HomeMy WebLinkAbout091090 PC Agenda VAIL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
SEPTF_MBER 10, 1990 - 6:00 PM
ROLL CALL:
' :' "'" PUBLI~ COMMENTS:
Blair, Fahey,
Chi'nlaeff
Ford, Hoagland,
A total of 15 minutes is provided qo members of the public can address the
commissioners ,on' items that are not listed on the Agenda,,. Speakers .aFe
Iimitedto.threel.3'.).~hU~eaeh; Ifyou:'deslretosp~a~o'th~::Co~mi~sionei's
about an:item not'lls+~d 0~ ~h~ A§end:i~ a; ~ink.eR.e~'~.t~.:SPeikat'fi>rm,ShoUld
b~ fil'led~b~ an"~fii~'~t~:~a"Corn~i~i~'n',~r'Se~e~ry';''' '
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and
address.,
For all othe~.a~nda .item~-a..Request to:.S~.:.'f. orm mu.~t.'..be filed;with ~he
Planning S~r~ir~;~be~b~J"c"~mffii~si'0~ g~ t~' th~' item: '~ere is ~ thr~e ( 3 )
minute time limit for ihdividual speakers.
6OMMISSION BUSINESS`
· ~ 1,1 Approve minutes of AugA~st 20, 1990,
-;: . :· PUBLIC HEARING iTEMS ' '
.:. ::'~ 2:,~ Came~No:,~ -; :;' :': :.'
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Larry Gabde
Irkham and Associates
AbuLtlng th& west Side of Ynez Road and the east side of
1-15, approximately 200 feet north of the intersection of
Ynez Road and Solana Way,
To construct a multi-tenant automotive center with 1Q,02u,
square feet of retail area and 21,801 square feet of service
area,
Denial
,= .......;. Recommendation:
Proposal:
Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Tentative Parcel Map No. 25538
Robert Paine
Benash Engineering Corporation
30565 Estero Street
To subdivide a 1 .l&3 acre parcel into two parcels.
Approval
Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Conditional Use Permit No. I
James L. Ransay
McColdrlck Engineers
West side of Jefferson Avenue, between Winchester Road
and Overland Drive.
C.U.P. for an automobile sales lot and 528 square foot
office.
Approval
Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Plot Plan No. 1160q.
Coastline Equity, Inc.
Markham and Associates
Southeast corner of Rancho Way and Business Park Drive.
Construction of a 93,735 square foot industrial business
park on an approximately 6 acre site.
Approval
Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Plot Plan No. 50, Amended No. 1
Mesa Homes
Land Concern, Ltd.
Southeast corner of Margarita Road and Pauba Road.
Construct a u,,120 square foot information center for the
Paloma Del Sol {formerly The Meadows) Specific Plan on a
3.22 acre site.
Approval
7. Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Tentative Tract Map No.
Marstan Development
Gary Martin
South side of Margarita Road, between Moraga Road and
Avenida Cima Del Sol.
105 unit condora{alum subdivision of 7.31 acres.
Approval
PLAN COMM\9 - 10 2
NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Cue No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Substantial Conformante No. 2, to Slaedfic Plan No. 16~
Davidson Communities
Ranpac Engineering
Nicolas Road, between Winchester and North General
Kearney Roads.
Deletion of the Class I bike trail which traverses the park
and open space area located adjacent to Residential
Planning Area No. u, of the Roripaugh Estates Specific
Plan.
Approval
DISCUSSION ITEMS
9. Other Business
ADJOURNMENT
Next meeting: Monday, September 17, 1990.6:00 PM, Vall Elementary School, 29915
Mira Loma Drive, Temecula. California.
PLANCOMM\9-10 3
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE PLANNING COMMI88ION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
HELD AUGUST 20, 1990
A regular meeting of the Temecula Planning Conanission was called to
order at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula,
California at 6:10 P.M. The meeting was called to order by
Chairperson Dennis Chiniaeff.
PRESENT: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford
Hoagland, Chiniaeff
ABSENT: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
Also present were Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh, Gary
Thornhill, Acting Planning Director, John Middleton, Senior Project
Manager and Gail Ziglet, Minute Clerk.
PUBLIC COMMENT
RaI. MqLaughlip, 30025 Front Street, Temecula, addressed the
connission with his concerns relating to Specific Plan 199,
Tract Map 23371-10. Mr. McLaughlin advised the Connission
that there has been no final approvement of this tract map
and he would like them to look at it closely before it's
final approval. He stated that the orginal conceptual plan
indicated alot of negatives about the project. He brought to
the Commission copies of a recent appraisal done on property near
the site which has depreciated in value due to noise, traffic,
pollution, etc., an environmental impact study and a specific
plan report which have not been updated for ten years.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. MINUTES
1.1 Co._m~_~s~oOe~ .Ch~Oia~ entertained a motion to approve the
minutes of August 6, 1990, with the following amendments:
Discussion Items, page 11, first paragraph, amended to
read "Conenissioner Blair added that they would want to
know if there was a trailing case application at the time
of the sone change action by the Con~nission."
CommiS.s__ione[_B[ai! moved to approve the minutes as
amended, seconded by Commissioner Noa~land and carried
unanimously.'
i111.8120/90 -1- 8/23/90
~LANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
AUGUST _ 20,_ ~990
Blair, Fahey,
Ford, Hoagland,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
PUBLIC HEJ~ING ITEXS
2. Tentative Tract No.. 23990
51
Sam Reed, Senior Planner, presented staff's report on
the subdivision of 5.76 acres into 30 residential R-2
lots and one con~on open space lot, along with a slide
presentation of the proposed site.
Dean Als~rup, applicant, 41360 Circle D Court, Temecula,
provided sketches of architectural design of the planned
residential structures along with material samples and
a brief summary.
VinCent D~Donat0, 29780 Avenida Cima Del Sol, Temecula,
expressed his concerns for grading that will have to be
done by the applicant as well as some existing trees which
he planted that would have to be removed by the applicant
and the type of fencing the applicant will be using to
separate the adjacent tracts from this development.
Robert Kemble, 28765 Single Oak Drive, Temecula,
representing Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates,
indicated that the actual size of the site is 6.32 acres
with a proposed density of 4.75 units per acre. He also
stated that the applicant and developer intend to work
with the adjacent property owners on the issues addressed
by Mr. DiDonato. Mr. Kemble requested the following
modifications to the Conditions of Approval: Condition
No. 13 - (1) to reflect "at the Building Permit Stage";
Condition No. 13-(1)E, clarification of this condition
regarding existing wood fencing and the wall requirements;
Condition No. 15-H, change condition to read "Building
separation between all buildings excluding fireplaces
shall not be less than ten (10) feet; and Condition No.
35, amend condition to read "At time of recordation of
final map".
vls.slso/~o -2- s/2~/~o
PLANN I N_G
COMMISSION MINUTES
AUGUST 20, 1990
Gary Thornhill. added the Ouimby Act Fee, which
requires the applicant to pay prior to building permits,
the applicable fee, as a standard condition.
John Middleton stated that the Engineering Department
would be adding Condition No. 59, the Road Benefit
Condition, and stated that the applicant had been advised.
John Niddleton also clarified the last sentence of
Condition No. 43 to state "all lots shall not be allowed
to drain onto adjacent tracts without a recorded grading
or drainage easement."
Robert.Eemble stated that all conditions as amended by
staff were acceptable.
Con~nissioner Blair asked for staff's comments to the
amendment of the Conditions of Approval by the applicant.
8am Reed stated that staff would agree to the amendment
of Condition No. 13 - (1}, as long as appropriate bonds
are issued if the grading work is done prior to map
recordation~ Condition No. 13 - (1)g, the easterly wall
requirement could be deleted; Condition No. 15 - H, he
would not oppose as long as it was within the ordinance
requirement.
John Gerritse.n, Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates,
requested a clarification of the fence requirements and
the existing wood fence at the bottom of the slope on the
west side of the property.
Sam Reed stated that staff is requesting that a block wall
of some type be constructed at the top of the slope.
Co.m~._iSsioner Fahey moved to close the public hearing,
seconded by CO~n~njssioner Blair and carried unanimously.
~on~n_issioner_[ord stated that he would like Condillon No.
15 - H to remain as recorr~nended by staff. ConNniss~one~
Blair concurred.
Con~n_iSsione~ Fo~d also requested that the Conditions
reflect the modification of street and landscape
NlN.8/20/90 -3- el23/ o
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 20, 1~90
improvements for Lot 31 be completed prior to occupancy
of any lots.
Sam Reed stated that staff could amend Condition No. 16 -
B to state "street improvements and landscape improvements
on Via La Vida will be completed prior to occupancy".
Corm~issioner Hoagland moved to approve staff's
recorr~endation and adopt the Negative Declaration for
Tentative Tract No. 23990, and approve Tentative Tract
No. 23990, subject to the following modifications to
Conditions of Approval: Condition No. 13 (1), change
to read "prior to the issuance of building permits"
as long as appropriate bonds have been issued;
Condition No. 13 (1)E, delete the wall requirement
on the east side of the property: Condition No. 15 - H,
to remain as recommended by staff; Condition No. 16 - E,
street and landscape improvements on Via La Vida
completed prior to occupancy permit; Condition No. 43,
amended to read "Lots shall not be allowed to drain
on adjacent tracts without a grading and/or drainage
permit"; Condition No. 59, added as requested by the
Traffic Department and Condition No. 60, added for the
payment of Quimby Act Fees. Commissioner Blair seconded
the motion, which carried the following roll call vote:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey,
Ford, Boagland
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: 1
COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff
3. Tentative Parcel Map. No._26036
3.1 Sam Reed presented the staff's report on the subdivision
of a 1.79 acre parcel with existing buildings.
Dave James, Ranpac Engineering, 27447 Enterprise Circle
West, Temecu]a, gave a brief summary of the request and
addressed the Commission's comments.
Commissioner Fahey moved to close the public hearing,
seconded by Commissioner Hoagland.
allf.8/2OlgO -4- 8/23/90
PLANNING COMMISSION,.NINUTES
AUGUST 20, 1990
Con~issioner B]ai~ moved to adopt the Negative Declaration
for Parcel Map No. 26036 and approve Parcel Map No. 26036,
based on the Conditions of Approval set forth by the
Planning Department. Con~ission~r Fahey seconded the
motion which carried the following vote.
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey,
Ford, Boagland,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
4. & 5. Plot Plan No. 5 and No. 6
Sam Reed presented the staff report on Plot Plan
No. 5, the construction of a 11,050 square foot light
manufacturing facility on .57 acres and Plot Plan
No. 6, the construction of a 12,950 square foot light
manufacturing facility on .63 acres.
3oe Ventress, 3.R. Miller & Associates, 2854 E. Imperial
Highway, Brea, gave a brief description of the project.
Mr. Venttess stated that the total square footage did
not include mezzanines in both buildings; however, the
parking study incorporated this extra square footage.
Mr. Venttess indicated an error in the staff report
on page 4, under Health Department, and advised the
Commission that the Health Department requirements for
both plot plans had been reviewed.
Con~issione[ Chiniaeff asked if the applicant would be
ovposed to reconfiguring the location of the trash
enclosure and the truck loading doors so that they do
not face the street. Con~nissioner Chiniaeff also
expressed concern for sufficient landscape and proper
screening of roof equipment.
Mr. Venttess stated the project has satis[ied the
landscape requirements and provided for sufficien't
screening of the roof equipment, but that they could
accommodate the Commission's requests. He also stated
that there would be no problem turning the door of the
trash enclosure away from the street; however, in
relocatinq the truck loading doors, the needs of the
tenant would have to be considered.
alJl.8/20/90 -5- 8/23/90
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 20, 1990
Cor~nissioner Ford moved to close the public hearing
seconded by Commissioner Fahey and carried unanimously.
Commissioner Hoagland moved to reject staff's
reco~nendation and not adopt the Negative Declaration
for Plot Plan Nos. 5 and 6 and deny Plot Plan Nos. 5
snd 6, and direct staff to work with the applicant
to provide a detailed landscape plan, review the
structural design to ensure adequate screening
of the roof equipment, study the parking and to
re-evaluate the location of the truck loading
doors. Co~issioner Hoaqland amended his motion
by continuing the public hearing on Item 4 and Item 5
to the Planninq Commission meeting of September 17,
1990. Con~nissioner Fahey seconded the motion.
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey,
Ford, Hoagland,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
Recess
Chairman Dennis Chiniaef~ declared a five minute recess at 7:50
P.M. to allow planning staff to set up more exhibits for agenda
items. The meeting was reconvened at 7:55 P.M.
6. Tentative Parcel Map 23969
6.1
Deborah Parks presented staff's report on the subdivision
of Parcel 22 of Parcel Map 18254 into four parcels.
Ms. Parks stated that when the parcel map was approved
by the County, they failed to show Pujol Street. County
Ordinance 460 required the dedication of PuJol Street;
at that time, however, is was overlooked and the width
of Puiol Street remained at 40 feet. When Ohmdahl
Enterprises applied to sub-divide, they were told by
the County they would need the dedication of 20 feet
of Parcel 2 for dedication of Pujol Street. Ohmdahl
Enterprises had reached an agreement with Eastern
Municipal Water District to provide an easement within
this 20 feet. To widen Pujol Street would he a great
expense and ~t this time staff is unclear as to who
would be responsible for the cost of these improvements.
KXN.8/20/90 -6- 8/23/90
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
AUGUST 20, 1990
John Middleton stated that the Engineering Department's
recommendation was to construct Pujol Street as per
county standards.
Anthony PolO, Markham & Associates. 41750 Winchester Road,
Temecula, gave a brief description of the project.
William Haley, 28426 Pujol Street, Temecula, an
adjacent property owner expressed his desire to have
the developer proceed with the road improvements to Pujol
Street as proposed by the County of Riverside.
Anthony Polo offered an alternative to the Commission
of leaving Pujol Street in its' present state and
provide the dedication and improvements to create a
cul-de-sac on the end of Sixth Street.
Douq Stewart, deputy traffic engineer, advised the
Comission that the easement was neither Mr. Ohmdahl's
property nor Mr. Haley's property. He stated that
County Ordinance No.460 and the recommendation by the
Riverside County Transportation Department requires
certain improvements be completed; however, there is
an exception clause within the ordinance that would
allow the Commission to deviate from these required
street improvements, but only under that exception
clause could the Commission consider anything other
than what was recorfenended by the county.
Commissioner Fahey questioned the reference to special
circumstances of the exception applicable to the
properties size, shape or topagraphy, and did that
exception apply to such conditions created by the
property owner.
Doug Stewart stated that the ordinance requires that
the applicant put in a street; however, it. would be at
a substantial cost to the applicant, and since applicant
has offered other alternatives that seem more appropriate,
the commission could consider one of these alternatives
and make that recommendation to the City Council.
CommissiOner Chin_ia.eff asked if staff needed action by
the Commission to come back with a partial recommendation.
NI~.8/20/9~ -7- 8/23/90
PLANNING
7. Plot
7.1
COMMISSION MINUTES
AUGUST 20, 1990
John Cavanauqh advised the Conmnission that if they were
to approve this parcel map and recon~nend there be a
partial dedication or recommend that part of the
dedication be accomplished by another property owner
other than the applicant, the Conunission needs to be
aware that if the other property owner does not approve
of the recommendation, and if that approval is not
sought within 120 days after the Commission's
recon~nendation, this condition will automatically
terminate.
Commissioner Ford asked if this was a condition for
outside improvements, could the Copm~ission request the
applicant to bond or guarantee the acquisition rights
of the property.
John Cavanaugh stated that the Commission could either
recommend that the applicant provide the dedication of his
own property or recommend partial dedication/vacation of
the other property owner. If the other property owner
does not approve 120 days after the Convnission acts on it,
this condition is automatically terminated.
Commissioner Fahey moved to not adopt the Negative
Declaration for Parcel Map No. 23969, and to continue
the item to September 17, 1990, with staff working with
both parties to come to an agreement acceptable.
Commissioner Ford seconded the motion.
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey,
Ford, Hoagland,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
Plan 11621
Deborah Parks provided staff's report and an architectural
rendering of the project, a proposal to complete Phase 2
of the pro~ect.
KTN.8/20190 -8- 8/23/90
PLANN I N G
COI4NISSION MINUTES
AUGUST 20, 199Q
Walt Mountford, 7330 Engineer Road, San Diego, gave a
brief stumnary of the project and requested the following
modifications to the Conditions of Approval: Condition
No. 13, as it relates to grading be deleted; Condition No.
28, establish a maximum fee exposure to the developer;
Condition No. 29, fees which were included in the street
and drainage bond posted with the county, to be deleted.
Deborah Parks stated that staff would not oppose the
deletion of Condition No. 13.
John Middleton advised that the fee schedule has not been
established at this time and that the $10,000 fee would be
a deposit for whatever that fee is, and therefore they
could not amend Condition No. 28.
After discussion of the Conditions of Approval
Con~nissioner Fahey moved to close the public hearing,
seconded by Commissioner Hoagland.
Conrnissioner Fahey moved to adopt the Negative Declaration
for Plot Plan 11621 and approve Plot Plan 11621 as
recon~ended with the followinq amendments: delete
Condition No. 13 and amend Condition No. 29 to state
"Provided the fee has already been paid for signing
and striping, the county will be responsible for the
improvements." Cora~issioner Blair seconded the
motion.
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey,
FOrd, Hoaqland,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
NON PUBLIC HEARING ITDtS
8. Appeal No. 6
8.1
Gary Thornhill advised the Corm~ission that it was staff's
decision that the most appropriate way to handle this
item was throuqh a variance; however, a discussion with
the city attorney indicates he may have a problem with
making the necessary findings for a variance.
NTII.8120/gO -9- 8/23/90
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
AUGUST 20, 1990
Larry Markham, Markham and Associates, 41750 Winchester
Road, Temecu]a, representing the applicant, stated that
the applicant would like to request continuing the appeal
until September 10, 1990, to allow time for research of
the variance.
~_..P~t Plan. 69
.1
Mark Rhoades, planning staff, provided staff report for
the proposal to construct a 120 foot antenna tower, off of
Front Street.
Elliot Urick, 28661 Ca]le Lago, Temecula, requested
Condition No. 3 be modified to read "The approved
temporary antenna structure shall be removed no later
than 30 days after the final inspection of the
tower" and Condition No. 4 to read "construction of
the approved 120 foot high pole."
Ray McLaughlin, 30025 Front Street, Temecula, spoke in
support of staff's recon~nendation. Mr. McLaughlin owns
the property the tower will be located on.
Gary Thornhill stated that staff had no problems with
the modifications to Condition No. 3 and Condition No. 4.
Commissioner Hoagland moved to approve Plot Plan No. 69
as presented with the modification of Condition No. 3
and Condition No. 4 as requested by the applicant,
forwarded to City Council as a receive and file item,
seconded by Commissioner Fahey.
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford
Hoagland,
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: 1
COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff
10. Plot Plan No. 57/Revised Permit
10.1
Mark Rhoades provided staff report for a revision to a
previously approved 126,000 square foot electronics
facility. Applicant is proposing to add 3,400 square
mN.8/20/90 -10- 8/23/90
PLANNING C(X4NISSION MINUTES
AUGUST 20# 1990
feet of conference and office space to the second
floor as well as a small expansion to the equipment
area. Mr. Rhoades amended Condition No. 2 to reflect
20 x 35 square foot area.
Commissioner Fahey moved to approve Plot Plan
subject to the Conditions of Approval by staff with
Item 57 revised to reflect 20 x 35 square foot area.
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey,
Ford, Hoagland,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
11., Vesting Tentative Tract M~p No. 23299
11.1
Richard Ayala provided staff report for the extension of
time for Vested Tentative Tract Map No. 23299, a 232 unit
condominium project on approximately 14.3 acres.
Raymond Casey, Presley of San Diego, 15010 Avenue of
Science, San Diego, gave a brief sunwnary of the request
for extension of the project. Mr. Casey stated that the
project has been delayed due to the processing of another
public agency's approval necessary for the recordation
of the map, regarding the flood control channel. He also
advised that the project is in compliance with the Quimby
Act and parks within the project will be dedicated to the
CSD. Mr. CaseV also stated that they are looking at
re-mapping the project; however, the extension of time
is necessary to complete this.
Comznissioner ~a~la~dexpressed concern for the density of
the project, as it relates to the surrounding area.
Gary Thornhil~ stated that it was staff's opinion that the
approved map does not fit in the Southwest Area Map Plan
as it stands now.
Commissioner Fahey questioned what options the Co.mdssion
had in granting or denying the extension.
.a9hn Cavanaugh advised the Comission that under the code
the Commissiun has the option of approving or denying the
ais.812olgo -n- 8/23/9o
PLANN *I NO
CO!4MIBSION MINUTEB
AUOUST 20, 1990
extension, but they are limited due to the subject map
being previously approved by the County. He stated that
the Code of Standards for evaluating an extension
reflected that an extension of time shall not be granted
unless the land division conforms to the comprehensive
general plan, is consistent with existing zoning and
does not affect the health, safety or wellfare of the
public. With that, he advised that the Corfunission could
not qo back and re-evaluate the entire project; however
they could conduct a further review of what the project
is, before making their decision of approving or denying
the extension of time.
Co.=nissioner Ch~niaeff was concerned that an extension
of the map would essentially be an approval and presently
the Commission does not have sufficient information about
the project.
John Cavanaugh advised the Commission that they could
direct staff to bring the item back to the Commission
with all the particulars of the proiect, so that
they could be better informed to make the proper
reconunendation.
Commissioner Ford moved to continue the request
extension of time for Vesting Tentative Tract No.
to the next available meeting, and directed staff
look at all issues of this project including the
surrounding map, the fiscal impact report, park
study as it relates to Ouimby Act, design of the
project, landscape plans and traffic circulation.
Commissioner Fahey seconded the motion.
for
23299,
to
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey,
Ford, Hoagland,
Chiniaeff
'NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
Alexander Urquhart, Crosby, Mead, Benton & Associates,
5650 E1Camino Real, Suite 200, Carlshad, project engineer
provided information on drainage and access.
MI!1.8120/90 -12- 8/23/90
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 20# 1990
12. Plot Plan No. 86
12.1
Steve Padovan provided staff report for the construction
of a 60 foot receiving antenna tower with a 10 foot
microwave dish, for Inland Valley Cablevision, in order to
uDgrade the reception of several channels in the service
area.
