HomeMy WebLinkAbout010791 PC Agenda N DA,
~tON
January 07, 1991 6:00 PM ~
VAIL ELEMENTARY.SCHOOL
2SSiS Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
Chairman Chiniaeff
Chiniaeff
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 Agerida. 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 a'~ filed with the Commissioner Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward land 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 December 17, 1990
NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Case No:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 22627-1
Lyon Communitites
Reiner. Inc.
North of Nicolas Road and East of General Kearny Road.
Change the product type {arch.design) on 93 of 220 lots.
Approval
R. Ayala
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Case No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Plot Plan No. 11767
Michael and Linda Merica
28853 Front Street
For the construction of a self-service car wash with 6 bays
and 12 parking spaces.
Approval
Steve Padovan
Case No,:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Case No.
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Case No,
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Variance No. 3
Buie Corporation
MSI
Northeast corner of Rancho California Road and Margarita
Road.
Request a Variance to allow a 200 square foot temporary
subdivision sign.
Approval
Richard Ayala
Parcel Map 25607
Robert Paine
Benesh Engineering
5outbeast corner of Ormbsy Road and Estero Street
2 lot residential subdivision.
Approval
Steve Jiannino
Parcel Map 25686
Jonan Management Services
Loren Phillips and Associates
u,3550 Blusiness Park Drive
To convert an existing warehouse building to a 2 unit
condominium for ownership purposes.
Approval
Scott Wright
Plot Plan No. 179
Johnson and Johnson
Lusardi Construction Company
Southwest corner of Rio Nedo and Tierra Alta Way
Construct a 57,28u, sq. ft. Industrial Building and a 3,250
sq. ft. testing facility on 0.5 acre site.
Recommend Approval
Oliver Mujica
8. Planning Director Report
9. Planning Commission Discussion
10. Other Business Make a motion to cancel regular scheduled meeting of
1/21/91 and adjourn to 6:00 p.m. 1/28/91.
ADJOURNMENT
Next meeting: January 28, 1991, 6:00 p.m., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira
Loma Drive. Temecula, California
SJ/Ib
pc/agnl/07
ITEM #1
MEETING MINUTES OF A
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
HELD DECEMBER 17# 1990
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City
Temecula was held Monday, December 17, 1990, 6:00 P.M. at
Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Dennis Chiniaeff.
of
PRESENT: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford,
Hoagland, Chiniaeff
ABSENT: 1
COMMISSIONERS: Fahey
Also present were Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh, Gary
Thornhill, Acting Planning Director, John Middleton, Senior Project
Manager, Doug Stewart, Deputy City Engineer, Kirk Williams, Traffic
Engineer and Gail Zigler, Minute Clerk.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. MINUTES
1.1 Approve the minutes of November 19, 1990.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF amended the minutes as follows:
Page 20, Chairman Chiniaeff asked City Attorney John
Cavanaugh if a member of the Commission should attend
the City Council meeting to explain their reasons for
denying the two items which were up for appeal. Mr.
Cavanagh responded by saying that any Commissioner
could attend as a private citizen and speak for or
against an item; however, they could not go to give
their opinion as a Commission.
COMMISSIONER FORD moved to approve the minutes as
amended, seconded by COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND.
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Hoagland,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: i COMMISSIONERS: Fahey
PCMN121790 -1- 12/21/90
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 1990
1.2 Approve the minutes of December 3, 1990.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF amended the minutes as follows:
Page 3, Chairman Chiniaeff wanted the minutes to
reflect the reason they choose not to hear the
comments from the applicant regarding Item 8 was
because they had received no information in the
agenda package for this item; Page 4, Russell
Rumansoff, engineer changed to architect; Page 6,
dam structure in the fourth sentence changed to
read concrete encasement over the sewer; Page 12,
Chairman Chiniaeff's question about improvements
to Moreno and Front Street were related to the
intersection nearest to the Post Office and Doug
Stewart's comments were related to the intersection
nearest to the Union 76 gasoline station; and Page
20, amended to read that Chairman Chiniaeff asked
that the staff ensure that the Conditions submitted
with each item pertained to that item and were not
duplicated.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to approve the minutes of
December 3, 1990 as amended, seconded by COMMISSIONER
HOAGLAND.
