notwithstanding an provision in this Declaration to the
contrary, the following provisions shall apply:
The property owners~ association established herein shall manage
and continuously maintain the ~common area~, more particularly
described and shall not sell or transfer the 'common area~, or any
part thereof, absent the prior written consent of the Planning
Director of the City of Temecula.
The property owners~ association shall have the right to assess
the owners of each individual lot or unit for the reasonable cost
of maintaining the ~common area~ and shall have the right to lien
the property of any such owner who defaults in the payment of
the maintenance assessment. An assessment lien, once created,
shall be prior to all other liens recorded subsequent to the notice
of assessment or other document creatlnq the assessment llen.
This Declaration shall not be terminated, ~substantially amended
or property deannexed there from absent the prior written
13.
consent of the Planning Direct. A proposed amendment shall be
considered *substantiaP if it affects the extent, usage or
maintenance of the 'common area~.
In the event of any conflict between this Declaration and the
Articles of Incorporation, the Bylaws of the property owners*
association Rules and Requlatlons, if any, this Declaration shall
control."
Once approved, the declaration of covenants, conditions and
restrictions shall be recorded at the same time that the final map is
recorded.
In the event that no property owners~ association is formed, the
developer may request annexation into the local landscape assessment
district for the care and maintenance of Lot 31. If the request for
annexation is denied, a property owners' association shall be formed.
The developer shah be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes,
landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations
are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director.
Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
Prior to the issuance of grading permits detailed common open space
area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning
Department approval for the phase of development in process. The
plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for
the following:
a. Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all
landscaped areas requiring irrigation.
Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be
opaque up to a minimum height of six 16) feet at maturity.
All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from
view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle
treatments, as approved by the Planning Director. Utilities shall
be placed underground.
Parkways shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a
transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscape
elements shall include earth berming, ground cover, shrubs and
specimen trees. Front yards shall be landscaped and street trees
planted.
Wall plans shall be submitted for the project perimeter and along
Via La Vida. Wooden fencing shall not be allowed on the
perimeter of the project. All lots with slopes leading down from
the lot shall be provided with gates in the wall for maintenance
access.
3
15.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent
trees at key visual focal points within the project.
Where street trees cannot be planted within right-d-way of
interior streets and project parkways due to insufficient road
right-d-way, they shall be planted outside of the road right-of-
way.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant
plants where appropriate.
All existing specimen trees and significant rock outcroppings on
the subject property shall be shown on the project~s grading
plans and shall note those to be removed, relocated and/or
retained.
All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow
growing trees shall be steel staked.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be
retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed
grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts, Should the
paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a
pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading
contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or
representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redlrect or halt
grading activity to allow recovery of fossils.
Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential
lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer~s successor~s-
in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility
financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars {$100) per
lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library
development.
Prior to the submittal of building plans to the Department of Building
and Safety an acoustical study shall be performed by an acoustical
engineer to establish appropriate mitigation measures that shall be
applied to individual dwelling units within the subdivision to reduce
ambient interior noise levels to ~5 Ldn.
All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required
elements from the subdivlsion~s approved fire protection plan as
approved by the County Fire Marshal.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and
irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval.
The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requiring
landscaping and irrigation to be installed including, but not limited to,
parkway planting, street trees, slope planting, and individual front
yard landscaping.
All dwellings to be constructed within this subdivision shall be designed
and constructed with fire retardant ~ Class A) rods as approved by the
Fire Marshal.
Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the
subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving
devices shall be permitted with Planning Department approval.
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from view of surrounding
property.
Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall not
be less than ten {10) feet.
i. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten ~10) feet.
All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and automatic
irrigation.
16.
Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall
be satisfied:
Wall and fence locations shall conform to Condition 15.e., and shall not
block views of existing residences.
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with
approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal
conditions do not permit planting, interim landscaping and erosion
control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning Director
and the Director of Building and Safety.
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with
approved plans and shall be verified by City field inspection.
Not withstanding the preceding conditions, wherever an acoustical
study is required for noise attenuation purposes, the heights of all
required walls shall be determined by the acoustical study where
applicable.
Health Department
The Department of Public Health has reviewed Tract Map No. 23990 and recommends
that:
17.
A water system shall be installed according to plans and specification as
approved by the water company and the Health Department. Permanent prints
of the plans of the water system shall be submitted in triplicate, with a
minimum scale not less than one inch equals 200 feet, along with the original
drawing to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe
5
diameter, location of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and joint specifications,
and the size of the main at the junction of the new system to the existing
system. The plans shall comply in all respects with Div. 5, Part 1, Chapter
7 of the California Health and Safety Code, California Administrative Code,
Title 22, Chapter 16, and General Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities
Commission of the State of California, when applicable. The plans shall be
signed by a registered engineer and water company with the following
certification: "1 certify that the design of the water system in Tract Map No.
23990, is in accordance with the water system expansion plans of the Rancho
California Water District and that the water service, storage and distribution
system will be adequate to provide water service to such tract. This
certification does not constitute a guarantee that it will supply water to such
tract map at any specific quantities, slows or pressures for fire protection or
any other purpose".
This certification shall be signed by a responsible official of the water
company.
The plans must be submitted to the County Surveyor~s Office to review at
least two weeks prior to the request for the recordatlon of the final map.
18.
This Department has a statement from Rancho California Water District
agreeing to serve domestic water to each and every lot in the subdivision on
demand providing satisfactory financial arrangements are completed with the
subdivider. It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be made prior
to the recordation of the final map.
19.
This subdivision is within the Eastern Municipal Water District and shall be
connected to the sewers of the District. The sewer system shall be installed
according to plans and specifications as approved by the District, the County
Surveyor and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the
sewer system shall be submitted in triplicate, along with the original drawing,
to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter,
location of manholes, complete profiles, pipe and joint specifications and the
size of the sewers at the junction of the new system to the existing system.
A single plat indicating location of sewer lines and water lines shall be a
portion of the sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall be signed by a
registered engineer and the sewer district with the following certification: "1
certify that the design of the sewer system in Tract Map 23990, is in
accordance with the sewer system expansion plans of the Eastern Municipal
Water District and that the waste disposal system is adequate at this time to
treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed tract map."
The plans must be submitted to the County Surveyor~s Office to review at
least two weeks prior to the request for the recordatlon of the final map.
It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be completely finalized prior
to recordation of the final map.
6
Fire Department
With respect to the Conditions of Approval for the above referenced land division,
the Fire Department recommends the frillowing fire protection measures be provided
in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection
standards:
20. Fire Protection
Schedule "A" fire protection approved standard fire hydrants, ( 6"x~,"x2 1/u,- )
located one at each street intersection and spaced no more than 330 feet apart
in any direction, with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from
a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for 2 hours duration at 20
PSI.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the
Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types,
location and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements.
Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local
water company with the following certification: "1 certify that the design of
the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the
Riverside County Fire Dept."
The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and
accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building
material being placed on an individual lot.
Hazardous Fire Area
The land division is located in the "Hazardous Fire Area" of Riverside County
as shown on a map on file with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Any
building constructed on lots created by this land division shall comply with
the special construction provisions contained in Riverside County Ordinance
5~6.
All buildings shall be constructed with fire retardant roofing material as
described in Section 3203 of the Uniform Building Code. Any wood shingles
or shakes shall have a Class "B" rating and shall be approved by the Fire
Department prior to installation.
Mitiqation
Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the
Riverside County Fire Department a cash sum of $u,00.00 per lot/unit as
mitigation for fire protection impacts. Should the developer choose to defer
the time of payment, he may enter into a written agreement with the County
deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit.
All questions regarding the meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the
Fire Department Planning and Engineering Staff.
7
Flood Control District
This is a proposal to subdivide 5.76 acres for residential use in the Rancho California
area. The site is located on Via La Vida about u,50 feet south of Solana Way.
The site is subject to only local off-site runoff via a drainage easement from the
existing Tract 20153 to the south. The developer proposes to collect these flows and
along with a portion of the on-site flows discharge them to a drainage easement in the
development to the west. The remainder of the tract would drain via Street "A" to
Via La Vida.
Following are the District~s recommendations:
21.
This tract is located within the limits of the Murrieta Creek/Temecula Valley
Area Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted by the Board.
Drainage fees shall be paid as set forth under the provisions of the "Rules and
Regulations for Administration of Area Drainage Plans", amended February
16, 1988:
At the option of the land divider, upon filing a required affidavit
requesting daferment of the payment of fees, the drainage fees may be
paid to the Building Director at the time of issuance of a grading
permit.
22°
Drainage facilities outletting sump conditions should be designed to convey
the tributary 100 year storm flows. Additional emergency escape shall also be
provided.
Enqineerinq Department
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
23. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Flood Control District;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Engineering Department; and
Riverside County Health Department.
The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered
Civil Engineer, subject to all the requirements of the State of California
Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No. u,60.
25.
The following perimeter landscaped parkways are required to be annexed into
the landscape maintenance district: Lot 31.
8
26. Dedication shall be made of the following right-d-way on the following
streets:
60 total feet on Street A
60 total feet on Street B
33 total feet half street on Via La Vida
27. Corner property line radius will be required per City Standards and
drawings.
28. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall
be delineated or noticed on the final map.
29. The minimum centerline radii shall be 300 feet or as approved by the City
Engineer.
30. All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the
City Engineer.
31. The subdlvlder shall construct or post security guaranteeing the construction
of the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City
standards.
a. Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb
and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing,
striping, and other traffic control devices as appropriate.
b. Storm drain facilities.
c. Landscaping (street and parks).
d. Sewer and domestic water systems.
e. Unergrounding of existing and proposed utility distribution lines.
32. The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated
with adjoining developments.
33. Driveways shall be designed so as not to exceed a fifteen ( 15 ) percent grade.
35.
Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. 461 and as approved by the
City Engineer.
Prior to recordatlon of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the
Engineering Department a cash sum established per lot as mitigation for a
traffic signal impact.
9
36.
Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment of traffic signal
mitigation fee, he may enter into a written agreement with the City deferring
said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit.
37.
Street names shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineering
Department.
38.
The subdivider shall submit four copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
39.
Prior to occupancy, all fill slopes greater than 3~ and all cut slopes greater
than 5~ in vertical height shall be planted with grass or ground cover and
i rrigated.
A hydrology study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer.
All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.
On-site drainage facilities, located outside of road right-d-way, shall be
contained within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note shall be
added to the final map stating "Drainage easements shall be kept free of
buildings and obstructions."
It is understood that the Tentative Map correctly shows all existing
easements, traveled ways and drainage courses, and that their omission may
require the map to be resubmitted for further consideration.
All lots shall be graded to drain to the adjacent street or an adequate drainage
facility. Lots shall not be allowed to drain onto adjacent tracts without a
recorded drainage easement.
The subdivider shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage
flowing onto or through the site. In the event the City Engineer permits the
use of streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Article XI of
Ordinance No. ~,60 will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street
capacity, or use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the
subdlvlder shall provide adequate facilities as approved by the Engineering
Department.
The subdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by
alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow.
Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities,
including enlarging existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
Prior to any work being performed in public right-d-way, fees shall be paid
and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer*s Office,
in addition to any other permits required.
All driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula standards and
shall be shown on the street improvement plans.
10
~8.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
All driveways shall be located a minimum of two (2) feet from the property
line.
All driveways shall be constructed along all public street frontages in
accordance with City Standard No. ~s 0,00 and 0,01 (curb sidewalk).
The subdivider shall submit four prints of a comprehensive grading plan to
the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building
Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions
of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 20,"x36" mylar by a Registered Civil
Engineer.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to
commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of-
way.
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform
Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The
final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved
grading plan.
Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface
drainage entering the property from adjacent areas.
Pavement striping, marking, traffic and street name signing shall be installed
per requirements of the City Traffic Engineer.
Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all
times with adequate detours during construction.
Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than 10, days following
placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon
per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section No. ~s 37, 39, and
90, of the State Standard Specifications.
Corner cutbacks, in conformance with City Standard No. 805, shall be offered
for dedication and shown on the final map.
The following are the Engineering Conditions of Approval for this project, and
shall be completed at no cost to any Government agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the
Engineering Department.
11
:TEM It3
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 20, 1990
Case No.: Tentative Parcel Map No. 26036
Recommendation: Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Won Sang Yoo and Insook Yoo
Ranpac Engineering
Subdivide a 1.79 acre industrial parcel into 2 lots of
· 89 and . 90 acres.
On the west side of Enterprise Circle West, near the
terminus of Rider Way.
MSC Manufacturing Service Commercial
North: MSC
South: MSC
East: MSC
West: MSC
North:
South:
East:
West:
Manufacturing/Office
Manufacturing/Office
Manufacturing/Commercial
Vacant
Total Acreage: 1.79 acres
No. of Proposed Parcels: 2
STA F F R PT\TPM26036
ANALYSIS
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
This project was submitted to the City of Temecula
on April 6, 1990. It was reviewed at the Preliminary
Development Review Committee meeting on May 17,
1990. Background information was requested by
the Engineering Department at that time and all
pertinent information was received. An Initial
Study was completed on April 16, 1990 which
concluded that no significant impacts would affect
the environment as a result of project
implementation, given that full buildout of the site
has already occurred.
This project involves the re-establishment of two
(2) parcels which were merged under Certificate of
Parcel Merger No. 585, under Riverside County
jurisdiction. Prior to the merger, the parcels were
identified as parcels 10 and 11 of Tract 16178. When
Plot Plans 9~7~) and 10923 were constructed, the
parcels were merged. At this time a covered glass
breezeway connects two separate buildings, each on
one of the two proposed parcels. (See attached
Parcel Merger Exhibit and Tentative Parcel Map No.
26036. )
Staff perceives no technical problems in subdividing
the existing 1.79 acre parcels as long as appropriate
restrictions and reciprocal access agreements are in
place at the time of map recordation.
Improvements and Infrastructure
No construction is authorized under this approval;
buildings exist on the site at this time. No site
improvements of off-site installations are required
to approve the project.
The land use currently in place on-site is consistent
with zoning regulations and the SWAP designation.
Staff finds it highly probable that this project will
be consistent with the new General Plan when it is
adopted.
In compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act {C.E.Q.A.), an Initial Study was
performed for this project. Staff found no
possibility of a significant impact on the
environment. That initial Study is attached for
review. A Negative Declaration has been
FINDINGS:
recommended for adoption.
There is a reasonable probability that Parcel
Map No. 26036 will be consistent with the
City~s future General Plan, which will be
completed in a reasonable time and in
accordance with State law.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future General Plan, if the proposed use
is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
The proposed use or action complies with
State planning and zoning laws.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed subdivision in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation
patterns, access, and intensity of use.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare.
The project is compatible with surrounding
land uses.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area.
The project has acceptable access to a
dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the expanded
initial study performed for this project.
10.
The design of the project, the type of
improvements, and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed project,
11.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
3
STAFF RECOMMENDAT ION: The Plannin9 Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for
Parcel Map No. 26036.
2. APPROVE Parcel Map No. 26036.
based on the analysis and findings contained in the
Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions
of Approval.
SR:ks
Attachments:
1. Conditions of Approval
2. Initial Environmental Study
3. Letter from Fire Dept.
u,. Cert. of Parcel Map Merger
5. Exhibits
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
II
Backqround
1. Na~e of Proponent:
Ranpac Engineering Corporation
~klress and Phone
Number o[ Proponent:
27447 Enterprise 0 W
Temecula, California 92390
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
5-16-90
4. Agency Requiring
Assesmnent:
CITY OF TEMECULA
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
T.P.M. 26036
6. Location of Proposal:
an W~t ~idp nf Fntorpri~e Circle
qn,,th nf Rider Wa~/
Environmental Impacts
{Explanations of all *'yes" and "ma be"
y answers are provided on
attached sheets. )
Ye..s Maybe No
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil?
X
Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features?
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
X
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on or
or off site?
X
BLANKIES/FORMS -1-
Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
Exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards such as earth
quakes, landslides, mudslides,
ground fai|ure. or similar hazards?
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air
quality?
b. The creation of objectionable
odors?
Alteration of air movement,
moisture, or temperature, or any
change in climate, whether locally
or regionally?
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial changes in currents, or
the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or
fresh waters?
Substantial changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
d. Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
Discharge into surface waters, or
in any alteration of surface water
quality, including, but not limited
to, temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity?
Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow of ground waters?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
BLANKIES/FORMS -2-
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct addi-
tions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flood-
ing or tidal waves?
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or number of any native species of
plants l including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare, or endangered species
of plants?
Introduction of new species of
plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
Substantial reduction in acreage
of any agricultural crop?
Animal Life. Will the proposal result
in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
{birds, land animals including rep-
tiles, fish and shellfish, benthlc
organisms or insects)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals?
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildllfe habitat?
Yes
Maybe N_9o
X
X
X
BLANKIES/FORMS
°3-
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and Clare. Will the proposal
produce substantial new light or glare?
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
Substantial increase in the rate of
use of any natural resources?
Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource?
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal
involve:
32.
13.
A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including,
but not limited to, oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
Possible interference with an emerg-
ency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan?
Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing or create a demand for
additional housing?
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
Yes
Maybe
No
X
X
X
X
BLANKIES/FORMS
b. Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking?
c. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
lu,. Public Services. Will the proposal have
substantial affect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational
facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
f. Other governmental services?
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy?
b, Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy?
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
Maybe
No
X
X
X
BLANKIES/FORMS
-5-
18.
19.
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
Human Health. Will the proposal
result in:
Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard {excluding
mental health)?
Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result
in the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an
sesthetically offensive site open to
public view?
Recreation. Will the proposal result in
an impact upon the quality or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities?
20. Cultural Resources.
Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object?
Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
Yes
Maybe
N~o
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
BLANKIES/FORMS
-6°
Yes Maybe N._9o
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
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 or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environ-
mental goals? {A short-term
impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief,
definitive period of time while long-
term impacts will endure well into
the future. )
Does the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but cumu-
latively considerable? (A project~s
impact on two or more separate
resources may be relatively small,
but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment
is significant. )
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substan-
tial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X
BLANKIES/FORMS -7-
Project Description
The applicant seeks to subdivide property, previously merged, into 2 lots, .9 and
.89 acres in size. Two buildings have been constructed on the site. (PP 10923 and
9~,7~, processed through Riverside County files not transmitted to Temecula as of this
date )
Photos of the site indicate that the buildings are joined by a glass breezeway or
atrium. Landscaping is marginal and the construction on the site appears relatively
recent.
A review of the M-SC Zoning Section of Ordinance No. 348 indicates that the proposal
lots exceed minimum lot size |10,000 sq.ft.). M-SC zoning is on all four sides.
Ordinance 3~,8, Section 11 .li.b. {2) states no minimum building setback, except that
13) says 25 feet from street right-of-ways.
The existing building on proposed Parcel No. I is 10 fee back from the right-of-way,
in conflict with the code provision cited above. Applicant will be requested to
provide information relative to this seeming inconsistency. | A P.I.D. application
may not have the same provision. )
8
Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
Earth
No. This application will not physically alter the site in any way. Earth
conditions, soil, topography, and erosion potentials were presumably
assessed and impacts mitigated under Plot Plan Application Numbers
10923 and
1.g.
The project is in an area recocjnized with extreme liquefaction potential
during episodes of ground shaking. It is not likely that any additional
people would use the site as a result of the proposed parcel split. It is
presumed that the grading and building design incorporates features
to minimuze damage related to ground shaking.
Air
No. This application will not alter air emissions, increase odors or alter
the local climate in any fashion.
Water
3.a-i.
No. No change in water movement, absorption, flow of floodwaters,
water quality, groundwater supplies in a qualitative or quantitative
sense, water supplies or exposure of people to floodwaters will occur as
a result of project implementation. No new construction is proposed.
These impacts were presumably addressed in previous County-
processed proposals.
Plant Life
No. The site has been graded and buildings constructed under
previous approvals. No additional impact can result from a 2 lot parcel
split.
Animal Life
No. The site has been graded and buildings constructed under
previous approvals. No additional impact can result from a 2 lot parcel
split.
Noise
6.a,b.
No. Noise levels will not increase as a result of project implementation.
No new noise generating features are proposed.
Liqht and Glare
No. Previously addressed under earlier plot plan approvals. No new
lighting is proposed.
Land Use
8. The land use remains constant.
Natural Resources
9.a. No.
9.b. No.
Risk of Upset
10.a,b.
Population
11.
Housin,q
12.
No land use changes are proposed.
No increase in use of any natural resources.
No increase in use of any natural resources.
No. The risks should have been evaluated by County Staff - Planning,
Fire, and Health Departments at the time the plot plans were reviewed.
The 2 lot subdivision will not increase the risk inherent in operations
occurring in manufacturing zones such as this.
No alterations in any form will occur as a result from this subdivision.
No demand for additional housing will result from project
implementation. Existing housing reserves will not be affected.
Transportation/Circulation
13.a-f. No. no additional impacts to parking and transportation systems will
occur ·
Public Services
l~.a-f.
Energy
15.a,b. No.
Utilities
16.a-f. No.
Human Health
17.a,b. No.
Aesthetics
18.
No impact to public services.
Project already constructed.
No construction or site alteration will occur, therefore, no aesthetic
impact can occur,
10
Recreation
19. No impact.
Cultural Resources
20.
See 21 Mandatory Findings of
Determination.
Significance and the Environmental
ENVIRONMENTAL 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 signi-
ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signl-
ticant effect in this case because the mitigation measures
described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of approval
have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required.
Date
5-16-g0
mue! Reed, Senior Planner
For CITY OF TEMECULA
BLANKIES/FORMS
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
46-209 OASIS STREET, SUITE 405
INDIO, CA 92201
(619) 342-8886
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
IN COOPERATION WITH THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
AND FIRE PROTECTION
GLEN J. NEWMAN
FIRE CHIEF
May 15, 1990
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
3760 IZTH STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
(714) 787-6606
TO:
CITY OF TEMECULA
ATTN:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PM 26306
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land division,
the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided
in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection
standards:
The Riverside County Fire Department has no comments or conditions.
All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to the
Planning and Engineering staff.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
Laura Cabral
Fire Safety Specialist
ljl
Recording Requested By
Riverside County
When Recorded, Return TO:
Riverside County Pinning Depldment
Will Cell
NO Fee, 6103 Govemrnenl Code
Benefit of Riverside County
Plmm~n9 Delc~rtment
CERTIFICATE OF PARCEL MERGER NO. ,.,
8ecofdOwnem
Won Sang Yoo and Insook Yoo
Won Sang Yoo and Insook Yoo
Existing Pl~ela
AssessorPercelNumbers
g21-480-011
LegalDelcdption ~ Me~edPemel
Lot 10 and Lot 11 of Tract 16178 as recorded in Book 160 at pages 102
through 104 in the Office of the Recorder of Riverside County, State
California, described as follows:
Beginning at the most westerly corner of said Lot 10 thence north
45° 22' 10" east, 241.53 along the north easterly line of said Lot 10:
Thence south 58° 47' 06" east, ]2].08 feet, along the north westerly
line of said Lot 10, to the beginnlng of a curve, concave south westea]~,
having a radius of 1417.00 feet;
Thence continuing south easterly along the north westerly line of said
Lot 10 and Lot 11, through a central angle of 8° 50' 35", an arc length
of 218.69 feet to the most easterly corner of said Lot 11 from which a
radial bears south 40° 03' 29" west;
Thence in a non-tangent direction south 45° 22' 10" west, 206.89 feet along
the south eaaterly line of said Lot 11, to the most souther.]y. corner of
said Lot 11, said corner being a point on a non-tangent curve, concave
south westerly, having a radius of ]130.74 feet, from which a radial beats
north 31° 51' 27" east;
Thence noth westerly along the south westerly line of said Lot 1] through
a central angle 3" 49' 00", an arc length Of 75.32 feet;
Thence continuing along the south westerly line of said Lot 10 and Lot ]!,
EXHIBIT A
R R
CERTIFICATE OF PARCEL ME 6E NO. ~
~]Y 42~
N45· Zg'IO"E RIDER WAY
2'50.82'
LOT I0
O. gO AC
\ LOT II
O. 89 AC
....: SITE PLAN
CERTIFICATE OF PARCEL MERGER NO, *
SEC. 35 r. 7,~, t~.31~.
Exp June 30 1.c':~., 't
N 45' 22' IO"E
RIDER WAY
N46"E2'IO"E e06.118'
8c81e
WON SANG YO0 AND INSOOK YO0
27447 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE WT..ST
TEMECULA, CA. 92.~90
RANPAC ENGINEERING CCRP.
27447 ENTE:RPRIgE CIRCLE WEST
TEMECU~.A, CA. 9~390
I" · I00
Peroil No. 921 ~ 480- OlO ~ 011
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY DEPARTMENT
TO: PI,ANNIIqG DEPARTPENT
ATT: Gre9 Heal
May 3, 1989
FIK~t: {en Tetch
The Survey Department hereby approves the legal
descriptien for the above application.
Attached is the original legal description end plat and
the case file. Also attached is a check for $482 [or
the processing fee.
UIA RANCHO TRA o~.,-o~zovz
o~- o~ 90 9'1~
.\
,,
\
_/-,,
SCALE 1:24000
CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET
DASHED LINES REPRESENT HALF INTERVAL CONTOURS
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
] MILE
HIS MAP COMPLIES WITH NATIONAL MAP ACCURACY STANDARDS
S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, DENVER, COLORADO 80225, OR RESTON,VIRGINIA 22092
:R DESCRIBING TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS AND BYMBOLB IS AVAILABLE ON REQUEST
(6i9i
Prima~
hard su'
Secona~
hard su
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Parcel Map No. 26036
Council Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as
shown on Tentative Parcel Map No. 26036, or as amended by these conditions.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
No conditions.
HEALTH DEPARTMENT
No conditions.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
PRIOR TO FINAL MAP RECORDATION
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision
Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance No. ~,60 unless modified by
the conditions listed below.
This condltionally-approved tentative map will expire two years after City
Council approval date unless extended as provided by Ordinance No. L~60.
A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions {CCBR~s) shall be
prepared by the developer and submitted to the Director of Planning, City
Engineer and City Attorney. The CCSR's shall be prepared by the developer
and submitted to the Director of Planning, City Engineer and City Attorney.
The CCSR~s shall be signed and acknowledged by all parties having any
record title interest in the property to be developed, shall make the City a
party thereto, and shall be enforceable by the City. The CCF, R's shall be
subject to the fo))owlng conditions:
a. The CCSR's shall be prepared at the developer"s sole cost and expense.
b. The CCSR's shall be in the form and content approved by the Director
STAFFRPT\TPM26036
of Planning, City Engineer and the City Attorney, and shall include
such provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials
deem necessary to protect the interests of the City and its residents.
The CCaR~s and Articles of Incorporation of the Homeowneris
Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering
Departments and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent
with the final map. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City.
The CCaR's shall provide for the effective establishment, operation,
management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas and
facilities.
e. In addition to the above, the CCSR's shall include the following:
Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements
ensuring access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all roads,
drives or parking areas shall be provided by CCSR's or by deeds
and shall be recorded concurrent with the map or prior to the
issuance of building permit, where no map is involved.
The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Flood Control District;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Engineering Department; and
Riverside County Health Department.
The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered
Civil Engineer, subject to all the requirements of the State of California
Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No. u,60.
ITEM ~ F, #5
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 20, 1990
Case No.: Plot Plan Nos. 5 and
Recommendation: Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Rancho California Partners
J. R. Miller and Associates, Inc.
Construct two industrial buildings side by side for
a total of 23,700 square feet on two existing parcels
which together comprise 1.19 acres.
Northeast corner of Avenida Alvarado and Aqua
Vista Way.
MSC - Manufacturing Service Commercial
North:
South:
East:
West:
MSC - Manufacturing Service Corr~mercial
MSC - Manufacturing Service Commercial
MSC - Manufacturing Service Commercial
MSC - Manufacturing Service Commercial
Manufacturing on all sides.
No. of Buildings:
No. of Acres:
No. of Parcels:
Total Square Feet:
No. of Parking Spaces:
Building Height:
2
1.19
2
23,700 sq.ft.
~7 spaces
33 feet
STAFFRPT\PP586
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Plot Plan 5 and Plot Plan 6 were submitted for the
Cityis consideration on April 13, 1990. The project
was reviewed at the Preliminary Development Review
Committee meeting on May 17, 1990. A redesign of
the project was necessary and the amended site plan
was submitted on June 20, 1990. On June 21, 1990,
the Staff determined a Negative Declaration should
be adopted and the project was duly advertised and
available for public review prior to this hearing
date.
The project is comprised of two separate buildings
on two separate parcels. Together the buildings
comprise 23,700 square feet of floor area on 1.19
acres. Each building could be constructed
independent of the other, although they will likely
be constructed simultaneously.
