HomeMy WebLinkAbout110590 PC AgendaAGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 5, 1990 - 6:00 PM
VAIL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
29915 Mire Loma Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
Chairman Chiniaeff
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Chiniaeff
Hoagland,
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the
commissioners on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are
limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners
about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should
be filled out and filed with the Commissioner Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and
address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the
Planning Secretary'before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3)
minute time limit for individual speakers.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Minutes
1.1 Minutes of October 15, 1990.
NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
2. Case No,:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
First Extension of Time For Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 23299
Presley of San Diego
Crosby, Mead, Benton and Associates
South of Highway 79, west of Margarita Road.
Extension of time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
23299.
Continue to 11-19-90
Richard Ayala
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM
3. Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
5. Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
6. Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Parcel Map No. 25599
Tom Griffin
Markham F, Associates
0,1872 Motor Car Parkway
To subdivide a u,. 31 acre commercial parcel into two parcels
in the auto center.
Approval
Steve Padovan
Parcel Map No. 25212[Change of Zone No. 5663
Durango Development Company
Durango Development Company
Northeast corner of Nicholas and Liefar Roads
To subdivide 5.02 acre lot into 0, residential parcels and to
change the existing R-R 2.1/2 zoning to R-R.
Approval
Steve Padovan
Change of Zone No. 5
Presley of San Diego
Crosby Mead Benton F, Associates
South side of State Highway No. 79 between Pala Road and
Margarita and Old Vail Ranch.
To change the zoning of 221.2 acres from R-R rural
residential to R-3, R-O,, and R-5.
Continue to 11-19-90
Steve Padovan
Appeal No. 71Plot Plan 1110,9
Valley Medical Plaza Assoc.
Grant\Sapp Corp.
West side of Jefferson Avenue South of Overland Road.
Appeal of County Road condition Number 8 requiring
street lights.
Approval
Steve Jiannino
Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Substantial Conformance No. 2 for SP No. 16~
Davidson Communities
RanPac
Southwest corner Roripaugh and Nicolas Roads
Location of the Class I bike trail which traverses the park
and open space area located adjacent to Residential
Planning Area No. 0, of the Roripaugh Estates Specific
Plan.
Approval
Steve Jiannino
Case No.:
Applicant:
R epresentat ive:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Case No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Plot Plan No. 20
Medical Design Concepts
Lusardi Construction Company
Business Park Drive, north of Rancho California Road
Construct a 161,800 sq .ft. industrial building with 115,091
sq.ft. of warehouse and 31,000 sq.ft. of office space on
12.09 acres.
Approval
Oliver Mujica
Plot Plan No, 18
Palmilia Associates
Coombs-Mesquita, Inc.
Northwest corner of Rancho California Road and Lyndie
Lane
Construct a q6,613 sq.ft. shopping center on a 5.1 acre
site.
Continue to November 19, 1990
Oliver Mujica
Change of Zone 56131VTTM 25082
Pavilion Homes
Northeast corner of Calle Medusa and Nicholas Road
Change of zone from R-R 1/2 to R-1 and create 109 single
family lots.
Denial
Mark Rhoades
11. Planning Director Report
12. Other Business
ADJOURNMENT
Next meeting: November 19, 1990, 6:00 PM, Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma
Drive, Temecula, California.
Planning/AGN11-5
ITEM #1
MINIJTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
NF.LI) OCTOBF.}~ .! 5, ] 990
A requ[ar meetinq of the Temecu(a P[anninq Commission was called to
order at Vail Elementary School, 299]5 Mira Loma Drive, Temecu]a,
at 6:],0 P.M, The meetinq was called to order bv Chairperson Dennis
PRE,qENT: 4 COME] SSIONERS: B] aj r, Fahev, Hoao] and,
Chiniaeff
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS: Ford
~{so present were Assistant City Attornev John Cavanan~h, Garv
Thornhi[i, Act~n~ P[annin~ Director, John Middleton, Senior Project
~aDa~er an~ Ga]~ Zj~]er~ M3Dute Clerk.
PUHf. IC COMMENT
GARY THORNHILL jndjcatefi that the City Manaoer was not able to
attend this meetinQ to update the Commission on the status of the
Genera,[ P]} aD.
COMM]SSIONF.R CHINIAF.FF opened the meetin{x for Dllbljc comment.
There were nora,
October ], ]990.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAF.FF entertained a motion to approve the
mjnutes of October ], ]990.
COM/4ISS[ONER FAHEY requested Page 5 of the minutes of October
1, ]990, b~ amended to include her v~ew on the C.U.P. for a
~as station located adjacent to a residential development as
follows:
COMMISSIONF.R FAHEY expressed stron~ opposition for the proposed
station located directly adjacent to an established
residential area.
MINUTES 10115190 -1- 10/24/90
COMMISSIONER
1990 as amended,
as fojjows:
AYES: 3
NO~S: 0
ABSEN'P: ~
AHSTAIN: I.
FAHEV moved to approve the m~nutes of October 1,
secnnded by COMMISSIONER BLAIR, and carried
COMM]SSIONERS: B] aj r.
COMM [ SS I<)NgRS: None
COMMISSIONERS: Ford
COMM I SS IONERS: Hoaq [ and
Fahev. Chinjaeff
NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
SUBSTANTIAL CONEORMANCE NO. 2, SP 164
VESTING TENTATIVe; TRACT MAP NO. 23299
GARRY THORNHILL advi. sed ~he Commission that these two items would
be cnntinued to the meet~nQ of November 5, 3990.
COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to continue Substantial Conformance No. 2,
and VegtlDu Tentative Tract Map No. 23299, to the meet]no of
November 5, ].990, seconded be COMMISSIONER BOAGLAND, and carried
as fn]jows:
AYES: 4 COHMISSIONERS: B]alr, Fahev, HoaQ]and,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: ] COMMISSIONERS: Ford
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
4, CH~J{GE OF ZONE NO. 561] and
5. VESTING 'PENTATIVE TRACT NO. 25004
4.]
Proposal to chan~e zone trom R - R 3/? to R-] in
conjunction with VTTM 25004 on project incated at
east s~de of Joseph Road approx~mate]~ 3,000 feet
north of Nichotas Road.
MINUTES 10/15/90 -2- 10/24/90
PLANNING
COMMISSION NINUTFS
OCTOBER ] S, .] 990
Proposat to subdq. vide 42.4 acres Into ].1.5 sinQI. e
fami.ly ~ots on project ~ocated at east side of
Joseph Road aDproxi.matetv 1,000 feet north of
N~cho.las Road.
OI. IVE~ MIIJICA presented the staff report on this
ttem. Re reminded staff that this item was continued
from the P}aDnjnQ Commission meetjoe of September ]7,
L990, to provide additional information on the desi. Qn
ouide)~nes as they re)ate to the units and the easement
acrnSs the Dronetry.
COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND asked j f there Were any studies
on the impact the French Vai[ev Airport would have on
th~s Project clue to it's close proximity.
GARY THORNHEI,[, stated that the Commission coutd require
an advisory notice to the future property owners that they
may be impacted by aircraft noise. Assistant Cj. tV
Attorney JOHN CAVANAIIGH concurred.
COMa4ISSrONER HOAGLAND stated that he would like the
advisory notice as an addSriGoR) condition.
COMMISSIONER CHtNIAEFF Questioned who would construct the
brjd~e over the creel{ adjacent to Nice]as Road. ~OHN
MIDDLETON stated that the primary access to the project
WOllJd be Mnrrjeta Hot SPrjnQs Road. He stated ~at he
had discussed with the apDticant buitdinq a secondary
access, He stated that he thought Assessment District
].61 wou].d build the improvements over the creek as welt
as the comb.lotion of Mllrrjeta Hot SDriDC[S Road,
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF asked who woutd be maintaining the
lots in the designated SKR habitat area. GARY THORNHILL
stated that if those lots were accepted as dedication
to the City for public park space, then the city would
have to maintain it; however, if it was decided not to
accept the dedication, then the lots would have to be
maintained by the Homeowner's Association as covered in
Condition No. 30.
-3-
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER )5, ~990
COMMISSIONER CHtNIAEFF questioned the [ocation of the
entry monuments as ProPosed ~Y the apD~]~caDt,
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF opened the public hearinQ.
GARY KOONTT,. C~ RnQjneer3nQ, reDresentjnQ the app) icant,
EnDe and ~eel that the project IS not Ampacted: bowever,
if it is d~termi. ned that they are in the airport ].and
use zone, they wnujd have to P]~t a notice jn the CC&R's
~ weN[ a~ the Department of Real Estate cub[it report.
He also ~tated that the contract had been awarded to
~omD{~t~ the ].rnorovements for Assessment District t6]. and
~llrr]ets ~ot SDrIDOS Road w].l[ be comp) eted down to
W]nchester Road, as well. as the bridge at General Kearnv
wnqcn wj]~ pray]de secondary access. He stated that the
aDDI. qcant ~s aware that if the Assessment District fails,
they are responslb+e for the secondary access. He added
that the entry mnnuments followed county guidelines;
nowever, the desiqn plans CaD be modified and the
aoo{.icant would be willing to work with staff and re-
locate the entry monument.
LETTIE HOGGS, 30396 Mira {,oma Drive, Temecu/a,
repreSeDtinf~ the Temecu]a Valley. Unified School District,
was present to confirm the app[icant's proposal. to the
'f'VUSD to ~nstall] wa)k]nc[ paths with toiled asphalt curbs
to ensure the safety of chi4. dren walkinQ to school.
G~R¥ THORNHILl, stated that stsff'wou.id
condition to ensure safe walking paths
~n th~s project.
look into a
are impl. emented
COMMISSIONER FABEY auestjoDed the potential of the SKR
habitat area to be used as park space. GARY TRORNHII.L
stated that the }and would be idea.{ to be ~nc]uded in the
city wide trail s~stem.
COMMISSIONER F~EY questioned what wou]d be the primary
access into the project. JOHN MIDDLETON stated that
Assessment District /16] was scbedu[ed to build Murrieta
Hot Sprinqs Road to Winchester and the p~oject was
condjtjoned for ~econdarv access alnnq Rjta Way tbru
PLANNING
COMMISSION
OC'I'OBRR i S. ] 990
Nicolas Road to Joseph. COMMISSIONER ~AHEY asked how
tb~s oro~ect t~er~ 3nto Nort~ Genera} Eearnev Road. Stafi
~tated that the network that woul. d ti.e North General
Kearnev to Jo~eD~ Roam wnH.{~ be Dart of another
development.
COMMISSIONER FABEY moved to c)ose the DHbJ~C hear~nQ
and adopt the Neqative Declaration ~or Vestinq Tentative
Tract No. ~5()04 add CbaD(~e of Z~De N~. 563~, aDDrove
Chan~ o~ Zone No. 56tl and approve Vestin~ T~ntative
Tract No. ~5004 sllb~ect to the COnditions of ADDrOVa]
as submitted bV stat~ with the fo{l. owinq modifications:
add a coDdillon r~al~r3na f~e DroPeel to QO throllah
proper approval process if located within the ar~a
des~Qnated by the A~rDort l.and Use Commissjnn: a condition
adv~s~nQ Drosnective land owners of the possible noise
due fo t~e c}o~e Drnl(jmjtv nf the Droiect to the airDort.
GARY THORNHILL added that said notice be inc{.uded in the
White Report bv the State DePartment of Real Estate be
included in that condition as an advisorv to the deed
owners. Assistant Cjfv AttorneV JOHN CAVANAUGH advised the
Commis.~ion that it the Droiect j.s not in the demiQnated
area bv the Airport I,aDd Use Commission, but still close
In Droximitv, the Department o[ Real. Estate wi].[ require
a White Report De DrOVj~ to ~e~d Owners. COMMISSIONER
~AHEY continued with her motion to intrude a condition ~or
t~e applicant to wor~ wjtb the School Djstr~ct add
EnQineerj. nQ Department to Provide ~ Safe walking oath ~or
acce~.~ t~ Njeo[as Scbon,i; a COD~3tjOD reQll~rjno the
d~dicatlon o~ lots 1.36, ~.37, ].38 and 1,40 unimproved and
t~e OuimbV Act Fees to be Da~d by fhe deve]oDerr a
condition arranQq. no ~or the maintenance of the entry siQns
w~tb the D)acement and design of the siQns aDDroved by
staff. The motion was seconded by COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND.
GARY THORNHILL ouestjoned the maintenance oi t~e
adjacent to Street "A" (the ton of Lot 141). COMMISSIONER
FAHEY amended toe motion to ~nc}ude that the maintenance
of the lot should be provided bY the Homeowner's
Association or that tb~s lot be added to )or
whichever staff decided was most appropriate. GARY
THONNHII.I, asked ~f Condillon No. 30 uerta~ninQ fo a
Homeowners Association should be dolefed. COMMISSIONER
FAHEY stated fbaf CondOr]on 30 reQuirinQ a Homeowners
PLANNING
COMMISSION MINUTES
OCTOBER ] 5, l 990
Associati. nn wou]d rema].n 1. n the Conditions of ADDroYal.
The aDD.ijCaDt advjse~ the (;omm~ssjoy) that I,ot 336 had been
burchased by the county ~or the comD{.etion of Murrieta Hot
SDr~D~S Road. COMMISSIONER FAMF~ ~mended her motion to
qnc{.ud~ ~n advisory notjc~ statinQ that Lot ].~6 on[v be
~dicate~ if t~e preYsoils c.lajms tO that Lot were not
exercised by the cmlntv and also that the maintenance of
l,nt ~4:1 be Provided bV tDe developer until jt also becomes
~art of f. he ded~.cation. CO~[SSIONER HOAGLAND seconded
fbe amendments to the motion. add the motion carried as
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Fabev, Hoa~land,
Chiniaeff
NOES: l. COMMISSIONERS: BI. aj.r
ABSF. NTr :+ COMMISS'|ONERS: Ford
6, TRACT NO. 25443
Proposal for a 2105 unit condominjum subdivision of 7.31
acres rotated on the south side of Marqarita Road, between
Moraaa Road ann Avenjda Cjma De] So:l,
O[,IVER MUJICA provided the staff report on this item. He
reminded the Commj ssi on t'hat this w~s a continued item
~rom the Commission meetinq on September ]:0, ]990', at
wbjcb the Commission directed the aDP:licant to wor~ with
staff in addressinQ their concerns rel. atin~ to location
of the trash encJosures, adequate emergency vehicle access
and turn-around. provide a buf~erin~ wall. and [andscaDinQ
a.lon(l Mar~arita add landSCabineT, review of ParkjD~ and
qated entry as it relates to potential traffic problems.
Mr. Mll~ica stated that staff fee:Is the applicant has
adequately addressed aLL the issues raised by the
Commission: however, stat~ was sti]} cnncerDed with the
location oi two Darkinq spaces at the entrance aJ. onq the
curve. He also stated that the Traffic Engineer had some
concerns about the turn-around radius at the entrance o~
the Dro~ect.
.ANN
COMMI,,qS:ION
OCTOBER ] 5, 1990
JOHN MIDD{,ETON advised th~ Con]n]i, sni. on o~ the tol[owinQ
No, 58, the words "to c~ns~ruc~" de{etedr No, 59, the
a~ded "A credi~ sha{{ b~ Qiven toward thi. s deve{oUer'~
d~s~Gn ~n~ Con~tr.~ctioD o~ thi.~ ~[~shinQ yellow school
s]~n~T .": No. 6,{. tr~f~c enQ~n~er ~mende~ to re~d "c~vi~
enQineer": and No. 66, "~40 ~eet o~ inbound" amended to
read "~00" add "~ ~0 ~ont ~ ODQ .) ~nes" ~meDded to read
"1,00" ,
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF expressed concern tor the site
v].sibilitv ot the sidewalk trom exitinQ cars alonQ the
westerly Dollndarv dlle to the block wa],~. He su~aested
~teopl. Da down the wall. as ].t con]as UD to the sidewalk.
COMMIS,.qTIONFR CHINIAF. FF opened t be public hear~na.
OAV[D D'AURIA, 4{05 La Porta[ada, Carlshad, reDresentinQ
the applicant addressed son]e of the concerns fron] tbe
Commission. He stated that they had provided a ~0 foot
turn-around area at the entrance: bowever, they could
expand that ~.f necessary. He indicated that the aunlicant
would also be w]ll~n(l to relocate the two Dark~na Spaces
on the curv~ j.~ Dossib{.e and that they could step-down the
w~{~ ~{Oma the Westerly hol~ndarv to provide better s~te
v~sibiS.].tv.
GAEY MART/N, Warstan DeveloDn]ent, 3060] Cahrj~]o,
Ten]ec,l~,a, d~sc~lssed the n]odi.~ications made to the Droiect
s~Dce the n]eetiDa ot Senten]bar ~10. ~e stated that they
had D~lshed hack t~e six bui{.dinQs 10 ~eet to allow ~or a
huj{djnQ set back iron] the Droparty line of 20 ~eet. He
stated that the wal. I. undulates from a Point of 10 ~eet
to no closer than 5 ~eet except at one Point where it does
n]eet the property line, to allow tot a catch basin. He
added that they had provided a areat deal n]ore landscaDina
than had been orQinallv proposed.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF stated that be was concerned that
the n]ost easterly buildinQ was too close to the street and
that he felt ren]ovjn~ the bu~ldina nearest to the street
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTORER ] 5, ] 990
would make the Drnject work better and asked for the
aDD] j cants jnPut .
After discuss]De{ other a.lternat]ves wjtn the Commlssjnn
GARY MARTIN a~reed to remove the buj. Ldinq and re-design
the easterly portion nf the pro~ecf to utilize some of t~e
GARY T~ORNHIIJ. ~tafed that this could result iDa
substantial. re-design and requested that the Commission
a~ree to allow the applicant to wor~ with staff add not
have to br~n~ the project back for P[annin~ Commission
aPProVal,
minimum set-back of 30 feet from Mar~arita Road for any
bu]PdiDG altlD(1 the ea~ter:ly bol~n~ar~ o~ the project.
COMMISSIONER FAHEY indicated that previously she stronQly
oPPosed more apartments jD tbjs area~ however, sqDce there
are annroved Drabs for a hi~her density project and the
aDD]]~aDt ~as Deed very flexible ~n Drovidjn~ a ~ower
density nroject, she would be in favor of this ProPosaL.
cooperation in working with staff to address the
COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND moved to CLose the Dub[j.c hearinQ
and adopt the NeQat~ve Declaration for Tentative Tract
MaD No. 25443 and adopt Resolution No. 90- , aDorovlnq
Tentative Tract No. 25443, subject to the Conditions of
ADDroYaL provided bv staff including the following
mndjfjcat3ons: amendments to the Conditions of Approval
by the Enc]ineering Oenartment; deletion of one building;
a m~njmum set-back of 30 feet from Mar~arita Road for
the northeasterly building: a re-design of the clot clan
as directed b~ staff: and, the deletion of two park~n~
Spaces on the entrance curve.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF seconded
that the condition de[etinq one
]00 unit maximum on the project.
the motion, clarjfvin~
building would set a
The motion carried as
PI.ANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER )5, ]990
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, HoaQland,
cbjn~aett
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABS~NT~ 3 COMMISSJONERS: Ford
7. PARCEl, MAP NO. P6239
7. ,
a ~,08 acre Site [ocated at the southwesterl. v corner of
Rue}{3nq Road and Madison Avenue approximately 200 feet
east of Cherry Avenue and .Jefferson Avenue,
STEVE JIANN]NO Drov3ded the start report on tbjs item.
COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND ~uestioned if the parkina was
STEVE JIANNINO stated that the parkinQ had been
aDDroved by the County and the Traffic Department.
GAR~ THORNHILL stated that staff woutd verify the
Dar~]n~ rer;l~remeDts w3th the or. djnaDce.
COMMISSIONER CHIN[AEFF opened t~ PubLic hearing.
V[NCE DALY, Broo~rstoDe Deve.lopment, represeDtjn~ the
applicant, stated their concurrence with the ~indinqs
in the start report and the CODd3t3ODS of Approval.
Mr. Oa[v ~uesti. oned the fee amount referenced in
Cnnd~t~nn No. 32 and s~l{ed jt the S'10.000 was the
maximum for the fee and whether or not staff had any
set t~me that the fee amount would be determined.
Mr, I)atv auestioned the aDD[i. cant's ability to
dj~pllte the ~ee amount once jt has been determined.
JOHN MIDDLETON stated that the ~ee amount had not
been determined as of Yet: nowever, be stated that
time Period for estab[ishinQ the fee was not over
and he would ]oo~ jDtO how far a]onQ ]t was.
.q-
PT,ANNTNO COMM:ISSION MINU?ES
OCTOBER :~5, ]990
GARY TRORNHYf,L added that the aDDI. icant must concur
Wltb the CoDd~t3oDs Ot ~pDrova], Once He Noes
he i,s obt. iqated to conform to them: however, he could
aDDea~ the fee amount to the City
UOMM[SSIONER BLAIR moved to clove the public hearing
ann a~oDt the Negative Declaration ~or Parcel MaD No.
~6~39, a~oDt Reso].ution No. 90- and approve
Parcel MaD No. 26239 subject to the Conditions o~
APProval as provided by start, seconded bv COMMISSIONER
FA~Y ~D~ Carried as ~nllIowS:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Bi. air, FaheV, Hoagiand,
Cb3Djaeff
NOES: 0 CORM [ SS [ ON ERS: None
AHSEN'r': I COMMISSIONF. RS: Form
PARCEl, MAP NO. 24633
S. ]
Proposal to divide a 11.43 acre parcel into two parcels
[neared at the northeast corner of Estero Street and
Ormshv ~nad.
ST~VR J'IANNINO Drovjde~ toe start report on this item.
[{e aOvj. sed the Commission of an additional Condition,
NO, 46. ~ to.{.IOWS: "Prior ,to the issuance of blljJdin~
permits', the to[4. owinq condition shall be satisfied:
No Duj]djnQ permit Wj][ be issued bV the cjtv ~or anV
residenti. a[ units within the project boundary until. the
c~eve.{oper/securer ~n ~nterest, provides evidence of
comDtiance with Dub[it facilities financing measures.
The cash sum of $300,00 per unit sha]] be deposited
with the citV as mitigation for public tibrary
development."
COMMISSIONER BOAGLAND requested c]arjficatdon o~
Conditions No. 35, No. 36 and No. 37,
JOHN MIDDLETON stated that Condition No. 35 was
reouesting improvements to centerline on Ormsbv,
that No. 36 was stating that there wjl] be two
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
OCTOBER ]5, :1990
drivewavs and No. 37 was reGuested so that there
not be two streets comjn~ in at To shard of an
Mr. MiddleTon stated The fni.)nwinq amendments to
th~ Cnndq. tion~ oT ADoroyal. s: Cnndi. tl. on No. 1,8,
~te the reference to SaD D3e~o ]Re~nna{ Water
Oualqtv. He also 7n~i. cated the aDnlicant had
re(~]lesTe0 CODd]T]OD No. 20 and No. ~l Re deleted.
The aDD[]cant wi[[ not beneT~t Trnm this however,
teeIs that when the ProPerty to the north is
developed then tbeV can address The (Jedic~tjnn
at that time.
(~OMMISSIONER ~OAGLAND ~uestionea who wnu~d maintain
th]~ area and what kind of {.iabilitv the City would
bare.
JOHN MIDDLETON stated That aT tbjs T3me ~t js not
maintained, but is used as a drivewav to the property
north of ~t.
Assistant C~tv Attorney JOHN CAVAN~UGH asked who owns
the land. JOHN M[DD[,ETON indicated that the DroDertF
Was ~edjcated tn the colIntv under a previous map
however, the countv has not accented the dedication.
JOHN CAVANAUGH state~ that if it was an irrevocable
offer not accented b~ the count~, and the city
not accept dedication, then the maintenance of the
lan~ would ~e the DroDert~ owners and therefore the
~iab]lj~v wo]].ld be the property owners. Mr. Kavanau~h
suggested cnnditionin~ the maintenance of that ],and
to The DroDerT~ owner of the most westerly
oareel. maP,
C(~M]SS]ONER FAHEY suggested researchin~ the matter
future before maklnq a decision. JOHN MIDDLETON
indicated be was sure that the street portion belonged
to the lot.
COMMISSIONER CHIN]AEFF expressed concern That this
was becoming a sub-division and Questioned the [ega[itv.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
OCTOBER 35, 3990
Assistant City Attorney .JOHN CAVANAUGB stated that
~OO~3D~ at the mad t~ere was DO ev~Oence to jndjcate
whether thl. s was DroQressinQ towards a slID-division.
He suGGested t~at the Comm]ss]on d]scuss tb~s with
the aDDi. icant and it they are sti[J. uncertain, they
could send the DroDosa,[ back to staTf add have them
qet tit{e reDotis on the Parcels and bring hack to
the Commission.
MI~E BENES~, Benash EnaineerinQ, 2891,1, Front Street,
q'emecu]a, representing the aDD.{jcaDt, Stated that the
county had determined that it was necessary for the
aDDf~CaDt to 7~:le two separate Dar~e~ mad applications
7or DarceI. s ]. and 3. He stated that parcats 2 and 4
are owned bv two dj77erent individuals.
COMMISSIONER CB[NIAEFF stated that he concerned that
toe 3mDrovements to Ormsby add SantiaGo, primary access
into these parcels, is not QO~.nQ to he completed. He
G1}~tjoDed 37 the applicant WollJd be oPPosed to
comD{,etinQ the improvements on Estero Street.
MI~E REN~rSH stated that the avVJicaDt WOllld not OPPOSe
cnmDl. et~nq a{{ the ~mDrovements to Estero Street.
JOHN M:ID1)I.MTON c.larjTied that the Commission was
reGuestinG the aDDticant to complete the improvement
o7 Estero Street jDC211IdjD~ the portion ot the street
at parcel. ~.
MIKE RENESH advised that Commission that Mr. Paine had
discussed sharj. nq the cost of the improvements with the
Droparty owner o7 ParceJ ?~ however, the owner bad no
plans at this time tot his Droparty. He added that a
portion o~ parcel 2 is jn the proposed improvement
area and they cannot Qrade on that DroParty.
GARY THORNHII,I, stated that jf there was a map eminent
on parcel 2, staff could condition the other Droparty
owner to compensate Mr. PhiDe 7or the improvements.
OC']'OBES 3 5, ] 990
KNOLl, PAINE, 30P2P Corte Cantera, Temecuta, addressinn
the (;omm~ss]oD for Robert Paine the owner, skated that
the owner o~ Parcel 4 had aQreed to assist jn Davinq
~or the street ~mDrovements.
JOHN MIODI,ETON suQ~ested that the developer enter into
s re~mDursemeDt aqreement w~tb the owners o~ Darc~:~ 2
and Darce~, 4 and when those DroDertv Owners develop
t0e]r D~rce~s at ~ ~lltllre ~a~e. they would have to
compensate for any CnmD[eted jmDrovements.
PAINE ~Ddjcated arlreemeDt wjtb tb3s COnCePt.
COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to cl. ose the Dubkit hear~.nQ
an~ adopt tDe NeQatjve Dec:laratjon tot Paree) MaD
No. ')46.~3, adopt e~soluti on No. 90- and approve
ADDrOVa{. as D~ovi. ded bv sta~ and amended a~ ~okiows:
re~ereDce to SaD DjeQO ReQjona.{ Water OuaJjtv ~eleted
~rom Condition No. ].8~ Condition No. ~0 and No.
deleted: add aD addjtjoDa.I COnditiOn re~lljrjD~ the
~u{. I improvement o~ e:stero Street with reimbursement
a~reements ~rom Parcels 2 and 4. The motion was
seconded by COMMISSIONER BLAIR and carried as
4 COMMISSIONERS:
B) aj r, F~hev, HoaQ{ an~,
Chinj. ae~f
NOES: 0 COMM[SSEONERS:' None
ABSENq': :~ COMNISSIONERS: Ford
m
PLANNING DrRECq'OR REPOR~
GARY THORNHTI,I, discussed the ~O:I:IOWjDQ :items w~th
f~e Commlssi. on:
- Committee formed for the selection of a
Genera[ elan consuktant.
- Ordinance adopted by City Council DertainjnQ
to adult busi, ness hermits.
OCTOBER 35. ]990
Ordinance adopted by Ci. tv Council ~or the
aDDrOVaJ RlltDor]tv between the PtaDD]D~
Commission and City Counc~ [ .
Adv~.~ed the (;oremission that C,U.P. No.
bad been aDDroved bY the City Counc~j bu~
the applicant bad to come back
Pl, anninQ Commission with landscape
Provided an examDJ. e o~ the development ~ee
cOec){]i~f to be included ~D each package
as requested bY the City Council.
