HomeMy WebLinkAbout091790 PC AgendaAGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
VAIL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
SEPTEMBER 17, 1990 - 6:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
Chairman Chiniaeff
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Chjniaeff
Hoagland,
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the
commissioners on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are
limited to three { 3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners
about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink ~Request to Speaku form should
be filled out and filed with the Commissioner Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and
address.
For all other agenda items a t~Request to Speaku form must be filed with the
Planning Secretary before Commission gets to that item. There is a three
minute time limit for individual speakers.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Minutes
1.1 Continued minutes of August 20, 1990.
1.2 Minutes of September 10, 1990
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Case No.:
Applicant:
R epresentati ve:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Conditional Use Permit No. 2
Larry Gabele
Markham and Associates
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.
To construct a multi-tenant automotive center with 10,
square feet of retail area and 21,801 square feet of service
area.
Approval
Scott Wright
CBse No.:
Applicant:
R ep resentati ve:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Plot Plan Nos'. S and 6
Rancho California Partners
J. R. Miller and Associates, Inc.
Northeast corner of Avenida AIvarada and Aqua Vista Way
Construct two industrial buildings side by side for a total
of 23,700 square feet on two existing parcels which
together comprise 1.19 acres.
Approval
Oilvet Mujica
Parcel Map 23969
Omdahl Enterprises
Markham and Associates
Kathleen Way, south of Rancho California Road
To subdivide Parcel 22 of Parcel Map 18254 into four
parcels.
Approval
Deborah Parks
Tentative Parcel Map
Wescon Properties
J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc.
West side of Business Park Drive, north of Rancho
California Road
Subdivide 7.2 acres into 6 parcels and construct an
industrial park
Approval
Mark Rhoades
Plot Plan No. 11620
Willjams Development Company
Same as above
The northerly side of Enterprise Circle north abutting
Santa Gerturdis Creek
To construct a two story office building with 17,765 square
feet of leasable floor area
Approval
Scott Wright
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 2500~
Pavilion - JLD Ventures No. 1
C-M Engineering
East side of Seraphina Road, north of Nicholas Road
To subdivided ~2.~ acres into 115 single family lots
Approval
Mark Rhoades
10.
12.
Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Case No.:
A ppl icant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Case No.:
Applicant:
R epresentati ve:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Change of Zone 5611
Pavilion - JLD Ventures
C-M Engineering
Northeast of the interaction of Nicholas and Joseph Roads
Change zone from R-R1/2 to R-1 in conjunction with VTTM
2500q
Approval
Mark Rhoades
Tentative Pe~,.~I Map No. 25632
Wescon Properties
Same as above
Southwest side of Business Park Drive, North of Rancho
California Road
Subdivide ~,. 7 acres into 10 parcels in the M.S.C. zone, to
construct an industrial park
Continue to October 1, 1990
Mark Rhoades
Plot Plan No. ql
Michael and Road Thesing
Same as above
28636 Front Street, Suite 109
Convert an existing 1,200 sq. ft. office to restaurant with
outdoor dinin9 area
Approval
Karen Castro
Change of Zone 571q.
Arco Products Company
Talt and Associates
Northwest corner of Winchester and Jefferson
Change of zone from M-SC to CI/CP
Denial
Mark Rhoades
Condition Use Permit 30q6
Arco Products Company
Tait and Associates
Northwest corner of Winchester and Jefferson
To extend an existing canopy
Approval
Mark Rhoades
NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
13. Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
1~. Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
15. Case No.:
Applicant:
R epresentati ve:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23299 Extension of Time
Presely of San Diego
Same as above
South of Highway 79, approximately one-quarter mile west
of Margarita Way.
First extension of time for Vesting Tentative Tract No.
23299, a 232 unit condominium project on approximately
lb,.3 acres.
Approval
Rich Ayala
Tentative Tract Map No. 19872
Amended No. 2. Phase 3 and ~.
A Revised Permit
Silverwood Development, Inc.
Robert Rein, William Frost, and Associates
Southerly of Pala Road, westerly of Via Gilberto
Revise architectural floor plans, elevations. and plotting
of housing.
Approval
Rich Ayala
Substantial Conformance No. 9
Brookstone Development
David Leseke
910-200-093
To relocate a driveway at the southwest corner of the site
and eliminate three parking spaces.
Approval
Steve Padovan
DISCUSSION ITEMS
Recommendation:
16. Other Business
ADJOURNMENT
Next meeting: September, August 17, 1990, 6:00 PM, Vall Elementary School, 29915
Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California.
ITEM #1
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
HELD SEPT~4BER 10, ] 990
A s~ecial meeting of the Temecula Planning Commission was called to
order at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula,
California at 6:00 P.M. The meeting was called to order by
Chairperson Dennis Chiniaeff.
PRESENT: 5
ABSENT: 1
AlSo present were
Attorney's office
Planning Director, John Middleton,
Ziglet, Minute Clerk.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. MINUTES
1.l
COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford
Hoagland, Chiniaeff
COMMISSIONERS: Fahey
Lois Boback, representative from the City
for John Cavanaugh, Gary Thornhill, Acting
Senior Project Manager and Gail
COMMISSIONER CHINIAKFF entertained a motion to continue
aDDroYal of the minutes of August 20, 1990 to the meetinq
of September 17, 1990, moved by COMMISSIONKR FORD,
seconded by COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND and carried unanimously.
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Hoaqland.
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 1
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMISSIONERS: Fahey
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2
2.1 Proposal to construct a multi-tenant automotive center
with 10,024 square feet of retail area and 21,801 square
feet of service area.
MIN.9/10/90 -1- Septether 12, 1990
PLANNING COMNISSION NINUTES
SEPTEMBER ]0, 1990
GARY THORNRILL stated that the applicant has requested
that this item be continued to the next regular meeting
of the Planning Commission scheduled for September
1990.
COMMISSIONER CNINIAEFF guestioned whether or not to open
the public hearing at this time and continue the item to
the next meetin~ or to open the public hearing at the time
the item will be brought before the commission. LOIS
BOBACE advised the Commission to open the public hearing
and continue the item.
IDA SANC~EZ, Harkham & Associates, 41750 Winchester Road,
Temecula, stated that the applicant was in the process of
re-designjn~ the project. GARY THORNHILL stated that
staff had some concerns with parking and the applicant is
addressing those concerns by reducino the size of the
buildings and adding some loading spaces.
COMM]SSIONER I~OED moved to continue Conditional Use Permit
No. 2 to the Sentember 17, 1990 Planning Commission
meeting. seconded by COMMISSIONER HOAGLARD.
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford,
Hoagland, Chiniaeff
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: i
COMMISSIONERS: Fahev
At approximately 6:30 P.M. COMMISSIONER FAHEY arrived at the
meeting and was no Ionget absent.
3. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 25538
3.1 Proposal to subdivide a 1.43 acre parcel on Estero Street
into two oargels.
DEBOR~I~ PARKS provided the staff report on this item.
She stated that the net proposed size of the parcels are
within the one-half acre zoning of R/R. She stated that
the project is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan
and would be consistent with the city's forthcoming
Oeneral Plan.
Mlll.9/lO/90 -2- September 12, 1990
PL~J~N I NG
COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 10, 1990
MIKE BENESH0 Benesb Engineering, 28991 Front Street,
Temecula, representing the applicant, addressed questions
from the ConFnission.
COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND expressed concern that Rancho
California Water D~str~ct was not listed as an agency
reauired to give written clearance to the developer
under Condition No. 19. JOHN MIDDLETON concurred that
Rancho California Water District should be included
in the list of agencies under Condition No. 19.
COMMISSIONER FORD stated that under SWAP, he understood
there was aD ordinance requiring parcels under 2 1/2
acres to be fully improved. Staff stated that county
standards indicated that parcel maps can be septic
systems but tract maps were to be sewered. Cor~nissioner
Ford expressed concern in approvino the smaller lot sizes
without a precise determination on the sewer requirements.
COMIq]SSIONER HOAGLAND asked staff about the Resolution
that was included as part of the item and it's relation
to the Reconrnendation which did not include the
Resolution. GARY THORNHILL advised the Corcenission that
the Resolution should have been included in the
Recommendation. COMMISSIONER HOAGLA/~D stated that he
did not agree with the wording of the Section ] Finding,
No. 2(a). GARY THORNHILL stated that the city attorney's
of[~ce constructed the Resolution. LOIS BOBaCK stated
that the Findings are necessary in order to make a
Resolution.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to close the public hearing,
seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY and carried unanimously.
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, FaheV,
Ford, Hoagland,
Chinieaff
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
COKMISSIONER FORD stated that he would like to see the
item continued for clarification of the sewer improvement
requirements. C08MISSIONER CHINIEaFF and CO~4MISSIONER
HOAGLAND also expressed concern regarding the
improvements.
MIN.9/10/90 -3- September 12, 1990
PLYdINING CONMISS]ON MINUTES
SEPTF, MBER 10, I 990
COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to continue Tentative Parcel Map
25538 to the regular meeting of the Planning Con~nission
on October 1, 1990, seconded by COMMISSIONER EOAGLAND and
carried unanimously.
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey,
Ford, Hoagland,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
4. COND]TIONAL USE PERMIT NO. ]
4.1
Proposed C.U.P for an automobile sales lot and 528 souare
feet of office space.
OI. IVER MUJICA presented the staff report on this item.
He stated that the office building is a modular unit
on a permanent foundation and the applicant proposes
to provide a tile roof and stucco walls. He also advised
the Commission that the C.U.P. was being conditioned to
come back to the Commission every two years, at a maximum
of ten years, for rev3ew of C.U.P renewal. In addition,
service of vehicles will not be permitted on this site as
part of the approval.
COMMISSIONER FPJ{E'/expressed concern for the attention
to the designated scenic highway along this project and
how staff was addressing the view from the highway.
MR. MUJIC& stated that the improvements to the modular
unit were what they had worked out with the applicant.
COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND questioned the reference to
recreational vehicles throughout the staff report.
GARY THORNHILL advised the Commission to disregard
the reference.
COBSqlSSIONER FORD stated that since the applicant was
providing a minimum of 22 parking spaces, Condition
of Approval No. 5 should reflect a minimum of 22 parking
spaces rather than 20 parking spaces as it reads.
WIN.9/10/90 -4- September 12. 1990
PLANNING
5. PI .OT
5. ]
COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 10, 1990
JIM RAMSAY, applicant, advised the Convnission that the
site would be the location of a Hyundai dealership and
that they would be arranging for service at another
location.
COMNISSIONER HOAGI,AND questioned the two year review of
the C.U.P and asked if the Commission could revoke the
C.U.P at any time.
LOIS BOBACK from the City Attorney's office stated that
every C.U.P is subject to revocation and that possibly the
C.U.P could be written with a two year renewal and a
maximum of five renewals,
JOHN MIDDLETON stated staff's concurrence to this revision
of the C.U.P.
CfN4MISSIONER BLAIR moved to deny the issuance of
Conditional Use Permit No. 1, and design a more permanent
development for this location due to the proximity with
regard to the scenic highway frontage, seconded by
COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND. COWA~ISSIONER FAHEY stated that
she would like the landscape design.addressed as well.
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Hoagland,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 2
COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford
PLAN NO, ]]604
Proposal to construct a 93,735 square foot industrial
buslness park on an aPProximately 6 acre site.
DEBORAH PARKS provided staff's report on this project.
She indicated that the project is currently being graded
as an extension of Business Park Drive. The project is
serviced by two driveways and has allowed for sufficient
parking spaces. This project is consistent with other
buildings in the business park.
COMMISSIONER FORD requested clarification of Condition
No. 28, and JOHN MIDDLETON advised that this was a
standard Condition. COMMISSIONER FORD suggested that
MIN.9/10/90 -5- September 12, 1990
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER ] 0, ] 990
Condition No. 28 be written to read "but are not limited
to" in place of "but are not subject to". Staff agreed
to this revision.
CONMISSIONER HOAGLAND asked for explanation of Condition
No. 52. JOHN MIDDLETON advised that Riverside County
designs their storm drains for 100 year capacity as a
standard requirement.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF requested that the existino block
wall be continued along the southeasterly side of the
DroneTry and that the landscaping design be improved
along the back of buildings A through E.
IDA SANCMEZ, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester Road,
Temecula, representing the applicant, stated that the
modifications to the Conditions were acceptable.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to close the public hearlnq,
seconded by COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND and carried unanimously.
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey,
Ford, Hoa~land.
Chinieaff
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
C0MMISS]ONER FAHEY moved to adopt A Negative Declaration
and approve Plot Plan 11604 subject to the attached
Conditions of APProval inc]udin~ the improvements to
the landscape design and extension of the block wall
alono the easterly property line and the amended wordinu
of Condition No. 28 to say" but not limited to",
seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD and carried unanimously.
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair. Fahey,
Ford, Hoagland,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
6. PLOT PLAN NO. 50, AMENDED NO. 1
6.1
Proposal to construct a 4,120 square foot information
center for the Paloma De1 Sol Specific Plan on a 3.22
acre site.
MIN.9/10/90 -6- September 12, 1990
PLANNING
CONMISS]ON MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 10, 1990
OLIVER MUJICA presented the staff report on this item.
He stated that the site is located in Planning Area No.
34 which was originally apDroved for a Day Care Center/
Public/Quasi Public use facility. Staff interprets this
as use for an informational type center. The applicant,
Mesa Homes, has stated that they intend to keep it as a
information center for approximately 10 years. Mr. Mujica
advised the Commission that the applicant was requesting
a decrease dn the mindmum number of parkinq spaces
requirement. He stated that staff based thelr calculation
for parking recudrements on a Professional business office
use. Mr. Mujlca also stated that stall wanted to amend
Conditdon No. 49 to read "and jn conformance wdth Specifdc
Plan No. 219".
COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND reGuested modlfdcatlon of Conddtlon
No. 13 to state "all new and existing utilities less than
33KV sbou3d be Placed underground": and Cond]tjon No. 22
to include Rancho California Water Dlstrlct as an
aDDrOVinG agency.
DEAN MEYER, Project ManaGer, Mesa Homes, 28765 SinGle Oak
Drive, Temecula, addressed some of the Comsnission's
concerns. Mr. Meyer also asked for clarification of
Condition No. 46. JOHN MIDDLETON advised Mr. Meyer that
the fee referenced in the Conddtion was undetermined at
this time, therefore the requirement for a minimum
$30,000 deposit, and at such time the fee is established,
the fee deposit will be adjusted.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR expressed concern wdth this location
as a day care facility due to the impacts on traffic.
COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to close the public hearinq,
seconded by COMMISSIONER HO&GLAND and carried unanimously.
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey,
Ford, Hoagland,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMISSIONER FAHEY stated that she was satisfied with the
use as submitted and having the applicant bring it back
to the Commission for approval of a change in use.
SIN.9/10/90 -7- September 12, 1990
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 10, ] 990
COMMISSIONERCHINIAEFF guestioned if an information center
would be in conformance with the specific plan. GARY
THORNHII,I. stated that it was Zoned R-3 and this tYPe of
facility would be permitted.
COMMISSIONER FORD expressed concerns for the traffic
problems that would be created if this was converted to a
day care facility with no street improvements and also
where the horse paths lead to and the parking
reauirements.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to continue the item to
receive more information regarding the traffic circulation
and street improvements, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD.
COMMISSIONER BOAGLAND stated that he would like to see
the overall Plan for the equestrian trail for the project.
COMMISSIONER FORD added that he would like to see more
information regardins the proposed entry sign (i.e.
(implementation, scale and dimensloned) since this is part
of the reauest for spprova]. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF
agreed with the overall concerns regarding traffic
circulation and street improvements. GARY THORNHILL
recommended that the item be continued 30 days or off
calendar and re-notice the pub.lic hearing.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to continue the item off calendar
ana re-notice t~e pubJ3c bearing, seconded by COMMISSIONER
FORD.
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahe?,
Ford, Hoagland,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
RECESS
CHAIRMAN DENNIS CHINIAEFF declared a five minute recess at '7:55
P.M. The meeting was reconvened at 8:00 P.M.
7. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 25443
7.1 Proposed 105 unit condominium subdivision of 7.31 acres.
MIN.9/10/90
-8- September 12, 1990
PLANN I NG
COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBE~ 10, 1990
OLIVER MUJICA presented the staff report for this item.
He stated that this was previously aDOroved as Tentative
Tract 23211, bV the County, to establish a 128 unit
condominium development. The item went before the City
Council for an extension of t~me, and the Council
expressed concern reqarding the density of this project.
The Council granted the extension of time subject to the
condition that the project not exceed 16 units per acre.
Be stated that the aDp]jcant had reduced the development
to 14.5 units Per acre. He also advised the Commission
that the aDpXicant was proposing 263 parking spaces which
he understood would be acceptable under County standards:
however, staff's ca]cu]atjons for oarking indicated
a recuirement of 269.75 spaces. Mr. Mujica stated that
the developer had uDgraded the units jn square footage
and provided for recreational areas for the Droparty
owners.
COMMISSIONER FAME7 reouested clarification of the density
reouirement of the Project. GARY THORNHILL advised that
the project was uiven an extension Of time on the oriuina]
approval subject to the condition that the project did not
exceed 36 units per acre however theV had one vear to
record the final mad on the orioinal approval.
COMMISSIONER FORD asked staff if the applicant was aware
of the reference to the project bein~ gated. MR. MUJICA
stated that the applicant had indicated that the project
would be qated and that they could include that as a
condition.
COMMIBS]ONEH FARE"/stated that homeowners jn the
surrounding area expressed a desire for some type of
consistency to the appearance of these types of
projects and asked if this project could be conditioned
for future development along that corridor. GARY
THORNHILL stated that design standards would be
citV guidelines and that this project could not
be conditioned to establish these guidelines,
C0MMISS]ONER FORD auestioned the block wall reouirement.
MR. MUJICA stated that staff would be amending
Cond~t~oD No. 13 (E) to read "and a]on~ Margarita Road"
instead of Via La Vida.
HIM,9/10/90 -9- September 12, 1990
PLANNING
COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTFIbBER ] 0, 3 990
COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND expressed his concern for the
single access into the project and how it affects
fire and safety protection. MR. {fUJICA stated that
there is a requirement for secondary access and they
have requested that the developer obtain an agreement
from the adjacent property owner for this access. He
advised that both property owners were working together
to provide the fire and safety protection requirements.
Commissioner Hoag]and also addressed the developers
participation in the funding for parks. GARY THORNHILL
stated that Condition No. 18 covers the fees for parks
and recreation.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR asked if staff had done any studies
on the saturation of condominium housing in the city.
GARY THORNHILL stated that th~s data is part of the study
being conducted for land use inventory and upon completion
of the study the Planning Department would have a better
idea of the degree of saturation of this type of
development. He stated that the study whou]d be completed
at the beginning of October. Com{nissioner Blair also
expressed concern for the grading of this site as ~t
relates to the overall grading being done in the city.
Hr. Thornhill stated that there are no guidelines
established at this time regarding grading.
GARY~RTIN, 3060] Cabrjj]o Street, Temecu]a, developer of
the Droject, discussed the design of his project. He
added that ~n working w~th the City Council to develop
a desireable project while addressing their concerns, he
volunteered to reduce the project to 14.5 units per acre.
He stated again that he feels the proposed 263 parking
spaces js adequate for the proposed number of units.
Mr. Martin requested the following modifications to
Findings in the Staff Report and to Conditions of
Approval: Finding No. 11 amended to read "must be
in accordance with FEMA"; Condition No. 35 amended to
read "prior to the grading plan being approved and street
improvement plan and final map being substantially
completed."; Condition No. 60 amended to read "shall be
designed by a registered civil engineer"; and Condition
No. 61 amended to read "Provide in-street plans and
conduit for future interconnect routing".
MIN.9/10/90 -10- Septe~kber 12, 1990
PLANNING
COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 30, 3990
C(NJNISSIONER FORD asked Mr. Martin if they were in fact
gating this development. MR. MARTIN stated that they
wouJd be putting in a gate. GARY THORNHILL stated that
staff was not looking at this as a gated project and may
bare some concerns with traffic safety.
BAL MUNOZ, 41823 Humbert Drive, Temecula, expressed his
objection to the hjah-density development of the
corridor which this project is located in, traffic
problems in this area. erosion of natural landscape
and the need for each development to support itself
in the needs of parks and recreation area for the
property owners rather than paying fees to create these
areas,
MR. MARTIN stated that the development did address the
needs of recreation within the project by including a
pool and spa area as weJ] as two tot lots.
COMMISSIONER FAHEY expressed concern for approvin~ this
project without the forthcoming ]and use ana map studies.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR expressed concerns for the iack of
sufficient park and recreation space in the project and
the impacts another hiah density project such as this,
would have on the ajready over-populated schools.
COMMISSIONER FORD stated that he felt the developer has
looked at the needs of the community and attempted to
provide the necessary recreation areas within the project.
Commissioner Ford also expressed concern for the oaral]e]
parking and access of the project.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF also expressed concern for
emergency vehicle access in the project. He suggested
that the trash bins be re]ocated to make them more
accessible. He also expressed concern for the potential
traffic problem that may be created at the gated entrance
and for landscape design along Margarita Road.
COMMISSIONER PAl{E/moved to continue the item to the
October 15, 1990 Planning Cordhiss]on meeting, to address
the issues of parkina, turn-around locations for trash
trucks and landscape and design of the Margarita Road
frontage, seconded by COMMISSIONER BLAIR.
KIN.9/10/90 -11- September 12, 1990
PLANNING COMMISSION NINU~ES SEPTEMBER 10, 1990
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: B]a3r, Fahey, Chiniaeff
NOES: 2
COMMISSIONERS:
Ford, Hoagland
NON-I~UBLIC HEARING ITEMS
8. SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE NO. 2, TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 164
Proposal to delete the Class ] bike tra~] which traverses
the park and open space area located adjacent to
resj~entia] plsnn~n~ area no. 4 of the Rorjpauan Estates
Specific Plan.
GARY THORNHILL stated that ~ssues had arisen that
warrant the continuance of this item and reconunended that
the Commission open the public hear~na and cont3nue the
item to October 1, 1990.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF opened the public hearinQ ana
entertained a motion to continue the item.
DAVE JAMES, Ranpac Eng. lneerino, 27447 Enterprise Circle
West, Temecula, stated his concurrence with staff to
continue +,~'~ ~tem to the meetinQ of October ], 1990.
COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to continue Item 8 to the
meeting of October 3, 3990, seconded bv COMMISSIONER FORD.
AYES: 4 COMHISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Cbinjaeff
NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland
DISCUSSION ITEMS
9. OTHER BUSINESS
9.1
COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND ~uestioned the order which the
Con~nission is seeing the Substantial Conformance items and
Questioned the time frame for completion of the Genera]
Plan. COMMISSIONER BLAIR expressed concern for the
completion of the General Plan as well.
MIN.9/IO/90 -12- September 12, 1990
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 10, 1990
CONNISSIONER CHINIAEFF asked that the Commission look at
the size of the compact car spaces being submitted in the
proposals and determine if they feel that these dimensions
are acceptable.
ADJOURNMENT
CONNISSIONER CHINIAEFF entertained a motion to adjourn the meetina
at 9:40 P.M. CONNISSIONER HOAGLAND moved to adjourn the meetina,
seconded bv C(N4NISSIONER FORD and carrie~ unanimously. Next
scheduled meetinc to be held Monday, September 17, 1990, 6:00 P.M.
at Vail Elementary Scboo], 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecu]a.
Dennis Cbiniaeff, C~airman
Secretary
MIN.9/lO/90 -13- September 12, 1990
ITEM #2
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Prepared By: Scott Wright
September 17, 1990
Case No.: Conditional Use Permit No. 2
Recommendation:
1. Adopt the Negative Declaration
2. Adopt the Resolution Approving CUP No. 2
3. Approve CUP No. 2
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Larry Gabele
REPRESENTATIVE:
Markham and Associates
P R OPOSA L:
To construct a multi-tenant automotive center with
10,024 square feet of retail area and 21,801 square
feet of service area.
LOCATION:
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.
EXISTING ZONING:
C-P-S
Scenic Highway Commercial
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial )
C-P-S ( Scenic Highway Commercial )
C- 1 / CP ( General Commercial )
1-15
PROPOSED ZONING:
Not requested.
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant (approved auto dealership)
Vacant
Retail Commercial
1-15
PROJECT STATISTICS:
No. of Acres:
Building Area:
Proposed Use:
Parking Provided:
No. of Service Bays:
3.0
21,117 sq.ft. auto service
8,824 sq.ft. retail
29,941 sq.ft.
Automotive retail and
service center
172 spaces
29
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.
116900. 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 Condltlonal 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. 11690, was redesignated
Conditional Use Permit No. 2 on June 15, 1990.
The applicant submitted a request for Special
Review of Parking {Attachment C) in conjunction
with the original application. 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 50% 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 sirens
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 00, 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.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2 was scheduled for the
Planning Commission hearing of September 10, 1990.
At the hearing of September 10, 1990, the applicant
STAFFRPT\CUP2 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
requested a continuance to the hearing of
September 17, 1990 in order to revise the site plan.
The project is to construct a multi-tenant
automotive service and retail center with a gross
floor area of 29,90,1 square feet, including 21,117
square feet of service area and 8,820, square feet of
automotive retail area. The application includes a
request for Special Review of Parking.
Geoloqic 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 Alqulst-
Prlolo 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. )
Paleentoloqic Resources
The San Bernardino County Museum Director
commented that the property in question is located
on the fossiliferous Pauba Formation, and that
excavation may impact non-renewable paleontolegic
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 Rat's 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 Steff.
STAFFRPT\CUP2 3
Mt. Palomar Street Liqhtlnq Po|icy Area
The proposed project is located in 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.
Drainage
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 10%, 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 Solana. 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
STAFFRPT\CUP2 4
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
take 12 months. If the proposed automotive center
is built and occupied before the street improvements
are constructed, there will 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 Treffic Circulation
The site plan indicates a driveway ~,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 21~ feet in width and adequate to
accommodate two way treffic circulation. Turn radii
are adequate for delivery and refuse collection
trucks.
Parkinq and Loadinq Zones
Ordinance 3~,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. One space per 150 square
feet or 11~1 spaces is the larger figure. ~ spaces
are required for the retail portion of the project.
The total parking requirement is 185 spaces. The
site plan provides 172 parking spaces which is 796
short of the total required by Ordinance 3~8.
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 requeets that 13 of
the proposed service bays be counted toward
satisfying the parking requirement.
The County Land Development Committee originally
reviewed the Request for Special Parking Review
and agreed to count up to 5096 of the proposed bays
STAFFRPT\CUP2 5
GENERAL PLAN AND
ZONING CONSISTENCY:
as parking spaces. The applicant proceeded in
good faith based on this agreement with the County
Staff. Moreover, in order to address the concerns
d the City Planning Staff, the applicant has
reduced the building area and added three loading
ZONES.
The parking requirement for automotive service
uses is even more stringent than the retail
commercial parking requirement of one space per
200 square feet. No distinction is made between
engine and body work shops and those which
provide quicker services. For these reasons and
the circumstances cited above, the Staff is willing to
support the applicant's request that 12 of the 29
service bays be counted toward satisfying the
parking requirement.
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 d new
structures within the scenic highway corridor shah
be compatlb)e 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 d 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
the view from the scenic highway.
The site plan indicates a substantial landscaped
area 15 feet wide along the 1-15 right-d-way. The
building setback from the 1-15 right-d-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
STAFFRPT\CUP2 6
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
equal to 1196 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 Repo~.
{See attachment A, Initial Environmental Study. )
Staff recommends adoption of a Negative Declaration
for Conditional Use Permit No. 2.
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 will not adversely affect adjacent
properties in that the on-site parking
provided is adequate to serve the proposed
intensity of development, and the developer
is required to protect downstream propeG"ties
from damages caused by alteration of
drainage patterns.
The site is adequate to allow the proposed
development in a manner not detrimental to
public safety or the area in which the site is
located in that the on-site parking is
adequate to serve the proposed intensity of
development. All drive aisles are of adequate
width to accommodate on-site traffic
circulation, and the amount of landscaped
area satisfies the applicable requirements.
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
site.
STAFFRPT\CUP2 7
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1. ADOPT the Negative Declaration;
2. ADOPT Resolution 90- approving
Conditional Use Permit No. 2; and,
3. APPROVE Conditional Use Permit No. 2,
based on the analysis and findings contained
here/n.
SW: ks
Attachments:
Exhibits: 1.
2.
3.
A. Initial Environmental Study
B. Conditions of Approval
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
Backclround
1. Nm~e of Proponent:
Larry Gabele
AdStess and Phone
~"~er of P~o[,~nent:
Date of Environmental
asses~ent:
4725 Executive Square, Ste. 1040
La Jolla, California 92307
(619) 587-1985
August 10, 1990
4. Agency Requiring
Assessment:
CITY OF TEMECUIA
Na~e of Proposal,
If applicable:
Location of Proposal:
Conditional Use Permit No. 2
(Formerly Plot Plan 11694)
The West side of Ynez Road, approx.
200 feet North of SoIana Way.
Environmental Impacts
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are provided on
attached sheets. )
Y~S Maybe No
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
X
b. Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil?
X
Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief feltures?
de
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication 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
BLANKIES/FORMS -1-
Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
ailtation, 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?
d. Change in the ranaunt of surface
water in any water body?
Discharge into surface waters, or
in any alteration of surface water
quality, including, but not limited
i
to, temperature, d ssolvecl oxygen
or turbidity? X
fe
Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow of ground waters?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
aLAN K 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?
he
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?
d. Substantial reduction in acreage
of any agricultural crop?
Animal Life. Will the proposal result
in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
(birds, land animals including rep-
tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms or insects)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals?
Ce
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
Yes
Waybe
No
X
X
BLANKIES/FORMS -3-
Jr
11.
12.
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 preaent 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 l 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
additional housing?
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
Yes
X
X
M.aybe
X
No
X
B LA N K I ES I FOR MS -~-
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 p~ople
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 aubstantial amounts of fuel
or energy?
b. Substantial lncrelse in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the developant of new
sources of energy?
16. Ut|lities. Will the proposal result in
s need for new systems, or substantial
elterstions to the following utilities:
a. Power or nltural gas?
Yes
X
X
Maybe
X
,X
No
X
BLANKIESIFORMS
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 I 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?
2D. 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 offacts to
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object?
Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural
velues?
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact ares?
· Yes
Maybe
X
X
X
No
X
aLAN K I ES/FORMS -6-
Yes Maybe No
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
Does the project have the potential
to achieve shod-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 c~nsiderable? 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 envlronmental
effects which will cause substan-
tial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
BLANKIESIFORMS -7-
I I). Environmental Evaluation
1 .a,b.
1 .c,d.
1.8.
1.f.
1.g.
2.b,c.
3.a,c,
d,f.
Yes. Fill and topsoil replacement to a depth of 3 to ~ feet will occur.
Topsoil replacement is necessary to mitigate the potential for
liquefaction and subsidence. This is not considered a significant
impact.
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.
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.
No. The site is not located near any body of water which would be
impacted by siltation or deposition.
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-Priolo 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 ragion.
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.
STAFFRPT\CUP2 8
3.b.
Yes. Increased runoff due to the addition of impermeable surfaces will
be accommodated by drainage facilities as approved by the Engineering
Department.
3.e.
Yes. During construction, the proposed project will increase turbidity
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.
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.
Yes. The subject site is located within the area designated by
Riverside County as habitat for the endangered Stepbends Kangaroo
Rat. The impact of development within the Kangaroo Rat's habitat will
be mitigated by paying fees which will contribute to the implementation
of Riverside County~s Habitat Conservation Plan.
6.a.
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 in nature and will not create severe noise levels.
Yes. The proposed project is located within the Mr. Palomar
Observatory Street Lighting Policy Area. In order to prevent
"skyglow" interference with the M'c. 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.
STAFFRPT\CUP2 9
10.b.
Maybe. If closure of a lane on Ynez Road during construction is
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.
No. The on-site parking provided is adequate to meet the needs of the
proposed land uses.
13.b.
Yes. The proposed automotive center is required by Ordinance 348 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 rail traffic, or alter present patterns of circulation.
lu,.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.
lu,.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.
No. 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
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
STAFFRPT\CUP2 10
19.
20.a-d.
21 .a.
21 .b.
21 .c.
21 .d.
right-of-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 near a potential recreational trail alignment.
Maybe. The 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 curatlon of specimens, and a report of findings with a
complete specimen inventory.
Maybe. The project will not degrade the environment. Any potential
reduction in Stepbends Kangaroo Rat habitat would be compensated by
participation in the Kangaroo 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 5olana 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 1396. 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 soil or ground water. The use of any other hazardous materials
will require a clearance from the County Department of Health.
5TAFFRPT\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, end a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a signi-
fir. ant effect on the environment, there will not be · signl-
ticant effect in this case because the mitigation measures
described on Ittached 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
BLANKIESIFORMS 12
ATTACHMENT B
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Conditional Use Permit No. 2
Former),/Plot Plan No. l169u,
Commission Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
Planninq Department
The use hereby permitted by this Conditional Use Permit is for an automotive
center with 21,117 square feet of service area and 8,824 square feet of retail
area.
5.
6.
7.
The permlttee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Temecula, its agents officers, and employees from any claims, action, or
proceeding against the City 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 Conditional User
Permit No. 2. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any
such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will
cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the
permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully
in the defense, the permlttee shall not, thereefter, be responsible to defend,
indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula.
This approval shall be used within one { 1 ) year of approval date; otherwise,
it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. By use is meant
the baglnning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval
within the one [1 ) year period which is thereefter diligently pursued to
completion, or the baginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this
approval.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as
shown on plot plan marked Exhibit 3, 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 may 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.
The applicant shall comply with the street improvement recommendations
outlined in the ConditiOns of the City Division of Transportstion Engineering
contained herein.
STAFFRPT\CUP2 1
10.
11.
12.
13.
15.
16.
17.
The applicant shall comply with the conditions of approval of the City
Engineering Department contained herein.
Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with
the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's
transmittal dated January 19, 1990, a copy of which is attached.
Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County
Flood Control District's transmittal dated April 11, 1990, a copy of which is
attached.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section
of Ordinance No. 50,6 and the County Fire Warden~s transmittal dated March
30, 1990, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the
Riverside County Geolagist~s transmittal dated March 7, 1990, a copy of
which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the
Department of Transportation transmittal dated January 0,, 1990, a copy of
which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the San
Bernardlno County Museum transmittal dated December 22, 1989, a copy of
which is attached.
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
110) feet of an entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher
than thirty {30) inches.
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, nine ~9) copies of a
Parking, Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans shall be submitted to
the Planning Department for approval. The location, number, genus,
species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. Plans shall meet all
requirements of Ordinance No. 30,8, Section 18.12, and shall be accompanied
by a filing fee as set forth in Section 18.12, and shall be accompanied by a
filing fee as set forth in Section 18.37 of Ordinance No. 3~8.
A minimum of 172 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with
Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 30,8. 172 parking spaces
shall be provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit No. 3. The parking
area shall be surfaced with I asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of
3 inches on 0, inches of Class II base. ) I decomposed granite compacted to a
minimum thickness of three {3) inches treated with not less than 1/2 gallon
per square yard of penatration coat oil, followed within six months by an
application of 1/0, gallon per square yard of seal coat oil. )
STAFFRPT\CUP2 2
18.
A minimum of 5 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on
Exhibit No. 3. 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 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating 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.
19.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance
and/or permits from the following agencies:
City Engineering
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.
20.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the following additional and/or
revised plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval:
Signing Program
Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans
Parking and Circulation Plans
21.
Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on
Exhibit No. 2.
22.
Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial
conformance with that shown on Exhibit No. 1 I Color Board).
23.
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening
material shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
Prior to the final building inspection approval by the Building and Safety
Department, a six foot high decorative block wall or combination landscaped
earthen berm and decorative block wall shall be constructed along the
easterly 120 feet of the north property line and the entire length of the south
STAFFRPT\CUP2 3
property line. The required wall and/or berm shall be subject to the
approval of the Director of the Department of Building and Safety and the
Planning Director.
25.
The trash enclosures which are adequate to enclose a total of 4 bins shall be
centrally located within the project, and shall be constructed prior to the
issuance of occupancy permits. Each enclosure shall be six feet in height
and shall be screened from external view.
26.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along
streets and within the parking areas.
27.
Any oak trees removed with four lu,) inch or larger trunk diameters shall be
placed on a ten ~ 10) to one 11 ) basis as approved by the Planning Director.
28.
All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans
submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval
and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No.
655 and the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan.
29.
"This project is located within a Subsidence Report Zone. Prior to issuance
of any building permit by the City of Temecula 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 be 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."
30.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare and
submit a written report to the Planning Director demonstrating compliance
with those conditions of approval and mitigation measures of this permit and
its Initial Study which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a grading
permit.
31.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare and
submit a written report to the Planning Director of the City of Temecula
demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval and mitigation
measures of this permit and its Initial Study which must be satisfied prior to
the issuance of a grading permit.
32.
Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the applicant shall prepare and
submit a written report to the Planning Director of the City of Temecula
demonstrating compliance with all remaining conditions of approval and
mitigation measures of the permit and its Initial Study.
33.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with
Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance which is
based on (the gross acreage of the parcels proposed for development) {the
number of single family residential units on lots which are a minimum of one-
half (1/2 ) gross acre in size). Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by
the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the
STAFFRPT\CUP2 4
{ees required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required
under the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or
resolution.
1 Class ) I I bicycle racks shall be provided in convenient locations to facilitate
bicycle access to the project area.
35.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts
to be determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the
installation of planrings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved
plan, and adequate maintenance of the planting for one year, shall be filed
with the Department of Building and Safety.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, all required landscape planting
and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to
the Director of Building and Safety. The plants shall be healthy and free of
weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly
constructed and in good working order.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
38.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or
any use allowed by this permit.
39. Engine repair or body work services shall be prohibited.
En.qineerinq 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.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
A detailed Drainage Study will be required to be submitted to the City
Engineer for review and approval. The Study shall be prepared by a
Registered Civil Engineer and shall include existing, interim, and proposed
conditions, including hydrology and hydraulic calculations.
Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk
drains shall be installed to City Standards.
A permit shall be required from CalTrans for any work within their right-of-
way.
q3. The developer shall submit four (~) copies of a soils report to the
STAFFRPT\CUP2 5
Englneerln9 Department. The report shall address the soils stability and
geological conditions of the site.
The developer shall submit four 14) 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 24"x36" mylar by a
Registered Civil Engineer.
The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance
of building permits.
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.
47.
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.
No grading shall take place prior to the improvement plans being
substantially 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.
50.
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the City Engineer based
on the recommendations of the Riverside County Flood Control District.
51.
The developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage
flowing onto or through the site.
52.
The applicant shall obtain clearance and/or permits from the following
agencies:
- Eastern Municipal Water District
- City Engineer
- Environmental Health
- Fire Department
- Planning Department
- Riverside County Flood Control
- Rancho California Water District
- Riverside Transit Agency
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT:
53.
All work done within the City right-of-way shall have an encroachment
permit.
STAFFRPT\CUP2 6
5~.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
PRIOR
60.
61,
62.
63.
611.
All driveways shall conform to the applicable County of Riverside 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 design and construction of improvements for Ynez Road shall be bonded
for in the event that the Mello Roos does not construct the required public
improvements in accordance with County Standard No. I OOA (110'/13LP ).
Dedication shall be made of the following right-of-way on the following
streets:
DEDICATE YNEZ ROAD TO 67~ FEET FROM STREET CENTERLINE
Non-vehicular access rights shall be dedicated to the City for Ynez Road
except for one driveway located at the north property line.
The developer shall obtain an easement for ingress and egress over the
adjacent property.
TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY:
Construct full street improvements on Ynez Road including but not limited
to curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway
trees and street lights.
Ynez Road shall be improved with concrate curb and gutter located 55 feet
from centerline and asphalt concrete paving, within a 67 foot half-width
dedicated right-of-way in accordance with Riverside County Standard No.
100A, (110/13~,).
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 exacute 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.
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along all public street frontages in
accordance with Riverside County Standard Nos. ~O0 and 1~01.
The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be
coordinated with adjoining developments.
STAFFRPT\CUP2 7
Prior to building permit, the subdivider 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.
66.
67.
68.
All signing and striping shall be installed per the City standards and the
approved signing and striping plan.
Prior to occupancy, a sign shall be installed prohibiting left turns from the
project site.
The traffic signal at Ynez Road and Solana Way shall be installed and
operational per the City Standards, special provisions and the approved
traffic signal plan prior to occupancy.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION:
69.
70.
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 66/1~, or wider and shall be included in the street improvement
plans.
Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportetion
Engineering for the design criteria.
Buildinq F, Safety Department
71.
The applicant shall fill out an application for final inspection. Allow two (2)
weeks processing time to obtain all required clearances prior to fina)
inspection.
STAFFRPT\CUP2 8
TB:
BE:
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
R I VERS I DE COUNTY PLANN I NG DEPT. BATE:
ATTN: John Rlstow
~M/~I TAL HEALTH SPECIALIST IV
PLOT PLAN 11694
01-19-90
The Environmental Health Services has reviewed Plot
Plan 11694 and has no obnectlons. Sanitary sewer and water
services are available in this area. Prior first L.D.C
meetlno, the followlnq items will be submitted:
"Will-serve" letters from the water and sewerin~
a~encles.
If there are to be any hazardous materials. a
clearance le~r from the Environmental Health
Services Hazardous Materials Manaaement Branch
[Jon Mohoroskl. 358-5055). will be required
lndlcatlnQ that the Dronect has been cleared for:
a. UnderQround storaae tanks.
b. Hazardous Waste Generator Services.
Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in
accordance with AB 2185).
d. Waste reduction management.
SM:tac
cc: Jon Mohoroskl. Hazardous Materials Branch
JAN 2 3 1990
RIVER61DE COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Board of DIrectors:
John F. Henniga~
Phillip L Forbes
Thomas R. MeAljester
April 25, 1990
Riverside County Division
of Environmental Health
Land Use Section
Post Office Box 1370
Riverside, California 92502
SUBJECT: Water Availability
Reference: Parcel Map 23960, Lot 2
(Ynez Auto Center)
Gentlemen:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District. Water service, therefore,
would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between
RCWD and the property owner.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing
an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to
RCWD~
If you have any questions, please contact Senga Doherty at (714) 676-
4101.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P. E.
Engineering Manager
F012A/dpw76f
cc: Senga Doherty
TO:
FROM:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
File
DATE:
We have reviewed this case and
addressed on an amended map.
ask that the following items be
Topography should be shown or corrected.
Show proposed grading and drainage.
Show how the project would be protected from storm
Move structures/pads out of low area.
Proposed diversions should be corrected-
Show existing and proposed channels, culverts,
and other such facilities.
Show existing watercourses.
b- FQ~p+ -4-,~,._ of ~,o,~-,~ b7 -f';~(.
flows-
drain pipes
c: Applicant G/L-.- G,.,.;,--LIo//
~o. Plan.ing ,~ept. 'J0/,,, R,'.f0..-'
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
46-209 OASIS STREET, SUITE 405
INDIO, CA 92201
(619) 34Z-8886
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
IN COOPERATION WITH THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
AND FIRE PROTECTION
GLEN J. NEWMAN
FIRE CHIEF
3-30-90
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
3760 12TH STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
(714) 787-6606
TO:
ATTN:
RE:
PL~NING DEPARTMENT
JOHN RISTOW
PLOT PLAN 11694 - AMENDED #1
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 546.
Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2500 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.
A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants, on a looped
system (6"x4"x2tx2½), 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: "I 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 GPM or greater. The post indicator valve and fire
department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of
a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement
that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be
included on the title page of the building plans.
Subject: Plot Plan 11694 Page 2
Install a supervised waterflow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans must be
submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation, as
required by the Uniform Building Code.
In lieu of fire sprinkler requirements, building(s) must be area separated
into square foot compartments, approved by the Fire Department, as per
Section 505 (e) of the Uniform Building Code.
9. A statement that the building will be automatically fire sprinklered
must appear on the title page of the building plans.
10. Install panic hardware and exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform
Building Code.
11. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes.
12. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC.
Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment.
13.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be
responsible to submit a check or money order in the amount of $413.00
to the Riverside County Fire Department for plan check fees.
14.
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¢ per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts.
This amount must be submitted separately from the plan check review fee.
15. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the
Building and Safety Office.
All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to the
Planning and Engineering staff.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
~aura ~ral~ Fire ~afet~ Specialist
~ROR RiU CNTY PLRNNIN6 DEPT, 86,28.19~e 8~:07 NO, 2 P. 2
qiVi::t)iDE COU~Cu,
PLAIIllilIG DEPA L'IIIEI
March 7, 1090
(Revised June 15, lgg0)
Gag Soils, Inc.
24990 Jefferson Avenue
P,O, Box 490
Murrteta, CA 92362
ATrENTION: John P. Franklin
Albert R. Kletat
SUBJECT:
Alqulst-Prfolo Special ;tudles Zone/LIquefaction Hazard
W,0, 278-A-RC
Plot Plan No. 11694
A.P.N.: 9~1-0B0-040
County Geologic Report Nos. Ggl and 692
Temecula Area
Gentlemen;
We have reviewed the seismic/geologic aspects of your report entitled
"Prellmlnar~ Soils and Geologic Update Report, Parcel 4 of Parcel Map No.
23960, off Of Ynez Road, Temecula, Ca," dated Ouly ~9, lgag, and your addendum
dated February 27, 1990. ~
Your report determined that:
1. No evldence for faulting was found in the area of the previously
established fault setback zone on this site. The potential for ground
rupture at the site is considered low,
The Wlldomar fault has been m4pped ~ust westerly of the subject
property. Peak horizontal ground acceleration from a maximum credible
earthquake of 7.5 magnitude on this fault could exceed 0.78g. Peak
horizontal ground acceleration from a maximum probable earthquake on
thls fault COUld exceed 0.749.
Secondary earthquake effects of lurching and/or localized ground
cracking Could oCCur at this site.
The potential for tsunami or eelthe is not considered pertinent to site
development.
4~)80 LEMON S'rREET, ~H FLOOR
RFVI~RSIDE, CALIF'ORNIA 92501
.... .,.(714) _~7..:~18! . ~__
79733 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, ~U|TE
BERMUDA OUN~S.
(619) 342-8277
~RO~ ~.]~' CHTY PLAH~IHG DEP], 8~,28,J998 89:88 NO, 2 P, 5
County Geologic Report Nos. 691 and 692
Revlsed June 15, 1990
Page Z
The potentlal for surface f]oodfng at the site, although considered
low, cannot be en~Irely precluded,
Indications of major mass movement or major landsliding have not been
observed or reported on the site.
Some Of the sandy soil lenses present in the vicinity of 20 feet at
Boring B-3 have a potential for liquefaction. Subsldence Cue to
liquefaction would be localized to nil and no manifestation o?
liquefaction is likely to occur at or near the ground SurfaCe.
Your report recommended that:
Structural setbacks for faults are not warranted on thls site.
2. The potential for surface flooding should be further evaluated by the
design engineer.
3. Geologic inspections should be performed during site grading to verity
geologic conditions relative to faulting encountered both within or
outside of the Alqutst-Priolo Special Studies Zone,
4. In order to mitigate liquefaction potential 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 at 3 to 4 feet, however
localized deeper removals may be necessary.
5. The exploratory trench backfill should be cleaned out, inspected by the
· h
soils eng~nee~o processed and replaced with fill w ich has been
moisture conditioned tO at least optimum moisture content and compacted
to a t least 90 percent of laboratary standaPd.
It is our opinion that the report was prepared in a competent manner consistent
with the present 'state-of-the-art" and satisfies the requirements of the
Alquist~Priolo Special Studies Zones ~ct, the associated Riverside County
Ordinance No. 547. Final approval of this report is hereby given,
FROM RILl CNTV PLANNING DERT, B~.2B.lg9~ 89:88 NO, 2 P. 4
County Geologic Report Nog. 691 and 692
ReYised aune 16, 1990
Page 3
It should be noted ~hat the recommendations made tn your report flow tupersede
the recon~nendationS made in County Geolog(c Report No. 27B for the;
parcel. Th~$ reY~sfon applies to both the fau~t ~etbaok zone and
m~;IgaUon measures.
The reco~enCet!ons made 4n ~our report shall be adhered %o tn the design and
ConstruCtion of this project.
very %ruly yours,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNIN DEPARTMENT
A, Ri 'hards, Plan lng Dlrecto
SAK:Jg
cc: Markham and Associates - Ida Sanchez
CDNG - Earl Hart
Building & Safety - Norm Lostbom {2}
Planning Team 5 - John Rtstow
STATE OF CALIFO~NIA~SINES~, TRAN~PCNITATIC)N AND HOUSING AGENCY
SAN BERNARDiN0, CALIFC~NIA 92402
TDD 14 3~3d609
January 4, 1990 J N08799 velopment Review
OS-Riv-I 5-5.96/6.0
Your Reference:
GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
Planning Department
Attention Mr. John Ristow
County of Riverside
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
Dear Mr. Ristow:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed Plot Plan
No. 11694 located between Route 1-15 and Ynez Road, north of
Solana Way in the Temecula area.
Please refer to the attached material on which our comments have
been indicated by the items checked and/or used by those items
noted under additional comments.
If any work is necessary within the State highway right of way,
the developer must obtain an encroachment permit from the
Caltrans District 8 Permit Office prior to beginning work.
If additional information is desired, please call Mr. Thomas
Neville at (714) 585-4584.
Very truly yours,
H. N. LEWANDOWSK I
District Permits Engineer
Att
CALTRANS
DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW FORM
(Your Reference)
Plan checker
(Co Rte
WE WOULD LIKE TO NOTE:
C~ticxu~liticn within present or proposed State right of way should be investigated for
potential b~,-rdous ~aste (asbe~, petroc~e~]~, etc.) and nftigated as per requlrenP_nts of
re~ulatory agerc~e~.
X
~hen p~ are su~nitted, please conform to the requj&e~enta of the attaahed '~{andout". 7~ wjj_l
expedite the review process and t~me required for Plan Check.
Although the traffic end draaa~age generated by th~ proposal do not appear to have a significant effect
on the state highway system, considaration must be given to the cu~a/ative effect of continued develcr~nt
in this ares. Any n~sures sec~ry tO mtigate the c~snulative ~mpect of traffic and dra!nage shall be
provided prior to or with development of the aree that necessitates them.
It appears that tj~ traffic end drainage generated by this proposal could have a significant effect on
the state hig~y system of the aree. Any measures ternary to n~tigate the traffic end drainage
impacts shal 1 be included vri~h dm develo~ssnt.
~ portion of state hig, h~ay is irr_luded in the C~l iforrua Mester Plan of State Hig~ys Ehgible
for Officia/Scenic Highway Designation, end in the future your agency my wish to have d~is route
offF~lly designated as a state sce%~c highway.
Ibis portion of state highway has been offjdally designated as a state ~-~nic bigbay, and develo[,~,t
in this corridor should be cc~tible with the scenic highway concept.
It is reco~d tJmt there is considerable public concern about noise levels adjacent to heavily
traveled highways. land development, in order to ~e cc~tible with this csncern, may requxre spe~i;d
noise attenuaticm m~Ees. Developmemt of propexty should include eny nec~ noise attenuation.
I~E REQUEST THAT THE IT~,iS CHECKED BELOW BE INCLUDED IN THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
THIS PROJECT:
Normal right of way dedication to provide __half-width on the state highway.
Normal street improvements to provide
half-width on tl~e state highway.
Curb and gutter, State Standard
along the state highway.
Parking shall be prohibited along the state highway by painting the curb red
and/or by the proper placement of "no parking" signs.
radius curb returns be provided at intersections with the state highway.
A standard wheelchair ramp must be provided in the returns.
mmmm
A positive vehicular barrier along the property frontage shall be provided to
limit physical access to the state highway.
Vehicular access shall not be developed directly to the state highway.
Vehicular access to the state highway shall be provided by existing public road
connections.
Vehicular access to the state highway shall be provided by__
driveways.
standard
Vehic,,1.nr ~.*~ s~ql 1 not be providad wit~d.n of the ~jlter~ecti0fi at
Veh~,l~r ~ tO the state h~h~ay ~l l be provided by a rood-type connection.
Veh~,l~r ~-~wmm. c~ril~ct_t~-.s sha12 be ~ved at least witJtin r~ state ,hi-J~vay right of
h't~'~ points to tJ~ state h_t~l~ay ~l l be developed ~n a runner that vLL1 provide sijtt d~stance
for __ mph alonS the state
[a~na~r~pir~ alc~ the state hi~T, ay shall be low a~ for~ivir~ in nature.
A left-turn 1~, i~_l,~n8 any necessary wideninS, she]] be provided on r_he state hiEh~ey
at
Cunsider'ation sh~ll be ~ive~ to r3~ provision, or future proviaicm, Of and
A traffic stud~ indicazzng on- and off-site flow petterns and volures, probeble irapeers, and proposed
nrtti~ation Ineesures ~l l be prepered.
Adaqnate off-street par~lg, which does not require I~n8 c)lto the ~tate high~L sh~]l be provided.
Parking lon shall be developed in a nBnner that ~ r~t cause anV vehic,l~r m0verelt
mcludin~ par~mg stall entrance and exit, wiU~in of the anu-ara from me state hiah~.
Handicap perkin8 ~all not be developed in the busy drivme~ entrance aran.
Care sh,~l l be takan ~m developing th~s property to pr~ z~d perpetuate the ex~stin~ draa~age
[Bttern of time .~'tate .~Li~ay. Particu/ar consideration shDuld he givan to c~m~lAt_ive lncressed storm
runoff to u~sure that a iLi~J~ drainage problem is not creeted.
An~ n~ry noise attenuation shal 1 be providad as pert of u:e develop.lint of this property.
Please refer to attacaeo adoiEional cocP..P_nts.
REQUEST:
A copy of aely c~xxiitions of approval or revised appro~.
A copy of rely dccuim~xns provichins ~di ticxlal state hiSMy ri~ht of ~ey upcm] recordation of the nap.
WE REQUEST Tile OPPORTUNITY TO REVIE;~ DURING THE APPROVAL PROCESS:
--~ Any propo~l~ to fux~zner develop this property.
A copy of r/e traffic or envircxl~te_l study.
A dleck print of the Pm-cel or Tract ~'~p.
A check print of r_he PLmls for any l~rovei~nts wifittn the state hi~y n~ht of ~ey.
A dM~.k print of t/~ Gradi-~ a~ Dr~ge P~ for r/~is property vA~en av-able.
Date: January 4, 1990
Rlv-15-5.96/6.0
(Co-Rte-PM)
PP 11694
(Your Reference~
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
The Transmittai letter, dated 12/22/89, indicates an Assessor's
Parcel number which does not agree with the AP number shown on the
submitted site plan.
The CalTrans Right-of-Way (R/W) shall be delineated wlth the
"NO ACCESS" symbcl (see State R/W maps).
3 ?he required cross-sections [see attached "HANDOUT"! shall ex2enc
a minimum of 15 ft. beyond both sides of the R/W line.
DATE: December 22, 1989
;0:
Assessor
Butldtng and Safety - Land Use
Butlding and Safety - Grading
Surveyor - Ken Tetch
Road Department
Health - Rulph Luchs
Ftre Protection
Flood Control Dtstrtct
Ftsh& Game
U.S. Postal Service - Ruth E. Davtdson
U.S. Ftsh& Wtldllfe Services
County Superintendent of Schools
Rancho California Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
California Ed(ton - Daou9 Davies
S~uthern California Gas
General Tellphone
Calftans f8
City of Temecula
Temecula Union School District
RiVER3iDE COUn u,
FLAnnlr DEFA=Ia;IEnE
Commissioner Turner
San Bernardino Coanty Museum
Community Plans
JAN 1 C 1990
RMERSIDE COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PLOT PlAN 11694 - (Tm 5) - E.A. 34633 -
Colbourn-Currter-Roll Architecture, Peter
Noll - Rancho California Area - First
Supervtsorial District - W side of Ynez
Rd., between Winchester Rd. & Solana Way
- C-1/C-P Zone 3 Acres REQUEST:
Automotive retail and service o Hod 119 -
A.P. 921-080-853,54
Hease review the case described above, along with the attached case map. A Land
Division Conm~ittee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for January 18, 1990. If it
clears, it will then go to public hearing:~
Your comments and recommendations are requested prior to January 18, 1990 in order that we
may include them in the staff report for this particular case.