Edward Oagen, 31000 Corte Arroyo Vista, Temecula, spoke in
favor of the new antenna tower due to the poor reception
he receives.
Ken Heid, 4~486 Big Sa~e Court, Temeculs, questioned the
ProDosed csmaflouging of the tower and the color of the
microwave dish.
Jerry SanderS, Inland Valley Cablevision, provided a brief
sunm~ary for the Con~ission on the purpose of upgrading the
existing tower. He stated that the location of the tower
is on a small portion of a larger lot being developed as
a park for the community, which will be dedicated to the
city. He stated that the ultimate goal is to have the
receiving tower located in an industrial area.
Commissioner Hoagland moved to adopt a Negative
Declaration and 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, and recommend
that staff work with the applicant on a suitable color
scheme for the tower and microwave dish. Seconded by
Commissioner Blair.
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey,
Hoagland
NOES: O
COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: 2
COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Chiniaeff
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Hoagland moved to cancel the regular meeting
City of Temecula Planning Commission scheduled for
September 3, 1990, s~conded by CommisSioner Ford and
unanimously.
of the
Monday,
carried
alm.8/20/90 -13- 8/23/90
PLIMININ~ CO]4MISSION MINUTES
~UGUST 20, 1990
Commissioner Blair moved to schedule a special meeting of the
City of Temecula Planning Commission for Monday, September 10,
1990, 6:00 P.M. at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive,
Temecula, seconded by Con~nissioner Ford and carried unanimously.
....... Secretary
KIN.B/20/90 -14- 8123/90
ITEM t2
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CiTY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 10, 1990
Case No.: Conditiona) Use Permit No. 2
Recommendation: Denial
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
P R OPOSA L:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Larry Gabele
Markham and Associates
To construct a multi-tenant automotive center with
10,02Li square feet of retail area and 21,801 square
feet of service area.
Abutting the west side of Ynez Road and the east
side of 1-15, approximately 200 feet north of the
intersection of Ynez Road and Solana Way.
C-P-S
Scenic Highway Commercial
North:
South:
East:
West:
C-P-S { Scenic Highway Commercial )
C-P-S ~ Scenic Highway Commercial )
C-I/CP I General Commercial )
1-15
Not requested.
Vacant
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant { approved auto dealership)
Vacant
Retail Commercial
1-15
No. of Acres:
Building Area:
Proposed Use:
Parking Provided:
No. of Service Bays:
3.0
21,801 sq.ft. auto service
10,02Ll sq.ft. retail
31,825 sq.ft.
Automotive retail and
service center
171 spaces
STAFFRPT\CUP2 1
BACKGROUND:
Conditional Use Permit No. 2 was originally
submitted to the Riverside County Planning
Department on December 19, 1989, as Plot Plan No.
1169u,. The site is located in the C-P-S, Scenic
Highway Commercial zone. Automotive service and
repair is permitted in the C-P-S zone subject to
approval of a Conditional Use Permit. County
Planning Staff mistakenly accepted the application
as a Plot Plan in the belief that the site is located in
the C-1/CP, General Commercial zone, which does
not require a Conditional Use Permit for the
proposed use. After the County transmitted the
application to the City of Temecula, City Planning
Staff informed the applicant of the requirement to
submit a Conditional Use Permit application. The
applicant submitted supplemental application
materials and Plot Plan No. 1169u, was redeslgnated
Conditional Use Permit No. 2 on June 15, 3990.
The applicant submitted a request for Special
Review of Parking {Attachment C) in conjunction
with the original application. The standard parking
requirements as delineated in Ordinance 3u,8 indicate
that the proposed project should provide 230
spaces. The site plan shows 171 spaces. The
applicant stated that the service uses in the
proposed center would be quick turn around
services such as lube and tune and tire shops
rather than engine repair, body shops, or other
automotive services which generate needs for longer
term parking. On this basis, County Planning Staff
was willing to allow 5096 of the service bays to count
toward satisfying the parking requirement.
At the County Land Development Committee {LDC)
meeting of January 18, 1990, the application was
continued to the LDC meeting of April 12, 1990,
pending submittal of a Traffic Study and either a
geology/liquefaction study or clearance from the
County Engineering Geologist based on geologic
reports submitted in conjunction with the site~s
underlying parcel map. The County Geologist
provided clearance in the attached letter dated
March 7, 1990. At the LDC meeting of April 12,
1990, the application was continued to the LDC
meeting of June u,, 1990, pending submittal of
revised west elevations deleting the service bays
facing the 1-15 Scenic Highway Corridor and a
revised traffic study. The application was
transmitted to the City of Temecula on April 17,
1990.
STAFFRPT\CUP2 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
The project is to construct a multi-tenant
automotive service and retail center with a gross
floor area of 31,825 feet, including 21,801 square
feet of service area and 10,02u, square feet of
automotive retail area. The application includes a
request for Special Review of Parking.
Ge01oqlc Hazards
County Geologic Reports No. 691 and No. 692 were
prepared for the underlying parcel map which
includes the subject property. The County
Engineering Geologist reviewed the Geologic
Reports with regard to the project in question.
Although the site is located in an Alquist-Priolo
zone, no evidence for faulting was found on the
site. The County Engineering Geologist found that
the report satisfies the requirements of the Alquist-
Priolo Special Studies Act. The recommendations of
the report relative to liquefaction and seismic
potential shall be Conditions of Approval for this
project. (See Attachment B, letter from County
Geologist. )
Paleontoloqic Resources
The San Bernardlno County Museum Director
commented that the property in question is located
on the fossiliferous Pauba Formation, and that
excavation may impact non-renewable paleontologlc
resources. Staff is recommending a condition of
approval that the developer comply with the
recommendations of the Museum Director during
grading of the site in order to prevent the loss of
non-renewable fossil resources.
Stephen~s Kanqaroo Rat Habitat
The site is located within the area designated by
Riverside County as habitat for the endangered
Stephen~s Kangaroo Rat. The impact of
development within the Kangaroo Rates habitat shall
be mitigated by paying fees which will contribute to
the implementation of Riverside County~s Habitat
Conservation Plan. No SKR survey was requested
by the County of Riverside Planning Staff.
Mr. Palomar Street Liqhtinq Policy Area
The proposed project is located in the Mt. Palomar
Observatory Street Lighting Policy Area. In order
to prevent "skyglow" interference with the Mt.
STAFFRPT\CUP2 3
Palomar telescope, low pressure sodium vapor
lighting shall be used.
DrainaRe
The site slopes downward gradually to the west and
drainage will flow to 1-15. Comments from the
California Department of Transportation indicate
that site drainage does not appear to have a
significant impact on the highway, but care should
be taken to preserve the existing drainage pattern
of the highway. There is a surface water ponding
area along the northwesterly side of the parking
area which serves as a detention basin to collect
storm runoff and slow the rate of downstream storm
runoff along the highway to levels which
downstream drainage facilities can accommodate.
The ponding area shall be preserved when the
subject property is excavated and graded.
Traffic
The site is approximately 200 feet north of the
intersection of Ynez Road and Solana Way. The
intersection currently functions at a peak hour level
of service F, the poorest level of service. A median
will be constructed on Ynez Road which will prevent
left turns into or out of the site. Project generated
traffic will increase southbound through traffic on
Ynez by approximately 1096, northbound traffic on
Ynez by approximately 3%, and southbound traffic
on Ynez turning left onto Solana by approximately
12%.
According to the Traffic Study submitted by the
applicant, signalization of the intersection,
additional through traffic lanes, and additional turn
lanes are necessary to provide a level of service
C/peak hour level of service D or better at the
intersection of Ynez and Solaria. A temporary
traffic signal at the existing street width will be
installed in the near future, Street widening will be
necessary to accommodate the required number of
lanes.
The additional street width, construction of the
median, and relocation of the temporary signal will
be funded by a Mello-Roos district. The district
has been formed, but design engineers have not yet
been selected and design criteria have not yet been
developed. The process of selecting consultants
and designing and constructing improvements could
STAFFRPT\CUP2 ~
take 12 months. If the proposed automotive center
is built and occupied before the street improvements
are constructed, there wil) be a temporary
worsenlng of the existing poor level of service at
the intersection of Ynez and Solana.
The Traffic Study was deemed acceptable by the
Transportation Engineering Staff.
Access and Internal Traffic Circulation
The site pian indicates a driveway u,0 feet in width
which will provide site access from Ynez Road for
the subject property and the adjacent property
north of the site. A reciprocal access easement
would be required for the shared driveway. All on-
site drive aisles are 2u, feet in width and adequate to
accommodate two way traffic circulation. ~'urn radii
are adequate for delivery and refuse collection
trucks.
Parkinq and Loadinq Zones
Ordinance 3u,8 requires automotive service uses to
provide parking at the rate of one space per 150
square feet or four spaces per service bay,
whichever is greater. Four spaces per bay or 180
spaces for ~,5 bays is the larger figure. 50 spaces
are required for the retail portion of the project.
In addition, the proposed square footage of retail
and automotive service area requires three loading
spaces 10 feet wide and 35 feet long. The site plan
shows a total of 171 parkin9 spaces and no loading
ZOneS ·
The applicant submitted a request for Special
Review of Parking on the basis that the proposed
automotive service uses will be restricted to the
quick turn around types of services rather than
engine or body repair services which typically
generate a demand for longer term, overnight
parking. Because the turn-around time would be
relatively short, the applicant requests that 24 of
the proposed service bays be counted toward
satisfying the parking requirement.
If the appllcantls request were granted, the 2u,
additional spaces counted would satisfy the
automotive service requirement calculated on the
basis of square footage of automotive service area.
However, the ordinance stipulates that parking
shall be provided on the basis of one space per 150
STAFFRPT\CUP2 5
GENERAL PLAN AND
ZONING CONSISTENCY:
square feet, or four spaces per bay, whichever is
,qreater. The ratio of four spaces per bay yields
the greater parking requirement: 230 spaces. The
site plan is 59 spaces, or 26% short of the required
number d spaces. Even if the lesser requirement
were applied, the shortage of 2u, spaces would
constitute 12% of the total number d required
spaces. As stated above, the site plan also lacks
the three designated loading spaces required for a
center of the proposed size, thereby contributing to
the potential for on-site parking and/or circulation
impaction.
Even if automotive service uses are restricted to
quick turn-around businesses, adequate provision
must be made for the employees working in the
service bays, clerical employees, managers, and
trucks delivering parts and supplies. Furthermore,
it is typical for customers to queue up waiting for
service during peak hours at quick turn auto
servlcebusinesses. Provision for waiting customers
in the form of parking spaces or queuing space is
needed. For these reasons, Staff cannot recommend
approval d the proposed amount of automotive
service and retail space with only 171 parking
spaces.
Land Use
The proposed multi-tenant automotive service and
retail center is consistent with the Southwest Area
Community Plan designation d the site for
commercial land uses. The Scenic Highway
Commercial zone permits automotive service uses
subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
Scenic Hiqhway Corridor
The site is located adjacent to 1-15 which is
designated as a scenic highway. The Southwest
Area Community Plan contains the following scenic
highway policies which are applicable to this
project: the design and appearance of new
structures within the scenic highway corridor shall
be compatible with the setting or environment; all
new development shall maintain a 50 foot setback
from the highway right-d-way; the size, height,
and type of on-site signage shall be the minimum
necessary for identification and shall blend with the
environment; and substantial landscaping and
vegetation shall be utilized to protect and enhance
STAFFRPT\CUP2 6
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
the view from the scenic highway.
The site plan indicates a substantial landscaped
area 15 feet wide along the 1-15 right-of-way. The
building setback from the 1-15 right-of-way is 56
feet. The site plan and elevations have been
revised to eliminate service bays from the west
elevation facing the highway. The site plan
satisfies the requirement to provide landscaping
equal to 11% of the parking area adjacent to State
and scenic highways.
An Initial Study was prepared for Conditional Use
Permit No. 2 and is attached to this Staff Report.
No environmental action is recommended because
Staff recommends denial of the project (see
attachment A, Initial Environmental Study).
FINDINGS:
The proposed use is in conformance with the
Southwest Area Plan designation of the site
for commercial uses and is permitted in the
Scenic Highway Commercial zone subject to
approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
The project could adversely affect adjacent
properties in that the on-site parking
provided is inadequate to serve the proposed
intensity of development.
The site is inadequate to allow the proposed
development in a manner not detrimenta) to
public safety or the area in which the site is
located in that the on-site parking is
inadequate to serve the proposed intensity of
development. Approval of the proposed
project could cause on-site parking and
circulation impactlon.
The intersection of Ynez Road and Solana
Way, 200 feet south of the site. is already
functioning at level of Service F. The project
could temporarily aggravate the poor level of
service until street improvements which will
be constructed in approximately 12 months
provide an acceptable level of service at the
intersection.
A reciprocal access agreement with the
adjacent property owner north of the site will
be required to provide adequate access to the
STAFFRPT\CUP2 7
site,
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
DENY Conditional Use Permit No. 2 based on the
analysis and findings contained herein and ADOPT
a resolution incorporating the recommendation of
denial.
SW:ks
Attachments:
Exhibits: 1.
2.
3.
A. Initial Environmental Study
B. County Geologistis Letter
C. Request for Special Review
of Parking with supporting
letters.
Color Board
Elevations
Site Plan
Vicinity Map
STAFFRPT\CUP2 8
ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
II
Backqround
1. B~e of Proponent:
Larry Gabele
Address end Phone
l~neher of Proponent:
Date of Fmvironmental
Assessment:
4725 Executive Square, Ste. 1040
La Jolla, California 92307
(619) 587-1985
August 10, 1990
4. Agency Requiring
Assessment:
CITY OF TEMECULA
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Location of Proposal:
Conditiona! Use Permit No. 2
(Formerly Plot Plan 11694)
The West side of Ynez Road, approx.
200 feet North of Solaria Way.
Environmental Impacts
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are provided on
attached sheets. )
Yes Maybe No
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil?
Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features?
de
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?
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?
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
X
X
Maybe
No
X
.X
X
X
x
BLANK I ES/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 (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
wildlife habitat?
Yes
X
X.
Maybe
N_2o
X
X
B LA N K ) ESI FORMS -3-
Yes Maybe No
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:
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?
X
X
BLANKIESIFORMS
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, bicycllsts 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
×
Maybe
No
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 {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?
Ce
Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which
would effect 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
-6-
BLANKIES/FORMS
Yes Maybe N~o
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 wildllfe
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 cumuo
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?
BLANKIES/FORMS -7-
I I I. Environmental Evaluation
1 .a,b.
Yes. Fill and topsoil replacement to a depth of 3 to u, feet will occur.
Topsoil replacement is necessary to mitigate the potential for
liquefaction and subsidence. This is not considered a significant
impact.
1 .c,d.
No. The project will not result in substantial changes in topography or
destruction of unique geologic features. The site is flat, and
substantial changes in topography will not be required.
1.e.
Maybe. The potential for wind and water erosion will increase during
construction. Wind erosion will be mitigated by the use of watering
trucks and planting vegetation after grading. Increased water runoff
due to the addition of impermeable surfaces will be accommodated by
drainage facilities as approved by the Engineering Department.
1.f.
No. The site is not located near any body of water which would be
impacted by siltation or deposition.
1.g.
No. County Geologic Reports No. 691 and No. 692 were prepared for
the underlying parcel map which includes the subject property. The
County Engineering Geologist reviewed the Geologic Reports with
regard to the project in questions. Although the site is located in an
Alquist-Priolo zone, no evidence for faulting was found on the site.
The geologic report stated that structural setbacks for faults are not
warranted on this site. Secondary earthquake effects of lurching or
localized ground cracking can be adequately mitigated by proper
structural design. The report also states that the potential for
liquefaction and/or seismically induced ground subsidence can be
mitigated by replacement of topsoil and fill to a depth of 3 to u, feet.
Localized deeper removals may be necessary. The County Engineering
Geologist found that the report satisfies the requirements of the
Alquist-Prlolo Special Studies Act. The recommendations of the report
shall be Conditions of Approval for this project.
No. The project will not result in an increase in vehicle trips or an
increase in auto emissions. The nature of the project is not such that
it will attract substantial volumes of new traffic to the region.
2.b,c.
No. The project will not involve any process which would create
objectionable odors or cause any alterations in the climate.
No. The site is not located near any streams or bodies of water.
Drainage will be directed to streets or to drainage facilities. The
project does not include any structure or excavation which would alter
the flow of direction of ground water.
3.b.
Yes. Increased runoff due to the addition of impermeable surfaces will
be accommodated by drainage facilities as approved by the Engineering
STAFFRPT\CUP2 8
Department.
Yes. During construction, the proposed project will increase turbldity
in local surface water. This impact is temporary and is not considered
significant.
3.9.
No. The project will be served by the Rancho Water District and will
not involve any direct withdrawals or additions to ground water. Due
to the limited depth of excavation for soil replacement and compaction,
it is unlikely that ground water will be encountered.
3. i.
No. The site is not located in a flood zone.
No. No unique, rare, or endangered plant species have been identified
in the area in which the site is located. The possible introduction of
new species of plants to the site as part of the required landscaping is
not considered a significant impact. The site is not used for any
agricultural crops.
5.a-c.
Yes. The subject site is located within the area designated by
Riverside County as habitat for the endangered Stephenis Kangaroo
Rat. The impact of development within the Kangaroo Ratis habitat will
be mitigated by paying fees which will contribute to the implementation
of Riverside County*s Habitat Conservation Plan.
6oa.
Yes. On-site noise levels will increase temporarily during construction
and in the long term due to increased traffic volumes. This is not
considered a significant impact because the surrounding land uses are
not noise sensitive and noise levels are unlikely to exceed State daily
average noise level standards.
6.b.
No. The proposed project and existing and future surrounding land
uses are commercial jn nature and will not create severe noise levels.
Yes. The proposed project is located within the Mt. Palomar
Observatory Street Lighting Policy Area. In order to prevent
"skyglow" interference with the Mt. Palomar telescope, low pressure
sodium vapor lighting shall be used.
No. The proposed project is consistent with the designation of the site
and its vicinity for commercial land uses.
9.a,b.
No. The project will not result in a substantial increase in the rate of
consumption of any natural or non-renewable natural resource.
10.a.
Yes. The proposed automotive center will involve the use of motor oil
and may involve the use of other hazardous substances. The applicant
shall provide a list of hazardous substances which will or may be used
on the site and a submit a plan for their disposal to the County Health
Department.
10.b.
Maybe. If closure of a lane on Ynez Road during construction is
STAFFRPT\CUP2 9
necessary, emergency vehicle response may be inhibited. Any street
or lane closures during construction shall be coordinated with the Police
and Fire Departments.
11,12.
Maybe. The project will provide additional jobs and could attract more
population to the area. However, the number of new jobs created will
probably not exceed 100, and at least some of the jobs will be taken by
current residents of the area. The increase in population and demand
for housing in the area due to this project are unlikely to be a
significant impact.
13.a.
Yes. The project will generate over 1,800 additional trips per day.
The intersection of Ynez Road and Solana Way is already operating at
Level of Service F. A Mello-Roos District has been formed to provide
for street improvements which will mitigate the traffic impacts of
existing, projected, and project generated traffic to an acceptable level
of service. If the project is constructed and occupied prior to the
construction of street improvements, there would be a temporary
aggravation of the existing poor level of service.
13.b.
Yes. The proposed automotive center is required by Ordinance 30,8 to
provide 230 parking spaces. The proposed site plan shows 171 parking
spaces and no loading zones. The potential for on-site peak hour
circulation and parking impaction is high and could cause retail
customers to attempt to park on adjacent properties.
13.c,d,e.
No. The project will not impact public transportation systems, air
water, or tall traffic, or alter present patterns of circulation.
l~.a,b,
e,f.
Yes. The proposed project will require public services in the areas of
police, fire, road maintenance, and public facilities. Fire impact
mitigation fees and property taxes will provide adequate mitigation for
the additional need for public services generated by the project.
14.c,d.
Maybe. Any impact on schools or recreational facilities resulting from
an increase in population due to new employment opportunities will be
mitigated by Conditions of Approval upon new housing.
15.a,b.
N0. The proposed project will not result in a substantial use or
increase in demand for fuel or other energy sources.
16.a-f.
No. The proposed project will not result in a need for substantial
alterations of existing utility systems.
17.a,b,
Maybe. The project will involve the use of motor oil and may involve
the use of other hazardous substances. A list of hazardous materials
which will or may be used at the site and a disposal plan shall be
submitted to the City and to the County Department of Environmental
Health Services.
18.
Maybe. The proposed project will not obstruct any scenic view
STAFFRPT\CUP2 10
19.
20.a-d.
21 .a.
21 .b.
21 .c.
21 .d.
currently available to the public. However, the site is located adjacent
to the 1~15 scenic highway corridor. Building materials, colors, and
free-standing signage shall be compatible with the natural environment
and existing development. Free-standing signs shall be the minimum
size necessary for identification. The landscaping adjacent to the 1-15
right-d-way shall be substantial and shall provide significant
screening of the site from view from the freeway.
No. The site is not currently used for recreational purposes and is not
located in or neap a potential recreational trail alignment.
Maybe. ~'he site is located in an area of paleontological sensitivity and
near an area of sensitivity for archaeological resources. The developer
shall retain a qualified vertebrate paleontologist to develop a site-
specific program to mitigate potential impacts to paleontologic
resources. The program shall include monitoring of excavation,
preparation and curation of specimens, and a report of findings with a
complete specimen inventory.
Maybe. The project will not degrade the environment. Any potential
reduction in Stephen~s Kangaroo Rat habitat would be compensated by
participation in the Kargaroo Rat habitat conservation program.
No. Long term project generated traffic impacts will be mitigated by
planned street improvements.
Maybe. The project could contribute to the existing poor level of
service at the intersection of Ynez Road and Solana Way if it is occupied
prior to construction of street improvements at the intersection. The
project would increase southbound through traffic by 1096 and
southbound traffic turning left on Solana Way by 13%. These are
relatively small impacts, but will aggravate the poor level of service due
to existing traffic and projected traffic due to other projects and
growth in the area. The poor level of service will be mitigated by
construction of street improvements which will probably occur in
approximately 12 months.
Maybe. The project will involve the disposal of used motor oil. Used
oil will be recycled and will not be disposed in a manner which will
pollute soll or ground water. The use of any other hazardous materials
will require a clearance from the County Department of Health.