JOHN CAV~NAUGB discussed the ~DDrova] authority
cluide with the Co~lssion, He ai, so explained that
the ordinance adopted bv the CjtV Colloci] ~or
adult businesses does not re~e~ to distances
to keen from over d~stanc~nQ add that aD objective
oro~ss ~or ~eviewl. nq the Dermits must be established.
BUSINESS
coPY ol the aaenda
annual meetloci at
COMM[SSYONRR FAHEY mlest~oned i~ a rec/uest for
eXtenSiOn O~ the Sphere o~ ID~)ueDce needed to be
initl, ated. GARY THORN~[L[, stated that the C~tv
Manager is aware o~ the expiration date.
COMMISSIONER HOAGI,AND asked when out liDdate on the
Genera] PjaD Wo~l]ld octlit.
ADJOURNMENT
COMMISSIONER HOAGI,AND moved to adiol~rn the meet~n~ at 8:50 P.M.,
seconded bv COMMISSIONER FAHEY and carried unanimously.
-Iq-
PI',~NN]NG COMMISS:ION I,J:I'NU'PF.S
OCTOBER ] 5, :~ ~0
CHAIRMAN DENNIS CHINIAEFF adjourned to a sl~eciai study Qroup
O~ve, 'Vemecuta, on Monday, Octobe~ 22, 1,990 at 6:00 e.~. The next
reo~.t at3 I Y ~chPd~i ed m~eti n~ o~ t~e 'Pemec~L{ a P.I annino Comm~ Ss~ on
~q. t I be he ld on Monday. November 5, 1990, at Vai. i Et ementarv
CHAIRMAN, DENNIS CH[NIAEFF
SECI4Eg'ARY
ITEM ~:2
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM;
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Planning Director
November 5, 1990
First Extension of Time,
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23299
RECOMMENDATION: Continuance to November 19, 1990
First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23299 was continued
from the October 1, 1990 Planning Commission meeting with the concurrence of Staff
and the applicant. This project is contingent on the approval of Change of Zone No.
5 to be consistent with zoning for the site.
The original Change of Zone No. 5150 for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23299 was
never adopted by the County Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors
approved the Zone Change and conducted the first reading of the Zone Change
Ordinance, but never held the second reading which is required for a zoning
ordinance to be finalized. Hence, Change of Zone No. 5 is being presented in order
to allow for the Extension of Time request.
At this time, Staff is working with the applicant on the project and is waiting for
further materials to be presented to process the First Extension of Time for 23299.
Thus, Staff requests that the Planning Commission continue the Time Extension
request to November 19, 1990.
Recommendation:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission continue Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23299,
First Extension of Time to their regular meeting of November 19,
1990.
GT:ks
STAFFRPT\VTM23299. A
ITEM #3
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 5, 1990
Case No.: Tentative Parcel Map No. 25599
Prepared By: Steve Padovan
Recommendation: Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING -ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Tom Griffin
Markham S Associates
To subdivide a ~,.31 acre commercial parcel into two
parcels.
L~1872 Motor Car Parkway
C-P I General Commercial )
North: C-P
South: C-P
East: A-2-20
West: C - P
General Commercial )
General Commercial )
Heavy Agricultural,
20 acre minimum)
General Commercial)
Not requested.
Automotive Dealership - Cadillac
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant
Vacant
Agricultural Uses
Automotive Dealerships
Gross Acres:
Proposed Lot Sizes:
4.31 acres gross
Parcel 1 - 2.69 acres
Parcel 2 - 1.62 acres
STAFF R PT\ PM25599 1
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
The application for Tentative Parcel Map No. 25599
was originally submitted to the Riverside County
Planning Department on January 1, 1990. The
proposed subdivision was originally part of Parcel
Map No. 23354 and Plot Plan No. 10343 which were
approved by the County of Riverside Planning
Commission on April 6, 1988. The approved plot
plan indicated two automobile dealershlps on the
subject lot. Currently, there is an existing
Cadillac/CMC dealership on the northern part of the
lot which will be Parcel No. 1 in the new division.
The southern part of the lot, proposed Parcel No.
2, is currently vacant and used for automobile
storage. The site has been graded and street
improvements are in. The application has been
through the LDC process in the County and through
the Preliminary and Formal Development Review
Committee {DRC) process in the City of Temecula.
The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 4.31 acre
commercial property on Motor Car Parkway in the
auto center into 2 lots; Parcel No. 1 - 2.69 acres,
and Parcel No. 2 - 1.62 acres. The purpose of the
subdivision would be to construct a new automobile
dealershlp per the approved Plot Plan No. 10343 on
Parcel No. 2.
The proposed subdivision meets the requirements of
Ordinance No. 460 and the original Conditions of
Approval for Parcel Map No. 23354. The minimum
lot size required by Parcel Map No. 23354 is .67
acres. In addition, the new parcels coincide with
the proposed dealership in the approved Plat Plan
No. 10343. The subdivision of the subject property
is a logical extension of the development of an auto
center in this area by providing for a new
dealership.
Circulation
Currently the property is acc~ed by Motor Car
Parkway which is fully improved with curb and
gutter and asphalt paving. The parcels each have
adequate access for their development.
The subject parcel is located in the C-1/C-P zone
which is designated as general retail. The zoning
permits automobile dealerships and the development
of this property is in conjunction with the general
STAFFRPT\PM25599 2
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS:
characteristic of the area which is an auto center.
The Southwest Area Plan designates the area as
commercial and the proposed use will likely be in
conformance with the future General Plan.
The property has been graded and environmental
issues were analyzed and mitigated in the original
Parcel Map No. 23354. In accordance with CEQA, an
initial study has been completed for the project and
a Negative Declaration is recommended for the
proposal.
Tentative Parcel Map No. 25599
The proposed Tract Map will not have a
significant negative impact on the
environment, as determined in the Initial
Study performed for the project. A Negative
Declaration is recommended for adoption.
There is a reasonable probability that this
project will be consistent with the future
General Plan.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to, or interference
with, the future adopted General Plan, if the
proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with
the plan.
The proposed use complies with State
planning and zoning law. The project
conforms to the proposed zoning for the site
and to Ordinance No. u,60, Schedule E.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configurations, ac~--s, and
density.
The design of the subdivision or the
proposed improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or
substantially and avoldably injure fish or
wildllfe or their habitat.
The design of the subdivision is consistent
with the State Map Act in regard to future
passive energy control opportunities.
STAFFRPT\PM25599 3
10.
11.
All lots have acceptable access to existing
and proposed dedicated right-of-ways which
are open to, and are useable by, vehicular
traffic.
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 project.
The lawful conditions stated in the project~s
Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary
to protect the public health, safety and
general welfare.
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:
Adopt the Negative Declaration for Parcel Map
No. 25599. -
Adopt Resolution No. 90 -
Approve Parcel Map No. 25599 based on the
Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff
Report and subject to the attached Conditions
of Approval.
SP:ks
Attachments
Conditions of Approval
R esol ution
Initial Study
Exhibits
STAFFRPT\PM25599 4
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Parcel Map No. 25599
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 lagislative body concerning Tentative
Parcel Map No. 25599, 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 subdlvider 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 Planning Commission
approval date unless extended as provided by Ordinance ~,60.
Thefinal map shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer or licensed land
surveyor subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision
Map Act, Riverside county Subdivision Ordinance ~60.
All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall
continue in force until the governing body accepts or abandons such offers.
All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the City.
Street names shall be subject to approval of the City of Temecula.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities,
etc., shall be shown on the final map if within the land division boundary. All
offers of dedication shall provide for nonexclusive public road and utility
access. All easements, offers of dedication and conveyances shall be
submitted and recorded as directed by the City of Temecula.
Legal access as required by Ordinance ~60 shall be provided from the parcel
map boundary to a City maintained road.
STAFFRPT\PM25599 1
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
All delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordat(on of the final
map.
The subdivider shall comply with the environmental health recommendations
outlined in the County Health Department's Transmittal dated September 11,
1990.
The subdivlder shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined
in the Riverside County Flood Control District's letter dated 1-6-90 a 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 u,60, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities
shall be collected by the Road Commissioner prior to recordat(on 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 September 11, 1990, a
copy of which is attached.
The subdlvider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building
and Safety Department: Grading Section's transmittal dated February 13,
1990, a copy of which is attached.
The subdlvider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the San
Bernard(no County Museum transmlttal dated February 9, 1990, a copy of
which is attached.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the
provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee sat 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.
Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development
standards of the C-1/C-P zone.
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 City Engineer. Prior to the recordation of the final
map, a copy of the 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 130) 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 lure(hare."
STAFFRPT\PM25599 2
Indicate the availability of domestic water services to the subject
property as of the date of recordation of the final map.
16.
The following note shall be placed on the final map: Constraints
affecting this property are shown on the accompanying Environmental
Constraints Sheet, the original of which is on file at the office of the
City Engineer. These constraints affect all parcels.
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern
Municipal Water District Transmittal dated February 1, 1990, a copy of which
is attached.
17.
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the
University of California - Archaeological Research Unit Transmittal dated
February 6, 1990, a copy of which is attached.
18.
Record a reciprocal access agreement for the 30~ mutual ingress and egress
easement and for maintenance of the common driveway.
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 ~ements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
19.
The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act,
and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions.
20.
The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered
Civil Engineer, subject to all the requirements of the State of California
Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No. ~60.
PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL:
21. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District:
Riverside County Flood Control district;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department:
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department; and
CATV Franchise.
STAFFRPT\PM25599 3
CCgR's shall be provided or shown to exist to provide that if Motor Car
Parkway is not maintained in the condition required by the CC~,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 CC&R's or the City ordinances. The property shall be subject
to a llen in favor of the City to secure any such expense not promptly
reimbursed.
23.
Reciprocal access easements ensuring access to all parcels shall be provided
by CC~,R's or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrent with the map.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
24.
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 CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
25.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for t, ~ffic 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 amotmt of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest
such increaee.
Transportation Enqineering
PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL
26.
The developer shall contribute his pro rata share of the design and
construction costs of the traffic signal at Ynez Road and Motor Car Parkway.
The pro rata percentage shall be prepared by a registered Traffic Engineer
and shall be based on trip generation and trip distribution values or other
methods as approved by the City Engineer.
STAFFRPT\PM25599 4
" cs vEDGEp 2 J
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
/DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
4065 COUNTY CIRCLE DR. RIVERSIDE, CA. 92503 (MRdinq Address - P.O. Box 7600 9~513-7600)
FAC5 # (714) 358-4529
September 11. 1990
CITY OF TEMECULA
43180 Business Park Drive.
Temecula, CA 92390
Suite 200
AIIN: Steve Padovan
RE: PARCEL MAP NO. 25599: BEING A DIVISION OF PARCEL 2 OF
PARCEL MAP 23354. ON FILE IN BOOK 152 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGES
74-76, IN THE OFFICE OF RIV~;MSIDE COUNTY RECORDER. ALSO
BEING A PORTION OFTHE I.~;MECULA RANCHO.
(Z LOTS)
Dear Gentlemen:
The Department of Public Health has reviewed Parcel MaD No.
25599. and recommend that:
A water system shall be installed accordlnu to
plans and specification as approved bv the water
company and the Health Department. Permanent
prints of the plans of the wa~er system shall
be submitted ~n triplicate, wlth a minimum scale
not less than one inch equals 200 feet, alon~ with
the orlalnal drawin~ to the County Surveyor.
The prints shall show the Internal pipe d~ameter,
location of valves and fire hydrants; p~pe and
3olnt specifications, and the size of the main
at the nunctlon of the new system to the
exlst~n~ system. The plans shall comply ~n all
respects with Div. 5, Part 1, Chapter 7 of the
California Health and Safety Code, California
Administrative Code, Title 22. Chapter 16. and General
Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of the
State of California, when applicable. The plans shall
be s~Uned by a req~stered engineer and water company
with the followln~ certification: "I certify that the
desjan of the water system ~n Parcel MaD No. 25599, is
~n accordance wlth the water system expansion plans of
the Rancho California Water District and that the
water service, storaqe and distribution system will be
adequate to provide water servlce to such Parcel.
City of Temecula
Page Two
ATTN: Steve Padovan
September 11, 1990
This certification does not constitute a Guarantee
that it will supply water to such Parcel map at any
sDeclfic quantities, flows or pressures for fire
protection or any other purpose", This certification
shall be sloned by a responsible official of the water
company, Th~...~}~.n.~.__m~..._~_~.~.~m.~.~&~.....~.~.._.~._.~_o_un~.~_
This subdivision has a statement from Rancho California
Water District agreeing to serve domestic water to each and
every lot in the subdivision on demand providing
satisfactory financial arrangements are completed with the
subdivider, It will be necessary for financial arrangements
to be made prior to the recordatlon of the flnal map.
This subdivision is within the Eastern Municipal Water
District and shall be connected to the sewers of the
D~strlct, The sewer system shall be installed accordlno to
plans and specifications as aDproved by the District, the
County Surveyor and the Health Department. Permanent prints
of the plans of the sewer system shall be submitted in
triplicate, along with the original drawinG, to the County
surveyor. The prints shall show the internal D1De diameter,
location of manholes, complete profiles, pipe and .]olnt
specifications and the size of the sewers at the .junction of
the new system to the exlstin~ system, A single plat
indicatln~ location of sewer lines and water lines shall be
a portion of the sewage plans and water lines shall be a
portion of the sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall
be signed by a registered enolneer and the sewer district
with the following certification: "I certify that the
design of the sewer system in Parcel MaD No. 25599 is in
accordance with the sewer system expansion plans of the
Eastern Municipal Water District and that the waste disposal
system is adequate at this time to treat the anticipated
wastes from the proposed parcel map,
City of Temecula
Page 3
ATTN: Steve Padovan
SeDtember I1, 1990
It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be
comDletely flnallzed Drlor to recoFdatlon of the final maD.
Sincerely,
Health Specialist IV
SM:dr
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
CHI[F ENGINEE:R
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 arming Department
County Administrative Center
Riverside, California
Attention: Regional Team No. E Re: /D/~ Z~ 5f~
P1 anner 3~ef~C A,Jo.,v~"~' /
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 ,T~/q L/~//~ ~/-~/f~.rrge-l{~/~
DP-Area c
drainage plan fees shall be paid in accord e wit he applicable rules and
regulations.
The proposed zoning is consistent with existing flood hazards. Some flood
control facilities or floodproofing may be required to fully develop to the
implied density.
The District's report dated is still current for this project.
The District does not object to the proposed minor change.
This project is a part of F/I/~ ~3 ~y The project will be
free of ordinary storm flood hazard when improvements ~ave been constructed in
accordance with approved plans.
The attached comments apply.
cry ~(_i
~OHN H. ICASHUBA
~r Civil Engineer
DATE:
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
46-209 OASIS STREET, SUITE 405
INDIO, CA 92201
(619) 342-8886
REE:EI { -4
R E ' NTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
IN COOPERATION WITH THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
AND FIRE PROTECTION
GLEN J. NEWMAN
FIRE CHIEF
Sept. 11, 1990
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
3760 12TH STREET
RIVERSIDE. CA 92501
(714) 275-4777
TO:
ATTN:
RE:
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PARCEL MAP 25599
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land division,
the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided
in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection
standards:
FIRE PROTECTION
The Riverside County Fire Department has no comments or conditions for fire
protection requirements.
All fire protection requirements were addressed on related Plot Plan 11240.
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
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
GRADING SECTION
TO: PLANNING / JEFF ADAMS
FROM: TONY HARMON
DATE: February 13, 1990
RE: PM 25599
APN 921-680-002
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 Chapter 70 of the 1988 Uniform Building
Code as amended by Ordinance 457.73.
Prior to issuance of any building
obtain a grading permit and approval
Safety Department.
permit, the property owner shall
to construct from the Building and
Provide verification that any existing grading was permitted and than
approval to construct was obtained from the Building and Safety
Department.
Plant and irrigate fill slopes greater than or equal to 3' and/or cut
slopes greater than or equal to 5' 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.
Provide drainage facilities and terracing in conformance with Section
7012 of the Uniform Building Code.
NOTE: For the final grading plan, please provide the applicable information
from Building and Safety Department grading forms: 284-120, 284-21, 284-86,
and 284-46. These forms are available at the Building and Safety Department
offices.
:)iVE )iDE COUll ,u
D'PA:rM'n-
DATE: January 23, 1990 ~(~
Building and Safety - Land
Building and Safety FE 14 ~O UCR - ARU
- Grading
Surveyor - Ken Teich San BernardinD County Museum
Road Depart~nt RI~i~ Co~unity Plans
Health - Ralph Luchs
Fire Protection
Flood Control District
Fish & Ga~
U.S. Postal Service - Ruth E. )ridson
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services
County Superintendent of Schools
Rancho California Water District
Southern California Edison - Doug Davies
Southern California Gas
General Telephone
City of Temecula PARCEL HAP 25599 - (Tm 5} - E.A. 34717 -
Temecula Union School District Tom Griffin ~rkham & Associates -
Lake Elsinore Unified School District Rancho California Area - First
Supervisorial District - N of Solana Way,
E of Ynez Rd. - C-1 Zone 4.31 Acres
into 2 Parcles- Schedule E - Mod 119 -
A.P. 921-680-002
Please review the case described above, along with the attached case map. A Land
Division Committee meetiqg has been tentatively scheduled for February B, 1990. If it
clears, it will then go to public hearing.
Your comments and recommendations are requested prior to February 8, 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
Jeff Adam at 787-1363.
Planner
CG~IMENTS:
The parcel is located on the fossiliferous Pauba Formation. Construction excavation
will impact nonrenewable paleontol~ic resources.
The developer must retain a qualified vertebrate paleontologist to develop a site-specific
program to mitigate impacts to paleontologic resources. This program should include:
(1) monitoring of excavation by a qualified paleontologic monitor; (2) preparation of
recovered specimens, includin9 sediment processin for small vertebrate fossils; (3}
curation of specimens into an established repo ' y; and (4) a report of findings with
DA '
PLEASE print name and title Dr All~n R. GriP~PmPr, M,,~Amlm~ Directnr
gm Telephone
4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 787'6181
46'209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201
(619) 342-8277
Lastern !XYlXunicipa[ WaterDistrict
D. James L~ughlln
Riverside Co. Planning Dept.
4080 Lemon St., 9th Floor
Riverside, Ca 92501
SUBJECT:
John M, Coudures, President
FEB 1990
RIVER61DE COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
L,~C_
The District is responding to your request for comments on the subject project
relative to water and/or sewer service. The items checked below apply to this
project review.
The subject project:
Is not within EMWD's:
~" water service area
sewer service area
/ Will be required to construct/provide the following facilities if to
be served by EMWD:
Sewer Service
Any and all necessary regionally sized onsite and offsite gravity sewers and
appurtenant works that might include monitoring manholes, lift stations, force
mains, and effluent disposal/use. Sewers will not be allowed along lot
lines/private land. Fee payment and participation in regional sewers, treatment,
and effluent disposal must be met. Only wastes acceptable to EMWD regulations
will be allowed. 5~-~J~ ~'~ A¢>-~-~
EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
Planning Department
2045 S. SanJacinto Street · Post Office Box 8300 · SanJacinto, California 92383-1300 · Telephone (714) 925-7676
:IEVEqNDE COUnE.u
~T~: ~anuary ~3, lggoPLAnninC~ DEPA:IaTIEnE
Building and Safety - Land rn UMunicipal Water District-Sewer
Building and Safety - Grad AR
Surveyor - Ken Teich
Road Department
Health - Ralph Luchs
Fire Protection
Flood Control District
Fish & Game
U.S. Postal Service - Ruth E.
San Bernardino County Museum
Community Plans
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services
County Superintendent of Schools
Rancho California Water District
Southern California Edison - Doug Davies
Southern California Gas
General Telephone
City of Temecula
Temecula Union School District
Lake Elsinore Unified School District
JAN 29 1990
PAMCEL MA~ 25599 o (Tm 5) - E.A. 34717 -
Tom Griffin - Markham & Associates -
Rantim California Area , - First
Supervlsorial ~tstrtet - N o~ Solana Way,
E of Ynez Rd. - C-1 Zone - 4.31 Acres
into 2 Parcles- Schedule E -Mod 119 -
A.P. 921-680-002
Please revi, t,e case described above. ,lo,g with t,e ,tt~.2.i ~ ,p. A La.d
Division Committee meeting has been tentatively scheduled ~ y 8, 1990. If it
clears, it will then go to public hearing.
Your comments and recommendations are requested prior to February 8, 1990 in order that we
may include them in the staff report for this particular case.
Should you have any questions regarding this
Jeff Adams at 787-1363.
Planner
item, please do not hesitate to contact
The project area has been surveyed for cultural resources as part of a larger
project (see MF 991); no archaeological sites are located within the project
boundaries. If, during construction, cultural resources are encountered, it
is recommended that the area be reevaluated by a qualified archaeologist.
DATE: 2/6/90 SIGNATURE
PLEASE print name and title
gm Telephone
EASTERN iNFORMATION CENTER
Archaootegicet Research Unit
UniversiitY of California
Rher~ido, CA 92¶?1
4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 787'6181
46'209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201
(619) 342-8277
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNINC COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PARCEL MAP NO. 25599
TO SUBDIVIDE A 4.31 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO PARCELS
AT u, 1872 MOTOR CAR PARKWAY IN THE TEMECULA
AUTO CENTER.
WHEREAS, Tom Griffin filed Parcel Map No. 25599 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
November 5, 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 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:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
[ 2 ) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
~a)
There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
STAFF R PT\PM25599 3
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
~C)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Parcel Map is consistent with the SWAP and
meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government
Code, to wit:
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 Parcel
Map No. 25599 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.
STAFF R PT\PM25599 2
D. Pursuant to Section 6.5, no Parcel Map may be approved
unless the applicant demonstrates the proposed use will not be
detrimental to the health safety and welfare of the community, and
further, that any Parcel Map approved shall be subject to such
conditions as shall be necessary to protect the health, safety and
general welfare of the community.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Parcel Map
proposed is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the
proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect on this case because the mitigation measures described on
attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project
and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Parcel
Map No. 25599 for the subdivision of a ~,.31 acre parcel into two parcels located at
~,1872 Motor Car Parkway subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of November, 1990.
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
CHAIRMAN
) 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 5th day of November, 1990 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNINC COMMISSIONERS
STAFFRPT\PM25599 3
APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth
herein above in this Resolution of approval for Parcel Map No. 25599.
DATED: By
Name
Title
STAFF R PT\PM25599 ~
:tiVE::DiDE counc,u
PL !IllirlG DEPA:tCnlEnC
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (E.A.) NUMBER: *-~ + 7/7
PROJECT CASE TYPE(S) AND NUMBERS(S): ~/N~]k__ ~
APPLICANT'S NAME: 'T't"~M ~4;~l/::qtql~J,
NAME OF PERSON(s) PREPARING E.A.: , I, ~5 I. PROJECT INFORMATION
A. DESCRIPTION (include proposed minimum lot size and uses as applicable):
STANDARD EVALUATION
MODULE NUMBERCs>: I /
B. TOTAL PROJECT AREA: ACRES
C. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.(s):
O. EXISTING ZONING:
E. PROPOSED ZONING:
F. STREET REFERENCES:
IS THE PROPOSAL IN CONFORMANCE?
IS THE PROPOSAL IN CONFORMANCE?
-~----,' --,' b4A.y) ~"-'-' ~F' YNw'~-
G. SECTION, TOWNSHIP, RANGE DESCRIPTION OR ATTACH A LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
H. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS
II. COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION DESIGNATION
Check the appropriate option(s) below and proceed accordingly.
[] All or part of the project site is in "Adopted Specific Plans," "REMAP" or "Rancho Villages Community
Policy Areas". Complete Sections III, IV (B and C only), V and VI.
· All or part of the project site is in "Areas Not Designated as Open Space". Complete Sections Ill, IV
(A, B and D only), V and VI.
[] All or part of the project site has an Open Space and Conservation designation other than those mentioned
above. Complete Sections III, IV (A, 8, and E only), V and VI.
295-70 (New 12/87) 1
III. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS AND RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
A. indicateffenature~fthepr~sed~anduseasdeterminedfr~mthede~cdpti~nsasf~undinC~mpreh~siveG~nera~P~anFigure
VL3 (Circle One). This information is necessary to determine the al~ropriate land use suitability ratings in Section III.B.
NA - Not Applicable Critical Essential Normal-High Risk L,,,""~maI-Low Risk~
B. Indicate with a yes (Y) or no (N) whether any environmental hazard end/or resource issues may significantly affect or be affected
by the proposal. All referenced figures are contained in the Comprehaneive ~al Plan. For any issue marked yes (Y) write
additional data sources, agencies COnsulted, findings Of fact and any mitigation measures under Section V. Also, where indicated,
circle the appropriate land use suitability or noise acceptability rating(s). (See definitions at bottom of this page).
HAZARDS
Alquist-Priolo Special Studies or County Fault
Hazard Zones (Fig. VI.1 )
NA PS U R (Fig, VI,3)
2. H Liquefaction Potential Zone (Fig. VI.1 ) 13. hi
NA S PS U R (Fig. VL4)
3. hi Groundshaking Zone (Fig VI.1) ~ 14. ~
NA S PS U R (Fig. VI.5)
4. r4 Slopes (Riv. Co. S00 Scale Slope Maps) 15. r~
5. ki Landslide Risk Zone (Riv. Co. 800 Scale
Seismic Maps or On-site Inspection) 16. ~
NA S PS U R (Fig. VI.6)
6. r4 Rockfall Hazard (On-site Inspection) 17. h(
7. ~ Expansive Soils (U.S.D.A. Soil 'b,e,a~. 18. ('~
Conservation Service Soil Surveys) 19. T~
8. ~ Erosion (U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation/~eO. 20. ~'4
Service Soil Surveys) 21. r4
9. ~'J Wind Ersosion & Blowsand (Fig. VI.1, 22. ~
Ord. 460, Soc. 14.2&Ord. 484) 23. ~
10. t4 Dam Inundation Area (Fig. VI.7) 24.
11. ~,l Floodplains (Fig. VI.7) 25.
NA U R (Fig. VI.8)
Airport Noise (Fig. 11.18.5, 11.18.11
& Vl.12 & 1984 AICUZ Report, M.A.F.B.)
NA A B C D (Fig, V1.11)
Railroad NOise (Fig. VI.13 - VI.16)
NA A B C D (Fig, V1.11)
Highway Noise (Fig. VI.17 - VI.29)
NA A B C D (Fig, V1.11)
Other Noise
NA A B C D (Fig, V1.11)
. . Project Generated Noise Affecting
Noise Sensitive Uses (Fig. VI.11 )
· _ Noise Sensitive Project (Fig. VI.11 )
· . Air Quality Impacts From Project
· Project Sensitive to Air Quality
·. Water Quality Impacts From Project
.. Project Sensitive to Water Quality
_ Hazardous Materials and Wastes
Hazardous Fire Area (Fig. VI.30 - VI.31 )
Other
Other
26._J~_
27._~.
28.__~__
29._~..
30.
31.
RESOURCES
Agriculture (Fig. VI.34 - VI.35)
In or Near an Agricultural Preserve
(Riv. Co. Agricultural Land Conversation
Contract Maps)
Wildlife (Fig. VI.36 - VI.37) ~. I~.
Vegetation (Fig. VI.38 - VI.40)
Mineral Resources (Fig. VI.41 - VI.42)
Energy Resources (Fig. VI.43 - VI.44)
32. I%J
33. r'J
34.
35.
36.
37.
Scenic Highways (Fig. VL45)
Histodc Resources (Fig. VI.32 - VI.33)
Archaeological Resources
(Fig. VL32 - VI.33 & VI.46 - VI.48)
Palsontological Resources
(Palsontological Resources Map)
Other
Other
Definitions for Land Use Suitability and Noise Acceptability Ratings
NA - Not Applicable S - Generally Suitable PS - Provisionally Suitable
U - Generally Unsuitable R - Restricted A - Generally Acceptable
B - Conditionally Acceptable C - Generally Unacceptable D - Land Use Discouraged
395-70 (New 12/87) 2
IV. LAND USE DETERMINATION
A. Complete this part unless the project iS located in "Adopted Specific Plans", "REMAP" or "Rancho
Villages Community Policy Areas."
1. OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION MAP DESIGNATION(s):
2. ~ND USE P~NNING AR~: ~ ~~ T~
3. SUBAR~, IF ANY:
4. COMMUNI~ POLICY AR~, IF ANY:
5. COMMUNITY PLAN, IFANY:
6. COMMUNITY PLAN DESIGNATION(s), IF ANY:
7. SUMMARY OF POLICIES AFFECTING PROPOSAL:
For all projects, inidcate with a yes (Y) or no (N) whether any pul~lic facilities and/or services issues may significantly affect
or be affected by the proposal. All referenced figures are contained_in the COmprehensive General Plan. For any issue
marked yes (Y), write data sources, agencies consulted, findings of fact, end mitigation measures under Section V.