Should you have any questions regarding this item, please do not hesitate to contact
John Rtstow at 787-6356.
Planner
C01IIENTS:
The parcel is located on the fossiliferous Pauba Formation. Construction excavatlon
will impact nc~renewable paleontolcx3ic resources.
The deveXoper must retain a qualified vertebrate paleontologist to develop a site-specific
prcx~ram to mitigate impacts to paleontolo91c resources. Tt~is program should include:
Dj~l~: rnnnltnrirll2 nf ~n hy a qualified Daleontoloqic monitor; (2) preparation of
recovered specimens, includjn9 sediment processing for small vertebrate fossils; (3)
P~ii,ri8t m eiam sttMe an estabZished repository; and (4) a report of findings with
r%omplete specimen inventory.
1/7/90
Dr. Allan Do Griesemer, Museums Director
4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 787-6181
46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201
(619) 342-8277
..Narc~ 7f 1)90
:IiVE:I)iDE
PLAfi i DEPA::IaRE~C
Gee Soils, Inc.
· 2489D ~effereon Avenue
P.O. Box 490
Mufflers, CA 92362
Attention: John P. Franklin
Albert R. Kleist
SUBJECT=
Alqutst-Priolo Special Studies
Zone/Liquefaction Hazard
W.O. 278-A-RC
Plot Plan 11694
A.P.N.= 949-210-004
Count Geologic Re~ort No.'e 691
and
Temecula Area
Gentlemen:
we have reviewed the seismic/geologic aspects of your report
1 Ynez ~ed, T~ecula, CA," dated
July 28, 1989, and Mour addendum dated Februar~ 2~, 1990.
Your report determined that=
No evidence for faulting was found in the area of the
prevlouly established fault setback zone on this site. Tee
potential for ground rupture st the site is considered low.
The Wildomar fault has been mapped Just westerly of the
subject property· Pea~ horizontal ground accelerat$o, from
a maximum credible earthquake of 7.~ magnitude on this fault
cuuld exceed 0.78 g. Peak horizontal ground acceleration from
a maximum probable earthquake on this fault could exceed 0.~4
8econdar~ earthquake effects of lurching end/or localized
ground cracking could occur st this site.
4. The potential for tsunsmi or seiche is not considered
pertinent to site development.
5. The potential for surface flOodl~ at the site, tithough
considered low, cannot be entirely precluded.
g. Indications ol major mass movefleet or major lendsliding have
not been observed or Reported Oa the site.
4080 LEMON STREET, gl'H FLOOR
RNERSIDE, CALIFORNIA g2501
d"'~l l WjRIR1
Z 'd ll'0N ££:)l
~ COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, SUITE E
BERMUDA DUNES, CAUFORNIA 92201
16191 342-8277
'~d]O 9NINNU'Tcl AIN0 fill liO~J
Gee Soils. lnc.
Narch 7, 1990
Wage -2-
Some of the sandy sell lenses present in the vicinity of 20
feet at Boring B~3 have a potential for liq~sfaction.
Subsidence due to liquefaction would be localized to nil and
no manifestation of liquefaction is likely to occur at or near
the ground surface.
Your report racemended thst~
Structural setbacks for faults are not warranted on this site.
Ths potential for surface flooding should be further evaluated
by the design engineer.
Geologic inspections should be performed during site grading
to verify geologic conditions re2stive to fsulting encountere~
both within or outside of the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies
Sons.
In order to mitigate liq~efaCtionpotential 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
ie estimated at 3 to 4 feet, however localixed deeper removals
may be necessary.
The exploratory trench backfill should be cleaned out,
inspected by the moils engineer, processed and replaced with
fill which has b4en moisture conditioned to st least optimum
moisture content end soapacted to st least 90 percent of
laboratory standard.
Xt is our oFlnion that the report was prepared in · competent
manner consistent with the present estate-of-the-art" end satisfies
the te~uiremente of the Alc~alet-Priolo Special Studies Zones Xct,
the assoc~atedl~lvezside County Ord~nano~ No, 247. Final ajaroval
~£ thio re~rt 10 be~r given.
It ShOuld be noted that the reccf~endatiens made in your report now
Supercede the te~m~endetions mode in Co~nt~ ~eologlc Report No.
275 for this specific parcel· This revision applies to both the
fault setback Io~e and IiquefactAon mitigation measures.
t 'd If'ON t£:tl 1661'l;t'98 'ld3a 9NINNUqel AIN3
the reoommends~ione mede in ~our rel~rt shall bs adhered to in the
design and construction o~ this
Very truly
8A/~tba~
9ull~ing ~ 8aZe~ - Norm ~cstb~m
~lannlng Team 5 - :~hn Rlltow
(2)
t 'd II'ON ti:tl 0661'cl'fl 'ld3g SNINNUqd ALN3 fil~ NO~]
ATTACHMENT C
GABELE & OMAN, CPA'S
1990
6cott Wright
Planning Department
City of Temecula
RE: Parking Requirements for Plot Plan ]11694
Dear Scott:
The purpose of thl6 letter js to give you the background and
logic behind the parking layout for our proposed Plot Plan
(11694.
Prior to our first LDC meeting with Riverside County in
January ]990, 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 cf the existing parking
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
An 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
perking was calculated on f~ve 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 EX[-CUIM SUITE '10a0. LA C/ F-Q' IA 92037 (6 9) 5 7-198,5
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 fietermination from that time
on.
Should you have any further questions regarding this matter,
please feel free to call me at (619) 587-1985.
yo e,
JLG:Je
ficcision
.tune 1,8. 1990
San Diego Regional Offi~;~
Larry Gshele
YNEZ PARTNERS
4275 Executive Square el040
La Julia, CA 92037
This is to clotill' Precbfon Tuno's position on parking requirements for the center that will
be !noRted on Ynez rand in Temecula.
Since the bulk of our businer4 is based on quick convenient services, i.e. oH changes and
tune ups, a majority of our customers wait in our WRiting room provided for their
convenience at our facility for services to be completed.
Approximtely 30~, of our customers come to out centers for, oil change service, this js
a drive through service and nu parking k required.
Approximately 50% of our customers arc tune up customers that will walt at our faclli~
for the completion of the repair work. Parking i~ only required for a shoe period of time
to write up a service order. Upon completion of the ~ervicc the customers pick-up their
¥ehicl~ and depart from the premises as soon as the paper work Is completed concluding
tt, e transaction.
Only about ~% of our customers will leave their vehicles with us for a period longer
than required to ~ervice it.
Since the majority nf our customers waft at our fac~ltles and their vehicles are always
scrvit~cd v,~thin the ~cnter itserr, the bay space~ should be considered M parking stalls and,
outside parking requirements are at e very minimum.
If you have an)' further questions or concerns please feel free to contact me.
Richard A. Jnrvis
Director of Operations
8£ 10 UNIVERSITY CTR. LANE · SUITE 300 · SAN DIEGO. CA 92 t22, (619) 597-2435, FAX 455-0169
;"'~ ?"? _O~lO )-igS GIg J~:al
FROM:K~NICA FAX TO: ?146991848 ~UL 5, 19~ ~:17AM p.~:l
A WhJlman C~o~l~ny
July 5. lg90
ivlkb, I~ Ceflx~,tkm
I~. Larry Gabale
YNEZ PARTNERS
4275 Executive Square, #1040
La Jolla, California 92037
Dear Mr. Gabele~
This letter is to discuss Midas' typlcaq parking requlrL~entS for
a Iocatlon wlthtn an auto Service center.
The majority of MidaS' service involves exhaust work and brake
work. The average number of customers in this typical size Ntdas
store is 20 per day. The average exhaust Job lasts about 20
d
minutes, an the average brake Job lasts Z7 minutes. TherefOre.
a large number of our customers wait in our lobby area for their
cars to be completed.
We have no need for overnight parking and, as you can seem very
little need for long-term parking. We feel that your Ynez Road
auto service canter 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 typicaily have a heavy iong-term
parking requtrmnt. 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 flel free to call ne at
714/870-0411.
Charles P. Levens
Regional Real Estate Miniget
Western Area
' Z
YENEZ AUTO
CENTER
YNEZ AUTO I
CENTER
EXHIBIT 4
SITE
TEMECULA
_ RANCHO CALIFORNIA
VICINITY MAP .o scALE
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNINC COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVINC CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2 TO
PERMIT OPERATION OF AN AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE/RETAIL
CENTER LOCATED ON THE WESTERLY SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD, 200
FEET NORTH OF SOLANA WAY.
WHEREAS, Larry Gabelle filed CUP No. 2 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 17.
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 PLANNINC COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE. DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findinqs. 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:
11 ) 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\CUP2 1
{b)
There is little or no probability of substantia) 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 CUP 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.
12) 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 CUP No. 2 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 ultlmately 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 18.26(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.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the CUP proposed is
compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that the proposed project
will not have a significant impact on the environment, and a Negative Declaration,
therafore, is hereby granted.
STAFFRPT\CUP2 2
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the city of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves CUP No. 2
for the operation and construction of an automotive service/retail center located on
the west side of Ynez Road, 200 feet north of Solana Way subject to the following
conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of
· 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\CUP2 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. 2.
DATED: By
Name
Title
STAFFRPT\CUP2 ~
ITEM #3
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 17, 1990
Case No.: Plot Plan Nos. 5 and 6
Prepared By: Oliver Mujlca
Recommendation: 1. Approve Negative Declaration
2. Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCAT ION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Rancho California Partners
J. R. Miller and Associates, Inc.
Construct two industrial buildings side by side for
a total of 23,700 square feet on two existing parcels
which together comprise 1.19 acres.
Northeast corner of Avenida Alvarado and Aqua
Vista Way.
MSC - Manufacturing Service Commercial
North:
South:
East:
West:
MSC - Manufacturing Service Commercial
MSC - Manufacturing Service Commercial
MSC - Manufacturing Service Commercial
MSC - Manufacturing Service Commercial
Manufacturing on aft sides.
No. of Buildings:
No. of Acres:
No. of Parcels:
Total Square Feet:
No. of Parking Spaces:
Building Height:
2
1.19
2
23,700 sq.ft.
47 spaces
33 feet
STAFFRPT\586. A 1
PROJECT DESCR I PT I ON:
BACKGROUND:
ANALYSIS:
The project is comprised of two separate buildings
on two separate parcels. Together the buildings
comprise 23,700 square feet of floor area on 1.19
acres. Each building could be constructed
independent of the other, although they will likely
be constructed simultaneously.
On August 20, 1990, the Planning Commission
considered the appllcant's proposal; and, continued
this item due to those concerns identified below in
the Staff Analysis.
Subsequent to the Commission meeting, Staff met
with the applicant to discuss possible design
modifications in order to address the Commission's
Concerrls.
On September 7, 1990, the applicant submitted a
modified proposal for the Commission~s
consideration.
In response to the comments expressed by the
Commission, the applicant modified the improvement
plans, as described below:
Reconficlure the location of the trash
enclosure and the truck Ioadinq doors so that
they do not face the street.
The applicant relocated the trash enclosure
doors to the north elevation ~ facing the alley )
and provided a landscaped planter in order to
screen the enclosure. The applicant also
modified both the northwest and northeast
corners of the building, by eliminating the
recess, in order to relocate the loading doors
to the north elevation, thus, eliminating the
direct visibility of the doors, especially from
Aqua Vista Way.
2. Provide sufficient landscapinq.
According to the Zoning Cede ( Section 11. ~ ),
a minimum of 10 percent of the site shall be
landscaped and a minimum 10 foot strip
adjacent to street right-d-way shall be
provided. Said landscaping shall not include
landscaping located within the street right-
d-way.
STAFFRPT\S&6. A 2
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
The applicant has modified the site plan in
order to fulfill the minimum landscaping
requirement by providing 10.~percent {5,215
square feet) landscaping.
However, the applicant is requesting relief
from the ten {101) foot minimum landscaped
strip, adjacent to the street right-of-way.
The applicant has indicated the following:
the purpose of this request is due to the
minimum radii, for vehicular access, required
by the Fire Department; a total site plan
redesign would be required in order to
comply with both requirements; and, there
are existing developments within the
surrounding area that do not provide a 10
foot landscaped strip.
Staff would suggest that the Planning
Commission should closely consider this
request since it may set a precedence with
regards to minimum street landscaping. In
addition, it should be noted that an existing
Condition, that does not provide a 10 foot
landscaped strip, approved by the County
does not preclude the Commission from
requiring such landscaping.
Provide proper screeninq of roof equipment.
The applicant continued the parapet around
the building in order to screen the roof
mounted equipment.
The proposed project is consistent with the SWAP
Land Use Designation of General Light Industrial,
which includes distribution warehouses and similar
industrial uses. In addition, Staff finds it probable
that this project will be consistent with the new
General Plan when it is adopted.
As indicated in the previous Staff Report, an Initial
Study was performed for this project which
determined that no significant impact would result
to the natural or built environment in the City, and
a Negative Declaration has been recommended for
adoption.
STAFFRPT\SI;6. A 3
FINDINGS:
10.
There is a reasonable probability that Plot
Plan Nos. 5 and 6 will be consistent with the
City's future General Plan, which will be
completed in a reasonable time and in
accordance with State law.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future General Plan, if the proposed use
is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
The proposed use or action complies with
State planning and zoning laws.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation
patterns, access, and intensity of use.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare.
The project is compatible with surrounding
land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk,
height, intensity, and coverage creates a
compatible physical relationship with
adjoining properties.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area.
The project has acceptable access to a
dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the expanded
initial study performed for this project.
The design of the project and the type of
improvements are such that they are nat in
conflict with easements for ac~e_~s through or
use of the property within the proposed
project.
STAFFRPT\SF,6. A ~
11,
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 Nos. 5 and 6, and
APPROVE Plot Plan Nos. 5 and 6;
based on the analysis and findings
contained in the Staff Report and
subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
OM:ks
Attachments:
1. Resolution
2. Conditions of Approval
3. Planning Commission Staff
Report (Date August 20, 1990)
~,. Large Scale Plans
STAFFRPT\586. A 5
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NOS. 5 AND
6 TO CONSTRUCT TWO INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS
LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF AVENIDA
ALVARADO AND AQUA VISTA WAY.
WHEREAS, Rancho California Partners filed Plot Plan Nos. 5 and 6 in
accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision
Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Plot Plan applications were processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
pertaining to said Plot Plans on September 17, 1990, at which time interested persons
had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plans; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report
regarding the Plot Plans;
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 mat:
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\5&6. A 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 Plot Plans are consistent with the SWAP and
meet 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:
There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan
Nos. 5 and 6 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.
~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:
The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan
STAFFRPT\51;6. A 2
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;
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 Plans
proposed conform to the logical development of its proposed site, and
are 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 Nos. 5 and 6 to construct two industrial buildings located on the northeast
corner of Avenlda Alvaredo and Aqua Vista Way subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
SECTION u,. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this
R esol ution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th 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 Tomecula at a regular meeting thereof, held
on the 17th day of September, 1990 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFFRPT\51~6. A 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 Nos. 5 and 6.
DATED: By
Name
Title
STAFFRPT\5F,6. A u,
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan Nos. 5 and 6
Planning Commission Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
Planninq 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 Nos. 5 and 6, or as amended by these conditions.
In the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period of one ( 1 )
year or more, this approval shall become null and void.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-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 (30)
inches.
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the applicant shall
submit seven (7) copies of parking, landscaping, shading and irrigation plot
plan to the Planning Department and shall be accompanied by a filing fee as set
forth in Section 18.37 of Ordinance No.
A minimum of u,7 parking spaces shall be provided, in accordance with Section
18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 3~,8. The parking area shall be
surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of three (3)
inches on four (4) inches of Class II base.
A minimum of 2 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided. Each parking
space reserved for he handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, bsacled text or
equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not
be smaller than 70 square inchas in area and shall be centered et the interior
STAFFRPT\SS6.A 1
10.
11.
12.
13.
lq..
end of the parking space at a minimum of height of 80 inches from the bottom
of the sign to the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign
shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street
parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches in size with lettering not
less than one 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 13) 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.
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening
material shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of the specimen canopy trees
along the streets and within the parking areas.
This project is located within a Subsidence Report Zone. Prior to issuance of
any building permit by the Temecula Department of Building and Safety, a
California Licensed Structural Engineer shall certify that the intended
structure or building is safe and structurally integrated. This certification
shall be based upon, but not limited to, the site specific seismic, geelogic and
geotechnical conditions. Where hazard of subsidence or fissure development
is determined to exist, appropriate mitigation m~-~ures must be demonstrated.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall
comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate
fees set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by
the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee
required by Ordinance no. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by
the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or
resolution. Said fee shall not apply to the entire site, but rather to the new
STAFFRPT\5F,6. A 2
building and parking structure.
Fire Department
With respect to the Conditions of Approval regarding the above referenced plot plan,
the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided
in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection
standards:
15.
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings using the procedure established in
Ordinance 5q6.
16.
Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 3,000 GPM
for a 3 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, which must be
available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants, on a looped system
16"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
hydrantl s) in the system.
18.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the
Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types,
location and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements.
Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local
water company with the following certification: "1 certify that the design of
the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the
Riverside County Fire Department?~
19.
Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings requiring a fire flow
of 1,500 GPM or greater. The post indicator valve and fire department
connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a
minimum of 25 feat from the buildingl s) . A statement that the building{ s) will
be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the
building plans.
20.
Install a supervised waterflow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans must be
submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation, as
required by the Uniform Building Cede.
21.
In lleu of fire sprinkler requirements, buildingl s) must be area separated into
square foot compartments, approved by the Fire Department, as per Section
5051e) of the Uniform Building Cede.
22.
A statement that the building will be automatically fire sprinklered must
appear on the title page of the building plans.
STAFFRPT\S86. A 3
23, Install panic hardware and exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform
Building Code.
Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes.
25.
Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum r~Ling of 2A-10BC. Contact
a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment.
26.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be
responsible to submit a check or money order in the amount of $~,13.00 to the
Riverside County Fire Department for plan check fees.
27.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall deposit with the
Riverside County Fire Department, a check or money order equaling the sum
of 25 cents per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts. This
amount must be submitted separately from the plan check review fee.
28.
Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the
Building and Safety Office.
All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be raferred to the Planning
and Engineering Staff.
Health Department
The Environmental Health Services has reviewed Plot Plan No. 6 and has no
objections. Sanitary sewer and water services are available in this area. Prior to
building plan submittal, the following items will be requested:
29. "Will-serve" letters from the water and sewerlng agencies.
30.
If there are to be any hazardous materials, a clearance letter from the
Environmental Health Services Hazardous Materials Management Branch (Jon
Mohoroski, 358-5055), will be required indicating that the project has been
cleared for:
a. Underground storage tanks.
b. Hazardous Waste Generator Services.
c. Hazardous Waste Disclosure {in accordance with AB 2185).
d. Waste reduction management.
Enqineerinq Department
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMIT:
31.
The developer shall provide clearance from all applicable agencies and pay all
fees prior to the approval of plans.
STAFFRPT\586.A ~
32.
Concentrated drainage flows shall notcross sidewalks. under sidewalk drains
shall be installed to City Standards.
33.
The developer shall submit four 10,) copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
The developer shall submit four |u,) prints of a comprehensive grading plan
to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform
Building Code, Chapter 70. The plan shall be drawn on 20,"x36" mylar by a
Registered Civil Engineer.
35.
A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and
submitted at the time of application for grading plan check.
36.
The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of
building permits.
37.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to
commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of-
way.
38.
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the City Engineer based
on the recommendations of the Riverside County Flood Control District.
39.
The project is located within a Flood Hazard Zone, therefore, flood protection
measures shall be provided as certified by a Registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the City Engineer.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The
charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits.
If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to
this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS
All work done within the City right-of-way shall have an encroachment permit.
All driveways shall conform to the appli~s~hle 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.
STAFFRPT\5S6. A 5
ITEM
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 17, 1990
Continued from August 20, 1990
Case No.: Parcel Map No. 23969
Prepared By: Deborah Parks
Recommendation: Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
P R OPOSA L:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
Omdahl Enterprises
Markham and Associates
To subdivide 21.56 acres into four lots
Ridge Park Drive, South of Rancho California Road
North: I-P
South: M-SC
East: M-SC
West: I - P
Site: )-P
Site: Vacant
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant
Multi Family/Vacant
Single Family/Light Industrial
Vacant
BACKGROUND:
Parcel Map No. 23969 was continued from the August
20, 1990 Planning Commission Hearing. The
Commission directed Staff to meet with the applicant
and William Haley, a neighboring property owner to
develop a solution regarding Pujo) Street. The
meeting was held and the Staff Report has been
revised. A copy of the minutes of the August 20,
1990 hearing is attached.
The application for Parcel Map No. 23969 was
originally submitted to the Riverside County
Planning Department on May 10, 1989. The parcel
map was reviewed by the Riverside County Land
STFRPT\PM23969. A 1
ANALYSIS:
Division Committee twice; on June 8, 1989 and
February 15, 1990. In April, 1990, the file was
transferred to the City of Temecula.
Area Settinq
The project site is located in the Emerald Ridge
Business Park south of Rancho California Road on
Ridge Park Drive. The site is in a hillside area that
is currently being mass graded as part of the
grading permit for Parcel Map No. 1825~. Extensive
cut and fill was approved as part of the mass
grading plan resulting in very high 2: 1 slopes. The
properties to the north and west are vacant and are
also within the Emerald Ridge Business Park. South
of the project site, separated by a slope, is an
apartment building. East of the project site, at the
base of a large slope are light industrial and
residential uses.
Circulation and Infrastructure
The mass grading permit for Parcel Map 1825~, was
approved by the County of Riverside and did not
take into account the improvement of Pujo} Street
along the easterly boundary of Parcel Map 23969. A
60 foot right-d-way for Pujol Street was not shown
on the underlying Parcel Map 1825~, only the
existing L~0 feet. Within the 20 foot area necessary
to widen Pujol Street to 60 feet, the site has been
graded to a 2:1 slope improved with a concrete
drainage swell and force main. These improvements
are located within an Eastern Municipal Water
District easement and are being paid for by
Assessment District 159. Attached Exhibit A shows
the two large, above ground pipes used to meter the
sewage flow of the force main. The force main is an
integral component of the sewer system for all of the
development in Assessment District 159. The force
main helps to direct the sewage to the treatment
plant south of Winchester Road. The location of the
sewage meters is within the 20 foot area needed to
widen Pujol Street to local street standards of 60
feet. The location of the sewer system and above
ground improvements were approved by the County
of Riverside.
The City*s Engineering Department is required by
Ordinance ~,60 to condition Parcel Map No. 23969
with the dedication and improvement of all abutting
roadways. On August 27, 1990, the City Planning
and Engineering Departments held a meeting, as
STFRPT\PM23969. A 2
GENERAL PLAN/
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
dlrected by Planning Commission, to develop a
solution which would allow access to Mr. William
Haleyes property on Pujol Street and take into
consideration the sewage meters within the 60 foot
right-of-ways. The applicant and Mr. Haley were
invited to the meeting. Mr. Haley did not attend
the meeting but was informed of the meeting's
results in a letter {see attached). ]n attendance at
the meeting were Douglas Stewart, Kirk Williams.
John Middleton, Howard Omdahl and Deborah Parks.
A solution to the dedication and improvement of
Pujol Street was developed which does not require
an exception to Ordinance ~60.
Riverside County Standard 106, Section "A~ allows
for short local streets to have an ultimate right-of-
way of 50 feet with an improved area of 32 feet. By
only requiring an additional 10 foot dedication, the
sewage meters will be avoided. A cul-de-sac bulb
will not be required for this project.
John Middleton spoke with Laura Cabral of the
Riverside County Fire Department regarding the
proposed improvements of Pujol Street. She agreed
that the applicant could build Pujol Street according
to the 32'/50~ standards with curb and gutter
adjacent to Parcel Map No. 23969 only. She also
agreed that a turn-around bulb at the end of the
cul-de-sac would not be necessary at this time since
the street only provides access to one dwelling unit.
The Engineering Department recommends that an
off-set cul-de-sac be constructed in the future
when Mr. William Naley's property is developed to
R-3 standards.
Parcel Map Confiquration
Parcel 22 of Parcel Map No. 1825L~ is the underlying
parcel for Tentative Parcel Map No. 23969.
Tentative Parcel Map No. 23969 divides the site into
four parcels. The sizes of the parcels are as
follows:
Parcel 1 - 6.02 acres
Parcel 2 - 4.75 acres
Parcel 3 - 6.25 acres
Parcel ~ - ~.5~ acres
The subject site is designated RL1 ~ Restricted
Light Industrial by the Southwest Area Plan. The
proposed division of land is consistent with the
STFRPT\PM23969. A 3
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
policies for industrial use. It is anticipated that the
project, as conditioned, will be consistent with the
City~s forthcoming General Plan.
An Initial Study has been completed for the project
and a Negative Declaration is recommended for the
proposal.
The proposed division is consistent with the
Southwest Area Plan and Zoning Code in that
all four parcels exceed the minimum lot size of
20,000 square feet and the minimum average
lot width of 100 feet.
The lot design is logical and meets the
approval of the City~s Planning and
Engineering Departments.
The legal owner of record has offered to make
all dedications required.
The project will not have a significant
adverse affect on the environment. A
Negative Declaration is recommended and all
impacts will be reduced to insignificant levels
through recommended conditions of approval.
There is a reasonable probability that the
project will be consistent with the City~s
General Plan once adopted, based on analysis
contained in the Staff Report,
The division of land is consistent with the
provision of Title 18 of the Subdivision Map
Act.
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission recommend to City Council:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for
Parcel Map No. 23969
2. APPROVE Parcel Map No. 23969
based on the analysis and findings contained in the
Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions
of Approval.
DP:ks
STFRPT\PM23969. A ~
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Parce) Map No. 23969
Commission 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. 23969, which action is brought within the time period provided
for in California Government Code Section 66~99.37. The City of Temecula will
promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding
against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the
City fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or
proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not,
thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of
Temecula.
The tentative parcel map shall conform to the requirements of Ordinance L~60,
Schedule E, unless modified by the conditions listed below. This approved
tentative parcel map will expire two years after the City Council approval date
unless extended as provided by Ordinance L~60.
The final map shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer or licensed land
surveyor subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision
Map Act, Subdivision Ordinance ~60.
All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall
continue in force until the governing body accepts or abandons such offers.
All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the City
Engineer. Street names shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities,
etc., shall be shown on the final map if within the land division boundary.
offers of dedication shall provide for nonexclusive public road and utility
access. All easements, offers of dedication and conveyances shall be
submitted and recorded as directed by the City Engineer.
Legal access as required by Ordinance LI60 shall be provided from the parcel
map boundary to a City maintained road.
All delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final
map.
Prior to any grading, a Grading Plan in compliance with the Uniform Building
Code shall be submitted to the City Department of Building and Safety.
STFRPT\PM23969. A 1
10.
11.
12.
13.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
The subdivider shall comply with the street improvement recommendations
outlined in the Office of Road Commissioner and County Surveyor's letter
dated April 2, 1990, a copy of which is attached. All items of the letter shall
comply except for No?s 3 and 6.
The subdivider shall comply with the environmental health recommendations
outlined in the County Health Department~s transmittal dated May 22, 1989, a
copy of which is attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined
in the Riverside County Flood Control District~s letter dated June 7, 1989, a
copy of which is attached. If the land division lles within an adopted flood
control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of City of Temecula Land
Division Ordinance 0,60, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage
facilities shall be collected by the City prior to recordation of the final map or
waiver of parcel map.
The subdivider shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations
outlined in the County Fire Department's letter dated March 3, 1990, a copy
of which is attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building
and Safety Department: Land Use Sectlon's transmittal dated March 8, 1990,
a copy of which is attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building
and Safety Department: Grading Section~s transmittal dated July 10,, 1989, a
copy of which is attached.
All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of
Technology, Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as outlined in the
Southwest Area Plan.
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern
Municipal Water District transmittal dated May 16, 1989, a copy of which is
attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the
Southern California Edison Company transmittal dated May 20,, 1989, a copy
of which is attached.
Prior to recordation of this map, a reciprocal access agreement shall be
recorded for Parcels 2 and 3.
Prior to recordatlon of this map, a signing and striping plan along with a
street improvement plan shall be approved by the City Engineer.
20.
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 EIR/Negative
Declaration for the project, in the amount in affect at the tim of payment of
ST F R PT\ PM23969. A 2
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 project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its
right to protest such increase.
21.
Prior to occupancy, Pujol Street shall be improved with concrete curb and
gutter, (on the south side) located 16 feet from centerline with 32 feet of
asphalt concrete paving in accordance with Riverside County Standard 106,
Section "A" (32'/50).
22.
Dedication shall be made on Pujol Street to provide for a full 50 feet right-of-
way in accordance with Riverside County Standard 106, Section "A" (32'/50)
prior to final map.
Prior to occupancy, a Riverside County Standard 810 barricade shall be
constructed at the west end of Pujol Street.
The applicant shall not be required to construct a sidewalk on Pujol Street
adjacent to Parcel Map No. 23969.
GRADING:
25.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with
Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance. Should
Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation
Plan prior to the payment of the fees required under the Habitat Conservation
Plan as implemented by City Ordinance or resolution.
26.
Grading plans shall conform to the Hillside Development Standards as
presented in the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. All cut
and/or fill slopes, or individual combinations thereof, which exceed ten feet
in vertical height shall be modified by an appropriate combination of a special
terracing ( benching ) plan, increased slope ratio ( e.g. 3: 1 ), retain wal Is,
and/or slope planting combined with irrigation. All driveways shall not
exceed a 15% grade.
Prior to the issuance of grading and/or building permits, all proposed new
structures on parcels shall be limited to slopes less than 26% unless otherwise
approved by the Planning Director.
28.
All grading and building plans/permits shall reflect the utilization of post and
beam foundations or the appropriate combination of split level pads and post
and beam foundations when development is proposed on slopes of 15% or
greater measured over a horizontal distance of 30 feet. All driveways shall
not exceed a 1596 average grade.
STFRPT\PM23969. A 3
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
29.
No building permits shall be issued by the City of Temecula for any residential
lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer, or the developer~s
successors-in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility
financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars J$100) per lot/unit
shall be deposited with the City of Temecula Building and Safety as mitigation
for public library development.
30.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance
and/or permits from the following agencies:
Road Department
Environmental Health
Riverside County Flood Control
Fire Department
Written evidence of compliance shall be presented to the Planning Department
of Building and Safety.
31.
Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development
standards of the I-P zone.
32.
All lots created by this land division shall have a minimum area of 20,000
square feet.
33.
When lots are crossed by major public utility easements, each lot shall have a
net usable area of not less than 3,600 square feet, exclusive of the utility
easement.
All lot length to width ratios shall be in conformance with Section 3.8C of
Ordinance ~-60.
35.
Prior to recordslion of the final map the land divider shall execute a certificate
of noncontiguous ownership.
36.
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in this subdivision in accordance with
the Standards No. ~00 and u,01, except that sidewalk shall not be required on
the south side of Pujol Street.
PRIOR TO THE RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
37.
Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, the following condition(s) shall be
complied with:
The subdivider shall annex Tentative Parcel Map No. 23969 into the City
of Temecula's Recreation and Parks District.
The subdivlder shall submit to the Planning Director an agreement with
the City of Temecula Recreation and Parks District which demonstrates
to the satisfaction of the County that the land divider has provided for
the payment of parks and recreation fees in accordance with Section
10.35 of Ordinance No. u,60. The agreement shall be approved by the
Board of Supervisors prior to the recordation of the final map.
STFRPT\PM23969. A q
c. A copy of the Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be
transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINT SHEET CONDITIONS:
38.
An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared with the final
map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently
filed with the City. Prior to the recordation of the final map, a copy of the
ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval.
The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to
the Planning Department and the Department of Building and Safety. The
following note{ s) shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet.
"Surface alteration shall not be allowed in the delineated constraint area
without additional archaeological investigation or mitigation as directed
by the City of Temecula Planning Department.
"This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar
Observatory. Light and glare may adversely impact operations at the
Observatory. Outdoor lighting shall befrom low pressure sodium lamps
that are oriented and shielded to prevent direct illumination above the
horizontal plane passing through the luminare."
Indicate the availability of domestic water services to the subject
property as of the date of recordatlon of the final map.
The following note shall be placed on the final map: "Constraints
affecting this property are shown on the accompanying Environmental
Constraints Sheat, the original of which is on file at the office of the
Riverside County Surveyor.
No building permits shall be issued by the City of Temecula for any
building in Parcel Map No. 23969 until the developer or the developer's
successors-in-interest or assignees, provides evidence of compliance
with the terms of said agreement for the financing of public facilities.
STFRPT\PM23969. A 5
PLANNING C0I!N]SSION N]NUTES ' ~UGUST 20, 1990
Co~iss~oner Ford moved to close the public hearing
seconded by Con~issioner Fahey and carried unanimously.
Commissioner Noag)and moved to reject staff's
recommendation and not adopt the N~gative Declaration
for Plot Plan Nos. 5 and 6 and deny Plot Plan Nos. 5
and 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. Cor~nissioner Hoagland amended his motion
by continuing the public hearing on Item 4 and Item 5
to the Planninq Corm~ission meeting of September 17,
1990. Commissioner Fabey seconded the motion.
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fabey,
Ford, Roagland,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0
CO!~!ISSIONERS: None
Recess
Chairman Dennis Chiniaeff declared a five minute recess st 7:50
P.M. to allow planning staff to set up more exhibits for agenda
items. The meeting was reconvened at 7:55
6. Tentative Parcel Map 23969
6.3
Deborah Parks presented staff's report on the subdivision
of Parcel 22 of Parcel Nap 18254 into four parcels.
Ns. 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 Pu~ol Street remained at 40 feet. When Ohmdab1
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 be a great
expense and at this time staff is unclear as to who
would be responsible for the cost of these improvements.
mx.s/20/~0 -t-
PLANNING
CONMISSION 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
cu]-de-sac on the end of Sixth Street.
Doug Stewart, deputy traffic engineer, advised the
Com~ission that the easement was neither Mr. Ohmdah]'s
property nor Mr. Haley's property. He stated that
County Ordinance No.460 and the recorr~nendation 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 recommended 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 applicsnt 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 ~hin~eff asked if staff needed action by
the Commission to come back with a partial recommendation.
11111.8/2019~ -7- 8/23/90
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
AUGUST 20, 1990
John Cavanaugh advised the Con~ission that if they were
to approve this parcel map and reconmnend there be a
partial dedication or recomend that part of the
dedication be accomplished by another property owner
other than the applicant, the Con~ssion needs to be
aware that if the other property owner does not approve
of the recon~endation, and if that approval is not
sought within 120 days after the Conwnission*s
recor~aendation, this condition will automatically
terminate.
Commissioner Ford asked if this was a condition for
outside improvements, could the Commission 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
the other property owner. If the other property owner
does not approve 120 days after the Commission acts on it,
tbis 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, Humgland,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
7. Plot Plan 11621
7.1
Deborsh Parks provided staff's report and an architectural
rendering of the project, a proposal to complete Phase 2
of the project.
KIL8120/gO -8- 8/23/90
RECEIVED AUG- 9 1990
August 6, 1990
Planning Commission
City of Temecula
43180 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92390
Subject:
Case Number:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Tentative Parcel Map 23969
Omdahl Enlerprises
Kathleen Way
South of Rancho California Road
To subdivide Parcel 22 of Parcel Map 18254
into four parcels
Dear Sirs:
My property, 28426 Pujol Street, Temecula (Assessment Number and Parcel
922052010-9, .57 acres, Por. Lot 102, Block 38), is across Pujol Street from the
proposed subdivision. Late in 1989, I found the surface of the street destroyed
because, I assume, of the construction creating a plateau just west and above
this area.
I contacted the County Road Commission to inquire about Pujol's future
repairs. I was informed that as a condition for the development of Tentative
Parcel Map #23969, the County was proposing to the Planning Commission
and the Board of Supervisors that this part of 'Pujol should be improved
with 40 feet of asphalt paving with concrete curb and gutter within 60 feet
right of way terminating in an offset cul de sac.".1 Later, April 2, 1990, a
revis,Zon ,.*.,as made m the proposal and the only chan.~e of which I am aware
is on page 2, number 5 stating 'A slandard offset cul de sac shall be
constructed on Pujol Street .within the land division" changing from
"cuhninating on an offset culdesac.'#2
The developer was aware of the County condition before he began his project
and he has continued to be aware of the situation since Temecula has become
a city. I have no concern one way or the oilier regarding the cul de sac, but I
feel that this section of Pujol Street needs to be improved, repaved again, and
the developer needs to provide the 20 feet dedicated right of way to conform
with the rest of Pujol Street.
Planning Commission
Page 2
August 6, 1990
Though I understand that the City of Temecula now has the authority and
responsibility for these matters, I assume both the City and the County respect
each other's professionalism and would agree on previous comn,~itments that
are obviously nonpartial and in widespread use.
Sincerely,
lkr
#1 In the City of Temccula, File #PM23969, #1 Letter of 2/6/90 from County Road
Administrative Engineer to William Haley
#2 Re: PM 23969 - Amending #1 Schedule E - Team 5, SMD #9
AP 111-111-111-9
CC:
W. Abram, Supervisor
D. Dixon, City Manager
R. Stephenson, Road Administrative Engineer
J. Surlett, Weldan Associates
I. Tennant, Road/Transportation Commission
OMDAHL ENTERPRISES
28285 Rancho Calif.
Temecula, CA 92390
Rd ·
CITY OF TEMECULA
Planning Commission
RE: P.M. 23969 Pujol Street
Commissoners;
~e, Omdahl Enterprises, feel the condition requiring us to
grant a 20 ft. easement along the Pujol St. dead-end and
construct one half of the street with a offset cul-del-sac
is not reasonable or feasible. It qualifys under par. B
sec. 3.1 ARTICLE 111 (Standards of Land Division-General :
"Exceptions from the requirements of this ordinance
relating to the design or improvements of land divisions
shall be granted only when it is determined that there are
special circumstances ap[.licable to the property, such as
but not limited to size , shape or topographical conditions,
or existing road alignment and width, and that the granting
of the modification will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare or be damaging to other property
in the vicinity."
Reasons for requesting the exception:
A. Physically difficult and costly due to;
1)
the existing 2:1 slope in
requires a retaining wall
the street and cul-de-sac.
the proposed easement
to accomodate widening
2) the existing drainage structure in the proposed
easement would have to be redesigned and rebuilt.
3) the forced sewer main in the proposed easement
.would have to be realigned and lowered.
4)
the blow-off valves on the forced sewer main in
the proposed easement would have to be relocated
and because of the lowering an extra blow-off
valve would have to located on the line.
The industrial zoned property, requesting the lot-
split, has been graded per an approved grading plan
and does not and will never access Pojul St.
This section of Pujol St. serves as access to one res-
idential lot which has an existing 40 ft. access road
which we are not hindering or altering in any way.
Construction of the street and cul-de-sac would result
in a 15 ft high retaining wall which would be dangerous
to children, a graffiti wall and an eye sore for the
adjacent residential property owners.
The existing 2:1 slope is within a landscape maintenaBce
area including irrigated trees, shurbs and flowers. This
beautiful backdrop will be maintained by the Crystal
Ridge Business Park.
In conclusion, we feel that this would be an impossible
condition to meet and would prevent us from moving forward
with the development of our park as planned. The estimated
exspense to move the existing facilities and build the proposed
road is in excess of $250,000.00 dollars. The time involved
to get such plans approved thru the various agencies may
exceed two years. The net benefit to the public is zero; the
net benefit to the one residential lot is to provide it with
a 60 ft. access road in leu of its present 40 ft. access.
Again we would like to point out that this situation calls
for an application of par. B sec. 3.1 article 111. We would
also like to point out sec. 66411.1 of the Subdivision
Map Act;
"(a) Whenever a local ordinance requires improvements
for a division of land which is not a subdivision of five or
more lots, the regulations shall be limited to the dedication
of right-of-way, easements, and the construction of reasonable
offsite and onsite improvements for the parcels being created"
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincere y,
Howard Omdah~l, General Partner
Omdahl Enterprises
MEMO 'I'0 FILE
Parcel Map No. 23969
August 2~,, 1990
Spoke with Laura Cabral with Riverside County Fire Department about
Pujol Street.
She agreed that the developer could build a 32/50 street with
curb/gutter only on Omdahl's property without a turn around at the
end of the street.
An offset cul-de-sac will be constructed sometime in the future by the
R-3 properties when they develop.
John Middleton L~
JM:ks
cc: Kirk Williams
Doug Stewart
Deborah Parks
Mayor
Ron Parks
Mayor Pro Tem
Karel F. Lindemans
September 5, 1990
CITY OF TEMECULA
P.O. Box 3000
Temecula, California 92390
(714) 694-1989
FAX (714) 694-1999
Councilmembers
Patficia H. BirdsaLt
Peg Moore
J. Sat Mu'fioz
Mr. William Haley
221 29th Street
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
SUBJECT: Pujo) Street, Parcel Map No. 23969
Dear Mr. Haley,
J am sending you this letter to inform you of the decisions regarding Pujol Street
that were made at an August 27, 1990 meeting pertaining to parcel Map No. 23969.
The meeting was scheduled for a time which you had previously informed me that you
were available for. Both Doug Stewart and I expressed to you on August 2t~ the
importance of your attendance at the meeting. We are sorry that you were not able
to attend the meeting. In attendance at the meeting were Doug Stewart, Kirk
Williams, John Middleton, Howard Omdahl, and myself.
The following recommended Conditions of Approval regarding Pujol Street resulted
from the meeting:
Prior to Occupancy, Pujol Street shall be improved with concrete curb and
gutter, {on the south side) located 16 feet from centerline with 32 feet of
asphalt concrete paving in accordance with Riverside County Standard No.
106, Section A {32'150).
The applicant shall not be required to construct a sidewalk on Pujol Street,
adjacent to Parcel Map No. 23969.
Applicant shall provide for dedication of an additional 10 feet (10') of right-
of-way adjacent to Pujol Street in order to provide for a full 50 foot right-of-
way in accordance with Riverside County Standard No. 106, Section A ( 32'/50 )
prior to final map.
Prior to Occupancy, applicant shall construct a Riverside County Standard 810
barricade at the west end of Pujol Street.
PLAN N I N G\ L5~
Mr. William Haley
September 5, 1990
Page 2
Construction of curb, gutter, and sidewalk adjacent to your property will not be a
Condition of Approval for Parcel Map No. 23969, but will be required upon future
development of your property.
All of these conditions of approval are based on Ordinance No. 0,60 and do not
require any exceptions.
We believe that your property will benefit from these recommended conditions of
approval and will not place a hardship upon you. They have been reviewed and
approved by the Riverside County Fire Department and will be presented to the City
of Temecula Planning Commission on September 17, 1990.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call myself or John Middleton at
{ 710, ) 690,-0,600.
Sincerely,
Deborah Parks
Case Planner
Gary Thornhill
Planning Director
DP/GT: ks
CC:
Planning Commissioners
John Middleton
Doug Stewart
Tim D. Setlet
File
PLANNING\L50,
Riverside County
Road Department
P.O. Box 1090
Riverside, CA 92502
May 24,
Attn:
Subdivision Section:
SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map No. 23969
1989
Please be advised that the division of the property shown on
Tentative Parcel Map No. 23969 will not unreasonably interfere
with the free and complete exercise of any easement(s) held by
Southern California Edison Company within the boundaries of said
tentative parcel map.
This letter should not be construed as a subordination of the
Company's rights, title and interest in and to said easement(s),
nor should this letter be construed as a waiver of any of the
provisions contained in said easement(s) or a waiver of costs for
teloration of any affected facilities.
In the event that the development requires teloration of facil-
ities, on the subject property. which facilities exist by right
of easement or otherwise. the owner/developer will be requested
Co bear the cost of such teloration and provide Edison with
suitable replacement rights. Such costs and replacement rights
are required prior to the performance of the relocation.
If additional information is required in connection-with the
above mentioned subject, please call me at (213) 491-2644.
Very truly yours,
18455pmh
cc: Riverside County Planning Dept. ATTN: Patti Nahill
Markham & Associates
125/R/eg/S
[as,ern J unicip,I er Di.ric,
)eeRie, L Machek
R/versfde Co. Planntng Dept.
4080 Lemon St., 9th Floor
Riverside, Ca 92501
SUBaECT: ~'~/J/'~--C~--,
The District fs responding to your request for comments on the subject project
relative to water and/or sewer servtce. The Items checked below apply to this
project review.
The subject project:
/Is not wlthtn El~/D's:
/water service area
sewer service area
/Wtll be required to construct/provide
be served by Ete~/D:
the following facilities If to
Sewer Servtce
Any end 811 necessary regionally stzed onstte and offsite gravtty sewers and
eppurtenant works that eight tnclude monitoring manholes, lift stations, force
mtns, end effluent disposal/use. Sewers will not be allowed along lot
lines/private land. Fee payment end participation tn ragtonal sewers, treatment,
end effluent dispose1 must be met. Only wastes acceptable to EtND regulations
DePartment of Gulldang and
.-.
PLA,',IkI,NG PA]
/~,~_ ease I the folloNing · condition of ~pproval:
( J~_·. P,-ior to oommencing ,my grading --¢e,ding s® ¢ubic
___b. Prior to approval of this use/subdivision a grading permit
and approval of the rough grading shall be obtained from
the )uilding and Safety Department.
___c. P;ior to issuance of any building permit, the property
owner sha]l obtain · grading permit and approval tD
construct from the Building and Safety Department.
.__d. Constructing a road, where greate~ than 50 cubic yards
material is Placed or move~, requires a grading permit.
___e. Prior
' g P It and approval of the grading
be ~DtaineO from the Building an~ Safety Department.
Provide verification that the existing Vra~ing was
permitted an~ approval to construct Nas obtained from the
Building and Safety.
The GrabSing Section has no comment on this site.
NO ~E:
County Grading Forms
lB~-13~ Rev. 3/89
C~JNTY OF RIVERSIDE
Department of Building and Safety
~lease refer to the following Comments when
21an for plan review by the Grading Section·
5
X 6 ·
87 ·
1.
X
~f~_17.
_X_18.
submitting a grading
Please refer to department forms 284-86, 284-120, 284-21
and 24-46 for applicable information to include on your
grading plans.
In orde~ to issue a grading permit, the following items
will be neededat the plan review stage·
Obtain a plan review permit.
2 Provide 2 copies of the Preliminary Soils
Report.
Xc. Provide e copy of the
study·
~i_d. Provide clearance
departments.
hydrologic-hydraul ic
letters from the following
Submit 5 copies of the grading plan for distribution and
review·
Refer to any specific plan related to this project·
This property is located in the Rancho California
Potential Subsidence area. Per Board Resolution 88-61,
additional geotechnical information is required.
Observe slope setbacks from permit areas and structures
per section 7011 and figure 29-1 of the Uniform Building
Code as modified by Ordinance 457.
Driveway grades shall be lS% or less.
Show.street and pad elevations; .-Insure that a 1% grade
(min~ can be-maintained from back of pad to street.
d
Design V-ditches at top of slopes to han le the Q-100
year storm flow·
Provide recorded drainage easements for the proposed lot
to lot drainage.
Show the Q-100 year storm flows at the inlet and outlet
of all drainage facilities.
Provide building footprint on all lots.
Design each lot to drain separately.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, projects having
an tmbalance between cut and fill shall specify the
location of their import or export source.
Show all slopes to scale, including terrace and setbacks.
Proposed off-site grading will require written notarized
permission from the affected property owner.
No obstruction or diversion of natural water courses
shall be permitted.
Provide sufficient offsite topography to show this
t
projects compatibility with adjacen proper"ties.
Verify any underlying grading was permitted and approved
to construct there on.
e. Provide a set of the Planning Department
conditions of approval on the approved case.
f. Provide an erosion control plan, prepared by
a licensed landscape architect, for plan
review, permit, and bonding.
Administrative Center, 1/H Atlanta Avenue
Riverside, CA g2507
March 8, 1990
MAR l 2 1990
Riverside County Planning Department
Attention: Jeff Adams
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
R! v ~RSIDE COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: Parcel Map 23969, Amended Map No. 1
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety
has the following comments and conditions:
The developer shall obtain Planning Department approval for
all on-site and off-site signage advertising the sale of
the parcel map pursuant to Section 19.5 of Ordinance 348.
Sincerely,
Vaughn Sarkisian
Land Use Technician
/sn
Administration g14) 682-8840 · (714) 787-2020
OFFICE OF ROAD COMMISSIONER & COUNTY SURVEYOR
A~ril 2, 1990
Riverside Co~t~ PlUg C~sslon
4080 ~n St~t
~veside, ~ 92501
Ladies and Gentlemen:
PM 23969 - Amend #1
Schedule E - Team 5 SND #9
AP #111-111-111-9
With respect to the conditions of approval for the
referenced tentative land division map, the Road Department
rectumends 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 Ste~aa~ds (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
s and the following conditions are essential parts
and a requirement occurring in ONE ls as binding as though
occurring in all. They are intended to be complementary and to
describe the conditions for a complete deslgn of the improvement.
A/1 questions regarding the true ~ning of the conditions shall
be referred to the Road Commissioner' s Office.
The landdivider shall protect downs~_ream properties from
damages caused by alteration of ~he drainage petterns,
i.e., concentration of diversion of flow. Protection
shall be provided by constructing adequate dra~nsge
facilities including enlarging existing facilities and/
or by securing a drainage easement. M1 drainage
easements shall be shown on the final mp and noted as
followsx 'Drainage Easement - no building, obstructions,
or enoroacbments by land fills are ellowed '. 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 CcemuLssiomer permits the use of streets for
drainage purposes, the provisions of Article Xl 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 appeared by the Road DeparTment.
C~t~S__969 - Amend 11
'Aprtl 2, 1990
Page 2
PuJol Street shall be 4mp=oved with concrete curb and
gutter located 20 feet from centerline and match up asphalt
concrete paving; reconstruction; or resurfacing of existing
paving as determined by the Road Ccew4ssloner within a 60
foot full width dedicated right of way in accordance with
County Standard No. 104, Sectlon A. or as approved by the
Road Department.
Kathleen Way shall be imp~ with 34 feet of asphalt
concrete pavement within a 45 foot part width dedicated
right of way in accordance with County Sta~d-~i No. 111·
Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile
extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project
boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the
Riverside County Road Commissioner. Completion of road
improvements does not Amply acceptance for mintenance by
County. - ....
A standard offset cul-de-sac shall he constructed on PuJol
Street within the landdivision.
Aspheltic 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 confore to Section 37,
39 and 94 of the State StandArd Specifications.
The applicant shall provide CC&R'S to insure access to all
parcels.
The maximum centerline gradient and the minimum centerline
radii shall be in conference with County Standard #114 of
Ordinance 461.
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed throughout the
landdivision in accoraA~e with County Standard No. 400 and
401 (curb sidewalks) u approved by the Road Co~nissioner.
Prior to the recordatAon of the "fihal map, the developer
shall deposit with the Riverside County Road Department, a
cash sum of $1,750.00 per ~Toss acre as adtigation for
ld developer choose to
traffic signal Ampacts. Shou the
defer the thee of payment, a ~ritten agrmnt my be
entered into wAth the County deferring said payment to the
time of issuance of a bull~4~g pemit.
12. Electrical and cotton.cat.one trenches shall be provided in
accordance with Orrt4qm~ce 461, Standard 817.
~N ~-969 - Amend #1
· April 2, 1990
Page 3
Lot access shall be resUricted on PuJol S~reet and so noted
on ~he final map.
Landdivisions creating cut or fill slopes adjacent to the
streets shall p~o,~lde erosion control and sight distance
control as approved by the Road Del~r~ment.
The street design and improvement concept of ~his project
shell be conrdina~ed with PM 18254.
S~reet lighting shell be requ/red in accordance with
Ordinan~e 460 and 461 throughout the subdivision. The
County Service Area (CSA) Admin~strator determines whether
=his proposal qualifies under an existing assessment
distract or not. If not, the land owner shell file, after
receiving tentative ~9proval, for an application with LAFCO
for anneyation into or creation of a 'Lighting Assessment
District" in accordance wi~h Governmental Code Section
56000. PRIOR TO ~RCO~nATION, the landowner shall receive
and provide a Certifica~e of Completion frc~ LAFC0.
Any landscaping wttMn public road rights of way shall
comply with Road DeparUnent standards and require approval
by ~ Road Comnissioner and assurance of continuing
maintenance t~hrough the establishment of a landscape
maintenance district/maintenance agreement or similar
mecbardsm as approved by the Road CcsmuLssionsr. Landscape
plans shell be sulm~tted on standard County Plan sheet
format (24" x 36"). landscape plans shell be sub~/tted
with the street improve~ent plans and shell depict only
such landscaping, irrigation and related facilities as are
to be placed within the public road rights-of-way.
The applicant shell record CC&R's to provide access to
Parcels 2 and 3. Said CC&R's shell be subject to approval
by County Counsel and the Road Comm~ssionar.
Pursuant to Section 66493 of ~ Subdivision Nap Act any
subdivision which is par~ of an existin~ Assessment
DIstrict must comply wlth ~he requirements of said Section.
S' erely,
Roa v s on r
LX =Jw
Uo nty o1' l% ve, rs de
DEPARIMENT OF HEAL"[H
RIVERSIDE COUNTY Pha. NNING DEPT. . atti Nabill
· a~rt~ental Health specialist Iv
pARCEl, ~ 23969 - SAN 53 Requirements
DATE: ~ay 22, 1989
The Environmental Ilealth Services Division has reviewed tile tentative
map for this project and cannot make any recommendations until a
sanitation letter is filed. The requirements for a SAN 53 letter are
as follows:
1. A satisfactory soils percolntion test to prove the
project feasible.
2. A clearance letter from the npl~roprinte California
l{egionaI Water Control Board.
3. Two copies o[ the tentative map.
4. A "will-serve" letter from the agency/agencies
serving potable water.
Should the project be served sanitary sewer service, this Department
would need only:
1. A "will-serve" letter From the agency/agencies serving
parable water and sanitary sewers.
2. One copy of tile tentative map.
I~ the project is to be served water by existing wells, pumps and
water tanks, a water s,ppJy permit will Im required (contact the
Environmental Ilealth Services IJivisio,. Engineering Section at
787-6544). The requirements for a t,'ater stq~ply permit are as follows:
Satisfactory laboratory tests (bacteriological, organic,
inorganic, general Ish)'slcnl, nmJ gesseral mineral) to
prove the water l}otable.
A complete set of plnns showing n] ] details of the
proposed nud existing water systems: sizes and types
of pipe and calculntio,s showi,g that adequate quantity
and pressure Can be nmintnined (California Waterworks
Stnnd;~rds - Culirornin IIc:tl th nnd ~:tfety Code
California Administrative Code, Title 22). These plans
must be signed by a registered civil engineer.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Riverside County
Planning Department
County Administrative Center
Riverside, California 92501
Attentionz Regional Team No. 5
Patti Nahi11
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Re: Parcel Map 23969
This is a proposal to divide 21.56 acres into 4 lots in the
Temecula area. The site is located at the end of Kathleen Way
south of Rancho California Road.
Parcels 3 and 4 are proposed to drain to the storm drain located
northeast of this site. Parcels i and 2 are proposed to drain
east of ~he site. Offsite flows are to be collected in the con-
crete ditch in the southern most corner of the site. These pro-
posals appear to be consistent with the approved Parcel Map
19626-2.
Following are the District's recommendations:
This parcel map is located within the limits of the Mur-
'rieta Creek/Murrieta Valley Area Drainage Plan for which
drainage fees have been adopted by the Board. Drainage
fees shall be paid as set forth under the provisions of
the "Rules and Regulations for Administration of Area
Drainage Plans", amended February 16, 1988:
Drainage fees shall be paid to the Road Con~nissioner
as part of the filing for record of the subdivision
final map or parcel map, or if the recording of a
final parcel map is waived, drainage fees shall be
paid as a condition of the waiver prior to recording
a certificate of compliance evidencing the waiver of
the parcel map; or
At the option of the land divider, upon filing a re-
quired affidavit requesting de ferment of the payment
of fees, the drainage fees may be paid to the Build-
ing Director at the time of issuance of a grading
permit or building pannit for each approved parcel,
whichever may be first obtained after the recording
of the subdivision final map or parcel map; provided
however, this option to defer the fees may not be
exercised for any parcel where grading or structures
have been initiated on the parcel within the prior 3
year period, or permits for either activity have been
issued on that parcel which remain active.