STAFFRPT\CUP2 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-
ticant effect on the environment, there will not be a slgni-
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.
For CITY OF TEMECULA
BLANKIES/FORMS
ATTACHMENT B
tiVEt iDE COtlfi;Y
PL nnirlG DEP tEmEfiC
Geo Soils, InC.
· 2489D Jefferson Avenue
P.O, Box 490
Murrieta, CA 92362
Attention: John P. Franklin
Albert R. Kleist
SUBJECT:
Alqutst-Priolo Specie1 Studies
Zone/Liquefaction Hazard
W.O. 278-A-RC
~lot Plan 11694
A.P.N.s 949-210-004
Count Geologic Report No.'s 691
and 6~2
Tamecola Area
Gentlemen:
we have reviewed the seismic/geoZogic aspects of your report
entitled "Preliminar Soils and Geologic Update Report, Parcel 4
of Parcel Map No. 27960, off of Ynez Road, TemeCula, CA," dated
July 28, 1989, end your sddendum dated February 27, 1990.
Your report determined thatl
No evidence for faulting w~s found in the srea of the
previouly established fault setback zone on this site. The
potential for ground rupture at ~he site is considered low.
The Wildomar fault has been mapped just westerl~ of the
subject property· Peak horlzontal ground acceleration from
e maximum credible earthquake of 7.5 magnitude on this fault
could exceed 0.78 g. Peak horizontal ground acceleration from
a maximum probable earthquake on this fault could eMceed 0.74
3. Secondary earthquake effects of lurching and/or localized
ground cracking could occur st this site.
4. The potential for tsunami or seiche Is not considered
pertinent tO site development.
The potential for surface floodin9 at the sate, although
considered low, Oannot be entirely preuluded.
Indications of major mass movement or major landslidisg have
not been observed ol leported on the site.
4080 LEMON STREET, frH FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA g2501
'd II'0N £ :tl I&H'CI'ge
~rJ3 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, SUITE E
BERMUDA DUNE~ CALIFORNIA 92201
f6191 342-8277
'ldad 9NINNU1J AIN3 ~la WO ]
Gee Soils, Inc.
March 7, 1990
Page -2-
Some of the sandy soil lenses present in the vicinity of 20
feet at Boring B-3 have a potential for liquefaction.
Subsidence due to liquefaction w0uld be localized to nil and
no manlfeststion of liquefaction is likely to occur at or near
~he ground surface.
Your report recommended thatx
1. Structural setbacks for faults are not warranted on this site.
The potential for surface flooding should be further evaluated
by the design engineer.
Geologic inspections should be performed during site grading
to verif~ geologic conditions relative to faulting encountered
both within or outside of the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies
~one.
In order to mitigate liquefaction poten~ial and/or seismically
induced dynamic settlement, all existing fill and topsoil over
the entire site within areas of settlement sensitive
improvements shall be removed. The average depth of removal
is estimated mt 3 to a feet, however localized deeper removals
~ay be necessary.
The exploratory trench back[ill should be cleaned out,
Anspected by the soils engineer, processed and replaced with
fill which has been moisture conditioned to at least optimum
moisture content end compacted to at least 90 percent of
laboratory standard.
It is our ~p~n~on that the report wss prepared in · competent
manner consisten~ with the present satate-of-the-art" and satisfies
the requiredaeries of the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act,
the associated R~verside County Ordinance No. ~47. Final approval
of this report is hereby give..
It should be noted that the recommendations made in your report now
supercede the re~Ommendations made in C~unt~ Geologic Report
278 for this specific parcel. This revision applies to both the
fault setback zone and liquefac~ion mitigation measures.
£ 'd If'OH 8661' I'9e 'J. d3 3 HINHU'Id A .H3 MO :[
Heiroh ?,
The reoommenda~ione mada in your repOrt Ih&ll be adhered to in the
design and eonstructlon of this prOJect,
Very truly yours,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PXJ~lqING DEPARTMENT
h A ~~hards, ~ arming rector
8/,,K:bam
C.C. Harkham and &ssoc. - Ida San~hes
CDHG - ~srZ Mar~
Building & Safety - Norm Lostham (2)
Flanning Team 3 - :ohn Rls~ow
ATTACHMENT C
GABElF & OMAN, CPA'S
June 14,
1990
Scott Wright
Planning Department
City of Temecula
RE: Parking Requirements for Plot Plan #11694
Dear Scott:
The purpose of this letter ]e to give
logic behind the parking layout for
411694.
you the background and
our proposed Plot Plan
Prior to our first LDC meeting with Riverside County in
January 3990, we had one in-person meeting and several phone
conferences with the Planning Department and Traffic
Department to discuss the parking requirements for our
project. We were fully aware of the existing parkxng
requirements for auto service centers and the reasoning
behind these requirements. In discussing these requirements
with the Planning Department, we pointed out that our center
was not going to be using long-term parking type tenants such
as auto body shops or engine rebuilding facilities and that
in fact the majority of our tenants were going to be quick
turn type tenants. By "quick turn" I mean operations such as
Precision Tune, Midas Brake and Mufflers, Big-O Tires. These
type tenants work on a quick turn highly scheduled and in-
and-out type customer.
The Riverside Planning Department simply requested that we
give copies of our proposed leases to them to substantiate
the fact that we were not going to be using long term parking
type clients. With this information at hand the Riverside
Planning Department was going to allow us to count one out of
every two interior service bays in our buildings as parking
to meet the parking requirements of the county.
In addition, we split the use of our property to be some
retail and some auto service. For the retail portion, our.
parking was calculated on five spots for every thousand
square feet of usage and on the service side our parking was
calculated on six spots for every thousand square feet of
usage
4275 EXECUTI SUITE 1040. LA JOLLA. C, F{:t IA 92 7 (619) 587-1985
Page 2
At our initial January 1990 meeting with the LDC, these
issues were discussed and approved by the planning group and
our plans have reflected that determination from that time
on.
Should you have any further questions regarding
please feel free to call me at (619) 587-1985.
JLG:Je
this matter,
La 'Gabele
.rune 28, I~)0
San Diego Regional Otficu
Larry Gabale
YNEZ PARTNERS
4275 Executive Square #1040
La Jails, CA 92037
'"['his is to clarify Precision Tune's position on perking requirements for the center that will
he located on Ynez road In Temecula.
Since ~e bulk of our business is based on quick convenient services, i.e. oil changes and
tune ups, a majority of our customers wait in our waiting room provided for their
convenience at our factlit3, for sewices to be completed,
Approxin'~tely 30% of our customers come to our centers for, oil change service, this is
a drive through service and no parking is required,
Approzimntely 50% of our customers arc tune up customers that will watt at our facjllt~
for the completion of the repair work. Parking is only required for a short period of time
to write up a service order. Upon completion of the service the customart pick-up their
vehicle-s and depart from the premises as soon as the paper work is campitied concluding
the transaction.
Only about 20% of our customers will leave their vehicles with us for a period longer
than required to service it,
Since the majority of our customell wait at our fncfiltles and their vehicles are always
servlczd within the copier itself, the bay spaces should he considered as parking stalls and,
outside parking requirements arc at a very minimum,
you have any further questions or concerns please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
R~hard A. Jarvia
Director of Operations
UNIVERSITY CTR. LANE · SUITE 300 · SAN DIEGO. CA 92122, (619) 597-2435, FAX 455.0169
F~ON:KDNICA FAX TO: ?146991848 JUL S, 1990 3:17Am ~,it~1
July 5, 1990
Mr. Larry Gabale
YNEZ PARTNERS
4275 [xecuHve Square, #t040
La Jolle, California 92037
Dear Mr, Gabele~
This letter is to discuss Hides' typtceq parking requirements for
a locatfon wtthtn an auto service center.
The majority of Htdas' service involves exhaust work and brake
work. The average number of customers tn this typical size HideS
store is 20 per day. The averaga exhaust ~ob lasts about 20
minutes, and the average brake Job lasts 27 minutes. Therefore,
8 18rge number of our customers walt in our lobby area for their
cars to be completed.
We have no need for overnight parking end, as you can see, vary
little need for long-term parking. We feel that your Ynez Road
auto service center has an abundance of parking and that
consideration for parking within the bays is certainly jUStified.
It iS our experience that the auto body and paint businesses and
engine overhaul type tenants typically have a heavy long-term
parking require~nt. We do not locate in centers with these type
of co-tenants. We are anxious to enter the Temecula marketplace
as soon as possible. Please keep us updated aS to your approval
process.
If you should have any questions, please feel free to call me at
714/870-0411.
Charles P. Lavens
Regional Real Estate Manager
Western Area
.I
EXHIBIT 2 ~
I
Y~NEZ AUTO
CENTER
'l
x x II :i:x jill
:l ..I
.[ :::[[:::
::: :" fill
EXHIBIT
EXHIBIT 4
SITE
TEMECULA
O
_RANCHO CALIFORNIA
- VICINITY MAP .o so,L~
ITEM #3
Case No.:
Recommendation:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 10, 1990
Tentative Parcel Map No. 25538
Approve Parcel Map,
Adopt Negative Declaration
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
Robert Paine
Benesh Engineering Corporation
To subdivide a 1 .u,3 acre parcel into two parcels.
30565 Estero Street, east of Ormsby Road
R-R Rural Residential
North: R-R Rural Residential
South: R-R Rural Residential
East: R-R Rural Residential
West: R-R Rural Residential
Single Family
North:
South:
East:
West:
Single Family
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
STAFFRPT\TPM25538 1
ANALYSIS
BACKGROUND:
The appiicatlon for Tentative Parcel Map No. 25538
was submitted on November lu,, 1989, as a result of
the County's review of Tentative Parcel Map No.
2u,633. Tentative Parcel Map No. 25538 was
reviewed by Riverside Countyms Land Divlsion
Committee on December lu,, 1989. The additional
information that was requested of the applicant was
submitted in April 1990. Tentative Parcel Map No.
25538 was then scheduled for Directorms Hearing on
July 9, 1990. However, on June 8, 1990, the file
was transferred to the City of Temecula.
Area Settinq/Parcel Map Confiquration
The underlying Parcel Map No. 16705 subdivided
5.1 acres of land into four parcels, creating Estero
Street. Parcel 3 of Parcel Map No. 16705 is the
subject parcel to be subdivided as part of Tentative
Parcel Map No. 25538. The gross acreage of
Tentative Parcel Map No. 25538 is 1.39 acres. The
proposed net acreage of Parcels 1 and 2 is 0.782 and
0.607 respectively. Parcels 1 and 2 meet the half-
acre minimum lot size designation of the R-R zone.
Tentative Parcel Map No. 25538 is part of a gentle
slope that extends to the south, approximately
1,000 feet, to a dry wash. The adjacent parcels to
the north and west are 1.39 and 1.07 acres in size,
respectively. An application is currently being
reviewed by Staff to subdivide the parcel to the
west into two half-acre parcels. West of Ormsby
Road is a subdivision of homes where the lot sizes
average 0.25 acres. East of the subject site is a
2.75 acre parcel and to the south is a 2.36 acre
parcel. Exhibit A illustrates the size of the
surrounding parcels.
The subject site is currently improved with a single
family home which would be located on Parcel 1 of
the proposed subdivision. Proposed Parcel 2 is
unimproved but has been graded. A future
homesite pad exists on Parcel 2 as illustrated on the
map.
The proposed one-half acre lots will provide an
appropriate transition between the existing 0.25
acre lots to the west and the larger one acre plus
lots to the east.
Approximately one mile east of the subject parcel is
STAFFRPT\TPM25538 2
Santiago Estates, a large estate lot project.
According to Johnson and Johnson Properties, the
developer for Santiago Estates, their project has a
minimum lot size of 2.5 acres. Santiago Estates is
viewed by many as an exclusive development within
the City, It should be noted, that although the
proposed half acre parcels are located approximately
one mile west of Santiago Estates and function well
as a transitional land use between the smaller and
larger parcels, this subdivision could set a
precedent for landowners located between the
subject parcels and Santiago Estates to apply for
subdivisions of their land to one-half acre lots.
Gradin.c/
The subject site has already been graded according
to grading permit No. 538881, issued by the County
of Riverside. The grading was necessary to
construct the house on Parcel 1. In anticipation of
the subject parcel map, the applicant also had a pad
on Parcel 2 graded for a future home, as illustrated
on the map. At the time of development, grading
should be minimal.
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
The subject parcel is designated as 1-2 DU/AC
according to the Southwest Area Plan. The
proposed land division is consistent with this
designation, resulting in the potential of 1.4
DU/AC. It is anticipated that the proposed land
division, as conditioned, will be consistent with the
City~s forthcoming General Plan as a transitional
land use between the approximate 1.25 acre lots and
the larger parcels to the east.
An Initial Study has been completed for the project
and a Negative Declaration is recommended for the
proposal.
FINDINGS:
The proposed division is consistent with the
Southwest Area Plan and Zoning Code in that
both parcels exceed the minimum lot size of
0.5 acres and the minimum average lot width
of 80 feet.
The lot design is logical
approval of the City~s
Engineering Departments.
and meets the
Planning and
STAFFRPT\TPM25538 3
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:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission recommend to City Council:
ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration for
Parcel Map No. 25538.
2. APPROVAL of Parcel Map No. 25538.
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
u,. Resolution
STAFFRPT\TPM25538 ~
wow tl
-'l
I
I
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Parcel Map No. 25538
Council Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
Planninq Department
The subdivider 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. 25538, P.C. No. 1, which action is brought within the time
period provided for in California Government Code Section 66u,99.37. The City
of Temecula will promptly notify the subdlvlder 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 subdlvlder of any such claim,
action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivlder
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 b,60,
Schedule G 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 460.
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, Riverside county 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.
Street names shall be subject to approval of the City of Temecula.
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 of Temecula.
Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the parcel
map boundary to a City maintained road.
STAFF R PT\TPM25538 I
10.
11.
12.
13.
15.
16.
17.
All delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final
map.
Prior to any grading, a grading plan in compliance with the Uniform Building
Code, Chapter 70, shall be submitted to the City Department of Building and
Safety.
The subdivlder shall comply with the street improvement recommendations
outlined in the County Road Department~s letter dated 12-26-89, a copy of
which is attached.
The subdivide shall comply with the environmental health recommendations
outlined in the County Health Department~s Transmlttal dated 12-8-89, 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 12-13-89, a copy
of which is attached. If the land division lles within an adopted flood control
drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of Riverside County Land Division
Ordinance u,60, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage faci lities
shall be collected by the Road Commissioner 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 12-13-89, a copy of
which is attached.
The subdlvider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building
and Safety Department: Land Use Section's transmittal dated 12-20-89, 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 5-1-90, a copy
of which is attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the San
Bernardlno County Museum transmlttal dated 12-11-89, a copy of which is
attached.
Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall be required to pay
applicable Quimby fees in accordance with 5ectlon 10.35 of Ordinance u,60.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the
provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in
that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions
of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by
Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat
Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
STAFFRPT\TPM25538 2
Enqineerinq Department
The following are the Engineering Department 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.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
18.
The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act,
and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions.
19.
Prior to final map approval, 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;
Riverside County Health Department; and
CATV Franchise.
20.
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.
21.
Dedication shall be made to provide for right-d-way for a cul-de-sac per
Riverside County Standard No. 800.
22.
The subdlvider shall construct or post security guaranteeing the construction
of the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City
standards.
Street improvements, includin9, but not limited to: pavement, curb
and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, and
striping.
b. Landscaping Istreet and parks).
c, Sewer and domestic water systems.
23.
The subdivider shall provide bonds and agreement, clearances from all
applicable agencies and pay all fees prior to the approval of the final map.
The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated
with adjoining developments.
STAFFRPT\TPM25538 3
25.
26.
27.
28.
Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. u,61 and as approved by the
City Engineer.
Prior to recordat(on 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.
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.
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.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
3u,.
35.
36.
A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final map, along with
supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations should be submitted to the
Riverside County Flood Control District for review.
Prior to any work being performed in public right-d-way, fees shall be and
an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office, in
addition to any other permits required.
Street improvement plans including parkway trees and street lights prepared
by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer shall be
required for all public streets prior to issuance of an encroachment permit.
Final plans and profiles shall show the location of existing utility facilities
within the right-of-way.
All driveways shall be located a minimum of two 12) feet from the property
line.
All driveways shall be constructed along all public street frontages in
accordance with City Standard Nos. u,00 and u,01 (curb sidewalk).
A minimum centerline grade shall be 0.40 percent.
The required improvements as reflected in the following conditions shall be
completed prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. The improvements
are required based on the following findings:
The improvements are a necessary prerequisite to the orderly
development of the surrounding area.
b. The improvements are necessary for the public health and safety.
Estero Street shall be improved with 28 feet of asphalt concrete pavement
within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No.
105, Section B. {18'/30')
STAFFRPT\TPM25538 ~
37.
38.
39.
I~0.
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 City Engineer.
Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and
gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and
street lights within parcel map boundary in accordance with Riverside County
Standard No. 800-cul-de-sac.
All street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
Asphaltic emulsion lfog seal) shall be applied not less than lu, 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 Nos. 37, 39, and
9~ of the State Standard Specifications.
Prior to Building Permit, the subdivider shall notify the City~s CATV
Franchises of the intent to develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV
Standards prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public
facility mitigation as required under the Negative Declaration for the project,
in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final
public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the
date on which Developer requests its building permits for the project or any
phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for Payment of
Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to Developer.
Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees
in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the
amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such
increase.
STAFFRPT\TPM25538 5
OFFluE OF ROAD COMMISSIONER & COUNTY ,~URVEYOR
December 26, 1989
Riverside County Planning Commission
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501 ~
REz 'PM 25538 ~
Schedule G - Team I - SMD #9
AP #111-111-111-9
Ladies and Gentlemen:
With respect to the conditions of approval for the referenced
tentative land division map, the Road Department recommends that the
landdivider provide the following street improvements, street
improvement plans and/or road dedications in accordance with
Ordinance 460 and Riverside County Road Improvement 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
resubmitted 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 improvement. All questions regarding the true meaning
of the conditions shall be 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 shall be shown on the final
map and noted as followsz "Drainage Easement - no building,
obstructions, or encroachments 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 Commissioner 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
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER * 4080 LEMON STREET * RIVERSIDE, CAUFORNIA 92501
PM 25538
December 26, 1989
Page 2
11.
The required improvements as reflected in the following
conditions shall be completed or a Performance Security in
lieu thereof shall be posted in accordance with Riverside
County Ordinance 460, Article XV, prior to recordation of
the final map. The improvements are required based on the
following findings~
a) The improvements are a necessary prerequisite to the
orderly development of the surrounding area.
b) The improvements are necessary for the public health
and safety.
Major drainage is involved on this landdivision and its
resolution shall be as approved by the Road Department.
Estero Street shall be improved with 28 feet of asphalt
concrete pavement within a 40 foot part width dedicated
right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 105,
Section B. (18'/30')
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
the develeFer/owner shall submit a detailed soils h~vesti-
gation report addressing the construction requirements
within the road right of way.
A standard cul-de-sac shall be constructed throughout 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 per
square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section 37,
39 and 94 of the State Standard Specifications.
The landdivider shall provide utility clearance from Rancho
California Water District prior to the recordation of the
final map.
The maximum centerline gradient and the minimum centerline
radii shall be in conformance with County Standard #114 of
Ordinance 461.
12. The minimum lot frontages along the cul-de-sacs and
knuckles shall be 35 feet.
PM 25538
December 26,
Page 3
1989
13,
14.
15.
15a.
16.
19.
20.
All driveways shall conform to the applicable Riverside
County Standards.
The minimum garage setback shall be 30 feet measured from
the face of curb.
The landowner/developer shall provide/acquire sufficient
public offsite rights of way to provide for a primary
access road to a paved and maintained road. Said access
road shall be constructed in accordance with County
Standard No. 106, Section B. (32'/60') at a grade and
alignment approved by the Road Con~nissioner.
Said offsite access road shall be the westerly extension of
Estero Street to Ormsby Road, then southerly on Ormsby Road
to Santiago Road.
Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer
shall deposit with the Riverside County Road Department, a
cash sum of $150.00 per lot as mitigation for traffic
signal impacts.
Electrical and communications trenches shall be provided in
accordance with Ordinance 461, Standard 817.
Landdivisions creating cut or fill slopes adjacent to the
streets shall provide erosion control, sight distance
control and slope easements as approved by the Road
Department.
The street design and improvement concept of this project
shall be coordinated with PM 96/39-40, PM 97/11-12, PM
115/71-72, PM 81/83-84 and Tentative PM 24633.
Any landscaping within public road rights of way shall
comply with Road Departmant standards and require approval
by the Road Commissioner and assurance of continuing
maintenance through the establishment of a landscape
maintenance district/maintenance agreement or similar
mechanism as approved by the Road Commissioner. Landscape
plans shall 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.
PM ?5538
Dece~,.ber 26, 1989
Page 4
EB,Jw
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.
Very truly yours,
ENVIRONI'IENTAL IIEALTII SERVICES DIVISION
6 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
RIVERSIDE, CA 9250]
-' PARCEL NAP # .2-~,,f'_~:r
DATE:/ .' Y '
"ATER SOURCE:
PARENT P,N. (IF ANY)
SCHEDULE /'/
HAiVER REQUEST?.,4//~9
THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTII tlAS REVIEHED THE HAP DESCRIBED ABOVE.
ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS TRANSt4ITTAL, CONTACT (71q) 787-65q],
RECOHMENDATIONS ARE AS FOLLOHS: ~
AREA/DISTRICT
ORD, 1160
IF 1lIERE AI1E
OUR
The Environmental Health Servlcee Dtvlslon C.EIISD) has reviewed the above Parcel
Map and vhlle ve are not privileged to recelve any preliminary in[ormation relatlve
to subsur£ace sevage dlsposal or connection t~ se~ers or domesilt ~nter supply, it
is our considered opinion that the sells that might be encountered in thlR nrea
:nay not be conducive co effective subsurface sewage disposal eyeteme nl~d bccnu.e
:g soll cha=actecletlcs In the area, there may be a requ{rement [or extensive
~radtng, compactton, cutting, etc. Prior to recordatlon of d~e final map, an
~cceptable soils feasibility report ~'l~al~ ~Ub~i~ed ..... ~ '~h~pprpval
}y the Envtronmen~al Ilealch Services f~
'OR DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
{EALTH FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
EALTII
SAN 117 (REV. 1U/89)
(liILE)
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
CHIEF ENGINEER
199~ MARKET STREET
P.O, BOX IO33
TELEPHONE (714) 787-2015
FAX NO, (714) 78B-9965
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92502
Riverside County
Planning Department
County Administrative Center
Riverside, California
Attention: Regional Team No.