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Hoagland,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Fahey
COMMISSIONER FAHEY arrived at 6:15 P.M.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF advised that Item 4 on the agenda was continued
to the meeting of January 7, 1990. OLIVER MUJICA added that Item
3 of the agenda would also be continued to January 7, 1990.
COMMISSIONER HOAGL~ND questioned why the applicant was requesting
to continue Item 3 to the next meeting.
SCOTTWRIGHT stated that the applicant had some questions regarding
the capital facilities fees applied to this parcel map because it
is nothing more than a conversion of a existing structure and the
applicant feels it will result in no additional impacts.
JOHN CAVANAUGH stated that the applicant had called the City
Attorney's office on this date to request a continuance of this
PCMN121790 -2- 12/21/90
PLANNIN~ COMMISSION MINUTES
item so that the City Attorney's
applicability of these fees.
COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to continue
of January 7, 1990,
AYES: 4
NOES: 1
office
Items 3 and 4
seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD.
COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey,
Chiniaeff
COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland
DECEMBER 17, 1990
could research the
to the meeting
Ford,
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4
2.1
Proposal to construct a 924 square foot gasoline service
station and mini-market with beer and wine sales, located
at the southeast corner of Highway 79 and Bedford Court.
STEVE PADOVAN provided the staff report on this item.
JOHN MIDDLETON requested a deletion of Condition No. 55
due to a conflict with the wording of Condition No. 56.
COMMISSIONER HOAGIa~ND questioned the traffic evaluation
of this project and what was being done about traffic
control.
KIRK WILLIAMS stated that a traffic study was completed
and it was determined that this type of facility would
generate pass-by trips and therefore would not warrant
the installation of a traffic signal.
COMMISSIONER FORD questioned traffic safety and left hand
turn pockets off of Highway 79. He asked what the
Assessment District is plannipg for this area.
KIRK WILLIAMS indicated that this intersection may be
signalized in the future with continued development of
this retail area. He stated that the traffic study
reflected no problem at this time with left turns into
and out of the site.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 6:30 P.M.
LARRY Fa&RKHAM, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester
Road, Temecula, stated that the applicant was in
concurrence with the staff report and conditions of
approval. He did ask that staff and the Commission
PCMN121790 -3- 12/21/90
PLANNING
COMMISSION MINUTES
DECEMBER 17, 1990
reconsider the hours of business from 5:00 A.M. to
12:00 A.M. as opposed to staff's proposal of 6:00 A.M.
to 11:00 P.M. He stated that they felt the 5:00 A.M.
to midnight hours were imperative to the commuter traffic.
He also expressed a concern for the open-ended community
services assessment fees.
COMMISSIONER FAHEY questioned the need for alcoholic
beverages to be sold on the premises pointing out that
the Circle K directly across the street sold alcohol.
LARRY MARKHAM stated that this was a competitive
situation and it was for the sale of beer and wine only.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR asked if the applicant's intentions
were to plant mature trees as shown on the landscape
plans.
LARRY MARKHAM stated that staff had conditioned the
landscaping to what was presented to them which was
for mature trees to screen the project from adjacent
residential properties. He added that staff would
be approving the landscape plan.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR also asked what the applicant was
planning for signage.
LARRY MARKHAM stated that they would utilize the
monument sign at the freeway as well as a smaller
sign on the property.
GARY THORNHILL added that his idea was for a low monument
sign on the property.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR added that there was a freeway sign
indicating gas and food ahead.
COMMISSIONER BOAGLAND stated that he felt 6:00 A.M. was
a late opening time and would not adequately service the
commuter traffic and suggested that Condition No. 40 be
modified to read 5:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M.
CHAIRMAN CMINIAEFF also stated that he felt 6:00 A.M. was
a late opening time and that 11:00 P.M. was an early
closing time and would like to see the hours changed to
5:00 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. He added that he thought the
applicant did a good job of screening the project with
their landscape plans.