Riverside County
Planning Department
Re= Parcel Map 2969
- 2 - June 7, 1989
Onsite drainage facilities located outside of road right
of way should be contained w~thin drainage easements
shown on the final map. A note should be added to the
final map stating, "Drainage easements shall be kept free
of buildings and obstructions'.
A drainage easement should be obtained from the affected
property owners for the release of concentrated or di-
verted storm flows· A copy of the recorded drainage
easement should be submitted to the District for review
prior to the recordation of the final map.
A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final
map along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic cal-
culations should be submitted to the District via the
Road Department for review and approval prior to recorda-
tion of the final map. Grading plans should be approved
prior to issuance of grading permits.
Questions concerning this matter may be referred to Zully Smith
of this office at 714/787-1253.
Markham and Associates
ry ruly you s
H. SHUBA
~enior Civil Engineer
ZS:seb
KENNETH i leDWARDS
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Riverside County
Planning Department
County Administrative Center
Riverside, California
Attention: Regional Team No.
Planner ~'~/'/~j~9,~d
Area: /~ E~ ~
Re: 2~do~ZqL~
have reviewed this case and have the following comments:
Except for nuisance nature local runoff which may traverse portions of the
property the project is considered free from ordinary storm flood hazard.
However, a storm of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New construc-
tion should comply with all applicable ordinances.
The topography of the area consists of well defined ridges and natural water-
courses which traverse the property. There is adequate area outside of the
natural watercourses for building sites. The natural watercourses should be
kept free of buildings and obstructions in order to maintain the natural
drainage patterns of the area and to prevent flood damage to new buildings.
A note should be placed on an environmental constraint sheet stating, "All new
buildings shall be floodproofed by elevating the finished floors a minimum of
18 inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosion protection shall be provided
for mobile home supports.'
drainage plan fees shall be paid in accc ce with the applicable rules and
r
regulations.
The proposed zoning is consistent with existing flood hazards. Some flood
control facilities or floodproofing may be required to fully develop to the
implied density.
The District's report dated is still current for this project.
The District does not object to the proposed minor change.
/This project is a part of P/~/q~-~;'~ The project will be
t
free of ordinary s orm flood hazard when improvements ~ave been constructed in
accordance with approved plans.
The attached connents apply.
OHN H. KASHUBA
;entor Civil Engineer
DATE: l~f ,, { 0t [ ~ ct C~
RIVE~IDE COUNTY
~ DI~:~"kR~ TR
IN COOPEP-.ATION WITH THE
/ ~ KRatn~S&~SOlF~
(6l~) ~42-~6 (7 14) 787-6606
ATTN: JEFF AI)AHSN ~4RTMENT
PARCEL MAP 23969 - A~NDED tl
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land division,
the Fire Department recomends the following fire protection measures be provided
in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection
standards:
FIE PROTECTION
The water mains shall be capable of providing a potential fire flow of 5000 GPM
and an actual fire flow available from any one hydrant shall be 2500 GPM for
hours duration ac 20 PSI residual operating pressure.
Approved super fire hydrants, (6"x4"x2-2½") shall be located at each stree=
intersection and spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction, with
no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet'from a fire hydrant.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the
Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to fire hydran= types, location
and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall
be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company
with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system
is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire
Dept."
The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted
by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being
placed on an individual
All questions regarding the meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the
Fire Department Planning and Engineering staff.
P, AYNOND R. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
By
Kur= ~ancwell, Fire Safety Specialist
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
BackQround
1, Name of Yz~xment:
2, Mdress an~ Yhcme
Rm~ber of Proponent:
Omdahl Enterprises
28275 Rancho California Road
Temecula, California 92390
3. Date of ~nv~on~ental
Asaesament:
4. Agency Requiring
Asses~ent:
5. ~ of ~sal,
If ~lic~le:
6. ~t~on of ~sal:
June 22, 1990
CIT~ OF T~CUIA
Tentative Parcel Map # 23969
South of Kathleen Way
II
Environmental Impacts
IExplanations of all 'ryes" and "maybe" answers are provided on
attached sheets. )
Earth.
Yes Maybe N_9
Will the proposal result in:
Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displscementa, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil?
c. Substantial change in topography
or ground surface reiiof features?
d. The destruction, covering or modi-
timion of any unique geologic or
physical features?
e, Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on or
or off site?
X
.×
BLANKIESIFORMS -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?
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?
de
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?
fe
Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow of ground waters?
Yes .Maybe N,,9o
X
X
X
BLANKIF. S/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?
C$
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 end shellfish, benthic
organism or insects)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals?
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
Yes
X
~ybe
No
X
X
X
X
BLANKIF, S/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. 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
In area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing or create a demand for
additional housing?
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
Yes
Maybe
X
No
X
X
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
sir traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, b/cyclists or pedestrians?
lu,. Public Services. Will the proposal have
substantial affect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational
facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
f. Other governmental services?
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy?
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
BLANKIESIFORMS -5o
17.
b. Communications systems?
c, Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste end 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.
e,
Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction
of · prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
b,
Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object?
Ce
Does the proposal hive the potential
to cause I physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
d,
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
Yes
Maybe
No
×
×
X
X
-X,-
BLANK I ESIFORMS -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?
Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environ-
mental goals? i 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? 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?
Yes Maybe N_9o
X
X
BLANKlEe/FORMS
-7-
III Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
BLANKIESIFORMS -8-
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a. si.gni-
ticant effect on the environment, there will not be · mgnP
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 s significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required.
31 3,1y 1990
Date
For CITY OF TEMECULA
BLANKIESIFORMS
-9-
:IEVE:DiDE count,u
PLAnninG DEPA:ICGIEnC
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (E.A.) NUMBER: ~)'~ ~ LOW
PROJECT CASE TYPE(s) AND NUMBERS(i):';PAI::~; 1-/ /~
APPUCANT'S NAME: ~/'~fC~L.,
NAME OF PERSON(s) PREPARING E,A.:
L PROJECT INFORMATION
STANDARD EVALUATION
MODULE NUMBER(s): I Iq
DESCRIPTION (include proposed minimum lot size aid uses as applicable): 'T~
B. TOTAL PROJECT AREA: ACRES 2--{, ~ ; or SOUARE FEET
C. ASSESSOWS PARCEL NO.(s):
D. EXISTING ZONING:
E. PROPOSED ZgNING:
F. STREET REFERENCES:
IS THE PROPOSAL IN CONFORMANCE?
IS THE PROPOSAL IN CONFORMANCE? ~//~
G. BECTION,.TOWNSHIP, RANGE DESCRIPTION OR ATTACH A LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
IL COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION DESIGNATION
[] NI or ~ of ~te Ixoject site is in 'Adc~ted Specific Plans." "REMAP" or "Raicho Villages Community
Policy Areas", Cornplele Section8 III, N (B aid C only), V and VI,
~ AI~ or pitt of the project mite is in "AreIs Not Designited as Open Space". Complete Sections III, IV
(A, BendDonly),VendVI.
[] NI or per1 of rite IxoJect site has an Open Space end Coneewetlon designition mr than those mentioned
above. Complete Sections Ill, N (A, B, end E only), V aid
11. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD~ AND RESOURCES ASSEESMENT
/L ~dici~th~n~ure~epr~ndu~e~determinedfr~m~hede~cdp~`~n~f~undinC~m~nF~ure
VI3 (C, Ircle One). Thll information II necellary to determine the Ipproprlte lind ule suitlbiltty ratings in Section III.B.
B. Indlcie wflh a We (Y) or no (N) whethe any env{vonmentol hazard end/or resource isues may signlfr. antly affect or be affected
bylltepmpei. NlreforencedfigureeerecontelnedlntheComlxehe~iveGenemlPlan. For any tssue rnarked yes(Y)wdte
llkltiOeti dltl IOufOe8, Ige~oi$1 conluited, ~Mingl d tact Mid any mffigation risesurea under Section V. Also, where indicated,
ctrcte the 8plxolxiite land tee suitehairy or noise IooeptebHity riting(N. (See definitions It bottom of ~ia page).
HAZARDS
Airport Noise (Fig. 11.18.5, 11.18.11
& V1.12 & 1984 AICUZ Report, M.A.F.B.)
e A B C D (Fig, VL11)
Re, road Noise (Fig. VI. 13 - VI.16)
NA S (~) U R (F~. W.4) ~'3 A e c D (Fig, ~.tt)
3, ~ Groundshiking Zone (Fig VI.1 } C4..A~ ~ 14. )J Highway Noise (Fig. I/I.17 - VI.29)
NA ~% PS U R (Fig. W.5) (~ A S C O (FIG, ~n.tt)
5
Seismic MaDe or On-slte Inspection)
e S PS U R
6. ~l Rock-f~ He~-U (Om~te Ire;acUon)
10. hi
11. k/
.. Slopes (Ray. Co. 800 Stile Slope Maps)
kJ LandalKle Risk Zone (Riv. Co. 800 hie
(Fig. I/I.6)
7, I,J Exp~nlive Soils (U.S.DA. Soil
Conservation Sewlee Soil Surveys)
8._..~. Erosion (U.S.D.A. Soil ConeervNion
Service Soil Surveys)
Wind Erso/on & Slov~tcl (F~g. %/I.1,
Ord. 460, Sec. 14.2 & Offi. 484)
Dam Inundation Aml (fig. %/I.7)
Roodplains (Fig.
L'~ U R (Fig. I/I.8)
15. Other Noise
NA A B C D (Fig, VL11)
16. Project Generated Noise Affecting
Noise Sensitive Uses (Fig. Vl.11 )
17. J~ Noise Senlitive Project (Fig. Vl.11)
18./~J Air Quellty lmlacts From Project
19./k,) Project Senaitive to Air Quality
20. N Water Qulity Impacts From Project
21. N Project Sensitive to Water Quality
22./.J Hazardous Materials and Wastes
23. ~.. Hazarctous Fire Are8 (Fig. VL30 - VI.31)
Other '~i,~P~ iDrj, Jr..-~
24. ~ ,~ ~
25. Other
RESOURCES
~._~ Wildlife (Fig. %/136 - VI.37)
Mineral Reeoumee (Fig. I/1.41 - VI.42)
32. Af
Soentc Highways (Fig. VI.45)
Historic Resources (Fig. V!32 - %/1.33)
Amheoiogical Reeources1:'D an5
(Fig. vt.32 - %/1.33 & vl.46 - Vl.48)
35+ P~tc4ugical Resources
(Pmle=~V,,4og,~ Rseo~rces Map)
36, Other
37. Ofler
Definitions for Lend Use Suitability end Noise Acceptability Ratings
NA - Not Appllclble S - Gene~Jly Sullble PS - Provisionally Suitable
U - Gsnerllly ~ R * ~ A - Generally Acceptable
B - Condmonaey Acceptable C - Gerem,y Unex:epteis D - Land Use Discouraged
1. OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION MAP DESIGNATION(s): AP't~'''~--~ /~0q"
4. COMMUNITY POUCY AREA. IFANY: PtT':.
7. SUMMARY OF POLICIES AFFECTING PROPOSAL:
B. For all projects, inidcate with a yes (Y) or no (N) whether any public facilities and/or meNices issues may signirt..antly affect
or be affected by the proposal. NI referenced figures are contained in the Comprehensive Generll Plan. For any issue
marked yes (Y), write data sources, agencies consulted, findings of flct, and mitigation measures under Section V.
PUBUC FACILJTIES AND SERVICES
1, CirctdNion(Fig. N.1..IV.11. Discuss in
Sec. V Existing, Planned & ReQuired Roads)
2, J4 Bike Trails tTlg. N.12-N.13)
3. W/ter (Agency I..itWt)
L Sewer (Agency LelWN
Fire ~ (F'~g. N.16 - N.18)
~herlff SenSes (Fig N.I? - N.18)
_~=ho~l~(FIg. N.17-N.18)
,Solk:l Winrote (Fig. N.17 - N.18)
10,/~
U
15.1d
16./d
17.
F. J3uestrtan Trmb (F~g. N. 19 - W.24/
Riv. Co. 800 ~ EQuestrian Trail Maps)
U6,1ities (Fig. N.25 - N26)
Ubrarl$ (F';. N.17 - IV.18)
i Service~(Rg. N.17 - N.18)
Nrpori(Fig. 11.18.2 - 11.18.4.
11.18.8 - ILl8.10& N27 - N.36)
C. Ild or l:wt dffie protect is Iocmm:l In "Adopted 8pectc Rm'ts", 'fIEMAP" or "RNK:hO Vlmge~ Community Policy
Amm",mNtsw in cletmilme meclc poactesmpply,eg tome propoeal, m,.:l oompleethefollowlng:
1. Slmeffierelev~misnduecla:~.
N. LAND UR br., r. RMINATION (¢ontinued)
D. ~f~m~rt~f~hew~ject~teisin"Are~sn~tDe~grtatedas~:8nS~:sa~e"~ndisn~ti~aC~mmuni~m~te
{lueetions l, 2, 3, 6 sr.:l T. ~Questions4,5,6snd TIf ltis ln aCommunlty Plan.
Currant Isnd uee cstego~ies) fix the site bssed on existing conditions.
Nso indicate land use type
3. If D.1 differs from D.2, will the dlffemfice be resolved at the development stage? Explain:
4. Community Plan designation(s):
5. Is the proposed project consistent with Ihe policies and designations of the Community Plan?
ff not, explain:
6. Is the proposal compatible with existing and proposed surrounding Isnd uses?
If not, explain:
7. Based on this initial study, is the pro~sal ~onsistent with the Compr~sn~ve Gs~eml Plsn?
If not, reference by Sec~onm~l lssueNumber6qoee issues ldentlfy~glnconsism:
I II or I11 of b~e project site is in In ~ SO se md Consetvatkm clesignatk~, complete the following:
1. alllt the deigrmt:~s):
2. Is le Ixolsssl ~stent yah the ~slgnstm(s)? If not,
e
V. INFORMATION 8OURCES, FINDINGS OF FACT AND MITIGATION MEASURES
A. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED BEFORE EN~RONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CAN BE COMPLETED:
DATE
SECTION/ INFORMATION INFORMATION
~ NO. REQUIRED REQUESTED
DATE ADEQUACY
INFORMATION I)EIE~/~AllGN
RECEIVED (YISS/NOJ~ATE)
B. For each issue marked yes (Y) under Sections III.B end W.B, identify the Section end issue number and do the
following, in the format ss Shown below:
1. Li~t ~11 additional reievent date sources, including agencies consulted.
2. State ell findings of fact regarding enviro~mentel concerns.
3, State specffic mitigation mea~ure~, If k:ientIfieble without requiring an environmental impact repod (E.I.R.)
4. ff eddltional informatio~ is required before the environmentel mt c~n be completed, refer to
Sul~ectlon A.
5, ~ additional sheet~ ere needed to complete this ssctlon, check the box It the end of the section end attach
the nacemry sheete.
~ECTION/
ISSUE NO.
SOURCES, AGENCIES CONSULTED, FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MEASURES:
V. INFORMATION SOURCES, FINDINGS OF FACT AND MITIGATION MEASURES (continued)
SECTION/
ISSUE NO. SOURCES, AGENCIES CONSULTED, FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MEASURES:
VL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DETERMIIATION:
[] The pro#el will not have · algnlficam effect on Ihe environment end a Negative Declaration may be
mumrod.
[] The ixojecl could have · IJgnlficant elloct on !he environment, however, them will not be · significant
IxojectandaNegattveDeclaratJonmaybelxetxrod.
i"l The project rely hive · 81gnl~clnt effect on the environment end en Environmental Impact Report
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL
MAP NO. 23969 TO SUBDIVIDE A 21.56 ACRE PARCEL
INTO ~ LOTS ON RIDGE PARK DRIVE, SOUTH OF
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD.
WHEREAS, Omdahl Enterprises filed Tentative Parcel Map No. 23969 in
accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision
Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Tentative Parcel Map application was processed in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Tentative Parcel
Map on September 17, 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 Tentative Parcel 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 (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 conslatent 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:
(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.
Ib)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
FORMS\RES-TTM 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, (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 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
Tentative Parcel Map No. 23969 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 Tentative 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 Tentative Parcel Map approved shall be subject to
such conditions as shall be necessary to protect the health, safety and
general welfare of the community.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Tentative
Parcel Map is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
FORMS\R ES-TTM 2
community.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that the proposed
project will not have a significant impact on the environment, and a Negative
Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Tentative Parcel Map No. 23969 for the subdivision of a 21.56 acre parcel into four
|l&) lots located at Ridge Park Drive, south of Rancho California Road, subject to the
following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th 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 day of , 1990 by the following vote of the
Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
FORMS\ R ES -T TM 3
APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth
herein above in this Resolution of approval for Tentative Parcel Map No. 23969.
DATED: By
Name
Title
FORMS\P~ES-TTM ~
ITEM
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 17, 1990
Case No.: Tentative Parcel Map No. 25633,
Plot Plan No. 11669
Prepared By: Mark Rhoades
Recommendation: Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
Wescon Properties
J. F. Davidson Associates, Inc.
Subdivide 7.2 acres into 4 parcels and construct 4
industrial buildings in the M-SC zone.
Southwesterly side of Business Park Drive, north of
Rancho California Road.
M-SC I Manufacturing - Service Commercial )
North:
South:
East:
West:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES: North:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
M-SC {Manufacturing
Commercial )
M-SC I Manufacturing
Commercial )
M-SC I Manufacturing
Commercial )
M-SC ( Manufacturing
Commercial )
Service
Service
Service
Service
No change requested.
South:
East:
West:
Industrial Building
construction )
Vacant
Vacant
Industrial Building
{under
No. of Acres:
No. of Buildings:
7.2
u,.
STAFFRPT\TPM25633 1
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The original application for this proposal was filed
at the County of Riverside. Two applications were
filed, one for a plot plan, and one for a tentative
parcel map. The County combined the applications
under Tentative Parcel Map No. 25633. The
applicant has expressed his desire to keep the two
applications separate. In the event of approval,
construction could begin on the plat plan without
waiting for the finalization of the parcel map.
Conditions of Approval have been separated to
facilitate this process.
Tentative Parcel Map
Tentative Parcel Map No. 25633 is a proposal to
subdivide 7.2 acres into ~ parcels. The existing
parcel is Lot 9 of Parcel Map No. 19580, which
created Rancho California Business Park. Proposed
Parcel No. 1 contains 2.6 net acres, Parcel No. 2
contains 1.3 net acres, Parcel No. 3 contains 1.2 net
acres, and proposed Parcel No. u, contains 2.1 net
acres. All four proposed parcels exceed the
minimum lot size in the M-SC zone.
Sufficient infrastructure exists in the immediate
area to facilitate the demand of the proposed
development.
Access to the westerly two lots wiII be created by
reciprocal agreement. CCBR~s for the proposed
development will require approval from the City
Attorney. Access to the general site will be taken
via Business Park Drive.
Plot Plan
The plot plan application is a proposal to construct
four |u,) industrial buildings on 7.2 acres.
Adequate landscaping is provided on site, including
the 25 foot wide landscape easement required for the
Rancho California Business Park.
The building sizes, required parking, and provided
parking are provided in the following matrix:
Building No. 1:
Required Parking:
Provided Parking:
30,128 sq.ft.
151 stalls
15~ stalls
STAFFRPT\TPM25633
2
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS:
Building No. 2:
Required Parking:
Provided Parking:
21,836 sq.ft.
59 stalls, 2 loading
59 stalls, 2 loading
Building No. 3:
Required Parking:
Provided Parking:
21,836 sq.ft.
59 stalls, 2 loading
59 stalls, 2 loading
Building No. 4:
Required Parking:
Provided Parking:
u,5,983 sq.ft.
123 stalls, u, loading
123 stalls, u, loading
Building No. I does not
because it is proposed as
provided parking exceeds
ordinance.
require loading space
an all office use. The
the requirements of the
All four proposed buildings are to reflect similar
contemporary architecture. The project is an
integrated industrial development. The buildings
will share access and thematic visual elements,
however, each parcel is self-sufficlent with the
inclusion of adequate access agreements. The
access agreements will be provided under CC~,R*s.
Zoning
The proposed plot plan and the tentative parcel map
are in conformance with Ordinance 3u,8. The
proposed project meets the development standards
contained in the Manufacturing - Service Commercial
(Article 11) and Parking (Section 18.12).
The Southwest Area Plan designation for the
proposed site is LI, Light Industrial. The proposed
use is in conformance with this designation. Proper
access, infrastructure, and public facilities
improvements exist to support the proposed use.
An Initial Study has been completed for the project
and a Negative Declaration is recommended for the
proposal.
Tentative Parcel Map No. 25633
1. The proposed division is consistent wit~ the
Southwest Area Plan and Zoning Code in that
STAFFRPT\TPM25633 3
all four parcels exceed the minimum lot size of
10,000 square feet and the minimum average
lot width of 75 feet.
The lot design is logical and meets the
approval of the Cityis Planning and
Engineering Departments.
The legal owner of record has offered to make
all dedications required.
The project will not have a significant
adverse affect on the environment. A
Negative Declaration is recommended and all
impacts will be reduced to insignificant levels
through recommended conditions of approval.
There is a reasonable probability that the
project will be consistent with the City's
General Plan once adopted, based on analysis
contained in the Staff Report.
The division of land is consistent with the
provision of Title 18 of the Subdivision Map
Act.
Plot Plan No. 11669
There is a reasonable probability that Plot
Plan No. 11669 will be consistent with the
City~s future adopted General Plan, which
will be completed in a reasonable time and in
accordance with State law.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future General Plan, if the proposed use
is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
The proposed use or action complies with
State planning and zoning laws.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation
patterns, access, and intensity of use.
The project as designed and conditloned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare.
STAFFRPT\TPM25633 ~
10.
11.
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, through appropriate
building mass reduction techniques and
landscape installation, and distance from
planned adjacent structures.
The proposal will not have an adverse affect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area.
The project 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.
The design of the project, the type of
improvements, and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed project.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by raference.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
MR: ks
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission recommend to City Council:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for
Tentative Parcel Map No. 25633, and
Plot Plan No. 11669;
APPROVE Tentative Parcel Map No.
25633; and,
3. APPROVE Plot Plan No. 11669.
based on the analysis and findings contained in the
Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions
of Approval.
STAFFRPT\TPM25633 5
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan No. 11669
Council Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
Planninq Department
This approval shall be used within two ~2) years of the City Council approval
date; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no affect whatsoever. By
this approval within the two 12) year period which is thereafter diligently
pursuedto completion, or thebeginningof substantial utilization contemplated
by this approval.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as
shown on Plot Plan No. 11669, 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 on-site 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 (30)
inches.
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the applicant shall
submit seven {7 ) copies of parking, landscaping, shading and irrigation plot
plan to the Planning Department and shall be accompanied by a filing fee as set
forth in Section 18.37 of Ordinance No. 3zl8.
A minimum of 395 parking spaces shall be provided, in accordance with Section
18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 3~8. The parking area shall be
surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of three 13)
inches on four It) inches of Class II base.
A minimum of 15 handi~=pped parking spaces shall be provided. Each parking
space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed raflectorized 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 inchas in area and shall be centered at the interior
end of the parking spaca at a minimum of height of 80 inches from the bottom
STAFF R PT\TPM25633
10.
11.
12.
13.
of the sign to the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign
shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street
parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches in size with lettering not
less than one { 1 ) inch in height, which clearly and conspicuously states the
following:
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing
placards or license plates issued for physically
handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's
expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at
or by telephoning
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall
have surface identification sign duplicating the symbol of accessibility in blue
paint of at least three ~3) square feet in size.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain clearance
and/or permits from the following agencies:
Engineering Department
Environmental Health
Riverside County Flood Control
Fire Department
Written evidence of compliance shall be presented to the Land Use Division of
the Department of Building and Safety.
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening
material shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of the specimen canopy trees
along the streets, and within the parking areas.
This project site is within a significant groundshaking zone. Mitigation shall
be the application of the proper Uniform Building Code standards in the
development of this project. Mitigations outlined in the approved Geotachnlcal
Report shall be adhered to. Evidence of compliance with those conditions shall
be presented to the Building and Safety Department prior to the issuance of
building permits..
This project is located within a Subsidence Report Zone. Prior to issuance of
any building permit by the Temacula Department of Building and Safety, a
California Licensed Structural Engineer shall certify that the intended
structure or building is safe and structuraily integrated. This certification
shall be based upon, but net limited to, the site specific seismic, geologic and
geotechnical conditions. Where hazard of subsidence or fissure development
is determined to exist, appropriate mitigetlon measures must be demonstrated.
The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations
outlined in the County Health Department~s transmittal dated May 2u,, 1990, a
copy of which is attached.
STAFFRPT\TPM25633 2
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
20,.
25.
26.
The applicant shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined in
the Riverside County Flood Control District~s letter dated April 29, 1990, a
copy of which is attached. If the project lies within an adopted flood control
drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of City of Temecula Land Division
Ordinance 1~60, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities
shall be collected by the City prior to issuance of occupancy permits.
The applicant shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined
in the County Fire Department's letter dated September ~, 1990, a copy of
which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building
and Safety Department: Land Use Sectlongs transmlttal dated May 1, 1990, a
copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building
and Safety Department: Grading Section's transmittat dated May 16, 1990, a
copy of which is attached.
All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of
Technology, Patomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as outlined in the
Southwest Area Plan.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern
Municipal Water District transmittat dated August 2u,, 1989, a copy of which
is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Southern
California Edison Company transmittat dated April 11, 1990, a copy of which
is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the County
Geolagist's Report dated July 3, 1989.
Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, a signing and striping plan along with
a street improvement plan shall be approved by the City Engineer.
Prior to issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts to
be determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the
installation of plantings, walls and fences in accordance with the approved
plan, and adequate maintenance of the planting for one year shall be filed with
the Director of Building and Safety.
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.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
STAFFRPT\TPM25633 3
27.
Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall
comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate
fees set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by
the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee
required by Ordinance no. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by
the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or
resolution. Said fee shall not apply to the entire site, but rather to the new
building and parking structure.
28.
No building or portion thereof shall be permitted within the fault hazard zone
identified in the County Geologist's letter dated July 3, 1990.
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.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
29.
All site plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and street
improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency with approved plans.
30.
The developer shall submit four (~) copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geelogical
conditions of the site.
31.
The developer shall submit four (~) 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 2~"x36" mylar by a
Registered Civil Engineer.
32.
A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and
submitted at the time of application for grading plan check.
The site is in an area identified on the flood hazards maps as Flood Zone "B"
subject to flooding depth of 12" during a 100 year storm event. All building
needs to be protected from this hazard.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to
commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-d-
way.
35.
No grading shall take place prior to the improvement plans being substantially
complete, appropriate clearance letters and approval by the City Engineer.
STAFFRPT\TPM25633 q
36.
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.
37.
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the City Engineer based
on the recommendations of the Riverside County Flood Control District.
38.
The developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage
flowing onto or through the site.
39.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The
charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits.
If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to
this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT:
u,0. All work done within the City right-d-way shall have an encroachment permit.
All driveways shah conform to the applicable County of Riverside Standard
No. 207.
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.
A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions {CCF, Rss) shall be
prepared by the developer and submitted to the Director of Planning, City
Engineer and City Attorney. The CCF, R's shall be signed and acknowledged
by all parties having any record title interest in the property to be developed,
shall make the City a party thereto, and shall be enforceable by the City.
The CCF, R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded. The
CCF, R's shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. The CCF, R's shall be prepared at the developer's sole cost and expense.
The CCF, R~s shall be in the form and content approved by the Director
of Planning, City Engineer and the City Attorney, and shall include
such provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials
deem necessary to protect the intereat of the City and its residents.
The CCF, R's and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owner's
Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering
Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent
with the final map. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City.
The CCF, R's shall provide for the effective establishment, operation,
management, use, repair and maintenance of all cornmen areas and
facilities.
STAFFRPT\TPM25633 5
The CCF, R's shall provide that the property' shall be developed,
operated and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance.
The CCF, R~s shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the
condition required by the CCF, R~s, then the City, after making due
demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and
perform, at the owner's sole expense, any maintenance required
thereon by the CCF, R~s or the City ordinances. The property shall be
subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not
promptly reimbursed.
The applicant shall obtain clearance and/or permits from the following
agencies:
Rancho California Water District
City Engineer
Environmental Health
Fire Department
Planning Department
Riverside County Flood Control
Eastern Municipal Water District
Riverside Transit Agency
CATV Franchise
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY:
Business Park Drive shall be improved with concrete curb and gutter located
28 feet from centerline and asphalt concrate paving, within a 39 foot half-
width dedicated right-d-way in accordance with Riverside County Standard
No. 111,156/78).
In the event that full half street improvements plus a lane are nat constructed
for Business Park Drive prior to issuance of Certification of Occupancy by the
developer of Parcel Map No. 19580, the applicant shall construct those
required improvements. Adjacent to the project and to the intersection of
Single Oak Drive.
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 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 dote 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 l assuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest
such increase.
STAFFRPT\TPM25633 6
48.
Pavement striping, marking, traffic and street name signing shall be installed
per requirements of the Traffic Engineer.
The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated
with adjoining developments.
STAFFRPT\TPM25633 7
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Parcel Map No. 25633
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. 25633, which action is brought within the time period provided
for in California Government Code Section 66~,99.37. The City of Temecula will
promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding
against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the
City fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or
proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not,
thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of
Temecula.
The tentative parcel map shall conform to the requirements of Ordinance
Schedule E, unless modified by the conditions listed below. This approved
tentative parcel map will expire two years after the City Council approval date
unless extended as provided by Ordinance ~60.
The final map shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer or licensed land
surveyor subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision
Map Act, Subdivision Ordinance ~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 zipproved by the City
Engineer. Street names shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities,
etc., shall be shown on the final map if within the land division boundary. All
offers of dedication shall provide for nonexclusive public road and utility
access. All easements, offers of dedication and conveyances shall be
submitted and recorded as directed by the City Engineer.
Legal access as required by Ordinance ~60 shall be provided from the parcel
map boundary to a City maintained road.
STAFF R PT\TPM25633 I
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 shall be submitted to the City Department of Building and Safety.
10.
11.
12.
13.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
The subdivider shall comply with the environmental health recommendations
outlined in the County Health Department~s transmittal dated May 2q, 1990, a
copy of which is attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined
in the Riverside County Flood Control Distrlct~s letter dated April 29, 1990,
a copy of which is attached. If the land division lles within an adopted flood
control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of City of Temecula Land
Division Ordinance q60, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage
facilities shall be collected by the City prior to recordation of the final map or
waiver of parcel map.
The subdlvider shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations
outlined in the County Fire Department's letter dated September q, 1990, a
copy of which is attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building
and Safety Department: Land Use Section~s transmittal dated May 1, 1990, a
copy of which is attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building
and Safety Department: Grading Section~s transmittal dated May 16, 1990, a
copy of which is attached.
All proposed construction shall comply with the California institute of
Technology, Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as outlined in the
Southwest Area Plan.
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern
Municipal Water District transmittal dated August 2u,, 1989, a copy of which
is attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the
Southern California Edison Company transmittal dated April 11, 1990, a copy
of which is attached.
Subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the County
Geologist~s Report dated July 3, 1989.
Prior to recordatlon of this map, a reciprocal access agreement shall be
recorded for Parcels 2 and 3.
Prior to recordation of this map, a signing and striping plan along with a
street improvement plan shall be approved by the City Engineer.
STAFF R PT\TPM25633 2
20.
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 EIR/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 incr-~-e.
GRADING:
21.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with
Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance. Should
Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation
Plan prior to the payment of the fees required under the Habitat Conservation
Plan as implemented by City Ordinanca or resolution.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
22.
No building permits shall be issued by the City of Temecula for any residential
lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer, or the developer~s
successors-in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility
financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) per lot/unit
shall be deposited with the City of Temecula Building and Safety as mitigation
for public library development.
23.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance
and/or permits from the following agencies:
Road Department
Environmental Health
Riverside County Flood Control
Fire Department
Written evidence of compliance shall be presented to the Planning Department.
Lots created by this subdivision shall be in cenformance with the development
standards of the M-SC zone.
25.
All lots created by this land division shall have a minimum area of 10,000
square feet.
When lots are crossed by major public utility easements, each lot shall have a
net usable area of not less than 3,600 square feet, exclusive of the utility
easement.
27.
All lot length to width ratios shall be in conformance with Section 3.8C of
Ordinance ~60.
STAFFRPT\TPM25633 3
PRIOR TO THE RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
28.
Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, the following condition(s) shall be
complied with:
A copy of the Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be
transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINT SHEET CONDITIONS:
29.
An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared with the final
map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently
filed with the City. Prior to the recordatlon of the final map, a copy of the
ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval.
The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to
the Planning Department and the Department of Building and Safety. The
following note(s) shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet.
"This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar
Observatory. Light and glare may adversely impact operations at the
Observatory. Outdoor lighting shall be from low pressure sodium lamps
that are oriented and shielded to prevent direct illumination above the
horizontal plane passing through the luminare."
Indicate the availability of domestic water services to the subject
property as of the date of recordation of the final map.
The following note shall be placed on the final map: '~Constralnts
affecting this property are shown on the accompanying Environmental
Constraints Sheet, the original of which is on file at the office of the
Riverside County Surveyor.
No building permits shall be issued by the City of Temecula for any
building in Parcel Map No. 25633 until the developer or the developer's
successors-in-interest or assignees, provides evidence of compliance
with the terms of said agreement for the financing of public facilities.
"This property is affected by earthquake faulting and ground fissures.
Structures for human occupancy shall not be allowed in the Fault and
Ground Fissure Hazard Area."
"County Geologic Report No. 601 was prepared for this property on
September 2, 1988 by Schaefer Dixon Associates, and is on file at the
Riverside County Planning Department. Specific items of concern are
as follows: earthquake faulting, fissuring and ground subsidence,
seismic design of structures, liquefaction, and uncompaoted trench
backfill."
STAFFRPT\TPM25633 ~
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.
30.
The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act,
and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions.
PIRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL:
31.
A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC8;R's) shall be
prepared by the developer and submitted to the Director of Planning, City
Engineer and City Attorney. The CCF, R~s shall be signed and acknowledged
by all parties having any record title interest in the property to be developed,
shall make the City a party thereto, and shall be enforceable by the City.
The CCF, R~s shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded. The
CCF, R's shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. The CCF, R's shall be prepared at the developer's sole cost and expense.
The CCF, R~s shall be in the form and content approved by the Director
of Planning, City Engineer and the City Attorney, and shall include
such provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials
deem necessary to protect the interest of the City and its residents.
The CCI;R~s and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owner~s
Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering
Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent
with the final map. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City.
The CCF, R~s shall provide for the effective establishment, operation,
management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas and
facilities.
The CCSR~s shall provide that the property shall be developed,
operated and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance.
The CCSR~s shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the
condition required by the CCSR~s, then the City, after making due
demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and
perform, at the owner~s sole expense, any maintenance required
thereon by the CCSR~s or the City ordinances. The property shall be
subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not
promptly reimbursed.
STAFFRPT\TPM25633 5
g. In addition to the above, the CCSR's shall include the following:
Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements
ensuring access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all roads,
drives or parking areas shall be provided by CCF, R's or by deeds
and shall be recorded concurrent with the map or prior to the
issuance of building permit where no map is involved.
32. 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.
33.
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.
All parkways, open areas, and landscoping shall be permanently maintained
by a property owners association or other means acceptable to the City. Such
proof of this maintenance shall be submitted to the Planning and Engineering
Department.
35.
Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CATV Franchises of
the Intent to Develop. Conduit, if required, shall be installed to CATV
Standards at time of street improvements.
36.
Dedication shall be made of the following right-d-way on the following
streets;
DEDICATE Business Park Drive TO 39 FEET FROM STREET CENTERLINE
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY:
37.
Business Park Drive shall be improved with concrate curb and gutter Io~Lad
28 feet from centerline and asphalt concrete paving, within a 39 foot half-
width dedicated right-of-way in accordance with Riverside County Standard
No. 111, (56/78).
38.
In the event that full half street improvements plus a lane are not constructed
for Business Park Drive prior to issuance of Certification of Occupancy by the
developer of Parcel Map No. 19580, the applicant shall construct those
required improvements adjacent to the project and to the intersection of Single
Oak Drive.
STAFFRPT\TPM25633 6
39.
41.2.
41.3.
I~..
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
project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest
such increase.
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.
The subdivider 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 appropriete.
b. Storm drain facilities.
c. Landscaping (street 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. ~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 established per lot as mitigation for a
traffic signal impact.
Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment of trnrFic 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.
47. No grading shall take place prior to the recording of the final map.
STAFFRPT\TPM25633 7
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
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.
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 Engineer's Office, in
addition to any other permits required.
All driveways shall conform to the applicable County of Riverside standards
and shall be shown on the street improvement plans.
The project [or portions thereof) is located within a Flood Hazard Zone.
therefore, flood protection measures shall be provided as certified by a
Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer.
A minimum centerline grade shall be 0.50 percent.
Pavement striping, marking, traffic and street name signing shall be installed
per requirements of the City Traffic Engineer.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The
charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits.
If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to
this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated
with adjoining developments.
The developer shall record an Environmental Constraint Sheet delineating the
area within the 100-year floodplain.
All street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
ST A FF R PT\TPM25633 8
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE __ :- .....
EPARTMENT OF HEALTH
· 1990 .,
RIVEI~SIE,E COUNTY PLANi1INO DEPT. V,
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside. CA 92502
RE: Parace1 Map 25633: Be:n~ a subdivision of Parcol No.
of Parcel MaD 195~0 as shown in Book 154 of Parc~] Haps.
Fa~es 92-96, records of Riverside County. California.
<6 lots)
9
The DeD~rtment of F'ubllc Health has reviewed Parcel Mar,
No. ZSc:~, and recomm;qlds that:
A water system shall be Installed accordln~
plans and specification as approved bY the water
company and the Health Department. Permanent
Drlnts of the plans of the water system shall
be submitted in tr1Dllcate, with a minimum scale
not less tha'n one inch ec~uals 200 feet, alonrj
the orlqinal drawln~ to the County Surveyor.
The prints shall ghow the lnternal pipe dlam~-ter,
location of valve~ and fzre hydrants; pipe and
~olnt speczflcatlons, and the size of the main
at the nunorion of the new system tr, the
e:r~stinci system. The plans shall Cc,mDIv In all
respects with Div. 5, Part 1, Chapter 7 of the
California Health and Safety Code. California
Administrative Code, T] tie 22, Chapter 16, and
Order No. 103 of the Public Utllitie~ Commlssioz,
State of California. when applicable. The plans
be sloned bv a Feolstered enqineer and water company
with the fol]owlno certification: "I certify that the
design of the wat_~r system in Parcel MaD 2~G~'3
accordance %.;lth the water system expansion plans ol the
Rancho California1 Water District and that the water
serv]ce. storaoe and dxstrxbut:on system will be
adequate to Drovlde water service to such Parcel .
Dept,
This Certlflcatlen does not constitute a cluaranto~
that it will supply water to such parcel map at any
specific quantities, flows or pressures for fire
protection or any other purpose" This certification
~hal] be s~aned bv a responsible official of
company, The. plans.m~st_ ~__%ubm!.t~.e~ to the_County
Surveyor'~~.Of.~iCe ~Q.~iew. at..leas~.two.week5 prlo[
to the request for the recor. datlon of the f~nai map.
This subdivision has a statement from Rancho ralifornla
Water District aQreeln~ to serve domestic w~ter to each
to be made prior to the recordatlon of the final maD,
This subdivision is wlthln the Eastern Municipal Water
DIstrict and shall be connected to the sewers of the
District, The sewer system shall be installed accordln~ to
plans and specificat~en~ as aDDroved bv the Dl~tr~ct, time
County Surveyor and the Health Department, Fermanent Drlnt%
or the plans of the sewer system ~hall be submitted in
triplicate, alonq w~th the orlolnal drawlno, to the County
Surveyor, The prints ~hall show the ~ntern~l
diameter, location of manholes, complete Profiles, DiDO
and .joint specifications and the size of the sewers at
water lines shall be a poFtlon Of the sewaoe plans
profiles, The plans shall be s~qned by a re~lstered
enqlneer and the sewer district with the foliowine
certification: "I certify that the desion of thp
system in Farce/ Map 25633 is in accordance with the
sewer system expansion plans of the Eastern Municipal Water
District and that the waste disposal system Is adeguate ~t
thl~ time to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed
parcel map."
Riverside County Planning Dent.
Paoe Thr~e
ATTN: ,l~l'f Arl:Hii,,
May 24. 1990
The_plans must be submitted to the County Surveyor Is
Office to .re.view a~. least _two weeks prlo~__t,o ~.he
it will be necessary for financial arranqements to be
comDletelv flnallzed Drlor to recordatlon of the final
maD.
Environmental Health Service~
SM:dr
co: City of Temecula
KENNETH L EDWARDS
1995 MARKET STREET
P.O BOX 1033
TELEPHONE (714) 787-2015
FAX NO. (714) 788-9965
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92502
Riverside County
P1 anning Department
County Administrative Center
Rivers t de, Ca] i forn i a
Attention: Regional Team N . ~' Re:
Area:
We have reviewed this case and have the following comments:
Except for nuisance nature local runoff which may traverse portions of the
property the project is considered free from ordinary storm flood hazard.
However, a storm of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New construc-
tion should comply with all applicable ordinances.
The topography of the area consists of well defined ridges and natural water-
courses which traverse the property. There is adequate area outside of the
natural watercourses for building sites. The natural watercourses should be
kept free of buildings and obstructions in order to maintain the natural
drainage patterns of the area and to prevent flood damage to new buildings.
A note should be placed on an environmental constraint sheet stating, "All new
buildings shall be floodproofed by elevating the finished floors a minimum of
18 inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosion protection shall be provided
for mobile home supports."
regulations.
The proposed zoning is consistent with existing flood
control facilities or floodproofing may be required to
implied density.
hazards. Some flood
fully develop to the
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 /Z:>~/f~5'~ The project will be
free of ordinary storm flood hazard when improvements ~ave been constructed in
accordance with approved plans.
The attached comments apply.
cc: Jv. F D.,,/bsO, o
)HN H. KASHUBA
.~nior Civil Engineer
)ATE: ,~P~'/~, Z~//~qO
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
IN COOPERATION WITH THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
AND FIRE PROTECTION
GLEN J. NEWMAN
FIRE CHIEF
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
46-209 OASIS STREET, SUITE 4o5
INDIO, CA 92201
(619) 342-8886
Sept. 4, 1990
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
3760 IZTH STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
(714) 275-4777
TO:
CITY OF TEMECULA
ATTN:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE:
PARCEL MAP 25633 - AMENDED #2 - PLOT PLAN 116~9
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 546.
Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 4000 GPM
for a 3 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, which must be
available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants, on a looped
system (6"x4"x2~x2~), 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: "I 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 GPM or greater. The post indicator valve and fire
department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of
a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement
that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be
included on the title page of the building plans.
Subject: Parcel Map 25633 Page 2
Install a supervised waterflow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans must be
submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation, as
required by the Uniform Building Code.
8. A statement that the building will be automatically fire sprinklered
must appear on the title page of the building plans.
9. Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform Building Code,
Section 503.
10. Install panic hardware and exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform
Building Code.
11. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes.
12. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC.
Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment.
13.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shallbe
responsible to submit a check or money order in the amount of $413.00
to the Riverside County Fire Department for plan check fees.
14.
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¢ per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts.
This amount must be submitted separately from the plan check review fee.
15. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the
Building and Safety Office.
All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to the
Planning and Engineering staff.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
Laura Cabral, Fire Safety Specialist
ama
Administrative Office · 1777 Atlanta Avenue
Riverside, CA 92507
May 1, 1990
Riverside County Planning Department
Attention: Jeff Adams
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside,.CA 92501
RE: Parcel Map 25633, Amended Map No. 2
(Planned Industrial Development)
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety
has the following comments and conditions:
The developer shall obtain Planning Department approval for
all on-site and off-site signage advertising the sale of
the parcel map pursuant to Section 19.5 of Ordinance 348.
Sincerely,
Land Use Technician
VS:sml
(714) 682-8840 · (714) 275-1820 · Fax (714) 369-.4084
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
GRADING SECTION
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
APN:
May 16, 1990
'?pm 25633 AMENDMENT #
921-020-066
2 EXHIBIT D
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
applicant shall obtain a grading permit and approval
the Building and Safety Department.
cubic yards, the
to construct from
All grading shall conform to the Uniform Building Code and Ordinance
457.
Prior to issuance of any building permit, the property owner shall
obtain a grading permit and approval to construct 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.
Grading in excess of 199 cubic yards will require performance security
to be posted with the Building and Safety department.
In instances where a grading plan involves import or export, prior to
obtaining a grading permit, the applicant shall have obtained approval
for the import/export location from the Building and Safety Department -
this may require a written clearance from the Planning Department.
All drainage facilities shall be designed to accommodate 100 year storm
flows.
Observe Slope setbacks per Section 2907, Figure 29-1, Section 7011 and
Figure 70-1 of the Uniform Building Code.
NOTE: For the final grading plan, please provide the applicable information
form Building and Safety Department grading forms: 284-120, 284-21, 284-86,
and 284-46. These forms are available at all Building and Safety Offices.
Thank you.
August 24, 1989
To:
SUBJECT:
Consulting Engineers and Developers
Suppleental Requirements to Land O~vision
Form SAN 53 - Nater & Sewer (Supplemental SAN S3)
This letter is written to assist all concerned parties with their processing
of a proposed land division (i.e. parcel, tract, etc.) to be developed. The
County of Riverside Department of Health-Environmental Health Services Division
(EHSD} in conjunction with Western Riverside County water and sewer agencies,
has developed the subject form to assist with the approval process for a land
division {development).
The process that Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) uses involving the
subject form, is as follows:
The land division/development proponent {Proponent) contacts EMWD's
Customer Service Department to obtain a will serve letter. This is
considered a preliminary step in 'the approval process {i.e.
preliminary will serve letter) from EMWD's point of view.
The Proponent then normally contacts the EHSD as the next step in
the approval process, who in turn issues the Supplemental SAN 53
form to be responded to by the appropriate agency (E)D, etc.}.
The Proponent then
thereof) pertinent
etc.) for response.
forwards the Supplemental SAN 53 form (or a copy
to their project to the appropriate agency {EMWD,
EMWD then provides appropriate responses to the questions checked
on the pertinent Supplemental SAN 53 form to the EHSD with copies
to the Proponent and any affected city. This may involve detailed
research of records and performance of various hydraulic calculations
including a network analysis of the system to serve the proposed
project in order to determine what facilities are necessary to provide
a proper level service for the proposed project. This response may
require 30 to 45 days depending on the level of effort required to
provide responses and is considered as the intermediate will serve
letter by E~D. Assistance in providing answers to these questions
by the Proponent's engineering consultant is welcomed by EMWD.
Mail To: Post Office Box 8300 · SanJacinto, California 92383-1300 · Telephone (714) 925-7676 · Fax (714) 929-0257
Main Office: 2045 S. SanJacinto Street, SanJacinto ° Customer Service/Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue, Hemet, CA
Consulting Engineers -2- August 24, 1989
and Developers
After the Proponent receives final approval from the appropriate
County of Riverside agencies for their project, they normally contact
EHWD's Customer Service Department to make financial arrangements
for construction of the facilities required to serve their project.
This agreement is considered the final will serve letter.
If you have any questions concerning this matter please contact me at (714}
766-1880.
Very Truly Yours,
H.A~i'~~
Director of Planning & Research
HAS/dfw
WESTERN REGION
Sout/~ern Ca~fornia Ed/son Company
P. 0, BOX 410
LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90801
100 LONG BEACH BOULEVARD
LONG BEACH. CALIFORNIA 90802
Riverside County
Road Department
P.O. Box 1090
Riverside, CA 92502
Attention: Subdivision Section
SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map No. 25633
April 11, 1990
Please be advised that the division of the property shown on
Tentative Parcel Map No. 25633 will not unreasonably interfere
with the free and complete exercise of any easement(s) held by
Southern California Edison Company within the boundaries of said
tentative parcel map.
This letter should not be construed as a subordination of the
Company's rights, title and interest in and to said easement(s),
nor should this letter be construed as a waiver of any of the
provisions contained in said easement(s) or a Waiver of costs for
teloration of any affected facilities.
In the event that the development requires relocatlon of facil-
ities, on the subject property, which facilities exist by right
of easement or otherwise, the owner/developer will be requested
to bear the cost of such relocation and provide Edison with
suitable replacement rights. Such costs and replacement rights
are required p~ior to the performance of the relocation.
If additional information is
the above mentioned subject,
(213) 491-2644.
required in connection with
please call Dennis Bazant at
Sincerely,
S. R. SHERMOEN [',1
Regional Manag.f-_ ,/
'~ Real P~operti:~s Agent ~
3e6(12)WPC/]c
cc: Continental Lawyers Title Company
J. F. Davidson Associates. Inc.
qiVE:I iDE COUrlC.u
PLAIlrl;II( DEPAqClTIEI'IC
July 3, 1989
Schaefer Dtxon Associates
22 Nauchly
Irvtne, CA 927~8
Attention:
Nr. Nicholas Selmeczy
Nr. Paul Davis
Nr. Dean N. Whtte
SUBJECT:
Seismic/Geologic Hazard
Pro3ect 80-182
APN: 921-020o037
Parcel Nap 19580
Building & Safety Log #232505
County Geologic Report No. 601
Rancho California Area
Gentlemen:
we have reviewed your report entitled "Geotechntcal Investigation, A Portion of
Business Park III, Phase 2, Parcels 1, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, Rancho California
CA," dated September 2, 1988, and your response to County review, dated June
12, 1989.
Your report determined that:
1. The surface trace of a ground fissure extends northwest-southeast
across the eastern art of Parcel 11, to the Parcel 10 property line.
The trace can be followed in the shallow subsurface from the west side
of Parcel 8 across Parcels 9 and 10. The fissure location is shown on
Plate 1, Geotechntcal Map of you report.
2. A zone of previously unmepped faults is associated with the above
mentioned ground fissures. These pre-extSttng faults offset strata
that are between approximately 3000 and 9100 years old. These faults
are considered active Holocene faults based on State of California
criteria,
3. There is m potentlal for future movements to continue along the active,
Holocene faults, Zt is not expected that future displacement wtll
occur away from the pre-extstlng, Holocene faults.
4080 LEMON STREET. 9'- FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 787-6181
46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201
(619) 342-8277
Schaefer Dixon Associates
- 2 - July 3, 1989
4. The Whlttter-Elsinore (Wtldomar) fault is ca able of generating very
stron ground shaktn at the subject site. ~elsmtc data from events on
this Vault are as fo~lows:
Maximum Credible Earthquake
Magnitude - 7.1
Peak Horizontal Ground Acceleration - O.70g
lO0-Year Probable Earthquake
Magnitude - 6.0 to
Peak Horizontal GroUnd Acceleration - 0.35g to 0.41g
Liquefaction of soils at the site is expected to be minimal, There is
little or no potential for lateral spreading or ground lurching at the
site. Potentially liqueftable soils 20 feet below proposed finish
grades are not anticipated to produce sand boils that could reach the
ground surface.
Your report recommended that:
No habitable structures shall be placed across the ground-surface
fissures and active faults or in areas with potential for ground
fissurerig or faulting.
2. A Restricted Use Zone shall be established as shown on Plate
Recommended Restricted Use Zone.
Proposed structures Should be designed to acco~mmdate settlements which
may be induced by soil liquefaction. These settlements are expected to
be less than 1/3 inch over a distance of 20 feet and wtll be in
addition to settlements induced by foundation and surcharge loads.
An additional, detailed subsurface investigation and geotechnical
engineering analysis shall be required for the foundation design of
each proposed building when building and grading plans become
available.
It is our opinion that the report was prepared in a competent manner and
satisfies the additional Information requested under the California
Environmental Qualit Act review and the Riverside County Comprehensive General
Plan, Final approva~
of the
report is hereby given.
We recmnd that the following conditions be satisfied before recordatlon of
any subdivision maps and/or issuance If any County permits associated with this
pro~ect:
Schaefer Dixon Associates
- 3 - July 3, 1989
The Recommended Restricted Use Zone shown on the Recommended Restricted
Use Zone Map, Plate 2 dated September 2, 1988 in the report shall be
delineated on the project maps and/or Environmental Constraints Sheet
(E.C.S.). The areas wtthtn the Recommended Restricted Use Zone shall
be labeled "FAULT AND GROUND FISSURE HAZARD AREA."
The following notes shall be placed on the E.C.S. and/or subdivision
maps:
(a) "This property is affected by earthquake faulting and ground
fissures. Structures for human occupancy shall not be allowed in
the Fault and Ground Fissure Hazard Area,"
(b)
"Count Geologic Report No. 601 was prepared for this property on
September 2t 1988 by Schaefer Dixon Associates, and is on file at
the Riverside County Planning Department. Spectftc Items of
concern are as follows: earthquake faulting, ftssuring and
ground subsidence, seismic destgn of structures, liquefaction,
and uncompacted trench backfill,"
3. The E.C.S. and/or project maps shall be submitted to the Planntng
Department Engineering GeolOgist for review and approval.
4. The exploratory trench backfill shall be addressed by the project
gaDtechnical engineer prior to issuance of grading permits,
The recommndations made tn your report for mitigation of seismic/geologic
hazards shall be adhered to in the design and construction of this project,
SAK:al
· Very truly yours,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNI DEPARTH T
- P1 nfng Dir tor~.._
1rig 8co
Bedford Properties - $teven Stlla
CDMG- Earl Hart
Butldtng & Safety (Z) - Nom Lostbom
Butldlng & Safety -. Tony RamsaeooJ
Parcel Map 19580 - Central Ftles
~ , lfTf MS
?TtN6 YO
N./DIST.
:50.00)
:39.00)
/
/
/ ]
WA
4
,p,/,l O. ~t
,/
;2/AI/TY
> ~C~LE~
ENVZ
.~,'/Z ~
EL E V,~
~F IZ
·
THIS
NIL ES
,~T THE
M ,e~c
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNINC DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
Backqround
1. Name of Proponent:
2. Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
Wescon Properties
18102 Sky Park South
Irvine, CA 9271u,
5.
6.
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
Agency Requiring
Assessment:
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Location of Proposal:
8-23-90
CITY OF TEMECULA
Tentative Parcel Map 25633 and
Plot Plan No. 11669
Southwest side of Business Park Dirve,
north of Rancho California Road
II
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?
X
Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil?
X
Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features?
X
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
X
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on
or off site?
X
STAFFRPT\TPM25633 1
Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltatlon, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, in)at 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:
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 reglonally?
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 or ground waters?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\TPM25633 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, 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
X
X
X
X
×
X
X
STAFFRPT\TPM25633 3
10.
11.
12.
13.
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
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 l including,
but not limited to, oil, pestlcides,
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:
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? X
STAFFRPT\TPM25633 ~
Yes Maybe No
b. Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking? X
c. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems? __ X
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? __ X
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic? X
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, b/cyclists or pedestrians? X
lu,. Public Services. Will the proposal have
substantial affect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection? X __
b. Police protection? X __
c. Schools? X
d. Parks or other recreational
facilities? X
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads? X __
f. Other governmental services: __ __ X
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy? __ __ X
b. Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy? __ __ X
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alteratlonsto the fol Iowing utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? __ __ X
STAFFRPT\TPM25633 5
17.
18.
19.
Communications systems?
Water?
Sewer or septic tanks?
Storm water drainage?
Solid waste and disposal?
Human Health. Will the proposal
result in:
Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard {excluding
mental health)?
Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result
in the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to
public view?
Recreation. Will the proposal result in
an impact upon the quality or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities?
20. Cultural Resources.
Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object?
Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which
would effect unique ethnic cultural
values?
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ST A FF R PT\T PM25633 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?
Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, envlron-
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? __
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\TPM25633 7
Ill Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
Earth
1.
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 degree
and results in soll displacement, compaction and over-covering.
Further analysis will determine if additional mitigations are
required.
No. Development of the proposed project will not require
substantial grading and as a result will not alter the existing
topography.
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 erea~s climate.
STAFFRPT\TPM25633
8
Water
3.
a,d-e.
b-c,g.
~. 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 net 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 nagatlve 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 urbanization 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 habitates 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.
No. Severe noise will not be generated by the proposed project.
STAFFRPT\TPM25633 9
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 Mr. 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 list 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 areais 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\TPM25633 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. The project will need 392 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, bicyclists, or pedestrians.
Public Services
14. 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 affect on these
public services.