Architecture
Both buildings aretilt-up concrete structures which
are contemporary in appearance. The architecture
is similar to other projects in the area and has been
deemed compatible with area development.
Parkln.q
Forty-seven {~,7) parking spaces surround the
project, which meets Ordinance No. 3~8 parking
requirements.
Landscape
Adequate landscaping is planned for the site. A
landscape plan will be submitted and approved prior
to the issuance of building permits.
Access
Two points of access are planned for the project.
Those driveways are reciprocal with adjoining
properties to the north and east. The reciprocal
access is provided for with the overlying industrial
parcel map and has been deemed appropriate by the
Engineering Staff.
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
The SWAP land use designation for the site is
General Light Industrial. Other manufacturing uses
surround the property. Staff considers the
proposal an infill project. Probable consistency
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS:
with the future General Plan appears to be very
high.
An Initial Study was performed for the project
which determined that no significant impact would
result to the natural or built environment in the
City. That study has been attached to this report
for review.
There is a reasonable probability that Plot
Plan Nos. 5 and 6 will be consistent with the
City's future General Plan, which will be
completed in a reasonable time and in
accordance with State law.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future General Plan, if the proposed use
is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
The proposed use or action complies with
State planning and zoning laws.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation
patterns, access, and intensity of use.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare.
The project is compatible with surrounding
land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk,
height, intensity, and coverage creates a
compatible physical relationship with
adjoining properties.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area.
The project has acceptable access to a
dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the expanded
initial study performed for this project.
3
10.
11.
The design of the project and the type of
improvements are such that they are not in
conflict with easements for access through or
use of the property within the proposed
project.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applications and hereln
incorporated by reference.
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for
Plot Plan Nos. 5 and 6, and
2. APPROVE Plot Plan Nos. 5 and 6;
based on the analysis and findings contained in the
Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions
of Approval.
I~IL~ =~-
.-~!. :j{
' :': ' {! ):{.. Ill{ {" {!iii
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
MURRIETA QUADRANGLE
CALIFORNIA--RIVERSIDE CO.
7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC)
=T. 7S,
, '~3
1000 0
SCALE 1:24000
o
ROAD CLASSIFICATION
Primary highway, eli weather, Light-duty road, ell weather,
hard surface improved surface__
Secondary highway, eli weather, Unimproved road, fair or dry
hard surface .__ weather
' "~ G St
Interstate Route U.S. Route ate Route
5 0
' ' CC~NT~O'R INTERVAL 20 FEET
DASHED LINES REPRESENT HALF INTERVAL CONTOURS
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAC DATUN OF 1929
MURRIETA, CALIF.
33117- E2-TF-024
1953
PHOTOREVISED 1979
DMA 2551 l[ $W--$ERIES Ve95
PHOTO KEY PLAN
........... . ___ AyE_NIDA ALyA_RADO
A
II
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
8ackqround
1. Name of Proponent:
2. Address a~d Phone
l~m~er of P~oponent:
4.
5.
6.
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
Agency Requiring
Assessment:
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Location of Proposal:
Rancho California Partners
333 S. Anita Drive, Ste. 333
Orange, CA 92668
(714) q37-0547
May'~6, 1990
cz~ oF
Plot Plan No. 5
Northeast corner of Avenida Alvarado
and Aqua Vista Way.
Environmental Impacts
{Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are provided on
attached sheets. )
Earth.
a.
b.
c.
d.
Will the proposal result in:
Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil?
Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features?
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on or
or off site?
Ye~ Maybe N._,9o
X
BLANKIES/FORMS -1-
Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
Exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards such as earth
quakes, landslides, mudslides,
ground failure, or similar hazards?
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air
quality?
b. The creation of objectionable
odors?
Alteration of air movement,
moisture, or temperature, or any
change in climate, whether locally
or regionally?
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial changes in currents, or
the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or
fresh waters?
Substantia) changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
d. Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
Discharge into surface waters, or
in any alteration of surface water
quality, including, but not limited
to, temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity?
Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow of ground waters?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
.X
BLANKIES/FORMS '2~
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct addi-
tions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aqulfer by cuts
or excavations?
Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flood-
ing or tidal waves?
~,. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or number of any native species of
plants (including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare, or endangered species
of plants?
Introduction of new species of
plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
Substantial reduction in acreage
of any agricultural crop?
Animal Life. Will the proposal result
in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
(birds, land animals including rep-
tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms or insects)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals?
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
Yes
X
Maybe
No
X
X
X
BLANKIES/FORMS -3-
Yes Maybe N__o
10.
11.
12.
13.
Noise, Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and Clare. Will the proposal
produce substantial new light or glare?
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
Substantial increase in the rate of
use of any natural resources?
Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource?
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal
involve:
A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including,
but not limited to, oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
Possible interference with an emerg-
ency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan?
Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing or create a demand for
additional housing?
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
BLANKIES/FORMS -4-
Maybe No
b. Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking?
c. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, b/cyclists or pedestrians?
1~,. Public Services. Will the proposal have
substantial effect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational
facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
f. Other governmental services?
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy?
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
Yes
X
X
X
X
X
X
BLANKIES/FORMS -5-
17.
18.
19.
Communications systems?
Water?
Sewer or septic tanks?
Storm water drainage?
Solid waste and disposal?
Human Health. Will the proposal
result in:
Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard {excluding
mental health)?
Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result
in the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to
public view?
Recreation. Will the proposal result in
an impact upon the quality or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities?
20. Cultural Resources.
Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object?
Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
Yes
Maybe
X
X
No
X
X
X
X
BLANKIES/FORMS -6-
Yes Maybe N_9o
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
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 or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environ-
mental goals? IA short-term
impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief,
definitive period of time while long-
term impacts will endure well into
the future. )
Does the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but cumu-
latively considerable? I A project's
impact on two or more separate
resources may be relatively small,
but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment
is significant. )
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substan-
tial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X
BLANKIES/FORMS -7-
I I I. Environmental Evaluation
Earth
1.a.
No. It appears that the project site was previously graded as part of
a mass grading effort. There should be minimal grading for this
project.
1.b.
Yes. All development disrupts the soil profile to some degree and
results in soil displacement, compaction, and overcovering. This
impact is not considered significant.
1 .c.-d.
No. Since the project site is relatively level when grading occurs there
will be very little change in topography. There are no unique physical
or geological features on the site.
Yes. Wind and water erosion potentials will increase during the
construction phase and remain high until disturbed areas are
replanted. The wind erosion impact is considered significant but will
be mitigated through minimal grading, retention of natural vegetation
whenever feasible, and use of watering trucks and hydro-seeding of
disturbed areas after grading. After the project is completed,
increased water run-off during floods may occur. Water will be
channeled to drainage easements and streets. Appropriate drainage
control devices will have to be approved by the Engineer and designed
in accordance with Temecula~s standards and the conditions of
approval.
1.f.
No. The proposed project will not cause erosion of or deposition into
any creek or stream bed.
1.g.
No. The subject site is designated as subject to liquefaction and
subsidence by the Riverside County General Plan. To mitigate under
hazard, a geological report should be prepared prior to any
construction of the property. The report should include mitigation
measures.
Air
No. The addition of approximately 11,000 square feet of light
manufacturing will not significantly impact the area~s air quality.
However, the project will add an incremental increase in carbon
monoxide and other pollutants generated by the site's vehicular traffic
to the regions air quality. This impact is not considered significant.
Water
3.a. ,d.-e.
No. The proposed project will not impact any marine or fresh water
bodies. The closest intermittent body of water to the subject site is
Murrieta Creek, approximately 2000 feet northeast of the subject site.
The proposed project will incrementally affect the quantity and quality
of Murrieta Creek~s surface waters.
-8-
3.b.
No. The proposed project will inhibit the absorption of water into the
ground through the construction of impermeable surfaces on the site.
Runoff will increase but not substantially.
3.c,
No. Flood waters will continue to be diverted to the streets and flood
channels.
3.d.-g.
No. The proposed project will not significantly affect the flow or
quantity of ground waters.
3.h.
3.i.
No. The proposed project will not impact the public water supply.
Yes. The project site is located in a flood plain and dam inundation
area according to the Riverside County General Plan. Development on
the site is subject to Riverside County Ordinances ~,58, ~,57,460, 3~,8,
and 555 {pertaining to flood management) to help avoid undue harm.
Plant Life
ILa.-d.
No. The subject site has previously been disturbed and it is not
anticipated that the proposed subject will not significantly impact
unique, rare, or endangered species of plants. The site is not
currently used for agricultural purposes.
Animal Life
No. The subject site has previously been disturbed and is surrounded
by urban uses. As a result, the proposed project will not significantly
impact animal life. Specifically, the project will not affect any unique,
rare, or endangered species of animals.
Noise
6oa.
Yes. The proposed project will generate traffic which will increase in
the site~s noise level. However, the increase in the noise level is not
considered significant due to the anticipated low volume of traffic that
will be generated by the project. There will also be temporary noise
impacts during the construction phase of the project.
6.b.
No. Noise generated by the proposed project will not be severe.
Liqht and Glare
No. It is not anticipated that the proposed light manufacturing building
will produce substantial light or glare. On-site lighting must be
directed inwardly toward the site. However, the subject site is located
within the Mr. Palomar Observatory Street Lighting Policy Area which
recommends the use of low pressure sodium vapor {LPSV) light to help
-9-
avoid interference with the Mt. Palomar telescope. The use of LPSV
lights will reduce the light and glare produced by the proposed use.
Land Use
No. The proposed light manufacturing building is consistent with the
Southwest Area Plan designation of light industrial and with the
existing uses on site.
Natural Resources
9.a.-b.
No. The proposed light manufacturing building will not substantially
increase the consumption rate of any natural or non-renewable natural
resources.
10.a.
Maybe. The proposed application is for 11,050 square feet of light
manufacturing. A number of light manufacturing uses involve the use
of hazardous materials. If hazardous materials are to be used, a list
of materials and disposal plan shall be submitted to the City and County
prior to occupancy.
10.b.
No. The construction or operation of the proposed building should not
require the closure of a street which would interfere with emergency
vehicles.
11.
No. The addition of a 11,000 square foot light manufacturing building
will not alter any aspect of the area's population. The number of jobs
generated will not be significant.
12.
No. The addition of a 11,000 square foot light manufacturing building
will not affect the existing housing stock or create a demand for
additional housing. Not enough jobs will be generated to create such
an impact.
13.a.,
c.-f.
No. The proposed project will not generate a significant amount of
vehicular traffic. As a result, the project will not significantly impact
the existing transportation system after circulation patterns or increase
traffic hazards.
13.b.
Yes. The proposed project will require parking to be provided on-site.
Public Services
lu,.a.-f.
Yes. The 11,000 square footlight industrial building will require the
services of police, fire, and other public facilities. The impact on these
public services is not considered significant but should be evaluated on
an incremental basis and the appropriate fees assessed. The fees and
property taxes should mitigate the impacts over the long term.
-10-
Ener.qy
15.a.-b.
No. The proposed project will not result in the substantial use or
increase in demand of fuel or energy.
Utilities
16.a.-f.
No. All of the necessary utilities currently exist to the site due to
surrounding development.
Human Health
17.a.-b.
Maybe. The light industrial use that will occupy the proposed building
may involve the use of a toxic or hazardous material. The disposal of
this material may also expose people to potential health hazards. To
mitigate this potential impact, the use that will occupy the proposed
building shall be reviewed prior to occupancy to determine if hazardous
or toxic materials will be used and what the disposal methods will be.
Aesthetics
18.
No. The proposed 11,000 square foot building will not obstruct any
scenic vista or view that is open to the public.
Recreation
19.
No. The subject site is not currently used for recreational uses.
Cultural Resources
20.a.-d.
No. The subject site was previously disturbed during the mass grading
of the site. The subject site will not impact any historic, cultural, or
sacred resources.
Mandatory Findinqs of Siqnificance
21 .a. ,c.
No. Since the project site has previously been disturbed and is in an
urban setting, the proposed project will not impact animal or plant life.
The project will not have cumulative impacts that would be considered
significant.
21 .b. ,d.
Maybe. If the proposed building is occupied by a use that involves
toxic or hazardous materials, the use and disposal of these materials
may have long term environmental impacts as well as adverse effects on
human beings. Prior to occupancy, the proposed use shall be reviewed
to determine if hazardous/toxic materials will be used and if so, what
is the plan for disposal.
-11-
ENVIRONMENTAL 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 signi-
ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi-
ficant effect in this case because the mitigation measures
described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of approval
have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required.
Date
For CITY OF TEMECULA
-12-
BLANKIES/FORMS
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan Nos. 5 and 6
Council Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
Planninq Department
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the City Council approval
date; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. By
this approval within the two {2) year period which is thereafter diligently
pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated
by this approval.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as
shown on Plot Plan Nos. 5 and 6, or as amended by these conditions.
In the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period of one ( 1 )
year or more, this approval shall become null and void.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-d-way, and shall comply with
Ordinance No. 655.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape,
irrigation and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. An
automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be
maintained in a viable growth condition. Planting within ten (10) feet of an
entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty (30)
inches.
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the applicant shall
submit seven (7) copies of parking, landscaping, shading and irrigation plot
plan to the Planning Department and shall be accompanied by a filing fee as set
forth in Section 18.37 of Ordinance No. 3~,8.
A minimum of 47 parking spaces shall be provided, in accordance with Section
18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 31~8. The parking area shall be
surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of three ~3)
inches on four |l~) inches of Class II base.
A minimum of 2 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided. Each parking
space reserved for he handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or
equal, displaying the international Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not
be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior
STAFFRPT\PP586
10.
11.
12.
13.
end of the parking space at a minimum of height of 80 inches from the bottom
of the sign to the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign
shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street
parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches in size with lettering not
less than one { 1 ) inch in height, which clearly and conspicuously states the
following:
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing
placards or license plates issued for physically
handicapped persons may be towed away at owner~s
expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at
or by telephoning
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall
have surface identification sign duplicating the symbol of accessibility in blue
paint of at least three {3) square feet in size.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain clearance
and/or permits from the following agencies:
Engineering Department
Environmental Health
Riverside County Flood Control
Fire Department
Written evidence of compliance shall be presented to the Land Use Division of
the Department of Building and Safety.
Rod-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening
material shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of the specimen canopy trees
along the freeways, streets, and within the parking areas.
This project is located within a Subsidence Report Zone. Prior to issuance of
any building permit by the Temecula Department of Building and Safety, a
California Licensed Structural Engineer shall certify that the intended
structure or building is safe and structurally integrated. This certification
shall be based upon, but not limited to, the site specific seismic, geologic and
geotechnical conditions. Where hazard of subsidence or fissure development
is determined to exist, appropriate mitigation measures must be demonstrated.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall
comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate
fees set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by
the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee
required by Ordinance no. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by
the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or
resolution. Said fee shall not apply to the entire site, but rather to the new
building and parking structure.
2
Fire Department
With respect to the Conditions of Approval regarding the above referenced plot plan,
the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided
in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection
standards:
15.
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings using the procedure established in
Ordinance 546.
16.
Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 3,000 GPM
for a 3 hour duration at 20 PSi residual operating pressure, which must be
available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
17.
A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants, on a looped system
{6"x4"x2 1/2x2 1/2), will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet
from any portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular
travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent
hydrant(s) in the system.
18.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the
Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types,
location and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements.
Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local
water company with the following certification: "1 certify that the design of
the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the
Riverside County Fire Department."
19.
Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings requiring a fire flow
of 1,500 GPM or greater. The post indicator valve and fire department
connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a
minimum of 25 feet from the building( s) . A statement that the building{ s) will
be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the
building plans.
20.
Install a supervised waterflow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans must be
submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation, as
required by the Uniform Building Code.
21.
In lieu of fire sprinkler requirements, building(s) must be area separated into
square foot compartments, approved by the Fire Department, as per Section
505(e) of the Uniform Building Code.
22.
A statement that the building will be automatically fire sprlnklered must
appear on the title page of the building plans.
23.
Install panic hardware and exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform
Building Code.
24. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes.
25.
Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC. Contact
a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment.
26.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be
responsible to submit a check or money order in the amount of $u, 13.00 to the
Riverside County Fire Department for plan check fees.
27.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall deposit with the
Riverside County Fire Department, a check or money order equaling the sum
of 25 cents per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts. This
amount must be submitted separately from the plan check review fee.
28°
Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the
Building and Safety Office.
All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to the Planning
and Engineering Staff.
Health Department
The Environmental Health Services has reviewed Plot Plan No. 6 and has no
objections. Sanitary sewer and water services are available in this area. Prior to
building plan submittal, the following items will be requested:
29. "Will-serve" letters from the water and sewerlng agencies.
30.
If there are to be any hazardous materials, a clearance letter from the
Environmental Health Services Hazardous Materials Management Branch {Jon
Mohoroski, 358-5055), will be required indicating that the project has been
cleared for:
a. Underground storage tanks.
b. Hazardous Waste Generator Services.
c. Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with AB 2185).
d. Waste reduction management.
Enqineerinq Department
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMIT:
31.
The developer shall provide clearance from all applicable agencies and pay all
fees prior to the approval of plans.
32.
Concentrated drainege flows shall not cross sidewalks. under sidewalk drains
shall be installed to City Standards.
The developer shall submit four {~,) copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
The developer shall submit four (q.) prints of a comprehensive grading plan
to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform
Building Code, Chapter 70. The plan shall be drawn on 2~,"x36" mylar by a
Registered Civil Engineer.
35.
A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and
submitted at the time of application for grading plan check.
36.
The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of
building permits.
37°
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to
commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of-
way.
38.
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the City Engineer based
on the recommendations of the Riverside County Flood Control District.
The project is located within a Flood Hazard Zone, therefore, flood protection
measures shall be provided as certified by a Registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the City Engineer.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The
charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits.
If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to
this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS
~,1. All work done within the City right-of-way shall have an encroachment permit.
All driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula standards and
shall be shown on the street improvement plans.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the
Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for
traffic signal impact.
5
ITEM #6
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 20, 1990
Case No.: Parcel Map No. 23969
Recommendation: Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
Omdahl Enterprises
Markham and Associates
To subdivide 21.56 acres into four lots
Ridge Park Drive, South of Rancho California Road
North: ) -P
South: M-SC
East: M-SC
West: I - P
Site: lop
Site: Vacant
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant
Multi Family/Vacant
Single Family/Light Industrial
Vacant
BACKGROUND:
ANALYSIS:
The application for Parcel Map No. 23969 was
originally submitted to the Riverside County
Planning Department on May 10, 1989. The parcel
map was reviewed by the Riverside County Land
Division Committee twice; on June 8, 1989 and
February 15, 1990. In April, 1990, the file was
transferred to the City of Temecula.
Area Settinq
The project site is located in the Emerald Ridge
Business Park south of Rancho California Road on
Ridge Park Drive. The site is in a hillside area that
STAFF R PT\PM23969
is currently being mass graded as part of the
grading permit for Parcel Map No. 18254. Extensive
cut and fill was approved as part of the mass
grading plan resulting in very high 2: 1 slopes. The
properties to the north and west are vacant and are
also within the Emerald Ridge Business Park. South
of the project site, separated by a slope, is an
apartment building. East of the project site, at the
base of a large slope are light industrial and
residential uses.
Circulation and Infrastructure
The mass grading permit for Parcel Map 18254 was
approved by the County of Riverside and did not
take into account the improvement of Pujol Street
along the easterly boundary of Parcel Map 23969. A
60 foot right-d-way for Pujo) Street was not shown
on the underlying Parcel Map 18254, only the
existing 40 feet. Within the 20 foot area necessary
to widen Pujol Street to 60 feet, the site has been
graded to a 2:1 slope improved with a concrete
drainage swell and force main. These improvements
are located within an Eastern Municipal Water
District easement and are being paid for by
Assessment District 159. Attached Exhibit A shows
the two large, above ground pipes used to meter the
sewage flow of the force main. The force main is an
integral component of the sewer system for all of the
development in Assessment District 159. The force
main helps to direct the sewage to the treatment
plant south of Winchester Road. The location of the
sewage meters is within the 20 foot area needed to
widen Pujol Street to local street standards of 60
feet. The location of the sewer system and above
ground improvements were approved by the County
of Riverside.
Despite the improvements within the proposed 60
foot right-of-way, the Engineering Department is
required by Ordinance 460 to condition Parcel Map
23969 with dedication and improvement of all
abutting roadways. Dedication and improvement of
Pujol Street would require one of the following: 1 )
undergroundlng of the sewer force main, or 2)
relocating the Eastern Municipal Water District
easement and improvements west of Pujol Street
possibly resulting in 15-20 foot retaining walls.
Both of these options will require considerable
expense to the applicant.
Ordinance 460 Section 3.1. B allows for exceptions.
GENERAL PLAN/
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
The Section reads as follows:
Exceptions from the requirements of this
ordinance relating to the design or
improvements of land divisions shall be
granted only when it is determined that there
are special circumstances applicable to the
property, such as but not limited to size,
shape or topographical conditions, or
existing road alignment and width, and that
the granting of the modification will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare or be damaging to other property in
the vicinity.
Based on the existing grading and improvements of
Parcel Map 23969, Staff believes that there are
special circumstances which warrant an exception to
the improvement and dedication of Pujol Street. By
not approvlng the widening of Pujol Street to 60
feet, the public health, safety or welfare will not be
affected. Current access to the one lot serviced by
Pujol Street will not be altered or inhibited. The
benefit that would be gained for the public good by
widening Pujol Street is not worthy of the extreme
cost to the applicant.
Parcel Map Confiquration
Parcel 22 of Parcel Map No. 18254 is the underlying
parcel for Tentative Parcel Map No. 23969.
Tentative Parcel Map No. 23969 divides the site into
four parcels. The sizes of the parcels are as
fol lows:
Parcel 1 - 6.02 acres
Parcel 2 - ~,. 75 acres
Parcel 3 - 6.25 acres
Parcel ~, - 4.54 acres
The subject site is designated RL1 - Restricted
Light Industrial by the Southwest Area Plan. The
proposed division of land is consistent with the
policies for industrial use. It is anticipated that the
project, as conditioned, will be consistent with the
City's forthcoming General Plan.
An Initial Study has been completed for the project
and a Negative Declaration is recommended for the
proposal.
3
FINDINGS:
The proposed division is consistent with the
Southwest Area Plan and Zoning Code in that
all four parcels exceed the minimum lot size of
20,000 square feet and the minimum average
lot width of 100 feet.
The lot design is logical and meets the
approval of the City's Planning and
Engineering Departments.
The legal owner of record has offered to make
all dedications required.
The project will not have a significant
adverse affect on the environment. A
Negative Declaration is recommended and all
impacts will be reduced to insignificant levels
through recommended conditions of approval.
There is a reasonable probability that the
project will be consistent with the City's
General Plan once adopted, based on analysis
contained in the Staff Report.
The division of land is consistent with the
provision of Title 18 of the Subdivision Map
Act.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
DP:ks
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for
Parcel Map No. 23969
APPROVE the exception to Ordinance
No. 460 by not requiring the
dedication and improvement of Pujol
Street to 60 feet
3. APPROVE Parcel Map No. 23969
based on the analysis and findings contained in the
Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions
of Approval.
4
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL DATE:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 23969
The subdivlder shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or
proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees
to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Temecula, its
advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Tentative
Parcel Map No. 23969, which action is brought within the time period provided
for in California Government Code Section 66L~99.37. The City of Temecula will
promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding
against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the
City fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or
proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not,
thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of
Temecula.
The tentative parcel map shall conform to the requirements of Ordinance 1~60,
Schedule E, unless modified by the conditions listed below. This approved
tentative parcel map will expire two years after the City Council approval date
unless extended as provided by Ordinance L~60.
The final map shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer or licensed land
surveyor subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision
Map Act, Subdivision Ordinance u,60.
All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall
continue in force until the governing body accepts or abandons such offers.
All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the City
Engineer. Street names shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities,
etc., shall be shown on the final map if within the land division boundary. All
offers of dedication shall provide for nonexclusive public road and utility
access. All easements, offers of dedication and conveyances shall be
submitted and recorded as directed by the City Engineer.
Legal access as required by Ordinance 1~60 shall be provided from the parcel
map boundary to a City maintained road.
All delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final
map.
STAFFRPT~ PM23969
10.
11.
12.
13.
lq.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Prior to any grading, a Grading Plan in compliance with the Uniform Building
Code, Chapter 70, as amended by Ordinance ~,57, shall be submitted to the
City Department of Building and Safety.
The subdivider shall comply with the street improvement recommendations
outlined in the Office of Road Commissioner and County Surveyor"s letter
dated April 2, 1990, a copy of which is attached. All items of the letter shall
comply except for No. ~s 3 and 6.
The subdivider shall comply with the environmental health recommendations
outlined in the County Health Department's transmlttal dated May 22, 1989, a
copy of which is attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined
in the Riverside County Flood Control District's letter dated June 7, 1989, a
copy of which is attached. If the land division lies within an adopted flood
control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of City of Temecula Land
Division Ordinance q60, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage
facilities shall be collected by the City prior to recordation of the final map or
waiver of parcel map.
The subdivider shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations
outlined in the County Fire Department~s letter dated March 3, 1990, a copy
of which is attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building
and Safety Department: Land Use Sectlongs transmittal dated March 8, 1990,
a copy of which is attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building
and Safety Department: Grading Section~s transmittal dated July 1~,, 1989, a
copy of which is attached.
All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of
Technology, Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as outlined in the
Southwest Area Plan.
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern
Municipal Water District transmlttal dated May 16, 1989, a copy of which is
attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the
Southern California Edison Company transmlttal dated May 2~,, 1989, a copy
of which is attached.
Prior to recordation of this map, a reciprocal access agreement shall be
recorded for Parcels 2 and 3.
Prior to recordation of this map, a signing and striping plan along with a
street improvement plan shall be approved by the City Engineer.
If a fair and equitable share of the developer~s cost of transportation
improvements has not been determined at the time a Certificate of Occupancy
is needed, the developer shall be required to deposit $10,000 into a City
established Road Benefit Fund. The developer is also required to sign an
agreement with the City to either pay an amount or receive a refund equal to
the difference between his estimated fair share and the amount of deposit with
the City.
GRADING:
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with
Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance. Should
Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation
Plan prior to the payment of the fees required under the Habitat Conservation
Plan as implemented by City Ordinance or resolution.
Grading plans shall conform to the Hillside Development Standards as
presented in the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. All cut
and/or fill slopes, or individual combinations thereof, which exceed ten feet
in vertical height shall be modified by an appropriate combination of a special
terracing (benching)plan, increased slope ratio {e.g. 3:1), retain walls,
and/or slope planting combined with irrigation. All driveways shall not
exceed a 1596 grade.
Prior to the issuance of grading and/or building permits, all proposed new
structures on parcels shall be limited to slopes less than 2696 unless otherwise
approved by the Planning Director.
All grading and building plans/permits shall reflect the utilization of post and
beam foundations or the appropriate combination of split level pads and post
and beam foundations when development is proposed on slopes of 1596 or
greater measured over a horizontal distance of 30 feet. All driveways shall
not exceed a 15% average grade.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
No building permits shall be issued by the City of Temecula for any residential
lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer, or the developer~s
successors-in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility
financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars {$100) per lot/unit
shall be deposited with the City of Temecula Building and Safety as mitigation
for public library development.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance
and/or permits from the following agencies:
Road Department
Environmental Health
Riverside County Flood Control
Fire Department
Written evidence of compliance shall be presented to the Planning Department
of Building and Safety.
Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development
standards of the I-P zone.
All lots created by this land division shall have a minimum area of 20,000
square feet.
When lots are crossed by major public utility easements, each lot shall have a
net usable area of not less than 3,600 square feet, exclusive of the utility
easement.
All lot length to width ratios shall be in conformance with Section 3.8C of
Ordinance 460.
Prior to recordation of the final map the land divider shall execute a certificate
of noncontiguous ownership.
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in this subdivision in accordance with
the standards of Ordinance ~,61.
PRIOR TO THE RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, the following condltionl s) shall be
complied with:
The subdivider shall annex Tentative Parcel Map No. 23969 into the City
of Temecula~s Recreation and Parks District.
The subdlvlder shall submit to the Planning Director an agreement with
the City of Temecula Recreation and Parks District which demonstrates
to the satisfaction of the County that the land divider has provided for
the payment of parks and recreation fees in accordance with Section
10.35 of Ordinance No. 1~60. The agreement shall be approved by the
Board of Supervisors prior to the recordation of the final map.
A copy of the Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be
transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINT SHEET CONDITIONS:
An Environmental Constraints Sheet {ECS) shall be prepared with the final
map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently
filed with the City. Prior to the recordatlon of the final map, a copy of the
ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval.