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
1. Y Circulation (Fig. IV. 1-IV. 11. DisCuss in 10. ~J
Sec. v Existing, Planned & Required Roods)
2. 1J Bike Trails (Fig. IV. 12 - IV. 13)
3. ~f Water (Agency Letters)
4. ~ Sewer (Agency Letters)
5./J Fire Services (Fig. IV. 16 - IV.18)
6. I.J Shedff Services (Fig IV.17 - IV. 18)
7- k) Schools (Fig. IV. 17 - IV.18)
8. ~J Solid Weste (Fig. IV. 17-1V.18)
9. ~J Parks and RecreatiOn (Fig. IV. 19 - IV.20)
11.t,J
12PJ
13~
14.~,/
15./U
16. jk)
17.
Equestrian Trails (Fig. IV. 19 - IV.24/
Riv. Co. 800 Scale EQuestrian Trail Maps)
Utilities (Fig. IV.25 - IV.26)
Libraries (Fig. IV.17 - IV. 18)
Health Services (Fig. IV.17 - IV.18)
Airports (Fig. 11.18.2 - 11,18.4,
11.18.8 - 11.18.10 & IV.27 - IV.36)
Disaster Preparedness
City Sphere of Influence
Other
C. If all or part of the project is located in "Adopted Specific Plans", "REMAP" or "Rencho Villages Community Policy
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~p~se~c~nsistentwiththep~~iclesanddesignati~ns~ftheappr~prlatedecument`
and therefore consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan? If not, explain:
295-70 (New 12/87)
IV. LAND USE DETERMINATION (continued)
D. If all or part of the project site is in "Areas not Designated as Open Space", end is not in a Community Plen, complete
questions 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7. Complete questions 4, 5, 6 end 7 if it is in a Community Plen.
1. Land use category(ies) necessary to support the propoeed project. ALso indicate lend use type
(i.e. residential, commercial, etc.)
Current lend use category(ies) for the site based on existing conditions.
(i.e. residential, commercial, etc.)
Also indicate lend use type
3. If D.1 differs from D.2, will the difference be resolved at the devebprnent stage? Explain:
4. Community Plan designation(s): ~ -
5. Is the proposed project consistent with the policies end designations of the Community Plen?
If not, explain:
6. Is the proposal compatible with existing end proposed surrounding lend uses?
If not, explain: ,y~mj,
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 en Open Space end Conservation designation, complete the following:
1. State the designation(s):
2. Is the proposal consistent with the designation(s)? If not, explain:
3. Based on this initial study, is the proposal consisent with the Comprehensive General Plan?
If not, reference by Section and Issue Number those issues identifying inconsistencies:
295-70 (New 12/87)
V. INFORMATION SOURCES, FINDINGS OF FACT AND MITIGATION MIRES
A. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED BEFORE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CAN BE COMPLETED:
DATE DATE ADEQUACY
SECTION/ INFORMATION INFORMATION INFORMATION Dt:I=RMINATION
ISSUE NO. REQUIRED REQUESTED RECEIVED (YES/NO,DATE)
B. For each issue marked yes (Y) under Sections III.B and IV.B, identify the Section and issue number and do the
following, in the format as shown below:
1. List all additional relevant data sources, including agencies consulted.
2. State all findings of fact regarding environmental concems.
3. State specific mitigation measures, if identifiable without requiring an environmental impact report (E.I.R.)
4. If additional information is required before the anvironmantal assessment can be completed, refer to
Subsection A.
5. If additional sheets are needed to complete this section, check the box at the end of the section and attach
the necessary sheets.
SECTION/
ISSUE NO.
SOURCES, AGENCIES CONSULTED, FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MEASURES:
295°70 (New 12/87)
V. INFORMATION SOURCES, FINDINGS OF FACT AND MITIGATION MEASURES (continued)
SECTION/
ISSUE NO. SOURCES, AGENCIES CONSULTED, FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MEASURES:
[] See affachedpages.
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DETERMINATION:
[] The project will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration may be
prepared.
(or)
[] The project could have a significant effect on the environment; however, there will not be a significant
effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in Section V have been applied to the
project and a Negative Declaration may be prepared.
(or)
[] The project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Reporl
is required,
Name: Date:
Prepared by
295-70 (New 12/87)
N
VICINITY MtkP
//
CZ 1954
C-I/C-P
CZ 5008
· 1'
!
/
M -SC
CZ :517:~
D.P-S
C-P-S
CZ 4070
CZ
CZ 4
'%,
M
CZ 915
CZ 915
CZ
CZ 1706
'Z'ON IN
::]:
Frl
(./'1
-t
m
-I
,4:)
0
7
I
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
CASE NO.: ~cc~l /~-f~
The followin9 fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this
project.
Fee
Habitat Conservation Plan
(K-Rat)
Parks and Recreation
(Qulmby)
Public Facility
( Traffic Mitigation )
Public Facility
(Traffic Signal Mitigation)
Public Facility
( Library )
Fire Protection
Flood Control
{ADP)
Condition of Approval
Condition No. / ~
Condition No.
Condition No. ~- 5
Condition No.
Condition No.
Condition No.
Condition No. 7__ L~
Forms/PI ng -M9
HIGGS, FLETCHER & MACK
613 WEST VAI,,I, EY PARIONAy
SUITE 345
ESCO NDID0, CAUFORNIA 9a)25-2552
(619) 748-1201 TELECOPIER (619) 743-9926
26 October 1990
MR GARY THORNHILL
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
POST OFFICE BOX 3000
TEMECULA CA 92390
RE: Parcel Map 25599
Hearing Date - Nov. 5, 1990
Dear Mr. Thornhill:
Please be advised that the proposed subdivision of the 4.31 acre
commercial parcel is prohibited by the terms and Declaration of
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of the Rancho Temecula Auto
Park. The proposed subdivision should not be approved.
Very truly yours,
HIGGS, FLETCHER & MACK
~IL L. LAPIERRE
GLL/dyc
cc: Mr. Jack Raymond
ITEM
Case No.:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 5, 1990
Parcel Map No. 25212/Change of Zone No. 5663
Prepared By: Steve Padovan
Recommendation: Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
Durango Development Co.
Durango Development Co.
To divide a 5.02 acre residential parcel into ~
parcels approximately 1 acre each, and to change
the existing R-R 2.5 zoning to R-R which allows for
half acre lots.
Northeast corner of Nicolas and Lielet Roads.
R-R 2.5 IRural Residential, 2.5 acre minimum)
North: R-R 2.5
South: R-R 2.5
East: R-R 2.5
West: R-R 2.5
( Rural Residential,
2.5 acre minimum)
( Rural Residential,
2.5 acre minimum)
( Rural Residential,
2.5 acre minimum)
( Rural Residential,
2.5 acre minimum)
R-R I Rural Residential)
Low Density Residential
North:
South:
East:
West:
Single Family Residential
Vacant
Single Family Residential
Vacant
STAFF R PT\PM25212 1
PROJECT STATISTICS:
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
No. of Acres:
Proposed Lot
Sizes:
5.02
Parcel 1 - 1.06 acre gross
Parcel 2 - 1.01 acre gross
Parcel 3 - 1 .~,9 acre gross
Parcel u, - 1.0,6 acre gross
The application for Tentative Parcel Map No. 25212
and Change of Zone No. 5663 was originally
submitted to the Riverside County Planning
Department on December 1, 1989. It has
subsequently been through the LDC process in the
county and, upon transfer to the city, has gone
through a pre-development review and a formal
review by city staff and departments. A biological
study indicated that no significant affect on
biological resources will occur due to the
development of the site. The site is located within
the Stephence Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation
Plan and will be subject to mitigation fees.
The project site contains an existing single family
home where the proposed Parcel I will be located.
The remainder of the site is basically undisturbed
and consists of gently rolling slopes with a small
drainage swale traversing the site. All roadways
surrounding the property are unimproved with a
decomposed granite surface.
The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 5.02 acre
parcel at the northeastern corner of Nicolas Road
and Liafer Road into ~ parcels: Parcel 1 - 1.06
gross acres; Parcel 2 - 1.01 gross acres; Parcel 3 -
1 .u,9 gross acres; Parcel u, - 1 .u,6 gross acres. In
addition, the applicant is requesting a Change of
Zone from Rural Residential - 2.5 acre minimum lot
size to Rural Residential which allows a minimum lot
size of 20,000 square feet. The Change of Zone
request would permit the number and size of lots
proposed.
The proposed parcel map is currently surrounded
by low density residential lots ranging from 2 to 5
acres. This area retains a rural character with
unimproved roads and septic systems. In addition,
several specific plans have been approved to the
north and east of the project area with densities
ranging from 1/2 to 1 dwelling unit per acre. The
applicants are proposing to create L~ one acre lots
which would increase the density to 1 unit per acre
STAFFR PT\PM25212 2
GENERAL PLAN/~ND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS:
from the current 1 unit per 2.5 acres which is
required by the current zoning. By rezoning to
R-R, the applicant will be permitted to increase the
density to 1 unit per half acre. Staff feels that one
acre lots will not have a significant impact on the
rural character of the immediate surrounding area.
One acre lots are consistent with the low density
residential atmosphere and can support septic
systems which are prevalent in the area.
Circulation
Access to the new lots will be from a new cul-de-sac
which will be fully improved with curb and gutter.
Liefer Road will be improved with half street
improvements. Nicolas Road will be improved with
an asphaltic base and curb and gutter along the
length of the project site prior to issuance of
building permits. This is due to the fact that this
will be a city maintained roadway. No acce~- will be
permitted to the parcels from Nicolas.
The applicant has requested a zone change from
R-R 2.5 to R-R which permits half acre lots. This
proposed zoning will not have a significant effect on
the environment because it continues to promote a
rural atmosphere with low density development. In
addition, several higher density developments are
designated for the areas to the north and east.
Nicolas will be developed as a major arterial with a
110 foot right-of-Way to service the future higher
density developments. Furthermore. the parcel has
a designated density of 1-2 DU/AC according to the
Southwest Area Plan and will probably be in
conformance with the future General Plan.
An initial study has been completed for the project
and a Negative Declaration is reco,.,.ended for the
proposal.
Chanqe of Zone No. 5663
The proposed zone change will not have a
significant adverse effect on the
environment. as determined in the initial
study performed for this project. A Negative
Declaration is reco.~'tl.ended for adoption.
STAFFRPT\PM25212 3
There is a reasonable probability that the
zone change from R-R 2.5 to R-R will be
consistent with the future General Plan.
Further. densities and uses proposed are
similar to existing densities and uses in the
vicinity of the project site.
There is not a reasonable 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 project is not
of significant scope.
The proposed change in district classification
is reasonable and beneficial at this time as it
is a logical expansion of residential uses
which exist adjacent to. and in the vicinity
of. the project site.
The proposed change in district classification
will likely be consistent with the goals.
policies and action programs which will be
contained in the General Plan when it is
ultimately adopted. The density and land use
proposed are consistent with the Southwest
Area Plan.
The site of the proposed change in district
classification is suitable to accc~,,,3date all
the land uses currently permitted in the
proposed zoning district as it is of adequate
size and shape for the proposed residential
use. Possible land use conflicts are not likely
to arise as the project proposes residential
uses similar to those existing in the general
vicinity of the subject site.
Adequate access exists for the proposed
residential land use from Nicolas and Liefer
Roads. Additional internal access and
required road improvements to proposed lots
will be designed and constructed in
conformance with Riverside County
standards.
That said findings are supported by analysis,
minutes. maps. exhibits. and environmental
documents associated with this application
and herein incorporated by reference.
STAFFR PT\PM25212 ~.
Tentative Parcel Map No. 25212
The proposed Tract Map will not have a
significant negative impact on the
environment, as determined in the Initial
Study performed for the project. A Negative
Declaration is recommended for adoption.
There is a reasonable probability that this
project will be consistent with the future
General Plan.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to, or interference
with, the future adopted General Plan, if the
proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with
the plan.
The proposed use complies with State
planning and zoning law. The project
conforms to the proposed zoning for the site
and to Ordinance No. L~60, Schedule H.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configurations, access, and
density.
The design of the subdivision or the
proposed improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or
substantially and avoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat.
The design of the subdivision is consistent
with the State Map Act in regard to future
passive energy control opportunities.
All lots have acceptable access to existing
and proposed dedicated right-of-ways which
are open to, and are useable by, vehicular
traffic.
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 project.
STAFF R PT\PM25212 5
10.
11.
The lawful conditions stated in the project's
Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary
to protect the public health, safety and
general welfare.
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:
1. ADOPT Resolution No. 90 - ;
Recommend ADOPTION of a Negative
Declaration for Change of Zone No. 5663 and
Parcel Map No. 25212;
Recommend APPROVAL of Change of Zone No.
5663 based on the Analysis and Findings
contained in the Staff Report.
Recommend APPROVAL of Parcel Map No.
25212 based on the Analysis and Findings
contained in the Staff Report and subject to
the attached Conditions of Approval.
SP:ks
Attachments
1.
3.
2.
Conditions of Approval
R esol utlon
Environmental Assessment
Exhibits
STAFFRPT~PM25212 6
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Parcel Map No. 25212
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 employccs
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. 25212, 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 ~60,
Schedule H unless modified by the conditions listed below. This approved
tentative parcel map will expire two years after the Planning Commission
approval date unless extended as provided by Ordinance ~,60.
The final map shall be prepared by a ragiatered civil engineer or licensed land
surveyor subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision
Map Act, Riverside county 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.
Street names shall be subject to approval of the City of Temecula.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities,
etc., shall be shown on the final map if within the land division boundary. All
offers of dedication shall provide for nonexclusive public road and utility
access. All easements, offers of dedication and conveyances shall be
submitted and recorded as directed by the City of Temecula.
Legal access as required by Ordinance ~60 shall be provided from the parcel
map boundam/to a City maintained road.
STAFF R PT\PM25212 1
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
All delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final
map.
The subdivider shall comply with the environmental health recommendations
outlined in the County Health Department's transmittal dated April 27, 1990,
a copy of which is attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined
in the Riverside County Flood Control District's latter dated March 28, 1990,
a 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 Commissioner prior to recordation of
the final map or waiver of parcel map.
The subdivider shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations
outlined in the County Fire Department's letter dated March 9, 1990, a copy
of which is attached.
The subdivlder shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building
and Safety Department: Grading Section's transmittal dated May 7, 1990, a
copy of which is attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations sat forth in the Airport
Land Use Commission letter dated October 24, 1990, a copy of which is
attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the County
Geologist's letter dated March 29, 1990, a copy of which is attached.
Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall be required to pay
applicable Quimby fees in accordance with Section 10.35 of Ordinance 1~60.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the
provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee sat 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.
Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development
standards of the R-R zone.
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 City Engineer. Prior to the recordation of the final
map, a copy of the 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.
STA F F R PT\PM25212 2
"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 recordat/on of the final map.
The following note shall be placed on the final map: Constraints
affecting this property are shown on the accompanying Environmental
Constraints Sheet, the original of which is on file at the office of the
City Engineer. These constraints affect all parcels.
18.
Parcel Map No. 25212 cannot be recorded until Change of Zone No. 5663 is
approved and effectLye.
19.
Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMIT5 the following condition 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 succ~--er'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.
Enqlneerinq 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 -~ements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further considerall/on.
20.
The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act,
and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions.
21.
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,
STAFFRPT\PM25212 3
PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL:
22. 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.
23.
Street "A" shall be improved with 36 feet of asphalt concrete pavement within
the dedicated right-d-way in accordance with County Standard No. 800,
{36~/60') cul-de-sac. County Road Department Condition Nos. 3 and 1~ shall
be deleted.
Liefer Road shall be improved with 22 feet of half street improvement plus one
12' lane within a 33 dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County
Standard No. 103, Section A I~u?/66a). County Condition Nos. 5 and 13 shall
be deleted.
25.
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.
26.
The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement executed
9uaranteeing 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, drive approaches, street lights, signing,
striping, and other traffic control devices as appropriate.
b. Domestic water systems.
27. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent.
28.
All driveways shall be located a minimum of two J2) feat from the property
line.
29.
The subdivider shall submit four prints of a comprehensive 9redin9 plan to
the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building
Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions
of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2~&" x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil
Engineer.
STAFFRPT\PM25212 ~
30.
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.
31.
Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface
drainage entering the property from adjacent areas.
32.
Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CATV Franchises of
the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time
of street improvements.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
33.
Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid
and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City EngineePs Office,
in addition to any other permits required.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to
commencement of any grading outalde of the City-maintained road right-of-
way.
35°
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 BUILDING PERMIT:
36.
A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for
review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil
Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soll Engineer shall issue a Final
Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
37.
No building permits shall be issued on any lots prior to Nicolas Road being
improved to a 110 foot dediu~ed right-d-way to Calle Medusa.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
38,
Construct full street improvements including but nat limited to, curb and
9utter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and
street lights on all interior public streets.
39.
All street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
Asphaltic emulsion Ifog seal) shall be applied not less than 14 days following
placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon
per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39, and
9q of the State Standard Specifications.
STAFFRPT\PM25212 5
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 ElR/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 {~=uming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest
such increaae.
Transportation Enqineerinq
PRIOR TO RECORDATION:
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Traffic Engineer
and approved by the City Engineer for Nicolas Road, Liafer Road, and Street
"A", and shall be included in the street improvement plans.
Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering
for the design requirements.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered
Traffic Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for any street closure
and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the City
Engineer.
RRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
All signing and striping shall be installed per the City requirements and the
approvad signing and striping plan.
STAFF R PT\ PM25212 6
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
3-9-90
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
3760 12TH STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
(714) 787-6606
TO:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ATTN: RANDY WILSON
RE: PARCEL ~ 25212 - ~aMENDED #2
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:
HAZARDOUS FIRE AREA
The land division is located in the "Hazardous Fire Area" of Riverside County as
shown on a map on file with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Any building
constructed on lots created by this land division shall comply with the special
construction provisions contained in Riverside County Ordinance 546.
Schedule ."H" fire protection. An approved standard fire hydrant (6"x4"x2{")
shall be located so that no portion of the frontage of any lot is more than
500 feet from a fire hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for 2
hours duration at 20 PSI.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINT SHEET
Should the developer choose to defer the ~ire protection requirements, an
Environmental Constraint Sheet shall be filed with the final map containing
the following: "The property is located in the Hazardous Fire Area. Prior
to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant/developer shall provide
written certification from the water company that a fire hydrant exists
within 500 feet of the driveway entrance or that financial arrangements
have been made to provide one.
MITIGATION
Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with
the Riverside County Fire Department, a cash sum of ,400.00 per lot/unit as
mitigation for fire protection impacts.
Subject: PM 25212 Page 2
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
area
KENNETH L EDWARD5
CHIEF ENGINEER
1995 MARKET STREET
P+O. BOX 1033
TELEPHONE (714) 787-2015
FAX NO. (714) 788-9965
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
RIVERS[DE, CALIFORNIA 92502
Riverside County
Planning Department
County Administrative Center
Riverside, California
Attention: Regional Team No. /
P1 anner ~-~bvoV
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 ~u~ er~r~=~Z ~r~o~s (~ App Area
drainage plan fees shall be pai~ in accor'a~an~e with the applicable rales and
regulations.
The proposed zoning is consistent with existing flood hazards. Some flood
control facilities or floodproofing may be required to fully develop to the
implied density.
The District's report dated
is still current for this project.
The District does not object to the proposed minor change.
This project is a part of . The project will be
free of ordinary storm flood hazard when improvements have been constructed in
accordance with approved plans.
The attached comments apply.
HN H. KASHUBA
enior Civil Engineer
/VlA~CH- 2c~, I~)~) 0
March 29, 1990
Leighton and Associates
27715 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 109
Rancho California, CA 92390
ATTENTION: Mark Bergmann
:liVE:biDE COUnCY
PLANNING DEPA:E ITIENC
RIVEF~51DE COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT:
Liquefaction Hazard
Project No. 11908500-11
Tentative Parcel Map 25212
A.P.N.: 914-280-012
County Geologic Report No~ 706
Rancho California Area
GENTLEMEN:
We have reviewed your report entitled "Geologic Site Reconnaissance, Tentative
Parcel Map No. 25212, Temecula Area, Riverside County, CA", dated February 7,
1990.
Your report determined that the potential for liquefaction to occur on the site
is very low to nil.
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. Final approval of the report is hereby given.
SAK:jg
CC:
Very truly yours,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Joseph A. ~ichards, Plan ng Director
CEG 120~ , ngin ri GeoT~ogist
Durango Development - Tim Crough
Norm Lostbom - Building & Safety (2)
Planning Team 1 - Randy Wilson
4080 LEMON STREET, 9TH FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 787-6181
79733 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, SUITE E
BERMUDA DUNES, CALIFORNIA 92201
(619) 342-8277
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
GRADING SECTION
FROM: O Z
DATE: May 7, 1990
RE: PM 25212 AMENDMENT # 2
APN #: 914-280-012
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 further grading in excess of 50 cubic yards, the
applicant shall obtain a grading permit and approval to construct from
the Building and Safety Department.
All grading shall conform to the 1988 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' and/or cut
slopes greater than or equal to 5' 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 lb9 cubic yards will require performance security
to be posted with the Building and Safety department.
All drainage facilities shall be designed to accommodate 100 year storm
flows.
NOTE: For the final grading plan, please provide th~ 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.
CJUNTY OF RIVERS.JE
DEPA R TMEN T OF HEAL TH
4065 COUNTY CIRCLE DR, RIVERSIDE, CA. 92505 (Mliling Address - P,O. Box 7600 9251;5-7600)
Date:
To:
From:
Review Projects:
Applicant:
Environmental or Engineering
Co. Consultants:
Information Provided:
March 27, 1990
(date deposit received)
Noise Standards:
Hwy. Prediction Model:
April 27, 1990
Randy Wilson, Planner
Team I
Riverside County Planning Department
CAC
4080 Lemon St., 9th Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
William D. Redden, CIH ~ "~/~
Supervising Industrial Hygienist
Division of Special Services
Riverside County Health Department
P.O. Box 7600
Riverside, CA 92513-7600
TT 25212
Steven Doulames
23769 Fire Tribes Trail
Murrieta, CA 92362-
Durango Development Co.
41815 Hawthorne St.
Murrieta, CA 92362
Noise Assessment and Noise Control
Recommendations for Tentative Parcel No. 25212,
County of Riverside by J.J. Van Houten and
Associates, Inc.
1. The interior noise levels in residential
dwellings shall not exceed 45 Ldn.
2. The exterior noise level shall not exceed
65 Ldn.
Using FHWA RD 77-108 Highway Traffic Prediction
Model, the noise consultant shall estimate noise
impacts (Ldn) from the Arterial Hwys. (design
capacity "C" Level of Service).
Randy Wilson, Cont ue %
Page 2
Acoustical Parameters for County Highways:
ADT design capacity of 24,000 for an Arterial Hwy., (Nicolas) quoted in
"Information Pamphlet for Riverside County Traffic Circulation and Roadway
Improvement Requirements, Revised 5/11/87."
2. Truck, Auto Mix as follows (Riverside County Road Department):
(Overall %) Day % Evening % Night %
Auto 92 69.5 12.9 9.6
Med. truck 3 1.44 .06 1.5
Hvy. truck 3 2.4 .i 2.5
3. Traffic speed of 40 mph.
4. The distance from center of the road to nearest building face in the
project estimated to be 175 feet for parcel 4 and 250 feet for parcel 3.
5. Hard site.
6. 20 dB,A weight attenuation provided by standard residential design with
windows closed.
7. Barrier calculations based on receptor at 10 feet from barrier and a 3
foot elevation.
8. Interior calculations based on receptorat 6 foot elevation inside the
dwelling, the nearest room to the noise source.
Findings:
The noise consultant provided acceptable assessment of noise
impacts from Nicolas onto the project.
Recommendations:
The following conditions shall be applied to parcels 4 and 3 of the project
based on the information provided by the acoustical consultant.
Prior to issuance of building permits for each parcel, (4 & 3), an
acoustical report shall be submitted and receive approval from Riverside
County Health Department, Division of Special Services. The acoustical
consultant shall design a noise barrier at the rear of these yards, so
that a 200 sq. foot area or greater is not exposed to highway noise greater
than 65 Ldn as projected 10 feet from the barrier at a three foot
elevation. In addition the acoustical consultant shall design
specifications for first and second stories of the dwellings so that a
70 Ldn (as projected at 175 feet from center of Nicolas) will be reduced
to interior level of 45 Ldn.
2. All lot numbers refer to March 8, 1990 amended Map No. 2, Tentative Parcel
Map 25212.
Randy Wilson, Continue~ ~"
Page 3
The applicant shall pay review fees
Riverside County Health Department,
Rate.
to the Division of Special Services,
not to exceed the Division's Hourly
CC:
Steven Doulames
Durango Development
J.J. Van Houten and Assoc.
1260 East Katella Ave.
Anaheim, CA 92805
RIVERSIDE COUNTY An{PORT LAND USE COMMISSION
~99 Ten~ Stze~ Rivemlde, C, alifornia 92501 (714) 788-9770 (714) 788-I41~ [FAX]
October 24, 1990
Timothy Crough
Durango Development Co.
41815 Hawthorne Street
Murrieta, CA 92363
File No: FV-90-109
Case: PM 25212
CZ 5663
Dear Mr. Crough,
SUBJECT: RIVERSIDE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
On October 18, 1990, the Riverside County Airport Land Use
Commission (ALUC) approved the above referenced project. The
project was approved subject to the followin9 conditions:
1. An avigation easement shall be granted by the property
owner to the French Valley Airport. '
Should you have questions, please contact me at (714) 369-9577,
Very truly yours,
EILEEN DALTON
Development Specialist
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5663 AND PARCEL MAP NO. 25212
TO SUBDIVI DE A 5.0Z ACRE RESIDENTIAL PARCEL INTO
FOUR PARCELS AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
NICOLAS AND LIEFER ROADS.
WHEREAS, Durango Development filed Change of Zone No. 5663 and
Parcel Map No. 25212 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning,
Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Zone Change and Parcel Map application was processed
in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Zone Change and
Parcel Map on November 5, 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 Zone Change and Parcel Map;
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 mat:
(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.
STAFFRPT\PM25212 1
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
(c)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, { hereinafter "SWAP" ) was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Zone Change and Parcel Map is consistent
with the SWAP and meets the requirements sat 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 Zone
Change No. 5663 and Parcel Map No. 25212
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.
STAFFRPT\PM25212 2
project will
Declaration,
D. Pursuant to Section 6.5. no Zone Change or Parcel Map may
be approved unless the applicant demonstrates the proposed use will
not be detrimental to the health safety and welfare of the community,
and further, that any Parcel Map approved shall be subject to such
conditions as shall be necessary to protect the health, safety and
general welfare of the community.
E. As condltioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Zone Change
and Parcel Map 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
not have a significant impact on the environment, and a Negative
therefore, be granted.
SECTION 3_.,:,. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends
approval of Zone Change No. 5663 and Parcel Map No. 25212 for the subdivision of
a 5.02 acre parcel into four parcels located at the northeast corner of Nicolas and
Lielet Roads subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of November, 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 5th day of November, 1990 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFFRPT\PM25212 3
APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT
) have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth
herein above in this Resolution of approval for Parcel Map No. 25212.
DATED: By
Name
Title
STAFF R PT\ PM25212 ~,
:?iVE:DiDE COUnC,u
PLAfiniI1G DEPA::ICIiIEnC
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM: STANDARD EVALUATION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (E.A.) NUMBER: ~ ~/~' '7 / MODULE NUMBER(S):
PROJECT CASE TYPE(s) AND NUMBERS(S):
APPLICANT'S NAME:
NAME OF PERSON(s) PREPARING E jr:
I. PROJECT INFORMATION
Am
DESCRIPTION (include proposed minimum lot size and uses as applicable):
B. TOTAL PROJECT AREA: ACRES
C. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.(s):
~', 0 2 ; or SQUARE FEET
'~'/V- P,~O-O/3
D. EXISTING ZONING: J~ ~/'~ - ~, v~' IS THE PROPOSAL IN CONFORMANCE? __
E. PROPOSED ZONING: J'~- ~ IS THE PROPOSAL IN CONFORMANCE? __
F. STREET REFERENCES: ~Jnr'~heo~'~ ~- Xde;e~ ~ ~.~ rtr ~'A ~:
Ge
He
SECTION, TOWNSHIP, RANGE DESCRIPTION OR ATTACH A LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
3'e c DO, 77C, l~ 2 '~J
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETtING OF THE PROJECT SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS
II. COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION DESIGNATION
Check the appropriate option(s) below and proceed accordingly.
[] All or part of the project site is in "Adopted Specific Plans," "REMAP" or "Rancho Villages Community
Policy Areas". Complete Sections III, IV (B and C only), V and VI.