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 requires the use of utilities but will
not require substantial alteration to the exiting systems.
STAFFRPT\TPM25633 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 Siqniflcance
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-IS interchange, a traffic
mitigation fee should be paid.
STAFFRPT\TPM25633
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-
ficant effect on 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
STAFF R PT\TPM25633 13
RESOLUTION NO. 9l)-.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PARCEL MAP NO. 25633
TO SUBDIVIDE A 7.2 ACRE PARCEL INTO ~ PARCELS AT
THE SOUTHWESTERLY SIDE OF BUSINESS PARK DRIVE.
WHEREAS, Viescon Properties filed Parcel Map No. 25633 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 17, 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:
SECTION 1. Findings. 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:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general pian.
J2) 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.
(b) There is little or no probability of substantial
ST A F F R PT\T PM25633
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 al)
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:
There is reasonable probability that Parcel
Map No. 26533 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 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 c~,,,,,unity.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Parcel Map
proposed is compatible with the health. safety and welfare of the
STAFFRPT\TPM25633 2
community.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that the proposed
project will not have a significant impact on the environment, and a Negative
Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Parcel
Map No. 25633 for the subdivision of a 7.2 acre parcel into I~ parcels located at the
southwesterly side of Business Park Drive subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th 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 mestln9 thereof. held
on the __ day of 1990 by the following vote of the
Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFFRPT\TPM25633
3
APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDCMENT
I have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth
hereln above in this Resolution of approval for Parcel Map No. 25633.
DATED: By
Name
Title
ST A F F R P T\ T PM25633 ~
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVINC; PLOT PLAN NO. 11669 TO
PERMIT OPERATION OF AN INDUSTRIAL FACILITY AT
BUSINESS PARK DRIVE.
WHEREAS, Wescon Properties filed Plot Plan No. 11669 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 17, 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 Plot Plan;
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to
said Plot Plan on , at which time interested persons had
opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission
proceedings and Staff Report regarding the Plot Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findin.qs. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes
the following findings:
A. Pursuant to C;overnment 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:
{ 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
STAFFRPT\TPM25633 1
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 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:
(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. 11669 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 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.
STAFFRPT\TPM25633 2
{2) The overall development of the land is designed for
the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare;
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 City Council hereby approves Plot Plan No.
11669 for the operation and construction of an industrial park located at the
southwest side of Business Park Drive 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 day of
· 1990.
RON PARKS
MAYOR
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the
day of , 1990 by the following vote of the Council:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES:
COUN C I LMEMBERS
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS
DAVID F. DIXON
CITY CLERK
STAFFRPT\TPM25633 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. 11669.
DATED: By
Na/~e
Title
STAFFRPT\TPM25633 4
ITEM #6
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 17, 1990
Case No.: Plot Plan No. 1162D
Prepared By: Scott Wright
Recommendation: 1. Adoption of Negative Declaration
2. Approva)
APPLICATION INFORMATION
OWNER:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCAT I ON:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
Williams Development Company
Willjams Development Company
Markham E, Associates
To construct a two story office building with a total
floor area of 23,450 square feet and 17,675 square
feet of net leaseable floor area, on a parcel that
contains 1.16 acres.
The northerly side of Enterprise Circle North
abutting the southerly side of Santa Certrudis
Creek.
M-SC ( Manufacturing - Service Commercial )
North: Santa Certrudls Creek
South: M-SC IManufacturing - Service
Commercial )
East: M-SC (Manufacturing - Service
Commercial )
West: M-SC |Manufacturing - Service
Commercial )
Not requested.
Vacant
North:
South:
East:
West:
Santa Gertrudis Creek
Vacant
Offices
Offices
STAFFRPT\PP11620 1
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Site Area:
Total Floor Area:
Net Leaseable Floor Area:
Parking Spaces:
Landscaped Area:
1.16 acres
23,~50 sq.ft.
17,675 sq.ft.
88
7,020 sq.ft.
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
Plot Plan No, 11620 was originally submitted to the
Riverside County Planning Department on November
27, 1989. The plot plan was reviewed by the Land
Development Committee on December 21, 1989 and on
April 2, 1990. The City received the case file on
June 6, 1990. At that time the Traffic Study had
not been received.
The proposal is to construct a two story office
building with 23,~50 square feet of gross floor area
and 17,675 square feet of net leaseable building
area, There are 88 parking spaces, a landscaped
area of 10 feet deep abutting the street frontage,
and substantial interior landscaping.
Drainaqe and Flood Control
The conceptual grading plan indicates that the site
will drain to Enterprise Circle North, The site's
underlying subdivision, Parcel map No. 19582-2 has
been cleared by the County Flood Control District
and the County Road Department in preparation for
recordatlon. improvement plans have incorporated
interim flood proofing measures that will protect the
tract from the 100 year storm event. The Santa
Gertrudis Channel improvement is required to be
fully bonded as a Condition of Approval for Tract
19582-2. Deferment of construction of the channel
improvements until Tract 19582-2 is developed is
acceptable to the County Flood Control District.
Pursuant to the Riverside County Flood Control
District~s recommendation, this project shall pay an
Area Drainage Plan flood mitigation fee of
$1,083.32.
Liquefaction and Subsidence Potential
The site is potentially susceptible to liquefaction
and subsidence. A liquefaction report was
conducted during the processing of the underlying
parcel map. The County Engineering Geclogist
found that the report satisfies the requirements of
STAFFRPT\PP11620 2
the California Environmentat Quality Act. The
recommendations of the report shall be Conditions of
Approval for the project.
Fault Traces
A Geology Study conducted in conjunction with the
underlying parcel map found active traces of the
Wildomar Fault in the vicinity of the site. The
Geology Report recommended a building setback
zone. The property in question is not one of the
parcels contained in the setback zone.
Access and Internal Circulation
A driveway 30 feet in width will provide access to
the site. All drive aisles in the parking area will be
2L~ feet or more in width which is adequate to
accommodate two way traffic and provide refuse
truck turn around space.
Parking
The 88 parking spaces indicated are adequate to
satisfy the parking requirement for professional
business offices, ~17.675 square feet of leaseable
floor area X 1 space per 200 square feet of leaseable
floor area = 88 spaces). 2096 of the required parking
spaces may be compact spaces 12096 X 88 = 18
spaces). The plot plan indicates 12 compact spaces.
Three handicapped parking spaces are provided in
compliance with 5rate handicapped accessibility
requirements.
Traffic
According to the Traffic Study prepared for this
project, the proposed office building will generate
420 daily vehicle trips, 60 of which will occur during
the peak evening hour. No off-site improvements
are needed to serve projected 1991 traffic volumes
including project generated traffic at the required
level of service. The developer is required to pay
traffic signal mitigation fees and area-wide road
improvement and public facilities fees. The Traffic
Study was deemed acceptable by the City Traffic
Engineer.
STAFFRPT\PP11620 3
GENERAL PLAN AND
ZONING CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS:
Landscapinq
Ordinance 348 requires that 1096 of the total parking
area must be landscaped wherever 50 or more
parking spaces are required. The substantial
amount of perimeter and interior landscaping shown
on the plot plan is adequate to satisfy the
requirement. The landscape strip abutting the
street is 10 feet deep in accordance with Ordinance
3z~8.
The Southwest Area Community Plan designates the
site for Light Industrial land uses. The site is
zoned M-SC i Manufacturing - Service Commercial )
which is consistent with the light industrial land
Use designation. Professional business offices are
a permitted use in the M-SC zone. Therefore, the
proposed office building is consistent with the zone
and land use designation in which it is located.
An Initial Study was prepared by City Staff for Plot
Plan No. 11620 and is attached to this report {see
attachment). Staff determined that the project will
not result in any significant environmental impacts
and recommends adoption of a Negative Declaration
for Plot Plan No. 11620.
The proposed office building is consistent
with the Area Plan land use designation and
the zone in which it will be located.
The project will not constitute an adverse
impact on surrounding land uses in that it
will be compatible with existing land uses in
the area; the site will not drain onto adjacent
properties, and project generated traffic will
not pose an undue burden on the streets in
the area.
The site is adequate for the proposed use in
that parking, internal traffic circulation, and
landscaping are adequate and meet all
applicable requirements.
The site will have adequate access from the
street on which it has frontage.
5. Potential flood and liquefaction hazards can
STAFFRPT\PP11620
be adequately mitigated.
The traffic generated by the project will not
constitute a significant adverse impact on the
level of service of the streets in the area and
the developer is required to pay traffic signal
mitigation and road improvement fees.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Plot Plan
No. 11620;
ADOPT Resolution 90-
No. 11620; and,
approving Plot Plan
APPROVE Plot Plan No. 11620 based on the
analysis and findings contained herein and
subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
SW: ks
Attachments:
Exhibits:
A. Conditions of Approval
B. Initial Study
Clearance Letter from
County Flood Control
1. Vicinity Map
2. Plot Plan
3. Elevations
Color Board
STAFFRPT\PP11620 5
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan No. 11620
Council Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
Planninq Department
The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for a two story office building
with 17,675 square feet of leaseable floor area.
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 Plot Plan
No. 11620. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permlttee of any
such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will
cooperate fully in the defense. )f the City fails to promptly notify the
permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in
the defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend,
indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula.
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
baginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the
two 12) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or
the baginnlng of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as
shown on plot plan marked Exhibit 2, Plot Plan, or as amended by these
conditions.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as nat to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
The applicant shall comply with the street improvement recommendations
outlined in the Engineering Departmentis Conditions of Approval, a copy of
which is attached.
Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the
provisions sat forth in the Riverside County Health Department~s transmittal
dated February 27, 1990, a copy of which is attached,
8. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County
STAFF R PT\PP11620 1
10.
11.
12.
13.
15.
16o
Flood Control Distrlct~s transmittal dated December 20, 1989, a copy of which
is attached.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section
of Ordinance No. 5u,6 and the County Fire Warden*s transmittal dated June 13,
1990, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the
Department of Buildlng and Safety - Land Use Section~s transmlttal dated
April u,. 1990, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside
County Ceologist~s transmittal dated February u,, 1988, a copy of which is
attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside
County Ceologist~s transmittal dated February 5, 1988, a copy of which is
attached.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape,
irrigation, and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. An
automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be
maintained in a viable growth condition. Planting within ten (10) feet of an
entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty (30)
inches.
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, nine (9) copies of a
Parking, Landscaping, irrigation, and Shading Pian shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for approval. The location, number, genus, species,
and container size of the plants shall be shown. Plans shall meet all
requirements of Ordinance No. 3~8, Section 18.12, and shall be accompanied
by a filing fee as set forth in Section 18.37 of Ordinance No. 3u,8.
A minimum of 88 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section
18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 3u,8. 88 parking spaces shall be
provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit No. 2. The parking area shall be
surfaced with asphaitic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on ~
inches of Class II base.
A minimum of three (3) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as
shown on Exhibit No. 2. 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
STAFFRPT\PP11620 2
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a
conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less
than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles 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.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, 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.
Prior to the issuance of building permits the following additional and/or
revised plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval:
Signing Program
Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans
Parking and Circulation Plans
Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on
Exhibit No. 3.
Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial
conformance with that shown on Exhibit No. 3 I Color Elevations) and Exhibit
No. ~ IMaterials Board).
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening
material shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along
streets and within the parking areas.
All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans
submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval
and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No.
655.
STAFFRPT\PP11620 3
"This project is located within a Subsidence Report Zone. Prior to issuance
of any building permit by the Riverside County 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 be 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,"
25.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with
Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance which is
based on {the gross acreage of the parcels proposed for development) ~the
number of single family residential units on lots which are a minimum of one-
half I1/2) gross acre in size). Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by
the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fees
required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required under
the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or
resolution.
26.
One I1 ) Class II bicycle rack shall be provided in convenient locations to
facilitate bicycle access to the project area.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, all required landscape planting
and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the
Director of Building and Safety. The plants shall be healthy and free of
weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed
and in good working order.
28.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
Enqineerinq Department
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMIT:
29.
All site plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be
coordinated for consistency with approved plans.
30.
The developer shall provide clearance from all applicable agencies and pay all
fees prior to the approval of the grading plan.
Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks, Undersidewalk drains
shall be installed to City standards.
32.
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.
STAFFRPT\PP11620
33. 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 developer shall submit four {Ill 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 2u,'x36" mylar by a
Registered Civil Engineer.
35.
The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of
building permits.
36.
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.
37.
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.
38.
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the City Engineer based
on the recommendations of the Riverside County Flood Control District.
39.
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.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION 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 EIR/Nagative 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
STAFFRPT\PP11620 5
developer. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the
payment of fees in excess of those now estimated lassuming benofit to the
project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest
such increase.
All work done within the City right-of-way shall have an encroachment permit.
All driveways shall conform to the County of Riverside Standard No. 207.
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.
A permit from the Riverside County Flood Control District is required for
work within its right-of-way.
STAFFRPT\PP11620 6
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
DEPA RTM EN'I~
~f HE
II -ki E RIVERSIDE, C //A/} '
t ezzaa°
ONH~AL HEALTH SPgCIALIST IV
PLOT PLAN 11620
The Environmental Health Services has reviewed Plot
Plan 11620 and has no ob.lectlons, Sanitary sewer and water
services are available In this area, Prior to bulldlno Dlan
submittal, the followlno items will be submxtted:
"Will-serve" letters from the water and sewerlne
aoencles,
Three complete sets of plans for each food
establishment will be subm2tted, 2ncludZno a
fixture schedule, a finish schedule, and a
plumbina schedule in order to ensure compliance
with the Cal~fornza Uniform Retail Food Facllztles
Law,
If there are to be any hazardous materials, a
qle~[~qe._~q~%qE from the Environmental Health
Services Hazardous Materials Management Branch
(Jon Mohoroski, 358-5055), will be reUulred
lndlcatin~ that the pro.~ect has been cleared for:
a, Underaround storaue tanks,
b. Hazardous Waste Generator Services,
C $
Hazardous Waste Disclosure (Zn
accordance with AB 2185),
d, Waste reduction manaoement,
SM:wdl
Cc: 3on Mohoroski, Hazardous Materials Branch
KENNETH L EDWARDS
CHIEF ENGINEER
1995 MARKET ~TREET
P.O. BOX 1033
TELEPHONE (714) 787-2015
FAX NO (714) 798-9965
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92502
Riverside County
Planning Department
County Administrative Center
Riverside, California
Attention: Regional Team No.
Re: ??' HG?--G
Area:
We have reviewed this case and have the following comments:
Except for nuisance nature local runoff which may traverse portions of the
property the project is considered free from ordinary storm flood hazard.
However, a storm of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New construc-
tion should comply with all applicable ordinances.
The topography of the area consists of well defined ridges and natural water-
courses which traverse the property. There is adequate area outside of the
natural watercourses for building sites. The natural watercourses should be
kept free of buildings and obstructions in order to maintain the natural
drainage patterns of the area and to prevent flood damage to new buildings.
A note should be placed on an environmental constraint sheet stating, "All new
buildings shall be floodproofed by elevating the finished floors a minimum of
18 inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosion protection shall be provided
for mobile home supports."
This project is
drainage plan fees
regulations.
in the Area
shall be paid in accordance with the applicable rules and
The proposed zoning is consistent with existing flood hazards. Some flood
control facilities or floodproofing may be required to fully develop to the
implied density.
The District's report dated
is still current for this project.
The District does not object to the proposed minor change.
~"/~ This project is a part of P/~'7 /~ ~E~ The project will be
free of ordinary storm flood hazard when improvements have been constructed in
accordance with approved plans.
/The attached comments apply.
~ ~,~,~AT.O~ C~C-~: ery ~l~
OHN H. KASHUBA
~r Civil Engineer
DATE:
The County Board of Supervisors has adopted the .~lo~l~TT~ C_.~/
i"~COt~, ~/A~y Area Drainage Plan for the purpose of
collecting drainage fees. Those fees are used to construct
needed flood control facilities within the particular area. The
Area Drainage Plan fees apply to new land divisions and other
types of new development.
Virtually all new development causes increased storm runoff.
These increases are particularly troublesome in those watersheds
where an Area Drainage Plan has been adopted. In order to miti-
gate the downstream impacts brought about by increased runoff,
the District recommends that Conditional Use Cases, Plot Plans
and Public Use Cases be required to pay a flood mitigation
charge. Mitigation charges, where appropriate, will be similar
to the current Area Drainage Plan fee rate.
Following is the District~s recommendation:
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 ~#16 acres. At the current
fee rate of $ q3Z~ per acre, the mitigation charge
equals $ t0~3. ~-- . 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 been
credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
Mitigation Charge
(mitcharg)
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
46-209 OASIS STREET. SUITE 405
INDIO. CA 92201
(619) 342-8886
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
IN COOPERATION WITH THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
AND FIRE PROTECTION
GLEN J. NEWMAN
FIRE CHIEF
6-13-90
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
3760 12TH STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
(714) 275-4777
TO:
ATTN:
RE:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
GLORIA GUZMAN
PLOT PLAN 11620 AMENDED #1
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 546.
Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 3000 GPM
for a 3 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, which must be
available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6"x4"x2½x2~),
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: "I 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 GPM or greater. The post indicator valve and fire
department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of
a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement
that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be
included on the title page of the building plans.
Subject: Plot Plan 11620 Page 2
7. Install a supervised waterflow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans must be
submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation, as
required by the Uniform Building Code.
8. In lieu of fire sprinkler requirements, building(s) must be area separated
into square foot compartments, approved by the Fire Department, as per
Section 505 (e) of the Uniform Building Code.
9. A statement that the building will be autbmatically fire sprinklered
must appear on the title page of the building plans.
10. Comply with Title 19 of the California Administrative Code.
11. Install panic hardware and exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform
Building Code.
12. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes.
13. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC.
Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment.
14. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be
responsible to submit a check or money order in the amount of $345.00 to
the Riverside County Fire Department for plan check fees.
15. 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¢ per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts.
This amount must be submitted separately from the plan check review fee.
16. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the
Building and Safety Office.
All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to the
Planning and Engineering staff.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
Laura Cabral, Fire Safety Specialist
ma
April 4, 1990
Riverside County Planning Department
Attention: Gloria Guzman
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
Administrative Office · 1777 Atlanta Avenue
Riverside, CA 92507
/ PR o 9 199o
RE: Plot Plan 11620, Amended No. 1
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety
has the following comments and conditions:
An additional plot plan or an approved exhibit for on-site
signage will be required.
Prior to issuance of building permits, proposed lighting must
be in conformance with Mount Palomar Lighting Plan, Zone B,
per Ordinance 655.
Prior to acceptance of structural plans for Building and Safety
review, one complete set of approved conditions from Planning
Department must be attached.
Performance Securities Bond for maintenance of landscaping
may be required. Consult your Conditions of Approval.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, written clearance
is required from the following:
° Temecula Unified School District
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall
conform with an approved floor plan indicating the maximum
number of tenants allowed. Each space shall be labeled with
a number or a letter.
Sincerely,
Vaughn Sarkisian
Land Use Technician
VS:sn
(714) 682-8840 "(714) 275-1820 · Fax (714) 369-4084
::ei ;R}iDE COUrI .u
PLArlnilIG DEPARC IEII
February 4, 1988
Pioneer Consultants
251 Tennessee Street
Redlands, California 92373
Attention: Mr. Michael C. Shea
Mr. Kyle D. Emerson
SUBJECT:
AlquiSt-Prioln ~n~ci~l S~udies Zonp
Parcel Hap 19582-2
County Geologic Report No. 457
Rancho California Area
Gen tl emen:
We have reviewed your report entitled "Geological Investigation of the Wildomar
Fault, Parcel Hap 19582-2, Rancho California area, Riverside County, CA," dated
October 19, 1987, and your addendum report dated January 6, 1988.
Your report determined that:
Active traces of the Wildomar Fault have been found to trend through the
site at the locations shown on the grading plans, Exhibits 2A and 2B, and
the trench logs, Exhibits 3A, 38, 3C and 3E.
Active faulting is confined to a distinct and well defined zone 9 to 54
feet wide centered on the western flanks and toe of the distinct
topographic escarpment trending northward along the proposed Enterprise
Circle North and the western margin of Lot 13.
3. No other faults were found on-site over the entire width of the
Alquist-Prio)o Special Studies Zone.
No other geologic hazards are anticipated to affect the future development
of the site, except for liquefaction potential which is being addressed in
a separate report.
4080 LEMON STREET. 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
(7141787-6181
46'209 OASIS STREET. ROOM 304
INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201
(6191342-8277
Pioneer Consultants - 2 - February 4, 1988
Your report recommended that:
A building setback zone should be established on the site which will
contain all known active traces of the Wil domar Fault through on the site.
Width of the setback zone will vary from 85 to 155 feet as shown on Exhibit
2A.
2. All recent backfill placed in the trenches should be recompacted during
grading as per the recommendations of the soils engineer.
It is our opinion that the report was prepared in a competent manner consistent
with the present "state-of-the-art' and satisfies the require~nents of the
Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act, associated Riverside County Ordinance
No. 547, and the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. Final approval
of this report is hereby given.
We recommend that the following conditions be satisfied before issuance of any
County permits associated with this project:
The Bull ding Setback Zone shown on the Geological Rap (Exhibits 2A and 28)
in the report shall be delineated on the Environmental Constraints Sheet
(E.C.S.). The areas within the Building Setback Zone shall be labeled
"FAULT HAZARD AREA." This zone shall supercede the previous setback zone
shown on the E.C.S.
2. The following revised notes shall be placed on the E.C.S.:
"This property is affected by earthquake faulting. Structures for
human occupancy shall not be allowed in the Fault Hazard Area. This
constraint affects parcel numi~ers 12 through 16 and 26.'
(b)
'County Geologic Report No. 457 was prepared for this property on
October lg, 1987 by Pioneer Consultants, and is on file at the
Riverside County Planning Depart~nent. Specific items of concern
are as follows: earthquake faul ring, seismic design of
structures, and liquefaction."
Notes 2(a) and 2(b} above shall also be placed on the final Parcel Map with
the following addition to Note No. 2(a) ' as shown on the accompanying
Environmental Constraints Sheet, the original of which is on file at the
office of the Riverside County Surveyor."
A copy of the final map and Environmental Constraints Sheet shall be
submt tied to the Planning Department Engineering Geologist for review and
approval.
Pioneer Consultants - 3 - February 4, 1988
This report supercedes the previous fault hazard investigation prepared for
this project by Pioneer Consultants in 1980. This report is also referred to
as County Geologic Report No. 199
Very truly yours,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPAR ENT
Roger ~ Streeter n~n D ector
Engi ering Geol
SAK:rd
c.c Csaba Ko Rancho California Co.
- Development
Joe McGee - Hawkins, Robertson & Assoc.
Norm Lostbom - Building & Safety (2)
Earl Hart - CDMG
Planning, Central Files
:liVE:l iDE COUII ,u
PL, rlirlG DEP, : Ii1EI1
February 5, 1988
Pioneer Consultants
251 Tennessee Street
Redlands, CA 92373
Attention: Mr. Nicholas Z. Selmeczy
Mr. David W. Turner
SUBJECT:
Liquefaction Hazard
J. ~.
Parcel Map 19582-2
County Geologic Report No.
Rancho California Area
457L
Gentlemen:
We have reviewed the liquefaction aspects of your report entitled "Geotechnical
Engineering Report, Parcel Map 19582-2, Rancho California, CA," dated
October lg, 1987, and your response letter dated January 18, 1988.
Your report and response determined that:
There is a liquefaction potential in the subsoils which would have an
effect on the proposed development on Lots 5 through 12 and 21 through 26.
There is also a potential for soil liquefaction in the remaining lots, but,
because of the depth of the potentially liquefiable layers, the proposed
fill placement on the parcels and/or the relatively high fines content
(silt and clay) of the near-surface soils, soil liquefaction should not
have an effect on the proposed development. These are lots 1 through 4 and
13 through 20.
Settlement or loss of bearing capacity for proposed structures induced by
soil liquefaction in the near surface soils is not anticipated if the
recommendations made in your report are followed.
The deeper soils underlying the 10 foot thick well compacted layer may
experience liquefaction, and in turn a minor amount of ground subsidence
may be induced by the densification effect of liquefaction. This potential
liquefaction of the deeper lytnq soil layers will not produce intolerably
large differential settlements in the proposed structures.
4. The potential of lateral spreading due to soil liquefaction adjacent to the
proposed stream channel is considered minimal.
4080 LEMON STREET. 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 787'6181
46'209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201
(Rl q) :14~-R977
Pioneer Consultants - 2 - February 5, 1988
5. There is a potential that on certain lots where the soils are prone to
liquefy, storage tanks buried in the ground may get damaged.
Your report and response recommended that:
For Lots 5 through 12 and 21 through 26, a sufficiently thick layer of
nonltquefiable soil, that is, compacted fill below the foundation elevation
of the proposed buildings, should be provided. The required thickness of
this layer should be equal to or greater than two times the width of the
proposed foundations. Assuming that the foundation depth will be limited
to not more than two feet and the footing width to not mere than four feet,
the thickness of the nonliquefiable layer should be at least 10 feet below
proposed finish grade. This nonliquefiable layer can be provided by either
placement of compacted fill and/or removal and replacement of the existing
soils as compacted fill to the requi red depth.
Additional analysis should be performed concerning the effect of soil
liquefaction on underground storage tanks. This should be based on the
particular circumstances and design at the tire when the basic design
information becomes available.
It is our opinion that the report was prepared in a competent manner and
satisfies the additional information requested under the California
Environmental Quality Act review and the Riverside County Comprehensive General
Plan.
We reco~nd that the following note be placed on the Parcel Hap prior to its
recordation: "County Geologic Report No. 457L was prepared for this property
on October 19, 1987, by Pioneer Consultants and is on file at the Riverside
County Planning Department. The specific items of interest are liquefaction
and seismic design of structures."
Very truly yours,
CEG-1205
SAK:rd
c.c. Csaba Ko - Rancho California Development Co.
Joe McGee - Hawkins, Robertson & Assoc.
Norm Lostbom - Building & Safety (2)
Planning Central Files
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
II
Backqround
1. Name of Proponent:
Williams Development Company
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
27715 Jefferson Ave.
Temecula, CA 92390
676-8~,7u,
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
Auqust 21, 1990
Agency Requiring
Assessment:
CITY OF TEMECULA
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Plot Plan No. 11620
Location of Proposal:
Northwesterly side of Enterprise
Circle North abutting Santa Gertrudis
Creek. A.P. #909-281-010
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?
X
Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil?
X
Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features?
X
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
X
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on
or off site?
X
STAFF R PT\PP 11620 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?
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 reglonally?
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 or ground waters?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP11620 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, benthic
organisms or insects)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals?
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildllfe habitat?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP11620 3
10.
11.
12.
13.
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
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
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP11620
15.
16.
Yes Maybe No
b, Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking? __ __ X
c. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems? __ __ X
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? __ __ X
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic? X
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ~ __ X
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? X
b, Police protection? X
c, Schools? X
d. Parks or other recreational
facilities? X
e, Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads? X
f. Other governmental services: X
Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy? __ __ X
b. Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy? __ __ X
Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a, Power or natural gas? __ __ X
STAFFRPT\PP11620 5
18.
19.
20.
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?
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
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP11620 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?
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? __
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP11620 7
III Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
Earth
1.a.
1.b.
1 .c,d.
1.e.
1.f.
1.g.
Air
2 .a-c.
Water
3.a,c,
d,f,g.
Maybe. The potential for liquefaction on the site may be mitigated by
the addition of compacted fill or by removal and replacement of existing
soll as compacted fill. Removal and replacement of existing soll would
be a change in geologic substructure, but would not be considered a
significant impact.
Yes. Site preparation will involve compaction or overcovering of the
soil. This is required to prevent liquefaction and is not considered a
significant impact.
No. The project will not result in any substantial changes to existing
topography. There are no unique physical features on the site.
Maybe. The potential for wind and water erosion will increase durin9
construction. Wind erosion will be mitigated by the use of watering
trucks and the planting of vegetation after grading. Increased water
runoff will be accommodated by drainage facilities as approved by the
Engineering Department.
No. The flood control channel adjacent to the rear of the site is fully
improved with concrete lining. On-site landscape planting will prevent
soil erosion.
Maybe. The site is located in an area potentially susceptible to
liquefaction and subsidence. A liquefaction report was conducted
during the processing of the underlying parcel map. Mitigations
recommended in the report include placement of compacted fill soil or
removal and replacement of existing soil as compacted fill. The County
Engineering Geologist found that the report satisfies the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act. The recommendations of
the report shall be conditions of approval for the project.
The Ceolegy Study conducted in conjunction with the underlying parcel
map found active traces of the Wildomar Fault in the vicinity of the site.
The Geology Report recommended a building setback zone. The
property in question is not one of the parcels in the setback zone.
No. Except for emissions from project generated traffic which are not
considered significant due to good ambient air quality, the project will
not result in substantial emissions, objectionable odors, or alterations
in the climate.
No. The site will drain toward the street into drainage facilities as
STAFFRPT\PP11620 8
3.b.
3.8,
3.h.
3.i.
Plant Life
~.a-d.
Animal Life
5.a-c.
Noise
6.a.
approved by the City Engineer. Grading of the site as proposed will
not alter the direction of drainage. Excavation of the site wilt not be
extensive enough to cause changes in the direction or flow of
groundwaters. The project will be served by water and sewer districts
and will neither directly add to or withdraw from the aqulfer.
Maybe. Any additional runoff caused by the addition of construction
and paving on the site will be accommodated by drainage facilities as
approved by the City Engineer.
Maybe. During construction, the proposed project could increase
turbidity in local surface water. The use of water trucks to sprinkle
the site during grading and construction will minimize increases in
turbidity. This impact is temporary and is not considered significant.
No. The proposed project will not significantly affect the public water
supply.
No. The site is located in Flood Zone A. The site~s underlying
subdivision, Parcel Map No. 19582-2 has been cleared by the County
Flood Control District and the County Road Department in preparation
for recordation. improvement plans have incorporated interim flood
proofing measures that will protect the tract from the 100 year storm
event. The Santa Gertrudis Channel improvement is required to be
fully bonded as a Condition of Approval for Tract No. 19582-2.
Deferment of construction of the channel improvements until Tract
19582-2 is developed is acceptable to the County Flood Control District.
No. No unique, rare, or endangered plant species have been identified
in the area in which the site is located. The introduction of new species
as part of the required landscaping is not considered a significant
impact. The site is not used for any agricultural crops.
Yes. The subject site is located within the area designated by
Riverside County as a Stephence Kangaroo Rat habitat conservation fee
area. Any impacts on the Kangaroo Rat habitat will be mitigated by
paying fees which will contribute to the implementation of Riverside
County~s Habitat Conservation Plan. The site has already been graded
and no burrows were noted. The parcel immedlately east of the site has
already been developed.
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\PP11620 9
6.b. No. The project is an office building and will not generate severe or
unusual levels of noise.
Liqht and Glare
Yes. 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
known as "skyglow" with the Mt. Palomar telescope. The use of LPSV
lights will reduce the light and glare produced by the proposed project.
In addition, all lights shall be directed on-site and not off-site.
Land Use
No. The proposed office building is consistent with the designation of
the site and its vicinity for light industrial and service commercial land
uses. The proposed project is similar to and consistent with existing
land uses in the vicinity.
Natural Resources
No. The project will not result in a substantial increase in the rate of
consumption of any natural or non-renewable resources.
Risk of Upset
10.a.
No. The project will not involve the use of any hazardous substances
other than typical cleaning agents. This is not considered a significant
hazard.
10.b.
Maybe. Any street or lane closures during construction shall be
coordinated with the Police and Fire Departments in order to prevent
interference with emergency vehicle response.
Population and Housinq
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
be fewer than 100, and at leaat some of the jobs will be taken by current
residents of the area. The increase in population and the demand for
housing in the area due to this project are unlikely to be significant
impacts.
Transportation/Circulation
13,a,f.
No. The project will generate ~20 daily vehicle trips, 60 of which will
occur during the peak evening hour. No off-site improvements are
needed to serve projected 1991 traffic volumes including project
generated tr,rric at the required level of service. The developer shall
be required to pay a fee to contribute to the installation of a traffic
signal at the easterly intersection of Enterprise Circle North and
Winchester Road when State traffic signal criteria are met and to pay an
area-wide road improvements and public facilities fee.
STAFFRPT\PP11620 10
13.b, No. The amount of on-site parking provided is adequate to meet the
needs of the proposed use.
13.c-e.
No. The proposed project will not result in a substantial impact on
existing transportation systems or alter present patterns of circulation.
Public Services
l~.a,b,e,f. 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.
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.
Energy
15.a,b.
No. The proposed project will not result in a substantial use or
increase in demand for fuel or other energy sources.
Utilities
16.a-f.
No. The proposed project will not result in a need for substantial
alterations of existing utility systems.
Human Health
17.a,b.
No. The proposed office building will be constructed in accordance
with the Uniform Building and Fire Codes and will not result in
exposure of human beings to potential health hazards.
Aesthetics
18.
No. Development of the site will not obstruct any scenic view that is
currently available to the public. The landscaping of the site and the
architecture of the building will be adequate to prevent a visually
offensive appearance.
Recreation
19.
No. The site is not currently used for recreational purposes.
Cultural Resources
20.a-d.
No. The site is not located in a designated area of archaeological or
paleontological sensitivity. If any cultural or paloontological resources
are found during excavation and grading, an archaeologist or
paleontologist shall be brought on-site to determine whether the
artifacts are significant and to supervise their preservation if
appropriate.
STAFFRPT\PP11620 11
Mandatory Findinqs of Siqnificance
21 .a.
No. No rare or endangered plant species have been identified in the
area in which the project is located. The project will be subject to
mitigation fees for the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation
Plan. The site has already been disturbed by rough grading done in
conjunction with the underlying parcel map.
21 .b,c.
No. The project will not result in any significant long term or
cumulative impacts in that Santa Gertrudis Flood Channel improvements
are required as a Condition of the site's underlying parcel map, and the
developer is required to contribute fees toward installing a traffic
signal at Enterprise Circle North and Winchester Road when traffic
conditions meet State warrants for signallzation.
21 .d.
No. The project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings in that flood control and traffic signalization improvements are
required and construction must conform to Uniform Building and Fire
Code requirements.
STAFFRPT\PP11620 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 signl-
ticant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi-
ficant effect on 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
STAFFR PT\PP11620 13
t84 FOXGLOVE CIR 63
85 ADAM CIR 64 VI,~ MONTARO
CAROLWOOD CI
: 71 WlilSP[RING WIND CT
72 OLD SPRINGS RD
73 t0NDI)N
75 NL)| |IN(;HII (.
76 B|~A[WD(.)O
79 CAL|[ ESP,aNA
80 BUFFY WY
81 CORT[ FLAMENCO
82 ATHENA LN
: 63 MIMOSA DR
~ ../ /
· ~-,..~.,
of "
Count['
Admin,
,%
Winch,
'uare
AUTC
CEN TEl
/IClA/ITY Nt $P
~VEN CI
brary
~ u~4
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNINC COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVINC PLOT PLAN NO. 11620
TO PERMIT A TWO STORY OFFICE BUILDING AT
ENTERPRISE CIRCLE NORTH ADJACENT TO SANTA
CERTRUDIS CREEK.
WHEREAS, Willjams Development Co. filed Plot Plan No. 11620 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 17, 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 Plot Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findin.cJs. That the Temecula City Council 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:
(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:
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.
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
STAFFRPT\PP11620 I
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 Government
Code, to wit:
I1 ) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
12) The City Council finds, in approvlng 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. __ 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 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;
conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible
with the present and future logical development of the
STAFFRPT\PP11620 2
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 City Council hereby approves Plot Plan No.
11620 for the operation and construction of a two story office building located at
Enterprise Circle North adjacent to Santa Certrudis Creek subject to the following
conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
SECTION u,. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this
Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of September, 1990.
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the
__ day of , 1990 by the following vote of the Council:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFFRPT\PP11620 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. __
DATED: By
Name
Title
STAFF R PT\PP 11620 /4
ITEMS #7 ~, ~8
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 17, 1990
Prepared By: Mark Rhoades
Case No.: Vesting Tentative Tract No. 2500u·
Change Zone No. 5611
Recommendstion: Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Pavilion - JLD Ventures #1
C-M Engineering
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 2500b, to subdivide
approximately 59.0 acres into 135 single family lots,
and Change of Zone from R-R to R-1.
Northeast corner of Seraphina Road and Rita Way.
R -R ( Rural Residential )
North:
South:
East:
West:
SP ( Specific Plan )
R -R ( Rural Resldentia) )
R-R-2 1/2, A-A-10
R-R, SP {Rural Residential,
Specific Plan )
R-1 ( Residential Agricultural)
Vacant
North: Vacant
South: Vacant
East: Single Family
West: Vacant
Number of Acres:
No. of Buildings:
Minimum Proposed Lot Size:
Minimum Permitted Lot Size:
Proposed Density:
0
7,200 sq.ft.
7,200 sq.ft.
2.3 units/acre gross
STA F F R PT\VT T2500~ 1
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This project was originally filed at the Riverside
County Planning Department on September 26.1989.
The file was transferred to the City of Temecula in
May, 1990. Since that time Staff has met with the
applicant on several occasions to amend the map
configuration.
Zone Chanqe
Change of Zone 5611 is a proposal to change the
zone on 59 acres from R-R { Rural Residential) to R-
1 ISingle Family Residential). The project is
surrounded by A-1-10 iAgricultural, 10 Acre
Minimum) and R-R-2 1/2 to the east, R-R to the
south and west. To the north and northeast are
Specific Plan areas. The Specific Plan areas contain
lot sizes averaging approximately 1&,500 to 5,000
square feet. This is substantially lower than the
density of the proposed project. The Specific Plan
is Winchester Properties and is located in the
County.
The SWAP identifies this area as residential,
dwelling units per acre. The proposed Change of
Zone is consistent with this designation.
Tentative Tract
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 25000, is an application
to subdivide 59 acres into 135 single family lots.
The density of this project is dependent on the
approval of Zone Change No. 5611.
Lot Size
The minimum proposed lot size is 7,200 square feet.
The maximum lot size is 18,300 square feet, with an
average lot size of approximately 9,000 square feet.
The minimum lot size in the R-1 zone is 7,200 square
feet.
There are 6 lots which will be created as a result of
easement dedications. The largest of which are lots
136, 137, and 138for the Metropolitan Water District
Aqueduct and Southern California Edison. Lot 138
also contains a Stephen~s Kangaroo Rat Habitat
Preservation area. A total of 16.6 acres are taken
by the easement lots.
STAFFR PT\VTT2500~ 2
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
Access
/~ccess will be provided off of Nicolas Road via
Joseph. Rita, and Seraphina Roads. The applicant
will be required to construct road improvements to
Nicolas Road. Access will also be taken off of
Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Improvements to
Murrieta Hot Springs Road will be constructed by
Assessment District 161. All maintenance and slope
areas outside of Lots 1-135 will be maintained by
County Service Area No. 10,3.
Architecture
Currently there is no product slated for this
project. When the housing product is proposed, a
plot plan will be presented to the City.
Grading
Approximately 380,000 cubic yards on 42.u· are
proposed, with no export. Some substantial 2:1
slopes exist, however, the majority of the slopes are
located on easement lots.
The Land Use Designation exhibit from the
Southwest Area Community Plan targets this area
for residential development at 2-4 units per acre.
This map proposes a density of 3.5 units per acre.
The SWAP has been adopted as a policy guide by the
City of Temecula.
The project is consistent with lot standards of the
proposed zone. Probability of consistency with the
City's future General Plan is considered likely by
the Staff. The Planning Commission and the City
Council maintain the authority to determine whether
projects are likely to be consistent with the future
General Plan, and each project considered by these
bodies must be considered on their own merit until
a new General Plan is adopted.
A preliminary environmental assessment was
performed by the County of Riverside Planning
Department prior to transmittal of the case to the
City of Temecula. That assessment was completed
by the City Planning Staff. The following areas of
potential impact were reviewed in detail.
STAFFRPT\VTT25000, 3
Traffic Impacts
A Traffic Study was performed for the project by
Kunzman Associates in October, 1989. The Study
has been accepted by the City and appropriate
mitigation measures included in Conditions.
Bioloqy
A Biological Study was conducted in August, 1989.
The Study identified the existence of the Stephen's
Kangaroo Rat on a portion of the site. A habitat
conservation area has been preserved on the
tentative map as approved by the United States
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Environmental Conclusion
Staff has concluded that no significant impact on the
environment will occur as a result of site
development, and a Negative Declaration has been
recommended for adoption.
FINDINGS:
A basic level of useable and total open space
has been provided on individual lots to meet
the needs of future residents.
There is a reasonable probability that Vesting
Tentative Tract No. 25000, will be consistent
with the City~s future General Plan, which
will be completed within a reasonable time in
accordance with State Law.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future and adopted General Plan, if the
proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan.
The proposed use or action complies with
State planning and zoning laws.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configurations, circulation
patterns, access, and density.
STAFFRPT\VTT25000,
10.
11.
12.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare.
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 2500u, is
compatible with surrounding land uses.
The proposal will not have an adverse affect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the Initial
Study for this project.
The design of the subdivision is consistent
with the State Map Act in regard to future
passive energy control opportunities. Units
will have significant southern exposure which
allows for passive heating opportunities.
Deciduous landscaping can be utilized to allow
solar penetration in winter and shading in
summer.
The design of the subdivision, the type of
improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed projects.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with this application are herein
incorporated by reference.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Vesting
Tentative Tract No. 2500q and Change of
Zone No. 5611, based on the analysis and
findings contained in the initial Study and
Staff Report; and,
APPROVE Change of Zone 5611, based on the
analysis and findings contained in the Initial
Study and Staff Report; and,
STAFFRPT\VTT2500~ 5
APPROVE Vesting Tentative Tract No. 25004,
based on the analysis and findings contained
in the Staff Report, subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval.
MR:ks
Attachments
STAFFRPT\VTT2500~ 6
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 25000,
Council Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
Planninq Department
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision
Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance u,60, Schedule A, unless
modified by the conditions listed below.
This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the City
Council approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance q60.
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
0,60.
The subdivider shall submit one copy of a soils report to the Riverside County
Surveyor~s Office and two copies to the Department of Building and Safety.
The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the
site.
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final
map.
Legal access as required by Ordinance 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.
STAFFRPT\VTT2500u, 1
10.
The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations
outllned in the County Health Department~s transmittal dated May 23, 1990, a
copy of which is attached.
11.
The applicant shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined in
the Riverside County Flood Control District's letter dated April 11, 1990, a
copy of which is attached. If the project lies within an adopted flood control
drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of City of Temecula Land Division
Ordinance ~60, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities
shall be collected by the City prior to issuance of Occupancy Permits.
12.
The applicant shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined
in the County Fire Department's letter dated September u,, 1990, a copy of
which is attached.
13.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building
and Safety Department: Land Use Section~s transmittal dated April 13, 1990,
a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building
and Safety Department: Grading Section's transmittal dated May 1, 1990, a
copy of which is attached.
15.
All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of
Technology, Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as outlined in the
Southwest Area Plan.
16.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern
Municipal Water District transmittal dated May 9, 1990, a copy of which is
attached.
17. 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-1 {Single Family) zone.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free
condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or
provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the
Director of Building and Safety.
18.
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.
19.
Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMIT5 the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
I1)
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
STAFFRPT\VTT2500zI 2
20.
the following:
Permanent automatic irrigation systems shal) be installed on all
landscaped areas requiring irrigation.
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 bennlng, 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
Mutt/eta Hot Springs Road. 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.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent
trees at key visual focal points within the project.
Where street trees cannot be planted within right-d-way of
interior streets and project parkways due to insufficient road
right-d-way, they shall be planted outside of the road right-of-
way.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant
plants where appropriate.
All existing specimen trees and significant rock outcroppings on
the subject property shall be shown on the project~s grading
plans and shall note those to be removed, relocated and/or
retained.
All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow
growing trees shall be steel staked.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be
retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed
grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. Should the
paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a
pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading
contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or
representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redlrect or halt
grading activity to allow recovery of fossils.
STAFFRPT\VTT2500b, 3
21.
22.
Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential
lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer*s successor~s-
in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility
financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars {$100) per
lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library
development.
Prior to the submittal of building plans to the Department of Building
and Safety an acoustical study shall be performed by an acoustical
engineer to establish appropriate mitigation measures that shall be
applied to individual dwelling units within the subdivision to reduce
ambient interior noise levels to ~,5 Ldn.
All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required
elements from the subdivision'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.
Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the
subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving
devices shall be permitted with Planning Department approval.
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from view of surrounding
property.
Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall not
be less than ten { 10) feet.
i. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten {10) feet.
All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and automatic
irrigation.
Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the applicant must submit either a
letter from the Department of Fish and Game which states that the identified
habitat area will not be affected by the proposed development, subject to the
approval of the Planning Director.
STAFFRPT\VTT2500u, u,
23.
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.
Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall be required to pay
applicable Quimby Fees in accordance with Section 10.35 of Ordinance 0,60.
25.
Final landscape plans shall substantially conform to the design guidelines
submitted April, 1990.
26.
Prior to issuance of building permits applicant shall comply with agency letters
identified and dated:
County Health Department, May 23, 1990
County Flood Control, April 11, 1990
EMWD, May 9, 1990
County Geologist, March 30, 1990
County Health Department, April 5, 1990
County Fire Department, April 11, 1990.
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.
27.
The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act,
and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions.
PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL:
28. 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 Ternecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department; and
CATV Franchise.
29.
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
STAFFRPT\VTT25000, 5
30.
31.
32.
33.
3u,.
35.
Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No. ~,60.
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.
In the event that Murrieta Hot Springs Road is not constructed by Assessment
District 161 prior to final map recordation, the developer shall
construct/bond, for the improvements to provide for 1/2 street improvements
plus a lane per Riverside County Standard No. 100 (86'/110').
B, C, D, and E Streets, "H" Courl, and Sandpiper Lane shall be improved
within the dedicated right-d-way in accordance with Riverside County
Standard No. 10~, Section A {u,0'/60).
'F' and "G' Streets shall be improved within the dedicated right-of-way in
accordance with Riverside County Standard No. 103, Section A (L1~'/66~).
Seraphina Road shall be improved with 32 feet of asphalt concrete pavement
within a 36 foot dedicated right-of-way measured from the west tract boundary
line, in accordance with Riverside County Standard No. 103, Section A
1~'/66).
The subdivider 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, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing,
striping, and traffic control devices as appropriate.
b. Storm drain facilities.
c. Landscaping {street and parks).
d. Sewer and domestic water systems.
36.
37.
38.
f. Undergrounding of existing and proposed utility distribution lines.
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. ~61 and as approved by the
City Engineer.
STAFFRPT\VTT2500~ 6
39.
~8.
~9.
50.
Prior to recordation 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.
In the event road or off-site right-d-way are required to comply with these
conditions, such easements shall be obtained by the developer; or, int he
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 developeris 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.
Prior to any work being performed in public right-d-way, fees shall be paid
and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office,
in addition to any other permits required.
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.
The subdivlder 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 2~4" x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil
Engineer.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to
commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of-
way.
All lot drainage shall be to the street by side yard drainage swales
independent of any other lot.
A permit from the County Flood Control District is required for work within
its right-of-way.
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.
STA F F R PT\VT T2500~ 7
PRIOR TO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY:
51.
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 nat been finally
established by the date on which the 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 the developer. Developer understands that said Agreement may
require the payment of fees in excess of those now estirnatad (assuming
benefit to the project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its
right to protest such increase.
52.
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.
53.
All street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than lu, days following
placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be appliad 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.
55.
Corner cutbacks, in conformance with City Standard No. 805, shall be offered
for dedication and shown on the final map.
Transportation Enqineerlnq
PRIOR TO RECORDATION:
56.
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered traffic
engineer, and approved by the City Engineer for all streets 66/q~· or wider
and shall be included in the street improvement plans.
57.
Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering
for the design criteria.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
58.
All signing and striping shall be installed per the City standards and the
approved signing and striping plan.
59.
Left turn pockat on Murrieta Hot Springs Road, for Street "G", shall provide
for 1001 of storage capacity, if not included with Assessment District No. 161
improvements.
60.
Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, if the ultimate circulation system has
not been constructed {with Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23u,28), this
STAFFRPT\VTT2500~ 8
development will be responsible for the following:
a. Widen Nicolas Road to accommodate a 200' minimum, centered, left turn
pocket for Joseph Road or for Primary access point.
STAFFRPT\VTT2500~ 9
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
Backqround
1. Name of Proponent:
Pavillion - JLD Ventures
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
Agency Requiring
Assessment:
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
23181 Verduqo, Sp. 105A
Laguna Beach, CA 92653
8-23-90
CITY OF TEMECULA
VestingTentativeTractMap No. 2500u,
and Chanqe Zone No. 5611
Location of Proposal:
Northeast Corner of the Intersection
of Joseph Road and Seraphina
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?
X
Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcoverlng of the soil?
X
Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features?
X
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
X
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on
or off site?
X
STAFFRPT\VTT2500~ 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?
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?
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 or ground waters?
Yes
Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\VTT2500~ 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 I 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 Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\VTT2500~t 3
10.
11.
12.
13.
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and Clare. Will the proposal
produce substantial new light or glare?
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
Substantial increase in the rate of
use of any natural resources?
Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource?
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal
involve:
A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances l 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:
Yes Maybe No
X
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? X
×
×
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFF R PT\VTT2500u, u,
Yes
Maybe N__o
b. Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking? __ __ X
c. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems? __ __ X
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? __ __ X
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic? X
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? __ X
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? __ __ X
b. Police protection? __ __ X
c. Schools? X
d. Parks or other recreational
facilities? X
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads? __ __ X
f. Other governmental services: __ __ X
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy? __ __ X
b. Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy? __ __ X
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? __ __ X
STAFFRPT\VTT25004 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 iexcluding
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 effect unique ethnic cultural
values?
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
Yes
__ Maybe
No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STA F F R PT\VTT2500u, 6
Yes Maybe No
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or 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
ST A FF R PT\VTT2500~ 7
Ill Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
Earth
1.a,
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.
1.b.
Yes. All development disrupts the soil profile to some degree and
results in soil displacement, compaction, and overcovering. This
impact is not considered significant.
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 vogetstion
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.
1.f.
No. Since the project site is not adjacent to any creak or stream bed,
the proposed project will not cause erosion of or deposition into any
creek or stream bed.
1.9.
No. The subject site is designsted as subject to liquefaction and
subsidence by the Riverside County General Plan. To mitigate under
hazard, a geological report has bean prepared. This report contains
mitigation measures addressed in the Conditions of Approval.
Air
2.a-c.
No. The proposed project will not significantly impact the area's air
quality.
Water
3.a,d-e.
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.
3.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.
STAFFRPT\VTT2500~ 8
3.d-g.
3.h.
3.i.
Veqetation
b,.a-c.
~.d.
Wildlife
Noise
6.a-b.
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 vagetational 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. Individuals of the Stephen's
Kangaroo Rat were found. Conditions of Approval and habitat
preservation measures have been included in the Conditions of
Approval and on the Tract Configuration.
No. Analysis indicates that the project site may be exposed to
significant levels of noise as a result of traffic on Murrieta Hot Springs
Road. However, it is concluded that the project design, when
proposed, will comply with the interior noise exposure standard placed
on residential construction by the County of Riverside and the State~s
noise insulation standards.
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 condltioned to comply 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.
STAFFRPT\VTT2500~ 9
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
Yes. Although the project proposes to increase the density from one
dwelling unit to 135 units, the proposed project is consistent with the
City Land Use Designation (according to SWAP).
Housinq
12.
No. Since the proposed project will create 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
l~.a~f.
No. The proposed project will not have significant adverse effect on
public services other than parks and recreational facilities.
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 cempetible
with the surrounding neighborhood, there will be no significant impact
on aesthetics.
Recreation
19.
No. Because the proposed project will not be removing any facilities
currently used for recreational purposes.
STAFFRP'I'~VTT2500~ 10
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
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 Stephents 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\VTT2500~ 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 NECATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
) find that although the proposed project could have a signi-
ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi-
ficant effect on 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.
X
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
STAFFRPT\VTT2500~& 12
ORDINANCE NO. 90-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL
ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE
APPLICATION CONTAINED IN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
NO. 5611, CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-R (RURAL
RESIDENTIAL) TO R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)
ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER
OF SERAPHINA ROAD AND RITA WAY.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Public hearings have been held before the Planning Commission
and City Council of the City of Temecula, State of California, pursuant to the
Planning and Zoning law of the State of California, and the City Code of the City of
Temecula. The application land use district as shown on the attached exhibit is
hereby approved and ratified as part of the Official Land Use map for the City of
Temecula as adopted by the City and as may be amendad hereafter from time to time
by the City Council of the City of Temecula, and the City of Temecula Official Zoning
Map is amended by placing in affect the zone or zones as described in Change of Zone
No. 5611 and in the above title, and as shown on zoning map attached hereto and
incorporated herein.
SECTION 2. Notice of Adoption. Within 10 days after the adoption hereof, the
City Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and
cause it to be posted in at least three public places in the City.
SECTION 3. Taking Effect. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after the
date of its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this . day of
,1990.
Ronald J. Parks, Mayor
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk
[SEAL]
STAFF R PT\VTT2500u,
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP NO. 2500~ TO SUBDIVIDE A 59 ACRE PARCEL INTO
A 135 UNIT SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF SERAPHINA ROAD AND RITA
WAY.
WHEREAS, Pavillion - JLD Ventures ~tl filed Tentative Tract Map No.
2500L1 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 17, 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 Tentative Tract Map;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECT ION 1. Findin.qs. 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
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
STAFFRPT\VTT2500~ 1
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:
~a)
There is reasonable probability that
Tentative Tract Map No. 25000, 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.
{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 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.
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.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that the proposed
STAFFRPT\VTT2500~ 2
project will not have a significant impact on the environment, and a Negative
Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Tentative Tract Map No. 25000, for the subdivision of a 59 acre parcel into 135 slng)e
family lots located at Seraphina Road and Rita Way subject to the following
conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of
· 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 17th day of September, 1990 by the following vote of the Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFFRPT\VTT2500z& 3
APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth
hereln above in this Resolution of approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 25004.
DATED: By
Name
Title
STAFFRPT\VTT2500~ ~
ITEM
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 17, 1990
Case No.: Plot Plan No. 11688 and
Tentative Parcel Map No. 25632
Prepared By: Mark Rhoades
Recommendation: Continue to October 1, 1990
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
P R OPOSA L:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Wescon Properties
J. F. Davidson Associates
Subdivide 4.7 acres into 10 parcels, and construct
a 9 unit planned industrial complex.
Southwest side of Business Park Drive, north of
Rancho California Rood.
M-SC |Manufacturing - Service Commercial)
North: M-SC
South: M-SC
East: M-SC
West: M - S C
( Manufacturing Service
Commercial )
( Manufacturing Service
Commercial )
~ Manufacturing Service
Commercial )
| Manufacturing Service
Commercial )
Not requested.
Vacant
North: Vacant
South: Vacant
East: Vacant
West: Industrial/Office
No. of Acres:
No. of Buildings: 9
It is recommended that this item be continued to the October 1, 1990 Planning
Commission meeting in order to aliow time for Staff to analyze information and
materials recently submitted by the applicant.
~T A I::lc: R PT\ PP 11 RRR
ITEM #10
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 17, 1990
Prepared By: Karen Castro
Case No.: Plot Plan No. o, 1, Variance No. 1
Recommendation: Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Michael F, Rose Thesing
REPRESENTATIVE:
Michael F, Rose Thesing
PROPOSAL:
Convert an existing 1,200 square foot office to
restaurant with outdoor dining and a Variance to
allow for a reduction in parking.
LOCATION:
28636 Front Street, Suite No. 109; the northeast
corner of Front Street and Main Street.
EXISTING ZONING:
C- 1 I General Commercial )
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North: C-1
South: C-1/C-P
East: C-1
West: C-1
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
PROPOSED ZONING:
Not requested.
EXISTING LAND USE:
Office/Retail
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Office/Retail
Antique Shop
Antique Shop
Restaurant
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Number of Acres:
No. of Buildings:
.87 {38,100 sq.ft.)
Site is developed with a
2-story, 14,800 sq.ft.
office building.
BACKGROUND:
The site was originally approved for development of
a 2-level 10,,800 square foot office/retail building
under Plot Plan No. 4138, per Riverside County
STAFFRPT\PP~I 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
Planning Department. An application for revision to
that approval was submitted May 2~,, 1990 to the
City of Temecula Planning Department requesting
conversion of a 1,200 square foot unit of said office
to a restaurant/bar with approximately 780 square
feet of outdoor dining area.