The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to
the Planning Department and the Department of Building and Safety. The
following note{ s ) shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet.
"Surface alteration shall not be allowed in the delineated constraint area
without additional archaeological investigation or mitigation as directed
by the City of Temecula Planning Department.
"This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar
Observatory. Light and glare may adversely impact operations at the
Observatory. Outdoor lighting shall be from low pressure sodium lamps
that are oriented and shielded to prevent direct illumination above the
horizontal plane passing through the luminare."
Indicate the availability of domestic water services to the subject
property as of the date of recordation of the final map.
The following note shall be placed on the final map: "Constraints
affecting this property are shown on the accompanying Environmental
Constraints Sheet, the original of which is on file at the office of the
Riverside County Surveyor.
No building permits shall be issued by the City of Temecula for any
building in Parcel Map No. 23969 until the developer or the developer's
successors-in-interest or assignees, provides evidence of compliance
with the terms of said agreement for the financing of public facilities.
5
OMDAHL ENTERPRISES
28285 Rancho Calif.
Temecula, CA 92390
Rd.
CITY OF TEMECULA
Planning Commission
RE: P.M. 23969 Pujol Street
Commissoners;
We, Omdahl Enterprises, feel the condition requiring us to
grant a 20 ft. easement along the Pujol St. dead-end and
construct one half of the street with a offset cul-del-sac
is not reasonable or feasible. It qualifys under par. B
sec. 3.1 ARTICLE 111 (Standards of Land Division-General):
"Exceptions from the requirements of this ordinance
relating to the design or improvements of land divisions
shall be granted only when it is determined that there are
special circumstances ap[,licable to the property, such as
but not limited to size , shape or topographical conditions,
or existing road alignment and width, and that the granting
of the modification will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare or be damaging to other property
in the vicinity."
Reasons for requesting the exception:
A. Physically difficult and costly due to;
1)
the existing 2:1 slope in the proposed easement
requires a retaining wall to accomodate widening
the street and cul-de-sac.
2) the existing drainage structure in the proposed
easement would have to be redesigned and rebuilt.
3)
the forced sewer main in the proposed easement
would have to be realigned and lowered.
4)
the blow-off valves on the forced sewer main in
the proposed easement would have to be relocated
and because of the lowering an extra blow-off
valve would have to located on the line.
The industrial zoned property, requesting the lot-
split, has been graded per an approved grading plan
and does not and will never access Pojul St.
This section of Pujol St. serves as access to one res-
idential lot which has an existing 40 ft. access road
which we are not hindering or altering in any way.
Construction of the street and cul-de-sac would result
in a 15 ft high retaining wall which would be dangerous
to children, a graffiti wall and an eye sore for the
adjacent residential property owners.
The existing 2:1 slope is within a landscape maintenance
area including irrigated trees, shurbs and flowers. This
beautiful backdrop will be maintained by the Crystal
Ridge Business Park.
In conclusion, we feel that this would be an impossible
condition to meet and would prevent us from moving forward
with the development of our park as planned. The estimated
exspense to move the existing facilities and build the proposed
road is in excess of $250,000.00 dollars. The time involved
to get such plans approved thru the various agencies may
exceed two years. The net benefit to the public is zero; the
net benefit to the one residential lot is to provide it with
a 60 ft. access road in leu of its present 40 ft. access.
Again we would like to point out that this situation calls
for an application of par. B sec. 3.1 article 111. We would
also like to point out sec. 66411.1 of the Subdivision
Map Act;
"(a) Whenever a local ordinance requires improvements
for a division of land which is not a subdivision of five or
more lots, the regulations shall be limited to the dedication
of right-of-way, easements, and the construction of reasonable
offsite and onsite improvements for the parcels being created"
Thank you for your time and consideration·
Si~, ~~
Howard O~General ~artner
Omdahl Enterprises
Riverside County
Road Department
P.O. Box 1090
Riverside. CA 92502
Southern Callforn/a _-:d/sor~,.%~_4~'
LONG BEACH CALIFORNIA 90801~
~G
Attn:
Subdivision Section:
SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map No. 23969
May 24. 1989
Please be advised that the division of the property shown on
Tentative Parcel Map No. 23969 will not unreasonably interfere
with the free and complete exercise of any easement(s) held by
Southern California Edison Company within the boundaries of said
tentative parcel map.
This letter should not be construed as a subordination of the
Company's rights. title and interest in and to said easement(s).
nor should this letter be construed as a waiver of any of the
provisions contained in said easement(s) or a waiver of costs for
teloration of any affected facilities.
In the event that the development requires teloration of facil-
ities. on the subject property. which facilities exist by right
of easement or otherwise. the owner/developer will be requested
to bear the cost of such teloration and provide Edison with
suitable replacement rights. Such costs and replacement rights
are required prior to the performance of the teloration.
If additional information is required in connection.with the
above mentioned subject. please call me at (213) 491-2644.
Very truly yours.
REGIONAL N~u~AGER
18455pmh
cc: Riverside County Planning Dept. ATTN: Patti Nahill
Markham & Associates
#25/R/eg/S
Eastern J unicipal ' ater District
MAY 1
liVERSIDE COUN'P,'
Riverside Co. Planning Dept.
4080 Lemon St., 9th Floor
Riverside, Ca 92501
SUBJECT: ~A. JZ,c.,,f_~_, T'v'l/~:' 2_-, ~q.Gc~ -
The District is responding to your request for comments on the subject project
relative to water and/or sewer service. The items checked below apply to this
project review.
The subject project:
/Is not within EMWD's:
---water service area
sewer service area
/Will be required to construct/provide the following facilities if to
be served by EMWD:
Sewer Service
Any and all necessary regionally sized onsite and offsite gravity sewers and
appurtenant works that might include monitoring manholes, lift stations, force
mains, and effluent disposal/use. Sewers will not be allowed along lot
lines/private land. Fee payment and participation in regional sewers, treatment,
and effluent disposal must be met. Only wastes acceptable to EMWD regulations
will be allowed.
EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
Planning Department
2045 S. SanJacinto Street · Post Office Box 8300 · SanJacinto, California 92383-1300 · Telephone (714) 925-7676
TO:
COUNTY OF FHVERSIDE
Department of Building and
IDLANU,~G
DATE:
_~'__Please make the following a condition of approval:
~_a. Prior to commencing any grading exceeding 50 cubic yards~
~.~,.~q th. o.ne~ of that proper~y .hall obtain . g~adi.g permit
from the Department of Building and Safety
P~ior to approval of this use/subdivision a grading permit
and approval of the rough grading shall be obtained from
the Building and Safety Department.
P~ior to issuance of any building permit, the property
owner shall obtain a grading permit and approval to
construct from the Building and Safety Department.
___d. Constructing a road, where greatei than 5~ cubic yards
material is placed or moved, requires a grading permit.
Prior to occupancy and/or beginning actual use of this
permit, a grading permit and approval of the grading shall
be obtained from the SullYing and Safety Department.
Provide verification
permitted and approval
Buildi-g and Safety.
that the existing grading was
to construct was obtained from the
___g. The Grading Section has no comment on this site.
NOTE:
For the final grading plan - Please provide the applicable
information from County Grading Forms ~8~-86
~ev. 3/89
RI ~
CudNTY OF RIVERSIDE
Department of Building and Safety
Please refer to the following comments when submitting a
plan for plan review by the Grading Section.
S
11.
X
~_17.
=X,_18 -
19.
grading
Please refer to department forms 284-86, 284-120, 284-21
and 24-46 for applicable information to include on your
grading plans.
In orde~ to issue a grading permit, the following items
w~l~.be neededat the plan review stage. Obtain a plan review permit.
X b. Provide 2 copies of the Preliminary Soils
Report.
Provide a copy of the hydrologic-hydraulic
study.
Provide clearance
departments.
letters from the following
Planning
Flood Contgol
~~ Department
r FI~E
e. Provide a set of the Planning Department
conditions of approval on the approved case.
.. f. Provide an erosion control plan, prepared by
a licensed landscape architect, for plan
review, permit, and bonding.
Submit 5 copies of the grading plan for distribution and
review.
Refer to any specific plan related to this project·
This property is located in the Rancho California
Potential Subsidence area. Per Board Resolution 88-61,
additional geotechnical information is required.
Observe slope setbacks from permit areas and structures
per section 7011 and figure 29-1 of the UniformBuilding
Code as modified by Ordinance 457.
Driveway grades shall be 15% or less.
Show.street and pad elevations~ --Insure that a.1% grade
(~inQ can be'maintained from back of pad to street.
eslgn V-ditches at top of elopes to handle the Q-100
year storm flow.
Provide recorded drainage easements for the proposed lot
to lot drainage.
Show the Q-100 year storm flows at the
of all drainage facilities.
Provide building footprint on all lots.
Design each lot to drain separately.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit,
inlet and outlet
projects having
an imbalance between cut and fill shall specify the
location of their import or export source.
Show all slopes to scale, including terrace and setbacks.
Proposed off-site grading will require written notarized
permission from the affected property owner.
No obstruction or diversion of natural water courses
shall be permitted.
Provide sufficient offsite topography to show this
projects compatibility with adjacent properties.
Verify any underlying grading was permitted and approved
to construct there on.
Administrative Center · 1777 Atlanta Avenue
Riverside, CA 92507
March 8, 1990
MAR 1 1990
Riverside County Planning Department
Attention: Jeff Adams
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
R!v~i~iDE COUNTY
PLA, NNiN6~ OEPARTMENT
RE: Parcel Map 23969, Amended Map No. 1
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety
has the following comments and conditions:
The developer shall obtain Planning Department approval for
all on-site and off-site signage advertising the sale of
the parcel map pursuant to Section 19.5 of Ordinance 348.
Sincerely,
Vaughn' SaWn
Land Use Technician
/sn
Administration (714) 682-8840 · (714) 787-2020
OFFICE OF ROAD COMMISSIONER 8~ COUNTY SURVEYOR
April 2, 1990
Riverside County Planning Conunission
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
Ladies and Gentlemen=
COUN'I'~ ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER
MAILING ADDRESS:
RO. BOX 1090
PM 23969 - Amend #1
Schedule E - Team 5 SMD #9
AP #111-111-111-9
With respect to the conditions of approval for the
referenced tentative land division map, the Road Department
reconunends that the landdivider provide the following street
improvements, street improvement plans and/or road dedications in
accordance with Ordinance 460 and Riverside County Road
In~)rovemant Standards (Ordinance 461). It is understood that the
tentative map correctly shows acceptable centerline elevations,
all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses with
appropriate Q's, and that their omission or unacceptability may
require the map to be res-~itted for further consideration.
These Ordinances and the following conditions are essential parts
and a requirement occurring in ONE is as binding as though
occurring in all. They are intended to be complementary and to
describe the conditions for a complete design of the improvenent.
All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall
he referred to the Road Commissioner's Office.
The landdivider shall protect downstream properties from
damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns,
i.e., concentration of diversion of flow. Protection
shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage
facilities including enlarging existing facilities and/
or by securing a drainage easement. All drainage
easements shell be shown on the final map and noted as
followsx "Drainage Easement - no building, obstructions,
or enoroachments by land fills are allowed". The
protection shall be as approved by the Road Department.
The landdivider shall accept and properly dispose of all
offsite drainage flowing onto or through the site· In the
event the Road ConNnissioner permits the use of streets for
drainage purposes, the provisions of Article XI of
Ordinance No. 460 will apply. Should the quantities exceed
the street capacity or the use of streets be prohibited for
drainage purposes, the subdivider shall provide adequate
drainage facilities as approved by the Road Department.
COUNTY ,M)M1NISTRATIVE CEN It. K · 4080 LEMON STREET * RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
A~969 - Amend #1
1990
' pril 2,
Page 2
PuJol Street shall be improved with concrete curb and
gutter located 20 feet frc~ centerline and match up asphalt
concrete paving~ reconstruction~ or resurfacing of existing
paving as determined by the Road Comm~ssioner within a 60
feet full width dedicated right of way in accora~nce with
County Standard No. 104, Section A. or as · appreved by the
Road Department.
Kathleen Way shall be improved with 34 feet of asphalt
concrete pavement within a 45 foot part width dedicated
right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 111·
Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile
extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project
boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the
Riverside County Road Commissioner. Completion of road
improvements does ~t imply acceptance for maintenance by
County.
A standard offset cul-de-sac shall be constructed on PuJol
Street within the landdivision.
Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less
than fourteen days following placement of the asphalt
surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon par
square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section 37,
39 and 94 of the State Standard Specifications.
The applicant shall provide CC&R's to insure access to all
parcels.
The maximum centerline gradient and the minimum centerline
radii shall be in conforma~=e with County Standard #114 of
Ordinance 461.
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed throughout the
landdivision in accordance with County Standard No. 400 and
401 (curb sidewalks) as appreved by the Road Commissioner.
Prior to the recordation of the 'ffnal map, the developer
shall deposit with the Riverside County Road Department, a
cash sum of $1,750.00 per gross acre as mitigation for
traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to
defer the time of payment, a written agreement maybe
entered into with the County deferring said payment to the
t/me of issuance of a building permit.
12. Electrical and communications trenches shall be provided in
accordance with Ordinance 461, Standard 817.
PM 28969 - Amend #1
· April 2, 1990
Page 3
3.
5.
8.
9.
Lot access shall be restricted on PuJol Street and so noted
on the final amp.
Landdivisions creating cut or fill slopes adjacent to the
streets shall provide erosion control and sight distance
control as approved by the Road Department.
The street design and improvement concept of this project
shall be ceerdinstedwith PM 18254.
Street lighting shall be required in accordance with
Ordinance 460 and 461 throughout the subdivision. The
County Service Area (CSA) Administrator determines whether
this proposal qualifies under an existing assessment
district or not. If not, the land owner shell file, after
receiving tentative ~pproval, for an application with LAFCO
for annexation into or creation of a "Lighting Assessment
District" in accordance with Governmental Code Section
56000. PRIOR TO ~CORDATION, the landowner shall receive
and provide a Certificate of Completion from LAFCO.
Any landscaping within public road rights of way shall
comply with Road Department standards and require approval
by the Road Con~nissioner and assurance of continuing
i
am ntenance through the establishment of a landscape
maintenance district/maintenance agreement or similar
mechanism as approved by the Road C~ssioner. Landscape
plans shell be submitted on standard County Plan sheet
format (24" x 36"). Landscape plans shall be submitted
with the street improvement plans and shall depict only
such landscaping, irrigation and related facilities as are
to be placed within the public road rights-of-way.
The applicant shall record CC&R's to provide access to
Parcels 2 and 3. Said CC&R's shall be subject to approval
by County Counsel and the Road Commissioner.
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.
Road Division Engineer
T:Jw
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Uo nty oi l vers cle
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
RIVERSIpE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT.
· atti Nahill
· ~~rt~ental Health Specialist IV
PARCEL MAP 23969 - SAN 53 Requirements
DATE: May 22, 1989
The Environmental Ilealth Services Division has reviewed tile tentative
map for this project and cannot make any recommendations until a
sanitation letter ]s filed. The requirements for a SAN 53 letter are
as follows:
1. A satisfactory soils percolation test to prove the
project feasible. .-
2. A clearance lettel' from the ap)~rol~rinte California
Regional Water Control Board.
3. Two copies of the tentative map.
4. A "will-serve" lettcr from tile agency/agencies
serving potable water.
Should the project be served sanit;sty sewer service, tills Department
would need only:
1. A "will-serve" letter from the agency/agencies serving
potable water and sanitary sewers.
2. One copy of the tcntntive map.
If the project is to be served water b)' existing wells, pumps and
water tanks, a water supp_ly permit will be required {contact tile
Environmental Ilealth Services IJivision, Engineering Sect)on at
787-6544). The requircmonts for n water supply permit are as follows:
Satisfactory laboratory tests (bacteriological. organic,
inorganic, ge.ernl ph)'slcal. nnd Rencrnl mineral) to
prove the w:iter potatlle.
A complete set of plans showing nil details of tile
proposed nud existi~lg water systems: sizes and types
of pipe nnd calctalntions showing that ndequnte quantity
and pressure can be maintained (California Waterworks
Stnmh, rds - Cali fornia Ileal th nml Safety Code nnd
California Administrative Code, Title 22). l'hese plans
must be signed by a registered civil engineer.
KENNETH L, EDWARDS lees MARKILT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Riverside County
Planning Department
County Administrative Center
Riverside, California 92501
Attention: Regional Team No. 5
Patti Nahill
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Re: Parcel Map 23969
This is a proposal to divide 21.56 acres into 4 lots in the
Temecula area. The site is located at the end of Kathleen Way
south of Rancho California Road.
Parcels 3 and 4 are proposed to drain to the storm drain located
northeast of this site. Parcels 1 and 2 are proposed to drain
east of the site. Offsite flows are to be collected in the con-
crete ditch in the southern most corner of the site. These pro-
posals appear to be consistent with the approved Parcel Map
19626-2.
Following are the District's recommendations:
This parcel map is located within the limits of the Mur-
rieta Creek/Murrieta Valley Area Drainage Plan for which
drainage fees have been adopted by the Board. Drainage
fees shall be paid as set forth under the provisions of
the "Rules and Regulations for Administration of Area
Drainage Plans", amended February 16, 1988:
Drainage fees shall be paid to the Road Commissioner
as part of the filing for record of the subdivision
final map or parcel map, or if the recording of a
final parcel map is waived, drainage fees shall be
paid as a condition of the waiver prior to recording
a certificate of compliance evidencing the waiver of
the parcel map; or
At the option of the land divider, upon filing a re-
quired affidavit requesting deferment of the payment
of fees, the drainage fees may be paid to the Build-
ing Director at the time of issuance of a grading
permit or building permit for each approved parcel,
whichever may be first obtained after the recording
of the subdivision final map or parcel map; provided
however, this option to defer the fees may not be
exercised for any parcel where grading or structures
have been initiated on the parcel within the prior 3
year period, or permits for either activity have been
issued on that parcel which remain active.
Riverside County
Planning Department
Re: Parcel Map 2969
- 2 - June 7, 1989
Onsite drainage facilities located outside of road right
of way should be contained within drainage easements
shown on the final map. A note should be added to the
final map stating, "Drainage easements shall be kept free
of buildings and obstructions".
A drainage easement should be obtained from the affected
property owners for the release of concentrated or di-
verted storm flows. A copy of the recorded drainage
easement should be submitted to the District for review
prior to the recordation of the final map.
A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final
map along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic cal-
culations should be submitted to the District via the
Road Department for review and approval prior to recorda-
tion of the final map. Grading plans should be approved
prior to issuance of grading permits.
Questions concerning this matter may be referred to Zully Smith
of this office at 714/787-1253.
c: Markham and Associates
4
Civil Engineer
ZS:seb
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
1995 MARKET STREET
P.O, BOX 1033
TELEPHONE (714) 7187-2015
FAX NO. (714) 788-996S
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92502
Riverside County
P]anntng Department
County Administrative Center
Riverside, California
Attention: Regional Team No.
/
Area: /,/~
We have reviewed this case and have the following comments:
Except for nuisance nature local runoff which may traverse portions of the
property the project is considered free from ordinary storm flood hazard.
However, a storm of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New construc-
tion should comply with all applicable ordinances.
The topography of the area consists of well defined ridges and natural water-
courses which traverse the property. There is adequate area outside of the
natural watercourses for building sites. The natural watercourses should be
kept free of buildings and obstructions in order to maintain the natural
drainage patterns of the area and to prevent flood damage to new buildings.
A note should be placed on an environmental constraint sheet stating, "All new
buildings shall be floodproofed by elevating the finished floors a minimum of
18 inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosion protection shall be provided
for mobile home supports."
drainage plan fees shall be paid in accordance with the applicable rules and
regulations.
The proposed zoning is consistent with existing flood hazards. Some flood
control facilities or floodproofing may be required to fully develop to the
implied density.
The District's report dated is still current for this project.
The District does not object to the proposed minor change.
/This project is a part of P~/~/~'=~_. The project will be
free of ordinary storm flood hazard when improvements ~ave been constructed in
accordance with approved plans.
The attached cor~ents apply.
)OHN H. KASHUBA
Senior Civil Engineer
DATE:
Ramtlng&~SO~ce
46-209 Oasis Street, Suite 405
Indio, CA 92201
(619) ]42-8886
TO:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ATTN: JEFF ADAMS
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIKE DEPA~TNENT ~
IN COOPERATION WITH THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
AND FIRE PROTECTION
~80 ~on Smt, S~[e llL
~vmide, G 92501
08 1990 e,4> 787-6~b
PARCEL MAP 23969 - AMENDED #1
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land division,
the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided
in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection
standards:
FIRE PROTECTION
The water mains shall be capable of providing a potential fire flow of 5000 GPM
and an actual fire flow available from any one hydrant shall be 2500 GPM for
hours duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure.
Approved super fire hydrants, (6"x4"x2-2~") shall be located at each street
intersection and spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction, with
no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet'from a fire hydrant.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the
Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location
and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall
be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company
with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system
is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire
Dept."
The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted
by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being
placed on an individual lot.
All questions regarding the meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the
Fire Department Planning and Engineering staff.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
Kurt Mantwell, Fire Safety Specialist
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
Backqround
1, Name o~ Pzoponent:
2, Address and Phone
l~wher of Proponent:
4.
5.
6,
Date of Environmental
Assesmnent:
Agency Requiring
Assessment:
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Location of P~uFOSal:
Omdahl EnterDrises
28275 Rancho California Road
Temecula, California 92390
June 22, 1990
CITY OF TEMECULA
Tentative Parcel Map # 23969
South of Kathleen Way
II
Environmental Impacts
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are provided on
attached sheets. )
Yes Maybe N_9o
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil?
Ce
Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features?
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils. either on or
or off site?
X
_L
BLANKIES/FORMS -1-
Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
Exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards such as earth
quakes, landslides, mudslldes,
ground failure, or similar hazards?
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air
quality?
The creation of objectionable
odors?
Alteration of air movement,
moisture, or temperature, or any
change in climate. whether locally
or regionally?
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial changes in currents. or
the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or
fresh waters?
Substantial changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
Discharge into surface waters, or
in any alteration of surface water
quality, including, but not limited
to, temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity?
Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow of ground waters?
Yes
Maybe
X
No
X
X
X
X
BLANKIES/FORMS -2-
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct addi-
tions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flood-
ing or tidal waves?
L~. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or number of any native species of
plants (including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare, or endangered species
of plants?
Introduction of new species of
plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
d. Substantial reduction in acreage
of any agricultural crop?
Animal Life. Will the proposal result
in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
{birds, land animals including rep-
tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms or insects)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals?
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildllfe habitat?
Yes
X
Maybe
No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
BLANKIES/FORMS -3-
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and Glare. Will the proposal
produce substantial new light or glare?
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
Substantial increase in the rate of
use of any natural resources?
Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource?
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal
involve:
11.
12.
13.
A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including,
but not limited to, oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
Possible interference with an emerg-
ency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan?
Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing or create a demand for
additional housing?
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
Yes
Maybe
X
No
X
X
B LA N K I ES/FOR MS
Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking?
Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic?
increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
Public Services. Will the proposal have
substantial effect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
Parks or other recreational
facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities.
including roads?
f. Other governmental services?
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
16.
Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy?
Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy.
or require the development of new
sources of energy?
Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
Yes
Maybe
No
X
X
X
X
BLANKIES/FORMS
-5-
17.
18.
19.
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
Human Health. Will the proposal
result in:
Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard l excluding
mental health)?
Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result
in the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to
public view?
Recreation. Will the proposal result in
an impact upon the quality or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities?
20. Cultural Resources.
Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object?
Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
Yes
Maybe
N_9
X III
X
B LA N K I ES/FORMS -6-
Yes Maybe No
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
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 or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehlstory?
Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environ-
mental goals? {A short-term
impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief.
definitive period of time while long-
term impacts will endure well into
the future. )
Does the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but cumu-
latively considerable? {A project's
impact on two or more separate
resources may be relatlvely small,
but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment
is significant. )
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substan-
tial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X
X
BLANKIES/FORMS -7-
Ill Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
B LA N K I ES/FORMS
-8-
ENVIRONMENTAL 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 signi-
ticant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi-
ticant effect in this case because the mitigation measures
described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of approval
have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required.
__31 ,],ly 1990
Date
For CITY OF TEMECULA
BLANKIES/FORMS -9-
:IiVE:I EDE COUNt.u
PI, NNE DEP, :I MEN
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (E.A.) NUMBER:
PROJECT CASE TYPE(s) AND NUMBERS(s): '~DAE%C--F'#
APPLICANT'S NAME: C~/~.4~L--
NAME OF PERSON(s) PREPARING E~..: :F~ NLB4H'I I. PROJECT INFORMATION
A. DESCRIPTION (include proposed minimum lot size and uses as applicable):
STANDARD EVALUATION
MODULE NUMBER(s): I IC/
B. TOTAL PROJECT AREA: ACRES .~--I, ~--~/~ ; or SQUARE FEET
C. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.(s): C~HO ' '~IC) '(~'lcj '/)eVD cl'~'tO -
D. EXISTING ZONING:
E. PROPOSED Z~)NING:
F. STREET REFERENCES:
Ge
IS THE PROPOSAL IN CONFORMANCE? __
IS THE PROPOSAL IN CONFORMANCE?
OF t<~,-%TT-4L-F__-F_4'-) WALl Af, JD 50,J-.TR
SECTION,.TOWNSHIP, RANGE DESCRIPTION OR A'I'FACH A LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SiTE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS:
~PABC_F_~_ HAP NO. iBZ~4. A
COIU~K__E~ A~ AIUD 'PF~---G,I [:~t, zFTA ~.- LAND U ~=-~-
B. COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION DESIGNATION
Check the appropriate option(s) below and proceed accordingly.
[] All or pert of the project site is in "Adopted Specific Plans," "REMAP' or "Rancho Villages Community
Policy Areas". Complete Sections III, IV (B and C only), V and VI.
~AII or pert of the project site is in "Ares Not Designated as Open Space". Complete Sections Ill, IV
(A, B and D only), V and VI.
[] All or pert of the project site has an Open Space and Conservation designation other than those mentioned
above. Complete Sections III, IV (A, B, and E only), V and VI.
IIll. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS AND RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
A. ~ndicatethenature~fthepr~p~sed~~ndu~e~sdetermlnedfr~mthedesc~pti~ns~sf~undinC~mprehensiv~G~nera~RanFigum
VI.3 (Circle One). This informatio~ is necessary to determine the appropriate land use suitability ratings in Section III.B.
NA - Not Applicable Critical Essential Normal-High Risk ~_ormaI-Low Ri~
B. ~ndicatewithayes(Y)~rne(N)whetheranyenvir~nmente~h~z~rd~nd/~rr~s~urceissuesmayalgnificant~ya~ect~rbea~ected
by the proposal. A/I referenced figures are contained in the Comprehensive General Plan. For any issue marked yes (Y) wdte
additional data sources, agencies consulted, findings of fact and any mitigation measures under Section V. Also, where indicated,
circle the appropriate land use Suitability or noise acceptability rating(s). (See definitions at bottom of this page).
HAZARDS
1. {4 Alquist-Pdolo Special Studies or County Fault 12./'J
Hazard Zones (Fig. Vl.1)
NA PS U R (Fig. VI.3)
2. i.{ Uquefaction Potential Zone (Fig. Vl.1)'b~ ~ C,~. 13. ~
NA S (~ U R (Fig. VL4)
3. ~ GroundshakingZone(FigVl.1) Cc-A~J5 ,"TF' 14. I~
NA ~ PS U R (Fig. VI.5)
4. Slopes (Riv. Co. 800 Scale Slope Maps) 15.
5- k] Landslide Risk Zone (Riv. Co. 800 Scale
Seismic Maps or On-site Inspection) 16.
~ S PS U R (Fig. VI.6)
6. ~ Rockfall Hazard (On-site Inspection) 17. J~
7. Id Expansive Soils (U.S.DA, Soil 18./%J
Conservation Service Soil Surveys) 19. ~
8. I,.( Erosion (U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation 20. N
Service Soil Surveys) 21. 1~
9. J~J Wind Ersosion & Blowsand (Fig. VI.1, 22..JJ_.
Ord. 460, Sac. 14.2 & Ord. 484) 23. rJ
10. I,J Dam Inundation Area (Fig. VI.7) 24. ~
11./'J Floodplains (Fig. VI.7) 25.
~ U R (Fig. VI.8)
Airport Noise (Fig. 11.18.5, 11.18.11
& V1.12 & 1984 AICUZ Report, M.A.F.B.)