[~' All or part of the pro.iect site is in "Areas Not Designated as Open Space". Complete Sections Ill, IV
(A, B and D only), V and VI.
[] All or part of the project site has an Open Space and Conservation designation other than those mentioned
above. Complete Sections III, IV (A, B, and E only), V and VI.
295-70 (New 12/87) 1
Ill. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS AND RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
A. ~ndicatethenature~fthepr~p~sed~andu~easdeterminedf~~mthede~cdpti~n~asf~undinC~mpr~hensiveGenem~RanFigure
B. ~ndicatawithayes(Y~rn~(N~whether~nyenvir~nmenta~h~zard~nd/~ra~urcei~uesmaysign~cant~ya~ect~rbea~ected
by the proposal. All referenced figures are contained in the Comprehensive General Plan. For any issue marked yes {Y) writs
additional data sources, agencies consulted, findings of tact end any mitigation measures under Section V. Also, where indicated,
circle the appropriate land use suitability or noise accel~tability rating(s). (See definitions at bottom of this page).
HAZARDS
1. J,-.') Alquist-Priolo Special Studies or County Fault 12. fJ Airpod Noise (Fig. I1.18.5, I1.18.11
Hazard Zones (Fig. VI.1) & V1.12 & 1984 AICUZ Report, M,A.F.B,)
NA PS U R (Fig. VI.3) NA A B C D (Fig, VI. 11 )
2. 'Y Liquefaction Potential Zone (Fig. Vl.1) 0/, 13. ~J Rallroad Noise (Fig. Vl.13-Vl,16)
NA S PS U R (Fig, VI.4) NA A B C D (Fig, VI.11 )
3, GroundshakingZone(FigVl.1)//~3 14.
NA S PS U R (Fig. VI.5) NA A B C D (Fig, VI. 11 )
;.__~ Slopes (Riv. Co. 800 Scale Slope Maps) 15./L,) Other NOise
· Landslide Risk Zone (Riv. Co. 800 Scale NA A B C D (Fig, VI.11 )
Seismic Maps or On-site Inspection) 16. A/Project Generated Noise Affecting
/~ NA ' S PS U R (Fig. VI.6) NoiseSenaitiveUsss(Fig. Vl.11)
6. Reckfall Hazard (On-site Inspection) 17. /'J Noise Sensitive Project (Fig. VI.11 )
7./J Expansive Soils (U.S.D.A. Soil 18. fJ Air Quality Impacts From Project
L) Conservation Service Soil Surveys) 19. k.) Project Sensitive to Air Quality
8. Erosion (U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation 20, ~ Water Quality Impacts From Project
Service Soil Surveys) 21. ~, ) Project Sensitive to Water Quality
9./J Wind Ersosion & Blowsend (Fig. VI,1, 22. J~J Hazardous Materials and Wastes
Ord. 460, Sac· 14.2 & Ord. 484) 23./V Hazardous Fire Area (Fig· VI.30 - VI.31 )
~?:__..~ Dam Inundation Area (Fig. VI·7) 24. Other
Floodplains (Fig. VI.7) 25. Other
NA U R (Fig. VI.8)
26. r'J
27. rJ
28, y
29, Y'
RESOURCES
Agriculture (Fig. VI.34 - VI.35) 32./J
In or Near an Agdcultural Prassrve ~I/Z~°D/2"7 33.
(Riv. Co. Agricultural Land Conversation 34.
Contract Maps)
Wildlife (Fig. VI.36- VI.37) //, -~'~ '~ 35.
Vegetation (Fig. VI.38 - VI,40)
Mineral Resources (Fig. VI.41 * VI.42) 36,
Energy Resources (Fig. VI.43 · VI.44) 37.
Scenic Highways (Fig. VI.45)
Histodc Resources (Fig. VI.32 - VI.33)
Archaeclegical Resources
(Fig, VI.32 - VI.33 & VI.46 - VI.48)
Paleontoiegical Resources
(Paleontoiegical Resources Map)
Other
Other
Definitions for Land Use Suitability and Noise Acceptability Ratings
NA - Not Applicable S - Generally Suitable PS - Provisionally Suitable
U - Generally Unsuitable R - Restricted A - Generally Acceptable
B - Conditionally Acceptable C - Generally Unacceptable D - Land Use Discouraged
N. LAND USE DETERMINATION
A. Complete this part unless the projed is located in "Adopted Specific Plans", "REMAP" or "Rancho
Villages Community Policy
1. OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION MAP DESIGNATION(s):
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:
B. F~ra~~pr~jects~inidca~ewithayes(Y)~rn~(N)whetheranypub~~cfaci~itiesand/~rservicesissuesmaysignificantIya~ect
or be affected by the proposal, All referenced figures are contained*in the Comprehensive General Plan, For any issue
marked yes (Y), write data sources, agencies consulted, findings of fact, and mitigation measures under Section V.
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
1, . Circulation (Fig. IV.1 -IV.11. Discuss in
Sec. V Existing, Planned & Required Roods)
2. ~ Bike Trails (Fig. IV. 12 - IV. 13)
3. I/' ~) Water (Agency Letters)
4. F-} Sewer (Agency Letters)
5- ),J Fire Services (Fig. IV.16 o IV.18)
6. ~ Shedff Services (Fig IV. 17 - IV. 18)
7. 'j' Schools (Fig. IV. 17 - IV.18)
8. }*-) Solid Wsste(Fig. IV.17-1V.18)
9./d Parks and Recreation (Fig. IV. 19 - IV.20)
10. ~,j Equestrian Trails (Fig, IV. 19 - IV.24/
Riv. Co. 800 Scale Equestrian Trail Maps)
11./~ j Utilities (Fig. IV.25- IV.26)
12./~//Libraries (Fig. IV.17 - IV. 18)
13./'J Health Services (Fig. IV. 17 - IV.18)
14. ~J AirpodS(Fig. 11.18.2-11.18.4,
11.18.8 - 11.18.10 & IV.27 - IV.36)
15 ~'-J Disaster Preparedness
16..~_ City Sphere of Influence
If all or pad of the project is located in "Adopted Specific Plans", "REMAP" or "Rancho Villages Community Policy
Areas", review in detail the specific policies applying to the proposal, and complete the following:
1. State the relevant land usa designation(s):
2. Based~nthisinltia~study~isthepr~p~sa~c~nsistentwiththepo~iclesanddesignati~ns~ftheappr~priated~cument`
and therefore consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan? If not, explain:
IV. LAND USE DETERMINATION (continue)
D. If all or pad of the project site is in "Areas not Designated as Open Space", end is not in a Community Plan, complete
questions 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7. Complete questions 4, 5, 6 end 7 ff it is in a Community Plen.
1. Land use category(ies) necessanJ to support the prol0osed project. Also indicate land use type
(i.e. residential, commercial, etc.)
Currant lend use categor~les) for the site based on existing conditions.
(i.e. residential, commercial, etc.)
Also indicate land use type
3. If D.1 differs from D.2, will the difference be rasolved at the development stage? Explain:
4, Community Plan designation(s):
5. Is the proposed project consistent with the policies end designations of the Community Plan?
If not, explain:
6. Is the proposal compatible with existing and proposed surrounding lend uses?
If not, explain:
7. Based on this initial study, is the proposal consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan?
If not, reference by Section end Issue Number those issues identifying inconsistencies:
E. If all or pad of the project site is in an Open Space and Conservation designation, complete the following:
1. State the designation(s):
2. ts the proposal consistent with the designation(s)? If not, explain:
3. Based on this initial study, is the proposal consiesnt 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 Dt'TERMINAI0N
ISSUE NO. REQUIRED REQUESTED RECEIVED (YES/NO,DATE)
B. For each issue marked yes (Y) under Sections III.B end IV.B, identify the Section and issue number and do the
following, in the format as shown below:
1. List all additional relevant data sourues, including agencies consulted.
2. State all findings of fact regarding environmental concerns.
3. State specific mitigation measures, if identifiable without requiring an environmental impact report (E.I.R.)
4. If additional information is required before the environmental assessment can be completed, refer to
Subsection A.
5. If additional sheets are needed to complete this section, check the box at the end of the section and attach
the necessary sheets.
SECTION/
ISSUE NO.
SOLIRCES, AGENCIES CONSULTED, FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MEASURES:
295-70 (New 12/87)
V. INFORMATION SOURCES, FINDINGS OF FACT AND MITIGATION MEASURES (continue)
SECTION/
ISSUE NO, SOURCES, AGENCIES CONSULTED, FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MEASURES:
[] See a~achedpages.
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DETERMINATION:
[] The project will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration may be
prepared.
(or)
[] The project could have a significant effect on the environment; however, there will not be a significant
effect in this Case because the mitigation measures described in Section V have been applied to the
project and a Negative Declaration may be prepared.
(or)
[] The project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report
is required.
Name: Date:
Prepared by
295-70 (New 12/87) 6
LIEF'ER
R~
Ro~ 'Srr'F..,
C..,RLI,-E
'~'IClNITY MIkP
N
.,. /
/4/
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST CASE NO.:~rc~{
The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this
project.
Fee
Habitat Conservation Plan
(K-Rat)
Parks and Recreation
( Qulmby )
Public Facility
I T raffi c Mitigation )
Public Facility
(Traffic Signal Mitigation)
Public Facility
{ Library )
Fire Protection
Flood Control
(ADP)
Condition of Approval
Condition No. I 5
Condition No. I LF
Condition No. L~C)
Condition No.
Condition No. ~ Cf
Condition No. [ (2P
Condition No. :~
Forms/PIng-M9
ITEM #5
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Planning Director
November 5, 1990
Change of Zone No. 5
R ecommen dat ) on:
Continuance to November 19, 1990
Staff is requesting a continuance for Change of Zone No. 5 due to additional
information being requested from the applicant and further review of the land uses
surrounding the project site. Staff needs additional time to review the Southwest
Area Plan, Redhawk Specific Plan, and the Old Vail Ranch Specific Plan in order to
determine their recommendation. Also, the traffic study submitted by the applicant
needs to be revised to show future traffic impacts. Furthermore, Staff intends to
process Zone Change No. 5 in conjunction with Vesting Tentative Tracts 23267 and
23299. These tracts are dependent on the zone change and therafore should be
heard at the same meeting.
Therefore, Staff requests that the Planning Commission continue Change af Zone No.
5 to November 19, 1990.
GT:ks
STAFFRPT\CZ5
ITEM #6
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 5, 1990
Case No.: Appeal No. 7, Plot Plan 111L~9
Prepared By: Steve Jiannino
Recommendation: Approval
APPLICAT)ON )NFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
BACKGROUND:
Grant/Sapp Corporation
Grant/Sapp Corporation
Deletion of County Road Department Condition No.
8 for Plot Plan No. 11149 Road Letter dated
December 26, 1989.
West side of Jefferson Avenue, south of Overland
Drive.
C-1 / C-P I General Commercial )
Valley Medical Plaza currently under construction
On January 22, 1990, the County approved Rot Plan
No. 111u,9, Revised Permit No. 1. This approval
included a Condition requiring the installation of
street lights along the project frontage, Road
Condition No. 8.
This project is an in-fill project in the middle of the
block along the west side of Jefferson Avenue.
Currently no street lights are installed along
Jefferson Avenue except at street intersections.
This would be the only area with street lights if this
condition is not deleted.
The City Engineer supports the deletion of the
condition because the project is in the middle of the
block and no other street lights exist on Jefferson
Avenue except at street intersections. With the
surrounding properties already developed, it is not
anticipated that any street lights would be installed
STAFF R PT\A PP7
along Jefferson Avenue.
Staff is therefore supporting the applicant's request
that Condition No. 8 of the County Road Letter for
Plot Plan No. 111~9 dated December 26, 1989 be
deleted.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
UPHOLD the appllcant's request and DELETE
Condition No. 8 of the County Road Department
Letter for Plot Plan No. 111~,9 dated December 26,
1989.
SJ: ks
Attachments:
1. Exhibits
2. Conditions of Approval
STAFFRPT\APP7 2
DATE:
January 26, 1990
RiV t)"')E COU~C-u
PLA~~i~(] Di:,, ARCIilE~C
TO:
SURlrEYOR
ROAD
BUILDING AND SA~uf
FLO00 CONTROL
HEALTH
FIE 'PROTECTION
Pf: Plot Plan No. 11149 Revised No.
Environmental Assesssent No. 34569
Regional T~a~ No. 5
On January 22, 1990 the Riverside County [x ]
Planning Co~ssion L J Board of Supervisors took the
the above referenced plot plan:
Planning Director [ ]
following action on
X
APPROVED the Plot Plan, Exhibit A, Revised No. 1 , subject to the'
attached conditions.
/boPROVED the Plot Plan, Exhibit , subject to the
attached amended conditions.
APPROVED the Plot Plan, Revised Exhibit , subject to
the attached conditions.
APPROVED the Plot Plan, Revised Exhibit , subject to
the attached amended conditions.
UPHELD the appeal.
DENIED the appeal.
A~PI~}VED the WITHDRA3~AL of the appeal request.
APPROVED the WITHDRAWAL of the Plot Plan.
DENIED the Plot Plan based on the attached findings.
ADOPTED the
noted above.
Negative Declaration on the Environmental Assessment
All actions are final ten (10) days after the date of this notice unless an
appeal is filed ~thin that period.
12-16-88
1080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE CALIFORNIA 92501
714) 787-6181
Very truly yours,
'RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Roger S. $treeter, Planning Director
46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201
(619) 342-8277
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING
CASE SUr~4ARY DATE: JANUARY 22, 1990
CASE NO. PLOT PLAN NO. 11149, REVISED PERMIT NO. I E.A. NO. 34569
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION: Decrease square footage of medical building
and change parking design.
AREA: Temecula
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE: City of Temecula
GENERAL PLAN:
a. LAND USE: Category II
b. OPEN SPACE/CONS.: Areas not Designated as Open Space
d. OTHER: Southwest Area Community Plan {C} Commercial
ZONING:
a. SITE: C-1/C-P
b. ADJACENT: C-1/C-P
LAND USE/AREA DEVELOPMENT:
a.' SITE: Flat and vacant
b. ADJACENT: Commercial developments
HAJOR ISSUES: Faulting, subsidence, impacts to Stephens Kangaroo Rat Habitat.
RECOHI~ENDATION: ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration for E.A. 34569 and APPROVAL
of PLOT PLAN NO. 11149, REVIStl) PERMIT NO. I based on the following:
1. The project is consistent with the General Plan.
2. The project meets the requirements of Ordinance 348.
3. The project is compatible with surrounding development.
4. The project has no signfficant environmental effects
Declaration may be adopted.
and a Negative
GG:sc
1/05/90
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING DATE: JANUARY 22, 1990
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Grant/Sapp Corporation
1660 Hotel Circle North, Ste. 720
San Diego, Ca 92108
PLOT PLAN NO. 11149, REVISED PERMIT NO.1
Project Description: Decrease square
footage of medical building and change
parking design.
Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-480-059
Area: Temecula
The use hereby permitted by this plot pl an is to decrease square footage
of medical building and change parking design.
The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County of
Riverside, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or
proceeding against the County of Riverside or its agents, officers, or
employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the County
of Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body
concerning PLOT PLAM NO. 11149, REVISED PERMIT NO.1. The County of
Riverside will promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or
proceeding against the County of Riverside 'and will cooperate fully in the
defense. If the County fails to promptly notify the 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
shown on plot plan marked Exhibit A, Revised Permit No. 1, or as amended
by these conditions.
In the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period of one
{1) year or more, this approval shall become null and void.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine
directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way, and shall comply
with Ordinance No. 655.
The applicant shall comply with the street improvement recommendations
outlined in the County Road Department transmittal dated 12-26-8g, a copy
of which is attached.
PLOT PLAN NO. 11149
REVISED PERMIT NO. 1
Conditions of Approval
Page 2
Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance
with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department
transmittal dated 12-21-89, a copy of which is attached.
Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County
Flood Control District transmittal dated 1-Og-gO, a copy of which is
attached.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate
section of Ordinance 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated
1-02-89, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the
Department of Building and Safety Land
1-10-90, a copy of which is attached.
recommendations set forth in the
Use Section transmittal dated
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the
Department of Building and Safety Grading Section transmittal dated
12-29-89, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with County Geologic Report Nos. 216 for
faulting and 624 for liquefaction and with the recommendations set forth
in the Riverside County Geologist's transmittal dated 7-05-89, 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.
Pl,nting within te. ClO>-. feet
permltted to grow higher than i~or exit driveway shall not be
inches.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit 7
copies of an 18.12 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 348.
A minimum of 191 parking spaces are required in accordance with Section
18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. 192 parking spaces shall be
provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit A, Revised Permit No. 1. The
parking area shall be surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum
depth of 3 inches on 4 inches of Class II base.
PLOT PLAN NO. 11149
REVZSED PERMZT NO. 1
Conditions of Approval
Page 3
A minimum of six (6) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown
on Exhibit A, Revised Permit No. 1. 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 in
size with lettering not less than I 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- 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 pe~its from the following agencies:
Road Department
Environmental Health
Building & Safety - ~ading
Riverside County Flood Control
Fire Depar~ent
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:
Landscaping, Irrigation and Shading Plans
Parking and Circulation Plans to reflect 7 foot landscape planters; S
foot landscape planter and a 12" curb/walkspace along planters on
either side.
Site Plan to reflect fault bearings
Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in
substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit M-2 (Color Elevations}
and Exhibit M-1 {Materials Board). These are as follows:
PLOT PLAN NO. 11149
REVISED PERHIT NO. 1
Conditions of Approval
Page 4
24,
25,
Exterior
Exterior Entry
Material
Plaster/Stucco
Glass
Granite
Color
Expo Stucco #264
Guardian CP-8 "Pewter"
Low Reflective
Aztec Silver Granite
(12"X12"} by P.J.V. Imports
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 three {3}
bins shall be 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 a opaque gate with a
self-latching device which screens the bins from external view.
Landscape screening shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height
of six (6} feet.
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 and the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan.
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.
Four Class II bicycle racks shall be provided in convenient locations to
facilitate bicycle access to the project area.
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.
PLOT PLAN RO. 11149
REVZSED PERIqZT NO. 1
CondtUons of Approval
Page 5
30.
33,
4e
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.
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.
Should Ordinance No. 663 be superceded 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.
Prior to any use allowed by this Plot Plan, the applican~ shall obtain
clearance from the Department of Building and Safety ~ Land Use Section
that the uses found on the subject property are in conformance with
Ordinance No. 348.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy
or any use allowed by this permit.
GG:sc
1/09/89
OFFICE r. JF ROAD COMMISSIONER & COUNTY $L~,V'EYOR
December 26, 1989
Riverside County Planning Commission
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
(Office Building)
Re= Plot Plan 11149 - Revised #1
Team 5 - SMD #9
Pcl 5 of PM 22300
AP #111-111-111-9
Ladies and Gentlemen=
With respect
referenced item,
recommendations z
to the conditions of
the Road Department
approval for the above
has the following
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 since adequate right of way exists.
2. Traffic signal mitigation has been satisfied for this
project by Tract 16178.
Prior to issuance of a building permit or any use allowed
by this permit, and prior to doing any work within the
State highway right of way, clearance and/or an
encroachment permit must be obtained by the applicant from
the District 08 Office of the State Department of
Transportation.in San Bernardino.
Prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit, the
applicant shall construct the following at no cost to any
government agency=
4. No additional road ~prove~nts will ~ re~ed at this
time.
Drainage control shall be as per Ordinance 460, Section
11.1.
COUNTY ADM~%qSTRAT~V[ CEbrFER * 4080 LEMON STPJ~ , RIV~)E, CALIFOPd%qA 92-;01
, '.-Plot Plan 11149 - Revlsed #1
'- DeceTnber 26, 1989
,°age 2
All work done within County right of way shall have an
encroachment permit..
The single driveway shall conform to the applicable
Riverside County Standards.
Street lighting shall be required in accordance with
Ordinance 460 and 461. The County Service Area (CSA)
Administrator determines whether this propesal qualifies
under an existing assessment district or not. If not, the
land owner shall file, after receiving tentative approval,
for an application with LAFCO for annexation into or
creation of a "Lighting Assessment District" in accordance
with Governmental Cede Section 56000.
The applicant shall comply with the Caltrans recomend-
ations as outlined in their letter dated April 20, 1989.
Any landscaping within public road rights of way shall
comply with Road Department standards and require approval
by the Road Con~issioner and assurance of continuing
maintenance through the establishment of a landscape
maintenance district/maintenance agreement or similar
mechanism as approved by the Road Commissioner. Landscape
plans shall be submitted on standard County Plan sheet
format (24" x 36"). Landscape plans shall be submitted
with the street improvement plans and shall depict only
such landscaping, irrigation and related facilities as are
to be placed within the public road rights-of-way'.
The applicant shall provide evidence of a reciprocal
easement with respect to the two driveways to the adjoining
property, A~N #921:480-050.
V truly yg. urs,
Technical Eng. Unit Supervisor
LJ ~ Jw
t~ot ~ty of Rivex.jdr
TO:
FROM:
RE:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. December 21, 1989
DATE:
ATTN: Glo a uzm ·
'~~NMENTAL HEALTH SPECIALIST IV
PLOT PLAN 11149, REVISED NO. 10
Environmental Health Services has reviewed Revised No. 10
dated December 6, 1989. Our current comments will remain as stated in our
memo dated April 27, 1989.
SM:tac
DEC 2 7 198~
RIVERSIDE
PLANNINA DEPARTMENT
GEN. FORM 4. IRev. 8/87]
C~ ~nty of Rive~°sk ~
FROM:
RE:
RIVERSIDE COUN~Y PLANNING DEPT. DATE: April 27, 1989
ATTN.~~ Mac el
SA~ ~ART~IIRONMENTAL HEALTH SPECIALIST IV
PLOT PLAN 11149
Environmental Health Services has reviewed the above plot plan and has
no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services are available in this
area. Prior to any building plan submittals, will-serve letters £rom
the water and sewering agencies will be required.
SH:tac
GEN. FORM 4. (Pdv. 8/87)
KENNETH L EDWARDS
. CI~IIEF EM~IINIJER
1995 MARKET STREET
P,O, BOX 1033
TELEPHONE (714} 787-2015
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Riverside County
Planning Department
County Administrative Center
Riverside, California
Attention: Regional Team No. ~
Planner --~f;, ~',4Z~'~
Re: PP II
Re.,;s,a i"
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
regulations.
Area
in accordance with 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 ~1~1 Z/~I llel 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~rOject will be
constructed in
accordance with approved plans.
The attached comments apply.
H. KASHUBA
' r Civil Engineer
DATE: J~ fit (I ~0
RIVERSID_c COUNTf
"' RIVERSID~L4I~L~4~fi~PtVI:.~)'~'I~'CONTROL AND
~ ~:,. , . ,,.
~ "' · ?'WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
R~ vers t de County ,,vzme,oz.
.... ' Planning Department' .'
: . *-:, ,.;~.'./ . : ,.:. "-
County Administrative Center ' :'~. ~:/~:~.;~:,,.:..~ ,. .,. .~ -.
.Riverside, .California. ·
'-.'Attention: Regional Team No. ~' , ,'~:.:.:?"' Re: pP
, :~.:..::.. .......... . . ~'~,' . S...~,.:~.:>::.?,..'~ --~:'~ :,~ :.::..
'..' Me' have. revtewed thts case and have the,fo~lowtng co~ents:
...... Except for nutsance nature }oca~ runoff ~htch may travers9 porttons Of the
,' ,:... :=.~ property the pro~ect ~s considered '-free from ofdtnary storm flood hazard,
., , .;:.~HO~EVEf~ a Storm of unusual magnitude'could cause some damage, New COn$tfUC-
.~.: - -.,'ttonshou~d comply wttha}} app]tcab}e ordinances,
· . ::. -,,. - :- . .... ,. . ...; :,
~';/'=';'? ':: ..The:topographyof,'the'area conststs of we~'deftned Ndges and natura~ water-
'.' . . ..-?courses whtch traverse the pfop6f~y.': Thef~
' ~"' '~' .".y natura} ~atercourses'fof but]ding sttes,', The natura} watercourses should be
:' .'. :';':', ':'.~'? kept :'free' of buildings' and:obstructions.' tn order to malntatn the natural
-y.-:.:'~': drainage patterns-of the area and to prev~.fit. flood damage to new buildings,
' . "'..A note should be p~aced'on an environmental'constraint sheet stating, "A~} ne~
. buildings shall be floodproofed by e}evattng the finished floors a minimum of
~ :_ ~.. ~'~18 tnches above adjacent ground $urface,"~'Efoston protection sha}3 be provided
. :. ' .':.. :.~'. for mobt.]e home.support$,,.~'',- .-:.::,'-~:~:-~.~ '.,' ~ '
.: c :~.~-~""'~.' This/pro~ect:: ts "~n "the '~,' ""':' ....... - . r Area
..... ~... ,., drainage planefees sha~l be paid in accordance wtth-the app]lcable rGles and
,' ~:':,~';-' ':: The' proposed zontng ts 'conststent:wtth extsttng flood hazards, Some flood
-..' t.,;L~ ,? ~:,:control fact]tries or floodpf ~fng:'m~:be,requtred'to fully develop to the
· ~?'~ ~D.Th.~ Dtst~tCt'S' report dated~a ~, 'lq~""ts: St111 current for this project.
,0...0, 0,,.. ,0
'~-.C.'L.~.~f~,;~~' .~':~:;'? ';"',=':::~ ;~.-+' ' ~'~." ':.: f~:,.~:~ '~':~:~.~j;~. :c,,';; .~::' .',
'.-,: -~'~:~"'~ ~- :: p J ct, ts ' a part" of ';"': ~'': ~ '~''~ ~'' :.,'~..,.'w~.,. ". The pro~ect ~tll be
".'.::.:~,.~:~?~ free of o~fnaPy store flood hazard Mhen Improvements have been constructed
~:::~'.~.~',';~:~; .accordance with approved plans.
: ...-'=~:':' "" .'~'::The attached coments apply. .:-.:?_ -~...~'.~, ~r, ..
'.-/.:~-",.~,',..:j':~:',""~:""':': -: ',,':~..':~ r~ery 'truly ~ours,
~ . ........,. , . - :-
~ ' "~"" ;entor Cfvt1 Engineer
-: Riverside County
./ Plannlng Department
· '!County Administrative Center:'
.:.Riverside, California
· Attention: Regtona Team No.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
'; Ne have reviewed thh case and have the following comments:
.,..'::~-' "' :: Except' for nuisance nature' hcal"runoff;.whtch' may traverse portions of the
.... ':~,:'-,.property the project is considered. free from ordinary storm flood hazard,
:!+i.T,-.!:,;'~'i%..:,However, a~st, orm of unusual magnitude could cause ~ome damage. New cons~ruc-
· .~.-=~ .. .... .,
· '- ':' The topography of,the area consists of well defined r~dges and natural
...7~..',;.. ,_ courses which traversethe.property. Therets adequate area outside of ~he
' '/.~c .: ;:'~ ~;-:', ~l~U~a~ 'W~efCOUfSe$ for. buRd~ng · s~tes.' "The natural watercourses should be
,,. ....... .;4 ~kept"free of buildings and'obstructions :~n orde~ to maintain the natural
~.'-. :'?.':~.,:~,~;dra~age parterRs of the area arid to prevent flood damage to ~e~ bufid~ngs.
"A note shou~dbe"placed on an enfironmenta~ constra~n~ shee~ sta~ing, "All new
~-.-, '~.~.~.'.' .,. bufid~ngs sha~l be floodproofed by elevating the finished floors a m~nimum of
~ = 18 inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosion protection shall be provided
"Z;~.'},'~:.; ~ ~.. drainage plan fees shall be pa~d ~n accordance w~th the applicable r~les and
','.- , ,. control facilities or floodproofing may.be required to fully develop to the
01/B2/9~ 18:33 RIUER~IDE COIJ~TY FiRE DEP]EI. ~.~,::
RIVERSK)E COUNTY
Flat,
CC~)PERATION WITH THE
GAUr-O~N~ DEPART~Eh'I' OF FC~E~Tr'~'Y
AND ~ffE PgOTEC11ON.
GLEN J.
1-2-89
royash, CA tt~Ol
~'14) Te?-eI~
PLOT PL~ 11149 - REVISID #1
~ith raspsot to the conditions of approval reSardin2 the ·bore referenced
plot plan, the Fire Department recommends the followinS fire protection
measures be provided in accordance with l~tvezside County O~dinancsl and/or
recognized fire protection standardis
The Fire Department is required to sot s minimum fire flow for the
remodel or construction of all commercial bulldines uslns the procedure
established in Ordinance 546,
Provide or show there exists a water system capable of deliverin2 3000
~o~ a 3 hour d~racion sc 20 PSI residual operating pressure which most
be available before any combustible material is placed on th· Job site.