Variance No. 1 was submitted on August 1~,, 1990
requesting a special review of parking and a
reduction in the number of required spaces.
Area Setting
The project site is located in "Old Town" Temecula.
The surrounding area is developed with commercial
office, retail, and tourist oriented businesses which
reflect the historical western theme of "Old Town".
The applicant is proposing to convert an existing
1,200 square foot office to restaurant/bar with
approximately 780 square feet of outdoor dining.
seats are proposed for indoor dining and 28 seats
proposed for outdoor dining.
The applicant filed Variance No. 1 on August 14,
1990 requesting a special review of parking. The
request is to reduce parking from the 81 spaces
required to u,8 existing spaces provided. Refer to
facts presented in Findings.
Circulation/Traffic/Parkinq
Access is provided by a one-way entry off Fourth
Street which runs south through the site and exits
onto Main Street. The internal site circulation plan
provides adequate space for users to comfortably
drive through the project to park.
The City Transportation Engineering Steff has
conducted a cursory review of trip generation
comparing the previous use as a real estate office
with the proposed restaurant use ~ see
attachments). Staff reviewed the information
provided in the report and determined that treffic
impacts will result from peak noon hour trips.
However, the remaining peak park/n9 demands
{dinner hour, weekends) will occur at different
times than the existing remainder of businesses in
the center, which demonstrates that a reduction in
parkin9 may be warranted per Section 18.12,
STAFFRPT\PP~I 2
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS:
Subsectlon E-5 of Ordinance 3u,8. The applicant has
also expressed a willingness to remove existin9
"Customer Only" parkln9 signs and allow the entire
lot to be utilized by the public for general parking
for "Old Town" during evening and weekend tourist
trade hours.
Conditions of Approval have been incorporated
which will mitigate the project~s traffic impacts.
Architectural Compatibility
The proposed theme is an Early Spanish Cantina.
The proposed exterior elevations are consistent in
materials and style with the buildings that currently
exist in the surrounding area. The project was
reviewed and approved by the Old Town Temecula
Architectural Control Committee on August 6, 1990
as keeping with their goals and objectives of
preserving the old western atmosphere of "Old
Town". lSee attachment: August 6, 1990 meeting
minutes. )
Compatibility With Surroundinq Properties
The project site is located in the heart of the
Historical District and is surrounded predominantly
by tourist-oriented retail uses. The proposed
restaurant use is typical of Old Town developments
and will be supportive of weekday old town business
and weekend tourist trade.
The project is designated commercial on the
Southwest Area Plan. The proposed restaurant
conversion complies with the general policies for
commercial uses. It is anticipated that the project,
as conditloned, will be consistent with the City's
forthcoming General Plan.
The proposed project is a minor alteration to an
existing building and is a Class 3 categorical
exemption pursuant to CEO A guidelines.
Variance No. 1
The proposed use will not have a substantial
adverse effect on abutting property or the
permitted use thereof. Traffic impacts will
STAFF R PT\PP~· 1 3
be mitigated through peak hour offset and
Conditions of Approval attached herewith.
Temecula~s Old Town in and of itself is a
unique setting. Most lots are considered
substandard by modern criteria and were
originally developed without adequate
parking. landscaping. and improvements.
These are considered legal non-conforming
uses. The applicant~s site is better suited
for an assembly/restaurant with more
improved parking area available than the
majority of developed sites in the Old Town
District.
The applicant prepared a survey of
comparable restaurant uses in the Old Town
District { see Exhibits ). and staff has
completed field checks verifying that
numerous restaurant sites exist in the Old
Town District that are seriously lacking in
adequate parking. Due to a lack of a
comprehensive long term parking plan
addressing Old Town~s specific development
concerns. a denial of this application may
result in a denial of certain property rights
currently enjoyed by surrounding
properties.
There is a reasonable probability that the
project will be consistent with the Ceneral
Plan once it is adopted based on analysis in
the Staff Report.
Plot Plan No. 41
The proposed use will not have a substantial
adverse effect on abutting property or the
permitted use thereof.
2. The site has adequate access for the
proposed use.
The proposed project will not inhibit or
restrict future ability to use active or passive
solar energy systems.
u,. The project will not have a significant
adverse effect on the environment.
STAFFRPT\PP~I ~,
These findings are supported by staff
analysis, maps and exhibits associated with
this application and herein incorporated by
reference.
The proposed development is commercial in
nature and conforms with existing
surrounding uses.
There is a reasonable probability that the
project will be consistent with the General
Ran 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.
The lawful Conditions stated in this approval
are deemed necessary to protect the public
health, safety and general welfare.
STAFF RECOMMENDAT ION:
Staff
1.
recommends that the Planning Commission:
APPROVE Variance No. 1 based on findings
contained in the Staff Report.
ADOPT Resolution No. and APPROVE
Plot Plan No. ~,1 subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval, based on the
findings contained in the Staff Report.
KC:ks
Attachments:
1. Exhibits
2. Conditions of Approval
STAFF R pT\Ppu, 1 5
1
Z ,+
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gary Thornhill
THROUGH: Doug Stewart~'
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Kirk Willlares'
August 22, 1990
PLOT PLAN NO. 0,1 - ROSA'S CANTINA ~ TRIP GENERATIONS
The Transportation Engineering Staff has conducted a cursory review of trip
generation comparing the previous use as a real estate office with the proposed use
as a restaurant.
The findings are as follows:
Previous Use:
Square Footage:
Operating Hours:
No. of Employees:
Trip Generation:
Trip Generation for
Remainder of Center:
Proposed Use:
Square Footage:
Operating Hours:
Seating:
Number of Employees:
Trip Generation:
Real Estate Office
1,200 sq.ft.
8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, M-F
12
Approximately 50 trips/day, M-F
(no peak - even distribution)
Approximately 530 trips/day, M-F
(with 1096 occurring in PM peak hours)
High turnover - sit down restaurant
2,050 sq.ft.
11:30 AM to 9:00 PM, M-S
52
Approximately u, 15 trips/day, M-F
Approximately ~55 trips/day on Saturday
Approximately u,15 trips/day on Sunday
Restaurant peak ~noon) hour is approximately 95
trips
TRAFFIC\M15
Gary Thornhill
August 22, 1990
Page 2
Trip Generation for
Remainder of Center:
Approximately 530 trips/day, M-F
(with 10% occurring in the PM peak hour)
Should you have any further questions regarding this information, please call.
KW:ks
cc: Sam Reed
Karen Castro
Sayed Omar
Tom Sorrentino
File
PARKING CALCULATION - PLOT PLAN 41
"ROSA'5 CANTINA"
Previous Use:
Square Footage:
Operating Hours:
Number of Employees:
Parking Required:
Parking Required for
Remainder of Center:
Office Space, 1 per 200:
Total Spaces Required
Total spaces Provided
Proposed Use:
Operatin9 Hours:
Seating:
Number of Employees:
Parking:
Alternate Parking
Calculation Based
on Seating:
Real Estate Office
1,200 sq.ft.
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., M-F
12
6 spaces
11,000 sq.ft. Net
55 spaces
+6 spaces
61 spaces
48 spaces
Convert 1,200 sq .ft. real estate office to restaurant
with an additional 850 sq.ft. of outdoor dining area.
11:30 a.m. - 9:00 p.m., weekdays/weekends
2~ indoor seats
28 outdoor seats
1,0Llq sq.ft. service area
I space per q5 sq.ft.
u, employees at 1 space
per every 2 employees
Total
Total required for Center:
Total provided:
= 24 spaces
= 2 spaces
26 spaces
81 spaces
48 spaces
Proposed restaurant with 52 seats
1 space per every 3 seats =
+ remainder of center =
Total required
Total provided
18 spaces
55 spaces
73 spaces
48 spaces
PLANNING\P3
~q t
City ~f Temecula
F.O. Box 3000
Temecula, Ca. 92390
Subj ec t:
Re:
Attention:
Dear Karen,
Currently,
june 29, ]999
Request for reduction in parking for Rosa's Cantins
at 28636 Front St. ~n the Rancon [laza Building.
P]ot Flan
Karen Castro
this office building has 48 parking stalls. If our plot
plan is approved, we will increase the parking to 58 spaces.
Tenant time use for the current spaces during the week is from
approximately 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. On weekends the building and
parking lot is virtually empty.
Our restuarant serving hours will be from 11:30 A.M. to 9:00 P.~I.
weekdays~ and 11:30 A.}!. to 9:00 P. M. weekends. The main draw of
our business will be from our tenants~ local business people and
the weekend tourist.
If the city does not object, we will open our entire parking lot
to the general public on weekends and holidays. This will not only
enhance our business but that of the other merchants in Old Town.
Thank you,
Mike &'Rg~a~{~g
Rancon tla~a nuilding
28636 Front Street
Temecula, Ca. 923q0
To Ai~ Tenants:
This letter is t,~ advise you that we inten<' to open a small indoor/outdoor,
touristy restu&rant on the southeast enc1 of th~ Rancon Flaza Building as
soon as time will permit. In addition, we are going to increase the parking
spaces from 4,R to 58 by developing the empty land strip above th~ southeast
end of the parking lot. A]] tenants and their customers will be allowed to
use this facility.
In order to get the City Planners to give their "go ahead" on this project
we are requesting from each tenant their signature of approval for "shared
parking" which is one half of the 58 spaces.
Please sigh bel~" tkLe~are~ provided.
/ .
Mfke & Ro~ Th s
, · ~ng
Owners Rancon Plaza
Suite
100
101/102
103
105
106
107
200,200A,202A,202B
201
203
Very Good Properties
Near-Cal Corp.
Geoffrey Barclay
Inland Disposal
Holverson/Bader
TenaJa Community Service
Barber's Ltd.
Packing Crate
Rosa's Cantina
The Californian
va,ant
Bernard Marks
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan No. 41
Council Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Convert an existing 1,200 square foot office space
to restaurant with outdoor dining and a variance to
allow for reduced parking.
Assessor's No. 922-034-08 and 09
Pianninq Department
The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for a restaurant with
indoor/outdoor dining and a variance to allow for a reduction in parking.
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 this
approval. 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 permittee of any such
claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense the
permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold
harmless the City of Temecula.
This approval shall be used within two ~2) years of approval date; otherwise,
it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial
construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period
which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of
substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. This approval shall
expire on September 17, 1992.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as
shown on plot plan marked Exhibit "A", 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.
STAFFRPT\PP41 1
10.
11.
12.
15.
16.
The applicant shall comply with all Road Department recommendations outlined
in the City Engineering Depar'crnent conditions, attached.
Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the
provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department transmittal
dated July 16, 1990, a copy of which is attached.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate Section
of Ordinance No. 5~,6 and the Riverside County Fire Wardens transmittal dated
July 11, 1990, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the
Department of Planning Consistency Check Review required prior to permit
issuance.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the State of
California Department of Transportation transmittal dated July 3, 1990, a copy
of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County
of Riverside Environmental Health Services transmlttal dated July 16, 1990,
a copy of which is attached.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape,
irrigation and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Said
landscape plans shall be submitted prior to building permit issuance. An
automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be
maintained in a viable growth condition. Plantlngs within ten {10) feet of an
entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty
inches.
Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, three 13) copies of a
parking, landscaping, irrigation, and shadln9 plans shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for approval.
The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall
be shown. Plans shall meet all requirements of Ordinance 3~,8, Section 18.12,
and shall be accompanied by a filing fee as set forth in the City of Temecula
fee Schedule dated September, 1990.
A minimum of ~8 parking spaces shall be provided as shown on the approved
Exhibit "A".
A minimum of two (2) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown
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,
STAFFRPT\PP~,I 2
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
2u...
or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished
grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous
place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17
inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or
license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed
away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be re-claimed by
telephoning 694-1989."
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking space shall
have a surface identification sign duplicating the symbol of accessibility in
blue paint, of at least three 13) square feet in size.
Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall obtain clearance
and/or permits from the following agencies:
Engineering Department
Environmental Health
Riverside County Fire Department
Written evidence of compliance shall be presented to the City Planning
Department prior to building permit issuance.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the following additional plans shall
be submitted to the Planning Department for approval:
Sign Program
Landscape, Irrigation and Shading Plan
Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on
Exhibit "A".
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening
material shall be subject to Planning Department Approval.
All trash enclosures shall be centrally located within the project and shall be
constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Each enclosure shall
be six feet in height and shall be made with either masonry block and a gate
or chain link fencing with landscaping and will screen the bins from external
view.
Any landscape screening shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum of 6
feet in height at maturity.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along
streets and within parking areas.
All existing specimen trees shall be preserved whenever feasible, where they
cannot be preserved, they shall be relocated or replaced with specimen trees
as approved by the Planning Director.
STAFFRPT\PP41 3
25.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, performance securities in amounts
to be determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the
installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved
plan and adequate maintenance of said planting for one { 1 ) year shall be filed
with the Department of Building and Safety.
26.
All of the foregoing Conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or
any use allowed by this permit.
Enqlneerlnq 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 raferred to the Engineering
Department.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY:
27.
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 (assuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest
such increase.
28. Signal mitigation fees shall be paid to the City of Temecula.
29. Install Directional Signing indicating one way traffic in the parking area.
STAFFRPT\PP41 4
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 0,1 TO PERMIT
OPERATION OF A RESTAURANT AT FRONT AND MAIN
STREETS.
WHEREAS, Michael and Rose Thesing filed Plot Plan No. I~1 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 17, 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 Plot Plan;
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to
said Plot Plan on , at which time interested persons had
opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission
proceedings and Staff Report regarding the Plot Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula City Council 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
FORMS\R ESOLUT 5
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 complied with
other applicable requirements of stste 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 w/t:
{1 ) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The City Counc)) 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. u,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 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
FORMS\RESOLUT 6
and City ordinances.
(2) The overall development of the land is designed for
the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare;
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 Initlal 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 City Council hereby approves Plot Plan No.
41 for the operation and construction of a restaurant located at the corner of Front
Street and Main Street 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 day of
· 1990.
RON PARKS
MAYOR
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meatlng thereof, held on the
__ day of , 1990 by the following vote of the Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
DAVID F. DIXON
CITY CLERK
FORMS\RESOLUT 7
APPLICANT'5 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth
herein above in this Resolution of approval for Plot Plan No. I~1.
DATED: By
Name
Title
FORMS\RESOLUT 8
~ec/TMrcs2~
RESOLUTION NO. 90-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN
PERMx OPER ZO. OF
__ 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. . ~ |g~/~ , at which time interested
per~ns had ~ortuAity to testify either in support or
opp sition;
hearing,
Plan;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission
the Commission recommended approval of said Plot
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public
hearing pertaining to said Plot Plan on ,
at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify
either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the
Commission proceedings and Staff Report regarding the Plot
Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findines. That the Temecula City
Council 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
-1-
jec/TMres2a
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
approvlng 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.
(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.
(c)
The proposed use or action
complies 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:
-2-
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the 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:
(e)
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.
(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; 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
-3-
jeo/TNres2a
with the present and future development of the
surrounding property.
SECTION2. Environmental ComDZiance.
An Initial Study prepared for th~s project
indicates that the proposed project will not have a
significant impact on the environment, and a Negative
Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted.
SECTION3. Conditions.
That the city Temecula City Council hereby
approves Plot Plan No { f r the operation and
conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify the
adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this
, 1990.
__ day of
RON PARKS
MAYOR
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was
duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at
a regular meeting thereof, held on the day
of , 1990 by the following vote of the
Council:
AYES:
COUNClI~EMBERS
NOES:
COUNCIEREMBERS
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS
DAVID F. DIXON
CITY CLERK
-4-
APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGHENT
I have read, understand and accept the conditions
'for approval set forth herein above in this Resolution of
approval for Plot Plan No.
DATED: By
Name
Title
ITEMS #11 & #12
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CiTY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 17, 1990
Prepared By: Mark Rhoades
Case No.: Change Zone No. 5714 and
Conditional Use Permit No, 30L~6
Recommendation: Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Arco Products Company
Tait and Associates
Change of Zone from M-SC to C-1/C-P and a
Conditional Use Permit to extend an existing
canopy.
Northwest corner of Winchester Road and Jefferson
Avenue.
M-SC ( Manufacturing - Service Commercial )
North: C-I/C-P
South: C-1/C-P
East: C-P-S
West: C-1/C-P
( Ceneral Commercial )
( Ceneral Commercial )
(Scenic Highway
Commercial )
{ General Commercial )
C-1 / C-P I General Commercial )
Mini-Mart and Gasoline Service
North: Shopping Center
South: Shopping Center
East: Commercial
West: Office
Number of Acres:
Buildings:
.97 acres
1
STAFFRPT\CZ5714 1
BACKGROUND:
ANALYSIS:
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
This project was approved by the County of
Riverside Planning Commission on June 6, 1990. As
it exists the gasoline and mini-mart are a non-
conforming use in the M-SC zone. The applicant
has applied for the Change of Zone to bring the
project into zoning conformance. The Conditional
Use Permit is an application to extend both pump
islands and to extend the existing canopy.
The existing use is an Arco Mini-mart and gas
station with the concurrent sale of beer and wine.
The site currently supports a store area and two ( 2 )
pump islands. The proposed addition would be an
18 foot long northern extension to the canopy, and
four (ill pumps.
Zoning
The existing zoning is M-SC (Manufacturing -
Service Commercial). Gasoline stations and mini-
marts are not a permitted use in this zone. The
applicant has applied for a change to C-1/C-P
(General Commercial) which would bring the use
into conformance. It is Staff's recommendation,
however, that the zone be changed instead to C-P-S
~ Scenic Highway Commercial ) because of the
proximity to interstate 15. The C-P-S zone would
also bring the existing use into conformance.
The SWAP designation for this project is "C",
Commercial. The County Commission struck road
conditions pertaining to the additional right-of-way
on Winchester Road. The City Engineering
Department is now requiring this condition for
additional right-d-way according to SWAP. With
the additional right-of-way on Winchester Road, the
project will be consistent with the Southwest Area
Plan.
Environmental Assessment Number 3~,252 was
adopted by the County Commission. The initial
Study addressed concerns regarding fault hazards,
liquefaction, ground shaking, traffic and
circulation. All concerns have been mitigated to
non-significance.
STAFFRPT\CZ571~, 2
FINDINGS: Conditional Use Permit No. 301~6
The proposed use conforms to the objectives
of the City's General Plan.
The proposed use will not adversely affect
the adjoining land uses and the growth and
development of the area in which it is to be
located.
The size and shape of the site proposed for
the use is adequate to allow the full
development of the proposed use in a manner
not detrimental to the particular area nor to
the peace, health, safety and general
welfare.
The traffic generated by the proposed use
will not impose an undue burden upon the
streets and highways designed and improved
to carry the traffic in the area, and that
adequate parking is provided.
The granting of the Conditional Use Permit
under the conditions imposed will not be
detrimental to the peace, health and safety
and general welfare of the citizens of the City
of Temecula.
ChanqeofZone 5714
The proposed C-1/CP zone designation is not
appropriate because of the projects proximity
to an eligible scenic highway.
The C-P-S zoning proposed by Staff is
appropriate because of the projects proximity
to an eligible scenic highway.
The proposed use conforms to the objectives
of the City~s General Plan.
The proposed use will not adversely affect
the adjoining land uses and the growth and
development of the area in which it is to be
located.
STAFFRPT\CZ5714 3
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The granting of the Change of Zone under
the conditions imposed will not be detrimental
to the peace, health and safety and general
welfare of the citizens of the City of
Temecula.
Staff recommends that the City Council ADOPT the
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF COUNTY
DECLARATION FOR COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT NO. 3~,252 based on the findings
incorporated in the )nltial Study, and the
conclusion that the project will not have a
significant affect on the environment; and
DENIAL of CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 571~, from M-SC
to C-1/CP in accordance with the findings contained
in the attached staff report; but
APPROVAL of CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5714 from
M-SC to C-P-S in accordance with the findings
contained in the attached Staff Report; as follows:
Read by title only, waive further reading and
introduce an ordinance entitled
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CiTY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID
CITY )N THE CHANGE OF ZONE
APPLICATION CONTAINED IN
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 5714,
CHANGING THE ZONE FROM M-SC
( MANUFACTUR I NG SERV)CE
COMMERCIAL) TO C-P-S ISCENIC
HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL) ON
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF MARGAR ITA
ROAD AND STATE HIGHWAY 79.
APPROVAL of CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 30~,6
based on the attached findings and subject to the
attached conditions of approval.
MR:ks
STAFFRPT\CZ571~, ~
CITY OF TEMECULA
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Conditional Use Permit No. 30z~6
Council Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
Planning Department
1. No additional signage shall be allowed.
This conditional use permit shall be subject to Planning commission review
every two (2) years. The permit shall remain active until such time as the
Planning Commission determines that the use is not in conformance with the
approved Conditions of Approval.
The conditional use permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 18.30 of
Ordinance 3~8.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or
any use allowed by this permit.
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
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 30~,6. The City of Temecula will promptly
notify the permlttee 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 permlttee shall not, thereafter, be
responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula.
This approval shall be used within two 12 ) 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 12 ) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion or the
beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as
shown on plot plan marked Exhibit 1, or as amended by these conditions.
In the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a peFiod of one { 1 )
year or more, this approval shall become null and void.
STAFFRPT\CZ571~ 1
9. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed on-site so as not to shine
directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
Enqineerin.q Department
10.
County Road Condition No. 1 shall be amended to delete the words "and
Winchester Road".
11.
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 (assuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest
such increase.
STAFFRPT\CZ571~, 2
Zoning Area: Temecula
Supervisorial District:
E.A. Number: 34252
Regional Team No.: 5
First
CHANGE OF ZONE NO, 5714
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 3046,Amd.e3
Planning Commission: 6-6-90
Agenda Item No.: 5-2
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
1. Applicant:
2. Engineer/Rep.:
3. Type of Request:
4. Location:
5. Existing Zoning:
6. Surrounding Zoning:
7. Site Characteristics:
8. Area Characteristics:
9. Comprehensive General
Plan:
10. Agency Recommendations:
11. Letters:
Arco Products Company
Tait and Associates
Change of zone from M-SC to C-1/C-P
Addition of pump island
Northwest corner of Winchester Road
Jefferson
M-SC
M-SC, C-P-S, C-1/C-P
Existing Arco mini-mart gasoline station
Commercial Retail and office development
Land Use Designation: "C" - Commercial
Open Space/Cons: Areas Not Designated
See Letters Dated:
Transportation: 6-)~-9~ 6-6-90*
*(Amended per P.C. 6-6-90)
Health: 5-29-90*
Flood: 5-19-90'
Fire: 5-25-90*
Building & Safety - Grading: 5-30-90*
Building & Safety - Land Use: 5-8-90*
B~i~diR~ & 8a~e~y - P~aR Gkeek:
Opposing/Supporting:
and
12. Sphere of Influence:
Within City of Temecula
AJ~ALYSIS:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Change of Zone No. 5714 and Conditional Use Permit No. 3046, Amd. No. 3 are
proposals to change the zone on the subject parcel from M-SC to C-1/C-P and add
an additional pump island to an existing mini-mart gasoline station. The
project is located at the northwest corner of Jefferson Avenue and Winchester
Road in the City of Temecula.
BACKGROUND
The applicant has requested a structural modification to an existing
non-conforming use. In order to bring the existing use into conformance with
Ordinance 348, Section 18.8(a), the applicant was required to apply for a
change of zone from M-SC to C-1/C-P which allows gasoline service stations and
the concurrent sales of beer and wine with a conditional use permit. (See
attahced letter from Riverside County Planning Department dated 11-16-89)
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5714
CONDITIONAL USE PERMXT NO. 3046, AMENDED ~3
Staff Report
Page 2
LAND USE AND ZONING
The current land use is an existing Arco gasoline service station and
mini-mart. Surrounding the project are various types of c~,,mercial uses
including retail, services and office uses.
Zoning on the property is M-SC with a proposed change to C-1/C-P. Staff
recommends a change from M-SC to C-P-5. A change of zone to C-P-S would be
consistent with the eligible scenic highway designation of Interstate 15
located to the east of the project. Surrounding zoning includes C-P-S to the
east, C-1/C-P to the north, M-SC to the south and west.
GENERAL PLAN
The project site is located within the City of Temecula. The Southwest Area
Cormunity Plan land use map designates the property is "C"- Co,i.~ercial. The
proposed change of zone and addition of a pump island to an existing gasoline
station are compatible with surrounding zoning and uses. Therefore, the
project is consistent with the General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The intial study prepared for Environmental Assessment 34252 indicated that the
primary environmental concerns are geologic fault hazards, liquefaction,
groundshaking, traffic and circulation. However, all these concerns can be
mitigated to a level of non-significance at development stage.
FINDINGS
1. Change of Zone No. 5714 is an application to change the existing M-SC
zoning to C-1/C-P.
2. Conditional Use Pennit No. 3046 is an applicati on to add a pump isl and to
and existing gasoline station.
3. Re location of the project is within the City of Temecula at the
northwest corner of Winchester Road and Jefferson Avenue.
4. Change of Zone No. 5714 and Conditional Use Permit No. 3046 are required
to bring and existing use into conformance with Ordinance 348.
5. Current land use is an existing gasoline station and mini-mart.
.6. Cc,,,,,~rcial land uses surround the project site.
CHANGE OF ZONE NO, 5714
CONDZTZONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3046, AMENDED #3
Staff Report
Page 3
7. Zoning on the subject property is M-SC with M-SC, C-1/C-P and C-P-S
surrounding the site.
8. The site is located within the SWAP, with a "C" - Co~rnercial designati on.
g. Environmental concerns have been mitigated to a level of non-significance.
10. There is a reasonable probability that the project will be consistent with
the General Plan proposal being studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
11. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the future adopted general plan if the project is
ultimately inconsistent with the General Plan.
12. The project complies with all other applicable requirements of State law
and local ordinances.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration for Environmental
)')iFd'~n the findings that the proposed project will
effect on the environment; and,
Msessment No. 34252
not have a significant
DENIAL of CHANGE OF ZONE 5714 frcrn M-CS to C-1/C-P in accordance with Exhibit
APPROVAL of CHANGE OF ZONE 5714, from H-SC to C-P-S as shown on Exhibit 4; and,
APPROVAL of CONDITIONAL USE PERHIT NO. 3046, AMD. No. 3 based on the findings
and conclusions found within the staff report and subject to the attached
conditions of approval.
JHR:Jg
5/22/90
I CZ 5714 / CU
LAND USE
I 1
VA
CENTER
VA
v,,,c 15
'PING
,, ~4 s,~ )PRNG
~ ~ W~HE~B RD,-~AN,Ak~tl~'
~t ~FE~ A~. MA~OR ~10'
1'- 200' R~
( CZ 5714 / CU :5046
M-SC
I PR_OPOSED ZONING
I 2
NI-SC
·
1/
C - ' 'C -P
; -P -S
· , /
·, R-R
~. ~0 IN;~UCl'S 'C~PANY i ~oc~r~o~,~ '~
~ E(~ Sup.Dist. I ST ~
'~. ~T.TI,~I. ~r's ~. 9~ ~. 28 ' , ~
i ~ ~S~SR RD.-URBAN.ARTERIAH54' ~
. ~ e:-e ~. MAJOR ~0'
200' RIVE~I~ ~ P~NING,~RTMENT i ~o C~LE '
~ CZ5714/CU5046 RECOMMENDED ZONING J 4
M-SC
~-C
MS
M-SC
c-P- 15
C-1/C-P
C-P-S
.C-1/C-P
-P-S
~, , 'C-1/C-P '~
App. ARCO PRODUCTS COMPANY ~. LO~ATIONAL MAPFD
Use M-SC TO C-t/C-P ~'~ ~
Area TEMECULA Sup. Dist. I ST ~":~
Sec. 35T.TS.R.~W. Asses,sor's Bk. 909 Pg. 28 ~, ,i~
Circulation ~E~ WINCHESTER RD.-URBAN-ARTERIAL-1:54'
Element JEFFERSON AVE. MAJOR I10' ~
Rcl. Elk. Pg.55-CDate 05/16/90 Drawn By RG./,~'~'/Q2Y.. +~ ~=~_
200' RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
I CZ5714/CU~046
-\
CP-S.W.A.P.
I-I
$P
App. ARCO PRODUCTS COM~ANY LOCATIOlVAL MA~
tile M-SC TO C-I/C-P
,area TEMECULA Sup.Dist. I ST
Sec. 3~ST.TSJ=L3W. Assessors Bk. 909 Pg. 28
Circuition ~E~ WINCHESTER RD.-URBAN.ARTERIAL-1~4'
Eim"nent ,EFFERSON AVE.. ;,~AdOR I I0'
FIcL Bk. Pg.55-CD~te 05116 190 Drawn By RG./
2000' RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
5
'ISLAND ADDITION /'.RCO Products Company
.... '"'"' .... "'""'"""' "" ;;:;' ....
61TF: PLaN P.O. Box 2STC. LOS Angeles, CA i}0051 .O570
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Atlantic Richfield Co.
P.O. Box 6411
Artesia, CA 90702
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3046, AMD. t3
Project Description: Addition of pump
island
Assessor's Parcel No.: 909-281-017
District/Area: Temecula
The use hereby permitted is for
existing Arco AM/PM mini-mart station
Number 909-281-017.
an addition of a pump island to an
located within Assessor's Parcel
The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County of
Riverside or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, acti on,
or proceeding against the County of Riverside or its agents, officers, or
employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the County
of Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body
concerning CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 3046, AMB No. 3. The County of
Riverside will promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, acti on,
or proceeding against the County of Riverside and will cooperate fully in
the defense. If the County fails to promptly notify the permittee of any
such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the
defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend,
indemnify, or hold harmless the County of Riverside.
This approval shall be used within two (2} years of approval date;
otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. By
use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by
this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter
diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial
utilization contemplated by this approval.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as
shov~n on plot plan marked Exhibit A, AMD No. 3, 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.
The applicant shall comply with the street improvement recommendations
outlined in the County Transportati on Department letter dated 5-15-90, a
copy of which is attached.
Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance
with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department
transmittal dated 5-29-90, a copy of which is attached.
Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County
Flood Control District transmittal dated 5-19-90, a copy of which is
attached.
CONDITZONAL USE PERMZT NO. 3046, AMD. No. 3
Conditions of Approval
Page 2
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate
section of Ordinance 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated
5-25-90, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the
Department of Building and Safety - Land
5-8-90, a copy of which is attached.
recommendations set forth in the
Use Section transmittal dated
The applicant shall comply with the reccmmendations set forth in the
Department of Building and Safety - Grading Section transmittal dated
5-30-90, a copy of which is attached.
A minimum of seventeen (17) parking spaces shall be provided in accordance
with Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. Seventeen (17)
parking spaces shall be provided as sh)m on the Approved Revised Exhibit
A, AMP. #3. The parking area shall be surfaced with (asphaltic concrete
paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on 4 inches of Class II base.)
(decomposed granite compacted to a minimum thickness of three (3) inches
treated with not less than ½ gallon per square yard of penetration coat
oil, followed within six months by an application of ~ gall on per square
yard of seal coat oil.
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.
A minimum of one (1) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown
on Exhibit A, AMD No. 3. 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 BO inches from the bottom of the sign
to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36
inches frcm 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 parkin facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches in size
with lettering nol less than 1 inch in height, which clearly and
conspicuously states the following:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3046, AMD.
Conditions ~f Approval
Page 3
No. 3
15.
16.
17.
"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,
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain
clearance and/or permits from the following agencies:
Transportation Department
Environmental Health
Piverside County Flood Control
Written evidence of compliance shall be presented to the Land Use Division
of the Department of Building and Safety.
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view.
material shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
Screening
One (1) trash enclosure which is adequate to enclose a total of one (1)
bin shall be centrally located within the project, and shall be
constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Each enclosure
shall be six feet in height and shall be made with masonry block and an
opaque gate which screens the bins from external view.
This project site is within a significant groundshaking zone. ,itigation
shall be the application of the proper Uniform Building Code standards in
the development of this project.
All existing structures on the subject property shall conform to all the
applicable requirements of Ordinance 348.
This approval shall bec~me null and void on June 6, ~000 2015.
per P.C. 6-6-90}.
(Amended
Pri or to any use allowed by this use, the applicant shall obtain clearance
from the Department of Building and Safety - Land Use Secti on that the
uses found on the subject property are in conformance with Ordinance No.
348.
JHR:jg
5/22/90
OFFICE OF ROAD COMMISSIONER & COUNTY SURVEYOR
June 6, 1990
Riverside County Planning Commission
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
(Service Station & Mini-Market)
RE: CU 3046 - Amend #3
Team 5 - SMD #9
AP #111-111-111-9
· As amended at P.C. 6-6-90
Ladies and Gentlemen:
With respect to the conditions of approval for the
referenced exhibit, the Transportation Department recommends that
the applicant provide the following street improvements, street
improvement plans and/or road dedications in accordance with
Ordinance 460 and Riverside County Road Improvement Suandards
(Ordinance 461). It is understood that the exhibit correctly
shows 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 Transportation Planning and Development Review
Division Engineer's Office.
Prior to issuance of a building permit or any use allowed by this
permit, the applicant shall complete the following conditions at
no cost to any government agency:
No additional right of way shall be required on Jefferson
Avenue aM ~ .~a)a~ since adequate right of way
exists.
*2.
* As deleted at P.C. 6-6-90
** As amended at P.C. 6-6-90
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER · 4080 LEMON STREET · RIVERSIDE, CAL]FORNIA 92501
CU 3046 - Amend #3
May-&B~-½99~- June 6, 1990
Page 2
An additional 25 foot transportation easement dedicated to
the County shall be required on State Highway 79
(Winchester Road) in accordance with the Southwest Area
Plan as Board approved.
The traffic signal mitigation has been met on this project.
It was paid 5-17-88 in the sum of $2,900.00 by PP 10118.
Prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit, the
applicant shall construct the following at no cost to any
government agency:
**5. No additional road improvements will be required at this
time on Jefferson Avenue and Winchester Road.
*6.
*7.
*8.
*10.
~ -f ee~c- -,w.i. de- eonere~e eidewe~4ee -she{{- ~ae -e e~'ke.r=n e~ed- ~teW -
*11.
12. Drainage control shall be as per Ordinance 460, Section
11.1.
* As deleted at P.C. 6-6-90
** As amended at P.C. 6-6-90
CU 3046 - Amend #3
May-~S~-~99~- June 6, 1990
Page 3
13. All work done within County right of way shall have an
encroachment permit.
14. All driveways shall conform to the applicable Riverside
County Standards and shall be shown on the street
improvement plans.
15.
All entrance driveways shall be channelized with concrete
curb and gutter to prevent "back-on" parking and interior
drives from entering/exiting driveways for a minimum
distance of 35 feet measured from face of curb.
'17.
20.
Any landscaping within public road rights of way shall
comply with Transportation Department standards and require
approval by the Transportation Planning and Development
Review Division Engineer and assurance of continuing
maintenance through the establishment of a landscape
maintenance district/maintenance agreement or similar
mechanism as approved by the Transportation Planning and
Development Review Division Engineer. Landscape plans shall
be submitted on standard County Plan sheet format (24" x
36"). Landscape plans shall be submitted with the street
* As deleted at P.C. 6-6-90
** As amended at P.C. 6-6-90
CU 3046 - Amend #3
May-½~-i999--June 6, 1990
Page 4
improvement plans and shall depict only such landscaping,
irrigation and related facilities as are to be placed
within the public road rights-of-way.
Lawrence A. Toerpe'~
Division Engineer
n T:jw
FliOM:
liE:
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OFHEALTH
2. ;:Z :; l'Z} .~ 'EL- :-EZ:.::Z i7=,Z ..t'.'~'Z:sZ
TD:
FROM:
OE:
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
DATE:
Fr I VERS IE'E COUNTY F'LANN t NG DEF'T.
kTITN: J n Chflu
IRONMENTAL HEALTH SFECIALIST IV
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 3046
09-22-~9
The Environmental Health Services has reviewed Conditional
Use Permit 3048 and has no obiections. Sanitary sewer and
water services are available in this area. Prior to any
buildIn0 plan approval, the followlnq items will be
submitted:
Final "will-serve" letters from the water and
sewerln~ aceholes.
Three complete sets of plans for each food
establishment will be submitted. lnc/udinc
a fixture schedule. a finish schedule. and
a Dlumblna schedule in order to ensure
compliance with the California Uniform Retail
Focd Facilities.
A c!~[~Q~!~!~f[ from the Environmental Health
Services Hazardous Materials ManaaemenL Branch
(3on Mohoroski (714) 358-5055). will be reoiilred
lndlcatlno that the Dronect has been cleared for:
a. UnderQround storaoe tanks.
b. Hazardous Waste Generator Services.
c. Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance
with AB 2185)
d. Waste reduction manaqement.
SM:tac
co: Jon Mohoroskl, Hazardous Materials Branch
RIVERSIDe COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Riverside County
Planning Department
County Administrative Center
Riverside, California
Area:
We have reviewed this case and have the following comments:
Except for nuisance nature local runoff which may traverse portions of the
property the project is considered free from ordinary storm flood hazard.
However, a storm of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New construc-
tion should comply with all applicable ordinances.
The topography of the area consists of well defined ridges and natural water-
courses which traverse the property. There is adequate area outside of the
natural watercourses for building sites. The natural watercourses should be
kept free of buildings and obstructions in order to maintain the natural
drainage patterns of the area and to prevent flood damage to new buildings.
A note should be placed on an environmental constraint sheet stating, "All new
buildings shall be floodproofed by elevating the finished floors a min3mum of
18 inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosion protection shall be provided
for mobile home supports."
This project is in the
drainage plan fees shall be paid
regulations.
Area
in accordance with the applicable rules and
lhe 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/~- ~-/'-~>5 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.
OHN H. KASHUBA
enior Civil Engineer
~ /c/,,~y/~/qq~)
KENNETH L EDWA~DS
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Riverside County
Planning Department
County Administrative Center
Riverside, California
Attention: Regional Team No.
Planner~H/V ~"~
Area:
Re:
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 fre,: from ordinary storm flood hazard.
However, a storm of unusual magnitude co ld cause some damage. New construc-
tion should comply with all applicable ~ ]inances.
The topography of the area consists of ~ell defined ridges and natural water-
courses which traverse the property. There is adequate area outside of the
natural watercourses for building site:. The natural watercourses should be
kept free of buildings and obstruct<ons in order to maintain the natural
drainage patterns of the area and to 'revent flood damage to new buildings.
A note should be placed on an environ'~ental constraint sheet stating, "All new
buildings shall be floodproofed by ele.vating 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
drainage plan fees shall be 'paid i~ accordance with the applicable r~les Area
and
regulations.
The proposed zoning is consistent with existing flood hazards, Some flood
control facilities or floodproofing may be required to fully develop to the
implied density.
The District's report dated
is still current for this project.
The District does not object to th~ proposed minor change.
!/This project is a part of
free of ordinary storm flood h
accordance with approved plans.
"/The attached comments apply.
1 ,5'22-2 The project will be
' ' d when improvements have been constructed in
;enior Civil Engineer
)ATE:
~6dZ/~ B
Area Drainage Plan for the purpose of
collecting drainage fees. Those fees are used to construct
needed flood control facilities within the particular area. The
Area Drainage Plan fees apply to new land divisions and other
types of new development.
Virtually all new development causes increased storm runoff.
These increases are particularly troublesome in those watersheds
where an Area Drainage Plan has been adopted. In order to miti-
gate the downstream impacts brought about by increased runoff,
the District recommends that Conditional Use Cases, Plot Plans
and Public Use Cases be required to pay a flood mitigation
charge. Mitigation charges, where appropriate, will be similar
to the current Area Drainage Plan fee rate.
Following is the District's recommendation:
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 total of ~, ~ 7 acres. At the current
fee rate f ~ q3 ~ per acre, the mitigation charge
equals ~ . 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 been
credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
" Mitigation Charge
(mitcharg)
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
46.209 OASIS STREET, SUITE 405
1NDIO, CA 92201
(619) 342-8886
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
~N COOPERATION WITH THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
AND FIRE PROTECTION
GLEN J NEVcMAN
FIRE CHIEF
5-25-90
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
3760 12TH STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
(714) 787,6606
TO:
ATTN:
RE:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JOHN RISTOW
CONDITIONAL USE PEDIIT 3046 - A~IENDED
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 546.
2. The existing water mains and fire hydrants will provide sufficient fire
protection for the proposed project,
3. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes.
4. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC.
Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equip~ent.
All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to the
Planning and Engineering staff.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
By
Laura Cabral, Fire Safety Specialist
ama
Administrative Office · '1777 Atlents Avenue
F:{iversicie, CA g2507
April 4, 1990
I ,AY 10 lggO'
De art ~jV[RS~DECOUNIY
Riverside County Planning p n~ ~N~NG D[PA~TMENT
Attention: JOhn Chiu
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
The
has
RE: Conditional Use Permit 3046, Exhibit A, Amended No..~\ ~'
~/:~,:.:'c
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety
the following comments and conditions:
If approved elevations are required from the Planning Department
the approved plans must be submitted to the Land Use Division
concurrently with submittal of structural plans for review.
Prior to issuance of building permits, proposed lighting must
be in conformance with Mount Palomar Lighting Plan, Zone B,
per Ordinance 655.
Prior to acceptance of structural plans for Building and Safety
review, one complete set of approved conditions from Planning
Department must be attached.
Performance Securities Bond for maintenance of landscaping
may be required. Consult your Conditions of Approval.
Prior to the issuance of building'permits, written clearance
is required from the following:
· Temecula Valley Unified School District
Sincerely,
,/ .;.
Vaughn Sarkisian
Land Use Technician
VS:sn
FROM:
DATE:
AP~:
PLANNING JOHN RISTO~i
SAM D. GONZALEZ
MAY 30, 1990
CU 3046 AME~iDMENT # 3
909-281-017
The "GraOlng Section" has no cc:7e~t c~. :h!s p,'cjec:.
: iVL {biDE COUn;,u
PLAnninG DEPA: ClTIEnC
November 16, 1989
Ms. Lynn Beteag
ARCO Real Estate Representative
28762 Rancho Del Lago
Laguna Niguel, Ca 92656
Dear Ms. Beteag:
This letter is to confirm our conversations, both in person and by telephone,
that your Conditional Use Permit No. 3046 was mistakenly accepted by our Public
Information Section.Per Section 11.2.6. (2)c that your gasoline service station
with a mini-mart which including the sale of beer and wine for off-premises
consumption is a non conforming use within the M-SC zone. Furthen~ore, Section
18~3.a of the Zoning Ordinance 348 specifies that "Any nonconforming structure
or use may continued and maintained for the periods of time hereafter set
forth, provided there are no structural alteration except as heroinafter
allowed. - - -"
In order to proceed with your Conditional Use Permit application, you would
need to file a change of zone application from M-SC zone to C-1/C-P or C-P-S
zone.
Also, I am enclosing the following documents for your legal department to
review.
1. Article IX (C-1/C-P Zone), Article IXb (C-P-S Zone), and Article XI (~-SC
Zone) of Ordinance No. 348.
2. Section 11.2.6(2)C of Ordinance No. 348 was amended by the County Board of
Supervisors on April 4, 1989.
3. Section 18.8.a of Ordinance No. 348.
I hope these information will help you to proceed with your project.
there be any questions, please feel free to call me at {714) 787-6356.
Should
Very truly yours,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Roger S. Streeter, Planning Director
Enclosures
4080 LLi~6f',I STREET. 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA g2501
(714) 787-6181
46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
TNDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201
(619) 342-8277
DATE:
TO:
February 27, 1990
Assessor
Surveyor - Ken Teich
Road DepartmentS/~
Health - Ralph Luchs
Fire Protection
Flood Control District
Fish & Game
U.S. Postal Service - Ruth E. Davidson
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services
County Superintendent of Schools
Eastern Municipal Water District - Sewer
Rancho California Water District
Southern California Edison - Doug Dayies
Southern California Gas
Caltrans #8
Temecula Union School District
Elsinore Union School District
RiVERSiDE COUrl ,u
PLARniI1G DEPAR filEII
Commissioner Turner
COunty Shez,f~
Community Plans
RIVERS/DE COUNT',,
~O~U) DEPARTMENT
CHANGE OF ZONE 5714 - (Tm 5) - E.A. 34252
- Atlantic Richfield Company c/o Lynn
Beteag Tait & Associates, Inc.
Temecula Area First Supervisorial
District - W of Jefferson Ave., S'ly of
Winchester Rd. - M-SC Zone - .97 Acre
REQUEST: Change Zone from M-SC to C-1/C-P
- RELATED CASE: CUP 3046 - Mod 119 - A.P.
909-281-017
Please review the case described above, along with the attached case map. A Land
Division ConTmittee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for March 19, 1990. If it
clears, it will then go to public hearing.
Your comments and recommendations are requested prior to March 19, 1990 in order that we
may include them in the staff report for this particular case.
Should you have any questions regarding this item, please do not hesitate to contact
John Chiu at 275-3207.
-/&-it """\
4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 787-6181
46-209 OASIS STREET. ROOM 304
INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201
(619) 342-8277
County of Riverside
O: Riverside county Plannina Department DATE: March
ATTN: John Chiu
FRO.~GreR Dellenbach, Environmental Health Specialist III
RE: Chanze of Zone 57]4 - Revise (FAST TRACT)
1990
Environmental Health Services has reviewed this change of zone
case and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services
are available in this area.
GD:wdl
~AR 2 0 't990
RiVERSIDF- COUNTY
pLAHNtNG DEPARTMENT
KENNETH L EDWARDS
Riverside County
Planning Department
County Administrative Center
Riverside, California
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
2 1 1990
Attention: Regional Team No. _
P1 anner::Fp~ C~,u
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
,,f' Re: ,/~.,~- ,57/ly pLANNiNGDEPARTMENT
Area:
We have reviewed this case and have the following comments:
Except for nuisance nature local runoff which may traverse portions of the
property the project is considered free from ordinary storm flood hazard,
However, a storm of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New construc-
tion should comply with all applicable ordinances.
The topography of the area consists of well defined ridges and natural water-
courses which traverse the property. There is adequate area outside of the
natural watercourses for building sites. The natural watercourses should be
kept free of buildings and obstructions in order to maintain the natural
drainage patterns of the area and to prevent flood damage to new buildings.
A note should be placed on an environmental constraint sheet stating, "All new
buildings shall be floodproofed by elevating the finished floors a minimum of
18 inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosion protection shall be provided
for mobile home supports."
This project is in the
drainage plan fees shall be paid in
regulations.
accordance with
Area
the applicable r~les and
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
free of ordinary storm flood hazard when improvements ~av:hb;e~r°ject will be
constructed in
accordance with approved plans,
The attached comments apply.
H H. KAS UBA
ON H
or Civil Engineer
DATE:///~H//~','~
DATE:
FO:
February 27, 1990
Assessor
Surveyor - Ken Teich
Road Department
Hea]th- Ralph Luchs
Fire Protection V~
Flood Control District
Fish & Game
U.S. Postal Service - Ruth E. Davidson
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services
County Superintendent of Schools
Eastern Municipal Water District - Sewer
Rancho California Water District
Southern California Edison - Doug Davies
Southern California Gas
Caltrans #8
Temecula Union School District
Elsinore Union School District
::IiVE:::I)iDE COUnC,u
PLAnninG DEPA::IEITIEnC
CHANGE OF ZONE 5714 - (Tm 5) - E.A. 34252
- Atlantic Richfield Company c/o Lynn
Beteag Tait & Associates, Inc. -
Temecula Area - First Supervisorial
District W of Jefferson Ave., S'ly of
Winchester Rd. - H-SC Zone - .97 Acre -
REQUEST: Change Zone from M-SC to C-1/C-P
- RELATED CASE: CUP 3046 - Mod 119 - A.P.
909-281-017
Please review the case described above, along with the attached case map. A Land
Division Committee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for March 19, 1990. If it
:lears, it will then go to public hearing.
Your comments and recommendations are requested prior to March 19, 1990 in order that we
may include them in the staff report for this particular case.
Should you have any questions regarding this item, please do not hesitate to contact
John Chiu at 275-3207.
Planner
COMMENTS:
The Riverside County Fire Department has no comments or conditions.
DATE: 3-16-90 SIGNATURE
PLEASE print name and title
PHONE:
gm
/
~A~A CAS~, F~re 5a~et~
4080 LEMON STREET, g?" FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 787-6181
46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201
(619) 342-8277
Ri , .:R.%iDE COUnt.u
PLArlni ( DEP, RC!11EnC
APPLICATION FOR LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
DATE 2-7-90
~ CHANGE OF ZONE NO
D CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO
"3 PARCEL MAP NO
~ PLOT PLAN NO
INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED
A APPLICANT INFORMATION
D PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO
~ TRACT MAP NO
D TEMPORARY USE PERMCI: NO
r- VARIANCE NO
Atlantic Richfield Company/Contact: Lynn Betaac
P.O. Box 64;[1, AYtesi~,. California
) 643-~701 (a&m-SOm~
TeleDhone NO
B PROJECT INFORMATION
I Purpose of Reauest(0escnPe prOiect)(Ordinance 348rel no) Change Zone M-SC to C-~/C-P
For existing AM/PM Mini Mart with Gasoline Sales & Off-site Beer/Wine Sales
2 Relatedclsesfiledinconjunct~onwithth~$reQgest: C,U.P, =3046
C PROPERTY INFORMATION
1. Aliel$oflPlrcelN{Xs) 909-281-017-7
2 Genera$ 1ocation(street lOdress, etc.)
41555 ~inchester Rd., Temecula
4, ApproximateGrossAcreege: .97 Acre
4080 LEMON STREET. g~" FLOOR 46*209 OASIS STREET. ROOM 304
RIVERSIDE CALIFORNIA 92501-3657 INDIO. CALIFORNIA 9220~
REQUIRED PROPERTY OWNERI NOTIFICATION INFORMATION
ZONE Cl~NGES
CONDITIONAL USE tERMITS
ie'dlLlC USE I~RMITS
I4JFIFACE MINING PtRMIT$
WIND ENERGY CONV~RSION SYSTEM
PROPERTY OWNERI CERTIFICATION
t Alain Bally cem~ythalo,~ 2/5/90
NAME:
TII'I,E /REGt$TRATION:
ADDRESS
511 W. Glenoaks Bird., Suite 334
Glendale, CA 91202
t~IONE: 21 .5902
BI~NATUItE: ~ ~/~
DATE:
:IiVE:DiDE COUnCV
PLArlrlirl(~ DEPAIClTIEnC
APPLICATION FOR LAND UIE AND DEVELOPMENT
c::TLi-~,
CHANGE OF ZONE NO
PARCEL MAP NO.
PUBLIC USE PERMrT NO
TRACT MAP NO
TEMPORARY USE PERMIT NO
VARIANCE NO,
INCOMI~Eq~ APPLICATIONS WIU, NOT BE ACCEPTED,
A A,NqJCANT INFORMATION
4080 LEMON STREET. 9TM FLOOR 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 30~
RiV~R~dI"); ~ll I/l'~D~l/, ~Kn~.'kta~ INDI~ CALIFORNIA 9220'
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER, NINTH FLOOR
4080 LEMON STREET
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501-3657
Joseph A. Richards, Planning Director
A PUBLIC H~RING has been scheduled before the P~NNING CO~MISSION t o
consider the application{s} described below. The Planning Department has
tentatively found that the proposed project(s} will have no significant
environmental effect and has tentatively completed negative declaration(s).
The Planning Commission will consider whether or not to adopt the negative
declaration along with the proposed project at this hearing.
Place of Hearing: Board Room, 14th Floor, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA
Date of Hearing: WEDNESDAY. JUNE 6, 1990
The time of hearing is indicated with each application listed below.
Any pers on may submit written comments to the Planning Department before the
hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the adoption
of the negative declaration and/or approval of this project at the time of
hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the
Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. The environmental
finding along with the proposed project application may be viewed at the public
informati on counter Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m.
CHANGE OF ZONE 5714 WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 3046, EA 34252, is an
application submitted by ARCO Products Co for property located in the Temecula
Area and First Supervisorial District and generally described as the NW corner
of Winchester Road and Jefferson Avenue to amend Ordinance No. 348, Riverside
County Land Use Ordinance. Said amendment would change zone M-SC
{Manufacturing-Service Commercial} to C-1/C-P {General Commercial), etc, or
other such zones as the Planning Commission may find appropriate for a proposal
to expand an existing gas station. {JR)
TIME OF HEARING: 2:00 P.M.
300 ~ SLIP~OLt~[.iN] ObI~E;:SH[P
=-c ='=-ZE:-:':'-' - EZ"ZZ~ZZ%~L
~?EZL~L, Z-
;EEEEEZ,z ~
:Z_:~
Z Z Z~r'F ::'2_'
E-' [Z~}: Z;
PAN,:~C' EAL]rC~;",:;
c,, O. 5'2l
TE~EZJL;, 'Z~
;EEEE/7 ~ :':'2.-.*-'
~EE. EEEZ,~ ~ ;'-:} _ -_
;EEEEEZ: ~ : -' ....
· .Z~- :Z. 'E[;-
Z* :12:Z
;EEEEEZ: = : -l:- :l-:
: -_',,
:;,_5:ll , Z;
;££5EEZ; ~ :::-l:
;:,,' ;E=: _,:.
l'E: -. :~"EE : -:=
5,:',',:',2 . 2~ :lie
:Z';, Cn :iEz
;'_;'.':l :ZZ'rZE.Z
Z Z ;:-' ';' [E:' E£
;, Z. 52- "'=
LEE ;N:SE.E5, 2: :::%
~;ENE'ALE. C: ::2.2
. S',Z'E 2_:-'
:tiVE:I iDE COUnt.
PLAnninG DEP, :ICQEnC
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (E.A.) NUMBER: ~
PROJECT CASE TYPE(s) AND NUMBERS(s): t''~ I, :- ~ ,.. '
APPLICANT'S NAME: ~/. /Z~.. ~ ~ . ..-;' ~ ,~
NAME OF PERSON(s) PREPARING E.A.:
STANDARD EVALUATION
MODULE NUMBER(s):
I. PROJECT INFORMATION
DESCRIPTION (include proPosed minimum lot size and uses as applicable):
. ~ /
'~ ~ - _'-
B. TOTAL PROJECT AREA: ACRES
C. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.(s):
or SQUARE FEET
D. EXISTING ZONING:
E. PROPOSED ZO. NING:
F. STREET REFERENCES:
IS THE PROPOSAL IN CONFORMANCE
IS THE PROPOSAL IN CONFORMANCE
G. SECTION, TOWNSHIP, RANGE DESCRIPTION OR ATTACH A LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
H. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETrING OF THE PROJECT SITE AND ITS SURROUN~:t,:5
II. COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION DESIGNATION
Check the appropriate option(s) below and proceed accordingly.
~E~ All or Dart of the project site is in "Adopted Si3ecific Plans," "REMAP" or "Rancho Villages Comrnuni~,>
POlicy Areas", Complete Sections III, IV (B and C only), V and VL ~ .?-" /
,~ Al~ or Dart of the project site is in "Areas Not Designated as Open Space". Complete Sections III, IV
(A, B and D only), V and VI.
[] All or pert of the project site has an Open Space and Conservation designation other than those mentioneC
above. Complete Sections III, IV (A, B, and E only), V and VI.