(~) A B C D (Fig, V1.11)
·. Railroad Noise (Fig. VL13 - VI. 16)
(~ A B C D (Fig, V1.11)
Highway Noise (Fig. V1.17 - VI.29)
~) A B C D (Fig, V1.11)
Other Noise
NA A B C D (Fig, V1.11)
Project Generated Noise Affecting
Noise Sensitive Uses (Fig. VI.11 )
Noise Sensitive Project (Fig. VI. 11 )
.. Air Quality Impacts From Project
Project Sensitive to Air Quality
.. Water Quality Impacts From Project
.. Project Sensitive to Water Quality
Hazardous Materials and Wastes
Hazardous Fire Ares (Fig. VI.30 - VI.31)
other ~r~P~'~ID~=-/'JC-~-, ~
Other
RESOURCES
26. Id Agriculture (Fig. VI.34 - VI.35) 32./~
27. N In or Near an Agricultural Preserve 33./J
(Riv. Co, Agricultural Land Conversation 34. I4
Contract Maps)
Wildlife (Fig. VI.36 - %/I.37)
Vegetation (Fig. VI.38 - VI.40)
Mineral Resources (Fig. VI.41 - VI.42)
Energy Resources (Fig. %/I.43 - VI.44)
Scenic Highways (Fig. VI.45)
Histodc Resources (Fig. VI.32 - VI.33)
Archaeological Resources :PD ~r/5
(Fig. VI.32 - VI.33 & VI.46 - VI.48)
35. I,f Paleontological Resources
(Paleontological Resources Map)
36. . Other
37. Other
Definitions for Land Use Suitability end Noise Acceptability Ratings
NA - NOt Applicable S - Generally Suitable PS - Provisionally Suitable
U - Generally Unsuitable R - Restricted A - Generally Acceptable
B - COnditionally Acceptable C - Generally Unacceptable D - Land Usa Discouraged
395-70 (New ~ 2/e7) 2
N. LAND USE DETERMINATION
A. Complete this pad unless the projed is located in "Adopted Specific Plans", "REMAP" or "Rancho
Villages Community Policy Areas."
1. OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION MAP DESIGNATION(s):
6. COMMUNITY ATI I
7. SUMMARY OF POLICIES AFFECTING PROPOSAl'
B. F~ra~~pr~jeds~inIdcatewithayes(Y)~rn~(N)whetheranypub~icfaci~itiesand/~rservi~esiesuesmaysignificant~yaffect
or be affected by the proposal. All referenced figures are contained in the Comprehensive General Plan. For any issue
marked yes (Y), write data sources, agencies consulted, findings of fact, and mitigation measures under Section V.
PUBUC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
1. Circulation (Fig. IV. 1-IV.11. Discuss in
Sec. V Existing, Planned & Required Roads)
2. ~J Bike Trails (Fig. IV. 12 - IV.13)
3. Water (Agency Letters)
4. Sewer (Agency Letters)
5. Fire Services (Fig. IV.16 - IV.18)
6. t'J Sheriff Services (Fig IV.17 - IV. 18)
7/"'J Sehods (Fig. IV.17 - IV. 18)
8.___ Solid Waste (Fig. IV.17 - IV.18)
9./'J Parks and Recreation (Fig. IV.19 - IV.20)
10,/%(
Equestrian Trails (Fig. IV. 19 - IV.24/
Riv. Co. 800 Scale Equestrian Trail Maps)
11. N Utilities (Fig. IV.25 * IV.26)
12. I,J Librades(Fig. W.17-1V. 18)
13. kJ Health Services (Fig. IV.17 - IV. 18)
14. f4 Airports (Fig. 11.18.2 - 11.18.4,
IL18.8 - 11.18.10 & IV.27 * IV.36)
15. Id Disaster Preparedness
16. J'J City Sphere of Influence
17. Other
C. If all or part of the project is located in "Adopted Specific Plans", "REMAP" or "Rancho Villages Community Policy
Areas", review in detail the apecffic policies applying to the proposal, and complete the following:
1. State the relevant land use designation(s):
2. Based o~ this initial study, is the proposal consistant with the policies and designations of the appropriate document,
and therefore consistant with the Comprehensive General Plan? If not, explain:
IV. LAND USE DETERMINATION (continued)
D. If etl or parl of the project site Is in "Areas not Designated as Open Space", end is not in a Community Plan, complete
questions 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7. Complete questions 4, 5, 6 and 7 if it is in a Community Plen.
1. Land use cetegory(les) necessary to support the proposed project. Also indicate land use type
(i.e. residential, commercial, etc.) C/~T'EC--iOF~Lf ~
Current lend use cetegory(les) for the site based on existing conditions.
(i.e. residential, commercial, etc.) Cr~.TE-:G-~j~ ~
Also indicate land use type
3. if D.1 differs from D.2, will the difference be resolved at the development stage? Explain:
4. Community Plen designation(s):
5. Is the proposed project consistent with the policies end designations of the Community Plan?
If not, explain:
6. Is the proposal compatible with exIsting end proposed surrounding land uses?
ff not, explain:
7. Based on this initial study, Is the proposal consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan?
ff not, reference by Section and Issue Number those iesces identifying inconsistencIes:
E. If all or pad of the project site Is in en Open Space end Conservation designation, complete the following:
1. State the designation(s):
2. Is the proposal consistent with the designation(s)? If not, explain:
3. Based on this initial study, Is the proposil consieent with the Comprehensive General Plan?
If not, reference by Section end Issue Number those issues identifying inconsistencies:
295-70 (New 12/87) 4
V. INFORMATION SOURCES, FINDINGS OF FACT AND MITIGATION MEASURES
A. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED BEFORE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CAN BE COMPLETED:
DATE DATE ADEQUACY
SECTION/ INFORMATION INFORMATION INFORMATION DETERMINATION
ISSUE NO. REQUIRED REQUESTED RECEIVED (YES/NO,DATE)
f
B. For each issue marked yes (Y) under Sections III.B and IV.B, identify the Section and issue number and do the
following, in the format as shown below:
1. List all additional relevant data sources, including agencies consulted.
2. State all findings of fact regarding environmental cencems.
3. State specific mitigation measures, if identifiable without requiring an environmental impact report (E.LR.)
4. If additional information is required before the environmental assessment Can be completed, refer to
Subsection A.
5. If additional sheets are needed to complete this section, check the box at the end of the section and attach
the necessary sheets.
SECTION/
ISSUE NO.
SOURCES, AGENCIES CONSULTED, FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MEASURES:
295-70 (New 12/87) 5
V. INFORMATION SOURCES, FINDINGS OF FACT AND MITIGATION MEASURES (continued)
SECTION/
ISSUE NO. SOURCES, AGENCIES CONSULTED, FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MEASURES:
[] See attached pages.
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DETERMINATION:
[] The project will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration may be
prepared.
(or)
[] The project could have a significant effect on the environment; however, there will not be a significant
effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in Section V have been applied to the
project and a Negative Declaration may be prepared.
(or)
[] The project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report
is required.
Name; Date:
Prepared by
295-70 (New 12/87) 6
ITEM #7
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 20, 1990
Case No.: Plot Plan No. 11621
Recommendation: Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
The Koll Company
REPRESENTATIVE:
Markham S Associates
PROPOSAL:
Construction of a 116,368 square foot
industrial business park. This proposal is
Phase II of a larger industrial park that
currently exists. The combined floor area of
Phase I and II is 195,272 square feet.
LOCATION:
Westerly of Ynez Road and northerly of
Winchester Road
EXISTING ZONING:
I-P (Industrial Park)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North: I-P
South: I-P
East: I-P
West: Interstate 15
SURROUNDING LAND USE:
North: Vacant
South: Vacant
East: Vacant
West: Interstate 15
BACKGROUND:
The application for Plot Plan 11621 was
originally submitted to the Riverside County
Planning Department on November 27, 1989.
The proposal was reviewed by the Riverside
County Land Division Committee on three
separate occasions; December 21, 1989,
March 15, 1990, and May 1LL 1990. Minor
revisions to Plot Plan 11621 were requested at
the May 1~,, 1990 Land Division Committee
meeting. On May 18, 1990, the file was
transferred to the City of Temecula.
STAFFRPT\PP11621
ANALYSIS:
Area Settinq
The majority of the site was previously
graded as part of a mass grading effort for
the business park. The western most portion
of the site, where buildings "D" and "E" are
proposed, will still require grading. A
drainage easement currently exists in this
area as illustrated in the northwest corner of
the site plan. The existing landscaped slope
adjacent to Interstate 15 will not be affected.
The concrete drainage swales at the foot of
this slope will also remain, diverting water
run-off from Interstate 15.
Circulation/Traffic
The City's Engineering Department reviewed
the Traffic Study which was transferred from
the County with the case file and an update
was requested of the applicant~s Traffic
Engineer. The updated information clarified
all of the items addressed in the original
report. The City~s Engineering Department
is satisfied with the updated report and
agrees with the findings. Conditions of
Approval for Plot Plan 11621 have been
included which will mitigate the traffice
impacts of the project.
Parkinq/Internal Circulation
The proposed project ( Phase )1 ) will generate
273 parking spaces; the site plan proposes
317 spaces. The total project, including
Phases I and I I, will provide 5~,5 spaces. The
parking code requires 501 spaces for the
project.
Access to the site will be provided by three
driveways on Ynez Road. The internal site
circulation plan provides adequate space to
comfortably drive through the project and
park.
Architectural Compatibility
The proposed exterior elevations of Buildings
D - H are consistent in materials and style
with existing Buildings A - C. The materials
used will include a combination of sandblasted
concrete tilt-ups and glass. Panels will be a
GENERAL PLAN/
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
neutral grey color accented with green paint
and tenant identification signs, The existing
buildings and landscaping are well
maintained.
The project site is designated L-1 (General
Light Industrial) by the Southwest Area
Plan. The proposed project is consistent
with the general policies for industrial uses.
It is anticipated that the project, as
conditioned, will be consistent with the City's
forthcoming General Plan.
An initial study has been completed for the
project and a Negative Declaration is
recommended for the proposal.
FINDINGS:
Site Approval
The proposed use will not have a substantial
adverse effect on abutting property or the
permitted use thereof. The use will not
generate excessive noise, vibration, traffic
or other disturbances.
The site for the proposed use has adequate
access ·
The proposed project will not inhibit or
restrict future ability to use active or passive
solar energy systems.
The project will not have a significant
adverse effect on the environment.
There is a reasonable probability that the
project will be consistent with the General
Plan once it is adopted, based on analysis in
the staff report.
There is a probability that the project will not
deter, or interfere with the future adopted
General Plan if the proposed use is ultimately
inconsistent with the new General Plan.
These findings are supported by staff
analysis, minutes, maps, exhibits, and
environmental documents associated with this
application and hereln incorporated by
reference.
3
The lawful conditions stated in the approval
are deemed necessary to protect the public
health, safety and general welfare.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for PP
11621, and APPROVE PP 11621, Request for
Site Approval, based on the analysis and
findings contained in the Staff Report and
subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
DP:ks
Attachments:
1. Exhibits
2. Conditions of Approval
3. Initial Study
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Conditions of Approval
Plot Plan No. 11621
Cou nci l Approval Date:
Ex pi ration Date:
Planninq Department
This project shall comply with the provisions of State law and the City
Development Code. This conditional approval shall expire in three (3) years,
unless otherwise extended pursuant to the provisions of applicable State law
and local ordinance.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the following agencies shall provide
verification to the Building and Safety Department that all pertinent
Conditions of Approval and applicable have been met:
A. Planning Department
B. Temecula Union School District
C. Fire District
D. Engineering Department
E. Rancho California Water District
F. Department of Building and Safety
G. Riverside County Department of Environmental Health Services { DEHS ).
This project must comply with all Conditions of Approval for Tentative Parcel
Map No. 19677.
Architectural elevations of all proposed structures shall be submitted for
review and approval by the Planning Department prior to issuance of building
permits. The elevations shall substantially conform to those submitted
November 27, 1989.
A detailed landscaping and irrigation plan, prepared by a qualified
professional, shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and
approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
STAFFRPT\PP11621
11.
12.
13.
All site amenities, including landscaping and irrigation, as shown on plans
approved by the Planning Department, shall be installed prior to issuance of
the Certificate of Occupancy. Landscaping shall utilize drought
tolerant/desert-appropriate landscaping wherever feasible.
The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense, any action brought
against the City, its agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance
of such approval, or, in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The
applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers or employees for any
Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents officers or
employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The
City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense
of any such action, but such participation shall not relieve the applicant of his
obligations under this condition.
Applicant shall submit the site plan as approved by the Planning Department
to the Department of Building and Safety concurrent with application for
building permits.
All parking stalls shall be clearly striped and permanently maintained with
double or hairpin lines on the surface of the facility.
Any lights used to illuminate the site shall be designed so as to reflect away
from adjoining properties and public thoroughfares. All street lights and
other outdoor lighting shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County
Ordinance No. 655 and the Southwest Area Plan.
Signs shall be reviewed under separate application.
All necessary permits shall be obtained from the Riverside County Department
of Health Services prior to Certificate of Occupancy.
During the grading process of the site, a paleontologist shall be present to
supervise the grading and determine the significance of any unearthed
paleontologlcal resources. If resources are dlscovered, all grading shall cease
until a determination of the find is made by the paleontologist.
If cultural resources are encountered during grading, the resources and site
shall be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist.
Enqineerinq Department
15.
The developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act,
and all applicable City ordinances and resolutions.
16.
All site plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and street
improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency with approved plans.
17.
The developer shall submit four It) prints of a comprehensive grading plan
to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform
Building Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these
18.
19.
20.
21.
~2.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 24"x36" mylar by a
Registered Civil Engineer.
If grading is to take place between the months of October and April, erosion
control plans will be required. Erosion control plans and notes shall be
submitted and approved by the Engineering Department.
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the City Engineer based
on the recommendations of the Riverside County Flood Control District.
Except for nuisance nature local run-off, which may traverse portions of the
property, the project is considered free from ordinary storm flood hazard;
however, a storm of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New
construction should comply with all applicable ordinances.
All concentrated drainage directed toward the public street shall be diverted
through the undersidewalk drains.
The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of
building permits.
All work done within the City right-d-way shall have an encroachment permit.
A permit shall be required from CalTrans for any work within CalTrans right-
of-way.
The developer shall submit four {4) copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The
charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits.
If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to
this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the
Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for
traffic signal impact.
If a fair and equitable share of the developer's cost of transportation
improvements has not been determined at the time a Certificate of Occupancy
is needed, the developer shall be required to deposit $10,000 into a City
established Road Benefit Fund. The developer is also required to sign an
agreement with the City to either pay an amount or receive a refund equal to
the difference between his estimated fair share and the amount of deposit with
the City.
Prior to occupancy, a signing and striping plan shall be designed by a
registered traffic engineer, and approved by the City Engineer, for all
streets and shall be included in the street improvement plans.
30. Prior to occupancy, Ynez Road shall be dedicated, or right-of-way shown to
exist to 50 feet from centerline.
31.
Prior to occupancy, all signing and striping shall be installed per the City
standards and the approved signing and striping plan.
32.
At the discretion of the Traffic Engineer, left turn restrictions may be
imposed at any or all of the dlrveway access points as deemed necessary for
safety reasons, based on future traffic volumes.
Fire District
33.
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings using the procedure established in
Ordinance 5q6.
Provide or show there exlsts a water system capable of delivering 3500 GPM
for a 3 hour duration at 20 PSi residual operating pressure, which must be
available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
35.
A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants, on a looped system
(6" x ~," x 2 1/2 x 2 1/2), will be located not less that 25 feet or more than 165
feet from any portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular
travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent
hydrant(s) in the system.
36.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the
Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types,
location and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements.
Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local
water company with the following certification: "l certify that the design of
the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the
Riverside County Fire Department."
37.
The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in the permit process
to reflect changes in design, construction type, area separation or built-in
fire protection measures.
38°
Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings requiring a fire flow
of 1500 GPM or greater. The post indicator valve and fire department
connection shall be located to the front, within 50 fee of a hydrant, and a
minimum of 25 feet from the building{ s) . A statement that the building{ s) will
be automatically fire sprlnklered must be included on the title page of the
building plans.
Buildinq and Safety
39.
A preliminary soils report shall be filed with and approved by the building
official prior to issuance of building permits.
Grading plans are to be submitted to and approved by the Department of
Building and Safety.
A pre-construction inspection and permit is required prior to any land
disturbance activity to verify requirements for erosion and sediment control,
flood hazard and native plant protection and management.
Rancho California Water District
The water purveyor shall be Rancho California Water District.
Sewer Collection and disposal shall be by Eastern Municipal Water District.
Temecula Union School District
This project is subject to State law requirements for school impact mitigation.
U. S. Postal Service
The United States Postal Service encourages that the final map shall show
easements or other mapped provisions for the placement of centralized mail
delivery units. Specific locations for such units shall be to the satisfaction
of the Postal Service and the Public Works Department.
Riverside County Department of Environmental Health Services
"Will-serve" letters from water and sewer agencies are required prior to
building plan approval.
If there are to be any food establishments, three complete sets of plans for
each food establishment will be submitted including a fixture schedule, a
finish schedule and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with
the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law.
If there are to be any hazardous materials, a clearance letter from the
Environmental Health Services Hazardous Materials Management Branch { Jon
Mohoroski, 358-5055), will be required indicating that the project has been
cleared for:
A. Underground storage tanks.
B. Hazardous Waste Generator Services.
C. Hazardous Waste Disclosure lin accordance with AB 2185).
D. Waste reduction management.
California Department of Transportation
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall submit a copy of
Conditions of Approval and Grading and Drainage Plans to CaITrans.
5
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
II
Backqround
1, Na~e of Proponent:
Koll Business Cont~r Ranchn California
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
7330 Engineer Road
SaN Diego. CA 92111-1404
(619) 292-5550
Date of Enviror~entel
Assessment:
6-12-90
4. Agency Requiring
Assessment:
CITY OF TENECULA
Na~e of Proposal,
if applicable:
PP 11621
6. Location of Proposal:
Westerly of Ynez Road and Northerly of
Winchester Road
Environmental Impacts
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are provided on
attached sheets. )
Ye.s Maybe N_9o
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
be
Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil?
X
Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features?
X
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
X
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on or
or off site?
BLANKIES/FORMS -1-
Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
Exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards such as earth
quakes, landslides, mudslides,
ground failure, or similar hazards?
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air
quality?
The creation of objectionable
odors?
Alteration of air movement,
moisture, or temperature, or any
change in climate, whether locally
or regionally?
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial changes in currents, or
the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or
fresh waters?
Substantial changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
Discharge into surface waters, or
in any alteration of surface water
quality, including, but not limited
to, temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity?
Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow of ground waters?
Yes
Maybe
No
X
X
X
X
X
X
BLANKIES/FORMS °2-
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct addi-
tions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flood-
ing or tidal waves?
~4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or number of any native species of
plants {including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare, or endangered species
of plants?
Introduction of new species of
plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
Substantial reduction in acreage
of any agricultural crop?
Animal Life. Will the proposal result
in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
[birds, land animals including rep-
tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms or insects)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals?
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
Yes
X
Maybe
.No
X
X
X
X
BLANKIES/FORMS
-3-
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and Glare. Will the proposal
produce substantial new light or glare?
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
Substantial increase in the rate of
use of any natural resources?
Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource?
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal
involve:
11.
13.
A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including,
but not limited to, oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
Possible interference with an emerg-
ency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan?
Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing or create a demand for
additional housing?
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
at
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
Yes
Maybe
X
X
X
N._9o
X
X
X
X
X
BLANKIES/FORMS
b. Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking?
c. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
lu,. Public Services. Will the proposal have
substantial effect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational
facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
f. Other governmental services?
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy?
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
Yes
X
X
X
Maybe
X
No
X
X
X
BLANKIES/FORMS
-5-
17o
18.
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
Human Health. Will the proposal
result in:
Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health)?
Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result
in the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to
public view?
Recreation. Will the proposal result in
an impact upon the quality or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities?
20. Cultural Resources.
Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object?
Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
Yes
Maybe
X
N...2o
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
BLANKIES/FORMS -6-
Yes Maybe N..9o
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
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 or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environ-
mental goals? (A short-term
impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief,
definitive period of time while long-
term impacts will endure well into
the future. )
Does the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but cumu-
latively considerable? (A project's
impact on two or more separate
resources may be relatively small,
but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment
is significant. )
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substan-
tial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X
X
BLA N K I ES/FORMS -7-
III Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
See Attached County Evaluation
BLANKIESIFORMS -8-
ENVIRONMENTAL 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 · slgni-
ticant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi-
ficant effect In this case because the mitigation measures
described on attached sheets and In the Conditions of approval
have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WiLL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have e significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL iMPACT REPORT Is
required.
24 July 1990
Date
For CITY OF TEMECULA
BLANKIES/FORMS
-9-
:IiVE:DiDE COUnt.u
PL nnin DEP :I filEII
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (E~,.) NUMBER: ~ ~--/-z/7_.. MODULE NUMBER(s):
PROJECT CASE TYPE(s) AND NUMBERS(s): 1C)F:> [ / (j~2-- ~
APPLICANTS NAME: ~1/~' F2~'~ii~JB~'~ ~s-P'~,TT'~--~
NAME OF PERSON(s) PREPARING E jr: ~-/~C)~'i~"~
STANDARD EVALUATION
I. PROJECT INFORMATION
A. DESCRIPTION (include proposed minimum lot size and uses as .applicable):
B. TOTAL PROJECT AREA: ACRES I :~, 7y ; or SQUARE FEET
C. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.(s):
D. EXISTING ZONING: ---~
E. PROPOSED ZO, NING: 'T'- ~
F. STREET REFERENCES: ~::Z~?" ~t~(~.:
IS THE PROPOSAL IN CONFORMANCE?
IS THE PROPOSAL IN CONFORMANCE? "~/'~
f4ki ' '3q5'- orTNC r T- .
G. SECTION, TOWNSHIP, RANGE DESCRIPTION OR ATTACH A LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ~'~--
H. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS:
II. COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION DESIGNATION
Check the appropriate option(s) below and proceed accordingly.
[] All or part of the project site is in "Adopted Specific Plans," "REMAP" or "Rancho Villages Community
Policy Areas". Complete Sections III, IV (B and C only), V and VI.
5;~11 or pad of the project site is in "Areas Not Designated as Open Space". Complete Sections III, IV
(A, B and D only), V and VI.
[] All or part of the project site has an Open Space and Conservation designation other than those mentioned
above. Complete Sections III, IV (A, B, and E only), V and VI.
295-70 (New 12187) I
IIll. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS AND RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
A. ~ndica~ethenatur~~fthepr~p~s~d~andu~e~sdeterm~n~dfr~mthedescr~pti~ns~sf~undinC~mprehens~veGener~~P~anFigure
VI.3 (Circle One). This information is necessary to determine the appropriate land use suitability ratings in Section Ill. B.
NA - Not Applicable Critical E__m~m_,tial Normal-High Risk Normal-Low Risk
B. Indicate with a yes (Y) or no (N) whether any environmental hazard and/or resource issues may signiftcanUy affect or be affected
by the proposal. All referenced figures are contained in the Comprehensive ~ Ran. Fo~ any issue marked yes (Y) write
additional data sources, agencies consulted, findings of fact and any mitigation mures under Section V. Also, where indicated,
circle the appropriate land use Suitability or noise acceptability rating(s). (See definitions at bottom of this page).
HAZARDS
1. rJ Alquist-Pdofo Special Studies or County Fault 12. AJ Airport Noise (Fig. 11.18.5, I1.18.11
Hazard ZOnes (Fig. VI.1 ) & V1.12 & 1984 AICUZ Report, M.A.F.B.)
NA PS U R (Fig. VI.3) ~,/ NA A B C D (Fig, VL 11 )
2. t/ Licluefaction Potential Zone (Fig. VI.1 ) 13. Railroad Noise (Fig. VI.13 * VI.16)
NA S PS U R (Fig. VI.4) NA A B C D (Fig, VI. 11 )
3. f'j Groundshaking Zone (Fig VI.1 ) 14. ~/Highwa Noise (Fig. V1.17 - VI.29)
NA S PS U R (Fig. VLS) (~ r~oi2 C D (Fig, V1.11)
· s,o.es <R,v. co. 800 S.,e Sto. e M slt 5.e
.__ Landslide Risk Zone (Riv. Co. 800 Scale
Seismic Maps or On-site lnspection) 16./'J NA A B C D (Fig, V1.11)
Project Generated Noise Affecting
6./~J NA S PS U R (Fig. VL6) Noise Sensitive Uses (Fig. VI.11 )
Reckfall Hazard (On-site Inspection) 17. hJ Noise Sensitive Project (Fig. VI.11)
7./~ Expansive Soils (U.S.D.A. Soil 18. t%/ Air Quality lmpacts From Project
8. ~J Conservation Service Soil Surveys) 19. N Project Sensitive to Air Quality
Erosion (U.S.D.A. Soil COnservation 20. h/Water Quality Impacts From Project
Service Soil Surveys) 21. h/ Project Sensitive to Water Quality
9. ~J Wind Ersosion & Blowsand (Fig. VL1, 22. f'J Hazardous Materials and Wastes
Ord. 460, Sac. 14.2 & Ord. 484) 23. )',} Hazardous Fire Area (Fig. VI.30 - VI,31 )
Dam Inundation Area (Fig. VI.7) 24. Other
Floodplains (Fig. VI,7) 25. Other
NA U R (Fig. VI.8)
26./'J
28.
RESOURCES
Agriculture (Fig. VI.34 - VI.35)
In or Near an Agricultural Preserve
(Riv. Co. Agricultural Land Conversation
Contract Maps)
Wildlife (Fig. VI.36 - VI.37)
Vegetation (Fig. VI.38 · VI.40)
Mineral Resources (Fig. VI.41 - VI.42)
Energy Resources (Fig. VI.43 - VI.44)
32. Y/
33
35. fiJ
36.
37.
Scenic Highways (Fig. VI.45)
Historic Resources (Fig. VI.32 - V1.33)
Archaeological Resources
(Fig. VI.32 - VI.33 & VI.46 - VI.48)
Paleontological Resources
(Paleontological Resources Map)
Other
Other
Definitions for Land Use Suitability End Noise Acceptability Ratings
NA - Not Applicable S - Generally Suitable PS - Provisionally Suitable
U - Generally Unsuitable R - Restricted A - Generally Acceptable
B - Conditionally Acceptable C - Generally Unacceptable D - Land Use Discouraged
395-70 (New 12/87) 2
N. LAND USE DETERMINATION
A. Complete this ~ unless the project is located In "Adopted Specific Plans", "REMAP" or "Rancho
Villages Community Policy Areas."
1. OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION MAP DESIGNATION(s): .~ t,,I C_TT'
2. LAND USE PLANNING AREA: '~"~ E~-~T' ""~t~'c~
3. SUBAREA, IF ANY:
4. COMMUNITY POLICY AREA, IF ANY:
5. COMMUNITY PLAN, IFANY:
6. COMMUNITY PLAN DESIGNATION(s), IF ANY: Z.--i_
7. SUMMARY OF POLICIES AFFECTING PROPOSAl'
B. F~ra~~pr~jects~inidcatewithayes(Y)~rn~(N)whetheranypub~icfaci~itlesand/~r~ervicesis~uesmaysignificant~ya~e~t
or be affected by the proposal. All referenced figures are contained in the Comprehensive General Plan. For any issue
marked yes (Y), write data sources, agencies consulted, findings of fad, and mitigation measures under Sealion V.
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Circulation (Fig. IV.l-IV.11. Discuss in
Sec. V Existing, Planned & Required Roods)
2. J~j Bike Trails (Fig. IV. 12-1V. 13)
3~. Water (Agency Letters)
4.._~_ Sewer (Agency Letters)
5.__L_ Fire Services (Fig. IV.16 - IV.18)
6. ~ji Shedff Services (Fig IV.17 - IV. 18)
7 tJ Schods (Fig, IV.17 - IV. 18)
8'''~'' Sdid Waste (Fig. IV.17 - IV. 18)
9.~ Parks and Recreation (Fig. IV.19- IV.20)
10./V Equestrian Trails (Fig. IV. 19 - IV.24/
Riv. Co. 800 Scale Equestrian Trail Maps)
11./J Utilities (Fig. IV.25 - IV.26)
12./'%/: Libraries (Fig. IV.17 - IV. 18)
13./%) Health Services (Fig. IV. 17 - IV. 18)
14. t~'/Airports (Fig. 11.18.2 - 11.18.4,
fi.18.8 - 11.18.10 & IV.27 - IV.36)
15._~ Disaster Preparedness
16. ~' City Sphere of Influence
17. jl,/ Other
C. If all or pad of the project is located in "Adopted Specific Plans", "REMAP" or "Rancho Villages Community Policy
Areas", review in detail the specific policies applying to the proposal, and complete the following:
1. State the relevant land usa designation(s):
2. Based on this initial study, is the proposal consistent with the policies and designations of the appropriate document.
and therefore consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan? If not, explain:
295-70 (New 12/87}
N. LAND USE DETERMINATION (continued)
D. ff all or pad of the project site is in "Areas not Designated as Open Space", end is not in a Community Plen, complete
qLestions 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7. Complete questions 4, 5, 6 end 7 If it is in a Community Ran.