A combination of on-sits and off-sits super firs hydrants, oua looped
eyetam (6"xd"x2ix2|~, will be locicad not less than 25 feet or more than
165 feet from any portion of the buildin2 as me·anted aloq approv·d
vehicul·r travelways. The required fire flow sh·ll be available from
any adjacent hydrant(s) in the systa.
The required fire flow my be adjusted at · later point in the permit
proteas to reflect chinese in desiSn, construction type, area separation
or built-in fire protection measures.
,
Applicant/developer shall furnish out espy of the water systm plans to
the Fire Department for review, Plans sh·ll conform to the fire hydr·nt
types, location and spatins, and, the systxm sh·ll ms·t the fire flew
requirements. Plans ·hall be silued/spproved by a reSistsred civil
an·inter and the local vatmr company with the ~ollowiq certification,
"l osrtify that the dasiSn of the water system is in aooordanoawith
the requirements prescribed by the liver·ida County Fire Department."
Install a complete firs sprinkler system in all buildin2s requiriq ·
fire flov of 1500 3F~ or greater. The post indicator valve an4 firs
department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 fast of
a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the buildin2(s). · statement
that ~he buildinS(s) will be.automatically firs sprinklered met ba
included on the title p·ge of the buildins plans.
Inltall a supervised water flow monitorinl fire alan lyecan. Plans must be
submitted to the Firs Department for approval prior to installation, as per
Uniform Building Code.
A statement that the building will be automatioally lira sprinklered
must ·ppear on the title page of the buildiul plans.
C~ly with Title 19 of the Californ~a Admenistrativa Code.
Install panic hardware and exit nilus as par Chapter 33 of the Uniform
Buildini Coda.
Certain designated areas will be required to be mintlined ·s fire hoes.
Install portable lira sxtinluishsrs with a minimum ratioS ot 2A-10BC.
Contact car~ifisd extinluiehsr company for proper placement of equipment.
Prier to issuance of buildinS pst~.tcs, tht applicant/developer shell be
responsible co submit · chock or money order in the ·mount of 1413.00
to the Liverside Cmanty Fire Department for plan check fats.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall deposit
with the liversida County Fire Department, a check or money order equaling
the sum of 250 per square loot el mitelesion for fits protection impacts.
· his amount must bl submitted separately from the plan check review fee.
15. Building mustsmeet P~tvereide County Ordinance 546, Section 801'on HiSh
Lass "Life Safety Support System."
16, Driveway median on Jefferson is to be sat back 30 feet trom lace el curb,
17. Final conditions will be addressed when buildin2 plane are reviewed in the
Building and Safety Office.
All questions regardSol the meaning of conditions shall be referred to the
PlanxLtnl end gqimsarinl sta~,
RAYHOND H. PxGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
Laura Cabtel, Fits Safety SptQlalist
0
JAN 1. 1 1990
RIVER61DE COUNTY
pLANNING DEPARTMENT
GEN. FORM 4, ~1/6S
June 2, 1989
Administrative Center · 1777 AUanta Avenue
Rivers[de, CA 92507
Riverside County Planning Department
Attention: Gloria Maciel
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
RE: Plot Plan 11149, Exhibit A, Amended #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.
The site is located in a special studies zone - G 199
Prior to the issuance of building permits, written clearance
s required from the following:
° Temecula Valley Unified School District
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 acceptance of structural plans for Building and Safety
review, one'~omplete set of approved conditions from Planning
Department must be attached.
Prior to issuance of building permits, proposed lighting h;uSt
be in conformanco with Mount Palomar Lighting Plan, Zone B,
per Ordinance 655.
Performance Securities Bond for maintenance of landscaping
may be ~equired. Consult your conditions of approval.
Very truly yours,
Administration (714) 682-8840 · (714) 787-2020
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
BUILDING ~ND SAFETY Dv. PART~NT
GRADING 8w. CTION
TOi PLANNING/G.G.
FROH: WZNDY PARKER
D~TS: December 3g, lgSt
l~.~I PP 11149
The information provided on~hia project did not include a conceptual grading
plan. However, sufficient information was supplied for us to recommend
approval with the folioring conditions.
Prior ~o oommsnOing any grading in excess of 50 cubic yards, the
applicant shall obtain a gradin~ perml~ and approval ~o construct from
~he Building and Safe~y D~par~ment.
NOTIs
For the final grading plan, please provide the applicable
lnformation Z0rm Building and Safety Department grading formz 384-
130, 384-21, 3s4-$6 and 384-46. Thank you.
:i, d';*',3EDE COUnt-u
PLAnnin DEPARClilE!l
July 5, 1989
Applied Geotechnical Engineering
14661-C Myford Road
Tustin, CA 92680
Attention:
Gentlemen:
Mr. Peter C. Yong
SUBJECT:
Liquefaction Hazard
Project No. 89-115
Plot Plan 11149
APN: 921-480-051
County Geologic Report No. 624
Rancho California Area
We have reviewed the liquefaction aspects of your report entitled 'Soil and
Foundation Investigation and Liquefaction Eva'luation, Proposed Office Building,
Jefferson Avenue, Temecula, CA," dated June 8, 1989.
Your report determined that the potential for liquefaction at the s*ite is
considered to be very low.
This report recommended a foundation system consisting ~f a mat or footings
connected and stiflened by grade beams or structural f)bor slabs for the
proposed building bepause of the. close proximity to the~fa~)t setback zone on
the property. Utility 14nes ar~', 't rac,.o)m~nded to be ~la ed beneath the floor
slabs. More specific fou*ndaffi~¢n"~si~n~c~m~endations.*~made in your
report. ~ ,:"' L'II //,',.//,r :' "
It is our opinion that ~he report was prepared in a competent manner and
satisfies the additional ~nformation requested under the California
Environmental Quality Act review and the Riverside County Comprehensive General
Plan. Final approval of the Heport is 'hereby given.
The recommendations made in your report for mitigation of liquefaction
potential shall be adhered to in the design and construction of this project.
V~ry truly yours,
SAK:al
coc.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPAR ENT
Roger S. St~ ter - Pla~Dt ector
CEG-1205
Inland Design, Inc. - Ardhitect
Norm Lostben - Building & Safety (2)
Planning Team 5 - Gloria Maciel
4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE CALIFORNIA 92501
('/14) 787-6181
46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201
(619) 342-8277
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY
TO: DATE:
FROM: PLAN REVIEW
RE: F2p /j/~/? 3s,--~,,7· o,"~,,-c' .~.oc,.-
I. THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS PERTAIN TO THIS PROJECT AND WILL NEED SPECIAL
ATTENTION BY THE APPLICANT. ITEMS CHECKED BELOW WILL NEED TO BE
IDENTIFIED ON EXHIBIT "A",
PLANS SHALL NOT BEAR THE MARKINGS "NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION" OR SIMALAR
MARKINGS AND BE ACCEPTABLE FOR APPROVAL.
__/1. ADOPTED CODES bY THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. A. 1988 UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
B. 1988 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
C, 1988 UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE
D, 1988 UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE
E. 1987 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE.
F. ALL APPLICABLE STATE AND COUNTY CODES AND ORDINANCES.
..,__~2, ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA.
v"3. OCCUPANCY GROUP.
le-/~. TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION,
~"~, OCCUPANT LOAD.
U,B,C, CHAP. 5
U,B.C. CHAP. 6-12
U.B.C, CHAP. 18-22
U,B.C. CHAP. 33
6. SANITATION FACILITIES. U.P.C, APPEND. C
7'7, DISABLED ACCESS REQUIREMENTS U.B.C. STATE AMENDMENTS
__ 8. COMMENTS:
ITEM #7
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 5, 1990
Case No.: Substantial Conformance No. 2
to Specific Plan No. 164
Prepared By: Steve Jiannino/Deborah Parks
Recommendation: Approval
BACKGROUND:
DISCUSSION:
This project has been continued from the September 10, October
1, and October 15 Planning Commission meetings. The project
has been continued to allow Staff to determine if a Substantial
Conformance application would be appropriate. The project was
continued with no discussion from all the meetings.
Staff has reviewed the application and has determined that the
proposal is consistent with Ordinance No. 348, Section 2.5.1,
and a Substantial Conformance application is appropriate. The
application is a modification to the circulation pattern which
minimizes grading and improves circulation.
The Staff Report dated September 10, 1990 is attached and
included by raference in the report.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
APPROVE the Substantial Conformance No. 2 for
Specific P)an No. 16~, based on the following
Findings:
The project, as modified, meets the intent
and purpose of the adopted Specific Plan and
the adopted Specific Plan Amendment.
The project, as modified, is consistent with
the Findings and Conclusions contained in the
Resolution adopting the Specific Plan and the
Amendment.
SJ:ks
Attachments:
1. Staff Report dated September 10, 1990
with all Exhibits.
STAFFRPT\SC2 1
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CiTY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 10, 1990
Case No:. Substantial Conformance #2 to Specific Plan #16~,
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Davldson Communities
REPRESENTATIVE:
RANPAC Engineering Corporation
PROPOSAL:
Deletion of the Class I bike trail which
traverses the park and open space
area located adjacent to Residential
Planning Area No. u, of the Roripaugh
Estates Specific Plan.
ZONING:
Specific Plan #164 {park and open
space area adjacent to Planning Area
No. 4).
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
SP #164 Open Space
SP ~16~· Single Family
SP #160, Park/Commercial
SP ~16L~ Open Space
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
BACKGROUND:
North: Vacant
South: Single Family
East: Vacant
West: Vacant
Substantial Conformance #2 to Specific
Plan ~/16L~ was originally submitted to
the Riverside County Planning
Department on January 22, 1990. The
County of Riverside accepted the
request as a Substantial Conformance
application rather than a Specific Plan
Amendment application since the
proposal would not change the intent
of the Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan
or change its' intensity. The
application requests the deletion of the
STAFFRPT\SC2 I
ANALYSIS:
Class I bike trail which traverses the
park and open space area located
adjacent to Residential Planning Area
No. ~. Exhibit A illustrates the
location of the Class I bike trail. Since
the request was primarily a Planning
Department concern, the application
was not required to be reviewed by the
Land Development Committee. The
application was scheduled for an early
May Plannincj Commission hearing but
was then transferred to the City of
Temecula for processing.
Exhibit B illustrates the original
Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan
Bicycle And Equestrian Trails element.
By comparing Exhibit B to Exhibit A,
it is clear that the original Class I
bicycle trial traveling throughout the
project no longer exists. Exhibit B
was amended as part of Specific Plan
Amendment No. 1 for Specific Plan No.
16~. The result was the Class I bike
trial in Exhibit A, which has limited
access and direction. The definition of
a Class ) bike trail is one that is
separated from a roadway and
traverses a park or open space. The
Class I bike trail in Exhibit A no longer
connacts to the Class II bike trail on
Roripaugh Road and no longer
functions as a component of a larger
bike trail system. The purpose of the
Subject Class I bike trail is somewhat
nebulous. The bike trail does not
improve access to the park or any
other land use within the plan.
Exhibit C is a portion of Tract Map
20703-3 which has been approved for
the subject location. The map
delineates the lots which are adjacent
to the Class I bike trail. One of the
access points to the bike trail is via an
open space easement between lots 66,
67, and 68. The developer of the
property is concerned that a bike trial
within this easement will be a nuisance
for the future residents of lots 66, 67,
STAFFRPT\SC2 2
and 68, The developer fears that the
easement area will be used as a bike
raceway or gathering place for
resident children.
Exhibit D illustrates the proposed
change to the Roripaugh Estates
Specific Plan Bike and Equestrian Trial
exhibit.
In a City where public recreation
opportunities is a concern, the review
of this request has not been taken
lightly. However, due to Amendment
No. 1 of Specific Plan No. 16u,, the
original intent of the Class I bike trail
no longer exists. It is unfortunate
that the County eliminated the
connecting trail which could allow
travel thorough the park and open
space designations of the plan,
illustrated in Exhibit E from North
General Kearney Road to Winchester
Road. This trail could have also been
linked up with the Class II trail on
Nicholas and Winchester Roads
illustrated in Exhibit A. However,
given the fact that the integrated bike
trail system no longer exists in
conjunction with the Class I bike trail,
staff believes that the request to
eliminate the Class I trail would not
change the intent of the Specific Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Direct Staff to APPROVE the
Substantial Conformity request.
STAFFRPT\SC2 3
IJJ
0
C~LU
A \ ~29
· , 7 ,L ,,
A Portion of Tract Map 2703-3
RORIPAUGH ESTATES
DAVI:)SC)N C~
Exhibit
#1
//
ITEM #8
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 5, 1990
Case No.: Plot Plan No. 20
Prepared By: Oliver Mujica
Recommendation: 1. Adopt Negative Declaration
2. Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
Medical Design Concepts
Lusardi Construction Company
Construct a 161,800 square foot industrial building
with 130,800 square feet of warehouse and 31,000
square feet of office space on 12.09 acres.
Business Park Drive, north of Rancho California
Road.
M-SC ( Manufacturing - Service Commercial )
North: M-SC {Manufacturing - Service
Commercial )
South: M-SC (Manufacturing - Service
Commercial )
East: M-SC { Manufacturing - Service
Commercial )
West: M-SC I Manufacturing - Service
Commercial )
Not applicable.
Vacant
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant
Industrial Office
Industrial Office
Vacant
STAFF R PT\PP20 I
PROJECT STATISTICS:
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
No. of Buildings:
No. of Acres:
Total Square Footage:
No. of Parking Spaces:
Building Height:
1
12.09
161,800
298
30 Feet
Status
Plot Plan No. 20 was submitted to the City of
Temecula on April 27, 1990.
On June 28, 1990, this project was reviewed by the
Preliminary Development Review Committee (Pre-
DR C ) in order to informally evaluate the project and
address any possible concerns, as well as
suggesting possible modifications. The comments
by the Pre-DRC included the following:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Traffic Impacts
Hydrology and Inundation
Grading
Landscaping
Habitat Conservation
Subsequent to the Pre-DRC meeting, Staff met with
the applicant to discuss the required supplemental
material in order to address the Pre-DRC's
conEerRs.
On October 18, 1990, Plot Plan No. 20. was reviewed
by the Formal Development Review Committee; and,
it was determined that the project, as designed, can
be adequately conditioned to mitigate the DRC's
concerns. The DRC has forwarded a
recommendation of approval subject to conditions.
Plot Plan No. 20 is a proposal to develop the 12.09
acre site with a 161,800 square foot industrial
building. The proposed building contains 130,800
square feet of warehouse and 31,000 square feet of
office space. The proposed development has been
designed in accordance with the standards of the M-
SC iManufacturing - Service Commercial) zone.
Traffic Impacts
The Transportation Engineering Staff has reviewed
and accepted the findings and mitigation measures
as specified in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared
for Plot Plan No. 20; and has determined that the
STAFFRPT\PP20 2
proposed project will have a minimal impact to the
existing road system and given the proposed
mitigation measures, there will be no adverse
unmitlgabte significant traffic impacts resulting
from the development of this proposed project.
Hydroloqy
The Engineering Staff has reviewed and accepted
the drainage study prepared for Plot Plan No. 20;
and has determined that the proposed mitigation
measures l Conditions of Approval) will provide for
no adverse unmitigable significant hydrology
impacts resulting from the development of this
proposed project.
Gradinq and Landform Alteration
The proposed project will alter an existing, fairly
prominent, natural ridgeline with the construction
of manufactured slopes { 2: 1 and ~,%) which reduce
the ridge by approximately twenty 120~ ) feet. The
grading involves approximately 31,035 cubic yards
of excavation and approximately 28,907 cubic yards
of fill.
Erosion Control
All graded slopes are proposed to be planted with
Rosea Ice Plant at 12" on centers or another
approved ground cover. Slopes over 15" in vertical
height, in addition to ground cover, will be planted
with approved trees, shrubs, or combination
thereof. Shrubs will be planted at 101 on centers
and trees will be planted at 15~ to 20~ on centers.
All slopes will have permanent irrigation systems.
Habitat Conservation
Per StafPs request, a Stephen~s Kangaroo Rat
Survey was prepared for Plot Plan No. 20. The
survey concluded that the project site is outside the
boundaries of the K-Rat study areas and that the
project development will have no direct effect on the
species.
Parking
Two hundred, ninety-eight |298) parking spaces
are provided along the south and east sides of the
STAFFRPT\PP20 3
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
proposed building, which exceeds the required 255
parking spaces under the Development Code
ISection 18.12).
Access
Access into the proposed development from Business
Park Drive is provided by an existing private cul-
de-sac (~4 feet wide), which has been determined to
be acceptable by the Traffic Engineering Staff.
Project Desiqn
The proposed project is a tilt-up concrete
structure, which is contemporary in appearance,
and has been designed to feature painted concrete
panels { white and light grey ); medium sandblasted
painted concrete panels I medium grey ); and black
tinted glass panels.
After reviewing the applicant's exterior elevations,
Staff has determined that the proposed project
design is compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood.
Landscape
Adequate landscaping is planned for the site. A
landscape plan will be submitted and approved prior
to the issuance of building permits.
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.
An Initial Study was performed for this project
which determined that although the proposed
project could have a significant effect on the
environment, no significant impact would result to
the natural or built environment in the City because
the mitigation measures described in the Conditions
of Approval have been added to the project, and a
Negative Declaration has been recommended for
adoption.
STAFFRPT\PP20 4
FINDINGS:
There is a reasonable probability that Plot
Plan No. 20 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 projeot 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.
10.
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 projeot has acceptable access to a
dedicated right-d-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular tr~fflc.
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 af the project and the type of
improvements are such that they are not in
conflict with easements for access through or
use of the property within the proposed
project.
STAFFRPT\PP20 5
11.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
STAFF RECOMMENDAT ION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for
Plot Plan No. 20; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 90-
approving Plot Plan No. 20; 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. Environmental Assessment
u,. Exhibits
A. Site Plan
B. Exterior Elevations
5. Large Scale Plans
STAFFRPT\PP20 6
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 20 TO
CONSTRUCT A 161,800 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL
BUILDING LOCATED ON BUSINESS PARK DRIVE AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-020-0~5.
WHEREAS, Medical Design Concepts filed Plot Plan No. 20 in accordance
with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
pertaining to said Plot Plan on November 5, 1990, at which time interested persons
had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report
regarding the Plot Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1_.:. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty 130) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the followin9 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:
la)
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\PP20 1
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
Ic)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, {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
meet 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:
l a) There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan
No. 20 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.
STAFFRPT\PP20 2
~2) The overall development of the land is designed for
the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare;
conforms to the Ioglcal 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.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the
proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitlgetion measures described in the
Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration,
therefore, is hereby granted.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Cc.,,,,,ission hereby approves Plot
Plan No. 20 to construct a 161,800 square foot industrial building located on
Business Park Drive and known as Assessor*s Parcel No. 921-020-00,5 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 5th day of November, 1990.
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
CHAIRMAN
) 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 5th day of November, 1990 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFFRPT\PP20 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. 20.
DATED: By
Name
Title
STAFFRPT\PP20 ~
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan No. 20
Planning Commission Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
Planninq Department
The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for construction of a 161,800
square foot industrial building with 130,800 square feet of warehouse and
31.000 square feet of office space on 12.09 acres.
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 employs
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. 20. 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 permlttee of any
such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperdie 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 12) year period
which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the baginning of
substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. This approval shall
expire on November 5, 1992.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as
shown on Plot Plan No. 20 marked Exhibit A, or as amended by these
conditions.
I n the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period of one 11 )
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.
The applicant shall comply with the Engineering Department~s Conditions of
Approval which are included herein.
STAFFRPT\PP20 1
10.
11.
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, three (3) copies of a
Parking, Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans shall be submitted to the
Planning Department of approval. The location, number, genus, species, and
container size of the plants shall be shown. Plans shall meet all requirements
of Ordinance No. 3L~8, Section 18.12, and shall be accompanied by the
appropriate filing fee.
A minimum of 298 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section
18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 3L~8. 298 parking spaces shall be
provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit A. The parking area shall be
surfaced with ( asphaltlc concrate paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on b,
inches of Class II base.) (Decomposed granite compacted to a minimum
thickness of three (3) inches treated with not less than 1/2 gallon per square
yard of penetration coat oil, followed within six months by an application of
lJ~ gallon per square yard of seal coat oil. )
A minimum of 5 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on
Exhibit A. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be
identified by a permanently fixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain
on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the Internatlonal 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
if 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 telephone
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 leest 3 square feet in size.
STAFFRPT\PP20 2
12. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain clearance
and/or permits from the following agencies:
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
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 plans shall
be submitted for Planning Department approval:
Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans.
A Plot Plan application for a Sign Program shall be submitted and approvad by
the Planning Director prior to occupancy.
Building elevations shall be in substantial confornmnce with that shown on
Exhibit B.
Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial
conformance with that shown on Exhibit B (Color Elevations).
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening
material shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
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 intograted. This certification
shall be based upon, but not limited to, the site spedtic seismic, geologic and
gootechnical conditions. Where hazard of subsidence or fissure development
is determined to exist, appropriate mitigation measures must be demonstrated.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
All trash enclosures 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 a steel gate which screens the bins from external view.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along
streets and within the parking areas.
All existing specimen trees on the subject property shall be preserved
wherever feasible. Where they cannot be preserved they shall be relocated
or replaced with specimen trees as approved by the Planning Director.
STAFFRPT~PP20 3
23.
Any oak trees removed with four I~,) inch or larger trt~nk diameters shall be
replaced on a ten { 10) to one 11 ) basis as approved by the Planning Director.
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.
25.
Ten (10) Class Ill bicycle racks shall be provided in convenient locations as
approved by the Planning Director to facilitate bicycle access to the project
area,
26.
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.
27.
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.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits and/or building permit, the developer
or his successor~s interest shall submit a mitigation monitoring program which
shall describe how compliance with required mitigation m~-~ures will be met
and the appropriate monitoring timing of the mitigation. The applicant shall
reimburse the City for all monitoring activity cost.
29.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or
any use allowed by this permit.
Riverside County Fire Department
With respect to the Conditions of Approval regarding the above referenced plot plan,
the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection m-a-ures be provided
in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection
standards:
30.
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 5~6.
31.
Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 7500 GPM
for a 3 hour duration at 20 PSi residual operating pressure, which must be
available bafore any combustible material is placed on the job site.
STAFFRPT\PP20 ~
32.
33.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants, on a looped system
16" x 4" x 2 1/2 x 2 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
hydrantis) in the system.
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.
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."
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 buildingl s) . A statement that the building{ s) will
be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the
building plans.
Install a supervised 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.
A statement that the building will be automatically fire sprinklered must
appear on the title page of the building plans.
Install panic har~lware and exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform
Building Code. Low-level Exit Signs, where exit signs are required by
Section 3314( a) .
Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes.
Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC. Contact
a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be
responsible to submit a check or money order in the amount of $558.00 to the
Riverside County Fire Department for plan check fees.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall deposit with the
Riverside County Fire Department, a check or money order equaling the sum
of 25 cents per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts. This
amount must be submitted separately from the plan check review fee.
STAFFRPT\PP20 5
Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the
Building and Safety Office.
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 meanin9 of the conditions shall be referred to the Englneerin9
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:
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 provide clearance from all applicable agencies and pay all
fees prior to the approval of plans.
The developer shall submit four (~) copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
The developer shall submit four (~,) 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.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The
charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits.
If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to
this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to
commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-d-
way.
STAFFRPT\PP20 6
5O°
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.
51.
The developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage
flowing onto or through the site.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT:
52.
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.
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 ElR/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
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
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS:
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Traffic Engineer
and approved by the City Engineer for Business Park Drive to accommodate
a 250 foot loft turn lane, plus transitions, at Rancho California Road.
55.
Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering
for the design requirements.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS:
56.
All signing and striping shall be installed per the City requiremanta and the
approved signing and striping plan.
STAFFRPT\PP20 7
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
II
Backqround
1. Name of Proponent:
Medical Desiqn Concepts
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
~,3225 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
[7111) 699-q-q, O0
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
October 19, 1990
Agency Requiring
Assessment:
CITY OF TEMECULA
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Plot Plan No. 20
6. Location of Proposal:
Property next to Ll3225
Business Park Drive
Environmental Impacts
( Explanations of all 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, disp|acements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil?
X
X
Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features?
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geelogic or
physical features?
X
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on
or off site?
X
STAFFRPT\PP20 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
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP20 2
Change in the quantity of ground
waters. either through direct addi-
tions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aqulfer by cuts
or excavations?
Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flood-
ing or tidal waves?
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or number of any native species of
plants l including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare, or endangered species
of plants?
Introduction of new species of
plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
Substantial reduction in acreage
of any agricultural crop?
Animal Life. Will the proposal result
in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
[birds, land animals including rep-
tiles, fish and shellfish, 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
X
STAFFRPT\PP20 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 includin9,
but not limited to, oil, pesticicles,
chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
Possible interference with an emerg-
ency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan?
Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area?
Housln9. 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
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP20 4
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
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\PP20 5
17.
18.
19.
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
Human Health. Will the proposal
result in:
Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard {excluding
mental health)?
Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result
in the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to
public view?
Recreation. Will the proposal result in
an impact upon the quality or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities?
20. Cultural Resources.
Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object?
Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP20 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\PP20 7
Ill Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
Earth
1.a.
1.b.
1.C.
1.d.
1.e.
1.f.
1.g.
Air
2.a.
2 .b-c.
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 Engineeris
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 soil displacement, compaction and overcovering. Further
analysis will determine if additional mitigations are required.
Yes. Development of the proposed project will require substantial
grading and as a result will alter the existing topography. On the
northwestern portion of the site is a small hill that will have to be
graded.
No. There are no unique geelogic 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.
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 areaJs air quality.
No. The proposed project should not create any objectionable odors or
alter the areais climate.
STAFFRPT\PP20 8
Water
3.a,d-e.
3.b-c,9.
3.f.
3.h.
3.i.
Plant Life
~.a-d.
Animal Life
5.a-c.
Noise
6.a.
6.b.
No. The proposed project will not affect any body of water. The
closest body of water to the site is Murrieta Creak 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 offset the
water absorption rate. Drainage patterns will continue to flow to the
streets and channels.
No. The proposed project will not interfere with the direction or rate
of flow of ground waters.
No. The proposed project will not affect the public water supply or
system.
No. According to the Riverside County General Plan Flood Hazard Map
the subject site is not within a hazard zone.
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 part of the landscape requirements for the project. The
addition of the new species is not considered a negative impact. It is
not clear by the plot plan if the existing Eucalyptus treas 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.
No. The proposed project is in an area that has bean 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 habltates the site.
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\PP20 9
Liqht and Glare
Maybe. The proposed project is located within the Mt. Palomar
Observatory Street Lighting Policy Area which recommends the use of
low pressure sodium vapor (LPSV) lights to help avoid interference
with the Mt. Palomar telescope known as "skyglow". The use of LPSV
lights will reduce the light and glare produced by the proposed project.
Land Use
No. The Southwest Area Plan designates the subject site for General
Light Industrial.
Natural Resources
9.a-b.
No. The proposed use will not increase the consumption rate of any
natural or non-renewable natural resources.
Risk of Upset
10.a-b.
No. The proposed use will not require the use of any hazardous
substances. During construction it should not be necessary to close
any streets which would interfere with emergency vehicles.
Population
11.
No. The proposed 16i,800 square foot industrial building will generate
some jobs but not a significant amount to alter the areams population.
Housing
12.
No. The proposed 161,800 square foot industrial building will not
generate a significant number of jobs to create a demand for additional
housing.
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 generatad by the project may add an
incremental impact to the Rancho California Road/I-15 interchange
which is currently operating at capecity during peak hours. This
potential impact should be evaluated.
13.b.
Yes. The proposed project will require parking to support the use.
Based on 31,000 square feat of office spaca and 130,800 square feet of
warehousing, the project will need 255 parking spaces. The proposed
plan illustrates 252 spaces. Seven loading spaces are required to
service the building and are provided.
STAFFRPT~PP20 10
13.d-f.
No. The proposed project will not affect the current circulation of
goods and people. It should not increase traffic hazards to mater
vehicles, blcyclists or pedestrians.
Public Services
l~.a,b.e.
Yes. The proposed industrial use will require public services in the
areas of police, fire and 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.
l~.c,d,f.
No. The project should not have a substantial effect 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 existing systems. ,
Human Health
17.a,b.
Maybe. If hazardous substances ere 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.
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.
STAFFR PT\PP20 11
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 Findlnqs of Siqnificance
21 .a-c.
No. The proposed project will not significantly affect the natural
environment, have long term environmental impacts or have
considerable cumulative impacts.
21 .d.
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.
STAFFRPT\PP20 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.
) find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT R PORT is
the environment, and an ~/~T~~ /?~///
required.