PCMN121790 -4- 12/21/90
PLANNING
COMMISSION MINUTES
DECEMBER 17, 1990
COMMISSIONER FAHEY stated that she felt the proposed hours
of 6:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. were more suitable to this
project due to the close proximity of residential housing.
COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND stated that this project will
generate quick trip traffic and the level of noise will be
adequately addressed by the placement of the screen wall.
COMMISSIONER FAHEY concurred that the applicant had done
a very good job with the landscape plans; however, she
stated that she did not agree with the proposed sale of
alcohol when there was a location adjacent to this
property that supplies liquor.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to close the public hearing at
6:45 P.M. and adopt the Negative Declaration for
Conditional Use Permit No. 4 and Adopt Resolution 90-
(next] approving Conditional Use Permit No. 4, seconded
for discussion purposes by COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND.
COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND recommended amending the motion
to change Condition No. 40 from a 6:00 A.M. opening time
to a 5:00 A.M. opening time.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF added that he felt the hours
recommended by staff were to restrictive.
AYES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey
NOES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff
The motion failed.
COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND moved to close the public hearing
at 6:45 P.M. and adopt the Negative Declaration for
Conditional Use Permit No. 4 and adopt Resolution 90-
(next) approving Conditional Use Permit No. 4, and
amended Condition No. 40 to state hours of operation
from 5:00 A.M. to Midnight, seconded by CHAIRMAN
CHINIAEFF.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF stated that he felt the earlier
opening time was imperative to the project.
COMMISSIONER FAHEY stated that she agreed the earlier
hours did not pose a problem; however, did not agree
with the 12 midnight closing.
PCMN121790 -5- 12/21/90
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
DECEMBER 17, 1990
COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND amended his motion to modify
Condition No. 40 to state hours of operation from 5:00
A.M. to 11:00 P.M., seconded by CHAIRFu%/~ CHINIAEFF.
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Hoagland, Chiniaeff
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
3. PARCEL MAP 25686
3.1 This item was continued to the meeting of January 7,
1990.
4. PLOT PLAN NO. 179
4.1 This item was continued to the meeting of January 7,
1990.
5. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 23143 ANENDED NO. 4/CHANGE OF ZONE
5535 AND
6. VESTING TRACT 23143 AMENDED NO. 3, FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME
el
Proposal for a 1,026 lot subdivision with a change of zone
from R-1 to R-4-6000 and from R-1 to R-4-5000 for 534
lots.
6.1 Proposal for extension of time for a 1,092 lot
subdivision.
Project is located south of Pauba Road, East of
Butterfield Stage Road.
G~Y THORNHILL advised the Commission that after
discussions with the City Attorney it was recommended
and agreed that there would be no action taken at this
time on the Development Agreement; however, it would
be brought back at a later date.
COMMISSION FORD stepped down on these items due to a
potential for conflict of interest.
SCOTT WRIGHT provided the staff report on this item.
Mr. Wright advised the Commission of the following
modifications to the Conditions of Approval for the
Vesting Tentative Tract 23143 Amended No. 4: Condition
No. 11, last sentence to read, "prior to the issuance of
building permits."; Condition No. 26B, last sentence to
read, "45 CNEL"; Condition No. 29, delete "provided for
PCMN121790 -6- 12/21/90
PLanNING
CO~ISSION MINUTES
DECEMBER 17, 1990
the payment of parks and recreation fees" and replace
with "satisfied Quimby Act requirements"; and Condition
No. 35, delete "exterior of all buildings" and replace
with "all buildings in common open areas."
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned the City Attorney about
the approval and status of the old map. He asked if
the approval of a revised tentative map approved by
the City Council automatically void the old map.
JOHN CAVANAUGH suggested the Planning Director
address this questions.
Gia. RY THORNHILL stated that staff wanted to see the
applicant develop the revised map. He said that the
problem is with the ordinance, in that before approving
the revised map, you have to approve the extension of
time.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF suggested the alternative of denying
the extension and submitting a new application.