1. Land use category(ies) necessary to support the proposed project. Also indicate land use type
3. ff D.1 differs from D.2, will the difference be re~.,:,hmd at the development stage? Explain:
4. Community Plan designation(s): i- I ~ ~[('-.1 ~ I/V~"~IF# ,'~
5. Is the proposed project consistent with the policies end designations of the Community Plan?
If not, explain:
6. Is the proposal compatible with existing and proposed surrounding lend uses?
If not, explain:
7. Based on this initial study, is the proposal consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan?
If not, reference by Section end Issue Number those issues identifying inconsistencies:
E. If all or pad of the project site is in en Open Space end Conservation designation, complete the following:
1. State the designation(s):
2. Is the proposal consistent with the designation(s)? If not, explain:
3. Based on this initial study, is the proposal consisent with the Comprehensive General Plan?
If not, reference by Section end Issue Number those issues identifying inconsistencies:
295-70 (New 12/87) 4
V. INFORMATION SOURCES, FINDINGS OF FACT AND MITIGATION MEASURES
A. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED BEFORE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CAN BE COMPLETED:
DATE DATE ADEQUACY
SECTION/ INFORMATION INFORMATION INFORMATION DETERMI~I10N
ISSUE NO. REQUIRED REQUESTED RECEIVED (YES/NO,DATE)
B. For each issue marked yes (Y) under Sections III.B end W.B, identify the Section end issue number and do the
following, in the format as shown below:
1. List all additional relevant data sources, including agencies consulted.
2. State all findings of tact regarding environmental concems.
3. State specific mitigation measures, if identifiable without requiring an environmental impact repod (E.I.R.)
4. If additional information is required before the environmental assessment can be cempieted, refer to
Subsection A.
5. If additional sheets are needed to complete this section, check the box at the end of the section and attach
the necessary sheets.
SECTION/
ISSUE NO.
SOURCES, AGENCIES CONSULTED, FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MEASURES:
Pus
295-70 (New 12/87) 5
V. INFORMATION SOURCES, FINDINGS OF FACT AND MITIGATION MEASURES (continued)
SECTION/
ISSUE NO. SOURCES, AGENCIES CONSULTED, FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MEASURES:
D See attached pages.
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DETERMINATION:
[] The project will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration may be
prepared.
(or)
[] The project could have a significant effect on the environment; however, there will not be a significant
effect in this Case because the mitigation measures described in Section V have been applied to the
project and a Negative Declaration may be prepared.
(or)
[] The project may have a signifiCant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Repod
is required.
Name: Date:
Prepared by
295-70 (New 12/87) 6
ITEM #8
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
The Planning Commission
Scott Wright, Associate Planner 5t~
August 20, 1990
APPEAL NO. 6, THE PALM PLAZA SIGN PROGRAM
The applicant, Greg Erickson of Bedford Properties, met with Gary Thornhill and
Scott Wright of the Planning Department on August 10, 1990, to discuss Appeal No.
6, the Palm Plaza Sign Program. At the meeting, it was determined that the most
appropriate vehicle for the applicant to use in pursuit of the proposed sign program
would be a variance. The basis for the variance would be that due to the number of
signs allowed and the size of other shopping centers, a strict application of the code
would deny the applicant certain rights enjoyed by other properties in the same
zone. Planning Staff indicated to the applicant that it may support the variance if
the supporting informtion is provided along with special landscape treatment at the
base of the signs and a reduction of the size of the proposed signs on Winchester
Road and Ynez Road. The applicant indicated an intention to file a variance
application.
In order to obtain quick approval of two free standing signs to identify the center,
the applicant has submitted Plot Plan No. 113 showing one sign adjacent to 1-15 and
one sign at the main entrance on Ynez Road. Plot Plan No. 113 complies with
Ordinance 348 and has been approved. Plot Plan No. 98, for wall mounted signs on
the Mervyn's Building, is not at issue in Appeal No. 6 and has also been approved.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that:
1. The Planning Commission deny Appeal No. 6; or
2. The applicant withdraw Appeal No. 6 and file a variance application.
SW:ks
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 6, 1990
Case No.: Appeal No. 6
Recommendation: Denial
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCAT I ON:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
STFRPT\APPL6
Bedford Development Company
Markham and Associates
The proposal is a sign program for Palm Plaza which
includes one monolith sign 36 feet in height adjacent
to 1-15, one monolith sign 20 feet in height adjacent
to Winchester Road, and three monolith signs 20 feet
in height adjacent to Ynez Road.
Adjacent to 1-15, south of Winchester Road and west
of Ynez Road.
C-P-S, Scenic Highway Commercial
North:
South:
East:
West:
C-P-S - Scenic Highway Commercial
M-M - Manufacturing Medium
A-2-20 - Heavy Agriculture
1-15
Not requested.
Vacant, Shopping Center under construction.
North: Commercial
South: Manufacturing
East: Vacant
West: )-15
Number of Acres:
Number of Businesses:
Number of
Free-standing Signs:
27
1 sign 36 feet in
height with 84
square feet of face
area.
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Size of Wall Signs:
L~ signs 20 feet in
height with 28
square feet of face
area.
10% of surface area
of front and side
walls, 5% of surface
area on rear walls.
Plot Plan No. 38, the proposed sign program for the
Palm Plaza shopping center at the southwesterly
corner of Winchester Road and Ynez Road, was
submitted on May 18, 1990. The Planning
Department notified the applicant in a letter dated
May 31, 1990 that the proposed sign program does
not comply with the provisions of Ordinance 3L~8
regarding the permitted number of free-standing
signs, the permitted face area of wall signs, and the
prohibition of signs mounted on or above roofs.
The applicant responded on June 8, 1990, that due
to the size of the site, Palm Plaza should be
considered as multiple shopping centers on eight
parcels. At this time the applicant deleted one of
the two freeway signs and two tenant pylon signs
which had been included in the original proposal.
The Planning Department did not concur with the
applicant~s interpretation regarding the number of
"shopping centers" in Palm Plaza, and Plot Plan No.
38 was denied on June 19, 1990.
The applicant filed an appeal to the Planning
Commission on June 29, 1990 within the 10 day
appeal period. The appeal included a revised sign
program which corrected the portion of the wall sign
criteria which did not comply with Ordinance No.
3~,8. However, the sign program still shows more
free-standing signs than the Ordinance permits.
The applicant has pointed out that the cinema sign
shown in Exhibit F is not a roof-mounted sign. it is
a wall sign affixed to a substantial architectural
feature of the building and is therefore permitted
by Ordinance No. 348. Staff concurs.
The locations of the proposed free-standing signs
are shown on the Site Plan, Exhibit 1. Please note
that there are no sign types B or E or Exhibits B or
E because they were deleted from the sign program.
The major components of the proposed sign program
are as follows:
1. Three curvilinear entrance monuments
2
ANALYSIS:
four feet in height and 20 feet in width
with the name and logo of Palm Plaza
{See Exhibit A), one at each driveway
on Ynez Road.
One monolith sign 36 feet in height and
13 feet in width and containing
square feet of sign copy per side
located adjacent to 1-15 (See Exhibit
C).
Four monolith signs 20 feet in height
and eight feet in width with 28 square
feet of sign copy per side, one
monolith located on Winchester Road
and one at each of the three driveway
on Ynez Road JSee Exhibit D) .
Wall mounted signs with a maximum
area equal to 1096 of the building fascia
area on the fronts and sides of
buildings and 596 of the building fascia
area on the rear. Wall signs will
consist of individual channel letters.
The maximum letter height for up to
three anchor tenants, including
Mervyn's and K-Mart, is five feet.
The maximum letter height for major
tenants with 10,000 to 19,999 square
feet JBuildings 10 through 22) is 36
inches on front and side walls and 30
inches on rear walls. The maximum
letter height is 30 inches on Buildings
12 through 16, 19, 21; and 2~ inches
on Buildings 3 through 9 and 23
through 27. The permitted colors are
teal blue, blue, yellow, orange, red,
black, and white. Only one color is
allowed per sign face.
The site is at the same elevation as the
streets and the freeway it abuts and
presents no unusual obstacles to sign
visibility.
The proposed sign program is
consistent with Ordinance 3~,8
standards regarding the height of
free-standing signs and sign face area
for free-standing and wall mounted
signs. The sign program is not
consistent with Ordinance 3~,8
standards regarding the number of
free standing signs. The specific
areas of compliance and non-compliance
are delineated below.
Number of Free-standinq Siqns
Section 19.~1a.~,) permits a shopping
center with more than one street
frontage to have two free-standing
signs provided that they are not
located on the same street, are at least
100 feet apart, and the second sign
does not exceed 100 square feet in
surface area and 20 feet in height.
The proposed sign program is not in
compliance with Section 19.~la.u,) in
that it includes a total of five free-
standing signs.
Definition of Shoppinq Center
Section 19.2{m) of Ordinance 3u,8
defines a shopping center as a parcel
of land not less than three acres in size
on which there are four or more
separate businesses that have mutual
parking facilities. The definition does
not include a maximum area or number
of separate businesses. Therefore,
Palm Plaza, which is located on
contiguous parcels which share
reciprocal access and parking, is
considered one shopping center and is
allowed only as many free-standing
signs as one shopping center.
Heiqht of Free-standinq Siqns
Section 19.q{a. 1,2) of Ordinance 3u,8
stipulates a maximum height of 0,5 feet
for signs within 660 feet of the freeway
right of way and 20 feet for other
locations. The proposed sign program
complies with the height restrictions
by providing for a 36 foot freeway
oriented signs and signs 20 feet in
height in other locations.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
Face Area of Free-standinq Siqns
The sign program indicates 84 square
feet of freeway sign face area and 28
square feet of face area on the other
free-standing signs. The program
complies with the maximum face areas
of 150 square feet for freeway signs
and 50 square feet for other free-
standing signs per Section
19.4(a.1,2).
Face Area of Siqns Affixed to Buildlnqs
The maximum face area of wall mounted
signs is 1096 of the building surface
area on front and side walls and 596 of
the building surface area on rear walls
(Section 19.4(b.2). The proposed
sign program complies with these
restrictions.
Location on Buildlnq of Affixed Siqns
Section 19.4{ b. 1 ) prohibits signs on or
above the roof of a building or
projecting above the parapet of a
building, and states that a mansard
style roof shall be considered a
parapet. Although the sign program
contains no wording referring to roofs,
the Exhibits do not include any
depictions of signs which are not
affixed to walls which are part of major
architectural features of the buildings.
The sign program, therefore, complies
with Section 19.41b. 1 ).
1-15 is an eligible State Scenic
Highway. General Land Use Policy
8(f) in the Southwest Area Community
Plan states that the size, height and
type of on-site outdoor advertising
displays within scenic corridors shall
be the minimum necessary for identi-
fication. The Planning Commission may
wish to consider more specific size and
design guidelines for scenic highway
corridor signage.
Pursuant to Section 15311 of the
California Environmental Quality Act,
5
FINDINGS AND
SUPPORTING FACTS:
the proposed sign program is
categorically exempt from the
requirement for environmental review
Finding
On-site advertising signs are
permitted in the C-P-S zone subject to
approval of a plot plan.
The proposed sign program is not in
compliance with the requirements of
Ordinance 3~,8 regarding the number of
free-standing signs for a shopping
center.
STAFF RECOMMENDAT ION:
Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission:
1. Deny Appeal No. 6; and
Deny Plot Plan No. 38 based on
the analysis and findings
contained in this Staff Report.
SW: ks
Attachments:
Exhibit 1 - Site Plan with Free-Standing Sign Locations
Exhibit 1A - Project Entrance Monument
Exhibit 1B - Deleted from Sign Program
Exhibit 1C - Freeway Monolith Sign
Exhibit 1D - Secondary Monolith Sign
Exhibit 1E - Deleted from Sign Program
Exhibit 1F - Signs Affixed to Buildings
Exhibit 2 - Vicinity Map
6
'l
1
EXHIBIT NO. 1
-I
ZU'Z'w.~ZOX~a.t. LY Z~t~e
EXHIBIT eellet
j
.I
.'. ........................ .:'
EXHIBIT C'
PRIMARY TENA;NT SIGN MONOLITH
~I~N~ WILL BE (2) SIGNS OF THIS TYPE THE 8OUTHERN-NOST
INTERSTATE IS WILL IDENTIFY (21 ANCHOR TENANTS
ONLY (MXRVYN'B & K-MART). THE OTHER SIGN MONOLITH,
LOCATED BEHIND (WEST OF) BUILDING 17, WILL IDENTIFY UP
TO ( 4 ) MAJOR TENANTS.
~mmmmm
EXHIBIT D
SECONDARY TENANT SIGN MONOLITH
THERE WILL BE (4) SIGNS OF THIS TYPE LOCATED AS SHOWN ON
THE APPROVED PLOT PIAN. EACH SIGN MONOT-TTH WILL
IDENT'FFY A MAXIMUM OF (4)
INTENTION~.LLY LEFT B~K
EXHIBIT
Z
0
EXHIBIT NO. 2
~984
SOL ,
._.., ,~,,
VICINITY
,Par Jr
Cl~Rl
C(:
Mt
LI
I
ITEM #9
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
BACKGROUND:
STFFRPT\PP69
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 20, 1990
Case No.: Plot Plan 69
Recommendation: Approval
Penfold Communications, Inc.
Bodnar Engineering
Move and reduce an existing radio transmission
tower.
West of 1-15 and approximately 2,600 feet south of
the southern terminus of Front Street.
R-R (Rural Residential)
North:
South:
East:
West:
(Rural Residential)
(Rural Residential)
(Residential Agricultural, 20 acre)
(Rural Residential)
R-R
R-R
R-A-20
R-R
Not requested.
Vacant
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Number of Acres:
Buildings:
53.39
1 radio antenna tower and
18'x 20' storage container .
City Council Resolution Number 90-10 granted Mr.
Penfold an exemption from the antenna moratorium.
This enabled him to process a plot plan application
in order for the City to consider allowing the
1
applicant to move the existing 250 foot high tower
located in the center of town. The application was
made with the City Planning Department on May 31,
1990. Since that time, revisions to the project
relative to Planning and Engineering Department
requests have been completed.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant proposes to remove the existing 250
foot high red and white radio transmission tower
from the center of the City, just north of Rancho
California Road. Instead, the applicant proposes to
construct a 105 foot high tower on a hillside
approximately 2,600 feet south of the southerly
terminus of Front Street. Accessory to the antenna
the applicant proposes to place an 8 x 20 foot
storage container on the site.
ANALYSIS:
The proposal is consistent with Section 5.1. c. (6) of
Ordinance 3~8, which permits broadcasting
antennas with an approved plot plan.
The project is proposed for a hillside, however
several steps have been taken to minimize the visual
impact of the proposed antenna. First, the
applicant has received F. C. C. approval to paint the
tower green, instead of the existing red and white
scheme. This will camouflage the tower with
existing hillside vegetation. Second, the F. C. C.
has also relieved the proposed project from the
requirement of having a flashing beacon at the top
of the tower. Third, the tower is proposed at only
105 feet as opposed to the existing tower which is
250 feet. Fourthly, an existing Oak tree stands
adjacent to the proposed pad. This tree is sizeable
and will partially obscure the antenna from any view
from the City or 1-15. The accessory storage
container will be completely obscured from view.
The applicant has prepared and submitted a visual
analysis which accurately reflects the scale of the
proposed project. The proposed antenna at
completion will be approximately 280 feet below the
nearest ridge, so it will not disrupt any scenic
ridgeline vistas.
SWAP AND GENERAL
PLAN CONSISTENCY: The project is consistent with the current site
zoning. The project is also consistent with the
Southwest Area Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION: In compliance with the California Environmental
2
Quality Act, the proposed project has been
determined to be a Class 3 Categorical Exemption
from the C.E.Q.A. guidelines.
FINDINGS:
Site Approval
1. The proposed use will not have a substantial
adverse effect on abutting property or the
permitted use thereof. The use will not
generate excessive noise, vibration, traffic
or other disturbances.
2. The site for the proposed use has adequate
access.
3. The proposed project will not inhibit or
restrict future ability to use active or passive
solar energy systems.
~. The project will not have a significant
adverse effect on the environment.
5. There is a reasonable probability that the
project will be consistent with the General
Plan once it is adopted, based on analysis in
the staff report.
6. There is a probability that the project will not
deter, or interfere with the future adopted
General Plan if the proposed use is ultimately
inconsistent with the new General Plan.
7. These findings are supported by staff
analysis, minutes, maps, exhibits, and
environmental documents associated with this
application and herein incorporated by
reference.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
8. The lawful conditions stated in the approval
are deemed necessary to protect the public
health, safety and general welfare.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1. APPROVE Plot Plan No. 69 and the attached
Conditions of Approval based on findings
contained in the Staff Report.
MR:ks
Attachments:
1. Exhibits
2. Conditions of Approval
3
,.
-~.--:---
.-..---""-=~~~
~
~
:~ .
g~~~
, . C)('J
~ ~ I ,
s~~~
,C)~ ti
'<{
Q;
....
~
I-<
V)
d'
~ f..i\ '(10'-
IJV~..
~
@)
~ J
~ ,""'11
~~ ,<,
~ ~
~ @~ .
~ ~\l
~~
~ ~~ ~~ qo' '
. ~,
'~
.
c:l r
\ "
~ .
~ +
~S$~" .i
~~
~
,o@ ,
jl"
.\~
S4NTA
Jpli"
ROSA' .
flANe/>( UN.
--
~
(P',9, )
~-~:..-~~_::~
J:J~ I J' J
t ~
,
~ '
IS t
(e~
~
(i')
-"sP'
"
l
,., J. ~i'Y"".r ;
"":>~-' ......~fl
"""."
.05"11 .i
t. l~
e ,0' CD y"
~I
.~
"
.
.
~ ,'"
. ,
- - - - 'ol
-" ~1
Y.o'
"
~'i1<',
i11i' ~--
WI'
~~
",
"'.
''''>
=-=--.. -
~
. e ~ >(
!:i (j Q .. ... -
... .. ",,,
_ _ Cl (j
~H;;;'
~ ~ ' ~ . i
.
'"
<:'
,,'
~
<\?'
~:
~ .
"
~ '
E: ~
,~ '
- C
r- C
~ v
",' t-.
\$(':
~ ~
")'"
,
CsJ rr
~ ~
@
~
<
~"
<>>"
:2~
',,"
~t
"-
~\
.
,
.
,
,
\
,
~
'"
J>
"~
'j-'"
~'
"l~
~,
S?~
;~
Q;Q.
<\
0,
"
.
~
"
"- "-
o -
~ ;;
"
..
III
III VJ
"') :~
,~
"
~/ ~
, -
)(
III
'I
J--
~r
/
/
(7'~'
/
I
cJ
"
/
/
-J
r-
~
/
/
I
/ /) / I
V----i- -~-;r--l
I '-------~ '
I /~ I
{ C
!:! I
'.(
I
,H
.: ~.u
\ /?'~
.....
C.._
Ill""
cnZO
0__
a."
0..
a:..
0.. G; __
-------
~
)
I
J
"
"
L
jfl'!j
~I
J~ZI
' !tC
ol!:
IS
C
a:
! >f.
III
;oz
/ ~a
"z
CO
IlIU
~1lI
, a.C!I
, OC
;' a: a:
I a.O
~
N
\
~
~
"C
ZC
-C
..a:
-C
"Ill
IlIc
C
'a:
e
. .DS
)
/
J"
-S>
/
/
MOIIE.U.O. N
U..
III I,)
...-
Ill> /
a:
Clll
Ill..
.. ./
II. I j
,0-, .OZ+
a: II
a.
I
J:Z
/
I
I
~I
>
0-
a:
III
a.
o
a:
a.
'" - -
~~+~ ~;'"
"~:"o"
~ '
/'
..
0
"'
...
"
~i oS
..
0
c
0
..
t:
8.
Iw
If
"
.
.
z
-I
I
/
~
,
,
Iz
ICC
'.J
10.
t-
o
.J
0.
U
,.
...
~
"'So
I 55~
: I il~~
, ~~ -;;
:~ sJ:
~~=
.. ..
... "
')
U -
,
i
...
i
.
1/
...
,
n
"'
M
n
~
.
.
..
u Cl :
"&1 ...
:a ~ i
Illll) lllI. tl
~~ ~t '"
:go Ill:: =
-~--.f:: GI~
~'"' .a. 0
:0 ).,0 iii
0, .u.
g~ a:. ~ f
o o~ p.
~ ern'::K C
e ~.. a... .
.. ... .... .c:l
"'M 3~ tog 1:
!'~ ~~ 1:3 ~
t~ ~~ Cl.
.N ...,a..
.N ~~ II=' B
:~ ita JIf e
....
~
I
..
...
...
..
..
on
o
..
5;jS~
~~~~
~e ~~
~~~~
..~.
..... ...
..... ..
"'. "
l'l
'"
..
,,1;;0
e;ti~
J:i~~o
[:lU..:
...15u.
n .~
"8:l~
~oB_
!i:;;~=
0.. ..
..... "
i
.
.
..
~
..
=
.
.
"
t
"
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan 69
Council Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. No Oak Trees shall be removed from the subject parcel.
2. The antenna shall be painted green, and no beacon shall be allowed on the
structure.
3. The approved temporary antenna structure shall be removed no later than 30
days after the approval of this project.
~. The existing 250 foot high pole located north and west of Rancho California
Road and Jefferson Street shall be removed concurrently with the construction
of the approved 105 foot high pole.
5. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the City Council approval
date; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. By
this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently
pursued tocompletion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated
by this approval.
6. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as
shown on Plot Plan No. 69, or as amended by these conditions.
7. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way, and shall comply with
Ordinance No. 655.
8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain clearance
and/or permits from the following agencies:
Engineering Department
Environmental Health
Riverside County Flood Control
Fire Department
Written evidence of compliance shall be presented to the Land Use Division of
the Department of Building and Safety.
STAFFRPT\PP69
1
9. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall
comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate
fees set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by
the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee
required by Ordinance no. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by
the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or
resolution. Said fee shall not apply to the entire site, but rather to the new
building and parking structure.
2
ITEM #10
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 20, 1990
Case No.: Plot Plan No. 57
Recommendation: Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
OPTO 22
Howard Oxley
A 3.~00 square foot 2nd story addition to an
approved electronics engineering facility.
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
~30~~ Business Park Drive
M-SC (Manufacturing - Service Commercial)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
M-SC
M-SC
M-SC
M-SC
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
Not requested.
Engineering facility under construction
SURROUNDING LAND USES: North:
South:
East:
West:
Industrial Park
Vacant
Vacant
Industrial Park
PROJECT STATISTICS:
No. of Acres:
Square footage of Addition:
Approved Square Footage:
8
3,~00
126,135
ST AFFRPT\PP57
1
BACKGR01,'ND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
GENERAL PLAN, ZONING,
AND SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
The current application for expansion was filed with
the Planning Department on June 5, 1990. The
facility, currently under construction, was
approved by City Council on June 5, 1990. The
approved facility is an electronics engineering firm
with a total square footage of 126,135 square feet.
The applicant proposes a 3,~00 square foot addition
to a second story portion of the approved project.
The 3,~00 square feet will be devoted entirely to
office and conference use. The proposed addition
will extend the second floor over the length of the
first floor of the administration wing. A stairwell
will also be added to the end of the administrative
wing. In conjunction with the proposed expansion,
the mechanical support equipment area will be
expanded 20 feet by 30 feet, this is not shown on
the site plan. See attachment No. 2 and 3.
Originally, Staff had some concern regarding the
additional traffic which may be generated by the
office expansion. However, the applicant has
submitted a letter stating the maximum number of
employees which will be employed by OPTO 22 on the
site. On this basis, Engineering has accepted the
Traffic Study as submitted. (See attachment No.
1.) Under Section 18.12.c( 32), the applicant would
be required to provide 88 parking spaces for 175
(applicant identified maximum). The applicant has
provided 196 spaces. Since the proposed addition
is limited to the second story, the project as
proposed will not change the approved building foot
print. Only two accessory additions will be made;
the addition of an enclosed stairwell at the extreme
end of the administratin wing, and the extension of
the mechanical equipment area. The proposed
expansion will provide floor area for a conference
room, reception area, president's and executive's
office.
The project as proposed conforms with Ordinance
3~8 and the Southwest Area Plan; it is also likely
that the project will conform with the City's future
adopted General Plan.
In compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act, it has been determined that the
proposed project is a Class 3 Categorical Exemption
from the C.E.Q.A. guidelines,
2
FINDINGS:
Site Approval
1. The site of the proposed use is suitable in
size to accommodate the proposed intensity of
development.
2. The building is of an appropriate scale
relative to the lot size and configuration as
conditioned to be compatible with adjacent
project.
3. The proposed use will not have a substantial
adverse effect on abutting property or the
permitted use thereof. The use will not
generate excessive noise, vibration, traffic
or other disturbances,
~. The site for the proposed use has adequate
access.
5. The proposed project will not inhibit or
restrict future ability to use active or passive
solar energy systems.
6. The project will not have a significant
adverse effect on the environment.
7. There is a reasonable probability that the
project will be consistent with the General
Plan once it is adopted, based on analysis in
the staff report.
8. There is a probability that the project will not
deter, or interfere with the future adopted
General Plan if the proposed use is ultimately
inconsistent with the new General Plan.
9. These findings are supported by Staff
analysis, minutes, maps and exhibits,
associated with this applicationand herein
incorporated by reference.
10. The lawful conditions stated in the approval
are deemed necessary to protect the public
health, safety and general welfare.
3
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
APPROVE Plot Plan 57, subject to the attached
Conditons of Approval, based on findings contained
in the Staff Report.
MR:ks
Attachment:
1. Exhibits
2. Conditions of Approval
~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gary Thornhill
THROUGH: Doug Stewar~t'i>~
FROM: Kirk Williams ~
SUBJECT: PLOT PLAN NO. 57/REVISED PERMIT
With respect to the approved Traffic Study submitted by J. F. Davidson for the
above referenced item, the Transportation Engineering Staff has the following
comments:
Staff has carefully reviewed the original approved Traffic Study submitted to
the County Road Department for OPTO 22 Corporate Center and discussed at
length with their Traffic Engineer (J. F. Davidson I the basis of how the trips
generations were determined and why these determinations were based on a
specific number of employees rather than on square footage of gross leasable
floor space.
A letter dated July 25, 1990, sent to Howard Oxley and Associates (applicants
representative) from R. G. Engman, president of OPTO 22, explained that the
increase in office floor space will be used to better accommodate the present
175 employees. As indicated by both the Traffic Study and the letter, the
total projected employee count will remain at 175. The 3,~00 square foot
expansion will not increase the number of employees and thus, there will be
~ increase in trip ends caused by this revision to the project.
In conclusion, Staff accepts the Traffic Study and agrees with the applicant's Traffic
Engineer and representative by understanding the issues involved and the reasoning
behind the expansion. Staff also concurs that this expansion will have no effect on
traffic impacts in the area.
KW:ks
cc: Mark Rhoades, Planning
Howard Oxley, Representative for OPTO 22
R. G. Engman, President of OPTO 22
Vaughn Lewis, J. F. Davidson
Sayed Omar, City Transportation Engineering
Tom Sorrentino, Transportation Engineering
File
TRAFFIC\Ml
ATT^~~~4 1
: ZONE M-SC"
,VACANT;
,NEW FIRE'
'HYDRANT
ELECTRICAL
:rRAf~SFORME.1l. .
. .WI ~NDSC-'PE
. SCREENING I
ONe, RET. WALL WI
o 'I HEAVY SANDBLAsT
~ F: 57
V-.ov~~t> E'&.U\P. Y~~D
A-nAC.14MEATr -'3
-.... -- .-- ..--..-....-
.
.
ZONE M-SC'
,VACANT
NEW FIRE
HYDRANT
'ELECTRICAL
"R^N$F,ORM~R.
WI LANDSCA,PE
. Ii' .
. SCREENING 1
ONC. RET. WALL WI
HEAVY SANDBLAST
~ R 51'
~1"'P1ZO\I~ 'E&U\~. '(,.,aD
A"n~..u~orr~:t
~ ~~
I, I. Il!!!hl ~ , il
.,1,. I !!!.!IP,,! i, II" 1
1_. . !!Hl d!li ~N ,. II :1
1'1'''; , I!", I., _.._
f ", i: u -...... .JiL_
I \ \':'~,JJ:' . :r; I' 'I ' ~ ''1 I! 'j
\ I\,J " '-},:' ,,,. ,. I, _
\ '.j \ ~,' . r I r II
\\ '! II "I
\
I
I
.' !