October 19, 1990
Date
For CIT TEME A
X
STAFFRPT\PP20 13
11
I
..L~~' ~,
,
'
'i =~ ~i ~ -- ~:
'.~
ri ~ '~ , .
ITEM #9
MEMORANDUM
To;
Planning Commission
From:
Oliver Mujica, Senior Planner
Date:
October 25, 1990
Subject: CASE NO: PLOT PLAN NO. 18
Plot Plan No. 18 was scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting of November 5,
1990; and the Public Hearing Notices were sent to the surrounding property owners.
However, during their final review of the project, the Engineering Department Staff
noted a discrepancy in the westerly property boundary, in which a lot line
adjustment is required.
At this time, both the Planning and Engineering Staff are working with the applicant
on this project and requests that the Planning Commission continue Plot Plan No. 18
to their regular meeting of November 19, 1990, at which time Lot Line Adjustment No.
9 will also be presented before the Planning Commission.
Plot Plan No. 18 cannot be approved unless the adjustment request is also approved.
Therefore, staff feels that it is appropriate to process the Plot Plan and Lot Line
Adjustment request concurrently.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission continue Plot Plan No. 18 to their
regular meeting of November 19, 1990.
OM/Ib
02158\3001 / 0~,5
planning\Ml~,
ITEM #10
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 5 1990
Case No.: Vesting Tentative Map No. 25082
Change of Zone No. 5613
Prepared By: Mark Rhoades
Recommendation: Denial
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
P R OPOSA L:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTINC LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
Pavillion Homes, Inc.
C-M Engineering
Change of Zone from R-R 1/2 to R-l, Vesting
Tentative Tract to create 109 single family lots.
Southeast corner of Nicolas Road and Calle Medusa.
R-R 1/2
( Rural Residential, Half Acre Minimum
Lot Size)
North: R-R 2 1/2 (Rural Residential, Two
and One-Half Acre
Minimum Lot Size)
South: R -T I Mobile Home Subdivision
and Mobile Home Park)
East: R-R 1/2 IRural Residential, Half
Acre Minimum Lot Size)
West: R-R 2 1/2 (Rural Residential, Two
and One-half Acre
Minimum Lot Size)
R-1 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 sq.ft.
Minimum Lot Size)
Low Density Single Family/Vacant
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant
SingleFamily {7,200sq.ft. min. lotsize)
Vacant
Church Under Construction
STAFF R PT\VTM25082 I
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Number of Acres:
Number of Units:
Minimum Proposed Lot Size:
Minimum Permitted Lot Size:
Proposed Density:
35
109
7,200 sq.ft.
7,200 sq.ft.
3.1 Units/Acre Gross
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This project was originally filed at the Riverside
County Planning Department on September 28, 1989.
The file was transferred to the City of Temecula in
April of 1990. Since that time Staff has mat with the
applicant on several occasions to discuss flood
concerns, proposed density, and grading. The
proposal was taken to Preliminary Development
Review on September 13, 1990, and Final
Development Review on October 11, 1990.
Zone Chanqe
Change of Zone No. 5613 is a proposal to change the
zone of 35 acres from R-R-l/2 {Rural Residential,
Half Acre Lot Size Minimum), to R-1 {Single Family
Residential, 7,200 Square Foot Lot Size Minimum).
The project is surrounded by R-R-2 1/2 {Rural
Residential, Two and One-Half Acre Lot Size
Minimum) to the north, west and southeast, and R-
T { Residential-Transition ) to the south. Easterly
of the project is existing R-R 1/2 zoning.
The R-T zone to the south is currently developed to
single family residential standards with 7,200
square foot minimum lot sizes. However, separating
the proposed project and existing residential
development is a significant topographic feature in
the form of a substantial natural bluff.
The existing use to the west is a church which is
under construction. To the north is Santa
Gertrudis Creek, vacant land, and some very low
density single family rural residential. The
Commission recently approved Tentative Tract No.
25000, which is northwesterly of this project. Tract
25000, is providing buffer zoning between adjacent
high density County Specific Plans and lower
density development to the south and east. Tract
25000, is an R-1 tract which will dedicate
approximately 15 acres of open space to the City.
This open space separates Tract 25004 from existing
R-R 2 1/2 zoning to the east. Westerly of proposed
Vesting Tentative Map No. 25082, there are some
STAFFRPT\VTM25082 2
very low density rural residential uses and vacant
open land.
Staff has determined that the proposed zone change
is inconsistent with area development. The project
proposes 3.1 units per gross acre. This density is
inconsistent with the current rural development and
zoning to the north, east, and west. Higher
density zoning does occur to the south however, it
is topographically separated. it is Staff's opinion
that the current zoning of R-R-l/2 on the subject
site provides adequate buffer zoning and is
consistent with the rural nature of the area. )t
logically separates the two and one-half acre parcels
to the north, west, and east, and the high density
single family subdivision to the south.
Vestlnq Tentative Tract Map
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25082 is an
appllcatlon to subdivide 35 acres into 109 single
family lots. The density of the proposed project is
dependent on the approval of Change of Zone No.
5613.
Lot Size
The minimum proposed lot size is 7,200 square feet.
The maximum lot size is 36,000 square feet with an
average lot size of just over 9,700 Square feet. The
minimum lot size in the proposed R-1 zone is 7,200
square feet. The average lot size of 9,700 square
feet includes a large number of lots containing 2:1
slopes in the rear yard. The slopes on one bank of
lots average approximately 50' in length and 25 feet
in height. If the proposed zone change is not
approved, then the proposed subdivision cannot be
approved, based on zoning compliance. The R-R
1/2 zoning would require new lot sizes of 1/2 acre
which could reduce the grading on the project site.
Parks
No area is being set aside for open space. The
applicant would be required to pay applicable
Qulmby fees in the event that the project was
approved.
STAFFRPT\VTM25082 3
Access
Access will be taken from Calle Girasol, and the
currently impacted Calle Medusa. Direct access
from the tract will not be allowed onto Nicolas Road.
Architecture
Currently, there is not a specific product slated for
construction under this proposal. Design
guidelines were submitted which include some
general criteria for design and landscaping. The
proposed landscape guidelines are minimal in
representation. Final landscaping would require
separate permit if the project were approved. The
guidelines are rather general and do not specifically
address this tract. The guidelines do not provide
details on large graded slopes proposed on some lots
or the method that flood control will be achieved.
Grading
Approximately 350,000 cubic yards will be moved on
the 35 acres covered by this proposal. The
proposed grading will create some substantial 2: 1
slope areas. The applicant submitted cross sections
revealing that as much as 50 vertical feet of earth
will be removed from some areas.
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
The City of Temecula has elected to use SWAP on an
advisory basis. The SWAP designation for this
project is residential 2-0, dwelling units per acre.
The proposed density is 3.1 units per gross acre
which is consistent with SWAP. Staff's
recommendation for the zoning to remain R-R-l/2
will keep the density at two i2) units per acres.
The existing density of two units per acre is also in
conformance with the current SWAP designation.
Staff is concerned that the proposal may not be in
conformance with the City's future adopted General
Plan. Currently, the area in question exhibits a
very rural and low density residential character. If
the City's future General Plan exhibits a
designation which would preserve that character,
then this project would not be consistent.
STAFF R PT\ VTM25082 ~
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
A Preliminary Environmental Assessment was
conducted by Staff. The following areas of
potential impact were reviewed in detail:
Bioloqy
A Biological Study was conducted which identified
no existing Stephen's Kangaroo Rata on site. No
other biological impacts were identified.
Gradin,q
The proposed grading plan is currently
unacceptable to the Engineering Department. The
primary issue that the grading plan does not
address adequately is the flooding potential on the
lower portions of the site. A new grading plan will
need to be submitted which adequately addresses
this issue.
Floodin.c/
Staff has received two memorandums from the
County Flood Control District relating to this
project. The memos were written on April 12 and
October 10 of 1990. and are attached to this report
as exhibits. The Flood Control District has stated
that the applicant, "has not presented a realistic
solution to the flood hazard from Santa Gertrudls
Creek." The design and channelization of the creek
needs to be coordinated with the Engineering
Department, State Fish and Game, United States
Fish and Wildlife, and County Flood Control. As
presented, the project poses serious potential
threats to the public health, safety, and welfare.
In the event findings are made to approve this
project, Conditions of Approval have been included
which require the project to obtain flood control
clearance prior to the issuance of any grading
permits.
Engineering has indicated that regional facilities will
need to be constructed for Santa Gertrudis Creek.
This entails the extension of Assessment District
161, Channel Improvements.
STAFFRPT\VTM25082 5
A third Flood Control letter (attached) was received
by the Planning Department on October 30, 1990.
The third letter states that the Flood Control
District will not even condition this project until a
"viable flood control construction program" is in
existence. Riverside County Flood Control has also
stated that this project should not be cleared and
recommends denial of the project.
Environmental Conclusion
Staff has concluded that significant environmental
impacts may occur because of the proposed density,
grading, and unmitigated potential flooding impact.
However, if the Commission chooses to make the
findings necessary to approve this project,
Conditions of Approval have been included for the
project to move forward. Mitigation measures for a
mitigated Negative Declaration are conditioned to be
met with additional approvals from County Road
Control and the City Engineer prior to any grading
taking place or the recordation of the map or portion
of the map.
FINDINGS:
ChanqeofZone No. 5613
The proposed zone change may have a
significant adverse effect on the
environment, as determined in the initial
study performed for this project.
a)
See Environmental Concerns section of
this report.
There is a reasonable probability that the
zone change from R-R 2.5 to R-1 will not be
consistent with the future General Plan.
Further, densities and uses proposed are not
similar to existing densities and uses in the
vicinity of the project site.
a) See Zone Change section of this
report.
STAFFRPT\VTM25082 6
There is a reasonable 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.
a)
See SWAP consistency section of this
report.
The proposed change in district classification
is not reasonable and beneficial at this time as
it is a logical expansion of residential uses
which exist adjacent to, and in the vicinity
of, the project site.
a) See Zone Change section of this
report.
The site of the proposed change in district
classification is not suitable to accommodate
all the land uses currently permitted in the
proposed zoning district. Possible land use
conflicts are likely to arise as the project
proposes residential uses which are not
similar to those existing in the general
vicinity of the subject site.
a) See Zone Change, Lot 51ze, and
Grading sections of this report.
That said findings are supported by analysis,
minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental
documents associated with this application
and herein incorporated by reference.
Vestinq Tentative Tract No. 25082
There is a reasonable probability that Vesting
Tentative Tract No. 25082 will not be
consistent with the City's future General
Plan, which will be completed within a
reasonable time in accordance with State Law.
a)
See SWAP Consistency section in this
report.
STAFFRPT\VTM25082 7
There is 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.
a)
See SWAP Consistency section in this
report.
The proposed site is unsuitable to
accommodate the proposed land use in terms
of the size and shape of the lot
configurations, circulation patterns, access,
and density.
a)
See Grading, Environmental Concerns,
Change of Zone, Vesting Tentative Map
and Lot Size sections of this report.
The project as designed will adversely affect
the public health or welfare.
a)
See Environmental Concerns section in
this report.
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 25082 is not
compatible with surrounding land uses.
a)
See Change of Zone and General Plan
sections of this report.
The proposal will have an adverse affect on
surrounding property, because it does
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area.
a)
See Change of Zone and General Plan
sections of this report.
The project as designed and may adversely
affect the built or natural environment as
determined in the Initial Study for this
project.
a)
See Environmental Concerns section in
this report.
STAFFRPT\VTM25082 8
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with this application are hereln
incorporated by reference.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission forward the following
recommendation to the City Council:
DENIAL of Change of Zone 5613, based on the
analysis and findings contained in the Initial
Study and Staff Report; and,
DENIAL of Vesting Tentative Tract No.
25082, based on the analysis and findings
contained in the Staff Report, subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval.
MR:ks
ST A F F R PT\VTM25082 9
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25082
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 460, Schedule A, unless
modified by the conditions listed below.
This conditlonally approved tentative 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 licensed land surveyor subject to all the
requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance
~60.
The subdivider shall submit one copy of a soils report to the Riverside County
Surveyoris Office and two copies to the Department of Building and Safety.
The repm't 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 1~60 shall be provided from the tract
map boundary to a County/City 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 acc-==
to all lots in each phase. and shall substantially conform to the intent and
purpose of the subdivision approval.
STAFF R PT\VTM25082 1
10.
11.
12.
13.
15.
16.
The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations
outlined in the County Health Department's transmittal dated September 11,
1990, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined
in the County Fire Department~s letter dated February 7, 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 applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Rancho
Water District transmittal dated November 20, 1990, a copy of which is
attached.
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 I 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.
The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes,
landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations
are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director.
Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
(1)
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, detailed slope and reverse
frontage area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for
Planning Department approval for the phased development in process.
The plans shall be certified by a landsty,he architect, and shall provide
for the following:
Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall 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 barruing, ground cover, shrubs and
STAFF R PTXVTM25082 2
17.
18.
specimen trees. Front yards shall be landscaped and street tress
planted.
Wall plans shall be submitted for the project perimeter and along
N/colas Road, Calle Medusa, and Calle Girasol. 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-of-way of
interior streets and project parkways due to insufficient road
right-of-way, they shall be planted outside of the road right-d-
way.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant
plants where appropriate.
All existing specimen tress 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 stesl staked.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be
retained by the developer on site during all grading operations 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 roesting between the
paleontologist and the excavation and grading contractor shall be arranged.
When necessary, the palesntologlat shall have the authority to temporarily
divert, redlrect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils.
Pursuant to the recommendations outlined in the San Bernard/no County
Museum letter dated September lu,, 1990, attached. This condition shall be
reproduced in its entirety on the Environmental Constraint Sheet of the Final
Map prior to recordat/on.
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 l$100) per
lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library
development.
STAFF R PT\VTM25082 3
19.
20.
21.
22.
All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required
elements from the subdlvlsion'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 landscap~g.
All dwellings to be constructed within this subdivision shall be designed
and constructed with fire retardant I Class A ) roofs as approved by the
Fire Marshal.
Reef-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the
subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving
devices shall be permitted with Planning Department approval.
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from view of surrounding
property.
Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall not
be less than ten 110) feet.
h. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten 110) feet.
All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and automatic
irrigation.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the
provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee sat 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, prior to recording of final map, or
unless waived to prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall be
required to pay applicable Quimby Fees in accordance with Section 10.35 of
Ordinance ~60.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, final grading plans shall include the
recommendations outlined in the County Engineering Geologist's letter dated
January ~,, 1990, attached.
Prior to the recordation of the final map and issuance of any grading permits,
the applicant shall obtain map approval and submit a letter of acceptance from
the Riverside County Flood Control Department for Vesting Tentative Map No.
25082.
STAFFRPT\VTM25082 4
23.
Prior to recordation of the final map or the issuance of any grading permits,
the applicant shall submit a cultural resources assessment which includes
mitigation measures for any identified cultural resources, pursuant to the
comments received from the University of California Riverside, Archaeological
Research Unit, dated September q, 1990, attached.
Prior to issuance of any occupancy permits, the applicant shall submit a letter
of approval from the United States Postal Service reflecting a centralized mail
delivery system.
25.
Prior to issuance of grading permits, a precise grading plan will be submitted
and approved which addresses all 2:1 slopes on site. Said plan shall
incorporate contour grading, post and beam construction, or split level
construction wherever feasible. This plan is subject to the approval of the
Planning Director and the City Engineer.
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.
26.
The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act,
and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions.
27.
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. L~60.
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 F)eod Control District;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department; and
CATV Franchise.
STAFFRPT~ VTM25082 5
29. The following landscaped slopes are required to be annexed into the landscape
maintenance districts:
3O.
31.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
Lot 31-35
Lot 36-39
Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City~s CATV Franchises of
the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time
of street improvemerits.
in the event road or off-site right-of-way are required to comply with these
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 devetoper's cost pursuant
to Government Code Section 66~,62.5, which shall be at no cost to the City.
Streets A, C, D, F, and H shall be improved with u,0 feet of asphait concrete
pavement within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County
Standard No. 10~, A 1~0/60).
Streets B, E, and G shall be improved with L~0 feet of asphalt concrete
pavement within the dedicated right-d-way in accordance with County
Standard No. 800 Cul-de-sac.
Nicolas R_oad shall be improved with 1~3 feet of half street improvements plus
one 12' lane within a 55 foot half street dedicated right-d-way, plus
dedication for an additional 12 foot lane, in accordance with County Standard
No. 100 (86/110).
Calle Medusa Road shall be improved with 22 feet of half street improvements
within a 33 foot half street dedicated right-d-way in accordance with County
Standard No. 103, Section A 1~/66).
Calle Girasol shall be improved with 22 feet of half street improvements plus
one 12 foot lane within a 33 foot half street dedicated right-d-way, plus
dedication for an additional 12 foot lane, in accordance with County Standard
No. 103, Section A (~/66).
Vehicular access shall be restricted on Nicolas Road, Calle Medusa, and Calle
Girasol, and so noted on the final map.
Corner property line cut off shall be required for Riverside County Standard
No. 805.
Peggy Lou Lane shall be vacated concurrently with the recordatlon of TR
25082.
STAFFRPT\VTM25082 6
q. 1.
q.2.
~b...
q-5.
0,7.
0,8.
qg.
50.
The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement executed
9uaranteelng 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.
d. Sewer and domestic water systems.
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. 461 and as approvad by the
City Engineer.
Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the
Engineering Department a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation
towards traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time
of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written
agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a
building permit.
Street names shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineering
Department.
The minimum centerline radii shall be 300 feet or as approved by the City
Engineer.
All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the
City Engineer.
Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a
minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment
as approved by the City Engineer.
A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent.
All driveways shall conform to the applicable County of Riverside standards
and shall be shown on the street improvement plans, in accordance with
County Standard 0,00 and 0,01 (curb sidewalk).
All driveways shall be located a minimum of two (2) feet from the property
line.
STA F F R PT\VTM25082 7
51.
The subdivider shall submit four prints of a comprehensive grading plan to
the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building
Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions
of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2u," x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil
Engineer.
52.
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Riverside County
Flood Control District.
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.
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 ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
55.
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.
56.
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.
57. All lot drainage shall be to the street by side yard drainage swales
independent of any other lot.
58.
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:
59.
A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for
review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil
Engineor for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final
Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
60.
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform
Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The
final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approvad
grading plan.
STAFF R PT\VTM25082 8
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
61.
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.
62.
Existing city roads requirin9 construction shall remain open to traffic at all
times with adequate detours during construction.
63.
Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than 1~, days following
placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon
per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39, and
94 of the State Standard Specifications.
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 increase.
Transportation Enqineerinq
PRIOR TO RECORDATION:
65.
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered traffic
engineer, and approved by the City Engineer, for Calle Cirasol, Calle
Medusa, Nicolas Road, Street "A", and Street "H" and shall be included with
the street improvement plans.
66.
Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering
for the design criteria.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
67.
All signing and striping shall be installed per the City standards and the
approved signing and striping plan.
STAFFRPT\VTM25082 9
COUNTY OF TRIy tSIDE
F"' 4065 COUNTY CIRCLE DR. RIVERSIDE, CA. 92503 (Mallln~ Address - P.O, Rex 7600 925t3-7600)
/DEPARTMEN 0 EALTH
September 11 , 1990
CITY OF TEMECULA
43180 BusXness Park Drive.
Temecula. CA 92390
Suite 200
ATTN: Mark Rhoades
RE: VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 25082: PARCELS I. 2
AND 3 OF P.M. NO. 6228. P.M.B. I7/2]. PARCEL 2 OF P.M. NO.
19276, P.M.B. 126/41-42 AND A PORTION OF PEGGY L0U LANE TO
BE VACATED. PAOWRCEL MAPS RECORDED ZN THE OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY RECORDER. COUNTY OF RiVERS]DE. STATE OF CALIFORNIA
(109 lOTS)
Dear Gentlemen:
Tile Department oi' F'ubllC |[ealt.|l I~.~'; I.:.vlr.'ar.,I VP.',t IIHI 'J'ra,:l.
Map No. 25082 and recommend that:
company and the Health Demartmc. r,t. Permanent
prints of the plans of the water system shall
the orlQinal drawznQ to the t'.ountv Surveyor .
The prints shall show the internal PIPe dlameter,
.]olnt speclficatlons. and the 5~ze ot the malr~
at the 3unction of the new system to the
existinQ system. The pians 5hall CO~[IDIy mn all
respects with Dlv. 5. ParL 1. Chapter 7 of the
California Health and Satetv Code. Callforn]a
Administrative Code. Title 22. Chapter lO. and General
Order No. 103 of the Fublxc tlt~l~t. me5 Commission of th~
$tato of Caill'ornx;z. whon al.l,l ~,:al,l,,. 'l'h,, I,I;H~n ,;hal I
with the following certification: "] cert~/v that the
desiqn of the water system in Tract MaD 13o. 25613
the Rancho California Water District and U,at the
water service. storaae and distribution system will be
adequate to provide water snrvicg to %uch Tract.
City of Temecula
Paqe Two
ATTN: Mark Rhoades
Septomber II. 1990
This certification does l~ot co~st. itute a a,/arantee
that it will supply water to such Tract mad at any
Specific quantities . flows or pressures for fire
shall be signed by a responsible official of the water
company. Tb_e.__p.l_a_.n.~___m. us _t__ be. subm l t~.ed_. t-.o ..t. he .Cqun~y_.
S,u_r_y_e_ZZ_o,.[_'_$__O.f.f..~_C_e_._t_o__:Te,vlew at least,two weeks p[lo[
t.o___the.._r, eque, s.t, f, or_the record,~f ion of the final map,
This. subdivision has a statement from Rancho California
satisfactory financial arranoements are completed with the
This subdivision is within the Eastern Municipal Water
District and shall be connected to the gewer~ of the
District. Tl~e sewer system shall bn lz,~[a] led a,:cl~ldih,~
plans and specifications as aDDl'ovod by the District, the
County Surveyor and the Health Department. Permanent prints
of the plans of'the sewer system shall be ~ubmmtted in
triplicate, alon~ with the original dra~z;z~rJ, to the
surveyor. The prints shall sho~ the ~nter;,al pipe diameter .
location of manholes. complete profiles. pipe and
specifications and the size of the sewers at the ]unctlon of
the new system to the existing system. A s~no]e plat
indicating location of sewer lines and water lines shall be
a portion of the sewaoe plans and water lines shall be a
portion of the sewaqe plans and prnrl I~. 7'Jl~ l.J.~ll~ sh.~] ]
with the followzna certific.~tzoe,: "I ,:e~ tmlv th;~t t.l',e
design of the sewer system in Tract MaD No. 25UJ~2 is
Eastern Municipal Water Dlstr~ct a~,,.I t.J,at the waste disposal
system is adequate at this time to treat the antic:Dated
wastes from the proposed tract mad.
City of Temecula
Paqe 3
ATTN: Mark Rhoades
SeDtember 11, 1990
.~.Q.._.c~.~.i_~F_.._a._~._.Le.~_s_t...t ~9_.W.e e k s p r x o r
.r_.e_~..QL.d.._a_t_~._0_n.__Qf t_h_9_~_fJ_O~._!__maP_._
CountyS,.Irvevor's Office
to the request /or the
It will be necessary for financial arranaements to be
commletely finallzed prior Lo recerdatlon of t|]o final map.
8i cerelV.
Martinez, EnvlronmenLm al ||ealth SPecialist IV
SM:dr
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
IN COOPERATION WITH THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
AND FIRE PROTECTION
GLEN J. NEWMAN
FIRE CHIEF
2-7-90
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
46.209 OASIS STREET, SUITE 4O5
INDIO, CA 92201
(619) 342-8886
TO:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
3760 12TH STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
(714) 787-6606
ATTN: RANDY WILSON
TRACT 25082 - AMENDED #3
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land division,
the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided
in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection
standards:
FIRE PROTECTION
Schedule "A" fire protection approved standard fire hydrants, (6"x4"x2i") located
one at each street intersection and spaced no more than 330 feet apart in any
direction, with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a hydrant.
Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for 2 hours duration at 20 PSI.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the
Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location
and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall
be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company
with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system
is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire
Dept."
The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted
by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being
placed on an individual lot.
HAZARDOUS FIRE AREA
The land division is located in the "Hazardous Fire Area" of Riverside County
as shown on a map on file with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Any
building constructed on lots created by this land division shall comply with
the special construction provisions contained in Riverside County Ordinance
546.
25082
Page 2
All buildings shall be constructed with fire retardant roofing material as
described in section 3203 of the Uniform Building Code. Any wood shingles
or shakes shall have a Class "B" rating and shall be approved by the Fire
Department prior to installation.
MITIGATION
Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with
the Riverside County Fire Department a cash sum of $400.00 per lot/unit as mitigation
for fire protection impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time
of payment, he may enter into a written agreement with the County deferring
said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit.
All questions regarding the meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the
Fire Department Planning and Engineering staff.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
Laura Cabral, Fire Safety Specialist
ml
Board of Directors:
James A. Darby
President
Jeffrey L. Minkler
St. Vice President
Ralph Daily
Doug Kulberg
Jon A. Lundin
T. C. Rowe
Richard D. Steffey
Officers:
John F. Hennigar
General Manager
Phillip L Forbes
Director of Finance-
Treasurer
Thomas R. MeAljester
Director of Operations
& Maintenance
Edward P. Lemons
Director of Engineering
Linda M. Fregoso
District Secretary
McCormick & Kidman
Legal Counsel
RANCH
0 C
November 20, 1989
Riverside County Planning Department
4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor
Riverside, California 92501-3657
Subject: Water Availability
Reference: Vesting Tract No. 25082
Change of Zone 5613
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.
Very truly yours,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon
Engineering Manager
VO12/jkm297f
cc: Senga Doherty
A L I F O R N I A W A T E R D I S T R I C
J
T
RECEIVED SEP I 990
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY MUSEUM
4 Orange Tree Lane · Redlands, CA 92374 · (714) 798-8570 · 422-1610
September 12, 1990
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
GENERAL SERVICES AGENCY
DR, ALLAN D. GRIESEMER
Director
Mark Rhoades, Planner
Temecula Planning Department
43180 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
re:
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT~ CZ 5613, PAVILION HOMES
The project is located on the very fossiliferous Pauba Formation. Excavation associated with
development will impact nonrenewable paleontologic resources.
The developer must retain a qualified vertebrate paleontologist to develop a site-specific
program to mitigate impacts to paleontologic resources. This program should include: (1)
monitoring of excavation by a qualified paleontologic monitor; (2) preparation of recovered
specimens, including sediment processing for small vertebrate fossils; (3) curation of specimens
into an established repository; and (4) a report of findings with complete specimen inventory.
Sincerely,
Dr. Allan D. Griesemer
Museums Director
ADG:RER/jr
INTER-DERARTMENTAL LETTER
COUNTY OF
January 4, 1990
RIVERSIDE
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Randy Wilson - Team 1
Steven A. Kupferman - Engineering Geologist
Tentative Tract No. 25082
Slope Stability Report No. 175
The following report has been reviewed relative to slope stability at the
subject site:
"Geotechnical Report For A Proposed 116 Single - Family Home Subdivision Within
The 35 Acre Parcel Described As Tentative Tract No. 25082," by South Coast
Geologic Services, dated October 20, 1989, and response to County review, dated
December 13, 1989, also by South Coast Geologic Services.
This report determined that:
Cut and fill slopes are planned at a gradient of 2:1 {horizontal: vertical)
or less. Maximum slope heights on the order of 70 and 15 feet are proposed
for cut and fill slopes, respectively.
2. No adverse geologic conditions are expected to be encountered with the
proposed cut slopes.
3. Adequate factors of safety were calculated for proposed cut and fill slopes
under both static and pseudostatic conditions.
4. The surficial stability of the proposed slopes is considered acceptable.
This report recommended that:
1. All cut slopes shall be made under the observation of the project
geologist.
Fill slopes may be graded at 2:1 or flatter.
Fill slopes shall be overfilled at least six (6) feet and trimmed back to
achieve a firm surface. As an alternation to slope overfill, the slope may
be compacted at design grade during construction.
4. Proposed cut slopes may be graded at a 2:1 gradient. Where the cut slope
exposes clean ravelling sand, erosion protection will be required.
Randy Wilson - Team 1
Tentative Tract No. 25082
Slope Stability Report No.
Page -2-
175
5. Terrace drains shall be provided as set forth in the latest Uniform
Building Code.
Newly constructed slopes, existing slopes where vegetation is not
sufficient or has been damaged due to construction shall be planted as soon
as possible with a deep-rooted ground cover requiring a minimum of
irrigation.