295-70 (Ne~, 12/87) 1
IIII. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS AND RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
A. Indicate the nature of the prODoSed land use as determined from the descriptions as found in Comprehensive General Plan F~gu,e
VI.3 (Circle One). This information is necessary to determine the appropriate land use suitability ratings in Section III.B
NA - Not Applicable
Critical Essential Normad-High Risk NOrmal-Low Rssk
B. ~ndicatewithayes(Y)~rn~(N)whetheranyenvir~nmenta~haz~rdand/~rres~rceis~e~maysignificant~ya~ect~rbeaf1ectea
by the proDosal. All referenced figures are contained in the COmprehensive General Plan. For any issue marked yes {Y) wine
additional data sources, agencies consulted, find ingS of fact and any mitigation measures under Section V, Also, where inchcaret
circle the appropriate land use suitability or noise acceptability rating(s). (See definitions at Dottom of this page)
HAZARDS
1. Alcluist-Priolo Special Studies or County Fault 12. ) '
Hazard Zones (Fig. VI.1 )
NA PS U R (Fig, VI.3)
2. Licluefaction Potential Zone (Fi9. VI.1)
NA S PS U R (Fig. VI.4)
3. Groundshaking Zone (Fig VI.1)
NA S PS U R (F~9. VI,5)
4 ..... Slopes (Riv, Co 800 Scale Slope Maps)
5. Landslide Risk Zone (Riv. Co. 800 Scale
Seismic Maps or On-site Inspection)
r NA S PS U R (Fig. VI.6)
6. Rockfall H~zard (On-site Inspection)
7..' Expansive SOIls (U.S.D.A. Soil
Conservation Service Soil Surveys)
8...' Erosion (U.S.D.A, Soil Conservation
Service Soil Surveys)
9. I Wind Ersosion & Blowsand (Fig VI.1,
Ord. 460, Sac. 14.2 & Ord 48,4)
10. ~ Dam inundation Area (Fig. VL7)
11. / Floodplains (Fig. VI.7)
NA U R (Fig. VI.8)
Albert Noise (Fig. 11.18.5, IL18.11
& V1.12 & 19~4 AICUZ Report, M.A.F.E I
NA A B C D (F~g, Vlll)
13. I RaHroad Noise(F~g. Vl.13-Vl,16)
NA A B C D (F~g, VI.11 )
14. t Highway Noise (Fig, Vl.17 - VI.29i
NA A B C D (F~g VI111
15..' Other Noise
~ NA A B C D (FiG, VIi1)
16+ Project Generated Noise Affectrang
Noise SenSitive Uses (Fig. VI.11 )
17.. ./ Noise Sensitive Project (Frog. VI.11 )
18. Air Quality Impacts From Project
19. Project Sensitive to Air Quality
20. Water Quality Impacts FrOm Project
21. Project Sensitive to Water Ouahty
22 i Hazardous Materials and Wastes
23 Hazardous Fire Area (Fig. VI.30 - VI.31 )
24 .... Other
25 Other
26.
27./'
28.
29./',
30./'
RESOURCES
Agriculture (Fig, VI.34 - VI.35) 32. Y._~
In or Near an Agricultural Preserve
(Riv, Co, Agricultural Land Conversation
Contract Maps)
Wildiife (Fig, VL36 - VI,37)
Vegetation (Fig. VL38 - VI.40)
Mineral Resources (Fig. VI.41 - VI.42)
Energy Resources (Fig. VI.43 - VL44)
Scenic Highways (Fig. VI.45)
33.; .' Historic Resources (Fig. V1.32 - VI.33i
34,./,, Archaeological Resources
(Fig. VI.32 · VI.33 & VI.46 - Vl.48)
35. [, Paleontological Resources
(Paleontological Resources Map)
36 Other
37. Other
Definitions for Land Usa Sultabl!lty and Noise Acceptability Ratings
NA - NOt Applicable S - Generally Suitable PS - Provisionally Suitable
U - Generally Unsuitable R - Restricted A - Generally Acceptable
B - Conditionally Acceptable C - Generally Unacceptable D - Land Use Discouraged
395-10 tNew ~2/B7) 2
IV. LAND USE DETERMINATION
A. Complete this pad unless the project is located in "Adopted Specific Plans"
Villages Community PoJicy Areas."
1. OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION MAP DESIGNATION(s): "
"REMAP" or "Rancho
2. LAND USE PLANNING AREA:
3. SUBAREA, IF ANY:
4. COMMUNITY POLICY AREA, IF ANY:
5. COMMUNITY PLAN, IF ANY: "~
6. COMMUNITY PLAN DESIGNATION(s), IF ANY:
7. SUMMARY OF POLICIES AFFECTING PROPOSAL:
or be affected by the proposal All referenced figures are contained in the Comprehensive General Plan For an~ ~ss~=.
marked yes (Y), write data sources, agencies consulted, findings of fact. and mitigation measures under Section V
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
1. ' Circulst~on (F~g. IV1-IV.11, Discuss in 10 /
Sec. V Existing, Planned & Required Roads)
2. / Bike Trails (Fig. IV.12-1V.13) 11. /
3. ' Water (Agency Letters) 12. /
4. Sewer (Agency Letters) 13. ~
5. ' Fire SeNices (Fag. IV.16 - IV.18) 14. ~,'
6. /" Sheriff ServiCes (Fig IV.17 - IV.18)
7. [./ Schools (Fig. IV.17-1V,18) 15.
8./" Solid Waste (Fig. IV.17-1V.18) 16. t
9. f"" Parks and Recreation (Fig. IV.19 - IV.20) 17.
EQuestrian Traiis (Fig IV.19 * IV.24/
Riv. Co. 800 Scale EQuestrian Tra~l MaDe;
Utilities (Fig. IV.25 - IV.26)
Libraries (Fig. IV.17 - IV.18)
Health Services (Fig. IV17 - IV.18)
Airl)orts (Fig. IL18.2 - 11.18.4,
11.18.8 - 11.18.10 & IV.27 - IV.36)
Disaster Preparedness
City Sphere of Influence . "
Other
C. If all or Dart of the project is located in "Adopted Specific Plans", "REMAP" or "Rancho Villages Community Po!;:,
Areas", review in detail the specific policies applying to the proposal, and complete the following:
1. State the relevant land use designation(s):
2. Based~nthisinitia~study~isthepr~~~saIc~nsisten~withthepo~iciesanddesignati~ns~ftheappr~~riated~cume.`.
and therefore consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan? If not, explain:
N. LAND USE DETERMINATION (continued)
D. If all or pad of the project site is in "Areas not Designated as Open Space", and is not in a Community Plan. complete
Questions 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7. Complete Questions 4, 5, 6 and 7 if it is in a Community Plan.
1. Land usa category(ies) necessan~ to support the proposed project. Also indicate land p_se type
(i.e. residential, commercial, etc,) 7' - -.
Current land use categoW(ies) for the site based on existin~g conditions. Also indicate land use tyDe
(i.e. residential, commercial, etc.) ....
3. If D.1 differs from D.2, will the difference be resolved at the development stage? Explain:
4. Community Plan designation(s): ' ' - '
5 Is the proposed project consistent with the policies and designations of the Community Plan'~
If not, explain:
6. Is the proposal compatible with existing and proposed surrounding land uses?
If not, explain: . .
7. Based on this initial study, is the proposal consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan?
If not, reference by Section end Issue Number those issues identifying inconsistencies: , ~
E. If all or part of the project site is in an Open Space and Conservation designation, complete the fOllOwing
1. State the designation(s):
2. Is the proposal consistent with the designation(s)? If not, explain:
3. Based on this initial study, is the proposal consisant with the Comprehensive General Plan?
If not, reference by Section and Issue Number those issues identifying inconsistencies:
V. INFORMATION SOURCES, FINDINGS OF FACT AND MITIGATION MEASURES
A. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED BEFORE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CAN BE COMPLETED
DATE DATE ADEQUACY
SECTION/ INFORMATION INFORMATION INFORMATION DETERMINA"~0!,
ISSUE NO. REQUIRED REQUESTED RECEIVED (Y~SANO.DATE
B. For each issue marked yes (Y) under Sections III.B and IV.B, identify the Section and issue number and do the
fOllOwing, in the format as shown below:
1. List all additional relevant data sources. including agencies consulted.
2. State all findings of fact regarding environmental concerns.
3. State specific mitigation measures, if identifiable without requiring an environmental impact reDoR (ELR)
4. If additional information is required before the environmental assessment can be completed, refer to
Subsection A.
5. If additional sheets are needed to complete this section, check the box at the end of the section and atlach
the necessan7 sheets.
SECTION/
ISSUE NO.
SOURCES. AGENCIES CONSULTED
FINDINGS OF FACT
MITIGATION MEASURES:
V. INFORMATION SOURCES, FINDINGS OF FACT AND MITIGATION MEASURES (continued)
SECTION/
ISSUE NO. SOURCES, AGENCIES CONSULTED, FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MEASURES:
G See a~ached pages.
Vl. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DETERMINATION:
,~The project will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration may be
prepared.
(or)
The projeCt COuld have a aignificant effeCt on the environment; however, there will not be a signif~ca-t
effeCt in this case because the mitigation measures described in Section V have been appUed
project and a Negative DeClaration may be prepared.
(Or)
The project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact ReDo~
is required.
/ . ~' ' Date:
Name:
Prepared Py
295+70 (Nay, 12/87) 6
ORDINANCE NO. 90-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL
ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE CHANCE OF ZONE
APPLICATION CONTAINED IN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
NO. 5714, CHANGING THE ZONE FROM M-SC
{MANUFACTURING - SERVICE COMMERCIAL) TO C-P-S
ISCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL) ON PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OFWINCHESTER
ROAD AND JEFFERSON AVENUE.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Public hearings have been held before the Planning Commission
and City Council of the City of Temecula, State of California, pursuant to the
Planning and Zoning law of the State of California, and the City Code of the City of
Temecula. The application land use district as shown on the attached exhibit is
hereby approved and ratified as part of the Official Land Use map for the City of
Temecula as adopted by the City and as may be amended hereafter from time to time
by the City Council of the City of Temecula, and the City of Temecula Official Zoning
Map is amended by placing in affect the zone or zones as described in Change of Zone
No. 5714 and in the above title, and as shown on zoning map attached hereto and
incorporated herein.
SECTION 2. Notice of Adoption. Within 10 days after the adoption hereof, the
City Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and
cause it to be posted in at least three public places in the City.
SECTION 3. Taking Effect. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after the
date of its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ~ day of
· 1990.
ATTEST:
Ronald J. Parks, Mayor
June S. Creek, Deputy City Clerk
[SEAL]
STAFFRPT\CZ5714 3
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 3046 TO PERMIT OPERATION OF A MINI-
MART AT JEFFERSON AVENUE ANDWINCHESTER ROAD.
WHEREAS, Arco Products Company filed CUP No. 3046 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
17, 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:
SECTION 1. Findin,qs. 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:
J l ) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
J2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
Ja)
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.
(b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
FORMS\RES-CUP 1
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
5outhwest 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 CUP 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:
la)
There is reasonable probability that CUP No.
__ proposed will be consistent with the
general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
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 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, safaty and general welfare of
the community.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECT ION 3, the CUP proposed
is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
FORMS\RES-CUP 2
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that the proposed
project will not have a significant impact on the environment, and a Negative
Declaration. therefore. is hereby granted.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the city of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves CUP
No. 30L~6 for the operation and construction of a gasoline canopy located at the
northwest corner of Jefferson Avenue and Winchester Road subject to the following
conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of
· 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 day of , 1990 by the following vote of the
Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
FORMS\RES-CUP 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. 30u,6.
DATED: By
Name
FORMS\RES-CUP
ITEM #13
Case No,:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 17, 1990
Prepared By: Rich Ayala
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23299 Extension of Time
Recommendation: Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Presley of San Diego
First extension of time for Vesting Tentative Tract
No. 23299, a 232 unit condominium project on
approximately 14.3 acres.
South of Highway 79, approximately one-quarter
mile west of Margarita Road.
North: R -A -5
South: A-1-10
East: R-R
West: R - R
ResidentialAgricultural,
5 acre rain. )
Light Agricultural,
10 acre rain. )
Rural Residential)
Rural Residential)
Vacant
North: Single Family Residential
South: Vacant
East: Vacant
West: Vacant
Number of Acres: 14.33
Number of Units: 232
Size of Units:
Plan A - 750 square feet
Plan B - 933 square feet
Plan C - 1,050 square feet
Planned Density: 16.2 DU/AC
SWAP Allowed Density: 2-5 DU/AC
STFRPT/VVT23299.A 1
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23299 was recommended
for approval on October 19, 1988 by the County
Planning Commission in conjunction with Change of
Zone No. 5150 and Vesting Tentative Tract No.
23267, Amended No. 2. Change of Zone No. 5150
was a request to change the zoning on 221.2 acres
of land in the Temecula area from R-R {Rural
Residential) to R-3, R-4, and R-5. Vestin9
Tentative Tract No. 23267 sought to subdivide the
remaining acreage into 601 single family residential
lots with a minimum size of 4,500 square feet, two
well site lots, and 4 open space lots totaling 57.9
acres. Both Vesting Tentative Tracts No. 23299
and No. 23267 along with Change of Zone 5150 were
approved by the Board of Supervisors on October
25, 1988.
The application for a First Extension of Time was
submitted on May 18, 1990; and, presented before
the City of Temecula Planning Commission on
August 20, 1990 at which time was moved to continue
the request for extension of time for Vesting
Tentative Tract No. 23299, to the next available
meeting for additional project information.
The applicant is proposing to develop a 232 unit
condominium project on approximately 14.3 acres
situated south of Highway 79, one-quarter mile west
of Margarita Road. Access is provided by "A"
street as shown on the site plan which indicates two
entry points into the project.
Desiqn Considerations
The proposed condominium project has been
designed in accordance with the standards of the R-
3 zone E General Residential) and the development
standards of Ordinance No. 348 and Ordinance 460.
The circulation pattern for the condominium project
uses "A" Street as the project's main access with
two entry points as shown on the site plan. In
addition, the proposal is incorporating
approximately 23,050 square feet of recreation area
composed of a swimming pool/spa, tennis court, and
a recreational building. The overall area of open
space for the proposed project is approximately
318,325 square feet which equals to approximately
51% of the overall project site.
STFR PT/VVT23299. A 2
Staff has reviewed the site plan and architectural
design of the project and finds it to be consistent
with City development code standards and with the
overall architectural design found in the City.
The design of the project and landscape plan will be
illustrated at the Planning Commission meeting by
the applicant.
The City Engineering Division has reviewed the
proposal and have included additional conditions
which are attached.
Parkin9
Ordinance 30,8 requires 520, parking spaces. The
proposed condominlum project is providing 232
covered parking, 290 open parking, and 7
handicapped parking spaces with a total of 529
parking spaces. Thus, the project exceeds the
parking required under Ordinance 30,8.
Quimby Act Issues
Staff has reviewed the project relevant to the
Quimby Act requirement and has determined that
the applicant must pay the applicable Quimby Act
fees or provide approximately 2.2 acres of land in
lleu of fees. The applicant will be providing more
information regarding this issue at the Planning
Commission meeting.
Staff is recommending the addition of the standard
Quimby Act fees to be attached to the Conditions of
Approval.
Compatibility With Surroundinq Properties
The project site is located south of Highway 79 and
west of Margarlta Road. This site used to be a part
of the old Vail Ranch. Currently the site is vacant
with dry vegetation. Surrounding land uses
include vacant land to the south and west. The
area to the North of Highway 79 shows single family
residential dwellings on relatively large lots. Two
specific plans adjoin the project site to the east.
The Redhawk Specific Plan (SP 217) was approved
by the Board of Supervisors on October 6, 1988.
This specific plan calls for a mixed use development
STFRPT/VVT23299.A 3
GENERAL PLAN
CONSISTENCY:
with residential densities ranging from 2 to 14
dwelling units per acre. This specific plan allows
up to 4,188 dwelling units.
The Vail Ranch Specific Plan (SP 223} adjoins the
project on the northeast and was also approved by
the Board of Supervisors on October 6, 1988. This
specific plan provides for 2,431 dwelling units with
a density range of 2 to 20 dwelling units per acre.
Density
During their initial review and approval of this
project {VTM No. 23299), the County of Riverside
concluded that the "Policies within the Rancho
California/Temecula subarea call for Category I and
II Land Uses within the 1-15 corridor, transitloning
to Category Ill Land Uses on the eastern end."
These land uses include residential developments
with densities ranging from 8 to 20 units per acre.
It was also determined by the County that the
proposed development fully complies with the
development standards of the subject R-3 { General
Residential ) zone; and that the proposed density of
16.2 dwelling units per acre is consistent with these
land use categories (Category I, II, and Ill).
The project has a density of 16.2 DU/AC, based on
the 232 units approved on 14.3 acres. The density
exceeds the density of 2-5 DU/AC indicated on the
SWAP Land Use Map, which has been adopted by the
City as a policy guide only. The City maintains the
ability to consider appropriate density on a case by
case basis.
Category I (8-20 DU/AC) and Category II (2-8
DU/AC) now exists to the south of Highway 79 and
west of Pala Road. This trend towards urban
development has been established in the area south
of Highway 79, and is continuing to be extended
through the approval of several specific plans in the
area. Two specific plans adjoin the project site to
the east. The Redhawk Specific Plan {SP 217),
approved by the Board of Supervisors on October
6, 1988, calls for a mixed use development with
residential densities ranging from 2 to 14 dwelling
units per acre and allows up to 4, 188 dwelling units.
The Vail Ranch Specific Plan {SP 223), approved by
the Board of Supervisors on October 6, 1988 adjoins
STFR PT/VVT23299. A 4
FINDINGS:
the project on the northeast and includes 2,431
dwelling units with a density range of 2 to 20
DU/acre. The proposed tract is compatible with
existing area development and with projects
approved in the area. The proposal is therefore
likely to be consistent with the City's new General
Plan.
There is a reasonable probability that this
project will be consistent with the City's
future General Plan, which will be completed
in a reasonable time and in accordance with
State law.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future and adopted general plan, if the
proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan.
The proposed use or action complies with
state planning and zoning laws.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation
patterns. access, and density.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare.
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23299 is
compatible with surrounding land uses. The
harmony in scale, bulk, height, density and
coverage creates a compatible physical
relationship with adjoining properties.
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 as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the Negative
Declaration adopted for this project.
STFRPT/VVT23299. A 5
10.
11.
The design of the subdivision is consistent
with the state map act in regard to the future
passive energy control opportunities. Units
have significant southern exposure which
allows for passive heating opportunities.
Deciduous landscaping can be utilized to allow
solar penetration in winter and shading in
Summer.
The design of the subdivision, the type of
improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed projects.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applicants and herein
incorporated by reference.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
Approve the First Extension of Time for
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23299 subject to
the attached Conditions of Approval, based
on findings contained in the Staff Report.
RA:ks
Attachments:
1. Conditions of Approval
2. Exhibits
STFRPT/VVT23299.A 6
CITY OF TEMECULA
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23299 Extension of Time
Council Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
Planninq Department
Prior to issuance of Building Permits, applicant shall be required to pay
applicable Quimby Act fees in accordance with Section 10.35 of Ordinance 460.
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.
The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act,
and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions.
Prior to final map approval, the private drive along the southwest property
line shall be redeslgned to provide through access. The building {100) shall
be located northeasterly to provide for access road.
Prior to final map approval, the private drive adjacent to "A" Street shall be
redesigned to provide through access.
In the event road or drainage off-site right-of-way are required to comply
with the approved conditions, such easements shall be obtained by the
developer; or, in the event the City is required to condemn the easement
right-d-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 66462.5, which
shall be at no cost to the City.
Prior to building permit, the subdivider 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.
STFRPT/VVT23299.A 1
Prior to issuance of certification 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 EIR/Negatlve 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.
Transportation Enqineerinq Department
PRIOR TO RECORDATION:
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Traffic
Engineer, and approved by the City Engineer, for State Route 79, "A" Street,
and James Avenue and shall be included in the street improvement plans.
Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering
for the design criteria
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
10.
A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered
traffic engineer and approved by the City Engineer for any street closure and
detour or other disruption to traffic circulation, as required by the City
Engineer.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
11.
All signing and striping shall be installed per the City standards and the
approved signing and striping plan.
12.
Lime Street shall be the only intersection on SR79, west of Margarita, with full
access, that may be considered for future signailzation.
13.
"A" Street access shall be limited to right turning movements in and right
turning movements out only. There shall be no left turns permitted and no
provisions for such movements shall be provided for on SR79 South.
Therefore, County Road Condition No. 6, from the County Road letter dated
October 11, 1988, shall be deleted.
STFRPT/VVT23299.A 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gary Thornhill, Planning Director
THROUGH: Douglas Stewart, Deputy City Engineer ~
FROM: Transportation Engi neering ~
DATE: September 6, 1990
SUBJECT: Traffic Impact Study for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23299
The Transportation Engineering Staff has completed the review of the Traffic Impact
Study for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23299. This project represents a 232 unit,
1LL33 acre, multi-family residential condominium development located north of Wolf
Valley Road, south of State Route 79, east of Pala Road and west of Margarlta Road.
Based on information provided in the study; this proposed project will generate little
impact on existing total peak hour trips, existing roadway geometrlcs or existing
intersectional level of service I capacity).
Conditions of Approval are being written and will be transmitted when complete.
KW:ks
cc: Oliver Mujica
Richard Ayala
Sayed Omar
File
TRAFFIC\M30
!;
L. ,L
i
iI
0
0
I-
0
a:l
Z
PINKS
SUBMITTAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FROM: THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBMIllA~DATE: October 20, 1988
SUBJECT: CHANGE OF ZONE 5150, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23299,
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23267 - THOTEM AMERICA CORP- - First Supervisorial
District - Rancho California Area - 221 Acres,596 Lots,232 Condominium Units -
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Schedule A - CHANGE OF ZONE from R-R to R-3, R-4 and R-5-
The Planning Commission and Staff Recon~nend:
CERTIFICATION of Environmental Impact Report No. 281 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; and
APPROVAL of CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5150 from R-R to R-3, R-4 and R-5
in accordance with Exhibit 2, based upon the findings and con-
cl usions incorporated in the Planning Cormlesion minutes dated
OCTOBER lg, 1988; and
APPROVAL of VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23267, N4ENDED NO. 2 subject
to theattached conditions, based on the findings and conclusions
incorporated in the Planning Commission minutes dated OCTOBER lg, 1988;
and
APPROVAL of VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23299 subject to the attached
condone, based on the findings and conclusions incorporated in the
Planning Commission minutes dated OCTOBER 19, 1988.
~'~'~/)Jv$: rS
10-18-88
Roge~r~tre~ete~rector
Prev. Agn. rd.
Depts. Comments Diet.
AGENDA NC
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COHMISSION MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 1988
(AGENDA ITEH 1-6 - REEL 1004, SIDE I - TAPE 2, SIDE 2)
CHANGE OF ZONE CASE 5150 - EIR 263 - Thotem America Corporation - Rancho
California Area -Ftrst Supervtsortal Otstrtct - 207.6± acres, south of Hwy
79, west of Hargarlta Rd - R-R to R-2, R-4 and R-5, etc.
VESTING TRACT ~P 23299 - EIR 263 - Thotem Amertca Corporation - Rancho
Collfornia Area - First Supervlsorlal District - south of Hwy 79, west of
Hargartta Rd - 232 Units - 13.92 acres - Schedule A
VESTING TRACT MAP 23267 AMENDED NO. 2 - EIR 263 - Thotem America Corporation -
Rancho California Area - FIrst Su ervtsorial Dtstrtct- south of Hwy 79, west
of Nargarita Rd - 596 lots - 193.~2 acres - Schedule A
The hearings were opened at 12:35 p.m. and closed at 12:55 p.m.
STAFF RECO~IENDATION: Certification of Environmental Impact Report 263,
approval of Change of Zone Case 5150 from R-R to R-3, R-4 and R-5 in
accordance with Exhibit 2, and approval of Vesting Tract Hap 23267 Amended No.
'2 and Vesting Tract Hap 23299 subject to the proposed conditions, with
Condition 14 for both maps amended to reflect the Flood Control Dtstrtct's
letter dated October 18, 1988. Surrounding land uses included single family
residences, a horse ranch, a turf farm, and vacant parcels, but the project
site was adjacent to two spectftc pl&ns, whlch had been approved for mixed use
development with residential densities ranging from 2 to 20 dwelling units per
acre. Category I and II levels of services and facilities were etther
currently available or would be extended to the site through the Rancho
Village Assessment D(strtct; the project would participate tn thts special
district. Staff felt the proposed project would be compatible wtth existing
development and the projects apprnved tn the area.
The environmental tmpact report addressed several tmpacts, and tt was found
the following could be either avotded or mitigated to an insignificant level:
sehmtc safety, slopes and erosion, floodtn9, noise, water quaHty, vegeta-
tton/wlidltfe, energy resources, scenic highways, archaeological resources,
paleontology, circulation, water and sewer, fire, sheriff service, schools,
parks and recreation, utilities, soltd waste, libraries, health services,
airports, disaster preparedness, and ftscal tmpacts.
Air qualtty and the loss of current agricultural uses (27 acres of prime
agricultural land)were two tmpacts which staff felt could not be adequately
mitigated. However, In their oplnton, the public benefits of the proposed
project, in terms of public Improvements to road and flood factltt1 and the
; e$
development of neighborhood and ragtonal parks, would outwetgh the proJect's
adverse tmpact upon air quality. Agricultural production tn this area was
becoming, or had become, economically tnfeastble, and continued use of the
land for agricultural practices could lead to land use tncompattbtlttles In
ltght of approved and existing projects tn the area. Staff felt the project
benefits would substantially outweigh the unavoidable adverse tmpact caused by
the loss of these prime sotls.
17
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 1988
Davtd James, representing the applicant, accepted the conditions as amended.
Nr. James felt the negative ftscal tmpacts of the project ~ere mitigated by
the fact that tt vms located tn the Htghway 79 corrtdor which was developing
tn a comprehensive manner through the spectflc plan process which tncluded
significant commercial uses. The applicant o~ned a large contiguous commer-
cial property and was planntng to submit a development plan tn the near
future. He also ovmed potential business park property to the east. The
Administrative Offlce's fiscal analysts tncluded malntenance of the flood
control channel; the cost of maintaining thts channel would be borne by the
property ovmers (through a homeomers association or assessment district) and
not by the County. They had also been very conservative tn estimating the
selltrig prtce of their untts.
At the request of Com~ss~oner Donahoe, Nr. James used the exhtbtt map to
delineate the spectftc plans (n the ~mmedtate area (Vail Ranch and Redhawk).
He advised they were proposing similar densities, and circulation and lot
s~zes had been coordlnated. Dave Dtllon (also representlng the applicant)
advised they were ropos~ng the product type as had been approved for the
Redhawk spec~ftc p~ same
6000 square foot pad s~ze w~th lots ranging
to
an, 5000
from 7000 to 8000 square feet. The multiple family area was tntended to
transition to Nargartta, where commerdal development had been approved tn the
Redhawk $pectfic Plan. They tntended to submtt a commercial proposal for the
area shovm as Not a Part, and were Fopos~ng to transition from commercial to
multtple family, to a project with a 4500 square foot pad area.
Con~ntssloner Purrlance referred to the archaeological report, which d~scussed
the need for testlng which would entatl 300 to 400 man days for field work.
Nr. Dtllon advhed there would be two phases of mitigation, the test phase and
the actual mitigation phase (recovery of arttracts). The applicant V:;~
ahead wtth the test phase over the portton proposed for res(dentlal l:~e
ment, but had not started the test phase for the commercial area. It had been
determined that the archaeological resources were not as significant as
original1 anticipated tn the res(dential area. The test phase for the
co~merda~
area would be completed prior to any gradtng.
There was no further testtmeny, and the hearing was closed at 12:55 p.m.
OVERRIDING FINDINGS FOR UNAVOIDABLE ENVZROI~tENTAL IMPACTS (Aft quallty and
Agrfculture): The public benefits of the proposed project tn terms of public
Improvements to road and flood fac(lltles and by the development of ne~ghbor-
hood and regtonal parks outwetgh the proJect's adverse tmpact upon atr
quaHty. Agrkultural production tn this area ts becoming, or has become,
economically tnfeastble. Continued use of the land for agricultural practices
could lead to land use lncompatlbtltttes tn light of approved and existlng
projects tn the area. The project benefits substantially outwet h the
unavoidable adverse tmpact caused by the loss of these prime sotVs. The
project benefits whfch substantially outweigh the unavoidable adverse tmpacts
of the project are: (1) Improved traffic circulation - traffic drculatton
wtll be (mproved tn the project area by the proJect's inclusion w~th(n the
Rancho Vfilages Assessment Dfstdct. Improvements tnclude wtden~ng of Rancho
California Road to a 142 foot right of way, maktng tt a stx lane expressway,
18
RIVERSIDE COUNI'f PLANNING COMMISSION HINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 1988
improving Hargartta Road to a 134 foot arterial, and improvement of Pale Road
to 110 foot right of way. (2) Improved Flood Control Facilities - Participa-
tion of this project site in the Rancho Villages Assessment District will go
towards improvement of Tmcula Creek into a 400 foot wide, soft bottomed,
concrete sided channel. (3) Provision of Acttve Recreational Open Space - The
project is proposing two neighborhood park sites totalling 10.2 acres along
with providing an 11.8 acre Open Space/Regional Park. Participation of this
project In the Rancho Villages Assessment District also will see the Temecula
Creek Channel area developed into a 35.9 acre open space area and regional
park, with equestrian trails and bicycle paths included. While the neighbor-
hood park sites are betng developed primarily for the residents of the
project, the amount of park acreage far exceeds that amount which would be
required under the Qulmby Act and, along wlth the regional parks, can be
utilized by residents already in the conmnuntty.
FINDINGS FOR CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 281: Environmental
Impact Report 281 is an accurate, objective and complete document which
complies with the California Environmental Quality Act and the Riverside
County Rules to Implement CEQA.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Change of Zone No. 5150 seeks to change the zoning
on 221.2 acres from R-R to R-3, R-4 qnd R-5; Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23299
seeks to create 232 condomintum units on 14.3 acres of the site; Vesting
Tentative Tract No. 23267 seeks to create 601 single family lots and 4 open
space lots on the remainder of the site; the site is located south of Highway
79 and West of Hargartta Road; the project site is currently used for horse
and cattle grazing and contains a couple of residences and assorted related
structures; surrounding land uses include single family residences, a horse
ranch, a turf farm and vacant land; surrounding zoning includes R-R, A-1-10,
R-A-2 a.d ,-,-5; t,eproject sit. : ttci: t .pproved specific pla.s
(SP 217, Redhawk, and SP 223, Vail n a ~o the east and south of
the project site; the turf farm located to the southwest currently has a
specific plan being processed on it (S.P. 228 -Nurphy Ranch); the
agricultural preserve contract on the adjoining turf farm (Temecula No, 2),
will expire on January 1, 1989; the project site ts located within the
Southwest Territory Land Use Planning Area; and Environmental Impact Report
No. 281 was prepared for the proposed project. The proposed zone change and
vesting tentative tracts are consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive
General Plan; compatible with area development and zoning; and conform to all
applicable county ordinances.
NOTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Bresson, seconded by Commissioner
Beadling and duly carried the Commission recommended to the Board of Super-
visors certification of Environmental Impact Report 281; approval of Change of
Zone Case 5150 from R-R to R-3, R-4 and R-5 in accordance with Exhibit 2;
approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Hap 23267 Amended No. 2, subject to the
proposed conditions (amended to reflect the Flood Control letter dated
October 18, 1988), and approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 23299 in accordance
with Exhibit A, Amended No. 2 and subject to the proposed conditions (amended
to reflect the Flood Control letter dated October 18, 1988), based upon the
above findings and conclusions and the recommendations of staff.
lg
ZOAtng Ares: Ranclio California
First Supervtsorfal DIstrtct
E.I.R. No. 281
Regtona] Team No. I
I/qRGEOF ZORENO. S150
VESTING TE]ITATIVETWACT NO, 23267
VESTING TERTATIVE TRACT I10. 23299
Planning Con~ntsston: 10-19o88
Agenda Item No, 1-6
! i: Applicant: Thotem Amertcan Corporation
Engtneer/Rep.: RanPac Engineering
Type of Request: Change of zone from R-R to R-3, R-4 and
i' i R-5o 232 untt condomtntum p~f:ect :nd a
schedule "A" subdivision,
. South of Htgh~sy 79, West o ~rgartta
~ Location:
~ i Road.
u~ F. xtsttng Zoning: R-R
~: Surrounding Zontng: R-R, A-1-10, R-A-2~, R-A-5
· . Existtug Land Use: Generally vacant, a couple o rest ences
~F and structures, horse and cattle
. m graztng.
~. Surrounding Land Use: Scattered single family residences, a
-~' horse ranch, a turf farm and vacant
t land.
Cmprehenshe General Plan
Designation:
Land Dtvtslon Data:
11. Agency Recumendations:
12. Letters:
13. Sphere of Influence:
Land Use: Category I - II
Density: 2-20 chelltng untts per acre
Total Acreage: 221.2
VTR 23267 VTR 23299
Total Lots: 601Sgle Fam, 232 Untts
DU Per Acre: 3,01 du/ac 15,02 du/ac
Proposed Him Lot Size: 4500 sq, it,
See Letters dated:
VTR 23267 VTR 23299 CZ 5150
Road 10-07-88 10-11-88 ~
Health: 09-12-88 8-29-88 no commnt ~d at
Flood: 10-18-88 10-18-88 4-18-88 (. ded
Fire: 09-09-88 8-24-88 no comment P,C. on
Opposing/Supporting: None received 10-19o8~
Rot wtthin I City Sphere
MALTSIS:
Project Description
Change of Zone IIo. S150 ts a request to change the zontng on 221.2 acres of
1aM ¶u the Ilncho California area from R-R to R-3, Ro4 and R-5. Vesttug
Tentative Tract Io. 23299 seeks to establish a 232 unit condomtntum project on
14,3 acres of the overall stto, Vesting Tentative Tract 23267 seeks to
CHN~E OF ZXI[ II0. SIS0
I~TIIE TEXTATIVE TP. ACT NO. 23267
VESTING TEXI'ATIlfE TUCT IO. 23299
Staff lieport
e
Pig 2
subdivide the remtntng ·creage into 601 single family residential lots with a
mtntmm stze of 4500 square feet, t~ well site lots, and 4 open space lots
totaling 57.9 acres. Two of the open space lots are netglhborhood arks
totaling 10.2 acres. One open space lot Includes Temecula Creek and wil~ be
made into · regional park totaling 35.9 acres. The remaining open space lot of
I1.B acres will preserve an existing adobe house and some native vegetative
· reas.
The project site is located south of Highway 79 and west of Mar artta Road.
This site used to ben part of the Old Vat1 Ranch. Currently the sFte is used
for horse and cattle graztng, and contains a couple of single f·mtly residences
end assorted related structures. Surroundlng land uses include vacant land to
the east, bet which has had two spectftc plans approved on it (S.P. 217-Red
Hawk and S.P. 223-Vatl Ranch). The area to the north of Htghway 79 shows
stngh famtly residential dwellings on relathely large lots. A horse ranch
end turf ram are lot·ted to the west along Pala Road. The turf fam ts
currently under Agricultural Preserve contract (Tamfoul· No. 2). However, this
Agricultural Preserve Contract had · notice of non-renewal ftled on it on
September 20, 1979, so the Agriculture Preserve Contract is due to expire on
January 1, 1989.
Zoning found in the surrounding area currently includes R-R to the north, east,
south end west, A-1-10 to the east end south, and R-A-2~ and R-A-5 to the
north.
General Plan CaaststoRcylCempattbtltty
The project site is located within the Southwest Territory Land Use Planning
Area, Just to the south of the Rancho Callfornta/Temecula subare·. Policies
within the Rancho Collforetarremecul· subarea call for Cote or7 I and II land
Uses within the I-IS corridor, transittoning to Category 11I land uses on the
eastern end. lk, sepoltcies can be extrapointed down to apply to the proposed
proJect's locmtiee.
Category I ·rid 11 1And uses nov exist to the south of Highway 79 ·nd west of
Pala Road Ro·d. This trend towards urban development has been established in
the area south of Highway 79, and is continuing to be extended through the
approval of sewerel specific plans in the area. Tm specific plans adjoin the
project site to the fist. The Redhawk Specific Plan (S.P. 217) was a proved by
the Board of h rvtsors on October 6, 1988. This specific pl·n cal~s for a
mixed use deve~olaent with residentt·l densities ranging from 2 to 14 dwelling
units r acre. 1)is s ctflc 1an ·1lows up to 4,188 dwelling units. The
Vail ~nch Specific ~an (S.~, 223) adJotns the project on the northeast and
was ·1so · proved bytbe Board of Supervisors on October 6, 1988. This
specific pV·n kms mppreved 2,431 dwelling units with a density range of 2 to 20
du/acre. The terf farm to the southwest also has · specific plan currently
being processed m it iS.P. 228, Murphy Ranch) but is in the initial stages.
CIRCE OF ZOIE I0. 5150
VESTXlG TE)iTAT/VE 11tACT IO. 23267
VESTXlG TENTAtiVE 11ACT I0. 23299
staff eport
P~e3
Category I and Zl levels of sewtces and facilities are currently at the stte
Or wtll be extended to the stte through the Rancho vtllage Assessment DIstrict,
of ihtch thts project wtll participate. Vesttrig Tentat4ve Tract 23267 has an
overall denstry of 3.01 dwelltrig untts per acre and so falls wtthtn Category I!
dens¶ties. Vesttrig Tentative Tract 23299 has I pro osed denstry of 16.02
&elltrig unlts per acre and so ts wtth4n Category I densities. The proposed
tracts are considered compatible ~lth extsttng ·re· development and vrith
pro~ects approved tn the f to
area. The proposals are there ore found be
c~nststent vith the Comprehensive General PTan.
The proposed zone change application proposes zon4ng whtch ts consistent w4th
1;he land uses proposed under the tw~ Vesttn9 Tentative Tracts. The zone change
request ¶s therefore considered consfstent wtth the Comprehensive General Plan.
Destgn Considerations
The proposed tentative tracts have been designed tn accordance w4th thetr
respective residential development standards, and all other pertinent standards
of Ordinances 348 and 460. The applicant ts requesting the wetvet of lot
length to wtdth ratto requ(rements on a number of lots wtth4n Vesttrig Tentative
Tract No. 23267. Thts request ts necessary due to destgn and or phystcal
constra(nts associated wtth the stte. Staff feels thts requested waSvet ts
acceptable.
Due to the tract's vesttng status, add4t~onal materials ere submitted for
revtew tn accordance vtth Ordinance 460. All submitted materials ere found to
be adequate. These plans w111 be Implemented through the conditions of
approval.
Architectural elevations and materials ere submitted tn conjunction wtth
lesttrig Tract 23299. These ttms were revtewed and ·pproved and wtll be
lmplmented through the condft4ons of approve1.
As ts the · 11csnt's optton, · destgn mnual addressing architecture,
landscaping, ~tgatton, and fencing ms submitted wtth Yesttn9 Tract 23267.
These develo nt guidelines wtll be Implemented through ·n Ordinance No. 348,
Sectton 18.~ plan plan whtch ~11 need to be submitted and approved by the
Irlannfng Department prtor to the tssuance of any butldtng permtts.
OINIGEOFZOIIEI0. 5150
VESTZIG TE]ITATIVE TIUtO II0. 23267
VE:STXIG fi]ITATIVE TIRD II0. 23299
staff .eport
Pge4
Envlroemental lievie
Xn accordance vtth the procedures of the California Environmental Qualtty Act
(CEQA), Environmenlo1 impact Report No. 281 was prepared tn connection with the
proposed project. All significant effects of the pro3ect on the environment
and measures necessary to avotd or substantially lessen such effects have been
evaluated tn accordance vtth the RIverside County Rules ~o tmphment CEQA. The
X. Avotded impacts and Zmpacts mitigated to an insignificant level
~eismfc Safety
Potential impact: The stte could be subjected to setsmtc event hazards
such as groundshaklng, ground ruture, and liquefaction. The Wtldomar
fault ts located on-stte along t~e western most edge. This fault
could have a htghest magnitude of 7.0 on the Richter scale durtng a
setsmtc event. A moderate to high liquefaction potential exists near
Temecula Creek.
Required Iqtttgatton: A ftfty (50) foot setback area vr111 be placed on
either s(de of the V(ldomar Fault, with no structure for human
occupancy allowed vtthtn the setback, Design of the structures on the
~ithstand earthshaking from the maxtmum credtble earthquake that can
be expected. LIquefaction hazard can be mitigated by over-excavation
and replacment of recompacted ft11.
c. Findtrig: All potential setsmtc tmpacts can be mitigated to a level of
Insignificance.
Slopes and Emto~s
m. Potenttd impact: Eroston hazard and slope Instability v111 tncrease
during grading. Stiralton of the reservoir and drainages may occur.
b. IMttgatfon: M1 gredlng activities ~11 he tn conformance wtth all
Court gredtn standards. All county erosfort control practices shall
be adt~ered to ~ncludtng slope planttng and sandhaggtng. A deslltatton
bestn ,tll be provtded tn the open space area to reduce slltatton of
the creek dur¶ng times of peak run-off.
QINIM OF ZIE NO. 5150
YE~TII; T!~ATIVE TRACT 10. 23~67
VEST/l; 1131TMIVE TItACT 10. Z3Z99
Staff Report
Page 5
Potential hepects: increased runoff petentis1 through construction of
Impervious surfaces, potential Impacts to downstream · properties
through the concentration and dherston of stem flows. Potential
tapacts to areas of development within the lOO year floodplain.
Hfttgatton: Temecula Creek wtll be Improved through the Rancho
Vtllages Assessment DIstrict of which thts project ts a part.
Improvenents to Temecula Creek tnclude a 400 foot wide, soft bottomed
channel with concrete stdes. All areas wIthtn the 100 year floodplain
rill be removed from said floodplain through Improvement of Temecula
Creek. A dratnage channel and box culvert wtll convey storm flows
under State Htghway 79. in addition, all requtrenents found tn the
County flood Control Dtstrtct shall be adhered to.
c. F!edtng: All potential floodtng Impacts can be mitigated to a level of
Insignificance.
Noise
a. Potential impacts: Notse from Ht hway 79 wtll lmpect the stte, wtth
noise rejected to be 74.8 dBIA) at a dtstance of lO0 feet from the
centerlVne of HIghway 79. The enttre area of residential develo ent
north of Teneculs could experience notse levels tn excess of 65 d~A).
reject stte. Interior notse levels can be reduced to under 45 dB(A)
[hrough use of double glazed wtndows, mechanical ventilation and
madate air conditioning untts. in addltton Tttle 24 standards wtll
be complied with.
findIn: The potential notse Impact can be mitigated to a level of
c, tnslgn~ cance,
ft
Hater Iluallt~
a. Potential Impacts: A potential stltatlon of natural drainages and
Teemcull Creek my occur during rainy periods. Pollutants from street
rueoff could enter waterways. introduction of Impervious surfaces
co.ld slow any recharge of groundwater tn the area.
CHNIG£ OF ZOIIE I0. 5150
I~TZNG TDITATIlfE TItACT NO. 23267
iF, STING TENTATIVE TItACT I0. 232~9
Staff lieport
Page 6
b. Nttigatton: Compliance vtth County Gradtrig standards, Including the
use of sand bagging and deslltatton bestns durtng rainy ~eather wtll
be utilized. 1he pro~ect ts retaining · any dratna e areas and slopes
to act as natural filtering systems for street runo~f.
c. Ftndtn: Potential tmpacts be mitigated to a level of
tnslgn~;tcance. can
Vegetatlon/lt!Tdltfe
Potential Tmpects: ~enstttve species occurring on site tnclude
Blackshoulder kite, Coopers Hawk, Northern Harrier, and Nevtn's
Barberry. In addition, the San Diego Horned LIzard has a high
probability of occurring on stte. Potential tmpacts to these
sensitive species may occur vtth develolment of thts project. The
rlpartan area ~tthtn Temecula Creek wtll be disturbed upon Improvement
of the Temecule Creek Channel, ~tth the loss of four (4) acres of
unconsoltdated rtperlan scrub.
Ifittgatton: The rtparIan area v!11 be disturbed through the
Improvement of the Temecula Creek Channel by the Rancho Vtllages
Assessment District. Approximately 24.5 acres of rtpartan habltat
w111 be removed along the length of the Creek. The biological
enhancement program associated wtth the creek improvement ~tll
establish 70 acres of revttallzed habttat, ~htch wtll off-set any
tnttfal loss of rtpartan habitat. The subject property ts part of the
Rancho Vtllages Assessment Dtstrlct and wtll participate tn the
program.
The rtpartan am near the extsttng reservoir wtll be ratateed tn an
The p t has designated approximately 58 acres of
open sl~ce lot. vll ~r~pmtttgate Impacts to the existtrig senstthe
open space, ahtch 1
btrd spectes aM uhtch vtll preserve most of the teland sage scrub
plant community found mostte. Of the ~ exlsttn9 specimens of
found on sate, one vtll be within the open
lievte's hrberr3r e reserved
space area. A professions1 Horticulturist vt~1 also take cuttings of
the !levtn's Barbers/found adjacent to the extsttng residence end
raplint these In the Open Space area near the other NevIn's Barberr/.
Hatgin areas of designated open space vtll be planted wtth nattve end
drought tolerant vegetation, Including large trees to provide perchtag
opportunities for raptors. After channelizatton of the Temecula
Creek, thts area ~11 be retatned as Open Space, with suitable hubtaut
for the Ban Nego Horned 11zard thereby existing.
CHMM OF 2I)RE II0. 51SO
VESTING TEITATIVE TIACT I10. 23267
VESTING TEITATIVE TIM'T Ill). ~3~99
Staff lieport
Page 7
c. Findings: Potential Impacts to sensitive biological species can be
mttgatnd to a level of Insignificance.
Enel~ly Resources
Potential Impacts: Short term energy use v111 occur durtng
n
construction vtth the use of fuels by constructto equipment.
Long-tam energy use wtll occur through home heattng and 11ghttng and
automobile fuel use. Energy consumption after buildout vtll be the
follering:
I. Gasoline - 522 vehtcle gallons per day.
2. Natural Gas - 30,392 cubtc feet par day.
3. E"lectrictty- 13,811 kilowatt - hours per day.
Mitigation: A Class % bicycle trat1 Ntll be provided adjacent to the
proposed channel. Tttle 24 energy conservation practices vtll be
Incorporated into the destgn and development of the houses.
c. Findings: Potential energy impacts wtll be mitigated to a level of
Insignificance.
S~entc Highways
a. Potential ~mpacts: Htghvay 7~ ts an eltgtble scentc hi hway.
Development of the proposed project could tmpact the scentc qualIty of
the Irei.
b. Nfttgattm: Landscaped entry nodes wtll be provided throughout the
ro act and a landscaped buffer strip vtll be built adjacent to
~4gll~y 79, Landscape plans ~tll be reviewed by the Planntng
Departaent to ensure adequacy,
c. FIndings: ~e potential tmpacts to the e119161e scentc htghway are
Mtfgatedtoa level of Insignificance.
A~haeoloflcal Resoum
Potential Impacts: A stte of prehistoric Zndtan Habitation ts found on
the north stde of Tamecull Creek on the first stream terrace. The
extsttng hlstortc be story adobe "wtnter residence" of Halter Vat1 ts
also locatnd on stte. DIsturbance of these sites could impact these
resources.
b. Prtor t~ any dtsturbence no stte, a qualified Archaeologist shall
revtw the registered Zndlan site and collect anY data as necessary.
L
OIARGE Of ~Ii). SISO
W. STIR~ TENTATIVE TNkCT I10. ~3267
IT..ST~NG TBI'I'ATIVE TItACT I0. Z3299
Staff Report
Page 8
Data collectlon methods shall tnclude test borlngs and excavations as
found necessary by the archaeologist end as approved by the Planning
Departaent. l~e extsttng adobe house on stte ~tll be preserved on so
no tracts vtll occur.
level.
Paleontoloiy
a. Potential Zmpact: Pro;lect stte is located near Pauba formation land
which ts kno~ to produce significant paleontologtcal resources.
Potential tmpacts may occur durtn, g grading and trenching.
b. Mitigation Neasures: A qualified aleontologtst shall be consulted
prior to any grading and sha~l monitor t e grading
h activity.
Significant finds shall be identified, itemized and conclusions
presented by the qualified poleontolog st.
c. Findings: Any Paleontological Impacts can be avoided or mitigated to a
hvel of Insignificance.
CtrculaUml
a. Potential Tmpacts: the proposed project combined w111 generate 7,392
trtp ends per day.
b. Hlttgatton: All tnternal street systems ~111 be put tn place by the
1 of
deve oper this project. FieJot circulation roads tn the area v411
be haproved by the Rancho Villages Assessment District, by vhtch this
pro ~111 rt~ctpate. Roads to be tmproved tnclude Highway 79 to
lane road, Hargartta bad south of Htghwa 79 to
e 134/)00 foot R.O.W, art·r¶·1 and Pale Road south of Ht hwiy~g to e
1tO foot R,O,W. artaria1. A bike land Is also being proWdad adjacent
to Tmla Creek,
c. Traffic tapacts can be mitigated to · level of Insignificance.
rarer aM SBer
a. Potential Impacts: The proposed project wtll have an estimated datly
water consumption of 547,800 gallons per day, with the creation of
273,900 gallons of wast·water.
b. l~tigatton: Pancho California Mater District and Eastern ~ntctpal
MaterNstrict have expressed · postthe abtllty to serve the proposed
CXMGE OF N It). SISQ
IESTII~ TBrrATZVE 11tACT 10 . ~3267
YESTIE I~XTATIVE 11UCT gC). 7,3299
Staff biNart
Page 9
project. P!peltne facilities will be installed through the Ranch,
VIlllges Assessment District, by which this project will participate.
Miter conserving methods will be tncluded In the development of the
t r
roJect In accordance with Title 24. In addition, drought oh ant
~:ndscaping and automatic systems
irrigation wnl be provided in the
project.
c. Finding: Xmpacts to water and sewer services are not considered
significant.
F!.re
a. Potential Impact: Development of thts project will incrementally
d
increase emmnd for fire services.
Mitigation: The project shall comply with all applicable fire
~orevention and emergency response provisions contained in Riverside
unty Ordinances. In addition the developer will pay $400.00 per
unit to go tomrd fire protection {mpacts.
c. Finding: Impacts to fire services can be mitigated to a level of
insignificance.
Sheriff Service
Potential Impacts: Development of this project will add an estimated
1743 ople to the area, which will have an incremental impact on the
need ~orpolice services.
Mitigation: Crtme prevention methods will be designed into the
developmeet of this project. ~npow~r increases are at the discretion
of the Board of Supervisors, however, this project pay county wide
Mttgatton fee of which e portion can go toward adding addit .hal
police prorectUm.
c. finding: Potential impacts to police services can be mitigated to a
level of Insignificance.
Schools_
a. Potential Impacts: Develo~ent of this project will generate an
estimated total of 450 new students.
b. Mitigation: lhe project developer will be required to pay school
mitigation fees in accordance with State Law.
L
r
DgVIGE OF ~Ot NO. 5150
VESTING 1BITAT!rE 111AL'T gO. 23267
VESTING TE]ITATIVE TIt~CT ~0. 23299
Staff Report
Page 10
c. Ftndlng: laWacts to schools can be mitigated to a level of
Insignificance.
Parks and Recreation
a. Potential lapacts: The state Quimby Act requires 3 acres of park site
thts project woul require
o,. people. v,lo nt o,d
acres of park st re.
be
Mitigation: 1he proposed project will provide two parks totalling 10.2
acres of land. An approximately 1.0 acre pa~k site is located in the
northern portton of the project site and a 9.2 acre park site is
locmted in the southern tip. In addition, a 35.9 acre regional park
is being proposed by the Rancho Villages Assessment District for the
Te~cula Creek area. This re tonal park wtll include equestrian
tratls and bike paths. ~not~er 11.8 acres of Open Space area which
includes the mold adobe structure" is proposed.
Finding: Provision of the two park sttes totalling 10.2 acres and ~lth
the prnposel regional parks, impacts to park and recreation servtces
are mitigated to a level of insignificance.
Ut¶ltttes
ae
Potent(a1 lapacts: Incrmntal tncrease in demand for uttltty
services. TemporaW creation of dust and nots, from construction of
uttltt~l~aes,
b. ~igatlon: T~e developer wtll be requtred to extend all utilities as
necessa . Dgst shall he controlled during construction actively
throughr{~e use of ~atertng trucks, Vegetation losses vtll be
replaced ktt~ appropriate planrings in areas damaged by trenching.
Sandbegglnl sbell be used to prevent runoff.
r. Flndfn s: bl~cts to utilities can he mitigated to a level of
insignificance.
Sol td llasto
a. Potential tapacts: Thts project wtll create 19,626 pounds of solid
aste per day. Adequate capactty is currently available to handle
this need.
b, Pfittgatton: No mitigation required.
Ir
eggaGE OF ZI)IIE I10. SISO
YESTIE TEXTATIVE TItACT I10. 23267
VESTING TE)ITAT]VE TRACT IO. 23299
Staff Report
Page ~1
c. Ftndtng: There w~11 be no
fed1 SItes.
LIbraries
significant tmpact to soltd waste
a. Potent¶a1 Zepacts: Oevelopnent of this
lncreaental Impact on 11brar7 services.
b, Hfttgatton: The
mitigation fee.
c. Ftndlng: Ltbrary
tnsigntftcance.
Health Sewices
**
pro.tect wt 11 have an
be requtred to pay $100,O0 per unlt
be mitigated to a level of
developer wtll
tmpacts can
Potential impacts: Development of thts project w111 have an
Incremental Increase tn demand for health servtce, Current and
planned facilities tn the area appear capable of meettng any
addftlonal demand,
Kttigatton: No mitigation requtred
Ftndtn9: There ts no significant (mpact to health services.
Afrports
a. Potential impacts: Htntmal tmpact to area atrports Is anticipated.
b. Mitigation: No mtttgatfon required.
c. F~ndtng: There ts no significant tmpact to area airports.
Dtsaster Preparedness
a. Potential lapacts: Hfnlml impacts
Preparedness ts anticipated,
b. Ietigatton: No adttgation required.
c. Hndfng: Them are no significant tmpacts
Preparedness.
to the County's Dtsaster
toward Dtsaster
CXVGE OF R I0..SISO
VESTlaG TDITATIVE 111K'T NO. 23267
VF.~iB; 191TATIVE TRACT I10. 23299
Staff _Report
Page 12
Ftscal Trapacts
Potential impacts: The ftscaT study found wtthtn the EIR states that
the entire project wtl1 have a net postttve trapact to the County of
a~prexfmately $56.008 annuaT1y.
b. N1ttgatton: No mitigation proposed.
c. Ftndtng: No significant ftscal .egattve ftscal impact wtll occur.
II. PRO3ECT ALTERNATIVES
The Califorota Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines requtre
the conslderatto6 of alternatives to the proposed project. Three alternatives
were considered ~tthtn thts E/R. These are the "No ProJect Alternative", the
· Decreased Scope Altarnattve", and the "increased Scope Altarnattve."
11o Project Altemathe
Analysis: The No ProJect Altemattve would allow the land to rematn tn
~?;~%~;"11'-I ~'~4~". Ih :~"o~i~I?r" 'nd c.ttl, r..ch .nd the
t n~a eus property ~er and ~rkers, Gtven
~fs. ~e~rlo, none of the t~ac~ of the pmposed project ~uld occur,
The No ProJect' Altemattve ts considered the envlronmentally supertot
alternative due to the hast environmental tmpacts. Impacts associated
~tth setsmtc safety, gradtrig, notse, air qualtty, water quallty, loss of
bl
Agricultural land, vegetation and ~ldlife, energy resources, pu tc
servtces and utilities, and trafftc weuld not occur or would be
substantially less.
b. Reasons for ReJection of No ProJect Alternative: Thts alternative wuld
qega the benefits associated vtth developmg_nt of the 600 detached
du~l~ng Bits and 230 condmlntum units. These untts are propasedtto
reflect anticipated market needs and publlc demand by prevtdtng detached
dwelltrig units that w tll he mrbetable ~ithtn the reglon. Lon~tem use of
the stta Is not considered economically feastble and ts not mandated by he
Generel Plu. in light of the approved urban land uses in the near
d .s.s ou,. ,..d ,o
CIINIGE OFZOIEIO. SISO
VESTING TGITATIVE 11UICI' I10. 23Z~7
VEST[iS I~ITATIVE ~ I10. 232~
staff _Report
Page 13
Decreased Scope Alternative
Analysts: This eTte~nathe w111 assume the re ~ty ts developed out tn
accordance with the extstfng R-R zone (Rura~ ~stdent el). Mtth the
property developed at one ckelling untt per ~ acre, thts alternathe
addresses develoment of S50 dwelling untts.
Development of thts slte under the Decreased Scope Alternative would have
t cts on setsrote safety, Atr Quallty, Mater Quallty. Energy Resources,
Pum~tc Servtces end Utilities, end Traffic that ~uld be less than the
reposed project. Potential trapacts upon Slopes and Eroston, Flooding,
Gotse. Agricultural Resources. Vegetation and Mildlife, Archaeological
Increased tEpaCt to M ~ :sxpe of septtc
systems.
b. ReasoRs far itPJectfon of the Decreased Scope Alternative: Although the
Decreased Scope Alternative contatns Incrementally reduced trapacts tn
certatn above mentioned areas, It ts not considered to be significantly
"environmentally superior" to the current development proposal, The
e11~natton of the smaller lot product tnhlbtts the provision of homes
~ithtn a more affordable range. The costs of roadway Improvements as we11
as costs associated wtth rarer, sewer and flood control facilities are not
proportionately. decreased under thts alteroathe, maktng the' project
econeetcally-i!lfffcult. For these reasons, the Reduced Scope Alternathe
ms rejected.