JOHN CAVANAUGH stated that the ordinance reads that under
the old map, the Commission cannot entertain the revised
map without approving the extension. He added that the
revised map cannot be a substanially new map.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF asked if they were legally exposed
approving a map that appeared to be substanially
different.
COMMISSIONER FAHEY asked why this was not entertained as
a new map.
GARY THORNHILL stated that the changes made were in direct
response to the Planning Department concerns to get a
better project and included more open spaces, better
circulation, and the general design of the project. He
added that the project still presents the same buffer
space, but less units, and staff feels comfortable with
the improvements.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF stated that he felt the change in lot
sizes changed the complexion of the project itself. He
asked staff who was proposed to maintain the large slopes
on the smaller lots, which he felt could present an
erosion problem. He added that he would like staff to
look at a comparison of the two tracts.
PCMN121790 -7- 12/21/90
PLANNIN~ COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 1990
SCOTTWRIGHT indicated that the individual property owners
would be responsible for maintaining the slopes.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 7:35 P.M.
ERNIE EGGER, Ranpac Engineering, 27447 Enterprise Circle
West, Temecula, clarified that what the applicant and
staff were requesting at this time was an extension of the
old map and then approval of the revised map. He added
that they have been working hard to improve the design
characteristics of the project and have utilized lush
landscaping and substantial open spaces to provide a
pleasing environment within the community. He stated that
they had made extensive efforts to provide park spaces
which he stated exceeded the Quimby requirements. He
indicated that the buffer strip along the North side of
the project ranged from a minimum of 100 feet to 300 feet
and they have made extensive efforts to reduce the number
of intersections connecting to Pauba Road, to minimize
disturbance of the rural communities to the North.
Mr. Egger also advised that where practical, the
Conditions of Approval facilitate maintenance of the
slopes by the Homeowners Association or the CSA. The
Conditions also require the developer to construct full
landscaping and irrigation on slopes in excess of three
feet in height.
Mr. Egger advised that the 5,000 and 6,000 square foot
lots were actual pad size and not the overall lot size.
These lots have large slopes and are substanially larger
in overall lot size.
Mr. Egger questioned if the City Attorney could research
Ordinance 460 which only facilitates a i year time
extension, and determine whether a 2 year time extension
could be granted.
Mr. Egger expressed a concern for the proposed yet
undetermined fees and their ability to contest those fees.
Mr. Egger concurred with the conditions set forth in the
staff report; however, suggested that the last sentence of
Condition 24 D on page 4 be deleted.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned the unit sizes on the 5,000
and 6,000 square foot lots.
SHARON SLOCUM, Taylor & Woodrow, stated that the
architectural guidelines represented two product types:
PCMN121790 -8- 12/21/90
PLiILNNING COIO[18810N MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 1990
a 1,700 square foot unit on the 5,000 square foot lot and
a 2,100 square foot unit on the 6,000 square foot lot.
WALT SWICKLA, 33480 Pauba Road, Temecula, president of
the Pauba Ranchos Homeowners Association, stated that
a representative from Taylor & Woodrow had brought the
original map to one of their meetings. He stated that
as a minimum five acre lot community they had reservations
about the lot sizes and the safety of the roads. He
indicated that they were private roads and the speeds
were unenforceable. He stated that they are concerned
with the park sites not providing parking areas, the
proposed street light plan and he expressed a interest
in seeing the lots along Pauba Road remain 2 1/2 acre
parcels. He stated that he felt the project should be
presented as an entirely new map and all of the HOA'S
reservations addressed.
CRAIG BEAGLE, 34385 Cooperman, Temecula, stated he was
against the project and he felt that the traffic impacts
will be unsurmountable. He added that he would like to
see the area remain rural.
PAT MCMILLIAN, 42200 Kellybrook, Temecula, asked if any
consideration had been given to the existing land strip
and the air corridor over the right corner of thief
original map.
FI~%_NK HAMERSLEY, 41999 Via Lamonte, Temecula, expressed
a concern for the road improvements being completed by
the developer due to the traffic that will be generated
by the project. He stated that they proposed that they
would develop half the road, and the Pauba homeowners
could utilize that half of the road while they improved
the other side; however, they have not done any of those
improvements.