\
\
~
il
~-
N
\
,
1
I
s~
~
'"
I
~
!
Ill! ! i j!t.1
ii, II: II : I. ; II ii,','
II i 'III IL j' ,,'! ,j ,I i I
l!f I 'j ,I i j!' :' I! .
11 III II! ! II ll!! ill!P !1I!; !ll
II :~ I i'l~ 'HII! il 11111 I. 11';1' I
~ IIll, '.Ii I. Il'ql !' :11 '! 'l II! .I
1..I.'II'n dl" 'il': I, I, 1111111
i!!!!! ;il! 11 !i11 !!I ji!ll II I! Ill!! !ii
\ IL:':" i.: ~ ~
'. :J ",'''Ie !.: r ~
,"~z I'" - I = ~
\ ,~;jr~=t- J l
1-1/'-,.... ' ~II
lL ','II'
.~, ,!;I
, --::-'4-
,_ L .;\ ~ : II! l.
, ~-..._. ___J_.,
!h~J1.'. 1 ,1
~ll I I
I'I!
II .e
I' =II
~ I
I &~ I
I B~ I
J' ;-
1 ~ -_- I
. "
~
~
~
ij
~.
N
I
. ' i'I'_'
"..,...I~t ,'';'
e,.~""..~r____
"''''i'..~...''
~'....\,
~
""-,
'-
.
....~"". "'-"'--.......
"':;;' .~--
i
l!
I'
,I
I
>-
~
!- :&
" :&
:::l
Ii , '"
I q!ll ...
U Iii!
Illnl w
.., II: ill~
IDO:i I ~ I!i!!
~-
I '
~Il
~ll
"j,
il~ ~~
i~:i!l
.11.ll
I " . . ,J I I' ~I;'h
!I " . . i I' I ! d ',1,,1'1'
z i!1 m II ; i:i I~,l,i
~! i..iilii iiliii!J JI!dl :,!!I,;
it I a:" '" -"., II I I 11 'I I '. ~
u, ;; j ~ - . I l P, Ill"
~ i, " '" I ,llllll
:l!!li'ill,l', II I I IIII i,V'i'
~ nid ill, 1!l1 i III I I. I II I I II I.!
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan No. 57
Council Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
Planninq Department
1. Applicant shall conform to all requirements of the County of Riverside Fire
Department.
2. Applicant shall limit the additional mechanical equipment storage area to a 20
foot by 30 foot area not to encroach in the 2~ foot minimum fire access clear
aisle space on the south side of the project.
3. If at any time the employee total exceeds 175 persons on site, the applicant
shall present proof of traffic and parking mitigation prior to issuance of
building permits for tenant improvements.
~. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the City Council approval
date; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. By
this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently
pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated
by this approval.
5. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as
shown on Plot Plan No. 57, or as amended by these conditions.
6. I n the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period of one (1)
year or more, this approval shall become null and void.
7. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way, and shall comply with
Ordinance No. 655.
8. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape,
irrigation and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. An
automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be
maintained in a viable growth condition. Planting within ten (10) feet of an
entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty (30)
inches.
ST AFFRPT\PP57
1
9. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain clearance
and/or permits from the following agencies:
Engineering Department
Environmental Health
Riverside County Flood Control
Fire Department
Written evidence of compliance shall be presented to the Land Use Division of
the Department of Building and Safety.
10. Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening
material shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
11. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
2
!TEM #11
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 20, 1990
Case No.: Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23299 Extension of Time
Recommendation: Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
Crosby Mead Benton
First extension of time for Vesting Tentative Tract
No. 23299. a 232 unit condominium project on
approximately 1~.3 acres.
South of Highway 79, approximately one-quarter
mile west of Margarita Road.
R-R (Rural Residential)
North: R-A-5 ( ResidentialAgricultural,
5 acre min.)
South: A-l-l0 (Light Agricultural,
10 acre min.)
East: R-R I Rural Residential)
West: R-R I Rural Residential)
Currently shown as R-R (Rural Residential)
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES: North:
South:
East:
West:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
STFRPT\ VVT23299
Single Family Residential
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Number of Acres: 1~. 33
Number of Units: 232
Size of Units:
Plan A - 750 square feet
Plan B - 933 square feet
Plan C - 1,050 square feet
Planned Density: 16.2 DUlAC
SWAP Allowed Density: 2-5 DUlAC
1
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
GENERAL PLAN
CONSISTENCY:
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23299 was recommended
for approval on October 19. 1988 by the County
Planning Commission in conjunction with Change of
Zone No. 5150 and Vesting Tentative Tract No.
23267, Amended No.2. Change of Zone No. 5150
was a request to change the zoning on 221.2 acres
of land in the Temecula area from R-R (Rural
Residential) to R-3, R-~. and R-5. Vesting
Tentative Tract No. 23267 sought to subdivide the
remaining acreage into 601 single family residential
lots with a minimum size of ~,500 square feet, two
well site lots, and ~ open space lots totaling 57.9
acres. Both Vesting Tentative Tracts No. 23299
and No. 23267 along with Change of Zone 5150 were
approved by the Board of Supervisors on October
25. 1988.
The applicant is proposing to develop a 232 unit
condominium project on approximately 14.3 acres
situated south of Highway 79, one-quarter mile west
of Margarita Road. Access is provided by "A"
street as shown on the site plan which indicates two
entry ways into the project.
Density
The project has a density of 16.2 DU! AC, based on
the 232 units approved on 1~.3 acres. The density
exceeds the density of 2-5 DU! AC indicated on the
SWAP Land Use Map, which has been adopted by the
City at a policy guide only. The City maintains the
ability to consider appropriate density on a case by
case basis.
The Tentative Map was consistent with the
Riverside County Development Code Standards and
the Southwest Territory Land Use Category I
designation (8-20 DUlAC) in effect at the time of
approval. The proposed tract is compatible with
existing area development and with projects
approved in the area.
Residential development ranging in density from 2
to 20 DUI AC now exists to the south of Highway 79
and west of Pala Road. This trend towards urban
development has been established in the area south
of Highway 79, and is continuing to be extended
through the approval of several specific plans in the
area. Two specific plans adjoin the project site to
the east. The Redhawk Specific Plan (SP 217),
approved by the Board of Supervisors on October
2
6, 1988, calls for a mixed use development with
residential densities ranging from 2 to 1~ dwelling
units per acre and allows up to~, 188 dwelling units.
The Vail Ranch Specific Plan (SP 223), approved by
the Board of Supervisors on October 6, 1988 adjoins
the project on the northeast and includes 2,~31
dwelling units with a density range of 2 to 20
DU/acre. The proposed tract is compatible with
existing area development and with projects
approved in the area. The proposal is therefore
likely to be consistent with the City's new General
Plan.
FINDINGS:
1.
There is a reasonable probability that this
project will be consistent with the City's
future General Plan, which will be completed
in a reasonable time and in accordance with
State law.
2. There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future and adopted general plan, if the
proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan.
3. The proposed use or action complies with
state planning and zoning laws.
~. The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation
patterns, access, and density.
5. The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare.
6. Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23299 is
compatible with surrounding land uses. The
harmony in scale, bulk, height, density and
coverage creates a compatible physical
relationship with adjoining properties.
7. The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area.
8. The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the Negative
Declaration adopted for this project.
3
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
SR:ks
9. The design of the subdivision is consistent
with the state map act in regard to the future
passive energy control opportunities. Units
have significant southern exposure which
allows for passive heating opportunities.
Deciduous landscaping can be utilized to allow
solar penetration in winter and shading in
summer.
10. The design of the subdivision, the type of
improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed projects.
11. That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applicants and herein
incorporated by reference.
Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
a. Approve the First Extension of Time for
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23299 subject to
the attached Conditions of Approval, based
on findings contained in the Staff Report.
~
:
",
.
~
. .
.
",
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARlMENT
SUBDIVISION
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
YEsn.G TEHTATIVE lRACT NO. 23299
DATE:
EXPIRES:
STAI'IDA'RD CONDITIONS
, .
1. lbe subdivider shall defend. indemnify. and hold harmless the County of
Riverside. its agents. officers. and employees from any claim. action. or
proceeding, against the County of Riverside or its agents. officers. or
enployees to attack. set aside. void. or annul an approval of the County
of Riverside. its advisory agenci~s. appeal boards or legislative body
concerning Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23299. which action is brought
about -nthin the time period provided for in California Government Code
Section 66499.37. The County of Riverside will promptly notify the
subdivider of any such claim. action. or proceeding against the County of
Riverside and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the County fails to
promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim. action. or proceeding or
fails to cooperate fully in the defense. the subdivider shall not.
thereafter. be responsible to defend. indemnify. or hold harmless the
County of Riverside.
2. 1be tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California
Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460. Schedule
A. unless modified by the conditions listed below.
J. This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the
COunty of Riverside Board of Supervisors approval date. unless extended as
provided by Ordinance 460.
4. The final lap shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all
the requirements of the State of California Subdivision KIp Act and
Ordinance 460. '
5. lhe subdivider shall submit one copy of a soils report to the 'Riverside
[Cunty Surveyor's Office and two copies to the Department of Building and
Safety. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site. '
6. If any grJld1ng is proposed. the subdivider shall submit one print of
~-ehens'lft grading plan to the Department of BUflding and Safety. The
,1... shan c:omply with the UnifoT'\ll Building Code. Chapter 70. as amended
~ Ordinance 457 and as .aybe additionally provided for 1n these
conditions of approval.
'- .
.
,.
'.,
'~1l...1EIITmVE BACT 11). 23299
Conditions of Approval
- Page 2
7. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Department of Building and
" Safety prior to clllllllencement of any grading outside of county lIIilintained
road right of dY.
8. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the
final _p.
9. The subdivider shall comply ~th the street improvement recommendations
outlined in the Riverside County Road Department's letter dated 10-11-88,
a copY,of which is attached.
10. Legal Iccess as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract
IIIllp bounda~ to a County maintained road.
11. All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall
continue in force until the governing body accepts or abandons such
offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved
by the Road Commissioner. Street names shall be subject to approval of
the Road Commissioner.
12. Easements. when required for roadway slopes. drainage facilities.
utilities, etc.. shall be shown on the final map if they are located
within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and
conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the County
Surveyor. ,.
13. Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance
w1th the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's
letter dated 8-29-88. a copy of which is attached.
14. The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommendations
outlined by the Riverside County Flood Control District's letter dated
10-18-88, a copy of which is attached. If the land division lies
within an adopted flood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of
Ordinance 460, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage
facilities shall be collected by the Road Commissioner. (Amended at P.C. on 10-19-
15. The subdivider Shall comply ~th the fire improvement recommendations
outlined in the County Fire Marshal's letter dated 8-24-B8, a copy of
which is attached.
16. Subdivision phasing. including any proposed common open space area
improve.ent phasing. if applicable. shall be subject to Planning
Deparblent approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate
vehicular access to all lots in each phase. and shall SUbstantially
conform to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval. ,
17. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the follow1ng:
'-
- .'
1
,
. ., 'mTIlIi I till." 1 VE 1RACT 10. Z3299
CondtttDIIS of Approval
'age 3
"
a. ,Lots created by this subdivision shall be in confonnance with the
development standards of the R-3 lone.
b. Graded but undeveloped land shall be matntained in a weed-free
condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or
provtded ~th other erosion control leasures as approved by the
Director of Building and Safety. ,
c. Trash bins. loading areas and incidental storage' areas shall be
located away and visually screened from surrounding areas with the use
of block lIIIlls and landscaping.
d. Bike racks and bike lockers in sufficient quantity shall be provided
in convenient locations to facilitate 'bike access to the project area.
18. Prior to RECORDATION of the final map the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
a. Prior to the recordation of the final map the applicant shall submit
written clearances to the Riverside County Road and Survey Department
that all pertinent requirements outlined in the attached approval
letters from the foll~ng agencies have been m~t:
County Fi re Depa r1Jnent
County Flood Control
County Parks Department
b. Prior to the recordation of the final map, Change of Zone No. 5150
shall be approved by the Board of Supervisors and shall be effective.
Lots created by this land division shall be in confonnance with the
development standards of the zone ultimately applied to the property.
c. Prior to recordation of the final map, the subdivider shall submit the
following documents to the Planning Department for review, which
documents shall be subject to the approval of that department and the
Office Of the County Counsel:
County Hea,lth Department
County Planning Department
1) A declaration of covenants. conditions and restrictions; and
2)
A sample document conveying title to the purchaser of an
individual lot or unit which provides that the declaration of
covenants. conditions and restrictions is incorporated therein by
reference.
The declaration of covenants. conditions and restrictions submitted
for revtew shall (a) provide for a minimum term of 60 years. (b)
provide for the establtshment of a property owners' association
.'
-}
'.
. .,
~ulllIi lm'ATIYE 1RACT 10. 23299
Conditions of ApproYal
Page 4
comprised of the owners of each individual lot or unit, (c) provide
for ownership of the common area by either the property owners'
association or the owners of each individual lot or unit as tenants in
common and (d) contain the following provisions verbatim:
-Notwithstanding any provision in this Declaration to the
contrary, the following provision shall apply:
The property owners' association established herein shall manage
and continuously maintain the 'common area', more particularly
described on Exhibit 'A' attached hereto, and shall not sell or
transfer the 'common area', or any part thereof, absent the prior
written consent of the Planning Director of the COunty of
Riverside or the County's successor-in-interest.
The ,property owners' association shall have the right to assess
the owners of each individual lot or unit for the reasonable cost
of lIIiIintaining the 'COlllllon area' and shall have the right to lien
the property of any such owner who defaults in the payment of a
maintenance assessment. An assessment lien, once created. shall
be prior to all other liens recorded subsequent to the notice of
assessment or other document creating the assessment lien.
This Declaration shall not be terminated.' 'substantially' amended
or property deannexed ther.efrom absent,the prior written consent
of the Planning Director of the County of Riverside or the
County's successor-in-interest. A proposed amendment shall be
considered 'substantial' if it affects" the extent, usage or
maintenance of the 'common area'.
In the event of any conflict between this Declaration and the
Articles of Incorporation, the Bylaws or the property owners'
association Rules and Regulations, if any, this Declaration shall
control.-
Once approved, the 'declaration of covenants, conditions and
restrictions shall be recorded at the same time that the final map is
recorded.
d. The developer shall comply with the following parkway landscaping
conditions:
1) Prior to recordation of the final map the developer shall file an
application with the County for the formation of or annexation to.
a parkway lIIiIintenance district or C.S.A. for maintenance of
parkways along Highway 79 and Street -A- in accordance with the
landscaping and lighting Act of 1972, unless the project is within
an existing parkway maintenance district.
.
- . '
.' .
.'
1ESTI1Ii TElfTAllYE 1UCT 10. 23299
CGnditfons of Approval
Page 5 .
'.
2) Prior to the issuance of building permits. the developer shall
secure approval of proposed landscaping and irrigation plans from
the County Road and Planning Department. All landscaping and
irrigation plans and specifications shall be prepared in a
Teproducible format suitable for permanent filing with the County
Road Department. ,
3) The developer shall post a landscape perfonmance bond which shall
be released concurrently with,. the release of subdivision
perfonmance bonds. guaranteeing the viability of all landscaping
which will be installed prior~o the assumption of the maintenance
responsibility by the district.
4) The developer.
assignees. shall
maintenance until
district.
e. Prior to recordation of the final map. the project site shall be
annexed into C.S.A. 143. , ,
the developer's successors-in-interest or
be responSible for all parkway landscaping
such time as maintenance is taken over by the
f. Prior to recordation of the final map. an Environmental Constraints
Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to
delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently
filed with the office of the County Surveyor. A copy of the ECS shall
be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval.
The approved EeS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded final
map to the . Planning Department .nd the Department of Building and
Safety.
~. lhe notice .ppearing in Section 6.a. of Ordinance No. 625, the
Riverside County Right-to-Farm Ordinance. shall be placed on the
Environmental Constraints Sheet. with this tract identified therein,
in the manner prOVided in said Section 6.... as being located partly
or wholly within. or within 300 feet of. land zoned for primarily
agricultural purposes by the County of Riverside.
h. The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints
Sheet: .County Environmental Impact Report No. 281 was prepared for
this property and is on file at the Riverside County Planning
Departlaent.,
'. '
i. The E.C.S. note found in the letter from the County Geologist dated
'October 11. 1988. a copy of which is attached. shall be placed on the
,EnYironmental Constraint Sheet.
"- ...
. .
. .
.
- .'
.
.
YESJlIC 1BITATIYE 1UCT 11). 23299
Conditions of Appnwal
Page 6
19. Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
a. All existing native specimen trees on the subject property shall be
preserved wherever feasible. Where they cannot be preserved they
shall be relocated or replaced with specimen trees as approved by the
Plann1ng Director. Replacement trees shall be noted on approved
landscaping plans. '
b. All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded" natural terrain and
exceeding ten (10) feet 1n vertical. height shall be contour-graded
1ncorporating the following grading techniques:
1) The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the
angle of the natural terrain.
2) Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall reflect
the natural rounded terrain.
3) The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves with
radii designed in proportion to the total height of the slopes
where drainage and stability permit such rounding.
c. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall provide
evidence to the Director of Building and Safety that all adjacent
off-site ~nufactured slopes have recorded slope easements and that
slope maintenance responsibilities have been assigned as approved by
the Director of Building and Safety.
d. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist
shall be retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the
proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts.
Should the paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to
significant resources, a pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist
and the excavation and grading contractor shall be arranged. When
necessa~. the paleontologist or representative shall have the
authority to temporarily divert. redirect or halt grading activity to
allow recovery of fossils.
20. Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall
be satisfied:
a. 10 building permits shall be issued by the County of Riverside for any
residential lot/unit within the project boundary until the
developer's successor's-in-interest provides evidence of compliance
with public facility financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred
dollars (Sl00~ per lotlunit shall be deposited with the Riverside
COunty Department of Building and Safety as mitigation for public
librar,y development.
.
.
; .. ..
IEsmc TElTATIYE TRACT 10. 23299
....1t1ons of AIP""al
hge 7
"
b. Prior to the submittal of building plans to the Department of Building
and Safety an acoustical study shall be performed by an acoustical
engineer to establish appropriate mitigation measures that shall be
applied to individual dwelling units within the subdivision to reduce
ambient interior noise levels to 45 Ldn and outside noise levels to 65
~. '
c. The project shall be constructed so that, it is substantial conformance
~th Exhibit A. Amended No.2.
d. Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that
shown on Exhibit B.
e. Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in
substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit B (Color
Elevations) and Exhibit C (Materials Board). These are as follows:
Roof
Walls
Materials
Tile
Stucco
Color
U.S. Tile - El Camino Blend
~1erl ex P-141 ,
Accent Ameritone 1H45G SYLPH
Ameritone2HBP
Cloversweet '
Ameritone 1M2BE Larch
Trim
Accent.
Wood
f. All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on
electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety
for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of
Rivres1de County Ordinance No. 655 and the Riverside County
Comprehensive General Plan.
g. Mitigation for liquefaction hazard shall be in conformance with County
Geologic Report No. 493.
h. Prior to the issuance of building permits. composite landscaping and
irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval.
The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requiring
landscaping and irrigation to be installed including. but not limited
to. parkway planting. street trees. slope planting. and common open
space planting
,.
1. Ioof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from view of surrounding
property.
j. A fencing plan shall be submitted for Planning Department Approval.
.
.
.
. -. .-.
. .
.'
.
.
mnllO TEJlTATlYE TIACT 10. 23299
Conditions of Approval
Page 8
". 21. Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall
be satisfied:
a. Wall and/or fence locations shan conform with approved plans and be
installed prIor to occupancy.
b. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with
.approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If
seasonal conditions do not permit planting, interim landscaping and
erosion control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning
Director and the Director of Building and Safety.
c. Notwithstanding the preceding co~ditions, wherever an acoustical study
is required for noise attenuation purposes, the heights of all
required walls shall be determined by the acoustical study where
applfcabl e.
GN:sc
10/12/88
,-
.
. .'- ..
!I I !
. I' I
"I,. , I,
z "'IIn
IIfl!' , II ~n n til"
. 11'1 ! '''''\' ! !., ". . ,III 1"1
.. ~ I I "'11 I L I i 1.1 h. .. L I I1III Illii
II! '......1'..111 " J"! ,I I
", il,lm I'll I 'In III 1 Ui HIm 11111/ I
I I .... ~Ill! I .J !II
II, .. .. .. ~ ./ \ " I 1.1
II! r:-/ / \ \ \ IiH
. r' -- ~ , ,f' " . , I '
" ~I ' ~ ~'~~,~~~:rlll l-)::~:, If I
~ .J ~ CJ ~ ..;..........^), [' ' ~ WI' il!
! !:1 .~ l~'//r,;',;:',' ,.... -(\'lP;:~, ~lY IJIII
~J I (;'~~('A ~I,~~7:~'~1\ .\J~kp Ii"
I"} 1 I;;=:i ~~1.;--1 -~,.:J 1.' ~~ ,II,." :'l t, H I
! ~ !H--~I-L{ ~ ,r'lIlsl 'rJ~~ < '.. ~\ I 1\ i-/!' ~'!I"1
l'i" -' iJ ~ ';10, r- I -!I \.. I _ ~, I-J I. I... I
i''l..l'~ ~&t:rl . lo:--lr', ~'I 11I1I~t" ,
~ 1-...,. '.1 ... :11.~/ [ij} " .r:: . ',i/1 ..-. · I r
, 11= , ~- 1.11, .;; x ( -:to ,I f lL. i-:' P 1'\1 ..-. .. I:;' I:
= Li[" \ --:4 " ~ ~ r II I ~ 7;;;]:!l'~ iJ. c;1IU"U,~'. I,D
~ f~"'~ 'f~\ UJI F~ 1~fH'", i'~ i
'\ Ii g-" ~1\1:.~ \~, Jp--.'..H I.~ l~ ~ i ,,~ !
) i. . ~ ~J~I~~\' ~_. ~~ __--:""-~ ,i~&-I"" ~J, g "
'- 1\_, ~Jli\r7ii~' ~.r 1'1, ~I~'),W.I' ~l+- 'I"'~~ I
i~ ~- ..-. . ?l"'li""t--j"- I ~.
;j,~~,',.:~---- :::.7;N---:C '-1, /j1Il! i I-y~- ,
~.V '\. f': \ )1 \1 iT, '1-1-~ I I
~ 1
:i-
S"
c:
~
.,
.-
s:
-
1:: '" t-
~.,oc(
"et Z
~~~
~g I.
&'~.:c
....~ t.!.: :.u
:'.:..,..;'1 ~rJ ~
~.....-:..,.~ -!!f"
~ '":-. . .....
.:. " ".' ::J
.
. "
.
. '
.
.
.
.
:
".
17
Il 4
.
"
,.
j
~
I
15
· ~ ~JII
flUI I
41~ I,ll,!
I ~ II I
...
.' ~. , :-""-
I-
.1-
~
j
.
1-
I
. . ,'.'
1_ r
....'-" ...
III
I !il
m;~il
"
I
omCE OF ROAD COM~"WN~R . COUNTY ,lffi~~ ~2 ~!.~ IT
RIV~k~liJl: COUNTY
?LANNING DEPARTMEN
October 11. 1988
COU"". AoM.IlI'IT...,..",. CIENTII.
...n..... .DD..... .... .. I...
........0.. CA'-.~....I.. .....
...~....... .,... tn.....
.
.
leRoy D. Smoot
.... ~..--..~. a CDuH" SUbIYOI
Rfverslde County Planning Conmlsslon
4080 Lemon Street
Rivers Ide. CA 92501
Re: Tract Map 23299 -'(Exhfbit A - Amend '2)
Schedule A - Team SP
ladfes and Gentlemen:
With respect to the conditions of approval for the referenced tentative land
division map. the Road Department recommends that the landdlvlder provide the
following street bnprovement plans and/or road dedlcatfons In accordance with
OrOinance 460 and Riverside County Road Improvement Standards (Ordinance 461).
It Is understood that the tentative map correctly shows acceptable centerline
profiles. 111 existing easements. traveled ways. and drainage courses with
appropriate Q's. and that their omission or unacc~ptablllty may require the map
to be resubmitted for further consideration. These Ordinances and the followiny
conditions are essential parts and a requirement occurring In OIIE Is as binding
as though occurring In all. They are Intended to be complementary and to
describe the conditions for a complete design of the Improvement. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall: be referred to the Road
~Issloner's OffIce. .
1. The landdfvlder shall protect downstream properties from damages
caused by alteration of the drainage patterns. I.e.. concentra-
tion of diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by
constructing adequate drainage facilitIes IncludIng enlarging
existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement or by
both. All drainage easements shall be shown on the final map
and noted as follows: -Drainage Easement - no building.
obstructions. or encroacllnents by land fills are allowed-. The
protection shall be as approved by the Road Department.
2. The landdfvfder shall accept and properly dispose of all offslte
drainage flowing onto or through the site. In the event the
Road ~Issloner permIts the use of streets for drainage
p~rposes, 'the 'provisions of Article XI of Ordinance No. 460
tlnl apply. Should the quantities exceed the street .
capacity or the use of streets be prohibited for drainage .
purposes, the subdl~lder shall provide adequate drainage
~aclllties IS approved by the Road Department.
.
" ,
. . 1'r'c~ 'Map 23299 - ,\Uhibi t A - Allend '2)
, o.rtober 11. 1988
. ,.ge 2
,
3. Major drainage is Inyolyed on this landdlylslon and Its resolution
shall be .s approved by the Road Department.
.c. eA- Street shall be IlIIproyed within the dedlc.ted right of way
In .ccordance with County Stlndlrd No. 101. (38'/50').
5. -B- Street shall be Improyed within the dedicated right of way In
accord.nce .rtth County Standard No. 102. (modified 64'/82'),
. '
6. The '.nddiylder will proYlde . left turn line ~n S.H. 79 .nd -A-
Street .t their Intersection with elch other as Ipproyed by the
Road Depar1llent.
7. The llnddlylder shill comply with ,the Calirans recommendations as
outlined in their letter dated March 30. 1988 Ca copy of which is
att!lched). prior to the recordation of the final IIIlIP.
8. The ',nddlylder shall proylde utility clelrlnce from Rancho calif.
Wlter District prior to the recordltlon of the finll map.
9. A copy of the final map shall be submitted to Caltrlns. District 08.
Post Office Sox 231. San Bernlrdlno. Callfornll 92403; Attention:
Project Deyelopment for reylew Ind approval prior to recordation.
10. The minimum centerline radii shill be 1600 · or as .pproyed by the
Road Deplrtment.
, .
11. S.H.'79 shill be Improyed with concrete curb and gutter located 55
feet from centerline and IIIlItch up asphalt concrete plying; recon-
struction; or resurflclng of existing plYing IS determined by
taltrans within I 71 foot half width dedlclted right of way.
12. All drlyeways shall conform to the Ippllclble Rlyers Ide County
Standards.
13. When blockwalls are required to be constructed on top of slope. a
debris retention ,wall shall be constructed .t'the street right of
~y 'Ine to prevent silting of sidewalks as .pproyed by the Road
CoaIaI ss loner. '
14. Concrete sidewalks shan be constructed throughout the '.nddlYfs Ion
fn accordance with County Stand.rd No. 400 and 401 (curb sidewalk).
- .
;.
,~
.. Tr.a. llap 23299 ~ (Exh1b1t A - Alllend '2)
." bc:tOIIer 11. 1988
,.ge 3
'.
15. A secondary Iccess road to the nearest paved road IIIIlntalned by
the County shall be constructed within the public right of way in
1n accordance with County Standard No. 106, Section B. (32'/60')
at I grade and alignment IS approved by the Road Commissioner. this
15 necessary for circulation purposes.
16. Prior to the recordation of the final IIIIP, the developer shall
deposit with the Riverside County Road Department., a cash sum of
-SlCO.OO Qer unit as mItigation for traffIc signal impacts. Should
th~ developer choose to defer the time of payment, he may,enter
Into I written agreement with the. County deferrIng said payment
to the time of Issuance of a,bulldlng permIt.
.' '
17. Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending
I minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at I grade Ind
alignment as approved by the RIverside County Road Commissioner.
Completion of road Improvements does not Imply acceptance for
maintenance by County.
18. Electrical Ind communications trenches shall be provided In
Iccordance with Ordinance 461, Standard 817. .
19. Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than
fourteen days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall
be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard. . Asphalt
emuls10n shall conform to sections 37. 39 and 94 of the State
Standard Spec Iflcatlons. ::
20. Comer cutbacks In confol"llllnce with County Standard No. 805 shall
be shown on the final .p and offered for ded Icat Ion.