This report satisfies the General Plan requirement
report. The recommendations made in this report shall be
design and construction of this project.
for a slope stability
adhered to in the
SAK:mp
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENt REVIEW COMMITTEE
PROJECT TRANSMI'ITAL
DATE c:~_'~.'~.C~ C)
1he attached4roJect has been scheduled lot the Development Review Committee
Meeting of - t'7-~-<:~C:) 0 1990at 9:00a,m, ,
Your written comments or attenda,ce Is requested, Please transmit written comments
o,e week prior to meetl,g, ...
TIle meeting will be held st:
CIty or Temecula
CIty Ilall
113180 Business Perk Drive. Suite 200
l'emecula, CA 92390
1990
EIC
I1r you have any questions regarding this project. please contact. the Planning
Department at J 71q) 69q-61100.
Project Information:
,._Casa No. VTT
AppIIca,t:
Represe,tatlve:
Proposal:
II/,,o S 6 LEI:' FA(L-Y
Engineering Departmentl Douq 8te~ar~
Building and Safet~ Depar~mentl ~l~minaEY ~lan Review
Water Distrlotl
Temeoula ValleyUn'~ed eohool Distriotl Leatie Boggs
Flood eontrolDlstric~l Ooh~Kashuba
Fire Departmentl~u_Ea e_a_'~'~[ '
!!ealth Departmentl Bam ~ar~De!
~olioe Departmentl~ S~y~ '
Parks and Reoreation DeDartmentl daniBe O~Uo~
Traffio and EngineBrings
Others Ca~-T~ans
XrmyOorpsofEngJneersl
Dep~ of Fish i damel
UOR~rohaeologioal Rassaroh
Xirport Land Use Conissions
16. Historic Preservation Boardl
COMMENTS: Our records show that this project area has only been partially surveyed
and we recommend-.a cultural resources assessment.
DATE: October 2, 1989
:Iit E:DEDE counw
PLAnnin0 DEimA:IEMEnE
TO:
Assessor
Building and Safety - Land Use
Building and Safety - Grading
Surveyor - Ken Teich
Road Department
Conrnissioner Turner
Greater Lake Mathews Rural Trails Asso
Eastern Municipal Water Dist.
San Bernardino County Museum
Mark Balys
Health - Ralph Luchs Community Plans
Flood Control District ~ L ] !-'
Fish & Game ~
U.S. Postal Service - Ruth E. Davidson
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services O T ~ 5 1989
County Su erintendent of Schools
Southern California Gas
General Telephone
Caltrans #8
Temecula Union School District
RIVERSIDE COUNTy
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
VESTING TRACT 25082/CHANGE OF ZONE 5613 -
(Tm-1) - E.A. 34341 Pavilion Homes,
Inc. Skinner Lake Area First
Supervisorial District S of Nicolas
Rd., E of Calle Medusa - R-R Zone - 35
Acres into 116 Lots - Schedule A No
Waiver - REQUEST: Change zone from R-R to
R-1 Mod 119 - A.P.
914-500-008-10,12-15,17
Please review the case described above, along with the attached case map. A Land
Division Committee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for October 26, 1989. If it
clears, it will then go to public hearing.
Your comments and recommendations are requested prior to October 26, 1989 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
Randy Wilson at 787-1363.
Planner
COMMENTS:
FUTURE MODE OF MAIL DELIVERY: CENTRALIZED
Contact with the U.S. Postal Service is required by the
Developer/Builder prior to construction for delivery type
and locations~~~
DATE:iO'2,~'~II SZGNATURE
PLEASE print name and title!
uses
4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
(714~ 787-~181
46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201
t~lg) 342-8277
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMIV!ISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING VESTING TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP NO. 25082 TO SUBDIVIDE A 35 ACRE
PARCEL INTO A 109 UNIT SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION
AND CHANGE OF ZONE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
CALLE MEDUSA AND NICOLAS ROAD.
WHEREAS, C-M Engineering filed Change of Zone No. 5613 and Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 25082 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use,
Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by
reference;
WHEREAS, said Change of Zone and Vesting Tentative Tract Map
application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Change of Zone and
Vesting Tentative Tract Map on November 5, 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
denial of said Change of Zone and Vesting Tentative Tract Map;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Cede Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty 130) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
ll ) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
J 2 ) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
ST A F F R PT\VTM25082 1
(a)
There is a reasonable probability that the
!and use or action proposed will not be
consistent with the general plan proposal
being considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
There is a 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.
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 Vesting Tentative Tract Map is consistent
with the SWAP and does not meet 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 Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 25082 proposed will
not be consistent with the general plan
proposal being considered or studied or
which will be studied within a reasonable
time.
There is a 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 does not comply
with all other applicable requirements of state
law and local ordinances.
STAFFRPT\VTM25082 2
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. The Change of Zone and Vesting Tentative Tract Map will
not promote the health, safety and welfare of the community.
That the City of Temecuia Planning Commission hereby
denies Change of Zone No. 5613 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
25082 for the subdivision of a 35 acre parcel into a 109 unit subdivision
located at Calle Medusa and Nicolas Road based on the additional
findings.
A. Exhibit A, attached herato.
DENIED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of November, 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 5th day of November, 1990 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFFRPT\VTM25082 3
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 5, 1990
FINDINGS:
Chanqe of Zone No. 5613
The proposed zone change may have a
significant adverse effect on the
environment, as determined in the initial
study performed for this project.
a)
See Environmental Concerns section of
this report.
There is a reasonable probability that the
zone change from R-R 2.5 to R-1 will not be
consistent with the future General Plan.
Further, densities and uses proposed are not
similar to existing densities and uses in the
vicinity of the project site.
a) See Zone Change section of this
report,
There is a reasonable 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.
a)
See SWAP consistency section of this
report.
The proposed change in district classification
is not reasonable ano beneficial at this time as
it is a logical expansion of residential uses
which exist adjacent to, and in the vicinity
of, the project site.
a) See Zone Change section of this
report.
The site of the proposed change in district
classification is not suitable to accommodate
all the land uses currently permitted in the
proposed zoning district. Possible land use
STAFFRPT\VTM25082 4
conflicts are likely to arise as the project
proposes residential uses which are not
similar to those existing in the general
vicinity of the subject site.
a) See Zone Change, Lot Size, and
Grading sections of this report.
That said findings are supported by analysis,
minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental
documents associated with this application
and herein incorporated by reference.
Vestinq Tentative Tract No. 25082
There is a reasonable probability that Vesting
Tentative Tract No. 25082 will not be
consistent with the City~s future General
Plan, which will be completed within a
reasonable time in accordance with State Law.
a)
See SWAP Consistency section in this
report.
There is 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.
a) See SWAP Consistency section in this
report.
The proposed site is unsuitable to
accommodate the proposed land use in terms
of the size and shape of the lot
configurations, circulation patterns, access,
and density.
a)
See Grading, Environmental Concerns,
Change of Zone, Vesting Tentative Map
and Lot Size sections of this report.
The project as designed will adversely affect
the public health or welfare.
a)
See Environmental Concerns section in
this report.
STAFFRPT\VTM25082 5
5. Vesting Tentative Tract No. 25082 is not
compatible with surrounding land uses.
a)
See Change of Zone and General Plan
sections of this report.
The proposal will have an adverse affect on
surrounding property, because it does
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area.
a)
See Change of Zone and General Plan
sections of this report.
The project as designed and may adversely
affect the built or natural environment as
determined in the initial Study for this
project.
a)
See Environmental Concerns section in
this report.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with this application are herein
incorporated by reference.
STAFFRPT\VTM25082 6
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
Background
1. Name of Proponent:
2. Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
5.
6.
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
Agency Requiring
Assessment:
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Location of Proposal:
Pavillion - JLD Ventures
23181 Verduqo, Sp. 105A
Laquna Beach, CA 92653
9-10-90
CITY OF TEMECULA
Vesting Tentative TractMap No. 25082
and Chanqe Zone No. 5613
Southeast Corner of the Intersection
of Nicolas Road and Calle Medusa
II
Environmental Impacts
( Explanations of all 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
X
X
Substantial change in topography
or 9round surface relief features?
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on
or off site?
X
STAFFRPT\VTM25082 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
X
X
STAFFRPT\VTM25082 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-
in9 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\VTM25082 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, pest/c/des,
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
at1 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\VTM25082 4
15.
16.
Yes Maybe N_9.o
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, tall or
air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
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:
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?
Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
STA F F R PT\VTM25082 5
17.
18.
19.
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
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?
20. Cultural Resources.
Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object?
Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\VTM25082 6
21.
Mandatory Findings of Significance.
Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildllfe
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environ-
mental goals? (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-
latlvely 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
STAFFRPT\VTM25082 7
Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
Earth
1.a.
1.b.
loeo
1.f.
1.g.
Air
2.a-c.
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 Ternecula's standards and the
Conditions of Approval.
Yes. All development disrupts the soil profile to some degree and
results in soil displacement, compaction, and overcovering. This
impact is not considered significant.
Yes. The mass grading will substantially change the topography and
physical features of the site. However, manufactured slopes will be
constructed and landscaped to a level of non-significance including
contour grading, split level pads, and post and beam construction were
installed.
Maybe. Wind and water erosion potentials will increase during the
construction phase and remain high until disturbed areas are
replanted. The wind erosion impact is considered significant but will
be mitigated through minimal grading, retention of natural vegetation
whenever feasible, and use of watering trucks and hydro-seeding of
disturbed areas after grading. After the project is completed,
increased water run-off during floods may occur. Water will be
channeled to drainage easements and streets. Appropriate drainage
control devices will have to be approved by the City Engineer and
designed in accordance with Temecula~s standards and the Conditions
of Approval.
Yes. Since the project site is adjacent to Santa Gertrudis Creek, the
proposed project will cause erosion of or deposition into a creek or
stream bed. The project will require acceptance of mitigation by
County Flood Control which will render the impact non-significant.
No. The subject site is not designated as subject to liquefaction or
subsidence by the Riverside County General Plan.
No. The proposed project will not significantly impact the area's air
quality.
STAFF R PT\VTM25082 8
Water
3.a,d-e.
3.b.
3,c.
3.d-g.
3.h.
3.i.
Vegetation
Ll.a-c.
~.d.
Wildlife
5.a-c.
Noise
6.a-b.
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.
Yes. 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 the project will require flood control approval
which will render the impact non-significant.
Yes. Flood waters will continue to be diverted to the streets and flood
channels, the project will require flood control approval which will
render the impact non-significant.
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.
Yes. Conditions of Approval are included for this project which require
proper design and installation of drainage conveyance devices.
No. No sensitive vegetational 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 not found. Conditions of Approval have been
included which require the applicant to pay mitigation fees.
No. Analysis indicates that the project site may be exposed to
significant levels of noise as a result of traffic on Nicolas Road.
However, it is concluded that the project design, when proposed, will
comply with the interior noise exposure standard placed o.n 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.
STAFFRPT\VTM25082
9
Liqht and Glare
Yes, However, the project has been conditioned to comply with
applicable lighting standards.
Land Use
Yes. The project is not consistent with the current zoning designation.
However, if the Change of Zone is approved, the project will be in
compl lance.
Natural Resources
9.a-b,
No. This project itself will not significantly increase the rate of use of
natural resources. Construction materials and petroleum products will
be used extensively to support the specific plan project overall.
Risk of Upset
10.a-b.
No. The proposed project will nat promote a risk of explosion or release
hazardous substances nor will it interfere with emergency response
plan or an emergency evaluatlon plan.
Population
11.
Yes. Although the project proposes to increase the density to allow 109
dwelling units, the proposed project is consistent with the City Land
Use Designation ( according to SWAP).
Housing
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
Yes. The proposed project will not have significant adverse effect on
public services including parks and recreational facilities, schools, and
fire. However, mitigation fc---- will be paid which will render the
impacts non-significant.
STAFFRPT\VTM2508Z 10
Enerqy
15.a-b.
No. The proposed project will not result in the substantial use or
increase in demand of fuel or energy.
Utilities
16.a-f.
No. The proposed project might require the use of utilities but will not
require substantial alteration to the existing system.
Human Health
17 .a-b.
No. The proposed project will not have significant adverse effect on
human health.
Aesthetics
18.
Maybe. The proposed project will be removing some natural hills,
bluffs and slopes to be replaced by 2: 1 manufactured slopes. However,
the slopes will be contoured and landscaped to mitigate impacts.
Recreation
19.
Maybe. The proposed project will increase population which may impact
recreation facilities. Quimby fees will be paid to mitigate impacts.
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 Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan.
21 .b.
No. The proposed project will not have the potential to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals.
21 .c-d.
No. The proposed project will not have impacts which are individually
limited or cumulatively considerable, nor will they have environmental
affects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly.
STAFFRPT\VTM25082 11
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a signi-
ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi-
ficant effect 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.
X
Date
For
CITY OF TEMECULA
STAFFRPT\VTM25082 12
OCT 29 '90 15:46 RIVERSIDF CO, FLOOD DISTRICT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
October 29, 1990
Clty of Temecula
43180 Business Psr~ Drive, Suite 200
Tomecola, CA 923g0
Attention: Dou8 Stuart
Deputy City Engineer
Gentlemen;
Re: Vestlng Tract Z5083
This is e propcoal to divide 35 acres for residential Use at the
southeast corner of Nicolas Road and Calla Medusa.
Almost help of this site ls traversed by the flows Of Santa
Gertrudi~ Creek. This area has not been mapped by FEMA and,
therefore, the exact flood plain and floodway limits of the creek
are unknown.
Thi: project has not presented a realistic solution to the flood
hazard from Santa Gertrudis Creek and should not be cleared.
If Santa Gertrudls Wash is to be chsnnelized, a financini
mechanism should be formulated for an acc.eptably designed
facility. Stream flows would have to be collected and conveyed
tO the channel being proposed bY AD161. Its design should be
coordinated with Riverside County Transportation Department,
State Department of Fish end Game, U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and this District.
We will not recommend eonditioned approval of this tract until
viable flood control construction program is in existence.
Questions concerning this matter may be referred to the
Subdivision Section of this office at 714/275-1210,
c: CM Engineering
HN H. KASHUDA
r Civil Engineer
ZS:seb
RECEIVED OCT 12-19S3
MEMORANDUM
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
/END WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT '
FROM
RE:
We have reviewed this case and ask that the following items be
addressed on an amended map.
Topography should be show~ or corrected-
Show proposed grading and drainage-
Show how the project would be protected from storm flows.
Move structures/pads out of low area.
Proposed diversions should be corrected.
Show existing and proposed channels, culverts, drain pipes
and other such facilities.
MEMORANDUM
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
~--~-D ~ CO~%SERVATIO~ DiSTRiC-T
We have reviewed this case and ask that the following items be
addressed on an amended map.
Topography should be shown or corrected.
Show proposed grading and drainage.
Show how the project would be protected from storm flows.
Move structures/pads out of low area.
Proposed diversions should be corrected.
Show existing and proposed channels, culverts, drain pipes
and other such facilities.
Show existing 'watercourses.
C: Applicant CM S~D/~et,~
CO. Planning Dept.
LOCATION
ZONING
o'~,, I (
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
CASE NO.:
The followin9 fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this
project.
Fee
Habitat Conservation Plan
(K-Rat)
Parks and Recreation
( Quimby )
Public Facility
( Traffic Mitigation )
Public Facility
( Traffic Signal Mitigation )
Public Facility
( Library )
Fire Protection
Flood Control
(ADP)
Condition of Approval
Condition No. 19
Condition No. 20
Condition No. 6~
Condition No. ~3
Condition No. 18.a.
Condition No.
Condition No. 58
STAFFRPT\VTM25082
LOCATION
25082
CAS~ ~,7_ 5/-L7-·
If
,flr
ITEM #10
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 5 1990
Case No.: Vesting Tentative Map No. 25082
Change of Zone No. 5613
Prepared By: Mark Rhoades
Recommendation: Denial
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
Pavillion Homes, )nc,
C-M Engineering
Change of Zone from R-R 1/2 to R-l, Vestin9
Tentative Tract to create 109 single family lots.
Southeast corner of Nicolas Road and Calle Medusa.
R-R 1/2
(Rural Residential, Half Acre Minimum
Lot Size)
North: R-R 2 1/2 IRural Residential, Two
and One-Half Acre
Minimum Lot Size)
South: R-T IMobile Home Subdivision
and Mobile Home Park)
East: R-R 1/2 iRural Residential, Half
Acre Minimum Lot Size)
West: R-R 2 1/2 (Rural Residential, Two
and One-half Acre
Minimum Lot Size)
R-1 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 sq.ft.
Minimum Lot Size)
Low Density Single Family/Vacant
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant
SingleFamily (7,200sq.ft. rain. lotsize)
Vacant
Church Under Construction
STAFF R PT\VTM25082 1
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Number of Acres:
Number of Units:
Minimum Proposed Lot Size:
Minimum Permitted Lot Size:
Proposed Density:
35
109
7.200 sq.ft.
7,200 sq.ft.
3.1 Units/Acre Gross
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This project was originally filed at the Riverside
County Planning Department on September 28, 1989.
The file was transferred to the City of Temecula in
April of 1990. Since that time Staff has mat with the
applicant on several occasions to discuss flood
concerns, proposed density, and grading. The
proposal was taken to Preliminary Development
Review on September 13, 1990, and Final
Development Review on October 11, 1990.
Zone Chanqe
Change of Zone No. 5613 is a proposal to change the
zone of 35 acres from R-R-l/2 J Rural Residential,
Half Acre Lot Size Minimum), to R-1 lSingle Family
Residential, 7,200 Square Foot Lot Size Minimum).
The project is surrounded by R-R-2 1/2 JRural
Residential, Two and One-Half Acre Lot Size
Minimum) to the north, west and southeast, and R-
T E ResldentlaI-Transition) to the south. Easterly
of the project is existing R-R 112 zoning.
The R-T zone to the south is currently developed to
single family res}dential standards with 7,200
square foot minimum lot sizes. However, separating
the proposed project and existing residential
development is a significant topographic feature in
the form of a substantial natural bluff.
The existing use to the west is a church which is
under construction. To the north is Santa
Gertrudis Creek, vacant land, and some very low
density single family rural residential. The
Commission recently approved Tentative Tract No.
25000, which is northwesterly of this project. Tract
25000, is providing buffer zoning between adjacent
high density County Specific Plans and lower
density development to the south and east. Tract
25000, is an R-1 tract which will dedicate
approximately 15 acres of open space to the City.
This open space separates Tract 25000, from existing
R-R 2 1/2 zoning to the east. Westerly of proposed
Vesting Tentative Map No. 25082, there are some
STAFFRPT\VTM25082 2
very low density rural residential uses and vacant
open land.
Staff has determined that the proposed zone change
is inconsistent with area development. The project
proposes 3.1 units per gross acre. This density is
inconsistent with the current rural development and
zoning to the north, east, and west. Higher
density zoning does occur to the south however, it
is topographically separated. It is Staff's opinion
that the current zoning of R-R-l/2 on the subject
site provides adequate buffer zoning and is
consistent with the rural nature of the area. It
logically separates the two and one-half acre parcels
to the north, west, and east, and the high density
single family subdivision to the south.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25082 is an
application to subdivide 35 acres into 109 single
family lots. The density of the proposed project is
dependent on the approval of Change of Zone No.
5613.
Lot Size
The minimum proposed lot size is 7,200 square feet.
The maximum lot size is 36,000 square feet with an
average lot size of just over 9,700 square feet. The
minimum lot size in the proposed R-1 zone is 7,200
square feet. The average lot size of 9,700 square
feet includes a large number of lots containing 2:1
slopes in the rear yard. The slopes on one bank of
lots average approximately 50~ in length and 25 feet
in height. If the proposed zone change is not
approved, then the proposed subdivision cannot be
approved, based on zoning compliance. The R-R
1/2 zoning would require new lot sizes of 1/2 acre
which could reduce the grading on the project site.
Parks
No area is being set aside for open space. The
applicant would be required to pay applicable
Quimby fees in the event that the project was
approved.
STAFFRPT\VTM25082 3
Access
Access will be taken from Calle Girasol, and the
currently impacted Calle Medusa. Direct access
from the tract will not be allowed onto Nicolas Road.
Architecture
Currently, there is not a specific product slated for
construction under this proposal. Design
guidelines were submitted which include some
general criteria for design and landscaping. The
proposed landscape guidelines are minimal in
representation. Final landscaping would require
separate permit if the project were approved. The
guidelines are rather general and do not specifically
address this tract. The guidelines do not provide
details on large graded slopes proposed on some lots
or the method that flood control will be achieved.
Gradin~
Approximately 350,000 cubic yards will be moved on
the 35 acres covered by this proposal. The
proposed grading will create some substantial 2:1
slope areas. The applicant submitted cross sections
revealing that as much as 50 vertical feet of earth
will be removed from some areas.
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY>
The City of Temecula has elected to use SWAP on an
advisory basis. The SWAP designation for this
project is residential 2-0, dwelling units per acre.
The proposed density is 3.1 units per gross acre
which is consistent with SWAP. Staff's
recommendation for the zoning to remain R-R-l/2
will keep the density at two {2) units per acres.
The existing density of two units per acre is also in
conformance with the current SWAP designation.
Staff is concerned that the proposal may not be in
conformance with the City's future adopted General
Plan. Currently, the are in question exhibits a
very rural and low density residential character. If
the City's future General Plan exhibits a
designation which would preserve that character,
then this project would not be consistent.
STAFFRPT\VTM25082 0,
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
A Preliminary Environmental Assessment was
conducted by Staff. The following areas of
potential impact were reviewed in detail:
Biolocly
A Biological Study was conducted which identified
no existing Stephen's Kangaroo Rats on site. No
other biological impacts were identified.
Gradin.q
The proposed grading plan is currently
unacceptable to the Engineering Department. The
primary issue that the grading plan does not
address adequately is the flooding potential on the
lower portions of the site. A new grading plan will
need to be submitted which adequately addresses
this issue.
Flooding
Staff has received two memorandums from the
County Flood Control District relating to this
project. The memos were written on April 12 and
October 10 of 1990. and are attached to this report
as exhibits. The Flood Control District has stated
that the applicant, "has not presented a realistic
solution to the flood hazard from Santa Gertrudis
Creek." The design and channelization of the creek
needs to be coordinated with the Engineering
Department, State Fish and Game, United States
Fish and Wildlife, and County Flood Control. As
presented, the project poses serious potential
threats to the public health, safety, and welfare.
In the event findings are made to approve this
project, Conditions of Approval have been included
which require the project to obtain flood control
clearance prior to the issuance of any grading
permits.
Engineering has indicated that regional facilities will
need to be constructed for Santa Gertrudis Creek.
This entails the extension of Assessment District
161, Channel Improvements.
STAF F R PT\VTM25082 5
A third Flood Control letter (attached) was received
by the Planning Department on October 30, 1990.
The third letter states that the Flood Control
District will not even condition this project until a
"viable flood control construction program" is in
existence. Riverside County Flood Control has also
stated that this project should not be cleared and
recommends denial of the project.
Environmental Conclusion
Staff has concluded that significant environmental
impacts may occur because of the proposed density,
grading, and unmitigated potential flooding impact.
However, if the Commission chooses to make the
findings necessary to approve this project,
Conditions of Approval have been included for the
project to move forward. Mitigation measures for a
mitigated Negative Declaration are conditioned to be
met with additional approvals from County Road
Control and the City Engineer prior to any grading
taking place or the recordation of the map or portion
of the map.
FINDINGS:
ChanqeofZone No. 5613
The proposed zone change may have a
significant adverse effect on the
environment, as determined in the initial
study performed for this project.
a)
See Environmental Concerns section of
this report.
There is a reasonable probability that the
zone change from R-R 2.5 to R-1 will not be
consistent with the future General Plan.
Further, densities and uses proposed are not
similar to existing densities and uses in the
vicinity of the project site.
a) See Zone Change section of this
report.
STAFFRPT\VTM25082 6
There is a reasonable probability of
substantial detriment to, or interference
with, the future and adopted Ceneral Plan, if
the proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan.
a)
See SWAP consistency section of this
report.
The proposed change in district classification
is not reasonable and beneficial at this time as
it is a logical expansion of residential uses
which exist adjacent to, and in the vicinity
of, the project site.
a) See Zone Change section of this
report.
The site of the proposed change in district
classification is not suitable to accommodate
all the land uses currently permitted in the
proposed zoning district. Possible land use
conflicts are likely to arise as the project
proposes residential uses which are not
similar to those existing in the general
vicinity of the subject site.
a) See Zone Change, Lot Size, and
Grading sections of this report.
That said findings are supported by analysis,
minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental
documents associated with this application
and herein incorporated by reference.
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 25082
There is a reasonable probability that Vesting
Tentative Tract No. 25082 will not be
consistent with the City~s future General
Plan, which will be completed within a
reasonable time in accordance with State Law.
a)
See SWAP Consistency section in this
report.
STAFFRPT~ VTM25082 7
There is 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.
a)
See SWAP Consistency section in this
report.
The proposed site is unsuitable to
accommodate the proposed land use in terms
of the size and shape of the lot
configurations, circulation patterns, access,
and density.
a)
See Grading, Environmental Concerns,
Change of Zone, Vesting Tentative Map
and Lot Size sections of this report.
The project as designed will adversely affect
the public health or welfare.
a)
See Environmental Concerns section in
this report.
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 25082 is not
compatible with surrounding land uses.
a)
See Change of Zone and General Plan
sections of this report.
The proposal will have an adverse affect on
surrounding property, because it does
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area.
a)
See Change of Zone and General Plan
sections of this report.
The project as designed and may adversely
affect the built or natural environment as
determined in the Initial Study for this
project.
a)
See Environmental Concerns section in
this report.
STAFFRPT\VTM25082 8
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 forward the following
recommendation to the City Council:
DENIAL of Change of Zone 5613, based on the
analysis and findings contained in the Initial
Study and Staff Report; and,
DENIAL of Vesting Tentative Tract No.
25082, based on the analysls and findings
contained in the Staff Report, subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval.
MR:ks
STAFFRPT\VTM25082 9
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25082
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 460, 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 ~60,
The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all the
requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance
~60.
The subdivider shall submit one copy of a soils report to the Riverside County
Surveyor's Office and two copies to the Department of Building and Safety.
The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the
site.
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final
map.
Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract
map boundary to a County/City 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 Enginccr.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities,
etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are Io~,Led 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 phasin9 shall provide for adequate vehicular a~---
to all lots in each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and
purpose of the subdivision approval.
STAFFRPT\VTM25082 1
10.
11.
12.
13.
15.
16,
The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations
outlined in the County Health Department's transmittal dated September 11,
1990, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined
in the County Fire Department's latter dated February 7, 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 applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Rancho
Water District transmittal dated November 20, 1990, a copy of which is
attached.
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 Safaty.
The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes,
landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations
are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director.
Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
(1)
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, detailed slope and reverse
frontage area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for
Planning Department approval for the phase of development in process.
The plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide
for the following:
Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall 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 berming, ground cover, shrubs and
STAFFRPT~VTM25082 2
17o
18.
specimen trees. Front yards shall be landscaped and street trees
planted.
Wall plans shall be submitted for the project perimeter and along
N/colas Road, Calle Medusa, and Calle Girasol. 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.
Landscapin9 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-of-way of
interior streets and project parkways due to insufficient road
right-of-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 tress 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 on site during all grading operations 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 shall have the authority to temporarily
divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils.
Pursuant to the recommendations outlined in the San Bernardino County
Museum letter dated September lu,, 1990, attached. This condition shall be
reproduced in its entirety on the Environmental Constraint Sheet of the Final
Map prior to recordat/on.
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 succ-~or*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.
STAFFRPT\VTM25082 3
19.
20.
21.
22.
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 I10) feet.
h. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten I10) feet.
All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and automatic
irrigation.
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, prior to recording of final map, or
unless waived to prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall be
required to pay applicable Quimby Fees in accordance with Section 10.35 of
Ordinance 460.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, final grading plans shall include the
recommendations outlined in the County Engineering Geologiet's letter detad
January 4, 1990, attached.
Prior to the recordetion of the final map and issuance of any grading permits,
the applicant shall obtain map approval and submit a letter of acceptance from
the Riverside County Flood Control Department for Vesting Tentative Map No.
25082.
STAFFRPT\VTM25082 4
Prior to recordation of the final map or the issuance of any grading permits,
the applicant shall submit a cultural resources assessment which includes
mitigation measures for any identified cultural resources, pursuant to the
comments received from the University of California Riverside, Archaeological
Research Unit, dated September ~, 1990, attached.
Prior to issuance of any occupancy permits, the applicant shall submit a letter
of approval from the United States Postal Service reflecting a centralized mail
delivery system.
25.
Prior to issuance of grading permits, a precise grading plan will be submitted
and approved which addresses all 2:1 slopes on site. Said plan shall
incorporate contour grading, post and beam construction, or split level
construction wherever feasible. This plan is subject to the approval of the
Planning Director and the City Engineer.