NICK SAVALA, 33150 Pauba Road, Temecula, expressed a
concern for the drainage plans for this project due to
the impacts could have on his property. He also expressed
a concern for the traffic that will be generated from this
project.
ERNIE EGGER stated that the maintenance of Pauba Road
is on the General Plan as a public road and would be
maintained by public funds and constructed to urban
standards. The lots that front Pauba Road are a minimum
of 10,000 square feet. The parking for the park space
along Pauba is proposed to be off street. He added that
the delays in the Assessment District improvements were
PCMN121790 -9- 12/21/90
PLANNIN~
COIO~ISSION MINUTES
DECEMBER 17, 1990
not anticipated; however, the program is still there and
the improvements should be completed sometime in the near
future. He also commented that all of the drainage from
this project will drain from the West to the Southwest and
do not anticipate affecting any of the surrounding
residences. He added that in discussions with the Airport
Land Use Commission the private airport did not propose
any problems to this project.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF reviewed a letter from the Airport Land
Use Commission indicating that the proposed development
did not indicate it was in the location of any airport
influence area.
COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND questioned the indication in the
staff report the requirement for the developer to sign
off any related noise problems.
GARY THORNHILL stated that this could be accomplished with
a Navagation Easement or a White Report for each
homeowner.
WALT SWICKLA advised that the airport was not under the
regulation of the Riverside County Airport Committee. It
is a private air strip. He stated that you have a 45
degree from the beginning to the end of the landing strip
and certain type houses cannot be built in that area.
You must abide by FAA standards, and not build in that
area.
He added that the houses along Pauba Road are not part of
the Assessment District and since it is going to be a
major ~horougfare and their side of the road will need
to be maintained.
GARY THORNHILL advised the Commission that in looking
into the definition of a revised map with the City
Attorney they agree that the project can be handled as
a revised map.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned if they approved the revised
map would that start the expiration for the tentative map.
JOHN CAVANAUGH stated that when you approve the revised
map it does not change the time limit on the original map,
even though it voids the approval of the original map it
does not extend the time of that map.
PCMN121790 -10- 12/21/90
PLANNING
COMMISSION MINUTES
DECEMBER 17, 1990
COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND questioned the approval for the
development affecting the surrounding homeowners being
able to utilize the air field.
GARY THORNHILL concurred with his comments.
COMMISSIONER FAHEY asked for a response to the lighting
issues and the road extension that would not be improved
by the Assessment District.
GARY THORNHILL stated that the lighting would be the
standard low sodium lighting utilized throughout the City.
He added that there was no question that the surrounding
residents would be affected somewhat by the increase in
lighting.
Gary Thornhill advised the Commission again that Staff
did not want to see the original project developed.
COMMISSIONER FAREY questioned if the park facilities
should have been included on the plans.
GARY THORNHILL stated that this will be something that
the developer will work out with the Parks and Recreation
Department and Commission.
ERNIE EGGER provided a conceptual plan of the park site.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF expressed a concern with the
compatibility of the two maps, the transition of the 5
acre parcels from the North side of Pauba to the South
side of Pauba, traffic impacts on the lower density area
and the adjacent lot being developed as a 7200 square foot
lot tract.
GARY THORNHILL advised that the adjacent parcel was zoned
for 2 1/2 acre minimum.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF added that he would like to see
bigger buffer along Pauba Road and would like the
maintenance of the slopes addressed.
a
COMMISSIONER FAHEY asked for clarification of the
Commission's options for approving or denying this
project.
GARY THORNHILL advised the Commission that if they were to
choose to deny the extension of time, once the original
map expired the revised map would also expire.
PCMN121790 -11- 12/21/90
PLANNING
COMMISSION MINUTES
DECEMBER 17, 1990
JOHN CAVANAUGH added that the revised map should be
entertained as an original map. The Commission is
limited to reasons for denying, which is based primarily
on health and safety reasons, as a basis for denial. He
added that the Commission could present their concerns to
the City Council and let them put it back to the staff or
the Commission could deny this, or you could approve the
extension of time and continue the revised map.