Planner D;~.~
Area:
Re: p/v~ ?,.55,'.'.'5~
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."
This project is in the ~tr;~k Cre~/'T'ewv~c~&t/~l~ ~l>P Area
drainage plan fees shall be paid in accordance with the a~) r~les and
icable
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 . The project will be
free of ordinary storm flood hazard when improvements have been constructed in
accordance with approved plans.
The attached comments apply.
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
46-209 OASIS STREET. SUITE 405
INDIO. CA 92201
(619) 342-8886
TO:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
IN COOPERATION WITH THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
AND FIRE PROTECTION
GLEN J. NEWMAN
FIRE CHIEF
12-13-89
ATTN: DIANE KIRKSEY i::,., ~ , ~.~.
RE: PARCEL HAP 25538
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
3760 12TH STREET
RIVERSIDE. CA 92501
(714) 787-6606
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
Schedule "G" fire protection. An approved standard fire hydrant (6"x4"x2~")
shall be located so that no portion of the frontage of any lot is more than
330 feet from a fire hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for 2
hours duration at 20 PSI.
The applicant/developer shall provide written certification from the appropriate
water company that the required fire hydrants are either existing or that
financial arrangements have been made to provide them.
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.
MITIGATION
Prior to the recordatfon of the final map, the developer shall deposit with
the Riverside County Fire Department, a cash sum of $400.00 per lot/unit as
mitigation for fire protection impacts.
All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to the
Planning and Engineering staff.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
Michael E. Cray,
Deputy Fire Department Planner
c'Depa t eat
Administrativ~ Center · 1777 Atlanta Avenue
Riverside. CA 92507
December 20, 1989
Riverside County Planning Department
Attention: D. Kirksey
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
RE: Parcel Map 25538~
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Land Use Division of the Department of Ruilding and Safely
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.
Fireplaces may encroach l' into required minimum 5' side yard
setback.
Mechanical equipment may not be located in required minimum 5'
side yard setback.
Very truly yours,
Robert ~nares '
Senior Land Use Technician
Administration (714) 682-8840 ,, (714) 787-2020
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
GRADING SECTION
DATE: May 1, 1990
RE: PM Z5538 !1 .. :." -..,'
APN: 945-070-010 I'l.~, '~:!,i~' ;iT
The "Grading Section" has reviewed a conceptual grading plan for this site.
The plan is acceptable. Consequently, the "Grading Section" recommends
approval of this project if the following conditions are included.
Prior to commencing any grading in excess of 50.cubic yards, the
applicant shall obtain a grading permit and approval to construct from
the Building and Safety Department,
All grading shall conform to the Uniform Building Code and Ordinance
457,
Provide verification that any existing grading was permitted and that
approval to construct was obtained from the Building and Safety
Department.
Plant and irrigate fill slopes greater than or equal to 3' in vertical
height with grass or ground cover. Slopes that exceed 15' in vertical
height are to be provided with shrubs and/or trees per count ordinance
457, see form 284-47.
GFading in excess of 199 cubic yards will require performance security
to be posted with the Building and Safety department,
All drainage facilities shall be designed to accommodate 100 year storm
flows.
NOTE: For the final grading plan, please provide the applicable information
form Building and Safety Department grading forms: 284-120, 284-Zl, 284-86,
and 284-46. These forms are available at all Building and Safety Offices.
Thank .you.
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
II
Backqround
1. Rs~e of Proponent:
Robert Paine
Address and Phone
~w~er of Proponent:
6563 Via Aboles
Anaheim Hills, California 92807
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
(213) 430-0316
June 28, 1990
4. Agency Requiring
Assessment:
CITY OF TEMECUIA
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Parce! Map # 25538
6. Location of P~uposal:
Southeast corner of the intersec-
tion of Ormsley Road and Estero
Street.
Environmental Impacts
{Explanations of all" es"
y 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?
X
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?
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 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
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 (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:
all
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
Maybe
No
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.
A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances {including,
but not limited to, oil, pesticicles,
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 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
Maybe
N_,9
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 (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
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 wildllfe
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-
III Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
BLANKIES/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-
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
BLANKIES/FORMS -9-
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
ENV!]IONIIIENTAL A~F~!:ENT FORM: ~I'ANDARD EVALUATION
ENVIRONIvtENTAL ASSESSMENT (M,A,) NUMBER: ~ C'/-5' D3 MODULE NUMBERCs): l1 ~_
PRO3ECr CASE TYPE(s) AND NUMBERS(s): Q/V~ ~2, 5 ~' _,~,E
ADDRF.$SOFAPPLIC, ANT: [o .%' r~ 3 t};~.. Av'J,,oles ~ A~,.I,~,:~./17'4 q lgO8
NAME OF PERSON(s) PREPARING F.A.:
L ~ROJECr INM)RMATION
A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION (include proposed uses and minimum lot stz~ as applicable):
B. TYPE OF PROJECT: SITE SPECIFIC ; COUNTYWIDE ; COMMUNITY ; POLICY
Two or more of the abo~e may appl]~. A SllFEi~.cific Prolea invo~"'~ver than 1000 property ownen in'[~efinable
sr~a and results in a chart e in e~sting land uses, zonin , open space designations or C~mmunily Plan land use
desi ,lions. If Sile S~J Projecl w~s checked nil ou, lie remainder of ,his page. If Sile S ' c Projec, was not
c TOTAL ,'RoJECT i.
To the emem possible fill out the remainin information for Item C ss it s plies to Ihe prolea-
Residential: Acres I ~/{, Lots ,.~ ~SniLs Projected No. or ~esidenu
Commercial: Acres Lots _Square ~ Building Area Proiec~'[a"~6. of Employees
ladnstrial: Acres Lots Square Feet of Building Area Projected No. of Employees
Other:
D. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.(s):
F_ STREET REFERENCES:
-.~2~',-
9~g~ O"""/o-o~o
F.
SEuI1ON, TOWNSHI~, RANGE DESCRIPTION OR ATI'ACH A !.ZGAL DF. SCRIFI1ON:
----..-9 T':89
O.. BRIEF DESCRII'TION OF THE EX1STING ENVIRO~AL Sr. rtu~O OF THE PROJECT SITE AND ITS
This pa must only be completed for pmp~,_is that qualify as Site Specific Proje, cts. The information on this page is not
requffPae~folr pwjeas which are not Site S]~exi~c; bow~,~r, wmpletion of applicable nions of this seaion is cncouragea.
FOr Itams A ihr0u I, state the poficins a~socinted with each item which ar~ appllca~°le to the project. If you require more
spac~ s Section ~h.
OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION MAP DESIGNATION(s) (Not applicable in REMAP):
B. LAND USE PLANNING AREA: -
C, SUBAREA. IF ANY:
D. COMMUNITY POLICY AREA, IF ANY:
E. COMMUNITY PLAN, IF ANY:
E COMMUNITY PLAN DESIGNATION(s), IF ANY:
G. REMAP ADVISORY DF..SIClNATION(s), IF ANY: *"'
PL ADOPU:~ SPECIFIC PLAN, IFANY: ~
I. $PE~;u--IC PLAN DESIONATION(s), IF ANY: "~
J. EXISTING ZONING:
L ADJA(,~'~NT ZONING:
F~j-- ~ K. PROPOSED ZONINO, IF ANY:
If the response Io Items M, N, O, R, S, or T is "No" or "Conditionall~, discuss the items recei~ng these responses.
ld. Is the propreal consistent with the site's existing or propoeed zoning (Doe~ not apply to zone change proposals)?
N. Is t!~ proposal compatible with ecisting, surrounding zoning?
O. If the proposal is implementing a specie plan, is it consistent with the specific plin's designations?
~ on e~IstinR conditions, what lind ns~ categolT(i~s). REMAP catqolT(ies) or O~n S~ ~ignation(s) ~t
~R ~e si~? ~ ~ibic. indi~te su~tego~u su~ ~ r~idcntial, w erdal, etc.
Q. In order for the proposal project to be appwved, for what land use ca tegovy(ie~), I~MAP catcgory(ies) or Com muni~
Plan Policy(iu) ~ould the site have to qualify? ~.~'~,~ "~ - ~-,~r ~ ~.P--~.~,-~.~ ,d
g. Will the land ~ ntegot3,(i~). RS,IAP categot),(i,<) or Community Plan Policy(ia) requited to approve the proposa;
be met on the sit~ through conditions of approval applied at the development stage? ~/e .S
the prolaal compatible with endstinS and planned surwunding land nsu? ~/e ~
T. Is the proposal consistent with the land use designations and poficies of the Comprcbcnsivg General Plan? ~/~ s:
indicate su porthi documentation including data wurces s enctes consulted, findings of facz, mttigatmn
yes 0O in Section V.
L&ND USE
subsmnttal alteration of the prnsant
ot planned land ur~ of an area?
ls the proposal affected by a City
sphere of influence and/or adjacent to
· city or county boundary?
PUBLIC FACRXlTR-~ AND $ERVIC~q
Cis~CU~ATION
~..~_ Circulation (Fig. IV.1 - IV.11)
Will the proposal result in:
a. .. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular mov~ncnt?
b. F. ffe.~.~ on exiting parking facilities,
or dctnand for new parking?
c. Substantial fanpaa upon Sting
u'ansponation systems?
d.___ Alteration to present patteras of
circulation or movement of paople
and/or goc~?
e,. ___ Alteration to waterborne, rail or air
tnffic?
f. __ IncreAse in traffic hazards to motor
vehicle, blcyclist~ pedestrian (or
, cquestrhn) traffic?
g. ~ An cffecx upon, or a need for new or
altered msinteaance of rosds?
h, ~ An effect upon circulation durin2 the
projects constmcxion?
/~/Bake Tra~s (Fig, IV.12 - IV.13)
4.~/Wasre' (Fig. IV.14 - IV.15 & Agency Letters)
Wffi the proposal result in:
a. ..... The Med for new systems or sources
or mdstanthl ulte. mfion m waser
provision systems?
b. ~ of sam' lines through an
msk-vek~i~d area?
c The ~ for th~ Iotanation of ·
5. _~L Sewer (Fig. IV.14 - IV.15 & Agency Letters)
Will the proposal result in:
s__ The need for new s~tems, or
substantial alteration to existing
sewer and s~ptic tank systems?
b. Encnsion of sewer lines through an
undeveloped area?
c,_ The need for installation of a drl/
g. wcr system as Sanitary sewers are
not inunediatcly available?
PUBLIC SERVICES
6. ]q ~ Ser~ce~ (Fib IV. 16 - IV. 18)
__ Will the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a heal for new ot
altered fire protection services?
7. N Sheriff Services (Fig IV.17 - lV. 18)
Will the propoSal have an effect
upon, or result in a heal for new ot
altered sheriff protk-'tion service?
8. ~/ Schools (Fig. IV.17- IV. 18)
__ Will the proposal have an efteel
upon, or result in a need for new ol
9. ~ S4id Waste (Fig. IV.17- IV.18)
a. __ Wm the propoal result in a need fo~
n~v systems, or substantial alteraflor
ofsoBd waste generation and disposa
b.__ Is the propc,'al inconsistent wht
~ (County Integrated Wast,
:1~.,,~,' Management Plan)?
LIk'sdms (Fig. IV.17 - IV.18)
Health Sm'vk~s ('Fig. W.17 - IV. 18)
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Continued)
]iECIII~ATION
17,'Y' radamdRmmO,m(lqg.W.19-1V.20, Ord.
No. 4~0. Section 10.35. Oral. No. 659)
s._ Will the proposal have an effcct
upon, or result in a n~d for new or
nit'rod perlu or othcr recreational
facfiittes?
b._ WIH the proposal result in an intopact
upon the quality or quantity of
existing recreational opportuulties?
"__ b the propoul l~ated ~A~th|n a CSA
Or reaeation sad park district with a
Cc, mmqtlRity parbt sired Rl~:re~tion
Pinn (Ouimby
R~crmtiouul Trmlls (Fig. IV.19 - IV.24, Rtv.
Co. 8G0 Scale F_.questrian Trail Maps, Open
Space and Conservation Map for Western
County trail alignments).
Utllltiu (Fig. IV.2~ - IV.26)
Will the proposal result in a need for new
systems, or substantial alteration of the
following utilities:
a.
b. Natural
c. ........Communicatiom sy~tcn~7
d. __ Storm water drainage?
~_ Street fighting?
f- Other
MISCELLANEOUS
.. Alrporu (Fig. IL18.2 - 11.18.4, II. 18.8 - I1.18.10
& IV.27 - IV.36)
Will the proposal:
a. gesuli in au inconsistency with atq
Airport ]VLuter Plan?
b. Re, quire rm, iew by the Airport L.and
U~c Commission7
Other
17. ~
HOUSING
Housing
a.__ Will the proposal affect ~tin8
housing?
b. Will the proposal create a demand
' for additional housing. particularly
homing affordable to households
~rning 80% or less of the County's
m~lian income?
c. . Will the proposal alter the location
distribution, density or growth rate o
the human population of an area?
d._=_. L~ the proposal within a CounP.
Re, development Project Area?
D~IROhFMD~AL ISSUES A,%'ESSMXNT fCominuaJ)
ENVIRO~AL HAZARDS
l&..~. ,~auist-l,riolo Speci~ Smd~ of ConntX Fn~t
Hazard Zones ~g. VLI - Vl.2)
A-P Zones NA PS U R (F~ V].3)
CFHZonm NAPS U R(I~,VI~)
NA S P$ U R (Fig. VI.4)
Grt-,~, .ad~ Zme (Fig. VLI)~ )
NA S PS U R kqqg.
21.,~ aJoiwm (FJv. (30. 8G0 ~ Slope ]v!alx)
Will the proposal result in:
s._ ~,-~e in mpoSraphy or around
surface relief features?
b._ Cut or nli slope greater alan 2:1 or
higher than 10 feet?
c_ Grading that affects or negates
subsurface sewage disposal systems?
22-.J~L Landslide Risk (Rjv. Co. 800 hie Seismic
Mal~ or On-site ImpeeL&on)
NA S PS U R (Fig. VI.6)
Will the proposal result in:
a.__ Unstable earth conditions or in
changu in geologic substructures?
b._ Fn,z~sure of people or property to
possible slope ia~ure or rockfall
hazards?
23. ~ Soils (U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service Soil
Survey)
Wtil the proposal result in:
a.__ Disruptions, displacements,
compact&on or ovt,~ng of the
Soil?
b.__ Exp<mureofstfucturestoshrink/swell
coil conditions7
EARTH (Continued)
24..=~_ Erosion (U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service
Soft Surveys)
Wm the proposal result in:
a. , .. Changes in deposition, siltat&on or
ertaion which may modify the
,'".n-el of a river of Stream or the
bed of a lake?
b. ., Any increase in water erosion either
on or off site?
2~...~_ WInd Erosion & Blowsand from project either
on oroffslte(Fig.V].l-VL2, Ord. 460, Sec.
149 i Ord. 484)
7,6. _~, Ground Subsidence
27. .,~= Unique Features
Wilt the proposal result in:
Destruction, covering or mo0ification
of any unique geologic or physical
features?
2~.__ Other
Dam Inundation Area (Fig. VI.7)
Floodplains (Fig. VLT)
NA U R (Fig. V1.8)
Will the prolx~al result in:
a. __.=. Alteration to the course or flow of
flood waterre?
b. Changes in course or direciion of
water movements7
c. Changes in absorption rates or the
rate a~d mount of surface runoff?.
d. Exposure of people or pruperty to
water xelated hazards such a~
flooding?
B.
Definitions for Land Use Suitabill~ Ratings
Where indicated abo~ circle the approp~te land Uf~ Sulubility Rating(s).
6
IlL
3L,,~__ Au-pafi No~se (Fig, lieu, H.l&u a v~2 s
19s4 AICUZ Repor~ M,A~.B,)
MA A B C D (I~Ii.V'LI1)
32, _~ Rairosd Noise (~i& VI,13 - VI.16)
NA A B C D (lq&Yl,11)
7
NA A B C D (F!g. VLI1)
~4.,___ OSa~NdM
NA A B C D (Ftg. Vl. ll)
a._ Will the proposal result in inuea.~s
in endsting noise levels?
b.__ Wil/~he prolxxal result in thc
ezposurc of people to severe noise
kvels?
AIR OUAt.rrY
36. N AIr Q~mllty Impacu
the proposal xzsult in:
a.__ Substantial air
bom
~Mv i
emission or
deterioration of ambient sir quality?
Creation of objectionable odors?
Alteration of air movement, moisture
or tempmture, or any change in
climate, either locally or ragionally?
Exposure of land tam associated with
sensittv~ rceaptors which are located
within I mile Of a project site to
project point wurce omissiom?
The construction of · s~nsitive
receptor located within one mile of
an esisting point source emitter?
WATI~R OU.II.rI'Y
37. ~ Water Quality Impacts
Will the proposal result in:
a. Discharge into surfac~ wareft or any
ulteration of surface water quality,
including but not limited to
temperature, di~__lved oxygen, or
turbldlty?
b. Snbstential reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available to the
public?
,' Pcrcolation of waste materials or
contaminants into groundwater
resourm, including but not limited
to nitrates, petroleum based
contaminanu?
d. Exposure of a project sensitive to
water quality to unhealthful water
supplies?
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND CONDITIONS
39._~_
40. N
41. N
42, N
Does the proposal involve a risk of explosion
or the relea~ of hazardous substance~
(including but not limited to: oil, pe~ticides,
chemicais or radiation) in the event of an
accident Or upset condition7
Does the proposal involve possible
interference with an emergency response plan
or an emergency evacuation plan?
Will the pwposal r~sult in the creation of
hcalth hazard or potential health
(excluding mcntel health)?
Will the properil result in the exposure
Pooplc tO potential health hazards?
Hazardous ~ Area (Fig. VL30 - VL31)
ML Palomar (Old. No.
Other Lighting Issues
WUI the propcaul result in:
a. __ Production of new fight or glare?
b._ Exlxsurc of rmidential property tc
mmccopmble fight levcls?
Ddlnlltons Ibr Noise Acceptability Ratings
~ lndkated above, circk the appropriate Noise Acccprabllity Rating(s).
AGRICULTU~R
.... Agricultnre (El2. VIM - VI.3S)
Will file proposal result in:
a. Reduction in acreage
of any
agricultural crop or prime farmland?
Convexlion of farmland within; or
adjacent to, an agricultural preserve
(Riv. Co. Agricultural Land
Conservation Contract Maps)?
Development of non-agricultural uses
wit hi- 3430 fcct of agriculturally zoned
property?
Wildlife (Fig. V136 - V137)
Will file proposal result in:
a.._Y._ Implc,J on an adopted Habitat
Comerration Plan?
b. Change in file diversity of slc~cie,,s, or
overall number of any species of
animals (birds, land mammals,
reptiles, fish, and invertebrates
including insects and aquatic
slzcies)?
Reduction of file numbers of any
unique, rare, threatened or
endangered species of animals?
d.'.__ Introduction of new species of
an|malls into an area, or a harrier to
the migration or movement of
so|roans?
e._ D~terioration of endsting fish or
wildlife habitat?
VEGETATION
49. ~ Ve~sfion (Fig. V138 - VL40) Will file proposal result in:
a. Change in file diversity of species, or
orenil number of any species of
plant (including trees, shrubs,
and aquatic plants)?
b.__ Reduction in the numbers of any
unique, rare, threatened or
endangered species of plants?
Introduction of new species of planu
into an area, or a barrier to the
normal replenishment of cxistin8
species?
d._ Reduction in the numbers of any
plant species which arc integral to the
life cycle of any s~n~itivc animal
species?
MINERAL RESOURCES
~0. N Mineral Resources (Fig. VI.41 · VI.42)
Will the proposal result in
a. Preclusion of use of all or part of a
State mi~ed or designated
lvIRZ-2 zone resource?
b. Incompatible land uses being located
adjacent to a State classi~e~ or
designated MIV.~2 zone area or
existing surfucc mine?
Exposure of people or propen~ to
hazards from proposed, cadsting or
abandoned quarries or mines?
ENERGY RESOURCF.~
Wffi file proposal result in:
a. __ Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy?.
b._ Sutstsnttal increase in demand upon
atstin2 zour~'a of enerSy, or require
the development of new sources of
c __ Preclusion of the use of a resource
for alternative energy (solar, wind.
cogeneration, Zeofilermal, or biomass
and waste-to-cneqy) projcas?
8
Ill, ENvlROI~!!~rrAL i.~ue~ ASSESSMENT fContinue~
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURC~ (Continued)
WATER RESOURCES
Water Re~tavces
Will the proposal result in:
a,_ Chanp in the amount of surfec~
water In any water body (including
oases, tenajax, blueline strcann, seeps
aml springs)?
b.. Allenlion of the din~ctlon or rate of
flow of pnnd waters?
c. ___ c~-,,ge~ in the quantity of pund
~atera, either through direct
additions or withdrawals, or Iln'ough
imuception of an aqulfu by cuts or
nutions?
d. Alteration, tiredgin2 or nlnng of
wetlands (including fresh water
marshes, vernal pooR, oases, xenaja~,
blueline streams, seeps and springs)?
SCENIC RESOURCES
53./~ Scenic Resources
a. Is the proposal within · scenic
highway corridor? (Fig. VI.45)
b.__ Will the proposal result in the
obstruction of any prominent scenic
vista or view open to the public, or
mull in the Creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to
public view?
HISTORIC RF-~OURC'ES
VL,t8)
Will the proposal result in:
a.__ Alteration or destruaion of an
historic site?
b,_ Adverse physical or aesthetic effects
Io an historic building, structure or
obJca?
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Archaeological Reeourees (Fig. VL32 - VI.33
Will the proposal result in:
a.. Alteration or destruction of ·
prehistoric resource site7
b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effecu
to · prehistoric building, struaurc or
object?
c __ A physical change which would a~ea
umquc ethnic cultural values?
d. Advcrs~ physical or aesthetic effects
to · burial site?
e. Restriction of existing religious or
tncred uses within the potential
impact area?