Enqineering 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
resubmltted for further consideration.
26.
The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act,
and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions.
27.
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. ~,60.
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 Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department; and
CATV Franchise.
ST A FF R PT\VTM25082 5
The following landscaped slopes are required to be annexed into the landscape
maintenance districts:
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
Lot 31-35
Lot 36-39
Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CATV Franchises of
the intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time
of street improvements.
In the event road or off-site right-of-way are required to comply with these
conditions, such easements shall be obtained by the developer; or, in the
event the City is required to condemn the easement right-of-way, as provided
in the Subdivision Map Act, the developer shall enter into an agreement with
the City for the acquisition of such easement at the developer's coat pursuant
to Government Code Section 66~62.5, which shall be at no cost to the City.
Streets A, C, D, F, and H shall be improved with 1~0 feet of asphalt concrete
pavement within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County
Standard No. 100,, A {~0/60).
Streets B, E, and G shall be improved with u,0 feet of asphalt concrete
pavement within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County
Standard No. 800 Cul-de-sac.
Nicolas Road shall be improved with 43 feet of half street improvements plus
one 12' lane within a 55 foot half street dedicated right-of-way, plus
dedication for an additional 12 foot lane, in accordance with County Standard
No. 100 {86/110).
Calle Medusa Road shall be improved with 22 feet of half street improvements
within a 33 foot half street dedicated right-d-way in accordance with County
Standard No. 103, Section A
Calle Girasol shall be improved with 22 feet of half street improvements plus
one 12 foot lane within a 33 foot half street dedicated right-of-way, plus
dedication for an additional 12 foot lane, in accordance with County Standard
No. 103, Section A 1~&/66).
Vehicular access shall be restricted on Nicolas Road, Calle Medusa, and Calle
Girasol, and so noted on the final map.
Corner property line cut off shall be required for Riverside County Standard
No. 805.
Peggy Lou Lane shall be vacated concurrently with the recordation of TR
25082.
ST A F F R PT\VTM25082 6
41.
42.
43.
44.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement executed
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.
d. Sewer and domestic water systems.
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. 461 and as approved by the
City Engineer.
Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the
Engineering Department a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation
towards traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time
of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written
agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a
building permit.
Street names shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineering
Department.
The minimum centerline radii shall be 300 feet or as approved by the City
Engineer.
All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the
City Engineer.
Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a
minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment
as approved by the City Engineer.
A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent.
All driveways shall conform to the applicable County of Riverside standards
and shall be shown on the street improvement plans, in accordance with
County Standard 400 and 401 (curb sidewalk).
All driveways shall be located a minimum of two ~2) feet from the property
line.
STAFF R PT\VTM25082 7
51.
The subdivider shall submit four prints of a comprehensive grading plan to
the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building
Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions
of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 20? x 36'~ mylar by a Registered Civil
Engineer.
52.
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Riverside County
Flood Control District.
53.
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.
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 ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
55.
Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-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.
56.
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.
57.
All lot drainage shall be to the street-by side yard drainage swales
independent of any other lot.
58.
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:
59.
A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for
review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil
Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final
Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
60.
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform
Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The
final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved
grading plan.
STAFFRPT\VTM25082 8
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
61.
Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and
gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trc=: and
street lights on all interior public streets.
62.
Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all
times with adequate detours durin9 construction.
63.
Asphaltic emulsion (fo9 seal) shall be applied not less than lq days following
placement of the asphalt surfacin9 and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 9allon
per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39, and
9L~ of the State Standard Specifications.
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.
Transportation Enqlneerinq
PRIOR TO RECORDATION:
65.
A signing and stripln9 plan shall be designed by a registered traffic
engineer, and approved by the City Engineer, for Calle Girasol, Calle
Medusa, Nicolas Road, Street "A", and Street "H" and shall be included with
the street improvement plans.
66.
Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering
for the design criteria.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
67.
All signing and striping shall be installed per the City standards and the
approved signing and striping plan.
STAFFRPT\VTM25082 9
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
~~~P"' 4065 COUNTY CIRCLE DR. RIVERSIDE, CA. 92503 (M,ilinQ Address - P.O. Box 7600 92513-7600)
/DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
September 11 . 1990
CITY OF TEMECULA
43180 Business Park Drive.
Temecula. CA 92390
Suite 200
ATTN: Mark Rhoades
RE: VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP riO. 25002: PARCELS I. 2
AND 3 OF P.M. N0. 6228. P.M.B. ]7/2l. PARCEL 2 O|7 P.M. N0.
19276. P.M.B. 126/41-42 AND A PORTJ0N OF PEGGY LOU LANE TO
BE VACATED. PAQWRCEL MAPS RECORDED ZN THE OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY RECORDER. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. STATE OF CALiFORNiA
(109 lOTS)
Dear.Gentlemen:
The Department of FLIbliC JJe.alth 1,.~'; ; ,:,v]r,~,~r,,I Vnql 111~1 'l'r,l,:t.
Map No. 25002 and recommencl that:
company and the Health Department . Permanent
printls of the plans of the ~/ater system shall
the orlqinal drawina to the k'-ountv Surveyor .
The prints- shall show the lzlf. ernal D1Pe diameter.
at the .lunction of the new system to the
existino system. The plans shall comply In all
respects with Dxv. 5. Part 1. C),aDter 7 of the
California Health and Safety Code. Califorhla
Aclmlnlstratlve Code. Title 22. Chapter 16. and General
Order No. 103 of the Public IltllILles Commission of thp
with the following certification: "] certify that the
desion of the water system ~n 'Pratt 14ap l]o. 25613
the Rancho California WaLer District and timat time
water service. storaae and d~str~but~on system will be
City of Temecula
Paae Two
ATTN: Mark Rhoades
September 11. 1990
that it will supply water to such Tract mad at any
specific quantities. flows or pressures for fire
shall be signed bY a responsible official of the water
company. Tb~__pl~Os__~usk be submit~ed_ ~o_.~he.Cqun~y_
$MKy_~y~.fl.~_O..f,f,i,c~.~p__fe,vlew at least_two weeks pC1or
tq__the...[eque, s.t,~o[..the recorHaflon of the final map.
This. subdivision has a statement from Rancho California
every lot in the subdivision on demand Dl-ovldlllq
satisfactory financial arranaements are completed with the
This subdivision is within the Eastern Municipal Water
District and shall be connected to the sewers of the
District. The sewer system shall l,p ~n~t.a|
plans and specifications as approved bv the District . the
County Surveyor and the Health Department. Permanent Drlnts
Of the plans of the sewer system shall be submitted in
triplicate. alone with the orioin.~] drawlnr~. to the Cout,tv
surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter .
location of manholes. complete profiles. pipe and .joint
specifications and the size of the sewers at the ]unct~on of
the new system to the exlstlno system. A sxnole plat
indicating location of sewer lines and water lines shall be
a portion of the sewaoe plans and water lines shall be a
portion of the sewaoe plan~ and prorl I~q. TII~ l,l~llg 5Jl,~]l
w~th the followln~ certlflcal, lol~: "1 COl tllV tim.it t, Jao
design of the sewer system In TrncL MaD No. 251J1~2
E~stern Munlclp~i W~ter DlsLr:cL ~eu.I that the wnste disposal
system Is ~dequ~Le at th~s t~me Lo treat the antlc:p~ted
w~stes from the proposed tract m~p .
City of Temecula
Paoe 3
ATTN: Mark Rhoades
September 11. 1990
!hR_._~.l_~D~.__m..u_~,.t,._b..e_.__~_Vb~.i.~ ted. ~ Q_ t h e
.~.,Q._.C..~.X.~_e_)~._..,_a_~.__~.~_s__t..,t~p_.W.eeks pr ] or
r_~_c..o_.L.d.._a_t_i_0_n._gf the f~__n.~_~__map_._
County Surveyor ~ ~ Office
to the request for the
It will be necessary for financial arranoements to be
completely finallzed prior to recordatlon of the f~nal map.
Si cerelV.
Martinez. Envlronme~tal }{ealth Sopc~all~t IV
SM:dr
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
IN COOPERATION WITH THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
AND FIRE PROTECTION
GLEN J. NEWMAN
FIRE CHIEF
2-7-90
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
46-209 OASIS STREET, SUITE 405
INDIO, CA 92201
(619) 342-8886
TO:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
3760 12TH STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
(714) 787-6606
ATTN: RANDY WILSON
TRACT 25082 - AMENDED #3
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land division,
the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided
in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection
standards:
FIRE PROTECTION
Schedule "A" fire protection approved standard fire hydrants, (6"x4"x2¼") located
one at each street intersection and spaced no more than 330 feet apart in any
.direction, with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a hydrant.
Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for 2 hours duration at 20 PSI.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the
Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant. types, location
and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire .flow requirements. Plans shall
be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company
with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system
is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire
Dept."
The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted
by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being
placed on an individual lot.
HAZARDOUS FIRE AREA
The land division is located in the "Hazardous Fire Area" of Riverside County
as shown on a map on file with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Any
building constructed on lots created by this land division shall comply with
the special construction provisions contained in Riverside County Ordinance
546.
RE: TR 25082
Page 2
All buildings shall be constructed with fire retardant roofing material as
described in section 3203 of the Uniform Building Code, Any wood shingles
or shakes shall have a Class "B" rating and shall be approved by the Fire
Department prior to installation.
MITIGATION
Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with
the Riverside County Fire Department a cash sum of $400.00 per lot/unit as mitigation
for fire protection impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time
of payment, he may enter into a written agreement with the County deferring
.said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit.
All questions regarding the meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the
Fire Department Planning and Engineering staff.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
Laura Cabral, Fire Safety Specialist
ml
Board of Directors:
,/ames A. Darby
President
,/eftray L. Minkler
Sr, Vice President
Ralph Daily
Doug Kulberg
Jon A. Lundin
T. C. Rowe
Richard D. Steffey
Officers:
,/ohn F. Hennigar
General Manager
Phillip L Forbes
Director of Finance-
Treasurer
Thomas R. MeAljester
Director of Operations
& Maintenance
Edward P. Lemons
Director of Engineering
Linda M. Fregoso
District Secretary
McCormick & Kidman
Legal Counsel
R A N C H
0 C
November 20, 1989
Riverside County Planning Department
4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor
Riverside, California 92501-3657
Subject: Water Availability
Reference: Vesting Tract No. 25082
Change of Zone 5613
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.
Very truly yours,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon
Engineering Manager
F012/jkm297f
cc: Senga Doherty
A L I F 0 R N IA W ATE R D I S T R I C
T
September 12, 1990
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
GENERAL SERVICES AGENCY
DR. ALLAN D, GRIESEMER
Director
Mark Rhoades, Planner
Temecula Planning Department
43180 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
re:
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT-.a'S09~,. CZ 5613, PAVILION HOMES
The project is located on the very fossiliferous Pauba Formation. Excavation associated with
development will impact nonrenewable paleontologic resources.
The developer must retain a qualified vertebrate paleontologist to develop a site-specific
program to mitigate impacts to paleontologic resources. This program should include: (1)
monitoring of excavation by a qualified paleontologic monitor; (2) preparation of recovered
specimens, including sediment processing for small vertebrate fossils; (3) curation of specimens
into an established repository; and (4) a report of findings with complete specimen inventory.
Sincerely,
Dr. Allan D. Griesemer
Museums Director
ADG:RERAr
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL LETTER
COUNTY OF
January 4, 1990
RIVERSIDE
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Randy Wilson ~ Team 1
Steven A. Kupferman - Engineering Geologist
Tentative Tract No. 25082
Slope Stability Report No. 175
The following report has been reviewed relative to slope stability at the
subject site:
"Geotechnical Report For A Proposed 116 Single - Family Home Subdivision Within
The 35 Acre Parcel Described As Tentative Tract No. 25082," by South Coast
Geologic Services, dated October 20, lgBg, and response to County review, dated
December 13, 1989, also by South Coast Geologic Services.
This report determined that:
Cut and fill slopes are planned at a gradient of 2:1 {horizontal: vertical)
or less. Maximum slope heights on the order of 70 and 15 feet are proposed
for cut and fill slopes, respectively.
2. No adverse geologic conditions are expected to be encountered with the
proposed cut slopes.
3. Adequate factors of safety were calculated for proposed cut and fill slopes
under both static and pseudostatic conditions.
4. The surficial stability of the proposed slopes is considered acceptable.
This report recommended that:
1. All cut slopes shall be made under the observation of the project
geologist.
2. Fill slopes may be graded at 2:1 or flatter.
Fill slopes shall be overfilled at least six (6} feet and trimmed back to
achieve a firm surface. As an alternation to slope overfill, the slope may
be compacted at design grade during construction.
4. Proposed cut slopes may be graded at a 2:1 gradient. Where the cut slope
exposes clean ravelling sand, erosion protection will be required.
Randy Wilson - Team 1
Tentative Tract No. 25082
Slope Stability Report No. 175
Page -2-
5. Terrace drains shall be provided as set forth in the latest Uniform
Building Code.
Newly constructed slopes, existing slopes where vegetation is not
sufficient or has been damaged due to construction shall be planted as soon
as possible with a deep-rooted ground cover requiring a minimum of
irrigation.
This report satisfies the General Plan requirement
report. The recommendations made in this report shall be
design and construction of this project.
for a slope stability
adhered to in the
SAK:mp
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMEN r REVIEW COMMITIEE
PROJECT TRANSMI[TAL
DAlE <:~_~_'~ _C~ C)
l'he allnched(r,~roJect hes been scheduled for Ihe DevelopmenJ ~evlew CommlJiee
II , S:00 .
Mee ng of - J~-qO 1990 et a.m.
Your written comments or attendance Is requested, Please transmit written comments
one week prior to meeting,
The meeting will be held at:
Ctty of Temecula
CIty Ilall
|131BO Business Perk Drive, Suite 200
'l'emecula, CA 92390
IN
1990
EIC
Ir you have any questions regarding tills project, please contact, the Planning
Department at J 71 q ) 6911-6/100,
Project Information:
kC.se No. VTT
Applicant:
Representative:
Proposal:
Engineering Departments p_guq
BuildlnV and Safety Departmentl_L~ilmin~EY Plan Review
3~) - ,
5,_~,_, Flood eontrolDlstrietl O~oh_q~aehuba
~ Fire Departmentl__J, aura
~,, Realth Deparkmen~l 8am
Police Departmen~l~ 8a~ '
~ Parks and Reoreation Departmentl ~ani~e OyeUoR
~l~, Traffio and Enginestings
Others Cal-Tra~s
XrmyCorpsofBngJneersl
Dept o~ Fish i Oamel
UCRlrohaeologiomlResearohUnitf~
Xirport Land Use eouissionl
Historio Prese~atJon Boards
COMMENTS: Our records show that this project area has only been partially surveyed
and we recommend~.a cultural resources assessment.
DATE: October 2, 1989
:IieE: NDE counw
PL,snnin DEP, :I filEII
TO:
Assessor
Building and Safety - Land Use
Building and Safety - Grading
Surveyor - Ken Teich
Road Department
Health - Ralph Luchs
Fire Protection
Flood Control District
Fish & Game
U.S. Postal Service - Ruth E. Davidson
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services
County Su erintendent of Schools
Southern California Gas
General Telephone
Caltrans #8
Temecula Union School District
Com~issioner Turner
Greater Lake Mathews Rural Trails Ass.
Eastern Municipal Water Dist.
San Bernardino County Museum
Mark Balys
Con~nunity Plans
RIVERSIDE COUNTy
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
VESTING TRACT 25082/CHANGE OF ZONE 5613 -
(Tm-1) - E.A. 34341 - Pavilion Homes,
Inc. - Skinner Lake Area - First
Supervisorial District - S of Nicolas
Rd., E of Calle Medusa - R-R Zone - 35
Acres into 116 Lots - Schedule A No
Waiver - REQUEST: Change zone from R-R to
R-1 - Hod 119 A.P.
914-500-008-10,12-15,17
Please review the case described above, along with the
Division Committee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for
clears, it will then go to public hearing.
attached case map. A Land
October 26, 1989. If it
Your comments and recommendations are requested prior to October 26, 1989 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
Randy Wilson at 787-1363.
Planner
COMMENTS:
FUTURE MODE OF MAIL DELIVERY: CENTRALIZED
Contact with the U.S. Postal Service is required by the
Developer/Builder prior to construction for delivery type
and locations~~~
DATE:IO'~,,~'~II SIGNATURE
PLEASE print name and title,
4080 LEMON STREET. 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 787-F181
46-209 OASIS STREET. ROOM 304
INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201
(B19) 342-8277
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING VESTING TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP NO. 25082 TO SUBDIVIDE A 35 ACRE
PARCEL INTO A 109 UNIT SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION
AND CHANGE OF ZONE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
CALLE MEDUSA AND NICOLAS ROAD.
WHEREAS, C-M Engineering filed Change of Zone No. 5613 and Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 25082 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use,
Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by
reference;
WHEREAS, said Change of Zone and Vesting Tentative Tract Map
application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Change of Zone and
Vesting Tentative Tract Map on November 5, 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
denial of said Change of Zone and Vesting Tentative Tract Map;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECT ION 1. Findin,c/s. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Cede 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:
(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:
STAFFRPT\VTM25082
There is a reasonable probability that the
!and use or action proposed will not be
consistent with the general plan proposal
being considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
(b)
There is a 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.
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 Vesting Tentative Tract Map is consistent
with the SWAP and does not 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.
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 Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 25082 proposed will
not be consistent with the general plan
proposal being considered or studied or
which will be studied within a reasonable
time.
There is a 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 does not comply
with all other applicable requirements of state
law and local ordinances.
STAFFRPT\VTM25082 2
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. The Change of Zone and Vesting Tentative Tract Map will
not promote the health, safety and welfare of the community.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
denies Change of Zone No. 5613 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
25082 for the subdivision of a 35 acre parcel into a 109 unit subdivision
located at Calle Medusa and Nicolas Road based on the additional
findings.
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
DENIED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of November, 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 5th day of November, 1990 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFFRPT\VTM25082 3
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 5, 1990
FINDINGS:
Chanqe of Zone No. 5613
The proposed zone change may have a
significant adverse effect on the
environment, as determined in the initial
study performed for this project.
a)
See Environmental Concerns section of
this report.
There is a reasonable probability that the
zone change from R-R 2.5 to R-1 will not be
consistent with the future General Plan.
Further, densities and uses proposed are not
similar to existing densities and uses in the
vicinity of the project site.
a) See Zone Change section of this
report.
There is a reasonable 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.
a)
See SWAP consistency section of this
report.
The proposed change in district classification
is not reasonable anc~ beneficial at this time as
it is a logical expansion of residential uses
which exist adjacent to, and in the vicinity
of, the project site.
a) See Zone Change section of this
report.
The site of the proposed change in district
classification is not suitable to accommodate
all the land uses currently permitted in the
proposed zoning district. Possible land use
STAFF R PT\VTM25082 u,
conflicts are likely to arise as the project
proposes residential uses which are not
similar to those existing in the general
vicinity of the subject site.
a) See Zone Change, Lot Size, and
Grading sections of this report.
That said findings are supported by analysis,
minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental
documents associated with this application
and herein incorporated by reference.
Vestinq Tentative Tract No. 25082
There is a reasonable probability that Vesting
Tentative Tract No. 25082 will not be
consistent with the City's future General
Plan, which will be completed within a
reasonable time in accordance with State Law.
a)
See SWAP Consistency section in this
report.
There is 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.
a) See SWAP Consistency section in this
report.
The proposed site is unsuitable to
accommodate the proposed land use in terms
of the size and shape of the lot
configurations, circulation patterns, access,
and density.
a)
See Grading, Environmental Concerns,
Change of Zone, Vesting Tentative Map
and Lot Size sections of this report.
The project as designed will adversely affect
the public health or welfare.
a)
See Environmental Concerns section in
this report.
ST A F F R PT\VTM25082 5
5. Vesting Tentative Tract No. 25082 is not
compatible with surrounding land uses.
a)
See Change of Zone and General Plan
sections of this report.
The proposal will have an adverse affect on
surrounding property, because it does
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area.
a)
See Change of Zone and General Plan
sections of this report.
The project as designed and may adversely
affect the built or natural environment as
determined in the Initial Study for this
project.
a)
See Environmental Concerns section in
this report.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with this application are herein
incorporated by reference.
STAFFRPT\VTM25082 5
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
Backqround
1. Name of Proponent:
2. Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
5.
6.
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
Agency Requiring
Assessment:
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Location of Proposal:
Pavillion - JLD Ventures
23181 Verduqo, Sp. 105A
Laquna Beach, CA 92653
9-10-90
CITY OF TEMECULA
VestingTentativeTractMap No. 25082
and Chanqe Zone No. 5613
Southeast Corner of the Intersection
of Nicolas Road and Calle Medusa
II
Environmental Impacts
Explanations of all 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
X
X
Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features?
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on
or off site?
X
STAF F R PT\ VTM25082 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 cllrn~rte, 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\VTM25082 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
Ibirds, 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
STAFF R PT\ V TM25082 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, 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
X
X
STAFFRPT\VTM25082 4
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 9oods? __ __ X
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic? X
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, b/cyclists or pedestrians? __ X
14. 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\VTM25082 5
17.
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
STAFFRPT\VTM25082 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 wildllfe
population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environ-
mental goals? 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? (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
STAFFRPT\VTM25082 7
Ill Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
Earth
1.a.
1.bo
1 .c-d.
1.8.
1of.
1.g.
Air
2.a-c.
No. The project site will be graded as part of a mass grading effort.
There will be substantial grading for this project. However, a
conceptual mass grading plan for the project was approved by the City
Engineer and designed in accordance with Temecula's standards and the
Conditions of Approval.
Yes. All development disrupts the soil profile to some degree and
results in soil displacement, compaction, and overcovering. This
impact is not considered significant.
Yes. The mass grading will substantially change the topography and
physical features of the site. However, manufactured slopes will be
constructed and landscaped to a level of non-significance including
contour grading, split level pads, and post and beam construction were
installed.
Maybe. Wind and water erosion potentials will increase during the
construction phase and remain high until disturbed areas are
replanted. The wind erosion impact is considered significant but will
be mitigated through minimal grading, retention of natural vegetation
whenever feasible, and use of watering trucks and hydra-seeding of
disturbed areas after grading. After the project is completed,
indreased 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.
Yes. Since the project site is adjacent to Santa Gertrudis Creek, the
proposed project will cause erosion of or deposition into a creek or
stream bed. The project will require acceptance of mitigation by
County Flood Control which will render the impact non-significant.
No. The subject site is not designated as subject to liquefaction or
subsidence by the Riverside County Ceneral Plan.
No. The proposed project will not significantly impact the areais air
quality.
STAFF R PT\VTM25082 8
Water
3.a,d-e.
3.b.
3.d-g.
3.h.
3.i.
Veqetation
4.a-c.
4.d.
Wildlife
Noise
6.a-b.
No. The proposed project will not impact any marine or fresh water
bodies. The proposed project will incrementally affect the quantity and
quality of Fun-off water in the City.
Yes. 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 the project will require flood control approval
which will render the impact non-significant.
Yes. Flood waters will continue to be diverted to the streets and flood
channels, the project will require flood control approval which will
render the impact non-significant.
No. The proposed project will not significantly affect the flow or
quantity of ground waters.
No. The proposed project will not impact the public wster supply.
Yes. Conditions of Approval are included for this project which require
proper design and installation of drainage conveyance devices.
No. No sensitive vagetational associstions or species were identified
on-site.
No. No agricultural production occurred on-site.
No. A survey for Stephen~s Kangaroo Ret prepared for this project
analyzed biologic resources on-site. Individuals of the Stephence
Kangaroo Rat were not found. Conditions of Approval have been
included which require the applicant to pay mitigation fees.
No. Analysis indlcetes that the project site may be exposed to
significant levels of noise as a result of traffic on Nicolas 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.
STAF F R PT\ VTM25082
Liqht and Glare
Yes. However, the project has been conditioned to comply with
applicable lighting standards.
Land Use
Yes. The project is not consistent with the current zoning designation.
However, if the Change of Zone is approved, the project will be in
compliance.
Natural Resources
9.a-b.
No. This project itself will not significantly increase the rate of use of
natural resources. Construction materials and petroleum products will
be used extensively to support the specific plan project overall.
Risk of Upset
10.a-b.
No. The proposed project will not promote a risk of explosion or release
hazardous substances nor will it interfere with emergency response
plan or an emergency evaluation plan.
Population
11.
Yes. Although the project proposes to increase the density to allow 109
dwelling 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
Yes. The proposed project will not have significant adverse effect on
public services including parks and recreational facilities, schools, and
fire. However, mitigation fc¢-- will be paid which will render the
impacts non-significant.
STA FFR PT\VTM25082 10
Energy
15.a-b.
No. The proposed project will not result in the substantial use or
increase in demand of fuel or energy.
Utilities
16.a-f.
No. The proposed project might require the use of utilities but will not
require substantial alteration to the existing system.
Human Health
17 .a-b.
No. The proposed project will not have significant adverse effect on
human health.
Aesthetics
18.
Maybe. The proposed project will be removing some natural hills,
bluffs and slopes to be replaced by 2: 1 manufactured slopes. However,
the slopes will be contoured and landscaped to mitigate impacts.
Recreation
19.
Maybe. The proposed project will increase population which may impact
recreation facilities. Quimby fees will be paid to mitigate impacts.
Cultural Resources
20. a-d. No impact.
Mandatory Findinqs of Siqniflcance
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 Stephen~s Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan.
21 .b.
No. The proposed project will not have the potential to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals.
21.c-d.
No. The proposed project will not have impacts which are individually
limited or cumulatlvely considerable, nor will they have environmental
affects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly.
STAFFRPT\VTM25082 11
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a signi-
ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi-
ficant effect on this case because the mitigation measures
described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval
have been added to the project.
A NECATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the environment. and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required.
X
Date
For
CITY OF TEMECULA
STAFFRPT\VTM25082 12
OCT 89 '90 15:46 RIVERSIDE CO. FLOOD DISTRICT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
October 29, 1990
TIELIIIMONI (lf4) 271,12~
City of Temeoula
43180 Business Park Drive,
Temecula, CA 92390
Suite 200
Attention: Doug Stuart
Deputy City Engineer
Gentlemen=
Re: Vesting Tract 25082
This is a proposal to divide 35 acres for residential USe at the
southeast corner of Nico~as Road and Calla Medusa.
Almost half of this site is traversed by the flows of Santa
Certrudis Creek. This area has not been mapped by FEHA and,
therefore, the exact flood plain and floodway limits of the creek
ere unknown.
Thi~ project has not presented a realistic solution to the flood
hazard from Santa Gertrudis Creek and should not be cleared.
If Santa GertrUdlS Wash is to be channelized. a financing
mechanism should be formulated for an acceptably designed
facility. Stream flows would have to be collected and conveyed
to toe channel being proposed by AD161. Its design should be
coordinated with Riverside County Transportation Department,
State Department of Fish and Game, U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service arid this DiStrict.
We will not recommend eonditioned approval of this tract until a
viable flood control construction program is in existence.
Questions concerning this matter may be referred to the
Subdivision Section of this office at 714/a75-1210.
c: CH Engineering
HN H. MASHUBA
r Civil Engineer
ZS:seb
RECEIVED 12
MEMORANDUM
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
TO:
FROM:
RE:
File DATE:
We have reviewed this case and ask that the following items be
addressed on an amended map-
Topography should be show6 or corrected.
Ii
Show proposed grading and drainage.
Show how the project would be protected from storm flows.
Move structures/pads out of low area.
Proposed diversions should be corrected-
Show existing and proposed channels, culverts, drain pipes
and other such facilities-
~/F~Planning Dept.
MEMORANDUM
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
i~.~n ~"~0 CO~;SF. RVATIOZ{ DiSTRiCT
ZS'082
We have reviewed this case and ask that the following items be
addressed on an amended map.
Topography should be shown or corrected.
Show proposed grading and drainage.
Show how the project would be protected from storm flows.
Move structures/pads out of low area.
Proposed diversions should be corrected.
Show existing and proposed channels, culverts, drain pipes
and other such facilities.
Show existing watercourses-
Applicant C~ [~
Co. Planning Dept.
LOCATION
ZONING
N I
I~LJ/j
AC ,MII~.
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
CASE NO.:
The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this
project.
Fee
Habitat Conservation Plan
I K-Rat )
Parks and Recreation
{Quimby)
Public Facility
I Traffic Mitigation )
Public Facility
{ Traffic Signal Mitigation )
Public Facility
J Library )
Fire Protection
Flood Control
(ADP)
Condition of Approval
Condition No. 19
Condition No. 20
Condition No. 6u,
Condition No.
Condition No. 18.a.
Condition No.
Condition No. 58
STAFFRPT\VTM25082
LOCATION
25082
LOCATION
RD