CHAII~MAN CHINIAEFF suggested that the Commission approve
the extension of time as well as the revised map with some
added conditions as follows: look at a minimum landscape
buffer of 200 to 300 feet along Pauba Road or larger lots
along Pauba Road; have staff work out an inspection
program for maintenance of the large slopes; and, look at
phasing the street improvements.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to close the public hearing at
8:10 P.M. and recommend that the City Council adopt
Resolution 90-(next] approving Extension of Time for
Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23143, continuing
Amendment No. 4 to allow staff to address the issues
relating to the airport, lighting, increase in the size of
the buffer lots and maintenance of the large slopes,
subject to the Conditions of Approval as modified by
staff.
The motion failed due to lack of a second.
COMMISSIONER MOAGLAND moved to recommend that the City
Council approve a waiver of the requirement of Ordinance
460, Section 3.8 (c), adopt the Addendum to Environmental
Impact Report No. 230, adopt Resolution 90-(next}
approving Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23143
Amended No. 4 and Change of Zone No. 5535 and adopt the
Resolution 90-(next) approving the extension of time for
Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23143Amended No.
4, subject to the Conditions of Approval as modified by
staff and recommend that the City Council has the Planning
Department staff work with the applicant to address the
Commission's concerns regarding reducing the lighting of
the development, the airport impact on the project,
modifying the buffering along Pauba Road to a minimum
width of 200 to 300 feet or larger lot sizes and develop
a method of maintaining the interior slopes possibly
through the CC&R's.
COMMISSIONER FAHEY indicated a hesitation to second the
motion because she understood the concerns of the
PCMN121790 -12- 12/21/90
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 1990
Commission to be only a recommendation to the City
Council and not additional Conditions of Approval.
COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND amended his motion to include the
reduction in lighting, Airport Land Use condition, the
widening of the buffer zone or an increase in lot size
along Pauba Road and the wording of a Condition by staff
for the maintenance of the interior slopes in the CC&R's,
as additional Conditions of Approval, seconded by
COMMISSIONER FAHEY.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Hoagland, Chiniaeff
NOES: i COMMISSIONERS: Blair
ABSTAIN:i COMMISSIONERS: Ford
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF declared a ten minute recess at 8:25 P.M. The
meeting reconvened at 8:35 P.M.
7. PLOT PLAN NO. 34 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL HAP NO. 25059 CHANGE
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 6 AND NO. 7
Proposal to construct one seven-story office building
containing 102,243 square feet; one 7,000 square foot
restaurant; one 7,872 square foot restaurant; and one
four level parking structure containing 134,933 square
feet on 5.51 acreas; and change the maximum height
limitation contained in the development Standards for
the I-P (Industrial Park) zone on this site from 50 to
91 feet; and amend Ordinance No. 348, Section 10.4 (b)
to increase the maximum height permitted with the I-P
zone, above 75 feet to 105 feet. Located on the Southwest
side of Ridge Park Drive, approximately seventy feet east
of its intersection with Rancho California Road.
OLIVER MUJICA provided the staff report on this item.
He advised of the following modifications to the
Conditions of Approval: Condition No. 7, te read
"submitted and approved by the Planning Department";
Condition No. 12 deleted; Condition No. 27, "or
lease" deleted, condition to read "Prior to the sale
of any structure"; and add a Condition No. 69 to
read "Prior to the issuance of building permits, a
Certificate of Parcel Merger shall be approved".
PCMN121790 -13- 12/21/90
PLANNING COMMI88ION MINUTE8
DECEMBER 17, 1990
KIRK WILLIAMS advised of the following additional
modifications to the Conditions of Approval:
Condition No. 60 of the Plot Plan add a sentence to
read "Based on the traffic study, these plans shall be
designed to provide for three hundred feet of left
turn storage capacity on westbound Rancho California
Road to southbound Ridge Park Drive."; Condition No. 61
delete "pro rata percentage" and replace with "46%";
and Conditions No. 37 and No. 39 of the Parcel Map
are the same as above and will be amended accordingly.