Increased kope Alternative
a. Anel:r~s: The increased Scope Alternative would assume butldtng out the
The Increased Scope Alternative ~ould have greater trapacts upon Setsmtc
Safety, Slopes aM Erosion, floodIn, Noise, Atr Quellty, Mater Qualtty,
Energy liesources, Land Use, Public Servtces and Utilities, end Traffic.
~mpacts on Agricultural Resources, Vegetation end Mildlife. Archaeological
Resources, and Peleontologtcel Resources would be about the same.
,;c, , ;~ ;:~
SefSEtC Safety, end publlc setraces end facilities. Lend use con~tc~s
between SUCk as tntense project end surrounding approve4 land uses could be
significant. Because all trapacts under thts alternathe are etther equal
to. or greater than, the proposed project, thts alternative ts
CIIARGE (W ZDIIE $0, 5150
VT~TIIIG ~]ITATIYE 111/L'T I10. 23267
~TINB I~(TATIVE 11UICT $0. 23299
staff
Page 14
environmentally tnfertor than the proposed project. For these reasons,
this alternative ms reJecte~.
III. ReJected Conditions of Approval
The conditions of apprnval or the proJect's des1 n tnclude a~l recoanended
mitigation measures set forth tn Environmental lff~oact Report No. 281, except
that measure which requires e ragtonal application and is beyond the scope of
the Individual developer. This masure ts the requirement of park and ride
facilities tn the arei to mitigate energy impacts.
IV. SIgnificant gnavotdable Adverse Impacts and ProJect Beneftts
Pro3ect Benefits:
Oevelopment of the project as proposed ~11 provide the following benefits to
region:
1) Improved Traffic Circulation: Traffic clrculatton w~11 be improved in the
roJect area by the proJect's inclusion within the Rancho Villages
~sessment District. Improvenents include widening of Rencho California
Road to a 142 foot R.O.W., mktng it e six lane expressway, improving
Margartta Road to m 134 foot arterial, and intorovement of Pale Road to 110
foot R.O.W.
2) Improved Flood Control: Participation of this project site in the Pancho
Vtllages Assessment District will go towards improvement of Temecula Creek
tnto I 400footride, soft bottomed, concrete stded channel.
3) Provision of Active Recreational Open S ace: The roJect ts proposing two
nelgnDorno~ left. sltes total ling l~..Z acres e~ong ~th providing an 11.8
acre Open Space/1L-~Jlonel Park. Parttct atton of thts project tn the Rancho
Villages Assesat District also ,tlv see the Temecule Creek Channel area
developed_ Into · 35.9 acre open space erfi end ragtonal park, ~th
equestrian tratls ·rid blc~le laths Included. Idhile the neighborhood park
sites are bel.ng develope_d prtmrtly for the residents of the project, the
rka u
amount of pa ' creage far exceeds that amo nt ~tch would be requtred under
the Qutmby Act, and. along with the regtonal parks, can he utilized by
residents alremiy tn the community.
Stgnlficaot Unavoidable Adverse lmpects:
Environmental Impoct Report liD. 281 identified the following significant
unavoidable adverse impacts.
C:HAJIGE OF ZOE: I10. 5150
VESI'/II6 TE]ITAT/VE 1tACT IK. 23267
VEST/IIG 11]ITATZVE 'TIACT NO. 23299
Staff Report.
Page 15
Atr Quallty:
Potential Impacts: Vehicle exhaust entsston and dust durtng construction
trill contribute to itr quality reductions tn the ares on a Short-term
busts. The long-tern Impacts ~11 be Increased motor vehtcle emtss(ons by
more people dram into the ares and from 1noreased power plant
e~tssioes due ~tot~e clamand for electricity and natural gas.
Requtred MItigation: ~ater trucks w111 be used to reduce dust. 0n-stte
parks will create on-stte trtp destinations. A Class !btke ira11 ts
tncluded tn the Ragtonal Park. Title 24 standards wtll be adhered to
durtng construction. Transtt facilities such as benches, shelters, and
turnouts wtll be destgned tnto development of the parks to facilitate any
future mass transtt system.
Unavoidable Adverse Impact: A temporary degradation of air quality wtll
result tn the pro~ect vtc~ntty during construction acttv~ty with an overall
significant incremental regional degradation due to project implementation.
Overriding Ftedtnq: The publlc benefits of the proposed project tn terms of
public improvements to road and flood facilities and by the development of
neighborhood and ragtonal parks outwetgh the proJect's adverse tmpact upon
a~r quittry.
Agriculture
a. Potential Impacts: Development of the propOsed project will result In loss
of current a rtcultural uses and the loss of 27 acres of prtwe agricultural
land (Class ~ and II soils).
b. Httteatton: N~ editgallon measure available to mlttgate these tmpacts.
c. Unavoidable Adverse 1mpact: Loss of 27 acres of prtwe farm land
considered cumulilively significant.
agricultural practSces could lead to land use tncompattbfitttes tn 11ght of
approved led existing pro~ects tn the area. l~e pro~ect benefits
substantially outlel9~ the unavoidable adverse tmpact caused by the loss of
these Irtme sotls.
QIARGE Of ~ NO. SlSO
~'I$ TENTATIVE TIACT $0./3267
W[,~'~I$ TENTATIVE TRACT I0. Z3299
Staff
Page 16
1. Change of Zone Xo. 5150 seeks to change the zoning on 221.2 acres from R-R
t~ R-3, R-4 and R-5.
2. Vesttrig Tentative Tract No. 23299 seeks to create 232 condomtntum un4ts on
14.3 acres of the site.
3. Vesting TenLathe Tract No. 23267 seeks to create 601 stngh famtly lots
and 4 open space lots on the remainder of the site.
The stte ts located south of HIghway 79 and ~st of 14argartta Road.
5. The project stte 4s curtchili used for horse and cattle graztng. A couph
of res4dences and assorted related structures are found on stte.
Surrounding Land Uses Include s¶ngle fim¶l~ res4dences, a horse ranch, a
turf farm and vacant land.
7. Surrounding zoning tncludes R-R, A-I-IO, R-A-2~ and R-A-5.
8. The project site 1tee adjacent to tm epproved spactftc plans (S.P. 217 -
Redhark and $,P, 223 - Vat1 Ranch), These spec4ftc plans are located to
the east end south of the project stte,
g. The turf ram located to the southwest currently has a spectftc plan betng
processed on it iS, P, 228 - !~rph~ Ranch).
The agriculture1 preserve contract on the adjoining turf farm (Temecula
No, 2), vtll expire on January 1, 1989,
11. The prro:lect site ts located vithtn the Southwest Territory Land Use
Planntng Area.
12. Envtrunmental Impact Report Ro. 281ms prepared for the proposed project.
Findings, Nit1 atlon Neasure$ end Statements of Overriding Consideration
are fSund {n 9c~fs staff report on pages 4 through 15 and are 4ncorporated
here b.y reference.
1. The proposed zone change end vesting tentative tracts are consistent w~th
the poltctes of the Comprehensive General Plan.
2. The proposals are compatible vtth area development and zontng.
J CZ 51501VTR 232991VTR 23267
LAND USE
VAC.
)1
VAC
}1 HORSIE'I \
~.. RANC ' .:,::
LOlls LIND· ~.-.
I
TURF FARM
VAC,
/"')
~ MR. 8RIAN HAYWOOO ux,,'r,o,,L
Use R-R 10 R-4, R-2, AND R-S ~ ~.~
/ire TEMECULA RANCHO $up.C)ist. 1 · ~
Rd, Bk. iql-SGA Date 3/17188 Drawn By $$
1200' ~ CObr~Y P/,A/V/V//V; :F_,P/J?7'A/£/VT' No
" ~,L_~,Z 51501VTR 232991VTR 23267
I
R-A-5
,R
] pR(;:)PU~Ir-I.;
.,
R-R,~..
AIII
AI~ MFL BRIAN HAYWOOD
Set.. T. 8S.,R. 2W Assel$or'l Bk. 926 leg. 16
: Circulti~ ~ EXPWY VARIABLE
i ~ibe~.I~S6A Date 3117188 0r.wn By SS
1200' ~ C{~ IaLANNIN~ OF-PII'qTM'ttV'T NO E
,1
.I
,I
/--
II
iVE >iDE counc.u
PLAnninG DEP CrilEnC
DLI'~: TabrusE7 29, 1988
moor
BuildtuB and Safety
Surve~r - Dave Duds
load Departs,he
Health - lolph Lachs
Fire Protectio~
Flood Control District
Fish & Gs~e
LAYCO, S Psisle]
II.S. Post~l Service - Ruth E. Davidson
COnn~ss~oQer Bresson
Rancbo Caltf. later
Eate~n 14un]c~pa~ IdaSet
~outhe~n CaBal. Edison
Southern C~11f. ~as
General Telephone
Dept. oY TranspOrtation 18
Temcula Un4on H~gh $c~ool
Temecgla Chamber of Commerce
/it. Palsmar
S~erra Club
hlleyw4de Parks
County Perks
CHANGE OF ZONE 5150 - (Tu-1) - E.A. 32544
- Theses Amricsu Cor~. - hncho Pacific
- Ranthe California Area - First
Supervisorial District - South of Highray
79 end West of Xir2erita load - R-R Zone
- 207.6 acres - RF.~UES Change Of Zone to
i-2, R-4 and l-S - Concurrent Cases VTR
23267, VTR 23299 - Hod 120 - A.P.
926-160-010 to 013; 926-160-002-003
?lease revie~ the use described above, along vith the attached case rap. A Land
Division Committee matinS has been tentatively scheduled for April 28, 1988. If it
clears, it rill thou p to public hearing.
Your c~aments and recommndatioon are requested prior to April 14, 1988 in order that ve
ss~ include then 4~ the staff report for this particular ease.
Should ~ou !my, au~ queatious raptdin2 this itemt please do ~ot hesitate to contact
Crag Seal st ~87-1363
Planner
print name Bad titZe
FMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR
46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
II~/tlNrrl4 L,. mDWARDI I,. o. BOX
RIV,,-KSIDE COUNI"Y FLCXZ)D CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Rtvers t de County
Planning Department
County Administrative Center
Riverside, California
Attention: Regional T~:.
Area: ~/F_H~
We have revtewed this case and have the following conmnents:
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 comp]3 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 mnd 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 ts in the
drainage plan fees shall be paid in accordance with the applicable r~lesArea
and
regulations.
The proposed zoning is comsistent with existing flood hazards. Some flood
control facilities or floodproofing may be required to fully develop to the
implied density.
The Dtstrlct'sreport dated
is still current for this project.
The District des not object to the proposed minor change.
The attached cmments apply.
Very truly yours,
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
~~~:~~'Ctvtl Engt'~~Z~Aneer
DATE: AtP:(
la, Iq/,~
April 5, 1988
Boed dDimct~s:
!klmN D. S~fit7
Pasldent
Jm A. Dsrby
Ralph Daily
!~mi Kulb~r$
Jo. A. laB,u-
Jdfn-y L Mimider
T.C.P.m'e
Staa T. Milk
Gmm-sl Mmugw
Phillip L Fades
~ ~ M~
RIverside County Planning Department
4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor
Riverside, California 92501-3657
Subject: Water Availability
Reference: Change of Zone 5150
Vesting Tract 2328?
Gentlemen:
Please be advised that the above-referenced
property is located within the boundaries of Rancho
California Water District. Water service, therefore,
would be available upon completion of financial
arrangements between RCWD and the property o~er.
Water availability would be contingent upon the
property ovner signing an Agency Agreement which
assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.
Sites for additional water production facilities may
be required within the proposed development depending
upon the level of increased demand created by the
proposal.
If RCWD can be of further service to you, please
contact this office.
Very truly yours,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Senga P. Doherty
Engineering Services Representative
F01l/dpmll3
L
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
28061 DIAZ ROAD * POST OFFICE BOX 174 · TEMECULA. CA 92390-0174 · (714) 676-4101 · FAX (714) 676.0615
ATTACHHENT
The Draft Environmental Impact Report for Change of Zone 5150 and Vesting
Tentative Tracts 23267 and 23299 shall address all topics required by Sec-
tion 15120 through 15131 of the State Guidelines however, the following
concerns shall be emphasized in the report:
Landform and Topography: Briefly describe the general characteristics of
these elements as they pertain to the project site. Also, indicate any
proposed modifications to existing conditions based on anticipated grading
or other activities required for site improvements or development.
- Geolm/y and Seismicit: Address the existing conditions as they may con-
strain or modify development of the project in terms of ground excellera-
tion, magnitude, intensity, duration of shaking, frequency, and recurrence
Interval.
Soils, Agriculture: The document should address the agricultural vtabtltty
of the proposed project site based on existing soil types, terrain and
availability of water.
Hydrology, Floodt~ and Drainage: The draft E./.R. should address the
pacts the propose dewelopment will have on the project site with respect
to the many water courses throughout the stte. The potential impacts to
downstream properties and mitigation measures should be identified as they
relate to project destgn.
1 t o u any apparent impacts.
Climate and Air Quality: The E.%.R. document should address potential
impacts on Air Qualtty wtth respect ot Regional Statistical Area No. 432
and the south Coast Air Qualtty Bastn.
- CIrculation Traffic: The E.I.R. should address available circulation to
the stte a~ tdenttfy potential impacts, and possible extension and up-
gradtrig of Pl~sttmJ roads with respect ~O major access corridors.
- hbllc Facilities end Services: The E.Z.R. Nhould identify existing Infra-
structure Ind potenttel lmpact~ to extsttng publlc services. The discussion
should I~clude the possible.extension and upgradtng of publlc facilities to
servtce the project stte. The follwtng topics should be addressed by sub-
Ject as to posstble impacts relattng to services.
- $e~erhclllties end Sewage Dtsposal
- ~aterSupply
- Flood Control Facilities
- SolidWaste Disposal
- Parks and Recroatton
- Firo, Police, Emergen~ Services
- Loul Utilities
Archaeoloqv: The draft E.I.R. should address possible impacts to signifi-
cant archaeological and historical resources and outline mitigation mea-
sures for any potential impacts.
- Land Use Compatibility: The E.I.R. should address the tssue of compati-
bility of proposed land uses with established surrounding land uses.
- Public Controversy: Review the proposed proSect in terms of its relative
acceptability to area residents given that the proSect ts a deviation from
established surrounding land uses,
- General Plan Consistency: Review the proposed project tn tems of its con-
sistency with the various elements of the Riverside County General Plan.
- Fiscal Impact Analysts:
Noise: Discuss the impact that noise from Highway 79 wtll have on the site,
as~11 as the impact that noise from Development of the site wtll have on
the area.
Open Space and Conservation: Discuss open space areas tn relation to out-
door recreation, public health and safety, conservation and management of
economical productive natural resources, and preservation of ecologkal
and historical resources. Address both benefidal and adverse impacts of
the project to the open space inventory.
1-11-88
LC, Z 51501VTR 232991VTR 23267
AI;, MR. BRIAN HAYWOOD
Use R-R TO R-4, R-2, AND R-5
keg TEMECULA RANCHO Sup. 01st 1
$ec, T. BS,,R.2W Assessor's Bk. 926 Pg. 16
R& Bk.l~56A hie 3111188 Orawn By SS
1200'/WVE/W~Z~' COf~ Ju/../iNNIN6' DE'Pltt~TML
=liVial;h = UUilC,v
Pl rlrliriG DEPARClTIEI1C
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM: STANDARD EVALUATION
ENVTRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT E-A-) NUMBER: 32544
PROJECT CASE TYPE(s) AND NUMBERS(a): CZ 5150, VesfincJ Tract 23267 and Vesfinq Tract 23299
~ NAMe Thoten~Anertcan Corporation
NAJ~ OF PERSON(a) PREPARING F.~ 6reg Heal
L PROJECT INFORMAlION
A. DESCRFTK)N 0nciude Woposed minimum k~ size end u~es u ~oplici~): Change of Zone from
R-R to R-2, R-4o and R-5 alon; with a 591 lot R-4 stngle farofly subdivision wtth a
S,O00 square feet mintmum lot size and a 232 unit condomintum project.
B. TOTAL PROJECT AREA: ACRES 207.6 : Or SQUARE FEET
C, ASSESSORS PARCEL NOim): 926-160-002, 003, 010, and 013.
D. EXISTING ZONIN~ R-R IS THE PROPOSAL IN CONFORMANCE? Nn
E. PROPOSED Z(~NIN~ R-2, R-4, and R-5 IS THE PROPOSAL IN CONFORMANCE? Yes
F. STREET REFERENCE~ South of INY 79 and ~/est of Hargarlta Road
SECTION, TOWNSHIP, RANGE DESCRIPTION OR A17ACH A LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Sections 16. 17.20. and 21 of Townshtn 8 south and Range 2 west
Stte ts tn a rural agricultural area that ts transitloath; into urban usesl The
stte currently has an airstrip and a few scattered buildings on it, with Te~ecuTa
Creek btsecUng the s~te. The Los Ranch?los development is located to the north
vith three pending Specfftc Plans surrounding the stte on the east. south and
IL COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL Pt. AN OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION DESIGNATION
I'1 A! or pet ol 88 IxoJed die k In 'Adopted Specific Pin,' "REMAIP Or "Rancho V'dtages Community
Pok:~Arsu". Com01s~b llI, N(B lnd Conly),V and VL
IX"I A! Or tart d the project site is In "keas Not Deslgrmted u Open Space*. C~plete Sectior~ fil. N
(A, Band Dcel~VandlA.
abeve~ CcepldeSecgmel~N(A,&endEonly~VendVL
IL ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS AND aESOURCES ASSESSMENT
IIA - No~ RpI)klble CdtlclJ Ellentill C~NorrnN-Hlgh Ri~ trNOtmaI-Low RiSk~
B. ~ndi~ew~h~yee~Y)en~(N~ehe~e~nyenv~mnmen~Jh~z~de~d/~m~u~e~ue~m~yignicaf/~M~
byNImaesaL Mmferencedfigtatswe~.'~aJnedb~e~eCompreheftsk, eGeneriPten. For any lssue marked ~is (Y) wfde
clfdBi~eapixceetaMIBndualu~lbltyorar.,,~tlcoeptabgltymtlng(l). (Seed~Nlx~tceoIl~lll~ge~
HAZARDS
&No
7. No
~ Wk:dErmsk~&Bk~sandF, O. Vi-1, AID2
OrcL46O. k142&Ord. 484) RsC
I(X___ DsmlmmYSetoak~(Irt~.Vl.7) HCA
11_Yes FIoodp~eiMr~VtT)
NA U R (Fig.
NA A B C D (fig. V1.11)
15. Ob~r Noise
NA A B C D (Fig. V1.11)
16. YeS Pmiect Generated Nolse Affecting durtn9
Noise S4nsive Uees (Fig. V1.11) constructt
17. YeS NolN Senmth~Pmlect(Fig. Vl.11)
Y
18. es NrOjalitylm;acbFromProject
19 Yes Pro~tSentdtivetoAJrOulllty
__ warn O,-my ;mgec~ From Pmie~ pore t a'
Y
21. e$ ProjeclSensitlvetoWMerQuallty
22. No Hezen~us Matilda and wutee
23. ~ Hazardous Fire Area (F~. VI30 · V1.~1)
24. O~et
25. Offier
RESOURCES
prtme fareland
local taportant ~ ~e,F~) ~ 79
(Rg.'d.32-Vl.33aVl.46-Vt48)
Yes F'~c~,:~lrJ~neou~ee
Definitions for Land Use Sultabfilty and Noise Acceptability Ratings
NA - Not Apgial~ S - Gefiemlly Suitable PS - ProVelonally Suitable
U - GenealylJeubMe R - Reet~led A - GeteraJlyAc~epta~e
a - ~~ c - eenemfiyUrmcx:ept:be O - LendUeOkoouraged ,
1. OPF-NSPRCEANOOONSERVATIONMAPDES~GNATION(=~. "Areas not designated a~ ooen space"
and "Floodways'
Z LANOUS~PLANMNGNEk Southwest Territory
7. SJIdMNWOFPOLKXBAFFEC;aNGPROR:)SA~ Floodways
space and 1tatted recreational uses.
- Permitted land uses are open
BL F~elWoje:~tddcatele~es(Y)orre{N)whetheranyl~br~cfacitie~end/oreerv~sS~s~ys~~
e be dfecled by the Ixolxmi M referenced figures are contained b the Comprehensive General Ptlh. FOr Iny luue
~ ye~ 0t~ wfile Naa lore:el, ige~cie~ COMUItN:I, findings of ~ end mitigation measure under Section V.
PUBLIC FACILrTIES AND SERVICES
sYes
ayes
10, Yes Eque~rian Trg/ls (Ffg. N, lg, N.241 primary
Riv. C4x 800 i Equesb~n Try1 Main)
11, Yes Ufiiities (Ftg. N25. N26)
~ YeS Lbtfes(F~ N J7 - NJ8)
1~ Yes He~h
14NO Akpoft8 (Fig. 1.18.2 - ILleA.
LIM - tl&lO · N21 - N36)
I& No (~P/Spheftoflr~uef~
1/, OWlet
C. ~e~r~td~w~j~ed~t~Ad~ted~pe~icPt~n~-REMAP"~11~nch~vi~geC~mmun~ty~
1. ~ldele~le~l,llledueed;l~,tilion(i):
N. LAND UR Dt ~ r. nr~r L:TION (continued)
· D. !elwPerto(IhePmjectdlelsln'AmmnotDesJGPmedm'Oge~'-~~ce".e~jjsnoefnm~~.~
cl~sUene l. 2. 3. aend T. Comple~clumSom4.5. Oard?l ll Je ln aCommuMY P~en.
1. LendueecaMgcxy('m) necemswyloeuppotl~mixelx~sedlxoJect Al~obclicatel~ncluaetype
(Lt reklmft cmwnecM. er,) Category l/l! residential.
Current land me cNogmlKles)
(Lo. mkhmUd, ~ or.) Cateqory llI
~ inclm lencl um ~
3~ · D.1 dlfferslmmD~,wlg~ed~erex~bems~dv~dM~edeveloPmentmge? Ex~ah:
Category I and II servtces and facilities are proposed to be met by the
assessment dtstrtct nw beln~ considered, If the assessment dtstrtct ts not
approved, this project will not be able to meet the Cateqory ! and !I requirements.
4. Communlly I=lan des~gnltion(s~
& Is the proposed project ~,--:lsfent w~h ~e Ix~icies end ~esignltions Of ~e Community Plan?
· not, ex~.
& Isthel~c~wi~exjsUngendl~suffoun{Mglendaes?
Inot, expla~c CurTently, the proposed pro,~ect 11es adjacent to Agdcultural uses nov
tn Agricultural Presewe status. The ad,~acent land currently has two Specific
Plans under consideration which w~11 change the uses to restdentlal and con~ercta!,
which would mke fts project compatible,
7. Based ~n Id8 i Ilgdy, b h Ixopcaaf conebterd wilh ~e Co~orelenSive General Pen?
I not, mkqfl:l by ~eclanlndlllueNumbeti~ellsuelk:leNE~n~ Inconsistencies:
E. IdorlartdtepedectdleiJnenOPenS;aceardCensevaS~cies;gnNk:~cemPjetethefoll°winF'
1. b'tatethedee~
2. btheWcmcadcauidentwimeecJesZgnsSen(s)?lff~exZah:
INFORMATION IOURCEI, FINDINGS OF FACT AND MrrlG&TION MEASURES
A ADDrI'IONN, NFO4qMATION REQUIRED BEFORE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CAN BE COMPLETED:
DATf DATE ADEQUACY
ECllC)N/ NFORMATION IFORMATION INFORMATION ~UmMINAllON
iSSUE NO. REQUIRED REOUES1~D RECEN~D rcSNO~)ATE)
B. For each luue merked yes (Y) under Sections II;.B snd N.B, identffi/~ Section and issue number and do the
Idlowing, inthelormiu~Nn below:
1. Met all ad~xx~l miev&qt data tourcat, including agencies consulted.
2. State all linings of bct regarding environmental concern~
~ State specirc mitjeNi~ measures, ff Identlrmbie without requiring In e~vironmental impact report (E.I.R.)
4. ff additio~ll idoanmtic~ ie mclutrld before the envi~qmental usessmtnt can be compielecl, refer to
SubsectioaA,
5. ff acldltkx~l ~heet$ Ire needed Io complete this section, check b~e box M the end of the section end attach
SECTK)NI
IIIB l&2
IIIB 8
IIIB 14
i, lllB 16
IlIB 17
IIIB 20&21
IlIB 26
m
SOURCES, AGENCfS CONSULTED, BNDINGS OFFACT, MITIGATION MEASURES:
Site lies in Alqutst Patola Spedal studies zone and is subject to Lique-
faction
Soils found on site are subject to erosion.
Site located in floodplain of Temecula Creek.
Site~11betmpoctedby noise from ffi4Y 79.
Rotse impacts wr111 be generated durtng construction phase.
ProJect Is sensitive to noise impacts.
Pr~lectexceeds threshold levels for Atr Oualttv ImPacts per the SCAQND
Atr Qualtt~Handbook and would be sensitive to Air Quality.
Project has potential for water quality impacts and can be affected by such
impacts.
Portions of site designated Prime and local important farmland.
Prolect adjacent to Aqrtculture Preserves Temecula No. 2 and Rancho Cali-
fornia i t). 17 - beth due to be disestablished on January l, 3989.
Potential impacts to wildlife and vegetation may occur due to proposed pro;
V. IIFORMATION IOURCEI, FINDIIGI OF FACT AND MITIGATION MEASURES (~ontlnued)
SECIW~
lllB 33
111833134
lllB 35
SOURCES,&GENCIESCONSULTED, F|ND|NGS OFFACT, MfflGATIONMEASURES:
M 79 ~s an eHg~b]e county scenic highway,
Potentta] archaeological and Historic resources my extst.
Site located tn soils that my yield paleontoloqtcal resources.
Several public facilities and services my be impacted by deve]opment of
the proposed prn}ect.
Mt ENtJIRONMENT/M, IMPACT DETERMINAllON:
rl The Ixoje~ will nee traM9 · significant t~eai on the envigw~efd end 8 Negative Decleltion may be
Ixepered.
I'l llm IxoJmd cotmid have · significant effect on She envln~n~mnt; howrow, Ihem will not be m significant
effect in INs came became te multigain measures dem~;,ed in Section V have been mpplie4 t~ the
IxlecimndmNegabWDeciwmimmaybelxeiamd.
(ix)
The IxT)~ Ifily ) · ~ effect ~fi Ihe env~romnent end Ifi Environmental Impact Report
nner
::IiVE::I3iDE COlJn Y
PLAnnilE DEPA:i ITIErI[
DATE October 25, 1988
TO:
Surveyor
Road
Building & Safety
Flood Control
Health
Fire Protection
VESTING TRACT NO. 23267 Amd. ~2
VESTING
TENTATIVE TRACT/?P~i MAP NO. 23299
REGIQNAL TEAM NO. One
The Riverside County E'3 Planning Director/[]Board of Supervisors has
action on the above referenced tentative map:
taken the following
XX APPROVED tentative map subject to the attached conditions (no waiver request submitted)
~ OENiED tentative map based on the attached findings.
__ APPROVED tentative map subject to attached conditions and DENIED request for waiver
of the final map.
__ APPROVED tentative map and APPROVED request for waiver of the final map,
APP~VED f Ext~t ' {~ ............. · ~ .... . subject Co
APPROVED wfthdrawa] of~h-~ ~-T .............
APP~VEO M nor Change ~o re__ally appmved conditions as s~ (a~tached),
~P~VED Minor Change to ~vise originally app~ved ~ (ac~ached).
DENIED request for Minor Change.
APPROVED Minor Change l:o waive r-he final map.
very truly yours,
RIVERSI~ COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTHENT
Roger S. 5treeter, Planning Director
..... /'
Greg A. Ne~,l,/~enior Planner
SURVEYOR - WHITE ROAD - BLUE
(u,, ~e/is~ HEN. TH - PINK
C ' ~MON STRE~f', 9TM FLOOR
'IVE, j, IDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
'14) 787-6181
8UILDING & SAFLq'Y - GREEN
FIRE PROTECTION - GOLO~NRO0
FLOOD - CANARY
46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
INDIO. CALIFORNIA 92201
(619) 342-8277
SUBMI'|'I AL IU IHI~ I:IUAHD UI- .~Ul.'~_l.,ivl~u~i~
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FROM: THE PLANNING DEPARTMFNT SUSMrrTALDAlt:
SUBJECT: CHANGE OF ZONE 5150, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 23299,
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 23267 - THOTEM AMERICA CORP. - First Supervisorial
District - Rancho California Area - 221 Acres,596 Lots,232 Condominium Units -
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Schedule A - CHANGE OF ZONE from R-R to R-3, R-4 and R-
The Planning Commission and Staff Recommend:
CERTIFICATION of Environmental Impact Report No. 281 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; and
APPROVAL of CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5150 from R-R to R-3, R-4 and R-5
in accordance with Exhibit 2, based upon the findings and con-
clusions incorporated in the Planning Commission minutes dated
OCTOBER 19, 1988; and
APPROVAL of~V-ESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23267, ~4ENDEO N0. 2 subject
to the attache"~'conditi0ns; based on the'~]~dings and conclusions
incorporated in the Planning Commission minutes dated OCTOBER 19, 1988;
and
APPROVAL of VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23299 subject to the attached
cond~ns, based on the findings and conclusions incorporated in the
Planning Commission minutes dated OCTOBER 19, 1988.
10-18-88
NOV 28 1988
Roge)~r~treeter, Planning Director
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
On motion of Supervisor Abraham, seconded by Supervisor
Younglove and duly carried by unanimous vote, IT WAS ORDERED that
above matter is approved as recommended and that County Counsel is
directed to prepare the necessary ordinance for adoption.
Ayes: Abraham, Dunlap, Ceniceros, Younglove and Larson
Gerald A. ~one~
Noes: None
Date: October 25, 1988
xc: Pl~ning, Land Use, Applican~ Co. COinsel~Sa~y~. ' Deputy
Prey. Agn. ref.
Depts. Comments
Dist. AGENDAN
ITEM i~lq
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 17, 1990
Prepared By: Rich Ayala
Case No.:
Tentative Tract Map No. 19872,
Amended No. 2, Phase 3 and u,,
A Revised Permit
Recommendation: Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Silverwood Development, Inc.
REPRESENTATIVE:
Robert Bein, William Frost E; Associates
PROPOSAL:
Revise architectural floor plans, elevations, and
plotting of housing.
LOCATION:
Southerly of Pala Road, westerly of Via Gilberto
EXISTING ZONING:
R-2 (Multiple Family Dwellings)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
R-2 {Multiple Family Dwellings)
R-2 {Multiple Family Dwellings)
R-2 {Multiple Family Dwellings)
R-2 {Multiple Family Dwellings)
PROPOSED ZON I N C:
Not requested.
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Single Family Residential
Vacant
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Overall Project:
Total Acreage:
Total Lots Proposed:
Proposed Density:
Proposed Minimum
Lot Size:
SWAP Allowed Density:
90.01 acres
~u,3
~.5 DU/AC
u,,160 sq.ft.
2-5 DU/AC
STAFFRPT\TM19872 1
Phase 3:
Total Acreage:
Total Lots Proposed:
No. of Lots Revised:
Minimum Lot Size:
Phase 4:
Total Acreage:
Total Lots Proposed:
No. of Lots Revised:
Minimum Lot Size:
10.43 acres
49
4,690 sq.ft.
14.36 acres
61
51
4,376 sq.ft.
ANALYSIS
BACKGROUND:
Tentative Tract No. 19872, Amended No. 2, was
originally approved by the Riverside County Board
of Supervisors on April 9, 1985. In approving the
project (TM 19872), the County also approved
Change of Zone No. 4290 which was a request to
change the property's zoning from R-1 (One-Family
Dwelling) to 1~-2 (Multiple Family Dwellings); and,
Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment
No. 19105.
Tentative Tract No. 19872, Amended No. 2 is a
proposal to develop 90.01 acres with 443 single
family residences. The subject property is located
southwesterly of Pala Road, between Loma Linda
Road and Via Gilberto.
This tentative tract has been designed in
accordance with the development standards of the
R-2 zone. The R-2 (Multiple Family Dwellings) zone
sets forth strict development standards which are
formulated to encourage "excellence in design and
(in) the provision of housing opportunities through
an integration of site planning subdivision design
and housing development."
There has also been three prior requests for
revised architectural floor plans, elevations, and
plotting of housing (March 1990, November 1989,
June 1989) which two of the three were approved by
the Riverside County Planning Department through
a substantial conformance. The other request
{ November, 1989 ) was withdrawn from
consideration.
STAFFRPT\TM19872
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Due to a change in ownership and market/design
considerations, the applicant is proposing to revise
the architectural floor plans, elevations, and
plotting of housing for Phase No. 3 and ~ of
Tentative Tract No. 19872, Amended No. 2.
The applicant is proposing four different floor
plans, one consisting of a single story three
bedroom, two bath residence with approximately
1,462 square feet of living space. The other three
floor plans are two story and range from three
bedrooms, three baths to four bedrooms plus bonus
room and three baths. All floor plans consist of a
two-car garage. Livable square footage range from
1,L~62 to 2,367 square feet. The previous design
proposed single family residences ranging from 914
to 1845 square feet.
The applicant is proposing a variety of elevations
consisting of a Spanish theme. All elevations
proposed consist of either red or grayish mission
tile roof with an array of off-white and cream stucco
exterior finish. Previous architectural treatment
consisted of wood timber, wood shingle, and
stonework fronts with wood shingle roofing.
Plotting of housing is also proposed by the
applicant, due to the reconfiguration of the floor
plans in order to meet setback requirements.
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
The proposed project with a density of ~,.5 DU/AC
is consistent with the Goals contained )n SWAP.
Tentative Tract No. 19872, Amended No. 2 has been
previously approved, and the site is most
appropriately utilized in a residential capacity.
Due to the level of consistency that this project
maintains with SWAP Goals and Policies, and based
on previous determinations made for Tentative T tact
No. 19872, Amended No. 2 by the County of
Riverside, Staff finds that revised permit for
Tentative Tract No. 19872, Amended No. 2 is likely
to be consistent with the City~s future General Plan
when it is adopted by the City of Temecula.
STAFFRPT\TM19872 3
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
In compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act, the County prepared an Initial Study
for this project during the original review of
Tentative Tract Map No. 19872, Amended No. 2. It
was determined at that time by the County that
possible negative impacts to the environment could
occur as a result of project implementation.
However, adherence to conditions of approval,
policies, development standards would mitigate
those concerns. As such, a Negative Declaratlon
was recommended and adopted by the Riverside
County Board of Supervisors on April 9, 1985.
After reviewing the applicant's proposal, Staff has
determined that the previous environmental
determination ( Adoption of Negative Declaration for
Environmental Assessment No. 19105) still applies to
this request since this application is for the revision
of building design and plotting only. Therefore, an
additional initial study was not prepared nor is an
environmental determination recommended to the
Planning Commission.
FINDINGS:
The proposed use of action complies with
State planning and zoning laws.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configurations, circulation
patterns, access, and density.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare nor affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the Initial
Study for this project.
Tentative Tract No. 19872, Amended No. 2,
is compatible with surrounding land uses.
The harmony in scale, bulk, height, density,
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.
STAF F R PT\TM19872
The design of each subdivision is consistent
with the State Map Act in regard to future
passive energy control opportunities. Units
have significant southern exposure which
allows for passive heating opportunities.
Deciduous landscaping can be utilized to allow
solar penetration in winter and shading in
summer.
The design of the subdivision, the type of
improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed projects.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
APPROVE Tentative Tract Map No. 19872, Amended
No. 2, Phase 3 and L~ based on the analysis and
findings contained in the Staff Report and subject
to the attached Conditions of Approval.
RA:ks
Attachments:
1. Conditions of Approval
2. Exhibits
STAFFRPT\TM19872
5
· ' iDE COUfiC,u
PL4nnlnG DEPA:iCEIEfiC
DATE: ;~Y 2~J, 1'9C5
RE: TE~:j(YI'~E 'TRAC~ ~I:4P NO. I-%72
E. A. NUqBER: 19105
REG[ONAL TEAH NO. Two
Dear Applicant: '
The Riverside County Board of Supervisors has taken the fo]ToNtng action m the above
referenced tentative tract map at its reguTar meeting of Aortl 9, 1985
X APPROVED tentative map subject to the attached conditions.
DENIED tentative map based m attached findings.
APPROVED withdrawal of tentative map.
The tract map has been found to be creststent with all pertinent elements of the
Riverside County General Plan and is in compliance with the California Envtroeuental
Cuallty ~ct of 1970. ' t will not have a significant effect m the envtrmment
and a t4egattve Oeclara~~eeJl~jdopted. r 1 r
expiretim date of tM ten~ '~i'~' ~f~W~f~;~:~y extend the peH~ o~
, ,....,
REVERS[OE COU~Y PLA~ZNG DEPAR~ENT
R~er S. Sireater, Planning D~rector
CJC:gm
FILE - WHITE
...... . _. / . .~__/. ·
Cynthia J, Crq~lnger, '
Deputy Plann.th.q DtPector
APPLICANT - CANARY
ENGINEER - PINK
4080 LEMON STREET, 9'" FLOOR
RIVE RSIDE, CALl FORNIA 92501
46-209 OASIS S'
INDIO,'
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STA'[E, OF CALIFORNIA I ~
FROM~ Planning Department SUBMIlS iALDATE: ·
SUi~IECT: CHA~IGE OF ZONE N0. 4290 and TRACT N0.1.9872, N4[NOE0 N0. 2 - *", ,"'
Collins Land Company -Ftrst Supervisortel Dtstdct - Rancho
' California Area - 90.01 Acres - 443 Lots - Schedule A - R-! to R-2
RECOMMENDEDMOTION:
~ The Planntng Cee~isSton and Staff reco;eend:
· ~.' . .ADOPTION of a Neg~ttveo~ecleratton.'for Environmental Assessment
1~5, based n the findings.Incorporated tn the environmental
· assessment and t ·conc uston that the proposed project wtll not
.. have I signtrice t effect on the envtroment; end, .
~ ~,~ APPROVAL of Change of Zone Case No, 4290from R-Zto R-2 tn
· ;nce tth Exhtbtt 2; and, . .
~ ~ APPROVAL of TentatiVe Tract No. lg872, ~md. No. 2, subject to
· . te'~ched. amended c ndltlons, end based upon the following:
(Continued on next page) . ·
DI,L
AGEND,
T~ACT NO. ]9872, Amd. 12
Page 2
Form
FINDINGS:'
T, The subdhlder proposes to dtvtde 90.01 'acres ~nto.443 single-family
lots. ..
2, The subdivider proposes to change the zone of the subject parcel from
R-1 to R-2 and to develop the proper~y tn conformance ~lth the R-2
Restricted SIngle Family Zone,
General Plan
3. General Plan poltcles call for Citegory T and X.! land uses.
4, T~o spectf~c plans havq been app'roved both north and east of the subject
propert.y.
5, The Pale Road corrtdor ts' general planned for urban development,
Tract Design .-.. ;
The Subd(vtder proposes to build t,o product. TInes of single family
houses. :
e
The street destgn consists of curvtllnear'strietS, Short cul-de-sacs
· and long, bltnd cul-de-sacs.
8.' The R-2 Restricted ~tngle Family Zone sets no.minimum lot stze requirement.
g,. Lots tn the tract range from 4,160 square feet to 24j26o square feet th
stze.
10, Twenty-two percent of.the lots have rear yard areas which are less than
1600 square feet fn S?ze; the R-2 suggested minimum is 1000 square feet.
11, The larger 1'ot3 are locatsd adjacent to the ~reek and at the end of the
cul-de-sac. ..
House Dest~n .
12, The subdivider proposes six floorplans for the 'first product line and
four floor plans for the second, ..
13, Each floorplan Is provided with three different elevat!Ons,:,
14. Spanish Oaks offers houses which range tn stze from l,d80 to 1,845 square
feet. The architecture features t?mbered, sh(ngled and stonework front
treatments and conventional garages.
I~T NO. 19872, Amd. #2
Page 3
Form 11A
Spantsh Oaks ZZ offers houses whtch range in size from 914 to 1,432
square feet. The architecture features stuccoed and sparsely ttmbered
front treatments and tandem garages.
16, Product 11nes are clustared tntostmtla~ ne~ghborhooa groups,
17,' 'House .plotting avoids'repetition,
Environmental Concerns
.20.
21.
Environmental concerns tnclude erosion, noise, Palomar Observatory,
school Impactton, and biological and historical resource Impactton.
Oak trees llne the banks of Pechanga C~eek.
The sarcophagus of Louts Wolf, an Important Temecula settler, fSloc~ted
onstta and ts shown on proposed lot 349,
The Sam Htcks Nemortal Foundation ts tnterestad tn relocat~ng the tomb-
stone to a more appropriate Stte,
22, The proposed 443 lot subdlvtston polnts out the need for park facilities
(n Honcho Cal(fornta,.
CONCLUSTONS
Generel Plan
1. The proposed R-2 subdtvtslon is consistent wrlth the growth patterns and
developa)e. nt densities suggestedby the Generel Plan.
The proposed R-2 subdivision is compatible Ntth both existing and proposed
adjacent rosldenttal developments,
3. The proposed R-2 subdtvtslon meets the roqutrements of the R-2 ReStricted
Single Famtly Zone.
Tract Dest~n
4, The proposed R-2 subdivision meets the intent of the zone and the develop-
ment standards.
The roadway design, although not optfmlly functional tn that tt tnhtblts
pedestrian movements, provides an tnterestfng subdhls~on layout and helps
to create a varied streetscape.
In the tabulation of overall tract open space provisions, the larger lot
rear yards componsate for the small yards of the smaller 1ors.
7. The vartous floorplans and elevations would offer an assortment of home-
buyinn ~nnnrtunittes.
TP~CT t40. 19872, Md. f2 '" ' :' ' '
Page 4 .
Form 11A "
Environmental Concerns
The Lou~s Wolf grave should be moved to etther a parkstte or a cme~ary,
or any such' localton ihtch would preserve thts historical resource.
Oak trees shall not be removed; and development shall be rest:rtcted
along Pechanga Creek.
10. ConsTderatton should be gtven to' the dedication of a parksite ~thtn · the .subdivision.
11. All 'other environments1' concerns can be mitigated.through the conditions
of approval. .
Jle
e
e
e
e
m
EXCERPTS FRet THE FEBRUARY 20, 1985 PLANNING C~ltI1SSION MINUTES
(REEL 842 - SIDE I - 585-1151)
CHANGE OF ZOtlE CASE 4290 - EA 19105 - Collins Land Company - Rancho California
Area - First Supervisorial District - 90.01~ acres, southwesterly of Palo Rd,
~esterly of Via Gilberto - REQUEST: R-1 to R-2, etc.
TRACT 19872 N.IENDEO NO. 2 - EA 19105 - Collins ~and Company- Rancho
California Area - First Supervisorial District - southwesterly of Palo Rd,
westerly of Via Gilberto - 443 lots - 90.01t acres - R-1 Zone. Schedule "A"
Subdivision
The hearing was opened at 10:20 a.m. and closed at 11:07 a.m,
STAFF REC0tlt.iENDATIOtI: Adoption of the negative declaration for EA 19105,
approval of Change of Zone Case 4290 from R-1 to R-2 in accordance with Exhib-
it 2, and approval of Tract 19872 Amended No. 2 subject to the proposed condi-
tions. Staff felt the proposal met the htter and the intent of the R-2
ordinance, would be compatible with area development (both existing and
approved land uses); and consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan.
The project would tmpact sensitive historical and biological resources, is it
contained the grave site of Louts Wolf Nho was a prOminent Temecula merchant
and citizen in the late 1800's. A~ter a thorough investigation, staff felt
the best protection would be to have the grave site reiDcaSed, and Condition
53 had been tmposed to require that this be done prior to the recordation of
the final map. There were also oak trees and other sensitive vegetation groH-
(rig along the creek bed, hut staff felt the conditions provided for ample pro-
taction of these biological resources.
Commissioner Beadling expressed concerns about flooding problems, and partfcg-
larly the effect of having a portion of sune of the lots in the creek bed.
Hr. Greywood briefly discussed this ~$sue and the proposed mitigation which he
felt would be adequate; he advised that riprap would be .required Hhere neces-
Sary along the banks, and that the creek bed was in the rear of larger lots.
Because of the size of these large lots, Mr. Greywood did not think this would
be a problem.
Don Lohr, representing the applicant, advised they did not object to moving
the grave but would like to have the County's help in finding a site for its
relocation. Included in Condition 53 was a statenant referring to matnte-
aance, and the developer did not think he should have this responsibility in
t
perpe uity; he would be willing to establish so~e type of funding which could
be turned over to the agency which would accept the responsibility for the
erave site. The condition required that the grave site be reiDcaSed prior to
the recordation of the ftnal map. They planned to unitlie the project, and
the grave site was located in an area covered by a later phase; he requested
that the condition be amended to clarify that the relocation of the grave site
would be required prior to the recordation of the phase covering the area
where it was currently located.
9
EXCERPTS FRG'I THE FEBRUARY 20, 1985 PLANNIflG COHrIISSIOtl HINUTES
In anst~er to a question by Commissioner Beadling, lit. Lohr explained the flood-
ing problem in this area and how it affected the subject property. He advised
only one tier of lots on the easterly side of one cul-de-sac was affected.
Commissioner Beadling also expressed concern about the slopes and fir. Lohr
advised that area contained dense oak trees, and they had therefore designed
exceptionally large lots to maintain'the area in its natural state as much as
possible. The bank protection they were providing for the subject property
would also be provided for the adjacent property as required by the conditions
for an approved tentative tract map; the flooding protection for these two
projects ~ould be coordinated.
Gabriel Pico, Chairman of the Pechan a Indian Reservation, Post Office Box
1014, Temecula, and his two sisters IHrs. F~rie Russell and tlrs. Getmaine Are-
nas) advised they were grandchildren of Louis Wolf and requested that the
grave site not be relocated. They advised they would be wtlltng to maintain
the grave site if left in its present location. !its. Russell advised her moth-
er was the granddaughter of Louis Wolf but could not attend the meeting that
day .because of illness. Harmthat was strongly opposed to relocating the
grave site.
Hr. Lohr advised they had agreed to relocate because staff had indicated they
felt this would be the best way to protect it. However, the ovmer of the prop-
arty would be more than uilling to leave the grave'site at its present loca-
tion.
)~rtin Collins, 40825 Sierra l~rta, Ranthe California, the property ~tner,
advised he would be willing to fence the lot and donate it to the family.
IIrs. Russell advised she was also on the Council of the Indian Reservation,
and was very concerned about the tmpact of this development. They used their
adjacent land for agricultural purposest and Wanted to be sure the developer
understood they did not plan any type of improvements in order to provide
flooding protection. She stressed there were existing serious flooding prob-
Tams on the subject site. Hr, Grel~,ood briefly reviewed the Flood Control
conditions, which he thought would provide adequate protection for both the
subject site and the adjacent Indian lands.
Hrs. Russell also expressed concern about the tmpact of septic systems on
their domestic wells.' She was tnfommd water and sewer servtce would he fur-
hishad by the water district, and therefore her wells would not be affected.
Commissioner $teffey asked about the bridge, and fir. Johnson read tnto the
record Condition 28 of the new Road Department letter dated February 20, [985
which set forth the responsibilities of the subject developer with regard to
this bridge. He advised this condition would be imposed on every tract or
parcel mp considered for this area. Convqissioner Steffoy thought the bridge
was critical, as the existing bridge was narrow, had a h~gh crown, and was-
, ,
10
EXCERPTS FRet THE FEBRUARY 20, 1985 PLAfltlING COPII,I/SSION IIINUTES
very dangerous. Commissioner Sulllvan commented he felt that without the
bridge improvement, the project would be premature. Mr. Johnson advised the
State of California was considering making the existing bridge an historical
· monument, which would create difficulties. The Road nepart~ent was therefore
considering a new road alignment, with a ned bridge, and l$r. Johnson briefly
discussed this alternative. Con~nissioner Brassart asked whether the ne~ Road
Department conditions would take care of the problem. Hr. Johnson thought
they would, and advised he antiClnated a County Znitiated minor change for the
tract mp to stipulate the dollar amount per lot which would be required; this
change would be processed after the 'total amount necessary for the bridge has
been determined.
Rs. Rtnes suggested that Condition 53 be deleted and replaced ~th a condition
to read: 'Concurrent with the recordation of the final map, Lot No. 349 will
be deeded to the Louis ~olf famtly, as represented by Gabriel Pica or any oth-
er authorized family member. The subdivider or any subsequent property oYmer
shall. erect a fence around Lot 349 as directed by the family representative.
The Nell family shall be responsible for maintenance of the stte.
Commissioner Purviance suggested that the wording be changed to read
agreed upon by the family representative" rather than "as directed".
Rrs. Russell suggested that the condition refer to her mother rather than
'Gabriel P~co. Her mother's name was Evelyn C. Pica, Post Office Box 972,
Temecula. Mrs. Arenas asked about an ~asement to provide access to the s~te,
and ~s tnformed access HOuld be provided by an adjacent cul-de-sac street.
Rr. Lohr agreed to the conditions as a~ended, including the nef Road Depart-
ment conditions.
There was no further testimony, and the hearing was closed at 11:07 a.m.
F|fiDINGS AND COfiCLUSZONS: The subdivider proposes to divide 90.01 acres ~nto
443 single fantly lots, ind proposes to change the zone from R-t to R-2 and
develop the property t~ confor~ance with the R-2 Restricted Single Family
Zone; General Plan policies call for Category I and Z! land uses; two spectftc
r~a~s have been approved both north and east of the subject property; the Pale
a corridor ts general planned for urban development; the subdivider propos-
es to build two product l~nes of single family houses; the street design
consists of curvtl tnear streets, short cul-de-sac streets, and long, bl i nd
cul-de-sac streets; the R-2 Restricted Single Famtly Zone sets no mintmu~ lot
size requirement; lots tn the tract range from 4160 square feet to 24,260
square feet tn size; twenty-two percent of the lots have rear yard areas which
are hss than 1600 square feet in size and the R-2 suggested Rinimu~ is 1000
square feet; larger lots are located adjacent to the creek and at the end of
cul-de-sac streets; the subdivider proposes six floor plans for tl~e f~rst prod-
uct line and four floor plans for the second; each floor plan is provided ruth
three different elevations; Spanish Oaks offers houses which range in size'
11
EXCERPTS FROIt TIlE FEBRUARY 20, 1905 PLANNING COHIIISSION It|flUTES
from 1080 to 1845 square feet; the architecture features timbered, shingled
and stonework front treatments and conventional garages; Spanish Oaks IX
offers houses which range in size from 914 to 1432 square feet; the architec-
ture features stuccoed and sparsely timbered front treabnents and tandem Datag-
ee; product lines are clustered into similar nei)hborhood groups; house
plotting avoids repetition; environmental concerns include )roeion, noise,
Palemar Observatory, school impaction, and biological and historic resource
impaction; oak trees line the banks of Pechanga Creek; and the sarcophagus of
Louis Wolf, an important Tenecula settler, is located on site and is shown on
proposed Lot 349, and the Sam Hicks'Memorial Foundation is interested in relo-
caring the tombstone to a more appropriate site. The proposed R-2 subdivision
is consistent with the growth patterns and development densities suggested by
the General Plan; compatible with both existing and proposed adjacent develop-
ments; meets the requirements of the R-2 Restricted Single Family Zone; meets
the intent of the R-2 zone and development standards; the roadway design,
although not optim~lly functional in that it inhibits pedestrian movements,
provides an interesting subdivision layout and helps to create a varied
streetscape; in the tabulation of overall tract open space provisions, the
larger lot rear yards compensate for the small yards of the smaller lots; the
various floor plans and elevations would offer an assortment of homebuying
opportunities; protection of the Louis Wol.f grave is provided through the con-
ditions of approval; oak trees shall not be removed and development along
Pechanga Creek shall be restricted; and all environmental concerns can he miti-
gated through the conditions of approval for the tentative map. The proposed
project would not have a significant effect on the environment.
140TIOli: Upon motion by C~.nmtssioner Bresson, seconded by Co..,nisstoner Stef'Fey
and unr. nimously carried, the ~.~lssion recon~nended to the Board of Supervi-
sors adoption of the negr. tive declaration for EA 19105, approval of Change of
Zone Case I~o. 4290 from R-1 to R-2 in accordance t~th Exhibit 2, and approval
of Tract No. 19872 Amended No, 2 Subject to the proposed conditions, amended
as follows, based on the above findings and conclusions and the recor~.tenda-
tions of staff.
Amend Condition 6 to reflect the Road Department letter dated
February 20° 1985
Delete Condition 53 as currently ttritten and replace with the follov~ing:
Concurrent with the recordation of the final map, Lot No. 349 will be deeded
to the Louis Wolf f~mily, as represented by Evelyn C. Pace, Post Office Box
972, Temecula, or any authorized family me~.~er. The subdivider or any subse-
quent property c~ner shall erect a fence around t nt 349 as agreed upo, by
the family representative and time subdivider. The Wolf family shall be
responsible for maintenance of the site.
12
EXCERPTS FROH THE FEBRUARY 20, 1985 PLANfiZNG COtUt|SSZON ItZtIUTES
ROLl. CN, L VOTE RESULTED AS FOLLOHS:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Co~hstoners Bresson, $teffey, Beadling, Sullivan, NacGregor and
Purv~ance
~ne
None
13
Kancho California Zoning Dtstrtct
Ftrst Supervisortel District
E.A. Number lglO5
Regional Team No. II
1ENTATIV[ TRACT NO. 19872 &
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 42~0
Planning Coffmtsston: 2/20/85
Agenda Item No. 11 & 11a
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTNENT
STAFF REPORT
1. Applicant:
2. Engineer:
3. Type of Request:
Collins Land C.o~pany
She!let and Lohr
Restricted slngle famtly residential subdivision;
Change of Zone from R-I to R-2
4. Location:
5. Extsttng Roads:
Southerly of Pale Road, westerly of Vta Gtlberto
Pale Ro~d
6. Extsttng Land Use:
7. Surrounding Land Use:
Vacant
Vacant, St~gle femfly residential, agricultural
8. Extsttng Zoning:
9. Surrounding Zoning:
R-l, R'R, A-I-IO
10. Stte Characteristics:
11. Generel Plan Elements:
(Comprehensive)
Low grass-covered undulat(ng hills
LAND USE: CategorylI
DENSITY: 2 - 8 du/ac
OPEN SPACE/CONS: Not designated
CIRCULATION: Aftertel - 110' (Pale Road)
12. Land Dtvtston Data:
TOTAL-ACREAGE: ...90,01 .,'
TOTAL-LOTS.,'.-.s443.~
,D,Uj PERACRE: 4,5 '*
*~PROPOSED'NINIHUN LOT SIZE:
4,160/Schedule A
13. $chool Dtstr$ct:
a. Impacted: Yes
b. School Agreements have been recetvjd: Yes
14, ~lgency Rec~endatiens:
ROAD:
FLOOD:
HEALTH:
FIRE:
See letter dated 2-5-85
See letters dated 1-18-85 & 8-20-84
See letter dated 1-15-85
TENIATIVE TRACT NO. 19872 &
. CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 4290
'Staff .Report
Page -2-
ANALYSZS:
ProJect Description:
Change of Zone No. 4290 and Tentative Tract No. 19872, Amd, No, 2 ts an application
to develop 90.01 acres tn Rancho California with q43 single family residences.
The applicant proposes to change the zone from R-1 (Single Family Residences) to R-2
(Restricted Single Family Residential Subdivision). The subject property ts located
southwesterly of Pala Road, between Loma Ltnda Road and Via Gtlberto.
This tentative tract has been designed tn accordance with the development standards
of the recently modified R-2 zone. The R-2 Restricted Single Family Zone sets forth
strict development standards which are formulated to encourage "excellence tn design
and (in) the provision of housing opportunities through an integration of site planni
subdivision design and housing development."