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
56. V Paleontologlcal Resources (Palcontological
Resource· Map)
RESOURCE USE
57./V
58.
Will the proposal result in a substantial
depletion of any non-renewable natural
resource?
· Will the proposal alter the rate of u,sc of any
natural resource?
59...."' Other
60. ~ Other
61.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFIC~CE
~ the pro]~cx hr~ the potential to dqradc
the quality of the environment, substantla~
mlu~ t]~ habitat of a fish or s~ldllfe species,
enusc a fish or wildlife population to drop
below glf sustaining k. vel.% threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce
th~ number or restrict the range of a rare,
threatened or e~dangercd plant or an|w~ Of
eliminate Important enmmples of thc major
periods of California hhto~ or prehtsto~y?
D~ the project ~ the potential to achieve
shon4erm, 1o the disadvantage of Inng-term,
environmental Boats? (A short-term fmpa~ on
the environment is one which occurs In a
relatively brief, definitive period of time while
long-term/rapacts ~ endure well Into the
future.)
63.~f/Does the project have impac~ which are
-indiVidually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (A project may In~paa on two
or more s~parate resources where the impaa
on each resource is relatively small, but where
the eftca of the total of those impacts on the
environment is significant,)
64.__ Doe~ the pro}oct havc environmental effects
which wfil cause substantial sdvcrg cffec~ on
human beings, either direaly or indirectly?
W. ENV~O~AL IMPACT D~'~tMINATION:
[] I find the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the enviroument and a Negative Declaration will
prepared.
in Section V have been or will
~ ted In tl~ p ,j ga will be prepared.
(0f)
Date:
V. /NFORMATION ~Ol~C!~ Ir/ND/NGS OF IrACT, kuI1GATION MF.,~u~S AND MONITOR/NG
REQUIREMENTS
DATE DATE ADEQUACY
INFORMATION INFORMATION INFORMATION FINDING
i~I:OUIRED REOUESTED RECEIVED (YES/NO. DATE~
~or each issue m~kui yu (Y) under Scaiolu lII.B, identi~] ~e ~uc humor and do ~e fo~g, ~ the fomat ~
5. ~tioul sh~u gc n~ W ~mplctc ~ ~on, ~ ~ ~ at ~ ~d of ~e ~ion ~d atuch ~c
SOURCES, AOENCIF_.S CONSULTED, FINDINGS OF FACT,
MITIOAT]ON M'~,~URE$ AND MONITORING REOUIREMENTS
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PARCEL MAP NO. 25538
TO SUBDIVIDE A 1 .u,3 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO PARCELS
AT 30565 ESTERO STREET.
WHEREAS, Robert Paine filed Parcel Map No. 25538 in accordance with
the Riverside County Land Use. Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Parcel Map application was processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Parcel Map on
September 10. 1990, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify
either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
approval of said Parcel Map;
NOW. THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE. DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECT ION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty ~30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time. the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan. if all of the following requirements are met:
I1 ) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
12) The planning agency finds. in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
STAFFRPT\TPM25538 1
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
~c)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, { hereinafter "SWAP" ) was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Parcel Map is consistent with the SWAP and
meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government
Code, to wit:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
( 2 ) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects
and taking other actions, including the issuance of
building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the
following:
~a)
There is reasonable probability that Parcel
Map No. 25538 proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
Ib)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
~C)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
D. Pursuant to Section 6.5, no Parcel Map may be approved
unless the applicant demonstrates the proposed use will not be
detrimental to the health safety and welfare of the community, and
further, that any Parcel Map approved shall be subject to such
conditions as shall be necessary to protect the health, safety and
general welfare of the community.
STAFF R PT\T PM25538 2
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Parcel Map
proposed is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
project will
Declaration,
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that the proposed
not have a significant impact on the environment, and a Negative
therefore, is hereby granted.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Parcel
Map No. 25538 for the subdivision of a 1 .Li3 acre parcel into two parcels located at
30565 Estero Street subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of September, 1990.
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
C HA I R MAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held
on the 10th day of September, 1990 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFFRPT\TPM25538 3
APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth
herein above in this Resolution of approval for Parcel Map No. 25538.
DATED: By
Name
Title
STAFF R PT\TPM25538 4
ITEM
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 10, 1990
Case No.: Conditional Use Permit No. 1
Recommendation: Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
BACKGROUND:
James L. Ramsay
McGoldrick Engineers
Conditional Use Permit for an automobile sales lot
and 528 square foot office.
West side of Jefferson Avenue between Winchester
Road and Overland Drive.
C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial)
North: C-P-S
South: M-M
East: 1-15
West: C-1/CP
Scenic Highway Commercia)
Manufacturing - Medium
General Commercial
Not applicable.
Vacant
North:
South:
East:
West:
Carpet Sales Shop
Barn
1-15
Burger King, Commercial Center
No. of Acres:
Building Size:
Required Parking:
Provided Parking:
1.67 acres
528 sq.ft.
20 spaces
22 spaces
This lot is a portion of Parcel 3 of Parcel Map 22886.
The application for the Conditional Use Permit was
filed with this department in April of this year.
The project went to Preliminary Development Review
on May 17, 1990. Corrections were made to the
proposal and the item received a final DRC meeting
STAFFRPT\CUP1 1
ANALYSIS:
ZONING AND SWAP
CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS:
on August 2, 1990.
The proposed Conditional Use Permit is to allow
vehicle sales in conjunction with a 528 square foot
office on a portion of a 1.67 acre parcel.
Parking for the proposed project exceeds code
standards under Section 18.12.blu,2). Under this
section, the project would require twenty spaces.
Twenty-two spaces are provided. The project
landscaping meets the requirement of the ordinance.
The only exception is that where painted pavement
is proposed, landscape planters shall be
constructed.
The proposed office building is a manufactured
structure. The structure will be placed on a
permanent foundation instead of piers. Stucco and
a clay tile roof will also be added to the building to
help it blend with surrounding architecture. This
permit will be subject to Commission review every
two ~ 2 ) years.
The project as conditioned is consistent with the
current zoning of C-P-S. The project is also
consistent with the Commercial SWAP designation.
A preliminary environmental assessment was
conducted by the Planning Department Staff.
Potential environmental impacts have been mitigated
in the Environmental Assessment and Conditions of
Approval. A Negative Declaration is recommended
for adoption.
Site Approval
The site of the proposed use is suitable in
size to accommodate the proposed intensity of
development.
The building is of an appropriate scale
relative to the lot size and configuration as
conditioned to be compatible with adjacent
project.
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.
STAFFRPT\CUP1 2
10.
The site for the proposed use has adequate
aCCeSS o
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 and exhibits,
associated with this application and herein
incorporated by reference.
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 the Negative Declaration for
Conditional Use Permit No. 1; and
APPROVE Conditional Use Permit No. 1,
subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval;
based on the Staff Report and attached findings.
MR:ks
Attachments:
1. Environmental Assessment
2. Exhibits
3. Conditions of Approval
STAFFRPT\CUP1 3
VICINITY MAP
N.TS
. LOCATION MAP
NTS.
!l
CITY OF TEMECbLA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
Bsckqround
l. Name of Proponent:
2, Address and Phone
~erof Proponent:
3. Date of ~nv~-'onmental
Assessment:
4. Agency Requ~ring
Assessment:
5. Name of Proposal,
If applicable:
6. Location of F~'~sal:
James L. Ramsey
P.O. Box 607
Temecula, California 92390
(714) 676-5156
May 15, 1990
Cl~'~' OF TE~ECUI~
C.U.P. #1
East side of Jefferson Avenue, Be-
tween Winchester Road and Overland Dr.
II
Environmental Impacts
IExplanetlons of all "yes" and "maybe" answers ere provided on
attached sheets. )
Yes Maybe N_9
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-
ficatlon of any unique geologic or
physical features?
ee
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on or
or off site?
X
X
BLANKIESIFORMS
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 sir 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
,N,o
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
BLANKIESIFORMS -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 (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 ares 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
X
Maybe
No
X
X
X
BLANKIESIFORMS -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.
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
en area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing or create a demand for
additional housing?
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposer result in:
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
Yes
X
Maybe
X
X
X
X
BLANKIESIFORMS
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, blcycllsts 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?
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 }n 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
~aybe
No
X
X
X
X
X
X
BLANKIESIFORMS '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
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
No
X
X
X
B LA N K I ES I FOR MS -6-
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 wildllfe
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? [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?
Yes
X
Maybe
No
X
X
X
B LA N K I ES/FORMS -7-
III.
Earth
1,a.
1.b.
1.f.
1.g.
2.a-c.
Water
3.a.
3.b,g,
3oco
3.d-f.
Environmenta) Evaluation
No. The project site will require very little grading. As a result there
will not be an impact to the site~s geologic substructure.
Yes. All development disrupts the soll profile to some degree and
results in soil displacement, compaction and overcovering. The degree
of impact for this site will be minimal and is considered insignificant.
No. Since the site will require relatively little grading, there will not
be a change in topography. There are no unique physical features on
the site.
Yes Wind and water erosion potentials will increase after grading and
during the construction phase of the project. This impact will remain
high until disturbed areas are planted. Wind erosion will be mitigated
through minimal grading, retention of natural vegetation whenever
feasible, the use of watering trucks and hydroseeding 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.
No. The proposed project is not located near a creek or stream.
Yes. The project site is located in an area designated as subject to
liquefaction and subsidence by the Riverside County General Plan
Selsmic GeologlcMap. A geologic report should be prepared, supported
with mitigation measures of necessary, to avoid any undue harm.
No. An RV sales and storage business on the subject site will not
create any odor, affect the area~s climate, or impact the air quality.
No. Development of the subject site will not affect any body of water
movements.
Yes Development of the subject site will increase the amount of
impermeable surfaces which will decrease the absorption rate and
change the quantity of ground water, Since the subject site is 1.67
acres, this is not considered a significant impact.
No. Flood waters will continue to be directed to the streets and flood
channels.
No. The proposed project will not impact the amount or quality of
surface waters in any water body, or the rate of flow of ground waters.
STAFFRPT\CUP1 8
3.h.
No. The proposed RV sales and storage will not affect the public water
supply.
3.i.
Yes. The subject site is located within a 100 year flood plain and dam
inundation area as designated by the Riverside County General Plan.
Development in this site will be subject to Riverside County Ordinances
458, 457, 460, 348, and 555 to help avoid undue harm.
Plant Life
4.a-d.
No. It appears that the subject site has previously been graded. The
only plant life on the site is weeds. It is highly unlikely that an
endangered plant life exists on the site.
Animal Life
No. The subject site is located in an urbanized area where it is highly
unlikely that any endangered wildlife exists. The site is not located in
an area of known wildlife habitat.
Noise
6.a,
Yes. On-site noise levels will increase temporarily during
construction. Long term noise impacts will occur due to increased
traffic volumes. ~'his impact is not considered to be significant due to
the project~s vicinity to 1-15 and surrounding land uses.
6.b.
No. Severe noise will not be generated by the proposed use.
Liqht and Glare
Maybe. The project site is located within the Mt. Palomar Observatory
Street Lighting Policy Area which recommends the use of low pressure
sodium vapor {LPSV) light to help 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 Southwest Area Plan designates the site for commercial
purposes. The proposed land use would be consistent with this
designation.
Natural Resources
9.a-b.
No. A recreational vehicle sales use on the subject site will not increase
the consumption rate of any natural or non-renewal natural resources.
Risk of UI3set
10. a-b. No. A recreational vehicle sales use on the subject site will not require
STAFFRPT\CUP1 9
the use of any hazardous substances. The proposal does not include
a gas pump to fill up the vehicles. During construction, it should not
be necessary to close any streets which would interfere with emergency
vehicles.
Population
No. A recreational vehicle sales use will not generate a significant
number of jobs to alter the growth rate of population in the area.
Housing
12.
No. A recreational vehicle sales use will not generate a significant
number of jobs to create a demand for additional housing.
Transportation/Circulation
13.a,c-f.
No. The proposed project will not generate a substantial amount of
vehicle traffic nor will it increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicycllsts or pedestrians. The project will not alter the present
patterns of circulation on the movement of goods.
13.b.
Yes. A recreational vehicle sales use will require additional parking for
vehicle display and for customers.
Public Services
No. The proposed use will not generate a need for additional public
services.
Energy
15.a,b.
No. A recreational vehicle sales use on the subject site will not result
in the substantial use or increase in demand of fuel or energy.
Utilities
16.a-f.
No. A recreational vehicle sales use on the site will not require
substantial alterations to any utility.
Human Health
17.a,b.
No. The proposed use will not create a health hazard or increase human
exposure to hazardous materials.
Aesthetics
18.
No. Development of the subject site will not obstruct any scenic vistas
or view that is open to the public.
STAFFRPT\CUP1 10
Recreation
19o
No. The subject site is not currently used for recreational uses.
Cultural Resources
20.
No. The proposed recreational vehicle sales use will not impact any
historic, cultural, or sacred resource.
Mandatory findinqs of siqnlflcance
21 .a-c.
No. The proposed project will not significantly affect plants or wildlife,
achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term environmental
goals, or have cumulative impacts.
21 .d.
Yes. The project will not affect the environment causing substantial
adverse effects on human beings, but the natural environment of the
site may affect human beings. These natural hazards include a 100 year
flood plain, dam inundation, subsidence, and liquefaction. Prior to any
development, the appropriate analysis, geologic and hydrologic, should
be prepared.
STAFFRPT\CUP1 11
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
affect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a 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 a significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
required.
8/29/90
Date
For CITY OF TEMECULA
B LA N K I ESI FORMS
-t2-
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 1 TO PERMIT OPERATION OF AN
AUTOMOBILE SALES LOT AND A 528 SQUARE FOOT
OFFICE LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF JEFFERSON
AVENUE BETWEEN WINCHESTER ROAD AND OVERLAND
DRIVE.
WHEREAS, James L. Ramsay filed CUP No. 1 in accordance with the
Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which
the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said CUP application was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said CUP on September
10, 1990, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in
support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said CUP;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECT ION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty J30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
(a)
There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
STAFFRPT\CUP1 1
Ib)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
Ic)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, I hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed CUP is consistent with the SWAP and meets
the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to
wit:
I1 ) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
12) The Planning Commission finds, in approving proiects
and taking other actions, including the issuance of
building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the
following:
There is reasonable probability that CUP No.
1 proposed will be consistent with the general
plan proposal being considered or studied or
which will be studied within a reasonable
time.
Ib)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultlmately inconsistent with the
plan.
Ic)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
D. Pursuant to'Section 18.26{e), no CUP may be approved
unless the applicant demonstrates the proposed use will not be
detrimental to the health safety and welfare of the community, and
further, that any CUP approved shall be subject to such conditions as
shall be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare of
the community.
STAFFRPT\CUP1 2
E. As conditloned pursuant to SECTION 3, the CUP proposed
is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
project will
Declaration,
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that the proposed
not have a significant impact on the environment, and a Negative
therefore, is hereby granted.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the city of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves CUP
No. 1 for the operation and construction of an automobile sales lot and a 528 square
foot office located at the west side of Jefferson Avenue between Winchester Road and
Overland Drive subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of September, 1990.
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held
on the 10th day of September, 1990 by the following vote of the Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFFRPT\CUP1 3
APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth
herein above in this Resolution of approval for CUP No. 1.
DATED: By
Name
Title
STAFFRPT\CUP1 q
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Conditions of Approval
Conditional Use Permit No.
CouncilApprovalDate:
Ex pi ration Date:
Planninq Department
1. All signage shall require approval by separate permit.
2. All landscaping shall be required by separate permit.
3. Reciprocal access easements shall remain unobstructed.
u,. This conditional use permit shall be subject to Planning Commission review
every two years. The permit shall remain active until such times as the
Commission determines that the use is not in conformance with the approved
conditions of approval.
5. Applicant shall maintain 20 parking spaces for customer use.
6. No repair or mechanical maintenance will be permitted on site.
7. The conditional use permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 18.30 of
Ordinance 3q.8.
8. This Conditional Use Permit shall become null and void after 10 years.
9. This Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to Planning Commission review
every 2 years.
10. Prior to 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. Landscaping shall provide screening at all
property lines to a minimum of ~8 inches.
11. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or
any use allowed by this permit.
12. The use shall be restricted to the sale of automobiles. No other uses shall be
allowed by this permit.
13. A minimum of two 12) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown
STAFFRPT\CUP1
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
on Exhibit A. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be
identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain
on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of
Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and
shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height
of 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade,
or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished
grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous
place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17
inches by 22 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 a surface identification sign duplicating the symbol of accessibility in
blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size.
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 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 PUBLIC USE
PERMIT NO. __. 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 alefence, the permittee shall not, thereefter, be responsible to defend,
indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula.
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 thereefter 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 1, 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.
All proposed painted parking lot surface identified on Exhibit A shall be
replaced by landscaped planters and shall be shown on landscape plans prior
to landscape approval.
STAFFRPT\CUP1 2
Buildinq ~, Safety Department
21. Flood mitigation fees will be required.
22. The sales office structure shall be placed on a permanent foundation.
23.
The applicant shall fill out an application for final inspection. Allow two 12)
weeks processing time to obtain all required clearances prior to final
inspection.
Enqineerinq Department
All Engineering Department Conditions shall be met prior to issuance of grading
permit, unless otherwise stated.
All site plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and street
improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency with approved plans.
25°
The developer shall provide clearance from all applicable agencies and pay all
fees prior to the approval of plans.
26.
A permit shall be required from CalTrans for any work within the right-of-
way.
27.
The developer shall submit four (~,) copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and goolagical
conditions of the site.
28.
The developer shall submit four (Ill prints of a comprehensive grading plan
to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform
Building Code, Chapter 70, the Interim Development Guidelines and as may be
additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be
drawn on 2~,"x36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer.
29°
The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of
building permits.
30.
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.
31.
No grading shall take place prior to the grading plans being complete,
appropriate clearance letters and approval by the City 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.
33.
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the City Engineer based
on the recommendations of the Riverside County Flood Control District.
STAFFRPT\CUP1 3
35.
36.
37.
38,
39.
41.
The developer 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 and
by securing a drainage easement.
The developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage
flowing onto or through 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.
A permit from the Riverside County Flood Control District is required for
work within its easement.
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.
For a new commercial or industrial development or addition to an existing
development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate.
Such fees may include, but are not subject to: Drainage Fees, Permit and
Plan Checking Fees.
The applicant shall obtain clearance and/or permits from the following
agencies:
City Engineer
Environmental Health
Fire Department
Planning Department
Riverside County Flood Control
City of Temecula
- Riverside Transit Agency
- CATV
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public
facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Nagatlve Declaration for the
project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim
or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally
established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for
the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement
for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to
Developer. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the
payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest
such increase.
STAFFRPT\CUP1 ~
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:
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 5u,6.
Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1,500 CPM
for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, which must be
available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants ( 6"xu?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.
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: ILl certify that the design of
the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the
Riverside County Fire Department.'|
u,6. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes.
Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC. Contact
a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment.
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.
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.
50.
Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the
Building and Safety Office.
51.
A 25 foot access aisle shall be maintained free and clear at all times through
all portions of the parking area.
Health Department
52. "Will-serve" letters from water and sewerlng agencies will be required prior
STAFFRPT\CUP1 5
53°
CaITrans
55.
56.
to any building plan approval.
If there are to be any hazardous materials, a clearance letter from the
Environmental Health Services Hazardous Materials Management Branch [ Jon
Mohoroskl, 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.
A positive vehicular barrier along the property frontage shall be provided to
limit physical access to the state highway.
Landscaping along the state highway shall be low and forgiving in nature.
Care shall be taken when developing this property to preserve and perpetuate
the existing drainage pattern of the state highway. Particular consideration
should be given to cumulative increased storm runoff to insure that a highway
drainage problem is not created.
Any necessary noise attenuation shall be provided as part of the development
of this property.
STAFFRPT\CUP1 6
ITEM
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
September 10. 1990
Case No.: Plot Plan 1160~
Recommendation: Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCAT ION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
Coastline Equity, Inc.
Markham and Associates
Construction of a 93,735 square foot industrial
business park on an approximate 6 acres site.
Southeast corner of Rancho Way and Business Park
Drive
M-SC {Manufacturing Service Commercial )
North:
South:
East:
West:
M-SC I Manufacturing Service Commercial )
M-SC { Manufacturing Service Commercial )
M-SC I Manufacturing Service Commercial )
M-SC |Manufacturing Service Commercial )
North: Vacant
South: Vacant
East: Vacant
West: Vacant
BACKGROUND:
AREA SETTING:
The application for Plot Plan 1160LI was originally
submitted to the Riverside County Planning
Department on November 16, 1989, and reviewed by
the Land Division Committee on December 12, 1989.
Revisions and additional information were requested
and Plot Plan 1160~ was continued to the March 19.
1990 Land Division Committee meeting. Minor
revisions were once again requested. In April.
1990, the file was transferred to the City of
Temecula.
The project site is located where the abandoned
Rancho California Airport existed. The site is
currently being graded according to a mass grading
STAFFRPT\PP11601~ 1
ANALYSIS:
plan for the extension of Business Park Drive. The
topography of the site is relatively level, located at
the base of hillside terrain. The surrounding
properties are all vacant.
Circulation/Traffic
A Traffic Study was prepared for the project and
was transmitted to the City with the County file.
The City's Transportation Engineering Staff
reviewed the study and requested additional traffic
related information. Staff reviewed the additional
information which clarified all of the items of
concern in the original report. City Staff agrees
with the findings of the report. Conditions of
Approval have been incorporated which will mitigate
the project~s traffic impacts.
Parkinq/Internal Circulation
Based on 26,502 square feet of office space and
59,501 square feet of manufacturing, the project
will require 225 parking spaces. The site plan
proposes 258 spaces.
Access to the project site is provided by two
driveways, one on Business Park Drive and one on
Rancho Way. Both driveways are 30 feet wide. The
internal site circulation plan provides adequate
space for users to comfortably drive through the
project and park.
Traffic conflicts may occur in the center of the
project in the loading area of Buildings J - T (see
Exhibit A). The automobiles parked in this area
may be blocked from exiting while a truck is
unloading. However, due to the low traffic volume
nature of light industrial uses and associated
infrequent deliveries, it is not anticipated that this
potential traffic conflict will occur very often. In
addition, the hammer-head loading area satisfies the
requirements of the Fire Department for turn-
around space.