21. lot access shall be restricted on S.H. 79 and so noted on the final
IllI p .
22. lInddlvisions creating cut or fill slopes adjacent to the streets
shill provide erosion control. sight distance control and slope
.lsemenU IS IpproVed by the Road Department.
23. All centerline Intersections shin be at 90. with a Ilinlnum 50'
tangent _Isured fl'Cllll flow line.
24. The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be
coordinated wtth TR 23267 and TR Z3063.
25.
Street lighting shin ,be required in accordance with Ordinance 460
and 461 throughout the subdivision. The County Service Area (CSA)
AdminIstrator determines Whether this proposal qualIfies under an
.
\
.- ,
,
~
Trlct.Mlp 23299 .(Exhibit A . Amend 12)
'UC~r 11. '1988
. page 4
:
existing assessment district or not. If not. the land owner shall
" file an application with LAFeO for annexation Into or creation of
a aLighting Assessment Dlstrlcta in accordance with Governmental
Code ,Section 56000.
~. All private and public entranCes and/or Intersections opposite this
project shall be coordinated with this project and shown on the
street Improvement plans. .
,
27. A striping plan Is required for -A- Street and S.H. 79. The
reMoval of the existing striping shall 'be the responsibility of the
applicant. Traffic signing and striping shall be done by County
forces with all Incurred costs~orne by the applicant.
li1l:lh
\
/
.
.
Very truly yours.
/~ 71~~"
Gus Hughes
Road Division Engineer
, ,
,
-
. ..'-' "
.
.'
"
,
County of Riverside
.
'.
BIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT.
DATE:
08-29-88
,
""0:
I
ATTN: Dan
.
anitarian. Environmental Health Svcs.
'.FROM:
BE:
Tract Hap 23299. Amended No. 2
Environmental Health Services has reviewed Tract Hap 23299.
Amended No. 2 dated August 19. 1988. Our current comments
will remain as stated in our letter dated Hay 2~. 1988.
SH: tac
;;.
.'
fED lE.fm ~ll \]' iE frD
l11J ;'!':" " ijli
"" .. ." . I;'~- ....../
j.;!1.'E':.' . j.. .
r.:~t. ;.: ".:::' :. r;~' t~..
.1
/
CZH. to..... ....,11I11
._, ..
.
:
DEPARTMENT
of HEALTH
.:C'OUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
t..ICIU.--- ...
-~........
==~'I~.!,"
---
.. _aLII""
epvr. ....c'-l" .....
. ..............
..-.
:.J:....~:.:r.:.,:.=..
--
:."",~~.-
.--...,-.
-..-
..-'11I .......
-
Ut.l.~ SftIIn
.-ci. GA IN"O
. 11.. _.......
.. -. CA N,n
.... "'MlCa
ta.. ..."out...,...
......... CA .J....
a_a
.., IOU'" ..... ...,.
~ CA ..".
....
... ..".. ...,. 11.
......,. CA ....,
-
....,.. __ IIfItII1'
-...0. CA ....
..... ........
..... '."Ma ....
...... ~.CA. NIII
..L. ......
..,.. ,....,.".--.-
."".. ......... c.a .....
.......
." ..eM....". S'-l'1
........ CA N'"
-.-
..., .....01.. .....11'
"W'..tDl. c.. ....,
........
.... 1ft..... .YD.
........ CA .,...
..... ..,
..n .TH aTIIllT ..~CPOIT .'1Ql eo. "'01' .lveMIO&.CA. N.O.
Hay 27. 19888
,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT.
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside. CA 92502
Attn: C
T~~
I
t_l. _..
RE; TRACT HAP 23299; Being a porlion of Assessor Parcel No.
926-160-011 on file in lhe Office of lhe Counter
Recorder. Riverside. California.
<1 Lot>
Gentle.en:
The Department of Public Health has ieviewed Tentative Map
No. 23299 and recommends that:
A water system shall be installed according to
plans and specification as approved by the water
company and the Health Department. Permanenl
prinls of lhe plans of lhe water syslem shall
be submitted in triplicate. with a minimum scale
not Jess than one inch equals 200 feet. along wilh
the original drawing lo the County Surveyor. The
prints shall show the internal pipe diameter.
Jocalion of valves and fire hydrants: pipe and
joint specifications. and the size of the main
at the junction of lhe new syslem to lhe
exisling system. The plans shall comply 1n
aJ1 respecls with Div. 5, Part 1. Chapter 1 of
the California Health and Safety Code. California
Adm1nistral1ve Code, Title 22. Chapler 16. and General
Order No. 103 of lhe Public Ul11ities Commission ~f the
Slale of California, when applicable.
fID~@~llWl[@
1)\ JUN 2 1988
RIVERSluE Cvw:.TV
PLANNING DEPAFiTMErn
,
.
'.
.
- .
,
.
.
Riverside County Planning Dept.
Page Two
Attn: Dan Catron
Hay 27. 1988
The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and
vater company with the lollowing certilication: -I
certify that Lhe design 01 the water system in
Tract Map 23299 is accordance with the water system
expansion plans ot the Rancho California Water Districl
and that the vater service.slorage and distribution
syst.. viII be adequate to provide water service to
such tract. This certilication does not constitute a
,guarantee Lhat it will supply water to such tract at
any specitic quantities, flows or pressu~es tor tire
protection or any othe'r purpose-. This certificalion
shall be signed by a responsible ollicial 01 the water
company. Ib~_~!AD~_gY!1_~~~IY~mi11.~_12_1b~_CQYnlY_
~Y~Y~YQ~:~_Q(!i~~_12_r~Yi~~_~1~1~~~1_1~Q_~~~~!_~~iQr_lQ
!b~_r~gY~~!-lQ~-1b~_r~~QrgAliQD_2l_1h~_liD~1_mAe.
This Department has a statement tram the Rancho Calilornia
Water District agreeing to serve domestic water to each and
every lot in the subdivision on demand providing'
satislactory tinancial arrangemenls are completed with the
subdivider. It will be necessary lor the tinancial
arrangements to be aade prior to the recordation 01 lhe
tinal aap.
This Department has a statement tram the kastern Municipal
Water District agreeing to allow lhe subdivision sewage
system to be connected to the sewers 01 the District. The
sewer system shall be instal,led according to plans and
specilications as approved by the District. the County
Surveyor and the Health Departmenl. Permanent prints 01 the
plans 01 the sever system shall be submilted in triplicate.
along with the original drawing. to the County Surveyor. The
prints shall show the internal pipe diameter. localion 01
aanhole.. complete prolile.. pipe and joinl specilications
and the size of ~. sewers at the junction 01 the new system
to lhe existing .yste.. A single plat indicating location
at sewer lines and water lines shall be a portion of the
sevage plans and profiles. The plans shall be signed by a
registered engineer and lhe sewer district vith the
following certification: -I certify that the design of the
sewer system in Tract Map 23299 is in accordance with the
sewer system expansion plans of the Eastern Municipal Waler
District and that the vaste disposal system is adequate at
this ti.e to treat ~ anticipated wastes frOm the proposed
tract.-
- .
-
,.'
. . .
. .
>
".
.' .
. R1ver.ide County Planning Dept.
Page Three
ATTN: Dan Catron
!fay 27. 1988
1b~_Q!~n1-.Y~1_~~_~Y~miii@~_12_1b~_~2Ynix_~Y~Y~X2r:~_Qfris~
!2_~~Yi~~_~1_!~~~1_1~2_~~~~~_Q~iQ~_12_ib!_r!gY~~1_!2~_lb!
~S2L~~!i9n-2L-1h~-!inA1-.~~.
It viII be nece.sary for financial arr.ngements to be m.de
prior to the record.tion of lh. tin.l m.p.
,
It vill be n.c....ry for annexation proceedingl!' to be
completely fin.lized prior to record.tion of the fin.l m.p.
........ .-
Si~cer. Yd...
I ,
, f/'V~
H. R.' LOCHS. Land U.. Supervisor
Environmental Health Services
-, .
HRl.:SH:l.c
,-
,
,....~ .
. ,
KENNETH '- EDWARDS
CMIIEI" ..........
,... M.RKI"T aTlIIlET
~. O. aox '011
1'D.a....ONI nl.. 7.7.ao,.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
.,YEnIDlE. CALIP'ORN'A .Z.02
'.
October 18, 1988
Riverside County
Planning Department
County Administrative Center
Riverside, California
,
4,
Attention I Regional Team No. 1
Greg Neal
Ladies and Gentlemenl
Rei Vesting Tract 23299
Exhibit "A"
Vesting Tract 23299 is a proposal to construct condominiums on a
14 acre site in the Temecula Valley area. The property is lo-
cated on the south side of State Highway 79"o~e quarter mile
west of Margarita Road.
I
This project is located on the floor of Temecula Valley and is
subject to both riverine flows from Temecula Creek and sheeting
offsite storm flows from two other sources. The main course of
Temecula Creek flows along the southern tract boundary. Storm
water from a 800 acre watershed to the north crosses the
northwest boundary of the project. Due to poorly defined
drainage patterns, it is probable that large amounts of storm
water emanating from tributaries north of Temecula Creek and from
far to the east may sheet west, generally parallel to Temecula
Creek. and across the site. Unless these storm flows are dealt
with by upstream development in the watershed, the developer will
have to construct drainage facilities to protect this project.
Exhibit -A" shows that onsite storm runoff will be conveyed to
Temecula Creek via interior streets and storm drains.
The ~rovements to Temecula Creek are proposed as a part of
Assessment District 159. The District's interest in the con-
figuration of the main channel is limited to its adequacy as a
flood protection facility. It should be noted that the present
design does not allow for habitat mitigation within the channel,
nor does it specifically provide for joint use of the facility
(e.g.. equestr.ian or bicycle trails). A change in channel con-
figuration or right of way width may require redesign of this
proposal.
'-
.
,
.
.
Riverside County
Planning Department
Re: Vesting Tract 23299
Exhibit -A-
-2-
October 18, 1988
The developer's Exhibit -B" proposes to collect storm flows from
the 800 aere eanyon at De Portola Road and eonvey them to
. Temecula Creek in a trapezoidal channel. Two eollection dikes
are ~ropo8ed on the east side of Margarita Road to capture storm
flows traveling parallel to Temecula Creek. These flows would
combine with the northern stream just north of Highway 79.
,
Following are the District's recommendations:
1. Temeeula Creek Channel should..be constructed along this
tract as shown on the tenta.r,ive.map. ,
2. Both Temecula Creek Channel and the drainage facilities
,proposed to convey storm flows from the north and east
should be built to District standards. Some of these
facilities are proposed to be constructed by ,Assessment
District 159. If these have not been installed by the .
time grading permits are requested, it will be necessary
for this tract to construct drainage structures necessary
to protect it from tributary 100-year storm flows.
E'\'idence of a viable JtIAint.enance-.me.chan,i-sm-sho~Jp_l?.!!-Sl.!I;>:- '1
mitted to the District and County for, review and approval
prior to recordation of the final map.
3. A portion of the proposed project is in a flood plain and
may affect "waters of the United States", "wetlands" or
"jurisdictional streambeds", therefore, in accordance
with the requirements of the National Flood Insurance
Program and Related Regulations (44 C~R, Parts 59 through
73) and County Ordinance No. 458:
a. A flood study consisting of HEC-2 calculations, cross
sections, maps and other data should be prepared to
the satisfaction of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEHA) and the Distriet for the purpose of
revising the effective Flood Insurance Rate Map of
the project site. The submittal of the study should
be concurrent with the initial submittal of the
related project improvement plans and final District
approval will not be given until a Conditional Letter
of Map Revision (CLOMR) has been received from FEMA.
b. A copy of appropriate correspondence and necessary
permits from those government agencies from whieh
approval is required by Federal or State law (such as
Corps of Engineers 404 permit or Department of Fish
and Game 1603 agreement) should be provided to the
District prior to the final District approval of the
project.
0'- ,
.
.
.." . .
Riverside County
Planning Department
Re: Vesting Tract 23299
Exhibit "A"
':'3':'
October 18, 1988
..
4. Onsite drainage facilities located outside of road right
of way should be contained within drainage easements
shown on the final map. A note should be added to the
final map stating, "Drainage easements shall be kept free
of buildings and obstructions". '
5. Offsite drainage facilities should be located within
publicly dedicated drainage easements ob~ained from the
affected property owners. The documents should be
recorded and a copy SUbmitted to the District prior to
recordation of the final map.
6. Drainage facilities outletting sump conditions should be
designed to convey the tributary 100 year storm flows.
Additional emergency escape should also be provided.
7. Development of this property should be coordinated with
the development of adjacent properties to ensure that
watercourses remain unobstructed and stormwaters are not
diverted from one watershed to another. This may require
the construction' of temporary drainage facilities or
offsite construction and grading. ,.
8. A copy of the improvement plans. grading plans and final
map along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic
calculations should be submitted to the District via the
Road Department for review and approval prior to
recordation of the final map. Grading plans should be
approved prior to issuance of grading permits.
Questions concerning this matter may be referred to Bob Cullen of
this office at 714/787-2333.
Very truly yours,
KENNETH L. S
ie Enginee
ec: RANPAC
BC:bab
'- .
'.
.
.
. ~.
, .
".
RAY HEBRARD
fiRE CHIEF
8-24-88
IUVERSIOECOUNTY
FlREDEPARTMENT
IN COOPERATION WITH THE
CAUFORN1^ DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
....nnlnl &; Enlln_ln& Offl..
4010 .......0" Stree'. Suhe II
Rlwenlde, CA 91501
(7141717_
TO: PLANHIRC DEPAJ.'IKENT
ATTR: 'l'EAK I. CIEC IlEAL
U: TIl %3299 - AHERDED '2 6., ^ c;.,.
,
Vl~h respect to the conditions of approval for the,above referenced land divilion,
the Fire Depart.ent reca.aends the following fire protection aealurel be provided
In accordance with Rtverslde County OrdlnaQcel and/orrecognlzed f1re protection
etandarda:
FDE PROTECTION
The vater ..lnl ehall be capable of providing a potential fire flow of 2500 GPM
aad an actual fire flow available froa anyone hydrant ehall be'1500 CPM for
houra duration at 20 PSI reeidual operating prelaure.
~proved auper fire hydrant. 6x4x21x21 ahall be located at each interlection
.od spaced not aore than 330 feet apart 1n any direction vith no portion of
any lot hontage aore than 165 feu from a hydrant. /
~plicant/developer ehall furniah one copy of the water eyatem planl to the
Fire Dep~rt.ent for review. Plana ehall confora to fire hydrant typee, location
and apacing, and. the eyatem ahall ..et the fire flow requiremente. Plans ahall
be eigned/approved by a regiatered civil engineer ani the local vater company
vith the following certification: "1 certify that the delign of ~he vater eystem
Ie 1n accordance with the requireaente prescribed by ~he livereide County Fire
Dept. .
~e required vater eyat.. including fire hydrant. .hall be inatalled and accepted
by the appropriate water agency prior to any combuatible building ..terial being
placed aD an individual lot.
Prior to the recor4ation of the final ..p. the applicant/developer ahall provide
alteraate 'or .econdary access ae approved by the County aoad Depart.ent.
IIlTICATIOtf FEES
Prior to the recordstion of the final ..p. the developer ehall depoeit with
the alverside County Fire Departaent a ca.h eua of $400.00 per lot/unit ae aitigation
for fire protec~ion i~ec~.. Should the developer chooee to defer the ~i.e
of pa,.ent. he ..y enter into a wr1tten agre.aent witb the County deferring
..id payaen~ to the t~ of 18IUance of a building perait.
.... ..
. ....
. .
.
..
_ U: n 23299
I
Page 2
"
All liI"eatione resat'dins tbe '_aIIbg of tbe c:onc!1tlona au11 be referred to the
'. Fire Depart_enl: Planning and Engineering ataff.
, RAYHOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Departaent Planner
'.#~~
Iy
Va. AUton. Deputy Fire Karaba! : '
a1
.
~.
.... ."
-,
/
.
.'" .
.
.
,
.
~
COcpaltbncnl o~ CBu[Qd[ng and ga~et9
'.
County Administrative Center . 4080 Lemon Street, 2nd Floor
Riverside, California 92501-3661 '
August 22. ~988
Riverside County Planning Department
Attention: Greg Neal
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
,
-,
RE: Vesting Tract 23299, Exhibit A. Amend '2
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety
has the following comments and conditions:
Prior ~o the issuance of building permits, the developer shall
obtain Planning Department approval for all on-site and off-
site signage advertising the sale of the subdivision pursuant
to Section 19.6 of Ordinance 348. I
Very truly yours.
Tho.es H. Ingram, Director
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY
By: /2'~.L')J ~ JVz.d, ~ '
No~ A. Lostbom, Deputy ~ edl:or
Land"'Use Division
-\ ~:,~-...;- :. .
...,..:....,
BuDding inspection (714) 787-6480 · Administration (714) 787-2020
Land Use Enforcement (714) 787..079 · engineering Plan Service (714) 787,2011
:
=liVE=I)ii)E count'!
i>>LAnninc; i)E?~~trncnt
r
~
I
,
" October 11. 1988
".
Highland Soils Engineering
1832 s. Coanercenter "ircle, Suite A
San Bernardino, CA 92408
Attention: Mr. Robert C. Manning
Mr. Warren L. Sherling
Mr. lI111iall T. Altmeyer
,
SUBJECT: 'Liquefaction Hazard
Job NO; 07-6556-010-00-00
Vesting Tentative Tract 23299
County Geologic Report No. 493
Rancho California ~rea
Gentlemen: -
We have reviewed the, liquefaction aspects of your report entitled -Fault Hazard
and Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, 242% Acres,~Southwest of the
Intersection of Margarita Road and State Highway 79, Rancho California,
Riverside County, CA, - dated February 3, 1988. L !;:.
-' . f ;' .. ..... t, j' ,....:.;,... ..~ .
. . . . . .
Your report determined that the potential for liquefaction 1s considered high
in the larger drainage courses rep~sented,py ,auba ,Valley~, The surface
manifestation of liquefactfon occurring on this site may-include differential
settlement, loss of bearing, sand boils and lateral spreading of slopes along
Temecula Creek. '
Your report recClllllended that: . .
1. A compacted fill mat along with a gravel blanket and additional footing
reinforcement should be used to mitigate liquefaction induced
differenU.l 'Settlement.
2. Structural setbacks from tops of f111 slopes toeing into liquefaction
prone areas should be used to lIitigate liquefaction ~riggered lateral
spreading.
3. The geotechnical engineer should review the project grading plans to
develop SlIeci'f1c design information. '
<4080 LEMON STREET, r FtOOR
RIVERSIDE, CAUFORNIA 92501
(714) 787-6181
'-
<46-209 OASIS STflEET;<ROOM 304
INDIO. CALIFORNIA 92201
(619) 342-8277
.
. '
- .
"-
I
Highland Soils Engineering
-2-
October 11. 1988
It is our opinion that the report was prepared in a competent IIIlInner and
satisfies the additional info,..tion requested under the California
Environmental Quali~ Act rev1ew and the Rivers1de County Comprehensive General
Ptan. final approval of the report is hereby given.
lie recCllllllend that the follOWing note be placed on the final tract IIIlIp prior to
. its recordat10n: .County Geologic Report 493 was prepared for this property on
februar.y 3. 1988 by Highland Soils Engineering and is on file at the Riverside
County Plann1ng Department. The specific item of interest is liquefaction.
This item affects all parcels..
-,
,The recommendations made in your report for mitigation of liquefaction
potential shall be adhered to in the design and construction of this project.
Ver.y truly yours.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Roger S. Streeter - Plan 1ng Dire tor
.
tn. perman I
Eng1neer1ng Geolog1ft
CEG-1205 '
SAK:rd
c.c. .Ranpac - Dave Dillon
Building . Safety - Nann Lostbom (2)
Team 1 - Greg Neal
'.
.
.'
.
. .
- tRiUfn/~{JJJ
,
OCT 13 1988
. . "ll.A~~~~~lg~~gki~~NT
ec-ty~Offia
OCtober 13. 1988
Mr. Richard MacHott. Supervising Planner
Riverside County Planning Department
4080 Lemon str..t. 9th Floor
Riverside. CA 92501
,
.'~ . .'
SUBJECT: Vesting Tentative Tract M4p'Numbsr"23299
-
Dear Mr. MacHott:
The following summarizes our findings regarding the fiscal
illlpact analysis for the project identified above. The
appendix attached summarizes the basic assumptions used in
the analysis. Please note that these results reflect the
current levels of service provided by the County based on
Fiscal Year 1986 - 1987 actual costs (per capita factors)
and DepartMental ~nd Auditor-Controller revie~ of operations
and facility costs for services reviewed us'ng case study
analysis. Staff to the Growth Fiscal Impact Task Force and
Departments are currently reviewing service levels provided
and the need to increase the levels of service. Current
findings are that eXisting levels of service are not
adequate in most CBses. Should the desired level of service
be utilized in the fiscal analysis performed, it would
significantly increase the costs associated with this
developmeJ:\t.
COUNTY FUND FISCAL IMPACT CUMULATIVE FISCAL
(Operations and AFTER BUILDOUT IMPACT AT BUILOOUT
Maintenance)
County General ($62.(41) ($57.075)
Fira ($10.703) ($16.05.U
Fre. Library ($2.071) ($3.107)
SUBTOTAL COUNTY ($74.815) ($76.236)
Road Fund $12.434 $18.256
GRAND TOTAL ($62.381) ($57.980)
RobertT. ~ Admlnlslrallve Center
4lBILEMOIC S1REEf . 1Z1H FLOOR . JII\/EJl5IDE, CALFOIlNIA 92501 . (7i41 787-2544
. .
.
.
. , " .
"
The fOllowing apecial circumstances apply to this project:
1. The developer assumptions
persons per dwelling unit. CAO
2.69 persons per household,
countywide average for this 'type
included a factor of
staff utilized a factor
which is closer to
of unit.
2.1
of
the
",
2. CAO .taff has reviewed library costs with Library
personnel and incorporated actual operations and maintenance
costs into the analysis. Using Library staff estimates of
the costs of providing the current level of service,
considering the increase in population, this project should
result in one-tiMe capital facility costs of $29,937
(library space, volUMeS) and ongoing annual operati,ons and
Maintenance costs of $5,729. Library staff has indicated
t.hat t.he current level of eervice is not adequate.
3. Flood Control etaff has indicat."d' "'that flood control
facilities constructed within Zone-' 7 ' are unlikely to be
SUfficiently funded for maintenance costs. Current
estimates indicate that funding shortages should occur for
t.he next ten years. Suggested mitigation measures include a
cash deposit by the project developer or use of an
assessment. mechanism. The amount of deposit would be
determined by a present value analysis and project timing.
The cost of maintaining flood control facilities
not be known until final design phases, when facility
have been fully identified. Flood Control staff
therefore, condition project approvals to id&ntify a
of financing facility maintenance and operation
necessary) prior to recordation of subdivisions.
will
needs
will,
means
(if
Based on the analysis and assuming that the average eales
price of t.he units will be $X, overall X will have a
negative fiscal impact at buildout of $57,980. After
buildout, this project will have an annual negative fiscal
impact to the County of $62,381 at current levels of
.ervice.
Initial ReY1ew By:
Review App~ed By:
'- .
-.....
.
'.
....
"
t':!
..s
~-
.
,
.
r
it
..
..
..
I
~
t
,
.
c
.
~
r
~
"
.
~
-
..
;l
:l
f
--
..
~!
'.'V
..~
..
0::
.~
"6
!!
.-
,...
-
i
..
i 9i~'9;;;
lit -:~. iii"';":-:
..
t
-
~
;;
..-
-.
...,....
-.....
.
-~
i!&
"..
;..
-
..
..
'i C
r , ii!_!!~
! ~::"!tl
... r...,'~'r..l!C
I......~:'\..w
. 6.....:1:.:.
f '82-......
.,1:."...
..
s.
"..
~=
lit
.t
::6
~-
--
u_
..
:i
.....
roi
Ai
...
....
;,
-0
~-
;.~
Ii-
w:
.-:;..
....
,,-
..
-.
~~
"'"
::..
.f :
00 .:
i
i
--
-
I
.
-
....
i;.
;i ~
~. !
-~
,- ~
.A II:
OJ
t
il
~c ..
.. .
;
q .,
~ i..
t C:"
.. _I..
z I.:..
..
:I
..
A
..,Il
It~
......
---
....-
a...
-t.l
:.'
...-
.
.Il
~~
..0
..
..
1_
M'"
!li
e
..'"
....
~~
..
t..
~.
16 ..000000000000000000
..
,
';I
i..
if
....
~..
;~
':L
IJ
...........,........
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
....................
~~:~~._w~w:~ww~v__..
--
~ .000000000000000000.
;;
.
-
t~
t-
n
~
....
..::
;~
"'-
gl
,""
ODODOeOOGoOeODDGOOOD
"
n.
i-t
i;
Ie
tit
$':
t'~
.
,,-
,:;:
.'
....
~
~~~~~~~eee~~~~e~e~ee
__~~_wvw~~Q~_G~G~_~w
.
,
.I'
~...
...
cc
00000000000000000000
..
..0<
::".
i'"
-~
. ,
..
fi
~!l
ui
00000000000000000000
l'
M"
a
~I
~-
~
~'"
-..
..
i;
"'..
..
~.'
.~~~~~~~~~n~~_~~~~~~
~W"fl~"fl~"~fl~~"~fl.fl~"
-~~~~~-~~~-~--~~~~~-
~_ODO..O.ODODOOOOQOO
;;;;
..
--
....
....
\:'~
.J"
at
..OOOOO~OO~~OOO.OQOO
--
--
..
....
..
~!l
.'
01
a
-~~~~~~O~~~~~O~~~A~~
~.- ..- ----. -.--..
--
~~ooo.eQo~o~o.ooo~oe
...
..~
-..
.
l
..
.
E
t
;
-
.
~
-
~
..
-
~
!:
II
!
~
~
-
-
Ie
..
.
i
-
..
,
-
..
w
! !
. -
, :;
;A ~
.. .
i r
I .
It "
~ ..
II
-
.;
~
-
.;
::
-
.;
..
fI
..
.;
..
..
-
.
.
..
..
-
,
:t
..
-
,
.
:.1
-
.
"
..
-
.
..
"
..
..
.;
:
.
,
..
-
..
....
- ~
..
!
!:
. A~
.. n
; llll
In
~u
In
, -.
.. ....
W Ii;'
II
".
!
-
".'rO."OD If'
i;i ii ;
fill! 2- ~
-
"0
~
-
,.
""'rO."OO If'
~r.:r I:~ i
... 0- "
... .... ...
-
"0
!
..
..........00 ...
~i;il:;i ;;
~.! 2- ~
-
....
~
..
"
~...o...oo .
2~1! t:i i
.i.. 0- ..
,.. - - -
-
....
0"
..
..
...
-......,.....~ .
9...~."9... ..
;~.!;:i a
.r- -.. ::
;,;
::
..
ot.....::;;w~ :.
,....... t'" i:
t!:'~ .:.-
!l0
01
..
~f:;.gt';OO !
....... 0
::..: =-
....
;
ft
..
......0...00 ...
~;;;t: ~i ;
t-! e" ~
..
...
~
"
~."O."Oct .
2~t r: ..
... D ..
... .... ...
..
..0
a
"
..
...'ltft...oo ~
~~:::::~;; =
~.S.!: 5
......fOII....,,,, e
!'~:I:t !!
......... it
.. .. ..
" I.
c ,.:it
.. 1:",'-
"." : _lItt
,r.." ,Iii
..!b 1"5 1f
!- I .... -
:Ell' ~ "'0....
...".,."...... .:.
;acu:::i:i j
~,;a_~~...o... "
ii-
,
,
'~CHH'f~9
J:..~~":;;;
:;2".W~
.... 0""" ct
t~~!':..,~lf.
....O...f'I
...... ....
9~q~""'9
f:;i'i+;':~~
::;~....:;
....,flIfOII..ct
e!..1~~2
o~:!t;.,~
......--..-
f....~.O
0.....7.._ .
...."'..........
-..... ''''
-
~
_;;:;";;;115
l~\!t~HO:
...- . .ift
.,
..
ft
I~!i('''.-i
.t-;~;;;;"
.....:.~w;,;,..;
..... "III
....01'\1......0
i:;."i~*~
~:~"""*~
lit..",.""...."
t!'''!~~~2
.-0..."
-w" ,..
....0"'......
i:~:t~;:~li:
'!;S. .*~
..."....~
It~n~:I~
.a...~....
... ....
.:1: i"
..;::t:: c
..it!:f., ~
..ii_" .._"
!l"'h ...
~':::t:t: ~~
ol""'z""."
li..$:ii::,:
t."~21'''..
..
I
I
~
.