The applicant has proposed two separate product.lines for this subdivision. Staff ha
reviewed both product lines with regard to the strictly defined R-2 development
standards and has determined that the subdivision conforms to the intent and purpose
and standards of the R-2 ordinance. The following analysts provides a potnt by p~tnt
review of the tract, its relationship to the environment, and its consistency with
both the General Plan and the requirements of the R-2 ordinance.
[nvtromental Concerns:
Environmental Assessment No. 19105 indicates that the following envtromental concert
affect the subject property: liquefaction potential, erosion hazards, roadway noise
(Pala Road), Palomar Observator~ operations, and sensitive historical and biological
resources. The assessment also indicates that the project will impact School facil-
Ities and will require the widening of Pala Bridge In order to accomodate increased
automobile traffic. Furthermore, the applicant has proposed a 443 lot subdivision,
and no provision ts made for park facilities.
Host significantly, the proJect w~11 impoct sensitive historical and biological
resources, At present, the sarcophagus of Louis Wolf, a prominent Temecula merchant
and citizen tn the late BOO*s, ts hcated onstte, Three of his children are also
thought to be buried beneath the tombstone, which ts shown on Lot 349 of the tentart'
map. At the time the applicant submitted the map, no plans had been made for protec
tlon or relocatton of this Mstortcally significant gravesite. Planning Staff has
contacted Stephen Backer of the Riverside County Parks Department and Bill Harker of
the Temecula Chamber of Cc~nerce regarding preservation of this resource. The Parks
Department su99ested that the tomb be relocated to a site accestble to the public, o
which would permit maintenance and preservation of the tombstone and remains contain
therein. The Department indicated, bowever, that its functions and duttes would not
permit the Department to accept responsibility for such relocatton and preservation.
Nr. Becket mentioned that a local Temecula historical orlantzatton might willingly
accept maintenance responsibilities.
~ENrATIVE TRACT NO. 19872 &
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 4290
Staff Report
Page -3-
At the time this Staff Report was written, the Sam Hicks Nonoment Foundation express.
an intense interest in placing the sarcophagus in Temecula near the Sam Hicks Nonume!
or in the Temecula cemetery. Although no formal dectsi.on has been reached, the
resource could be located thusly, and all relocatton and archaeological expenses wou'
be borne by the developer. Condition No. 53 in the conditions of approval. for Tenta'
Tract No. 19872 outline the measures to.be undertaken for historical resource preser~
tlon. Gravesite relocatton may not appear to be the most desirable s61ution, howeveT
Planning Staff and Parks Staff believe that such relocatton to a parksite or cemeter:
would prevent vandalism or defacement of the tomb. Such activity might occur if the
gravesite were located within a residential neighborhood.
As indicated above, the subject site also has biological resources which must be
preserved. Pechanga Creek forms the southwestern boundary, and coast live oaks grov
along and beyond its hanks. Also, the site lies within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat
habitat range. A biological survey was performed on the site, and the resultant repc
indicated that no state or faderally listed plant or animal species are present. The
report concluded that, apart from the oaks, biological impacts of the project are
expected to be minimal. The conditions of approval ensure oak preservation and pro-
tection of the Pechanga Creek hanks.
Staff is concerned that the proposed subdivision makes no provision for conrnuntty par
facilities. Although each 'lot is provided with bacl~yard private open space, the need
sorely exists in Rancho California for neighborhood and comnuntty park sites. The
nearest schoolyard or parkstie is located approximately three and one half road miles
from the proposed subdivision.
With the exception of Specific Plan Development, esidenttal development at urban
densities has been occuring in Rancho California without consideration to con~unity
parkland acquisition. Staff is concerned that the proposed 443 units will place a
burden on Rancho Caltfornta's limited park facilities ...... ... ·
Staff did not condition for a park site (one maintained by a homeowners association)
because it would not be a cmunity park, but one only for the residents within the
subdivision. Consideration should be gtven, however, to identifying future sites for
cormunity park developmagi within the Rancho California area.
The conditions of approval should also mitigate erosion, noise, school, Observatory ar
traffic concerns. The Road Oepartment will requtre the developer to participate in
the reconstruction of Pale Bridge at Temecula Creek.
General Plan Consistency:
The subject property lies within the Rancho Callfornia/Temecula subarea of the Southwe
Territory Planning Area. Although some surrounding properties are presently in
agricultural use, the General Plan indicates that the Pale Road corridor should
experience urban rowth. Two spectftc plans have been approved for the Pala Road cor-
ridor: Specific PVan IIo. of subject
northwest
117 (Pala VIllages), which lies Just the
property, and Specific Plan No. 171 (Wolf Valley), which covers approximately 1370
acres across Pale Road General Plan policies call for Category I and II land uses,
provided that the requisite level of public services is available.
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 19872 &
Change of Zone No. 4Z90
R
Staff' eport
Page -4-
The Eastern Huntctpal Mater District has Indicated that tt can and wtll provide sewer
service to the subdivision. Mater service wtll be provided by the Rancho California
Mater District once the subject property ts annexed tnto the District. The map will
not be able to record until such service ts made available.
The proposed 443 single family unit subdivision conforms to the growth patterns and
rates allowed by the General Plan. The project will 'Incrementally increase the damant
npt only for sewer and water services, but also for other urban services such as fire
and sheriff protection, solid waste dtsposal and library services. Developer's fees
and future residents' taxes should-relleYe any burdens placed on County services.
ProJect Design Considerations:
As indicated above, the applicant has developed two product lines which incorporate
the R-2 Restricted Stngle Family development standards into both .the tract and houstn!
designs. The project will first be reviewed with respect to overall tract design,
and then each product line ~111 be analyzed separately, and the strengths and weaknes!
tn design will be discussed. %t should be noted that the project meets the letter of
the ordinance and achieves the intent of the R-Z Restricted Single Family Zpne.
A. Overall Tract Design
1. Road Destgn
The Road design makes extensive use ofcurvtltnear streets and short cul-de-sacs,
as encouraged by the R-2 ordinance. The unique design does have disadvantages in
that it hinders through pedestrian and vehicular movements, but the curviltnear
street pattern is designed to discourage such through vehicular traffic. The
.curving streets and short cul-de-sacs serve to slow traffic and to force drivers
to use larger roadways.to exit the tract. The design also creates an interesting
and varied streetscapes and tt forms numerous neighborhood units.
The particular des$gn does tnclude four dog-leg cul-de-sacs, but topographtcal
and sight distance constraints prevent these roadrays from becoming through stree
2. Lot Locatton and Arrangement
The lot wtdths are fatfly untfom throughout the tract, wtth the exception of tho
lots on cul-de-sacs and knuckles. The tract does tnclude several cul-de-sacs wit
· side-on" end lots'(for example, see Street "e"), which causes side yards, rather
than hack yards, to be oriented toward the roadray. This arrangement creates
versatility in design.
3. Lot Size and Configuration:
The intent of the R-2 ordinance is to encourage a variety of lot sizes and lot
configurations within a given subdivision through the relaxation of such develop-
ment standards as minimum lot size and untfom lot shape. Zn the R-2 zone, lot
sizes and shapes are guided by development standards for minimum and tract averag
design features. Such features include building setbacks, usable rear yard areas
rear oriented side yard areas, and project wide open space.
T~NTATIVE TRACT NO, 19872 &
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 4290
Staff Report
Page -5-
The subject tract meets the minimum average standards for projectwide design
features 'and thereby creates an appealing assortment of lot sizes and configurat~
The smaller lots are situated along main streets and on the level .terrain. Large
lots include those which are located at the end of cul-de-sacs and those which ba
up to Pechanga Creek, The R-Zstandards ca11 for e tractwide average of 2000 sq~
feet of usable rear yard area, and the subject subdivision has a tractwide avera~
of 2360 square feet, No lots have less than.the minimum of %000 square feet of
usable Pear yard area. The R-2 guidelines do suggest that the number of lots wit
backyards smaller than 1600 square feet tn size be kept at a minimum. Calculattc
reveal that ~01 lots, 22,3 percent of the tract, have usable rear yards smaller
than 1600 square feet; however, in most Instances, these lots also have backyard
slopes, a feature ~hich creates an illusion of increased backyard size,
The vatted lot sizes should offer a wide selection of housing types, designed to
meet the needs of a varte~ of prospective homeowners.
B. House Design
The two product 11nes tncluded tn the subdiviSIon are spread throughout the tract
each Individual "neighborhood" is comprised of a single product line, The two
products are known as Spanish Oaks and Spanish Oaks 11.
1. Spanish Oaks
The Spanish Oaks homes include 277 single family residences which range in size
from 11380 square feet (2 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms) to 1845 square feet (3 bedrooms,
one library, 2~ bathrooms). Each dwelling unit is equipped with a conventional
2-car garage. Spanish Oaks offers six significantly different floorplans, and
three different elevations are provided per floor plan. Both Single-story and
two-story homes are proposed. The architectural treal~nent consists of wood timbe
wood shtngle and stonework fronts and stucco sides, and the roofing matertel is
made of wood shingles. The house st les are architecturally hamonious and offer
a varied streetscape; The different ,-mdels have been plotted so as to avoid repe
tton,
Overall, the Spanish Oaks line offers a variety of housing types which are
functional and should appeal to e variety of housing tastes.
2,' Spanish Oaks
The Spanish Oaks T! homes are somewhat smaller than those of Spanish Oaks, and
architecture less elaborate. All of the homes have stuccoed front exteriors with
some timber treatment.
This product 1the offers a tandem garage arrangement which departs from the convet
tiOnal side-by-side set-up. The tandem garage gives rise to a rectangular floorp'
which maximizes utilization of a smaller lot.
IENTATiVE TRACT NO. 19872 &
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 4290
Page
House sizes in Spanish Oaks ZI range tn size from 914 square feet (2 bedrooms,
2 bathrooms) to 1432 square feet (3 bedrooms, 2~ bathrooms). Two Single-story
'and two two-story plans are proposed. All units offer a dining room and a kitchen
nook.
The rectangular shape of the lots and houses forces the entryday on one (%) of the
units (Plan 987) to be obscured and oriented away from the'street. This arrangemen
is not opttmally suitable for safety reasons, and all such entryways should be well
lighted.
All front treabnent~ are designed ~tth varying relief features. In some instances,
however, the garage and window treaments offer the ma4or alterations in elevations
Use of various house colors should relieve any potential monotony in the streetscap
Overall, SpaniSh Oaks IX provides a good contrast and complyhenS tO Spanish Oaks.
The proposed R-2 Restricted Single Family subdivision meets the requirements of Ordtnar
348 and 460 and meets the intent of the R-Z development standards. Design weaknesses
include minor pedestrian movement problems, a probhm inherent in curvtltnear street
patterns, and only minor variations in SpanishOaks I! elevations. The applicant has
"used the ordinance to create an interesting and innovative tract which would offer a
variety of housing types to a variety'of h~me buyers.
Environmental concerns can be mitigated through the conditions of approval and through
c 1 t a parks~te my ~ appropr~a~
- for th~s subd~vh~on and all subsequent mall lot stngle and ~lUple fmtly developer
FINDINGS:
1. The subdivider proposes to divide 90.01 acres into 443 single family lots.
The subdivider propose~ to change the zone of the subject parcel from R-1 to R-2
and to develop the property in conformance with the R-2 Restricted Single Family
Zone.
General Plan
3. General Plan poltcte~ call for Category I and l! land uses.
4. Two specific plans have been approved both north and east of the subject property.
5. The Pale Road corridor ts general planned for urban development.
Tract Design
6. The subdivider proposes to build two product lines of single family houses;
7. The street design consists of curvtltnear streets, short cul-de-sacs and long,
blind cul-de-sacs.
~ENTATIVE TRACT NO. 19872 &
CHAN~E OF ZONE NO. 4290
Page °7-
8. The R-2 Restr(cted Stngle Famtly Zone sets no mtn(mum lot stze requirement.
9. Lots (n ~hetract range frem 4~60 square feet to 24,260 square feet tn stze.
lO. Twenty-two percent of the lots have rear yard areas which are less than 1600 squa
feet tn size; the R-2 suggested mtntmm ts 1000 square feet.
11. The larger lots are located adJaceRt to the creek and at the end of cul-de-sacs.
House Design
12. The subdivider proposes stx
floorplans.for the first product line and four floo
plans for the second.
Each floorplan ts provtded with three different elevations.
Spanish Oaks offers houses which range tn size from 1080 to 1845 square feet. Th
architecture features timbered, shingled and stonework front treatments and
conventional garages,
Spanish Oaks 1! offers houses which range tn stze from 914 to 1432 square feet.
architecture features stuccoed and sparsely timbered front treatments and tandem
garages.
16. Product 11nes are clustered tnto similar neighborhood groups.
17. House plotting avoids ~epetttton.
Envtrormental Concerns
18. Envtromental concerns Include eroston, noise, Palmr Observatory, school tmpact
and biological and historical resource impactSon.
19. Oak trees ltne the banks of Pechanga Creek.
20. The sarcophagus of L~uts Wolf, an important Temecula settler, ~s located onstte a
ts shown on proposed lot 349, :
21. The Sam Hicks Homotie1 Foundation ts interested tn relocattng the tombstone to a
more appropriate stte.
22. The proposed 443 lot sulxltvtston potnts out the need for park facilities in Ranch
California.
CONCLUSIONS:
General Plan
The proposed R-2 subdivision ts consistent with the growth patterns and develop~e
densities suggested by the General Plan.
TI~NTA~IVE TRACT NO. 19872 &
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 4290
Page -8-
2. The proposed R-2 subdivision is compatible wtth both extsttng and proposed adJacen
restdenttal developments.
3. The proposed' R-2 subdivision meets the requirements of the R-2 Restricted Stngle
Famtl~ Zone.
Tract Design
4. The proposed R-2 subdivision meets the tntent of the zone and the development
standards.
The roadway design, although not opttmall~ functional tn that It Inhibits pedestrt
movements, provtdes an interesting subdhlston layout and helps to create a varied
streetscape.
In the tabulation of overall tract open space provisions, the larger lot rear yard
compensate for the small yards of the smaller lots.
Th~ various floorplans and elevations would offer an assortment of homebuying
opportunities.
Envtro~nental Concerns
8. The Louis Wolf grave should be moved to etther a parks~te or · cemeter~o or any
such location which would preserve this historical resource.
9. Oak trees shall not be removed, and development shall be restricted along Pechanga
Creek,
10. Consideration should be given to the dedication of a parks~te within the subdtvis~
11. All other environmental concerns can be mitigated through the conditions of approv
RECOI~4ENDATIONS:
· ADOPTZON of a Negattve Declaration for Envlrorfoental Assessment No. 19105 based on the
~on that the propoged project wtll not have a significant effect on the
envtroment; and,
APPROVAL of Change of Zone No, 42gOfrem R-1 to R~E In accordance wtth Exhibit 2S and,
APPROVAL of Tentathe T/actNo. 19872, kad.12, subject to conditions, based on the
Tt'n'n'n'n'n'n'n'n'~and conclusions Incorporated In this staff report.
LR:GH
.%
JIVZKSIDE COUntrY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
~FJrrA~IVE TRACT NO. 19872
,4~I). Ii0, 2
· The tentative subdivision shall comply vith the State of Califotm~a
.Subdivision )Lap Act and to all the requirements 'of the. !tiv·r·ide County
Ordinance AGO, Schedule A , unless modified ~y the conditions. llstsd
baler. This epproved or sonditionall. y approvsd tentative map vl*L1 expire rye
7fits ·fret the Board of Supervisors approval 'date, unless' extended as
provided by O~dtu·nce
The final mp shall bs prepstad by · t~giste~ed civil ·uSauser subject
to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision ~a? A~t
and. liverside County Subdivision Ordiuance 460.
The subdivider shall submit one copy of · soils report to the Riverside
County Surveyor'· Office and too copies to the Department of BoildinS and
Safety. The report shall ·ddress the soils stability end leological
conditions o~ the sits,
If ·ny 2rl'din2 is proposed, the subdivider shell submit one print of
comprehensive Sr·d~ng plan to the Riverside County Departssot of Building
and Safety. The plan shall complyvvith the Uniform Buildin2 Code,
C~aptsr 70, ·· amended by Ordinance 4~1 'or 'unlsss othetw;ls· stipulated by
the County"s Ktllsid· Developcent Standards. · . ·
A grading' permit shall he obtained from the Departhoot of Building and
Safety prio~ to commencement of any grading outside of r;~i t i d
co
rc4d riJht of ~y. lf'~ld~ Is p~o~md on slopes 2reste~,
n ~ir~uUl usesmOt a~el ~l-h ,~iud PianoinS
h~z~nt p~r to ~ a~ of ~ plans ~ t~ klldin2
~ut. b ~lar c~y of th eppr~ed BradinS plan shall be
n~tted '~ the bpar~u~ of hildiu2 end h~ety for trau~ztal to the
'bad
5. All deliuqueut propert7 taxes shell he paid prior to t~cordatiou of the
f~nal mop. .'
*.6, The subdivider shell soupry vith the street improvement reco~nendations
outlined in the CosnIT Road Deparmeut's letter dated r~-S-S5 (a copy
of vhich is attached *A~ended It P.O. Z-~O-SS.. ZoZO-85
1, LeSs1 ·eras· Re t:equired. by Ordinence 460 shall be provided from the
tract mop boundary to · County uintelued road.
8, All read casements shell be offered for dedication to the public and
shall continue in force until the Severnin2 body accepts or ·band·us such
offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approvcd
by the County Road Commissioner- Street usmes sh·ll bQ subject to
· pprovsl of the Road Commissioner,
TEI~TATZVE TRACT NU. 19~/Z, ,
Conditions Of Approval
Page':2-
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 and conveyances shall be submitted and recorded
as directed by the Riverside County Surveyor.
lOe
Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance
with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health De artment's
letter d~ted 1/18/85 and 8/20/84, (copies of Which are a~tachedl.
The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined
by the Riverside County Flood Control Dtstrtct's letter dated 01-03-85,
Ca copy of which is attached). If the land division lies within an adopted
flood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of Riverside County
Land Division Ordinance 460, appropriate fees for the construction of area
drainage facilities shall be collected by the Road Comntssioner.
The subdivider shall comply with the .fire improvement recon~nendations outlined
in the County Fire Marshall's letter dated 1/15/85 (a copy Df which is attached).
In accordance with the written request of the landdivider to the County of
Riverside, a copy of which is on file, and in furtherance of the agreement
between the landdivider and the Elsinore Union High School and Temecula Union
School Otstricts, no building permits shall be issued by the County of River-
side for any parcels within the subJec~ tract map until the landdivider, or
the landdtvtder's successors or assignees, provides evidence of compliance
with the terms of said agreement between the landdivider and the school districts
~rtor to the filing of the final map, the applicant shall submit written
clearances to the Riverside County Road and Survey Department that all perti-
nent requirements outlined in the attached approval letters from the following
agencies have been mat.
Fire Department
Flood Control
Health Department
Planning Department
~/~ Priod to the recorda~ion of the final map, Change of Zone No. 4290 shall be
5,~ approved by the Board of Supervisors and shall be effective, Lots created
by thts land division shall be in conformance with the development standards
of the zone ultimately applted to the property.
Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development
standards of the~.~.2/Restricted Single-Family zone,
Construction of the development permitted hereby may be done progressively in
phases, provided adequate vehicular access is constructed for all dwelling
units in each phase and further provided that such development conforms sub-
stanttally with the intent and purpose of the approved Tract Hap No, 19872, Amd.
No, 2, Should the developer choose to construct the development in phases,
a phasing plan must be submitted for Planntng Department approval,
Corner lots shall be provided with additional area pursuant to Section 3;8B
of Ordinance 460.
TENTATIVE TPJtCT NO. 19872, Amd. 12
Conditions of Approval
Page -3-
lihen lots are crossed by mJOr public uttllty easements, each lot shall have
· net usable area of not less than 3,600 square feet, exclushe of the
utilit, y easement,
20. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed tn ~hts subdivision tn accordance
with the standards of Ordinance 461.
21. Wall and/or fence locations shall conform to the fenctng exhtbtt, on file at
the Planning Department Vlth Tentative Tract No, 19872.
22. Landscaping plans shall Incorporate the use of spedmen trees along streets
!n conjunction wtth street tree planting.
23. Where.street trees cannot be planted wtth~n the right-of-way of ~nterior
streets and project parkways, due to insufficient road right-of-way, they
shall be planted outside of the road right-of-way.
/24. All extsttng specimen trees and significant rock outcropp~ngs on the subject
property shall be shown on road ~mprovement and gradtng plans and shall note
those to be removed, relocated and/or retained.
All extsttng spedmen trees on the subject property shall be preserved
~herever feasible. Where they cannot be preserved, they shall be relocated
or replaced wtth spedmen.trees as approved by the Planning D(rector. Replace-
ment trees shall be noted on approved landscaping plans.
26. Any oak trees removed wtth four (4) tnch or larger trunk diameters shall
be replaced on · ten (10) to one (1) bests as approved by the Planntng
Director. Replacement trees shall be noted on approved landscaping plans.
~7, I~!or to the 1sicanti ef Imtldf~g Fermlts.er gredtng permits, whichever comes
f~rst, the followfng tree preservation guidelines shall be Incorporated on
approved grading, building and landscaping plans as necessary:
· ) Every effort sheil be made to prevent encroachment of structures,
.grading or trenthtng wtthtn the dr~pltne or twenty-five (25} feet of
the trunk of any tree, whichever (s greater.
b) Zf encroachment vlthtn the'drtplfne ts unavoidable, no more than one
thtrd of the toot area shell be dfsturbed, graded or covered with
Impervious materialS, The root ·re· ts considered to extend beyond
the drfplfne adtstance equal to one half the redtus,
c): Bu(ldtng, gradtng or Improvements shall not occur wtthtn ten (10) feet
of any tree trunk.
d) Retatnfng walls shall be constructed where necessary to preserve
natural grade to at least one-half the dtstance between the trunk
and the dripline. Walls shall be destgned with a post or caisson
" footing rather than a continuous footing to minimize root damage.
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 19872, ,
Conditions of Approval
"Page'-4-
e)
f)
Alteration of natural drainage shall be avoided to the greatest extent
possible,
Rudolf channelled near trees shall not substantially change normal
sotl moisture characteristics on a seasonal basis,
g)
Runoff shall not be directed towards the'base of trees so that the
base of the trees remain in wet sot1 for an extende8 period.. Where
natural topography has been altered, drainage away from trunks shall
be provided where necessary to ensure that water wtll not stand at
the crown.
h)
t)
Sedtmentatton and stltatton in the drainage ways shall be controlled
where necessaryto avoid filling.around.the base of the.trees,
Land uses that would cause excessive solid compaction within the drip-
line of trees shall be avoided. Xf the areas are planned for recreation,
provide trails to restrict compactton to a small area. Heavy use under
trees shall be avoided unless measure! to minimize compactton are under-
taken.
Landscaping or irrigation shall not be installed within ten (10) feet
of any tree.
k) Careful consideration shall be given to the.planning of structures near
trees to avoid unnecessary or excessive pruning.
Grading plans shall conform to Board adopted Hillside Development Standards:
All cut and/or fill slopes, or individual combinations thereof, which exceed
ten feet in vertical height shall be modified by an appropriate combination
of · special terracing (benchtng) plan, increased slope ratio (e.g. 3:1),
retaining walls, and/or slope planting combined with irrigation. All drive-
ways shall not exceed a fifteen percent grade.
Prtor to the approval of gradin permits, an overall conceptual radtng plan
shall be submitted td the Plannlng Director for approval, The pVan shall
be used as a guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual
phases of development and shall include the following:
a) Techniques which will be uttlhed to prevent erosion and sedimen-
tatton during Jnd after the grading process,
b)
Approximate time frames for grading and identification of areas
which my be graded during the higher probability rain months of
January through March,
c) Preliminary pad and roadway elevations.
All manufactured slopes exceeding ten (10) feet in vertical height shall be
contour-graded incorporating the following grading techniques:
a) The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the
angle of the natural terrain·
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 1987Z, ,nd. #2
Conditions of Approval
Page -5-
36.
b) Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall reflect
the natural rounded terrain.
c) The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves with radii
designed in proportion to the total height of the slope where
drainage and stability permit such rounding.
d) Mere cut or fill slopes exceed 300 feet in' horizontal length, the
horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved in a continuous
undulating fashion.
Natural features such as water courses, specimen trees and significant rock
outcrops shall be protected tn the string of Individual building pads on
ftnal grading plans.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a ~eed-free condition and
shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other
erosion control measures aS approved by the Director of Buildtrig and Safety.
Prior to the issuance of grading pemtts, the developer shall prov(de .evidence
to the Otrector of Butldtng and Safety that all adjacent off°site mnufactured
slopes have recorded slope easements and that slope. maintenance responstbtlitie
have been assigned as approved by the Otrector of Building and SafelLy.
An Environmental COnstraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared with the final map
to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed
with the office of the County Surveyor. Prior to the recordatton of the final
map, a copy of the ECS sbe11 be transmitted to the Planning Department for
review and approval. The approved ECS shall be fonerded with copies of the ~
recorded final map to the Planning Department and the Oepartment of Butld~ng
and Safety.
The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet:
"County BIological Report No. g6 was prepared for this property and is on
file at the Rherstde County Planntng Department. The spectftc item of
concern tn the report ts oak tree preservation."
The folloN~ng note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet:
· No permit. allowing any surface alteration shall be allowed in the delineated
constraint ereas without further investigation and/or mitigation as dlrected
by the Riverside County Planning Department. This constraint affects lots/
parcels, as shown on the Environmental Constraints Sheet complies ~lth the
final map and filed in the office of the Riverside County Surveyor."
The folioring note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet:
*This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palemar Obser-
vatory. Light and glare may adversely impact observatory operations. Out-
door lighting shall be from lo~pressure sodium lamps that are oriented
and shielded to prevent direct illumination above the horizontal plane ·
passing through the lumtnaire."
~ENTATIVE TRACT NO. 19872, Amo. #2
Conditions of Approval
Page ~6-
Street lights shall be provided within the subdivision in accordance with/
the standards of Ordinance 46l and the following:
a) Co~currentiy with the filing of subdivision Improvement plans with the
.Road Department, the developer shall secure approval of the Proposed
street lighting layout from first the appropriate utility purveyor and
then the Road Department's traffic engineer.
b) Following approval of the street lighting layout by the Road Department's
traffic engineer, the developer shall also file and application with
LAFCO for the formation of a street 11ghttng district, or annexation
to an existing ltghttng district, unless the site is within an existing
lighting district.
c) P~tor to recordatton of the final map, the developer shall secure condi-
tional approval of the street lighting application from LAFCO, unless
the site is within an existing lighting district.
One center identification monument sign, in accordance with Ordinance 348,
shall be allowed for the housing area. Other signage shall be allowed in
conformance with Ordinance 348. No billboards shall be permitted.
40. Roof-mounted equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision.
All building permits end/or plans for all new structures shall tncorporete/
tile or other fire retardant roofing end siding materials, as approved by
the County Fir·Marshall.
Prior t~ the issuance of building pemtts for.any phase of development, the
;developer shall submit final development plans to the Planning Department
for approval, pursuant to Section 7,11g of Ordinance 348,
43, Mar to the issuance of grading :...' 'lllLllelmmttsw the sub3ect property
shell be successfully annexed to the Rancho California Municipal Water District.
4 ·
Bulldtng separation Uetween the nearest structural portions of dwellings
shall be no less than 10 feet,
Any side yard area which has elkways, mechanical equipment or similar
obstructions, except fences, located within five feet of a side lot line
shall be provided with drainage pipes to de-water rear yards or such other
means es approved 5y the Department of Building end Safety.
All driveways shall be concrete paved or equtvtlent as approved by the Planning
Department.
Fencing shall be provided throughout the subdivision in accordance with the ~
epproved plan of development.
Prior to the Issuance Of grading permits, the applicant shall submit a fencing'
phn for Planning Department approval.
~d~tions of Approval
Pag~ -7-
Prior to recordertin of any final map, a final plan of development shall be
submitted for Planntng Oepartment approval, pursuant to Section 7.11g of
Ordtnaqce 348.
The
final plan of development shall contafn the following elements:
The stte's final gradtrig plan.
A ftnal site plan showtng the'l'ots, butldtng footprints, a11'
setbacks, yard spaces end floor plan arid elevation assignments
to Individual lots.
c)
Worktng drawings of the floor plans and elevations for the
d~elltngs to be constructed tn the $ubdhtston. [levattons
shall be provided for all sides of all buildings. ·
d) A typical mechanical plan showing the locatton and placement
of mechanical equipment for Individual dwellings.
The requtred ftnal plan of development shill.he tn substantial conformance
wtth the proJect's approved grading plan, stte plan, floor plans and eleva- -
ttons except as provided for in Sectton 7.11g(2}.
Prior to the tssuance of bufldlng pemtts ftnal clearance shall be obtatned from
the Planning Oepartment stipulating that the submitted buildtrig plans conform
to the approved plan of development for the property.
/ 5 Prior to the issuance of occupancy'permSts, a decorative block wall'or combin-v/
atton landscaped earthen hem end decorative block Nell shell he constructed
along Pale Road end V(e Gtlherto.' All lots shall be provided vtth stde4tCd
end rear yard fencing, and said fenctng shall he shown on the fencing plan.'
All block walls or combination earthen harm/decorative block walTs"shaT1 also
be shown on the fencing plan. All fences Shall be constructed prtor to the
Issuance of occopancy permtts,
5Z. Thts subdivision my be recorded tn phases sul~lect to the following: v/
i) Proposed phasing, 1ncludtng phase boundaries, sequencing and floor
plan selection, shall be subject to Planntng Dtrector's approval,
2) Each proposed phase shall cmplywtth the provisions of Sectton 7.11
gf Ordinance 348.
33 if any phase of the subdhtston vtll be developed vt~h fewer than the
8pproved number of floor plans, the cumulathe mix offloot plans
r~sulttng from the sequential recordorion of phases shall comply with
the provisions of Section 7.11f(3) of Ordinance 348.
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. ]987Z, Area. #2
.Conditions of Approval
Page ~8-
*53. Prje~te~a~y~e14m4nary~g~d4ng~e~Pdat~n~f~the~f~n~1~m~p;~wh~chever~c~mes
f4P~t~the.E~4s~w~f~gPave~te~sh~-be~re1~ted~as~d~ected-by~the-P1ann~n~---
~ee~A1i-exh=m~t4e~;~Pe1~eatje~and-aPehae~g~a1~expenses~sha~be-the-~
FespeRsJbJ14ty-ef-the-deve~epeP:--~he-Peteeatten-sha~t-fotJow-the-fo~tow~ng--
peeeedJR§s;-er-etheP-}Peeeedtngs-al-appreved-b~-the-Ptann~ng-B4recter~
e~--~he-develeWeP-sha1~-eb~a4n-a-eeyPt-ePder~-autheP4zed-~-a-membep-ef-the-
~e~f-fami~y-eP-aR~-etheP-res~eRsJble-~aPty;-~e-remo~e-and-retocate-en~-rema~ns
IRd-&he-tembsteRe-te-a-~Jte-desJgReted-by-the-Ptannjng-Bepartmen~.
~--A-qMa~JfJed-aPeh~ee~eeSsi-ska~;*be-eR-sJte-d~PJR§-an~-aRd-a~-exeaYat4on-
IG&$vJ~es-Pe;Ited-~e~Paves~te-pe~eeet~eR.
6~--The-ppopep-Pe~igieus-oP-otheP-eePemeRies~-as-d4Peeted-bT-fam4~y-membeps-ep
aR~-Othep-wespeRs4b~e-paptyv-sha~-be-pe~hMed-upe~-exh~ma~en.
d~--A~;-exh~m~t$eR-~Rd-peleealies-WPeeeed+Ris-shat~-be-eeerd4nated-w+th-~he- . R4ve;SJde~OuRl~-GOpORepLS~Off~ee-asd-GeuRtT-PaFks-Bepapment.
e}--Pp$o~-~o-uk~at~R~Rd-Peheat~eRt-~he~eve~peP-s~-eRteP-+Rto-ae-agPe~e~
sii~R~-~e~oGi~$oR-a~a~n~e~Ree4~-tke-t~bslone-and-any-P~a+ns~onta+ned.
~=htn,--hM~peme~-s~-be-s~b~esi-io-peyJ~-by-the-R+vews~e-Ee~R~y ....
h~k~-Do~enl-;n~epp~k~ve-Sp~+si~-ihe-P~ann~ng-B+PeeteP.
i)-~pon-~o~R4~-~he~ves~er~emnen~-p~que-sha}}-be-p}aeed-e,-the-
tmbs~ne-vh~h-$~es-~-lhe~ves~s-WPev~ees~y-~a~ed-en-~he-
st~e4t-h,~he Tract ~, ~987Z, ~, No, 2, The language on the plaque
*hleted at Planning Com~sston 2-20-85,
Ca~M~h,j~t~tltthl:flax~mt~erl~t~lJqlitrl~l~;lli~i~J~hall be deeded to
.lll~lli~l'lllffelM~.ll represented b~ Mrs, Evelyn E. Ptco or any authorized
famtl~ member, The sbbdtvtder shall erect a fence around Lot No, 349 as agreed
upon b~ the family r~presentattve end the subdivider. The Hell famt1~ shall be
~esponsfble for maintenance of the stte, *Added at Planntng Cor~ntsston 2-20-85.
LRR:Jle;gm~aea
OFFICE OF ROAD COI~.UlSSlONER 6 COUNTY $URVEY(~R
Riverside County Planning Coet~tsston
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
February 20, 1985
Tract Hap 19872 - Amend t2
Schedule A - Team ~
Ladies and Gentlemen:
lilth respect to the conditions of approval rot the referenced tentative
1and division map, the Road Department reco:~nends that the landdivider
provide the following street tmproveem~nts and/or road dedications in
accordance with Ordinance 460 and Riverside County Rudd !r. tprove~:ment "'
Standards (Ordinance 461). It is understood that the Tentative Hap
correctly shows a11 existing easements, traveled ways, and drainaqe
Courses with appropriate Q's, and that their OmnlSSiOn amy r~lulr,.' the
map to be resubznitted For further consideration. These Ordinances and
the following conditions are essential parts and d requirement uccuring
..(n ONE is as bin.Jing as though occurring in all. They are intended to
be complementary and to describe the conditions for a complete d,.,sl,jn of
the improvement. All questions regarding the true meaning of the
COnditions shall be rifefred to t~e Road Ceeunissioner's Office.
The landdivider shall protect dOwnstredm properties fr~n
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 or by securing a
drainage easehunt or by both. All drainage easements
shall be shown on the final map and noted as follows:
*Drainage Easement'- no buildingso obstructions, or
encroachments by 3and fills are allowed*. The protection
shall be as approved by the Road Department.
The landdivider shall accept and properly dtspose of all
Offstte dratnag flowtng onto or through the site,' in the
'event the Road ~o~tsStonerpemtts theu_gIt..eI_Streets for
drainage purposes, the provisions of Arttcle Xl of Ordinance
Me, 460 will apply, Should the quan*tTties *exCeed the street
capacity or the use of streets be prohibited for drainage
purposes, the subdivider shall provide adequate drainage
facilities as approved by the Road Department.
tract ~o 1987Z - Amend f2
Sch~do~Te A - Tea~ 2
February 20:' ]985. ..
Cr 'tttonS
Poe 2
3, Najor drainage is involved on this landdivision and its resolution
shall be as approved by the Road Department,
4. "A", "D", "H" and "J" Streets (between Via Gilberto,and "A"
Street) shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in
'accordance with County Standard rio. tO4, Section A. {40'/60'),
S, "8", "C", "E", "6% "I", "J", (westerly of "A" Street)
"L", "N", "N", "0", "P", "Q", "R", °S" and "T" Streets shall be
tmproved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with
COunty Standard No, 105, Section A. (36'160'),
Via Gilberto shall be improved with 28 feet of asphalt concrete
pavement within a 40 foot part width dedicated right of way in
lccordance with County Standard No. i10, Section A, (20'/30'),
7. Concrete stdeualks shall be constructed throughout the 14riddivision
In accordanc.e with Count~ Standard ~io, 400 and 401 (curb sidewalk).
The einf~u~ centerline gradinet shall be O.35Z.
Pale Road shall be improved with concrete ~urb and gutter 'located
43 fe~t from centerline and mtCh up aSphalL concrete pavtnq;
reconstruction or resurfactng of existing paving as ¢ete~dned
by the Road Cormfastener ~itntn i 55 foot half width dedicated
right of way in accordance with County Standard NO. tOO.
10. Prior to the recordorion of the final map, the developer shall
depostt with the Riverside County Road Department, a cash sum of
I traffic signal impacts. Should
$lSO.O0 per lot as mttigat on for
the developer ChoOSe tO defer the time of payment, he may enter
Into a written agreement with the County deferrin~ said pa~ent
tO the time of Ismuance of a building pemit. $NO 89
Improvemen1 plans shall be based upon a Centerline profile extending
· mlntmm. of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade
'IM ell nment at approved by the Riverside County Road Co~nfssioner,
Cempletlon of road improvements does not tmply acceptance for
maintenance by County,
Electrical and coonunite]tons trenches shall be provided in ~/
accordance with Ordinance 46~, Standard 817,
$CP.~lt A -Team Z
February 20, 1985
COnd!ClonS '
Pqe 3
15.
16.
17,'
20.
Asphaltlc enulsion (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 gallpn per square yarj. Asphalt
emulsion shall confom to Sections 37, 39 and 94 of the State
Standard Specifications. ,
Standard cul-de-sacs and knuckles and offset cul-de-sacs shall
be constructed throughout the landdivision.
Corner cutbacks fn conformante with County Standard rio. 605 shall
be shown on the final map and offered for dedication.
Lot access shall be restricted on Pale Road and VIa Gilberto
and so noted on the final map.
Linddivisions creating cut or fill slopes adJacRnt tO the sirouts
shall provide erosion cuntrol. sight distance cm~trol and slope
easements as approved by the Road Department.
The landdhidor shall provide utility clearance from [.M.W.D.
prior to the recorderion of ~he final
The mxlmun centerline gradient shall not exceed 15~.
The minlmm centerline radii shall be 300' or as approved by the
Road Department.
Street trees she11 be planted In conformonce with the provisions
Of Article 13a of Ordinance 460.53 and their location(s) shall
be shown on street imp~ovement plans.
All driveways shall confom to the applicable RIverside County
Standards and s~a11 be shown on the street Improvement plans.
"f3. The minimum garage setback shall be 30 feet measured free the
face of curb.
The mtntmum lo~ frontage shall be 20 feet measured along the
face of curb.
All centerline inter'sections shall be eZ gO* or redtel or as
· Ipproved by the Road Department.
february Zu, A~uo
C~nditlons
Page. 4 ,.
26, Th~ street design and improvement concept or this project shall
be coordinated with P,N,. 20%7%,'Trlct %gg3g,
Prior to or concurrently to the recordation of the final map,
the applicant shall complete a suammmry vac. atlon.ofothe superseded
existing dedication shall be applied fur and processed imOr concurrent
action at the time of the adoption Of the final map. ~f Said
excess or Superseded right of ~ay is also County owned Idnd, it
may be necessary to enter into dn agreeaent with the County fur
Its purchase or exchange.
"28.~ Prior to recordatton of any phase of Tract 19872, p~oceedtngs for
an,assessment district for the construction of 8 four lane bridge
on Palm Road at the Temecula Creek shall be successfully ccepleted~
GH:lh
Very truly yours,
Gas Hughes.- Road DiVision ng near
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
January 3e 1985
Btverslde County
Planning Department
County Administrative Center
Rlverstde,.Callfornla
8 1985.
RIVERSIDE C~0UNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
Attention: Regional Team No. 2
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Re: Tract 19872
(Amended No. 1)
Reference ls made to tentative Tract 19872 located on the
southwest side of Pals Road between Temecula Lane and Via
..Glibotto in the Rancho California ares.
Our review Indicates the main streambed of Pechsnga Creek lies
adjacent to the southwest tract boundary. The 100 year Peahangs
Creek flow has been determined to be 7250 ors. Under existlag
condition· It appears the limits of the 100 year flood plain
extend outside of the entrenched wash onto the southern portion
'of the tract (including lot· adjacent to film Street). Ten~stAve
Tract 19939 located to the southeast has proposed construction of
the northeast bank of Peohanga Creek. Any proposed bank
protection along Pethangs Creek should be coordinated with
tentative Tract 19939.
The ·ppllcant's englneer h·s submitted · conceptual drainage plan
to the DIstrict. This'plan eelIs for the construction of
hardened bank protection along the existlag entrenched portlon of
Poohsaga Creek. This protection would provide erosion protection
for Lots 182 thru 200. Other lots located adjacent to Pechanga
Creek would be of sufficient size to provlde adequate setback to
the buildable eros. It is noted that · portion of the proposed
hardened bank protection and perhaps some f111 would be located
offsite of the tract boundary. This offsite construction should
-(.:",:b~.,~rllocated artsite.
R~verside County
Plennin~ Department
Re: Tract 19872
(Amended No, 1)
January 3, 1985
Following are the Distriot's recommendations:
A study should be made to determine the 100 year flood /
plain limits and flow velocities of Pechsnga Creek. The
study should include 8 detailed topographic survey along
with supporting water surface profile calculations. If 8
reali;nment or alteration of the existing flood plain
limits is proposed, the study should include e "before"
end "after" flood plain limit definition to determine the
effects on adjacent property· Any change In the flood
plain on adjacent property should not raise the water
surface more than six inches.
Hardened erosion protection as conceptually shown on the
tentative map should be constructed along the banks of
PechanS8 Creek to protect fill slopes and other areas
subject to erosion as determined by the study referenced
in Condition No. 1. This hardened erosion protection
should be extended below the flow line of Pechange Creek
8 suitable distance (based on flow velocity) to prevent
undermininK. The hardened banks should be located within
the tract boundary·
The Pechsngs Creek 100 year flood plain limits throuKh
the property should be delineated and labeled on an
associated environmental constraint sheet to accompany
the final map, The area within the delineated flood
plain limits should be libeled "flood pllin" on the
associated environmental constraint sheet. A note should
be placed on the associated environmental constraint
sheet starinS, wFlood plains shall be kept free of all
boildenSe mud obstructions, including fencing that would
obstruct flays.e
An erosion setback line should be delineated and labeled
on the associated environmental constraint sheet. The
erosion setback line should be established at a minimum
of 50 re'at back from the top of the existing bank of
Peohlngl Creek or ms determined by the flood plain study
per recommendation no. 1. Where hardened bank protection
is provided, the minimum setback distance can be reduced
to 25 feet.
Drainage
designed
flow.
facilities that outlet sump conditions should be
to convey the tributary 100 year peak storm
Riverside County
Planning Department
Re: Treat 19872
(Amended No. 1)
' m3m
January 3, 1985
Drainage facilities logsted slang side lot lines should
be located on one lot only,
Drainage facilities loomted along side lot lines should
be ooncrete lined to · point beyond the buildable portion
of the lot.
All lots should drain to the adjacent street or an
adequate outlet.
6. The traot's drainale system should be designed to · perpetuate the existing drainage patterns.
Storm drain facilities Zoosted outside of road right of
way should be oontsined vithin drainage e·sements shoun
on the final mep~ Drainage easements should not straddle
lot lines. A note should be added to the final map
stating, "Drainage easements shall be kept nZear of
buildings and obstruotions."
8. Buildings Zoosted adJaoent to Peahangs Creek should have
the finished floors elevated a minimum of 1 foot above
the 100 year Peahangs Creek water surfage. elevation.
9. A oopy of the grading plans, improvement plans, final map
end the sagoglared environmental oonstraint sheet along
with supporting hydrologio and hydraulio oalculstions
should be submitted to the DisKriot for review prior to
retardation.
Very truly yours,
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
Chief Engineer
DAVID T. SHELDON
Planning Engineer
go: Road Dept.
Dept. of Building & Safety
Attn: Eric Trsboulay
Shaller& Lohr
DFb':bg
DrPART~ENT OF HEALTH
Planning Department - Team 2 Dat2rmem
January lB, 1985
vmoJY/~H. RalPh Luchs. R.S.. Admtn. Supervisor - Envtromental Health Services Otvi
T~act No. 19872
The Environmental Health Services DtvtsJon has reviewed
Amended Hap No. 2 dated January 14, 1985. Our current conmnents
wtll remain as stated tn our previous letter dated August 20, 1984.
f!~L:cg
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
BIM. FOI~I 4,
· % /
August 20, 1984 L/ P. UG le84
RiVerside County Planntng Department - Team
4080 Lemon St.
Riverside, CA 92501
2
RIVERS,'~)=. CCt;NT'f
- ·" 'J
RE: Tract No. 19872; 8etng Parcels 1 through 4 of PN 7784 as shown in 8k. 30,
pg. 96 of Parcel Naps, Records of RIverside County. (514 Lots - R-6)
Gentlemen:
The Department of Publtc Health has reviewed Tentative Nap No. 19872 and recomends
that:
A water system shall be installed according to plans and specifications
as approved by the water company and the Health Department. Permanent
prints of the plans of the water system shall be submitted in triplicate,
with a minimum scale not less than one 1rich equals 200 feet, along with
.the ortgtnal drawing, to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the
· ~nterM1 pipe diameter, location of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and I
~otnt specifications, and the stze of the main at the Junctton of the new
system to the existing system. The plans shall comply in all respects
with Dtv. 5, Part 1, Chapter 7 of the California Health and Safety Code,
California Admintstrathe Code, Tttle 22, Chapter 16, and General Order
No. 103 of the Publlc Utilities Commission of the State of California,
· when applicable. The plans shall be signed by e registered engineer and
water company with the following certification: "! certify that the design
of the water system tn Tract No. 19872 is tn accordance with the'water
system expansion plans of the Rancho'C~ltforete Water DtStrtct and that
the 'water servtce, storage and distribution system will be adequate to
provtde~ater servtce .t~.suC~ trsct,._Thfs oerttftcatton does not con-
stttute a guarantee'-t~t-lZwill supl)ly'water to such tract at any' specific
quantities, flws or pressures for fire'protection or'any other purpose."
Thts certification shall be stgned by e responsible official of the water
campany. The plans must be submitted to the County Surveyor's Office to
review at least t~o ~eeks prior to the request for the ~.ordation of the
final map.
+hts Department has a statement from the Rancho California Water Dtstrtct agreeing to
serve domestic water to each and every lot tn the subdivision on demand providing
satisfactory financial arrangements are completed with the subdivider. it will be
necessary for the financial arrangements'to be made prior to the recordatlon'of the
final map.
H. Ralph Luchs, R.S.
Administrative Supervisor
Environmental Health
Flann~ng Department o2- August 20, 1984
T~ACT NO. 19872
Thts Department has a statement free Eastern Huntctpal Water Dtstrtct agreeing to
allow the subdivision sewage system to be connected to the sewers of the district.
The sewer system shall be Installed according to plans and specifications as approved
by the district, the County Surveyor and the Health Depar~nent. Permanent prints
of the plans of the sewer system shall be submitted In triplicate, along wtth
the ortgtnal drawtn9, to the County Surveyor. The prtnts shall show the tntarnal
plpe diameter, locatton of manholes, complete profiles, ptpe and ]otnt
f system
Spedftcattons, and the stze of the sewers at the ]unction o th~ new
to the extsttng system. A single plat indicating location of se~er 1tries and water
lines shall be a portion of the sowage plans and profiles. The plans shall be
signed by a registered engtneer and the sewer dtstrtct with the following certiftcat~on;
"! carttry that the design of the se~ersystem tn Tract No. 19872 Is !n accordance
with the sewer system expansion plans of the Eastern Nunlctpal Water Dtstrtct
· .and that the waste dtsposal system ts adequate at thts ttme to treat the
anticipated wastes from the proposed tract."' The plans must be submitted to
the County Surveyor's Office to revtew at least two weeks prtor tO the request
for the recordeaton of the ftnal maD.
it w111 be necessary for the financial arrangements to be made prtor to the rncordatton
of the ftnal mp.
It w~11 be necessary for the annexation proceedings to be camplately ftnaltzed
.erlor to the recordeaton of the ftnal map.
Water and sewer availability ts contingent upon annexation tnto RCM:), ENk~, &
This land dtvtston could not be approved as an R-6 development Tf santtary sewer
service was not forthteeing.
SIncerely,
Administrative Supervisor
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
IN COOPERATION WITH THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
RAY HEBRARD
RBI CHIEF
January 15, 1985
er
1 I0 WE~r ,~4.N JAC INTO AVENUE
FERRIS. CALIFORNIA
To I
Attn s
Re s
PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
Team IX
Tentative Tract No. 19872 - Amendment
Gentlemen:
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:
Schedule *A* fire protection epprOvea Standard fire
hydrants (6' x 4' x 2~") located one et each street
intersection and spaced not more than 500 feet apart in
any direction with no portion of any lot frontage more
than 250 feet from a fire hydrant. Minimum fire flow
shall he 500 GPM for 2 hours duration at 20 PSX.
MITXGATION
Prior to the recordtalon of the final map, the developer
shall deposit with the Riverside County Fire Department a
oash sum og $300.00~perlot/unit as mitigation for fire
protection impacts.' Sh6uld the developer choose to defer
the t~ne of payment, he may enter into a written agreement
with the County deferring said payment to the time of
issuance of a building permit.
All questions regardi~ ~he meaning of ~he conditions shall be
Engineering. star ·
referred to the Fire partmeat Planning & f
'Sincerely,
RAY HEBRARD
County Fire Chief
MEG/sh
Planning Officer
February iZ, 1°-85
14s. Xanc~ Haurtce
Sam Htcks Xonment Foundation
P.O.iox 539
Temecula, CA 92390
RE: LU/S T~OLF GRAVESZTE
TENTATIVE TRACT NO, 19872
Dear Hs. ~u~ce:
I am ~rtt~ng as a follow-up to our conversation on February 7, 1985
regarding the I~olf Grave..
As ! .~nd~cated to 3mu, the Planntng Department has fomulated a set
~nary grading of the stte or prJo'r to recordatJon of the final map.
I .have enclosed a copy of these conditions..' ·
At th¶s time, the c~mfitJons are.tentative 'and my be e~tered or
Naended at the February 20, 1985 Planntng C~1ssJon Heartng. You
ire encouraged to attend the hearing and offer your co~nents on the
gfreves~te and the tract. If you are unable to attend, please feel
ree to wrtte a letter to me whtch outlines your cements and sugges-
tJons, and I ~11'present~our concerns to the PlannJng Cemlsston.
SSnce ! last spo~e with you, a Xr. Gabrtel PSco has contacted me and
has Snformed me that he ts the great grandson of Xr. Lou~s Wolf. Xr.'
P~co*s mother, a Xrs. Evelyn You , ~s the randdaughter of 14r. ltolf,
eee/
4080 LEMON STREET. 9~" FLOOR 46-209 OASIS STREET. ROOM
Ms. Nancy Haurtce'
February 11. lgaS
Page -2-
thank you for your cooperation end appreciate the help you have offered
to preserve thts valuable htstorlc resource. Z look forward to ~orktng
wlth you and your organization over .the next fw months.
. Sincerelye"
La~Ji-a R. Rtnes~ Planner
¢c: Steve Becket, County Parks .Department
'... lir. 14cCoy, County CoronerJ~ Office
Donald Lohr, Shaller and Lohr
~brlel Plco
-', C:o~dt:ton$ of A~rova~
Page o8-
,:
Prior to any preliminary gradtng or recordatton of the ftnal ma~,.whlchever c
first, the Louis ~olf gravesite sha11.,be relocated as dtrected by:the Planntn
Director. All exhumation, reloca~ton and archaeological expenses'shall be th
responsibility of the developer. The.relocatton shall follow"the following
Froceedlngs, or other proceedings.as approvedbythe Planning DIrector:
l) Th~ developer shall obtatna court order, authorized by a menbet of the
· iolf famtly or any other responsible party, to.remove'and relocate any re
· end the tombstone to a.atte designated by the Planntng Oepar;ent.
b}' A qualified archaeologist shall be on site during .any and all excavation
activities related to gravesite relocatlon.
¢) The proper religious or Other ceremonies, as directed-by'family embers o: · any o~er responsible patty, shell'beperformed upon exh~atton.
d) All exhumation and relocattOnproceedlngs shall be .coordinated' With the
.... ,.- Rtvers~deCountyCoroner's':Offtcesnd County Parks Deparment..
· e) Prior t~ exhumation and relocatton,' the.developer shall enter into an agr,
~th a local Temecula publlc or.private agency or organization for .the ac~
· Ittlon, relocatton'and maintenance of the tombstone.and any rem~tns conta'
· .-'- ~thln, Said agreement shall be subJect-to' revte~ bythe RIverside Count.'
Parks Deparmen~ Zn;erpretlve.Spectallst and the Planning;DIrector,
"fi Upon relocat~on of the gravestte,.a permanent.plaqu~ shall-be placed.on t~
tombstone whtch Indicates .that the gravesite ,ras previously located'on th~
-.. site of Tentatf.ve Tract No. 29872, A~d. No. 2. The lenguage on the plaqu~
..... shall be subject to reviewby the.RIverside County Parks. Depar~ent %nter;
Specialist..Thecost of.the plaque:shall be borne'.by the developer.'
'LRR:Jle;gm
//
IIItli,$
ItUM~a,~ V,-~T de~T
· .. ~,~,,;....,,.,,..,..,,...,.-;.,,-,,,-,.-,--.,.-.,,,., ,.~
Vicinity Map
/
/
/
\
~_11 I
I
] :'i ~[[l :['-: i:'
//\
,/ ,/
/
/ /7 ,,/~' -
1' f, i/ i/
)/,,
/
I I' ~
I/I
// ~
ITEM #15
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 17, 1990
Case No.: Substantial Conformance No. 9
Prepared By: Steve Padovan
Recommendation: Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCAT I ON:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Brookstone Development
Vance Daly
To relocate the driveway at the southern corner of
the site and to remove 3 parking spaces on an
approved plot plan.
Southern corner of Bueking Drive and Madison
Avenue.
M-SC (Manufacturing - Service Commercial)
North: M-SC
South: M-SC
East: M-SC
West: M-SC
Not applicable.
Vacant
North: Light Industrial
South: Vacant
East: Vacant
West: Vacant
Site Area:
Gross Building Area:
Gross Leasable Area:
72,390 sq.ft.
16,255 sq.ft.
12,656 sq.ft.
STAFFRPT\SC9 1
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
GENERAL PLAN
CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
The project is part of the North Jefferson Business
Park development located north of Winchester Road
and west of )-15. Plot Plan 11556 and related case
Plot Plan 11557 were created as parcels 12 and 13 of
Parcel Map 23561-1,
Plot Plan No. 11555 and Environmental Assessment
No. 3L~,13 were approved by the County of
Riverside through a Planning Director Hearing on
March 12, 1990 and by the City Council of the City
of Temecula on April 10, 1990.
The subject project involves two 2-story office
commercial buildings with a total gross floor area of
16,0~0. The applicant is requesting to relocate the
reciprocal driveway at the southern corner of the
site completely on the property. Also, three (3)
parking spaces will be eliminated due to the
relocated driveway.
The applicant is relocating the driveway due to the
fact that they were unable to obtain an easement to
share the driveway with the adjacent property
owner. The relocation of a driveway results in the
elimination of 3 standard parking spaces which
lowers the total number of parking spaces for the
project to 65.
The original plot plan was approved with 68 parking
spaces based on 13,69u· square feet of leasable floor
area. The revised plans show a leasable floor area
of 12,656 square feet which requires 63 parking
spaces at a ratio of 1 space for every 200 square
feet. Therefore, the revised plans have adequate
parking. The landscape planter between the
relocated driveway and the parking spaces has been
increased in width to 18 feet, In addition, a
condition will be added which will limit the amount of
leasable floor area to under 13,000 square feet to
ensure adequate parking.
It is likely that the project will be consistent with
the proposed General Plan for the City of Temecula.
Class 3, Categorically Exempt.
STAFFRPT\SC9 2
FINDINGS:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
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 project will not have a significant
adverse affect 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,
The lawful conditions stated in the approval
are deemed necessary to protect the pubiic
health, safety and general welfare.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
APPROVE Substantial Conformance No. 9 based on
the analysis and findings in this report and the
attached Conditions of Approval.
SP:ks
Attachments
1. Conditions of Approval for
Plot Plan No. 11556
2. Maps
3. Exhibits
STAFFR PT\SC9
3
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Substantial Conformance No. 9
Council Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
Plannlnq Department
1. The leasable floor area of the two buildings shall not exceed 13,000 square
feet.
2. All approved conditions for Plot Plan No. 11556 are applicable to this project
and shall be complied with prior to occupancy.
STAFFRPT\SC9 1