Architectural Compatibility
The proposed exterior elevations are consistent in
materials and style with the buildings that currently
exist in the surrounding area. The business parks
on Business Park Drive are well designed and
landscaped. The concrete tilt-up exterior will be
STA FFR PT\PP 1160u, 2
GENERAL PLAN/
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
painted an off-white color with dark turquoise
accents on the linear metal softits.
The project site is designated L1 (General Light
Industry) 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 herein incorporated by
reference.
8. The lawful conditions stated in the approval
STAFFRPT\PP1160u, 3
are deemed necessary to protect the public
health, safety and general welfare.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration for PP
1160u,, and APPROVAL of PP 11604, 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
u,. Resolution
STAFFRPT\PP1160u,
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan No. 11604
Council Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
Planninq Department
This project shall comply with the provisions of State law and the City
Development Code. This conditional approval shall expire in two J2) 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
O. Riverside County Department of Environmental Health Services ( DEHS )
H. CATV Franchise.
This project must comply with all Conditions of Approval for Tentative Parcel
Map No. 19580. Parcel Map 19580 shall be recorded prior to issuance of any
building permits for PP 1160~,.
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 16, 1989.
A detailed landscapln9 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\PP11604 1
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
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.
10.
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.
11. Signs shall be reviewed under separate application.
12.
All necessary permits shall be obtained from the Riverside County Department
of Health Services prior to Certificate of Occupancy.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall be required to pay
applicable Quimby fees in accordance with Section 10.35 of Ordinance 0,60.
Enqineerinq Department
PRIOR TO iSSUANCE OF GRADING PERMIT:
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall provide clearance
from all applicable agencies and pay all fees prior to the approval of plans.
15.
Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains
shall be installed to City Standards.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall submit four
copies of a soils report to the Enginesring Department. The report shall
address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site.
17.
The developer shall submit four 10,) 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
STAFFRPT\PP11600, 2
Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2~"x36" mylar by a
Registered Civil Engineer.
18.
The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of
building permits.
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.
20.
No grading shall take place prior to the improvement plans being substantially
complete, appropriate clearance letters and approval by the City Engineer.
21.
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.
22.
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the City Engineer based
on the recommendations of the Riverside County Flood Control District.
23.
The developer 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 and
by securing a drainage easement.
The developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage
flowing onto or through the site.
25.
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 need to be paid.
26.
All driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula standards and
shall be shown on the street improvement plans.
27.
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.
28.
For a new commercial or industrial development or addition to an existing
development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate.
Such fees may include, but are not subject to: Drainage Fees, Permit and
Plan Checking Fees.
29.
Prior to occupancy, construct full half street improvements including but not
limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches,
parkway trees and street lights on Business Park Drive and on Rancho Way.
30.
All street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
STAFFRPT\PP1160u, 3
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
II
Backqround
1, Name o~ Proponent:
2. Address and Phone
l~--~er of Proponent:
Coastline Equity, Inc.
24564 Hawthorne B1vd. Ste. 1
Torrance, California 90505
(213) 373-0602
Date of Environmental
Asses~ent:
6-12-90
4. Agency Requiling
Assessment:
CITY OF TEMECULA
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Iz~ation of P~.~osal:
Plot Plan 11604
Southeast corner of Rancho Way and
Business Park Drive
Environmental Impacts
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are provided on
attached sheets. )
Yes Maybe No
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?
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
X
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?
Substantial changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
Ce
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 turbldity?
Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow of ground waters?
Yes
Maybe
X
N_9o
X
X
X
X
X
X
-2-
BLANKIES/FORMS
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 (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
X
X
BLANKIESIFORMS -3-
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 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?
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?
Yes
Maybe
,No
X
X
BLANKIES/FORMS
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, bicyclists 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,
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
×
No
X
X
X
X
X
X
BLANKIESIFORMS -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 wildllfe
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
X
X
-7°
BLA N K I ES! FORMS
31. All driveways shall be constructed perpendicular (90 degrees) to street.
32.
Dedication shall be made or shown to exist to provide the following right-of-
way on the following streets:
Dedicate Business Park Drive to 39 feet from street centerline
Dedicate Rancho Way to 39 feet from street centerline.
33.
All existing and new utilities, adjacent to and on site, shall be placed
underground in accordance with City Standards, prior to occupancy.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public
facility mitigation as required under the Negative Declaration for the project,
in the amount in affect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final
public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the
date on which Developer requests its building permits for the project or any
phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for Payment of
Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to Developer.
Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees
in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the
amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such
increase.
35.
Prior to occupancy, a signing and striping plan shall be designed by a
registered traffic engineer, and approved by the City Traffic Engineer and
the City Engineer, for all streets 66/~ or wider and shall be included in the
street improvement plans. All signing and striping shall be installed per the
City standards and the approved signing and striping plan.
Fire District
36.
The above referenced project is protected by the Riverside County Fire
District, Prior to construction occurring on any parcel, the owner shall
contact the Fire Department for verification of current fire protection
development requirements.
37.
A minimum fire flow for all commercial buildings using the procedure
established in Ordinance 5~6 shall apply.
38°
Provide a water system capable of delivering 2000 GPM for a 2 hour duration
at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, which must be available before any
combustible material is placed on the job site.
39.
A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants, on a looped system
16" x 0," 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
hydrantIs) in the system.
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,
STAFF R PT\PP11600,
location and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements.
Plans shall be slgned/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."
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.
Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings requiring a fire flow
of 1500 CPM 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 sprinklered must be included on the title page of the
building plans.
Install a supervised water-flow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans must be
submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation, as
required by the Uniform Building Code.
In lieu of fire sprinkler requirements, buildingl s) must be area separated into
square foot compartments, approved by the Fire Department, as per Section
505{e) of the Uniform Building Code.
Install panic hardware and exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform
Building Code.
116. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes.
Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BD. Contact
a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be
responsible to submit a check or money order in the amount of $1113.00 to the
Riverside County Fire Department for plan check fees.
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.
50.
Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the
Building and Safety Office.
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
51.
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
new development in this case includes a total of 6.09 acres, At the current fee
rate of $932,00 per acre, the mitigation charge equals $5,676.00. The charge
is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If Area
STAFFRPT\PP116011 5
Drainage Plan fees or mitigation charges have already been paid on this
property in conjunction with an earlier land division or land use case, the
developer should contact the District to ascertain what charges are actually
due.
52.
The proposed storm drain should be designed for 100 year capacity.
Emergency escape should be provided which will require a redesign of the
parking lot grading shown on the conceptual grading plan.
53.
On-site drainage facilities located outside of road right of way should be
contained within drainage easements. Drainage easements shall be kept free
o buildings and obstructions.
A copy of the improvement plans and grading plans along with supporting
hydrolaglc and hydraulic calculations should be submitted to the District for
review and approval prior to the issuance of grading or building permits.
Buildinq and Safety
55.
Prior to commencing any grading in excess of 50 cubic yards, the applicant
shall obtain a grading permit and approval to construct from the Building and
Safety Department.
Prior to issuance of any building permit, the property owner shall obtain a
grading permit and approval to construct tom the Building and Safety
Department.
Temecula Union School District
57. This project is subject to State law requirements for school impact mitigation.
Riverside County Department of Environmental Health Services
58.
Water purveyor shall be the Rancho California Water District. Submit
evidence of service availability to the City Department of Building and Safety
concurrent with application for building permits.
59.
Sewage disposal shall be by Eastern Municipal Water District. Submit evidence
of service to the City Department of Building and Safety concurrent with
application for building permits.
60.
A clearance letter from the Environmental Health Services Hazardous Materials
Management Branch (Jon Mohoroski (71~,) 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.
STAFFRPT\PP1160u, 6
61.
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.
Eastern Municipal Water District
Any and all necessary regionally sized on-site and off-site 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.
Rancho California Water District
63.
The proposed project is located within the boundaries of Rancho California
Water District. Water service will be available to the site upon completion of
financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Water
availability will be contingent upon the property owner signing and Agency
Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.
STAFFRPT\PP1160~ 7
III.
Earth
1.
Environmental Evaluation
No. Although the proposed project will result in cut and fill
slopes there will not be changes in the base geologic
substructures. The slopes shall be manufactured and compacted
per the engineer's requirements and as a result, should not
result in unstable earth conditions.
Yes. All development disrupts the soil profile to some de?tee
and results in soil displacement, compaction and over-covering.
Further analysis will determine if additional mitigations are
required.
Yes. Development of the proposed project will require
substantial grading and as a result will alter the existing
topography. On the northwestern portion of the site is a small
hill that will have to be graded.
No. There are no unique geologic or physical 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 high and
significant but will be mitigated through minimal grading,
retention of natural vegetation whenever feasible, and use of
watering trucks and hydro-seeding disturbed areas after
grading.
No. There is no body of water near the project site which could
be affected by the proposed project.
Yes. The project site is located within a liquefaction and fault
hazard zone area according to the Riverside County General Plan
Geologic Hazard Map. A geologic report for the project should
address these potential issues.
Air
2.
b-c.
Maybe. Depending upon the amount of traffic generated by the
project, an increase in carbon monoxide and particulate emissions
will occur. This impact is not considered significant since the air
emissions from this project is only an incremental impact to the
area~s air quality.
No. The proposed project should not create any objectionable
odors or alter the aree~s climate.
STAFFRPT\PP1160u, 8
Water
3.
a,d-e.
b-c,g.
4. a-d.
No. The proposed project will not affect any body of water. The
closest body of water to the site is Murrieta Creek which is
approximately one-half mile away.
No. The proposed project will increase the amount of
impermeable surfaces on the site which will reduce the amount of
water absorption. However, the introduction of irrigation to the
site will be off-set the water absorption rate. Drainage patterns
will continue to flow to the streets and channels.
No. The proposed project will not interfere with the direction or
rate of flow of ground waters.
No. The proposed project will not affect the public water supply
o system.
Yes. The proposed project is within the Murrieta
Creek/Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan and watershed area.
To help mitigate the project's impact, a flood mitigation charge
shall be paid.
No. Although the development of the site will remove any of the
plant species that currently exist on the site, no unique, rare or
endangered species should be affected. New species of plants
will be introduced to the site as par of the landscape
requirements for the project. The addition of the new species is
not considered a negative impact. It is not clear by the plot plan
if the existing Eucalyptus trees on the site will remain. Due to
their maturity, as many should be retained as possible.
The site is not currently used for agricultural purposes.
Animal Life
5. a-c.
No. The proposed project is in an area that has been
experiencing urbanizatlon for a number of years. It is
anticipated that the only animal life on or in the vicinity of the
site includes squirrels, rabbits, lizards, and other animals
common to the area. It is highly unlikely that an endangered
specie habltates the site.
Noise
Yes. On-site noise levels will increase temporarily during
construction. Long-term noise impacts will occur due to
increased traffic volumes. This impact is not considered to be
significant since the surrounding land uses are not noise
sensitive.
STAFFRPT\PP1160LI 9
b. No. Severe noise will not be generated by the proposed project.
Liqht and Glare
7.
Maybe. The proposed project is located within the Mt. Palomar
Observatory Street Lighting Policy Area which recommends the
use of low pressure sodium vapor (LPSV) lights to help avoid
interference with the Mt. Palomar telescope known as "Skyglow".
The use of LPSV lights will reduce the light and glare produced
by the proposed project.
Land Use
No. The Southwest Area Plan designates the subject site for
General Light Industrial. The surrounding land uses are also
office and light manufacturing.
Natural Resources
9. a-b.
No. The proposed use will not increase the consumption rate of
any natural or non-renewable natural resource.
Risk of Upset
10. a.
Maybe. If the manufacturing tenant uses any hazardous
materials in their operation, a llst of hazardous substances and
disposal plan shall be submitted to the City.
No. During construction, it should not be necessary to close any
streets which would interfere with emergency vehicles. If street
or land closure is necessary, it shall be coordinated with the City
and Police Department.
Population
11.
No. The proposed office/industrial building will generate some
jobs but not a significant amount to alter the area~s population.
Housing
12.
No. The proposed office/industrial building will not generate a
significant number of jobs to create a demand for additional
housing,
STAFFRPT\PP1160o, 10
Transportation/Circulation
13. a,c.
Maybe. The proposed project will generate additional traffic to
and from the site. However, it is not anticipated that this
increase will be significant. The traffic that is generated by the
project may add an incremental impact to the Rancho California
Road/1-15 Interchange which is currently operating at capacity
during peak hours. This potential impact may be mitigated by a
transportation improvement mitigation fee.
Yes. The proposed project will require parking to support the
use. Based on 31,122 square feet of office space and 59,220
square feet of manufacturing. The project will need 20,0, parking
spaces. The proposed plan illustrates spaces.
Maybe. The proposed project will improve a portion of Business
Park Drive which will ultimately loop around and connect to
Rancho California Road. Completion of Business Park Drive will
divert some traffic from the northern intersection of Business
Park Drive and Rancho California Road.
No. The proposed project will not affect waterborne, rail or air
traffic.
Yes. Any increase in traffic will increase the potential hazards
to motor vehicles, blcyclists, or pedestrians.
Public Services
10,. a,b,e.
c,d,f.
Yes. The proposed industrial/office use will require public
services in the areas of police, fire, maintenance of roads, and
public facilities. This impact is not considered significant. The
incremental impact should be evaluated and the appropriate fees
assessed. Property taxes should mitigate the impact and
continuing need for services over the long term.
No. The project should not have a substantial effect on these
public services.
Ener~ly
15. a-b.
No. The proposed project will not result in the substantial use
or increase in demand of fuel or energy.
Utilitles
16. a-f.
No. The proposed project requires the use of utilities but will
not require substantial alteration to the exiting systems.
STAFFRPT\PP11600, 11
Human Health
17 a-b.
Maybe. If hazardous substances are stored in the warehouse,
then that may create a potential health hazard. If hazardous
materials will be warehoused at the site, a plan for their use and
disposal should be submitted to the City.
Aesthetics
18.
No. The proposed project will not obstruct any scenic vista open
to the public. The elevations of the proposed project are
consistent in architectural materials as the surrounding
buildings.
Recreation
19.
No. The subject site is not currently used for recreational uses.
Cultural Resources
20. a-d.
No. The subject site has previously been mass graded and it is
unlikely that the project will result in the destruction of a
prehistoric or historic archaeological site. If a site is
discovered, an archaeologist or paleontologist should be called on
site to supervise the digging and determine if the site is
significant. The proposed project will not impact any building of
historic significance, affect unique ethnic cultural values or
restrict sacred uses.
Mandatory Findinqs of Siqnificance
21. a-c.
No. The proposed project will not significantly affect the natural
environment, have long term environmental impacts or have
considerable cumulative impacts.
Maybe. If the proposed use warehouses hazardous materials, the
project may cause a health hazard to human beings and wildlife.
If hazardous materials are to be warehoused at the project, a
plan for their use and disposal should be developed and approved
by the City. The project may also have a substantial impact on
the existing transportation system, To mitigate the potential
impact at the Rancho California Road/I-15 Interchange, a traffic
mitigation fee should be paid.
STAFF R PT\PP 1160~ 12
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-
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.
24 July 1990
Date
For CITY OF TEMECULA
-13-
BLANKIES/FORMS
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 11600,
TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 93.735 SQUARE
FOOT I NDUSTR I AL BUSINESS PAR K AT THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF RANCHO WAY AND BUSINESS PARK DRIVE.
WHEREAS, Coastline Equity, Inc. filed Plot Plan No. 11600, in
accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning. Planning and Subdivision
Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS. the Planning Commission considered said Plot Plan on
September 10, 1990, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify
either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing. the Commission
approved said Plot Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findin.qs. That theTemecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360. a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
I1 ) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
12 ) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions. including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studded or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
[ b) There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
STAFFRPT\PP11600, 1
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, I hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and
meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Covernment
Code, to wit:
| 1 ) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
~2) The City Council finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following:
There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan
No. 1160u, proposed will be consistent with
the general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
tb)
There is little or no probability o.f substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
~C)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
D. Pursuant to Section 18.30{c), no plot plan may be
approved unless the following findings can be made:
[ 1 ) The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan
requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law
and City ordinances.
|2) The overall development of the land is designed for
the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare;
STAFFRPT\PP1160o, 2
conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible
with the present and future logical development of the
surrounding property.
E. As conditloned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Plot Plan
proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and
is compatible with the present and future development of the
surrounding property.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
project will
Declaration,
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that the proposed
not have a significant impact on the environment, and a Negative
therefore, is hereby granted.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the city of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Plot
Plan No. 11604 for the operation and construction of a 93,735 square foot industrial
business park on an approximate 6 acres site located at the Southeast corner of
Rancho Way and Business Park Drive subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of September, 1990.
DENNIS CHIN)AEFF
CHA I RMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held
on the 10th day of September, 1990 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFFRPT\PP1160u, 3
APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth
herein above in this Resolution of approval for Plot Plan No. 1160~,.
DATED: By
Name
Title
STAFFRPT\PP1160~, q
ITEM #6
Case No.:
Recommendation:
.~TAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 10, 1990
Plot Plan No. 50, Amended No. 1
1. Adoption of the Negative Declaration
2. Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Mesa Homes
Land Concern, Ltd.
Construct a ~,, 120 square foot information center for
the Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan (formerly The
Meadows Specific Plan) on a 3.22 acre site.
Southeast corner of Margarita and Pauba Roads.
Specific Plan - Planning Area 3~
Daycare Center/Public/Quasi-Public
North:
South:
East:
West:
R-R {Rural Residential)
Specific Plan (Medium Residential)
Specific Plan (Medium Residential)
C-P-S {Scenic Highway Commercial)
No change proposed.
Vacant, being graded.
Vacant on all sides with scattered residential to the
west and a school to the north.
No. of Acres:
Square Footage:
No. of Entry Points:
3.22 acres
~,120 sq.ft.
2
STAFFR PT\PP50 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
BACKGROUND:
Plot Plan No. 50 is a proposal to construct a single
story 4.120 square foot information center on a 3.22
acre site. The subject site is known as Planning
Area 3~, of the Paloma Del Sol (formerly The
Meadows) Specific Plan. The proposed development
has been designed in accordance with the standards
of the Approved Specific Plan (SP 219).
Location
This project is located on the southeast corner of
Margarita and Pauba Roads.
Specific Plan No. 219 was approved by the Riverside
County Board of Supervisors on September 6, 1988;
and, a Development Agreement was approved in
conjunction with SP 219. In approving the project
(SP 219), the Board of Supervisors also adopted the
Certification of Environmental Impact Report No.
235 based on the finding that the Environmental
Impact Report is an accurate, objective and
complete document which complies with the
California Environmental Quality Act and the
Riverside County Rules to implement CEQA.
Specific Plan No. 219 Project Summary
Project Location
The Specific Plan project site is comprised of 1389
acres and is bounded by Pauba Road on the north.
State Highway 79 on the south, Butterfield Stage
Road to the east, and Margarita Road to the west.
Project Description
The approved Specific Plan project combines
residential, commercial, schools, a neighborhood
park. day care center. greenbelt/pasecs and an
extensive circulation network, within a
comprehensive plan. The land use designation and
residential densities for the Specific Plan have been
blended to reflect a mixed use concept responding
to the changing urbanizing character of the area.
The Specific Plan is designed to consider access
links, compatible land use transitions with
neighboring properties, views, and landform
relationships.
A total of 5,611 dwelling units are proposed on 1.036
acres throughout the site, as follows: 2,~,99 d.u. of
medium density on 574 acres; 2,210 d.u. of medium-
STAFFRPT\PPS0 2
ANALYSIS:
high density use on u,02 acres; 320· d.u. of high
density units on 26 acres; and very high density
units totaling 578 units on 30, acres.
In addition, the following land uses were approved:
Community/Neighborhood Commercial J30 AC);
Neighborhood Commercial J 15 A C ); Four Elementary
Schools J~l AC); One Junior High School J20 AC);
Two Recreation Areas J 12.5 AC); One Neighborhood
Park J2.9 AC); and a Day Care Center/Public/quasi
Public 12 AC).
The Specific Plan Area was divided into thirty-four
J30,) planning areas in order to establish the Land
Use designations of the Specific Plan Area. These
planning areas include the subject site under the
current Plot Plan No. 50 request which is within
Planning Area
Access
The project is serviced by a street which connects
to both Pauba Road and Margarita Road.
Appropriate spacing between streets and the
Margarita/Pauba intersection has been designed to
avoid traffic conflicts. Each entry way is located
over 500 feet from the major intersection.
Land Use
The approved Specific Plan JSP 219) identifies this
Land Use Area as Planning Area No. 30,, and
indicates that it may be utilized for public or quasi-
public uses, such as day care centers or information
centers.
More specifically, the Masterplan Land Use
Regulations reference Article VIII, Section 8.1 of
Ordinance No. 3L~8. Permitted uses include
professional office, real estate offices, nursery
schools, motels, and congregate care facilities. The
subject application is consistent with permitted uses
in the zone.
Architecture
The masterplan architectural theme of the overall
specific plan area, which is Contemporary
Mediterranean, is displayed in this project. Staff
concluded that the architectural design is consistent
with the standards and examples contained in the
Specific Plan.
STAFFRPT\PP50 3
SPECIFIC PLAN AND
GENERAL PLAN
CONSISTENCY:
Parking
The proposed information center provides thirty-
eight 138) parking spaces, which includes one I1)
handicapped stall. Since Section 18.12 of Riverside
Ordinance No. 3u,8 does not specifically address the
off-street parking requirement for information
centers, Staff has calculated the required parking
based on a professional business office use which is
one I1 ) parking space per each 200 square feet.
Thus, the proposed project requires twenty-one
121 ) parking spaces ~u,,120 divided by 200). Staff
is of the opinion that the proposed 38 parking
spaces are adequate for the proposed project.
Community Trails and Landscape Buffers
Per the requirements of Specific Plan No. 219, the
proposal provides adequate pedestrian, bicycle and
equestrian trails.
Staff found the project to be consistent with
Specific Plan No. 219. The project was reviewed in
light of Development Agreement No. u,; no
inconsistencies or conflicts with that agreement
were found. The project was also found to be
consistent with the zoning ordinance provisions for
Planning Area No. 3u,, both in terms of permitted
land uses and development standards.
Additionally, the Master Conditions of Approval
were reviewed relative to this project and no
additional requirements or inconsistencies became
apparent. In addition, Staff finds it probable that
this project will be consistent with the new General
Plan when it is adopted.