.l :.~ ~# 011 "" OC .~ "". a
-., - ..- .... :; .., .. j"'''!4''!' ,. --" ...............
_!to ..' .. ." .... ~~ oli ." -. ... ... .0' :. -...~. . ..... .;.~-66o..
.. .. .... -.. ~-: .- ." .... ~... '.: ..~:: ._..;.u ~ 0- ..;:.~~~.
Ii;; ... . - .. oJ; .. .. ri .. ~... .'"
-! t '1I .... !~ ... too. - !!Ii lI" w .,.... -.. "
-- v- 0' . i; 5;;i - --
. - .;. v_ v v.. - v.. ..
. . . .. .. .. -. :; ,.
. .. , ~ .. . ..
;tl . .... ill ::i .... .. -. ... u .. l!~1 .. Ii 51 . ~ lll.'l
.,., i~ -. ,.. -- -- "
.. = ... -0 .... .... 0.. ... .... .... ..... D . & - ....
1U .. ~.; .. .;.: .,; .;. " .. 0":; l: ; ,,- " p.-...
..- ..- - .... 0 .j:'~
-, ": ~! -.. ~2 .- t.~ -- e:;. .. . .- 1".,,: !i ~ ~~
v ,. I ~- . .
. .. . v v. .,. .1 ' ... ..~
. . ~: -a . - .;:r~-:f
. . .. ....
, . . . !t - C '~!t -:~~""~;
. " .. -- . ..
P. ... .. .... ,~ "0 .... oo. -.. "oo ..0 ... 0'" .. .oo v, .... ...,......u
.:i .. i .n ...:. fio ...... si ....... ".. -.. .1. I ,.~:i... . i"ti ~;;;:~.:
... ... -. .." .... .. .... .... .....
... ,t it .. .. .. .:.; .. .. :: .. ... ! "i. ... 0 9~.. It 0......
~~ -~ ::i -.. -- :;& --, I" . " .
-. .... v_ ...~ .1I' - ~ \ '. - -~;! u..J.J~6
, .- .. . - ...-...... . =.., ..~~5' .
v v v. --.. ,
, I I .....~-: i tfi ~~I.=i
. . . .. c Iti': __aicei
. "" "" "" qq "".
.- ., . .- 0" ... -- oo. -. ..0 ..0 0'" ..
[0';' III C ~;; .- ~~ f.l; w.. .... ~~ l1t ell ..... .
-., .,~ ",. .-. ,
... .. .. .. '. . .. ::~ .. ".. ...
.. J! -- ,.,;; :i .... ..... - M. i:-..1 ~ ,
.. ..- -.. v_ ..- -. -.
. .. .. . .. .... ..
- v v,
. . 0 ,
I I 0>
..
.t .... ..- 1111 ii; ~q C~ -- ^."\& .........f
~6 t ,.- !: .,." --, ..
.. ~~ f! !! ... -. ... ~~ i.1 ~ 6......6
.ii ;I' ,.- ........:.. ...~ .... .... 1I .. . " ..
. ii gi ,:,: 0'; .:,; ,:,: .. !Ii ... ..~...
lil. :!1 - 0... . .' .
vit .., .11 -- ..... !
. - vv v o. v...
. "
.
, . !:
.
. ..^ ~" ".. 9~ ~~. i
~* ... ~.. i~ :.; r;. ii: "':-i TO T~. -",. . fj;:i; .. ::;,:;
.. - ... ... -- .x -- "f). .; ..
.... U !: ... -M '.'~ ":-: ~~ ~": .- t.. ".~ ... ~ -...- "; G &-
~., i; ~. ... .. ...........;.
it. e.. ..- ". .... ..- - .... a-i .... .. ..~t:lIl""'W
-, -n -, ,- t;1{ -. :ox; e ...... c;::;t
.. v. v ---
. . 'j r'i''''''lI!ll
. "
. . '!' ~!~~~~
. .
. .. . u .... , ;:; " ...:f.......
t1e ... II .:!l! it !:i :!~ !l. -- .- !;i l! 2'" . =iJf~o&'l
-. .., ... .. ..-- ,. 5
..;; .. .. ;:. .- .... i.._ .... 0_ ... I!" ... ..~. .. ce~_o'
..oo Ii: ;. ..- ie ':. ft. ,;. ;; ,.. ... - :l . ~,,.g.~:
".. 0-' J .
.. .: ~~ -.. -. .. ell; -. M" _ ~-: .c!\o"'.~
. ...., 'J- , I
. v 0 -. G- .~ ~~,,!q-=
. , ~ _0 .;,.c:: ,,.::~;'
. ~..
. . II: .' - C &0......,..
. . . .. . .... ~ . '
~! ... ~ '''. 0" .." "0 oo.. _0 .... "0 .... Dh. II "" v.
.,: ~.: .:or. ;i ;:. ;c 1..1 ;ti l;t -" ," . 0_- .
.... - ~'-: ..- 'O. " ..... ..
w.. tr. .. .. .. .. .. .. :: .. ... ~ ll.~': "
" ii -- :.. ~,. -.. -- .,. -.. ,.
-. ... .... -.. vv .... ... ... 0 i 1.!- . -
. .- -n .-. Ii ..~,.-- ,
. 0 .. - .. ,
, I !! ....;... .
. .
. . , . . . J . .. .
-- . -- ^^ ^^ -^ -" "".
-, -.. "0 ... II- -.. ... ." "0 -...
..'111 WI C 11:: ~: n er 3~ ~~ :~ ~f: -. w.t.
"" ... .. -.. .. .. ~ ~~ . ..
- . T' ,... ..... r- .....
-. .;1 ..- _. -. ov .... -- ..-.
I - .- .. .- ,-.
v v ,..
. .
. .
, .'
. , ~ H' . ,!
, . ',0 t
... ""__0 ..~ ... ~9 ..,~ !!: -.. ~~ ~! ... .~. ..0. ..~.....". .0 00
.,. ~:';8i Ai. 1';- U ~~ .." ;~ -.. ~. ': w'";-';' -w
... oa ... ~-: ..- --. -i ...... ..-
M" lI!l~~- .. .. .. .. .. .. .., .. e..... t
-~ -.. ..- .... -- -- - ...~ -... - --
-.~~ :~ .. -.. .... vv Ii;: -- .... ..
.-- . " -
. .. .
. . .
. .
. ,,- .." -- -" ..A'
.. .. .. .... ... 110 -- .. .. ... .... .... .....
~= III it =, ~~ J;!g == ,= .... ;; ;t .." ...
~~ .." ..-.
..- ... .;. .. . . .. .. ;; . .. ... . ,
or, ;z: .... ..- ..- -. .... .... e
-- - vv vv -- --,
. .. ""I - ..
. i
. . io ....
. ,. ~ - ;li ..
. 'C ~ .. .
, : I . . .. . ..- .. - ~e~ i-l_ t 0>
. ~ t . ... . .... ~ ;; ,o. , "
~ . c 5 ..~ c 01'0 -- -. .....
, . . . i i::: . .. .. 0> .. uif ~l:; iilf
. '; '; - - ...- .. - ..
.. , .. ~ . ".. . flA '" . tc~..... it-a p.~.,
. , . . . . .. , . , . I:...
. . _ ~ ~ ..' . . .f "~9.9:; '&.. o ..
..- ,; :r i ~ t - t .. t ~~ ~ , :;:1 .ijjji ......... 'w: _':'.1
- . . , .. ...<< v,"
.tI ;. f i't= . 1It::: M ..- M to i~;; - a_,X ~....- =~~'Z'IJ 1It11i Reo.
,- OM .n 'v .- i.' i:...."
.af ... "tt .. ift .' " 6~ cc ,. ." .......... :.... i.-a
~; ;; In i; .:... .- -.. .. .; en .. 05;'"' .;:lI:_..... ~l!Irll:l .r; .,~
~.. . , .. ... uu.....I'"
.. " t.. -;~ w:~ ":! .. -=, .;r ...&:1 ... 'i~!!! .~!.2 !!'(!!l! !In .1Il~
... tin:
. .. ... .. ... .u Iii! , .Ii ... !: ! l; ~-ci
. i I - t U IE ,Ii . "
. .. ...
.
... -'
'. .
, '
.....-..
. '
. ~.. .~. - ..._-.. .
. .. . .~
'.';
..:. ',"
.
.'
lZOfBIeg
: Eastern MunicipalWater District
--
D..- '-""
" Oitf~-"",...--...
.-.....Jr.
11(II1-
.......--
"""""''''''"11 ." w..,.
-~-~
Ilotk ...-
April 4. 1988
Riverside County Planning Department RIVERSIDE C~\,~~"TY
4080 Ll!IIIOn Street. 9th Floor PLANNING Ci:,F:.~Ti':~~NT
Riyerside. California 92501 .
SUBJECT:
'TRACT 23299
..... '.
-"
-.,-
.......,c__
...... c. ~tr,. Va""'"
w...G.",*"",
a... c, .......
....... D, so...
s..-,.
~c,_
-
...... ... c..
,
The District is respon.ding to your request for cOll'lllents on the sUbject
project(s) relative to the provision of water and sewer service, The items
checked below apply to this project review.
The subject project:
J
Is not within EMWD's:
X water service area
sewer service area
,.
~st be annexed to this District's Imprc/ement District No. in order
to be eligible to receive domestic wat~rlsanitary sewer serv1Ci.
X Vill be required to construct the following facilities:
a.) Water Servfce
b.) Sewer Service Onsite/offsite regionally sized gravity sewers
and participate 1n reglonaJ sewer facilities. No sewers allowed now or future
.10ng lot lines. Sewers must flow down and away from cul-de-sac toe. Sewer
generany avanable at Hwy. 79/Pala Rd.'
. .... - ... -. . . _... ,,11ft.. ft.._ ... _ u_... "..u,.-:.. ........ _ ""..1....._.. ,.,.,., ."IIi..":';"':
.
" .
.
. .
.'
.
.
-,
\
Must provide adequate rights-of-way. The proponent should contact
EMWD's Right-at-WaY Departlllent.
"'st provide a site for the construction of:
sewr 11ft station
-.ter pumping station'
-.ter storage reservoir
lIill be required to use reclaimed water in the greenbelt areas.
Is within tile Assessment District. Conditions must be
included that the tract cannot be recorded until the issessment has been
paid in tull or an IIlIIIended assessment district has" been recorded.
-.
.
_quires Rjor IIIster planning and the District cannot conment until
the -,.s,tl:1: .lllaa..is-cOlllll1.a..d. ",
Can be provided ~th water service sfnce the District has existing water
facilities in the area. (does .!!!!! consider fire flOW)
Can be provided ~th se-.r service since the District has adequate sewer
facfl ities.
All above conmen1:S are subject to revision during submittal of tracts for
appNlva 1 .
Should ~u have qaestions on any of the above comments, please call me.
Very Truly Yours.
EASTERN MUNICIPAL ~TER DISTRICT
Planning Department
t2~(,,\~
L-s-e"8
'-
",
.
~~.
\ BaDcbD
later
.
a-nt of Diredots:
~ D. Stelre7
r .... t
"- A. Dvby
.. .-.. ........t
..... DodIy
0.., Jt-"-!r
.J.a A. .......eIi.
.Jefrrey L MiDkler
T. C Ilewe
Ofticers:
5uD T. Mm.
GeeraI "'ana....
PWlJjp L Forbes
DiRc10r at Fiaanc~ -
-
Ncw1naD L .......IDM
DincIar of ED,inaamc
........ It. Mc:AJlester
DincIar eI OperatioDll
& lI.i..,,_~
....... J. Reed
..... 01 AdmInistration .
~ Socmary
.... ..II 'nicker
LopI c.-I
H'>" .. .-.
"'. ::."~:;j'''. .
,~~:~ ~~~
" ,'~
(..:U I. ~,:-, r. -(' l- ..1
"', ;. OJ ...'"
"\)
-.
. ,I
, -
-
",__' ~ .... "rOoI
p,..,":c.... . '- . .\ ;. T
,'\:_.''';:.,__0:..,,....... ,_
PLA:~N.'~~t.:I LI:: ,",' .:-.. ~...;.~,
April 5, ,1988
Riverside County Planning Department
4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor
Riverside, California 92501-3657
,
Subject:
Water Availability
Reference: Vesting Tract 23299
.'
Gentle_n:
Please be advised that the above-referenced
property is located within the boundaries of Rancho
California Water District. Water service, therefore,
would be available upon completion of financial
arrangelDents between RCWD and the property owner.
Water availability would be contingent upon the
property owner signing an Agency Agreement which
assigns water lDanagelDent rights, if any, to RCWO.
Sites for additional water production facilities may
be required within the proposed development depending
upon the level of increased delDand created by the
proposal.
If RCWD can be of further service to you, please
contact this office.
Very truly yours,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
~A-~"'-? ~:&a4-h.-
Senga P. Doherty ,
Engineering Services Representative
F011/dplR113
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER -DISTRICT
28061 DIAZ ROAD. POST OFFICE BOX 174 . TEMECULA, CA 92300:.0174 . l7l41 676-4101 . FAX (7)41 676'()615
" .
.
. . ., r
=liVi:=I)ii)i: count'!
. -i'LAnninc: i)i:?A=li:JilEnt
DArE: Fe1mta%J' 29. 1988
-,
TO: Aaa_aor
BuUdiag a4 Safety
SUr"nI;JDr - Dave Duda
aoad DepartMnt
Health - blpb J.acbs
Fire PrDtact10ll
FlDOC1 'Control D1atrict
Fiala . Cae
LlFCO. S Pa1aley
D.S. Postal Service - lluth E. DaYidson
~ ~r." nnnm' ;;-o.t'
~"l~" ,...~.!. !r",J. t . ...
,r.","_/, "i",I~ \"' t'l 'I
:...... ;:-. ...:;..."......... p
'1'\ ,,",, ;>.'.
I .. (.I'- "a,;'
,f'i- (..;.',
~- t?R 07 lSaa
RIVEF:51D:: ('.out/TY
PLAUNIN\:i ;:,:::P':'::'lT:\':::;-l"i
,
Rancho Calif. Kiter
Elstern MUnicfpal Water Dist.
Southern Calff. Edison
Southern Calif. Gas
General Telephone
Dept. of Transporltion IS
Temecula Union Elenl
Elsinore Union High School
Temecula Ch_er of COlDl1erce
Ht. Palomar
Sferra Club
V.lleyw1 de Parks
Coun1;J Aviation .
Commissioner Bresson
'Pl..5e revlev the case described above, alon& with the attached case ..p. A Land
Divi5iOG Committee ~eting ha. been tentatively acheduled for April 28, 1988. If it
cleara. it v11l thea 10 to pubUc hudnl'
.'
VESTING TRACT 23299 - (Tm-l) - E.A. 32S44
- Thotem-American Corp. - Itancho PacHic
Engineering - Itancho California Area -
Firat Supervisorial District - South of
Highvay 79 and West of Kargarita Road -
It-R Zone - 13.9 acres - Schedule A - 13.9
acres Itequest VIR 232 Unit Condominium
Project - Concurrent eases CZ SIS0, VIR
23267 - Mod 120 - A.P. 926-160-010 to
013; 926-160-002,003
.'
~our eo.aents a4 recommendatiDD8 ars requested prior to April 14, 1988 in order that ve
way loe1acle th_ 10 the ataff report for this particuar ease.
Should JOD 1I..e any queations relarding this item, please do not heaitate to contact
Creg Wea1 at 787-1363
Pla1lner
~J.~:
YestiDl Tract 23299 should be required to' annex to an appropriate
Aae1lC'J' vbieh provides park and retteation .srviess. Annexation
will attigate lapacta GC lDcreased population to be served and
:fee. (park deve1op1Bent), shall be used to acquire and develop a
park alte.
DAft: .& 16/RR
SJ.GNATUItE
-.~AS~ pri1lt 1lase and title
"
.coeo LEMON STREET. 9'" FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CAUFORNIA 92501
(71'" 787-6181
neral HanaRer, Valle -Wide Recreation a~d Pal
Olstrir
'. ,
46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201
(619) 342-8277
~~
VICINITY MAP
,pone,
SIlE
VTI< #-23Z"
~
I
~
,"
-
- ~'!
~~
, ,
t);t
<><>
..:
II:
I-:
~
~
~ \
~
~
t
.... .. .
~@~
"
~
.,;~
~,
,,,
,")'\."
T~'
sX
. oi o~
'; ~-:.
.. ~.
.
~
'!:,?:
~@~ F2"
"
~, I ;
l-
Ull -
.. ' , ~,,'l
~ \
~~ \ \ ~
b~ \ \
.'. .
-....
~
"
,
tt
0.'
,,!i:~
~..I! ,!>!I
...~ ::~
Ie
!f!;;
oJ
l.'!~
O!<.i
~
. ....
CZ . 5150/VTR 23299/VTR 2326/
LAND USE
1
:
i
i .
, _./
j ~_. ---
I
,........ /'
.. '"'" VAC.
".
", \,
'\ "
", \
\
l
t.
\.
'..
VAC.
.. ". ......
App. MR. BRIAN HAYWOOD
&lie R-R 10 R-4. R-2. AND R-5
Area TEUECULA RANCHO Sup,Dist. 1
Sec. T. 8 $..R. 2W ......or.s 81t. 926 Po. 16
.=tioIl 6 ; EXPWY VARIABLE
Rd. ~:'fIg.5'61t:Dot. 3~17/88 Drown 8y SS
RIVERSIDE COUNTY P/..ANNING DEPARTMENT '"
/)
, LOt.., IC)N"~ ....P
..t.. r_.::-;..r.._:~
CZ 51501 V 11'1 ':'.:U.~~I V In ,..,
, . 'W'I ......."'__
~,
LI
,/
~9' R-R
~ ~
/'.
~..~...~...
. .' A-1-10
.." ./
.' '''.
.
.
C-P-'
\
l
l.
R-R
\.
'..
App. IIR. BRIAN HAYWOOD
&1M R-R TO R-". R-:I. AND R-S
Ar..- TEMECULA RANCHO Sup.OiIt. 1
See. T. 8 5.,R. 2W ......0'.1 Bk. 826 Po, 16
- =:n ~ EXPWY VARIABLE
.. Rei. Bk. ~,56 A Dat. 3117/88 Drown By SS
! r. 1200 R/VER$IDE COUNTY PLANNING ,DEPARTMENT
-.a-_
/)
e.oeATIOtIAL "A,.
~
., ..~
., .,..
o
!wl!
. 'oo'
: -.' '~., . .
'-"'U"~',': ;'
, -
. -. . ~
. c
..
~ Ill!! [I
!!J ,I!I! ill' I I II
I- :2. I Iii HI! . ~
c( ,l.! . .. t I
, :;;', ~ .mll 1:11111
. '. ~ ~ .' i .'
I ..... ,......
; ~ E : ~ 111m; ~ ~ ; d Iii II II .'IF-
I f Ic!!!ll"'~ .1~lII, ~ilillh liii
(- -
I .
: . I
:f'-~
\ "
I I -.,..
l -
I ' .
.. ...;. ,.~- -; j
~_ ..... ?_-:-...:.~:.:.::. ;:.i.;: ,:::'..:.<.."~.~: ~:::::: ..I:; .:)~;..
I
~ II
ul f
f
Ii f
;Ilr
"1
'Iii
Ihl
tfm
i!~""
-'''Co'":..~:_:.:'.~-:'~.~'==.."_ _.~~__,.__._._.,...-,.:... ......_
%
. .
. X
L
s ~
g ~
~ !!Ill:
.. 0
% U U
~ ~ ~ i
~1l=~8"
:s~@09~~
::; 0 l:1 ,0
... w w
u; i!: ~
ITEM #12
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 20, 1990
Case No.: Plot Plan 86
Recommendation: Adoption of Negative Declaration
Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLI CA NT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
Inland Valley Cablevision
Inland Valley Cablevision
For the construction of a 60 foot receiving antenna
tower with a 10 foot microwave dish.
East side of La Serena Way, north of General
Kearney Road.
Specific Plan No. 199, Margarita Village
North:
South:
East:
West:
R -1, Single Family
R -1, Single Family
R-~, Planned Residential
R -1, Single Family
Not requested
Communications tower on the northern portion of
property surrounded by a newly constructed park
to the south and west of the existing equipment.
SURROUNDING LAND USES: North:
South:
East:
West:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
PLANN I NG\PP86
Single Family Residential
Newly Constructed Park
Mobile Home Park
Single Family Residential
Number of Acres:
14.26
1
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
The project site contains an existing 54 foot antenna
tower, a small accessory building, and a man made
depression which contains several ground mounted
microwave dishes. The site is accessed by a small
unimproved road that branches off from the
Metropolitan Water District maintenance road for the
San Diego Aqueduct which parallels the project site
on its eastern boundary.
The 14.26 acre parcel contains all the area bounded
by La Serena Way, General Kearney Road and the
MWD easement. The receiving equipment occupies
only a small portion of the lot which is to be
subdivided from the larger parcel into a .68 acre
lot. The remainder of the land is currently being
developed as a park for the community in
conjunction with the Margarita Village Specific Plan
No. 199, and will be dedicated to the city.
On January 9, 1990, the City Council approved a
moratorium on the construction and use of television
and radio transmitting antennas. This moratorium
was enacted due to aesthetic and land use problems
that have arisen with respect to the construction of
television and radio transmitting antennas within
the city. The moratorium was extended until
January 8, 1991 by Ordinance No. 90-03.
The applicant is proposing to construct a new 60
foot tower which will have a 10 foot microwave dish
mounted on its upper portion. This new tower will
be larger in bulk than the existing antenna and the
new foundation will be 6 feet lower on the ridge.
The dish will be facing northeast, 52 degrees of
true north. The tower will be used exclusively for
receiving cable stations from the company's main
transmitting operations in Hemet.
The applicant has requested the tower in order to
upgrade the reception of several channels received
in the service area. Once the new tower is
operational the existing antenna will be removed.
The proposal is consistent with Section 5.1.cl 6) of
Ordinance No. 3~8 which permits antennas with an
approved plot plan. However, the applicant must
obtain an exemption from the Planning Commission
and the City Council due to the enactment of
Ordinance 90-3. Staff feels that an exemption
should be granted due to the immediate need for
improved cable reception and the location of the
existing facility on the parcel. In addition to this.
2
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS:
the applicant has shown an interest in relocating the
receiving station to an industrial area in the future.
A time frame has not been established for this
relocation.
The relative height of the proposed tower will be
approximately equal to that of the existing tower
because the foundation lies 6 feet lower.
The visual impact of the new tower can be mitigated
through the use of landscaping. The mobile home
park to the east is located approximately 200 feet
from the tower and is separated by a ridge which
rises 25 feet above the new tower's foundation.
With the addition of the landscaping along the
eastern property line using dense evergreen trees,
the visual impact will be minimized. The residences
to the north and east wi" be impacted in a similar
method. The addition of dense landscaping around
the tower and accessory building should minimize
the effect. In addition, all equipment and
structures will be enclosed with an ornamental
wrought iron fence.
The project is consistent with the current site
zoning and the Southwest Area Plan.
In compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act, an initial study was performed for this
proposal. It was determined that possible negative
impacts to the environment could occur as a result
of project implementation. However, adherence to
city conditions of approval, policies. and
development standards would mitigate those
concerns. As such, a Negative Declaration has
been recommended for adoption.
Site Approval
1. The proposed use will not have a substantial
adverse effect on abutting property or the
permitted use thereof. The use will not
generate excessive noise, vibration, traffic
or other disturbances.
2. The site for the proposed use has adequate
access.
3. The proposed project will not inhibit or
restrict future ability to use active or passive
3
solar energy systems.
4. The project will not have a significant
adverse effect on the environment.
5. There is a reasonable probability that the
project will be consistent with the General
Plan once it is adopted, based on analysis in
the staff report.
6. There is a probability that the project will not
deter, or interfere with the future adopted
General Plan if the proposed use is ultimately
inconsistent with the new General Plan.
7. These findings are supported by staff
analysis, minutes, maps, exhibits, and
environmental documents associated with this
application and herein incorporated by
reference.
8. The lawful conditions stated in the approval
are deemed necessary to protect the public
health, safety and general welfare.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1. ADOPT a Negative Declaration, APPROVE
Plot Plan No. 86 and the attached Conditions
of Approval, and RECOMMEND that the City
Council grant an exemption from Ordinance
No. 90-3 based on findings contained in the
Staff Report.
SP:ks
Attachments:
1. Exhibits
2. Conditions of Approval
~
I
I
I
l'
I ' ,
III
Cl
ii\
ffi
i
I'i
I"D,
Project
Location
~.{'
~
'l
J..
f!p:,.JCHO
TO"5~
Location Ma~=o
~D
SCALE' l' 4'
. - 000'
~~
TNt..ANb VRI-LtE'i CA&EI/'s,O!\J
RDT FLI9N
3D975 LA SCi?ENI1
fT
I I
I '0
I -
I I
:1..
......
\:)
/i
/
-'
/
'"
". /'.
I /
/ " I
./ """"1
I
I
;
i
", I
)>f
~
) PRoPDS~
Ii'
I
I
~
\ 1
, t. \ 6K/~i/Ntb '
~g~
rH-: :
!
III
i ;
,
.'"
"
1 "
! " .
, ,
;;
i;
\!'
ti _ '.
,tf:
: ~
"
,;;
;
L
tf
"
"
r-"-- _L
;
i~
r.
"
r'
'i "
,
:'1
"
\:l -\
r- :xl
0 :z
-} 9
tll
\:) 0
r- l,\ --J
W
):> ~ ~
Z :;;
I'
'- \
" I
lAc]
\1 ,
\ 1
..
""
o
OJ
F
~
:xl
~-
""
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan 86
Council Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for a 60 foot antenna tower with
a 10 foot microwave dish mounted to the upper portion.
2. The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action. or
proceeding against the City of Temecula or it agents, officers. or employees
to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its
advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Plot Plan
No. 86. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any such
claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate
fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any
such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the
permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold
harmless the City of Temecula.
3. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of approval date; otherwise
it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. By use is meant the
beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the
two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion. or
the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval.
~. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as
shown on plot plan marked Exhibit A, or as amended by these conditions.
5. I n the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period of one ( 1 )
year or more. this approval shall become null and void.
6. Any outside Lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
7. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section
of Ordinance No. 5~6 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated 11-08-
89, a copy of which is attached.
8. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved Landscape,
Irrigation, and Shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. An
ST AFFRPT\PP86
1
automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be
maintained in a viable growth condition. Planting within ten (10) feet of an
entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty (30)
inches.
9. Prior to the issuance of building permits, four (4) copies of a Landscaping,
Irrigation, and Shading plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
for approval. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of
the plants shall be shown. Plans shall meet all requirements of Ordinance No.
348, Section 18.12.
10. The irrigation plan shall be in accordance with Ordinance No. 3~8, Section
18.12 and include a rain shut-off device. In addition, the plan will
incorporate the use of in-line check valves, or sprinkler heads with
incorporated check valves to prohibit low head drainage.
11. Landscape plans shall incorporate species varieties that are present in the
adjacent park and shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees
throughout the project site.
12. All existing debris on site shall be removed and excess soil either dispersed
or removed after construction has been completed.
13. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance
and/or permits from the following agencies:
Environmental Health
Building & Safety - Grading
Fire Department
Written evidence of compliance shall be presented to the Land Use Division of
the Department of Building and Safety.
1~. If signage is proposed, a separate plot plan accompanied by the appropriate
fees as set forth in Ordinance No. 3~8 shall be submitted and approved by the
Planning Department prior to sign installation.
15. Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening
material shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
16. Prior to the final building inspection approval by the Building and Safety
Department, a six foot high ornamental wrought iron fence shall be
constructed around all communications equipment including all accessory
buildings. The required fence shall be subject to the approval of the Director
of the Department of Building and Safety.
17. Landscape screening shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height
of ten (10) feet at maturity. Dense screening will be required around the new
tower and along the property lines with the exception of the area surrounding
the ground mounted dishes north of the tower.
2
18. Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along
the boundary with the newly constructed park, and such trees shall be of the
same species and variety.
19. All outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the
Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply
with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655 and the
Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan.
20. Prior to issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts to
be determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the
installation of plantings, walls and fences in accordance with the approved
plan, the adequate maintenance of the planting for one year shall be filed with
the Department of Building and Safety.
21. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, all required landscape planting
and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the
Director of Building and Safety. The plants shall be healthy and free of
weeds, disease or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed
and in good working order.
22. All utilites, except electrical lines rated 33kV or greater, shall be installed
underground.
23. Prior to any use allowed by this plot plan, the applicant shall obtain clearance
from the Department of Building and Safety - Land Use Sectin that the uses
found on the subject property are in conformance with Ordaninance No. 3~8.
2~. All of the foregoing condtions shall be complies with prior to occupancy or any
use allowed by this permit.
3