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS:
In compliance with Planning Master Condition No. 12
and the California Environmental Quality Act, an
environmental assessment I Initial Study) was
performed for this project. No additional impacts
beyond those identified in the Environmental Impact
Report certified for this project I E. I.R. No. 235)
are anticipated. Therefore, a Negative Declaration
has been recommended for adoption.
There is a reasonable probability that Plot
Plan No. 50 will be consistent with the City~s
future General Plan, which will be completed
STAFFR PT\PP50
10.
11.
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 d use.
The project as designed and conditloned 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-d-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. No
additional impacts beyond those identified
and mitigated in E.I.R. No. 235 have been
identified.
The project is consistent with the provisions
of Specific Plan No. 219, as described in the
text d the report analysis.
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.
STAFFRPT\PPS0 5
12.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for
Plot Plan No. 50, Amended No. 1; and,
APPROVE Plot Plan No 50, Amended
No. 1, based on the analysis and
findings contained in the Staff Report
and subject to the attached Conditions
of Approval.
OM: ks
Attachments:
1. Resolution
2. Conditions of Approval
3. Initial Study
u,. County of Riverside Approvals
(Specific Plan No. 219)
5. Specific Plan No. 219 Exhibits
6. Large Scale Plans
STAFFRPT\PPS0 6
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 50 TO
PERMIT OPERATION OF AN INFORMATION CENTER AT
PAUBA AND MARGARITA ROADS.
WHEREAS, Mesa Homes filed Plot Plan No. 50 in accordance with the
Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which
the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
pertaining to said Plot Plan on September 10, 1990, at which time interested persons
had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report
regarding the Plot Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
I1 ) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
Ib)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
STAFFRPT\PPS0 1
action is ultimately inconsistent 'with the
plan.
~C)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and
meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government
Code, to wit:
I1 ) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects
and taking other actions, including the issuance of
building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the
following:
(a)
There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan
No. 50 proposed will be consistent with the
general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
(b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
D. Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan may be
approved unless the following findings can be made:
( 1 ) The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan
requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law
and City ordinances.
(2) The overall development of the land is designed for
the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare;
STAFFRPT\PP50 2
conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible
with the present and future logical development of the
surrounding property.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Plot Plan
proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and
is compatible with the present and future development of the
surrounding property.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
project will
Declaration,
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that the proposed
not have a significant impact on the environment, and a Negative
therefore, is hereby granted.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the city of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Plot
Plan No. 50 for the operation and construction of an information center located at the
southeast corner of Pauba and Margarlta Roads subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this
Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of September, 1990.
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held
on the 10th day of September, 1990 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFFRPT\PPS0 3
APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth
hereln above in this Resolution of approval for Plot Plan No. 50.
DATED: By
Name
Title
STAFFRPT\PP50 ~
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan No. 50
Planning Commission Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
Plannln.q Department
This approval shall be used within two {2) years of the Planning Commission
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 No. 50, 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-of-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 130)
inches.
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the applicant shall
submit seven 17) 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 thirty-eight 138) parking spaces shall be provided, in
accordance with Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 30,8. The
parking area shall be surfaced with asphaltlc concrete paving to a minimum
depth of three {3) inches on four {1~) inches of Class II base.
A minimum of one ~ 1 ) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided. Each
parking space reserved for he handicapped shall be identified by a
permanently affixed reflectorlzed sign constructed of porcelain on steel,
beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility.
The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be
centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum of height of 80
inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade,
STAFFRPT\PP50 1
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 11 ) 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,
10.
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening
material shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
11.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of the specimen canopy trees
along the streets and within the parking areas.
12.
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.
13.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
Prior to the issuance of a grading or bui|ding 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.
15.
Prior to issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts to
be determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the
STAFFRPT\PPS0 2
16.
installation of plantlngs, walls and fences in accordance with the approved
plan, and adequate maintenance d the planting for one year shall be filed with
the Director of Building and Safety.
Prior to issuance d 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.
Enqineerlnq Department
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions d Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning d the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways. and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
17.
18.
The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act,
and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions.
A detailed drainage study will be required to be submitted to the City
Engineer for review and approval. This study shall be prepared by a
Registered Civil Engineer and shall include existing, interim. and proposed
conditions, including hydrolagy and hydraulic calculations.
19. All lots shall drain towards the street unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer.
20. All driveway intersections shall be at 90 degrees, or radial, or as approved
by the City Engineer.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
21.
22.
23.
All site plans. grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and street
improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency with approved plans.
Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the
requirements of Riverside County Flood Control, Eastern Municipal Water
District and Temecula Land Development. Letters d compliance from each d
these agencies will be required.
Street improvement plans including parkway trees and street lights prepared
by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer shall be
required for all public streets prior to issuance d an Encroachment Permit.
Final plans and profiles shall show the location of existing utility facilities
within the right-d-way.
The developer shall provide clearances from all applicable agencies and pay
STAFFRPT\PP50 3
all fees prior to the approval of plans.
25.
Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all
times with adequate detours during construction.
26.
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.
27.
The developer shall submit four |1~) prints of a comprehensive grading plan
to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform
Building Code and Chapter 70 as may be additionally provided for in these
Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 21~"x36" mylar by a
Registered Civil Engineer.
28.
A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and
submitted at the time of application for grading plan check.
29.
The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of
building permits.
30.
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.
31.
No grading shall take place prior to the improvement plans being substantially
complete, appropriate clearance letters and approval by the City Engineer.
32.
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.
33.
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the City Engineor based
on the recommendations of the Riverside County Flood Control District.
The developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage
flowing onto or through the site.
35.
All concentrated drainage directed toward the public street shall be diverted
through the undersldewalk drains.
Dedication shall be shown to exist or shall be made of the following right-d-
way on the following streets:
DEDICATE Pauba Road TO ~ FEET FROM STREET CENTERLINE
DEDICATE Marqarlta Road TO 55 FEET FROM STREET CENTERLINE
37.
Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be dedicated to the City where
sidewalks meander through private property.
38. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the
STAFFRPT\PPS0 ~
City Engineer and the City Attorney. guaranteeing completion of the public
and/or private street improvements.
39. 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.
The applicant shall obtain clearance and/or permits from the following
agencies:
City Engineer
Environmental Health
Fire Department
Planning Department
Riverside County Flood Control
City of Temecula
Riverside Transit Agency
CATV Franchise
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY:
Construct full street improvements including but not limited to curb and
gutter, A.C. pavement, median, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees
and street lights.
Marqarita Road shall be improved with concrete curb and gutter located
43 feet from centerline and asphalt concrete paving. within a 55 foot half-
width dedicated ri ht-of-way in accordance with Riverside County Standard
No. 100 ( 86/110~.
In the event that Pauba Road is not constructed by Assessment District 159
prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, the developer shall construct
the improvements to provide for half street improvement in accordance with
Riverside County Standard No. 102 (64/88).
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public
facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the
project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim
or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally
established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for
the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement
for Payment of Public Facility Fee. a copy of which has been provided to
Developer. Developer understands that said agreement may require the
payment of fees in excess of those now estimated lassuming benefit to the
STAFFRPT\PP50 5
project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest
such increase.
Prior to building permit, the subdivlder shall notify the City~s C.A.T.V.
Franchises of the intent to develop. Conduit shall be installed to C.A.T.V.
Standards prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy.
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.
49.
50.
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along all public street frontages in
accordance with Riverside County Standard Hos. q4)O and u,01.
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 City Engineer.
51.
The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated
with adjoining developments.
Transportation Enqineerlng
PRIOR TO RECORDATION:
52.
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered traffic
engineer, and approved by the City Engineer, for all streets 66/L1~ or wider
and shall be included in the street improvement plans.
53.
Plans for traffic signal interconnect shall be designed, and approved by the
City Engineer, and shown on the street improvement plans in the following
location: Margarlta Road Frontage.
Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering
for the design criteria.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered
traffic engineer and approved by the City Engineer for any street closures
and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation, as required by the City
Engineer.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
56.
57.
All signing and striping shall be installed per the City standards and the
approved signing and striping plan.
All traffic signal interconnect shall be installed per the City standards and the
approved plan.
STAFFRPT\PPS0 6
CITY OF TEMECbLA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
II
Backclround
1. Name of Proponent:
Mesa Homes
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
27876 Single Oak Drive #100
Date of environmental
Assessment:
Temecula, California 92390
(714)676-7290
8-21-90
4. Agency Requ/ring
Assessment:
ClT/OF TENECULa
Na~e of Proposal,
applicable:
Plot Plan No. 50, A-1
6. Location of P~vx~osal:
Paloma Del Sol Information Center
Environmental Impacts
Southeast Corner of Pauba & Margarita
Roads.
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are provided on
attached sheets.)
Yes Maybe N._9
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?
C$
Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features?
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
X
X
ef
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on or
or off site?
X
BLANKIES/FORMS
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 missions 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?
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 turbidSty?
Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow of ground waters?
Yea
Maybe N_9o
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?
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?
Cee
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
Ibirds, land animals including rep-
tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms or insects)?
b&
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals?
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
Yes
Maybe
X
X
X
x
No
X
X
BLANKIESIFORMS -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 ·
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.
ee
A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including,
but not limited to, oil, pesticicles,
chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
Possible interference with en 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
X
X
BLANKIESIFORMS
b$
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, b/cyclists 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?
d. 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
N0
X
X
X
X
X
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 lexcluding
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?
de
Will the proposal restrict existing
religlous or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
Yes .Maybe
No
X
X
X
BLANKIES/FORMS
-6-
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?
be
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. )
C$
Does the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but cumu-
latively considerable? {A projectts
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?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
_ X
BLANKIES/FORMS
-7-
I I I. Environmental Evaluation
Earth
loa.
No. The project site is currently being graded as part of a mass
grading effort. There should be minimal grading for this project. A
conceptual mass grading plan for the Specific Plan was approved as a
component of the certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR 235).
1.b.
Yes. All development disrupts the soil profile to some degree and
results in soil displacement, compactlon, and overcoverlng. This
impact is not considered significant.
1 .c-d.
No. The mass grading effort was designed to adhere to the gross
natural topography of the site in its original condition. While
substantial grading and recontourlng of this site will occur in the
immediate area, the overall plan is intended to promote preservation of
site topography. Under County of Riverside auspices, these efforts
have been deemed acceptable and the overall mitigation measure deemed
appropriate in certified E.I.R. No. 235.
1,e.
Maybe. 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 City Engineer and
designed in accordance with Temecula's standards and the Conditions
of Approval. Mitigations are outlined in E.I.R. No. 235.
1.f.
No. Since the project site is not adjacent to any creek or stream bed,
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 this information center will not significantly impact
the areass air quality. However, the project will add an incremental
increase i carbon monoxide and other pollutants generated by the sitets
vehicular traffic to the regions air quality. Air quality for the entire
Specific Plan was analyzed in E.I,R. No. 235. Approximately 8,000
pounds of pollutants per day will be released into the atmosphere at
overall project build out. Mitigation measures contained in E.I.R. No.
STAFF R PT\PP50 8
Water
3.a,d-e.
3.b.
3.c.
3.d-g.
3.h.
3.i.
Veqetation
u,.a-b.
Ikd.
Wildlife
5.a-c.
Noise
6.a-b.
235 and the Resolution of Project Approval were outlined.
No. The proposed project will not impact any marine or fresh water
bodies. The proposed project will incrementally affect the quantity and
quality of run-off water in the City.
No. The proposed project will inhibit the absorption of water into the
ground through the construction of impermeable surfaces on the site.
Run-off will increase but not substantially.
No. Flood waters Will continue to be diverted to the streets and flood
channels.
No. The proposed project will not significantly affect the flow or
quantity of ground waters.
No. The proposed project will not impact the public water supply.
No. Conditions of Approval are included in both the specific Plan and
specifically for this project which require proper design and installation
of drainage conveyance devices.
Maybe. No sensitive vegetational associations or species were identified
on-site prior to the initiation of grading activities. Subsequent to
grading, no native vegetation is found on-site.
Maybe. New species typical of suburban development will be
introduced. The entire project contributes to the regional
fragmentation of the California Coastal Scrub Community. These
impacts and others ere anticipated under certified E.I.R. No. 235
certified for Specific Plan No. 219.
No. No agricultural production occurred on-site.
Maybe. The I.I .R. analyzed biologic resources on-site. Stephen~s
Kangaroo Rat populations were identified on-site, as were several other
sensitive species. The E.I.R. and mitigation measures were certified
by the Board of Supervisors and no additional impacts are anticipated.
No. impacts and mitigations were fully discussed in certified E. I. R.
No. 235.
STAFFRPT\PP50 9
Liqht and Glare
Yes. The project has been conditioned to comply with applicable
lighting standards.
Land Use
No. Project is consistent with Specific Plan No. 219.
Natural Resources
9.a-b.
No. This project itself will not significantly increase the rate of use of
natural resources. Construction materials and petroleum products will
be used extensively to support the specific plan project overall.
Risk of Upset
10.a-b.
No. The proposed project will not promote a risk of explosion or release
hazardous substances nor will it interfere with emergency response
plan or an emergency evaluation plan.
Population
11.
No. This question was dealt with throughout certified E.I.R. No. 235
in terms of population growth in Western Riverside County, The
Specific Plan does significantly affect regional growth patterns, this
individual project does not.
Housing
12.
No. This question was dealt with throughout certified E.I.R. No. 235
in terms of population growth in Western Riverside County. The
Specific Plan does significantly affect regional growth patterns, this
individual project does not.
Transportation/Circulation
13.a. Yes.
13.b-e. No.
13.f. Yes.
The matter of an information center was not specifically
addressed in certified E.I.R. No. 235 and the Traffic
Study, although ultimate buildout of the site was.
Appropriate vehicular access and parking should address
concerns of safety and potential traffic conflicts,
Significant traffic movement will occur primarily on
weekends.
Public Services
lq,.a-f.
No. The proposed project will not have significant adverse effect on
public services other than parks and recreational facilities.
STAFFRPT\PP50 10
Enerqy
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. The proposed project might require the use of utilities but will not
require substantial alteration to the existing system.
Human Health
17.a-b.
No. The proposed project will not have significant adverse effect on
human health.
Aesthetics
18.
No. Because the proposed project has been designed in accordance
with the design guidelines of the approved Specific Plan { SP 219), there
will be no significant impact on aesthetics.
R ecreat i on
19. No. impact.
Cultural Resources
20.a-d. No impact.
Mandatory Findinqs of Siqnificance
21 .a.
No. The proposed projects will not have a significant impact on plant
or wildlife species. However, if a project is located within an area
designated by the Riverside County as habitat for the endangered
Stephen's Kangaroo Rat, the project will be subject to mitigation fees
for the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan.
21 .b.
No. The proposed future capital recreation related projects will not
have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-
term, environmental goals.
21 .c-d.
No. Future capital recreation related projects will not have impacts
which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable, nor will
they have environmental affects which will cause substantial adverse
affects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
STAFFRPT\PP50 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 REPORT is
required. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPA
Date8/21/90 ~
For CITY OF TEMECULA
YYY
BLANKIES/FORMS
-12-
Z
_]
D.
C)
Z
_1
0
, i,
Pad Landscaped Transition Area Pad
LANDSCAPED TRANSITION AREA
~ THE MEADOWS
VAT RANCHO CALIFORNIA
FIGURE 14 -
49
J,N, 168-032
DATE: 4-27-87
II
L~
ITEM #7
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 10, 1990
Case No.: Tentative Tract No. 25u, u,3
Recommendation: 1. Adoption of Negative Declaration
2. Approval
· APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Marstan Development
Gary Martin
105 unit condominium subdivision of 7.31 acres.
South slde of Margarita Road, between Moraga Road
and Avenida Cima Del Sol.
R-3-2500 J General Residential, one unit per 2,500
square feet)
North: R-1
South: R-3
East: R-3-3000
West: R-3-3000
J Single Family Residential )
J General Residential )
J General Residential, one
unit per 3,000 sq.ft. )
{ General Residential, one
unit per 3,000 sq.ft. )
Large lot with single family residence
North:
South:
East:
West:
Single Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Vacant
Multi-Family Residential
No. of Unlts:
No. of Acres:
Proposed Density:
SWAP Density:
105
7.31
lu,.5 units per acre
8-16 units per acre
STAFFRPT\TT25~o,3 1
BACKGROUND:
Status
This project was originally submitted to the County
of Riverside on November 30, 1989. It was initially
scheduled for review by the County Land
Development Committee on January 4, 1990;
however, the item was indefinitely continued until
additional materiais were submitted and reviewed by
the appropriate agencies. An incomplete file was
transmitted to the City of Temecula in April of 1990,
and the application was deemed complete on July 5,
1990.
On August 2, 1990, Tentative Tract Map No. 25443
was reviewed by the Preliminary Development
Review Committee (PDRC) in order to informally
evaluate the project, prior to determining Staffts
recommendations and potential conditions of
approval. Comments by the PDRC included:
2.
3.
U,.
Off-Site Grading
Secondary Access
Proposed Drainage System
Density.
On August 30, 1990, the project (TT 25433) was
reviewed by the Development Review Committee
{DRC). The DRC determine that Tentative Tract
Map No. 25uA3, as designed, can be adequately
condltioned to mitigate the DRC's concerns. The
DRC has forwarded a recommendation of approval
subject to conditions.
Prior Actions
On May 31, 1988, the Riverside County Board of
Supervisors approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 23211 which proposes to subdivide the subject
7.31 acre site into a 128 unit condomjnjum
development, with an overall density of 17.5 units
per acre.
An application for a First Extension of Time was
acted upon by the Riverside County Planning
Commission on March 21, 1990, in which an
extension of time, to May 31, 1991, was approved
and forwarded, with a recommendation of Receive
and File, to the City of Temecula, on April 21, 1990.
On August 28, 1990, the City Council approved a
First Extension of Time, subject to the reduction in
density to a maximum of 16 dwelling units per acre
{117 unit). This approval was based on the
STAFFRPT\TT25~3 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
maximum density allowed under the Southwest Area
Community Plan, which is 16 D.U./AC: and due to
the fact that the applicant has filed a revised
project ( Tentative Tract Map No. 25uA3). It was the
consensus of the City Council that a project with a
lower density such as Tentative Tract Map No.
25~3 is more desirable as opposed to the 128
dwelling units of the previously approved project
(TT 23211).
Location
This project is located on the south side of
Margarita Road, approximately 1,500 feet east of
Moraga Road.
Tentative Tract No. 25~,3 proposes to subdivide the
subject 7.31 acre site into a 105 unit condominium
development, with an overall density of 1u,.5 units
per acre. The proposed development has been
designed in accordance with the standards of the R-
3-2500 zone. The project consists of nineteen (19)
two-story buildings (9-5 plex and 10-6 plex) and
utilizes nine (9) different unit floor plans ranging
from 1,015 sq.ft. to 1 ,u,87 sq.ft.
Gradjnq and Landform Alteration
The proposed project will generally utilize the
existing contours of the site in order to minimize the
alteration of an existing, fairly prominent, natural
ridgeline. The grading involves approximately
u,0,000 cubic yards of excavation and approximately
80,000 cubic yards of fill, in which ~0,000 cubic
yards of soil will be imported.
Although the City does not currently have policies
with respect to grading, Staff would suggest that
the Planning Commission consider the proposed land
form alteration and future, potential grading of the
subject area since the City Council has expressed a
Concern.
Circulation and Access
The proposed project will be gated and will take
access from Margarlta Road approximately 1,500 feet
east of Moraga Road. An internal, thirty-six (36')
foot wide, private driveway will provide access to
the required off-street parking areas. In order to
lessen potential internal vehicular congestion, the
Engineering Staff has recommended a condition
which require automatic garage door openers.
STAFFRPT\TT25~.3 3
Parkin9
The proposed project includes a total of 263 parking
spaces. The total number of spaces required by the
Development Code ISectlon 18.12) is summarized
below,
Two Bedroom Dwellings: 2.25 spaces per
dwelling unit
Three Bedroom Dwellings: 2.75 spaces per
dwelling unit
Based on the above requirements and the proposed
development, the project must provide the following
total number of parking spaces:
67 Two Bedroom ~ 2.25 = 85.5
38 Three Bedroom ~ 2.75 = 184.25
Total = 269.75 spaces
By comparison, the applicant is proposing to
provide 2.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit ~190
private garage and 73 guest).
Traffic Impacts
A Traffic Study was prepared and submitted in
March of 1990. The report has been reviewed by
the Engineering Staff, in which a conclusion was
made that the cumulative impact of the proposed
residential development will generate no significant
off-site traffic impacts. However, the Planning
Commission may want to consider the cumulative
impact of concentrated high density development in
this area along Margarita Road.
Project Deslqn
The proposed project has been designed to feature
a Mediterranean theme with terra-cotta roofs,
textured stucco walls and trellises. A central
recreational area will provide useable open space for
the project~s residents.
After reviewing the applicant's renderings, Staff
has determined that the proposed project design is
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
STAFFRPT\TT25~3 ~
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS:
The proposed density of 14.5 units per acre is
consistent with the Southwest Area Community Plan
designation of 8-16 units per acre. In addition,
Staff finds it probable that this project will be
consistent with the new General Plan when it is
adopted.
In compliance with the California Environmental
Act. an enviro.mental assessment ,,nitia,
was performed for this project. Staff
determined that Tentative Tract Map No. 25q~,3 will
not have a significant effect upon the environment.
Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been
recommended for adoption.
There is a reasonable probability that
Tentative Tract No. 25~43 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 circulation
patterns, access, and density.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare.
Tentative Tract No. 251~43 is compatible with
surrounding land uses. The harmony in
scale, bulk, height, density, and coverage is
Ilkely to create 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.
STAFFRPT\TT25~,3 5
10.
11.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the Initial
Study for this project.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with this application are herein
incorporated by reference.
The project will not have a significant
adverse impact on the environment in that
Stepbends Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation
fees are required and archaeological
resources are not likely to be found at the
site.
The project will not be detrimental to human
health or safety in that drainage and flood
control measures must be approved by FEMA
prior to map recordatlon, and the potential
for liquefaction, differential subsidence, and
surface flssuring at the site are very low. A
soils report must be submitted to the Building
and Safety Department addressing soil
stability and geological conditions.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends
that the Planning Commission:
1. APPROVE Negative Declaration
APPROVE Tentative Tract Map No.
25~u,3 based on the analysis and
findings contained in this report and
subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
OM:ks
Attachments:
1. Conditions of Approval
2. Initial Study
3. Renderings
u,. Large Scale Plan
STAFFRPT\TT25uA3 6
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP NO. 25~1~3 TO SUBDIVIDE A 7.31 ACRE PARCEL
INTO A 305 UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT AT 30005
MARGARITA ROAD.
WHEREAS, Marstan Development filed Tentative Tract Map No. 25u, u,3 in
accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision
Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map application was processed in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law:
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Tentative Tract
Map on September 10, 1990, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to
testify either in support or opposition:
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
approval of said Tentative Tract Map;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.~. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty 130) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
| 1 ) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
~ 2 ) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
|el
There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
STAFFRPT\TT25uA3 1
[b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County. including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time. the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the
SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the
Government Code, to wit:
{1 ) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects
and taking other actions. including the issuance of
building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the
following:
There is reasonable probability that
Tentative Tract Map No. 25u,~3 proposed will
be consistent with the general plan proposal
being considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
Ib)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
D. Pursuant to Section 6.5, no Tentative Tract Map may be
approved unless the applicant demonstrates the proposed use will not
be detrimental to the health safety and welfare of the community. and
further. that any Tentative Tract Map approved shall be subject to
such conditions as shall be necessary to protect the health. safety and
general welfare of the community.
STAFFRPT\TT25~u,3 2
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Tentative
Tract Map is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
project will
Declaration,
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that the proposed
not have a significant impact on the environment, and a Negative
therefore, is hereby granted.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Tentative Tract Map No. 25~i~,3 for the subdivision of a 7.31 acre parcel into 105
condominiums located at 30005 Margarita Road subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of September, 1990.
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
C HA I R MAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held
on the 10th day of September, 1990 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFFRPT\TT251PI3 3
APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth
herein above ~n this Resolution of approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 25u~3.
DATED: By
Name
Title
STAFFRPT\TT25~I3 I1
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 250,0,3
Planning Commission 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 0,60, Schedule A, unless
modified by the conditions listed below.
This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the
Planning Commission approval date, unless extended as provided by
Ordinance 0,60.
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
The subdlvider 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 0,60 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.
STAFF R PT\TT25~0,3 1
10. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following:
Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the
development standards of the R-3-2500 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.
Trash bins, loading areas and incidental storage areas shall be located
away and visually screened from surrounding areas with the use of
block walls and landscaping.
Bike racks and bike lockers in sufficient quantity shall be provided in
convenient locations to facilitate bike access to the project area.
11.
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 I a) provide for a minimum term of 60 years, ~ b) provide for
the establishment of a property owners~ association comprised of the
owners of each individual lot or unit, Ic) 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 Id) 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 creatinq the assessment lien.
This Declaration shall not be terminated, ~substantially amended
STAFFRPT\TT25~43 2
or property aleannexed there from absent the prior written
consent of the Planning Direct. A proposed amendment shall be
considered ~substantiaP if it affects the extent, usage or
maintenance of the tcommon 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. ii
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 shall comply with the following parkway landscaping
conditions:
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 maintenance district or County Service Area for
Margarita Road in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting
Act of 1972, unless the project is within an existing parkway
maintenance district.
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
reproducible format suitable for permanent filing with the County
Road Department.
The developer shall post a landscape performance bond which
shall be released concurrently with the release of subdivision
performance bonds, guaranteeing the viability of all landscaping
which will be installed prior to the assumption of the maintenance
responsibility by the district.
The developer, the developer~s successors-in-interest or
assignees, shall be responsible for all parkway landscaping
maintenance until such time as maintenance is taken over by the
district.
The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all
slopes, landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those
operations are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the
Planning Director.
STAFFRPT\TT25~/~3 3
12.
13.
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 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 shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints
Sheet: "This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount
Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall
comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar
Observatory recommendations dated 1-12-88, a copy of which is on file
in the Riverside County Department of Building and Safety and the
Riverside County Planning Department."
The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes,
landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations
are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director.
Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
(1)
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 deslgned to be
opaque up to a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity.
All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from
view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle
treatments, as approved by the Planning Director. Utilities shall
be placed underground.
Parkways shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a
transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscape
elements shall include earth bermlng, 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.
STAFF R PT\TT25~z~3 4
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.
Any oak trees removed with four {u,) inches or larger trunk
diameters shall be replaced on a ten {10) to one ~1) basis as
approved by the Planning Director. Replacement tress shall be
noted on approved landscaping plans.
If the project is to be phased, prior to the approval of grading
permits, an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to
the Planning Director for approval. The plan shall be used as a
guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual
phases of development and shall include the following:
Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and
sedlmentatlon during and after the grading process.
Approximate time frames for grading and identification of
areas which may be graded during the higher probability
rain months of January through March.
Preliminary pad and roadway elevations.
Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase.
All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded natural terrain and
exceeding ten (10) feet in vertical height shall be contour-
graded incorporating the following grading techniques:
The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted
to the angle of the natural terrain.
Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form
shall raflect the natural rounded terrain.
STAFFRPT\TT25qu,3 5
15.
The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves
with radii designed in proportion to the total height of the
slopes where drainage and stability permit such rounding.
Where cut or fill slopes exceed 300 feet in horizontal
length, the horizontal contours of the slope shall be
curved in a continuous, undulating fashion,
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall
provide evidence to the Director of Building and Safety that all
adjacent off-site manufactured slopes have recorded slope
easements and that slope maintenance responsibilities have been
assigned as approved by the Director of Building and Safety.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be
retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed
grading with respect to potential paleontologlcal impacts. Should the
paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a
pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading
contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or
representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt
grading activity to allow recovery of fossils.
Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
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 I$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.
Arl 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) roofs as approved by the
Fire Marshal.
STAFFRPT\TT25~O,3 6
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 110) feet.
i. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten 110) 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:
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.
17.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the
provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in
that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions
of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by
Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat
Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
18.
The subdlvider shall submit to the Planning Director an agreement with CSA
143 which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City 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
City Council prior to the recordation of the final map.
Enqineerinq Department
The following are the Engineering Department 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.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
STAFFRPT\TT25~u~3 7
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
19.
The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act,
and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions.
PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL
20.
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision
Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance No. u,60 unless modified by
the conditions listed below.
21. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District:
Riverside County Flood Control district;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Engineering Department:
Riverside County Health Department; and
CATV Franchise.
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. 0,60.
23.
All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained
by a homeowners association or other means acceptable to the City. Such
proof of this maintenance shall be submitted to the Planning and Engineering
Department.
Prior to final map, the subdivlder shall notify the City~s CATV Franchises of
the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time
of street improvements.
25.
Dedication shall be made of the following right-d-way on the following
streets:
DEDICATE Marqarlta Road TO 55 FEET FROM STREET CENTERLINE.
26.
Non-vehicular access rights shall be dedicated to the City for the following
streets:
Vehicular access shall be restricted on Margarita Road and so noted on
the final map with the exception of one 0,5~ driveway opening as
approved by the City Engineer.
27.
All road easements and/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication to
the public and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such
offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the
City Engineer.
STAFFRPT\TT25~3 8
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
35.
36.
37.
38.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage
facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located
within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances
shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the City Engineer.
The subdivlder shall construct or post security guaranteeing the construction
of the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City
standards.
Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb
and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights,
signing, striping, and other traffic control devices as appropriate.
b. Storm drain facilities.
c. Landscaping Istreet and parks).
d. Sewer and domestic water systems.
The subdivider shall provide bonds and agreement clearances from all
applicable agencies and pay all fees prior to the approval of the map.
The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated
with adjoining developments.
Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. u,61 and as approved by the
City Engineer.
Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the
Engineering Department, a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation
towards traffic signal impacts.
Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment of traffic signal
mitigation fee, he may enter into a written agreement with the City deferring
said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit.
No grading shall take place prior to the recording of the final map.
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.
In the event road or off-site right-of-way are required to comply with any of
the approved conditions, such easements shall be obtained by the developer;
or, in the event the City is required to condemn the easement right-of-way,
as provided in the Subdivision Map Act, the developer shall enter into an
agreement with the City for the acquisition of such easement at the
developer~s cost pursuant to Government Code Section 66~62.5, which shall
be at no cost to the City.
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.
STAFF R PT\TT25~uI3 9
39.
A drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners for
the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent
property. A copy of the recorded drainage easement shall be submitted to the
City for review prior to the recordatlon of the final map.
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.
Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be and
an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineerrs Office, in
addition to any other permits required.
Street improvement plans including parkway trees and street lights prepared
by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer shall be
required for all public streets prior to issuance of an encroachment permit.
Final plans and profiles shall show the location of existing utility facl)ities
within the right-d-way.
Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer and the City Attorney, guaranteeing completion of the public
and/or private street improvements, prior to the approval of the final map.
Street improvement plans per City Standards for the private streets or drives
shall be required for review and approval by the City Engineer.
Prior to any work being performed on the private streets or drives, fees shall
be paid and a construction 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.
All driveways shall be located a minimum of two (2) feet from the property
llne.
The subdlvider 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 2~" x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil
Engineer.
49.
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.
50.
A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and
submitted at the time of application for grading plan check.
51. A minimum centerline grade shall be 0.1~0 percent.
52.
This tract is located within the limits of the Drainage Plan for which drainage
fees have been adopted by the City. Drainage fees shall be paid as set forth
STAFFRPT\TT25~,3 10
under the provisions of the "Rules and Regulations for Administration of Area
Drainage Plans," amended July 3, 1984:
Drainage fees shall be paid to the Riverside Flood Control District 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 required affidavit
requesting aleferment of the payment of fees, the drainage fees shall be
paid to the Riverside Flood Control District 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; however,
Drainage fees shall be paid to the Riverside Flood Control District as a
part of the filing for record of the subdivision final map or parcel map,
or before receiving a waiver to record a land division, for each lot
within the land division where construction activity, as evidenced by
one of the following actions, has occurred since May 26, 1981:
1. A grading permit or building permit has been obtained.
2. Grading or structures have been initiated.
53.
All storm drain systems will be provided with a secondary storm flow escape
as approved by the City Engineer.
Drainage easements when required shall be shown on the final map and noted
as follows: "Drainege Easement- no buildings, obstructions or encroachments
by landfills are allowed."
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
55.
Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and
gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and
street lights on all interior public streets.
56.
A 28' wide secondary access road to Margarita Road shall be provided within
a recorded private road easement as approvad by the City Engineer.
57. All units shall be provided with garage door openers.
All street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
59.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public
facility mitigation as required under the EIR/negative Declaration for the
project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim
or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally
established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for
STAFFRPT\TT25uA3 11
the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement
for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to
Developer. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the
payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest
such increase.
Transportation Enqlneerinq
PRIOR TO RECORDATION:
60.
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered traffic
engineer, and approved by the City Engineer, for Margarita Road and shall
be included in the street improvement plans.
61.
Plans for traffic signal interconnect shall be designed, and approved by the
City Engineer, and shown on the street improvement plans in the following
location: Margarita Road Frontage.
62.
Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering
for the design criteria.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
63.
A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered
traffic engineer and approved by the City Traffic Engineer and the City
Engineer for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic
circulation, as required by the City Traffic Engineer or the City Engineer.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
All signing and striping shall be installed per the City standards and the
approved signing and striping plan,
65.
All traffic signal interconnect shall be installed per the City standards and the
approved plan.
STAFFRPT\TT25u..u..3 12
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
II
Backqround
1. BIs~e of Proponent:
MAR~TAN CORPORATION
Address a~8 Phone
Number of Proponent:
Date of Env~ron~entaZ
Assessment:
1225 W. 190th Street
Gardena, California 90248
(213) 532-4550
August 27, 1990
4. Agency Requiring
Assessment:
CITY OF TI~eCUIA
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Location of Proposal:
Tentative Tract Map No. 25443
Southside of Margarita Road, between
Moraga Road and Avertida Cima Del Sol
Environmental Impacts
(Explanations of all *'yes" and "maybe" answers are provided on
attached sheets. )
Yes 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?
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 ·
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?
Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air
quality?
b. The creation of objectionable
odors?
Alteration of elf movement,
moisture, or temperature, or any
change in climate, whether locally
or reglonally?
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
N_9
X
BLANKIESIFORMS
-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 (including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, end 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, benthjc
organisms or insects)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals?
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
Yes
Maybe
No
X
X
X
-3-
BLANKIESIFORMS
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. EXposure of peopte 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, pesticicles,
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
In area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing or create a demand for
eddltional housing?
Transportation/Circulation, Will the
proposal result in:
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
Yes
Maybe
X
N._9o
X
X
X
X
X
X
BLANKIESIFORMS
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?
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. Perks 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
s need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
e. Power or natural gas?
.Yes Maybe
No
×
X
BLANKIESIFORMS
18.
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 lexcluding
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.
de
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 ·
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or abject?
Does the proposal have the potential
to cause · physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
Y, es
Maybe
No
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 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 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
BLANKIESIFORMS
III Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
BLANKIES/FORMS
-8-
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have s significant
effect on the environment, end a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a slgni-
fir. ant effect on the environment, there will not be · 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
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EPORT is __
the environment, and an ~ ~
required. __
August 27, 1990 ~ r
Date
For CITY OF TEMECULA
BLANKIESIFORMS
III.
Earth
1.a.
1.b.
1 .c-d.
1.e.
1.f.
1.g.
Air
2.a-c.
Water
3.a,d-e.
Environmental Evaluation
No. The project site will be graded as part of a mass grading effort.
There will be substantial grading for this project, However, a
conceptual mass grading plan for the project was approved by the City
Engineer and designed in accordance with Temecula~s standards and the
Conditions of Approval.
Yes. All development disrupts the soil profile to some degree and
results in soil displacement, compaction, and overcovering. This
impact is not considered significant.
No. The mass grading effort was designed to adhere to the gross
natural topography of the site in its original condition. While
substantial grading and recontouring of this site will occur in the
immediate area, the overall plan is intended to promote preservation of
site topography.
Maybe. 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 City Engineer and
designed in accordance with Temecula's standards and the Conditions
of Approval.
No. Since the project site is not adjacent to any creek or stream bed,
the proposed project will not cause erosion of or deposition into any
creek or stream bed.
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.
No. The proposed project will not significantly impact the area"s air
quality.
No. The proposed project will not impact any marine or fresh water
bodies. The proposed project will incrementally affect the quantity and
quality of run-off water in the City.
STAFFRPT\TT25~z&3 8
3.b.
3.d-g.
3.h.
3.i.
Veqetation
u,.a-c.
~.d.
Wildlife
5.a-c.
Noise
6.a-b.
No. The proposed project will inhibit the absorption of water into the
ground through the construction of impermeable surfaces on the site.
Run-off will increase but not substantially.
No. Flood waters will continue to be diverted to the streets and flood
channels.
No. The proposed project will not significantly affect the flow or
quantity of ground waters.
No. The proposed project will not impact the public water supply.
No. Conditions of Approval are included for this project which require
proper design and installation of drainage conveyance devices.
No. No sensitive vagetatjonal associations or species were identified
on -site.
No. No agricultural production occurred on-site.
No. A survey for Stephen~s Kangaroo Rat prepared for this project
analyzed biologic resources on-site. in that no individuals of the
Stephen~s Kangaroo Rat were found there is no occupied habitat within
the bounds of the tract map.
Implementation of the tract as proposed wl)) not result in a taking nor
would it result in any adverse effect on the species or on the species~
habitat. In that surrounding lands to the north, south, east and west
have previously been developed at urban levels of use or are presently
being developed at such )eveIs of use, preservation of this site as a
reserve is inappropriate. In addition, the site is now isolated from all
other known colonies by impassable residential and other barriers and
reinvasion of the site is virtually impossible. Implementation of the
project as proposed will not have a significant effect and no mitigation
other than payment of fees under the Stephen~s Kangaroo Rat Fee
Ordinance is required.
No. A noise assessment was prepared for this project.
Analysis indicates that the project site is exposed to significant levels
of noise as a result of traffic on Margarita Road. However, it is
concluded that the project design, as recommended herein, will comply
with the interior noise exposure standard placed on residential
construction by the County of Riverside and the State~s noise insulation
standards.
STAFFRPT\TT25~t~3 9
It is further recommended that the final engineering design of the
project be reviewed by a recognized acoustical engineer to ensure
compliance with the County~s noise standards.
Liqht and Glare
Yes. However, the project has been conditioned to comp}y with
applicable lighting standards.
Land Use
No. Project is consistent with both the zoning designation and the
Southwest Area Community Plan.
Natural Resources
9.a-b.
No. This project itself will not significantly increase the rate of use of
natural resources. Construction materials and petroleum products will
be used extensively to support the specific plan project overall.
Risk of Upset
10.a-b.
No. The proposed project will not promote a risk of explosion or release
hazardous substances nor will it interfere with emergency response
plan or an emergency evaluation plan.
Population
11.
Yes. Although the project proposes to increase the density from one
dwelling unit to 105 units, the proposed project is consistent with the
City Land Use Designation which allows a maximum of 117 units
laccording to SWAP).
Housing
12.
No. Since the proposed project creates housing, the proposed land use
will not create a demand for additional housing.
Transportation/Circulation
13. a. Maybe.
13.b-e. No.
13. f. Maybe.
The Traffic Study which was prepared for the proposed
project has addressed potential traffic impacts and has
concluded that the cumulative impacts will not be
significant.
Public Services
lu,.a-f.
No. The proposed project will not have significant adverse effect on
public services other than parks and recreational facilities.
STAFFRPT\TT2511zI3 10
Energy
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. The proposed project might require the use of utilities but will not
require substantial alteration to the existing system.
Human Health
17.a-b.
No. The proposed project will not have significant adverse effect on
human health.
Aesthetics
18.
No. Because the proposed project has been designed to be compatible
with the surrounding neighborhood, there will be no significant impact
on aesthetics.
Recreation
19.
No. Because the proposed project provides adequate recreatlonal
facilities for the subject residents.
Cultural Resources
20.a-d. No impact.
Mandatory Findinqs of Siqnificance
21 .a.
No. The proposed project will not have a significant impact on plant or
wildllfe species. However, if a project is located within an area
designated by the Riverside County as habitat for the endangered
Stephen~s Kangaroo Rat, the project will be subject to mitigation fees
for the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan.
21 ,b.
No. The proposed project will not have the potential to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals.
21 .c-d.
No. The proposed project will not have impacts which are individually
limited or cumulatively considerable, nor will they have environmental
affects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly.
STAFFRPT\TT25~I~,3 11
ITEM #8
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 10, 1990
Case No:. Substantial Conformance #2 to Specific Plan #16u,
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Davidson Communities
REPRESENTATIVE:
RANPAC Engineering Corporation
PROPOSAL:
Deletion of the Class I bike trail which
traverses the park and open space
area located adjacent to Residential
Planning Area No. I~ of the Roripaugh
Estates Specific Plan.
ZONING:
Specific Plan #16u, (park and open
space area adjacent to Planning Area
No. u,).
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
SP #16L~ Open Space
SP #16u, Single Family
SP #164 Park/Commercial
SP #16~, Open Space
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
BACKGROUND:
North: Vacant
South: Single Family
East: Vacant
West: Vacant
Substantial Conformance #2 to Specific
Plan #16u, was originally submitted to
the Riverside County Planning
Department on January 22, 1990. The
County of Riverside accepted the
request as a Substantial Conformance
application rather than a Specific Plan
Amendment application since the
proposal would not change the intent
of the Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan
or change its~ intensity. The
application requests the deletion of the
Class I bike trail which traverses the
park and open space area located
adjacent to Residential Planning Area
No, u,. Exhibit A illustrates the
location of the Class I bike trail. Since
the request was primarily a Planning
Department concern, the application
was not required to be reviewed by the
Land Development Committee. The
application was scheduled for an early
May Planning Commission hearing but
was then transferred to the City of
Temecula for processing.
ANALYSIS:
Exhibit B illustrates the original
Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan
Bicycle And Equestrian Trails element.
By comparing Exhibit B to Exhibit A,
it is clear that the original Class I
bicycle trial traveling throughout the
project no longer exists. Exhibit B
was amended as part of Specific Plan
Amendment No. 1 for Specific Plan No.
16B,. The result was the Class I bike
trial in Exhibit A, which has limited
access and direction. The definition of
a Class I bike trail is one that is
separated from a roadway and
traverses a park or open space. The
Class I bike trail in Exhibit A no longer
connects to the Class II bike trail on
Roripaugh Road and no longer
functions as a component of a'larger
bike trail system. The purpose of the
Subject Class I bike trail is somewhat
nebulous. The bike trail does not
improve access to the park or any
other land use within the plan.
Exhibit C is a portion of Tract Map
20703-3 which has been approved for
the subject location. The map
delineates the lots which are adjacent
to the Class I bike trail. One of the
access points to the bike trail is via an
open space easement between lots 66,
67, and 68. The developer of the
property is concerned that a bike trial
within this easement will be a nuisance
for the future residents of lots 66, 67,
and 68. The developer fears that the
easement area will be used as a bike
raceway or gathering place for
resident children.
Exhibit D illustrates the proposed
change to the Roripaugh Estates
Specific Plan Bike and Equestrian Trial
exhibit.
In a City where public recreation
opportunities is a concern, the review
of this request has not been taken
lightly. However, due to Amendment
No. I of Specific Plan No. 16~,, the
original intent of the Class I bike trail
no longer exists. It is unfortunate
that the County eliminated the
connecting trail which could allow
travel thorough the park and open
space designations of the plan,
illustrated in Exhibit E from North
General Kearney Road to Winchester
Road. This trail could have also been
linked up with the Class II trail on
Nicholas and Winchester Roads
illustrated in Exhibit A. However,
given the fact that the integrated bike
trail system no longer exists in
conjunction with the Class I bike trail,
staff believes that the request to
eliminate the Class I trail would not
change the intent of the Specific Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Direct Staff to APPROVE the
Substantial Conformity request.
DP:dd
02158/3001 / 045
SR / PI an Comm
ii ~
--\
e.'LU
,I
/
/
A Portion of Tract Map 2703-3
RORIPAUGH ESTATES
DAVIDSON COMMUNITIES
'T~,,~s Bco~. Map P~e
Exhibit C
.i i w
.\
I-:
III