COMMISSIONER FAHEY asked if the Commission approved the
amendment of Ordinance No. 348, would it apply to just
this project or would it apply to all future developments.
GARY THORNHILL stated that it would have city wide
implications.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned the City Attorney if
wanted a variance to the development standards you request
a variance to show a reason.
JOHN CAVARAUGH stated that this was correct; however,
variances are typically restricted to odd lot sizes
and the applicant in this case is requesting an amendment
to the zoning ordinance. You would be recommending a
policy change.
OLIVER MUJICA stated that the application was originally
submitted as a plot plan. After staff's review, they came
up with the issue of how to get above 75 feet. Staff's
interpretation of the zoning ordinance was that any
structure above the 75 feet would be for mechanical
storage purposes only and looking at the applicant's
application, the floor line on the seventh floor is 75
feet. The ordinance reads buildings at 75 feet and
structures at 105 feet.
COMMISSIONER FAREY questioned if the fire department could
service a structure of this height.
OLIVER MUJICA stated that there are specific Conditions of
Approval from the fire department.
COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND questioned if the reason staff was
going for a change in the ordinance was because it was to
hard to get a variance.
GARY THORNHILL stated that variances were usually handled
on a case-by-case basis for which you have to make unique
PCMN121790 -14- 12/21/90
PLANNING CONNISSION MINUTES DECEHBER 17o 1990
findings. If the Council or Commission feels the findings
are justified in each case then a decision is made.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 8:50 P.M.
ANTHONYPOLO, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester Road,
Temecula, provided exhibits of the proposed building. He
clarified that the building was 91 feet to the top and 75
feet to the seventh floor elevation.
COMMISSIONER FORD questioned if the glass on the building
was reflective.
MR. POLO stated that yes this was reflective glass;
however, it could be conditioned for some other type
of glass.
CHAII~MAN CHINIAEFF asked the Fire Department
representative to address the height concerns.
MIKE GRAY, Riverside County Fire Department, stated that
the City of Temecula will be receiving their 105' aerial
platform truck within the next 30 days. He added that the
City's fire ordinance makes special considerations for any
building over 30 feet and must be built to high-rise
standards and items that are usually required of buildings
of 75 feet or more are required on a building of 30 feet
or more in the City of Temecula.
COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND questioned traffic mitigation for
this project.
KIRK WILLIAMS stated that the current situation at Front
Street and Rancho California Road will be impacted and
continue to operate at lower standard levels.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR questioned why the applicant needed
this height for their building.
GARY THORNHILL stated that when the applicant went to the
County, they got an interpretation from the County that
they could build at this height; however, when it was
transferred to the City, staff had concerns about the
height. Staff felt that this was a good project and the
height was there only concern. He added that staff would
like some policy direction on this issue until the general
plan is completed. He recommended that the Commission
consider some interim guidelines on occupied floor
heights.
PCMN121790 -15- 12/21/90
PLANNING
COIO~ISSION HINUTES
DECEMBER 17, 1990
COMMISSIONER FAHEY stated then when you look at added
floor height rather than mechancial space you have to
address the traffic issue and was concerned with setting
a precedent and the Commission will have difficulty
denying other projects.
GARY THORNHILL indicated that he felt if the Commission
suggested that the City Council establish some interim
language discouraging these types of applications, then
there should be no problems in the future. He added that
this applicant was just caught in the transition.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF asked if the applicant would consider
lowering the building one floor.
LARRY MARKHAM, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester
Road, Temecula, stated that with the Bedford building,
when they went to the County for their zone change, the
County relayed that as long as the maximum floor height
was not above 75 feet they did not need to do a zone
change. He added that what the applicant was requesting
was a ordinance clarification and rather than coming to
you with findings for a variance, staff choose to pursue
the ordinance amendment.
Mr. Markham stated that they did not forsee lowering the
maximum floor height.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR stated that she did not approve of this
height and felt it was out of character for the area.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF stated that he did not agree and he
felt that a building of this height against the hills
was appropriate, versus a building of this height on the
flat land; however, he did not like the process that was
being taken to get the approval for the additional height.
Chairman Chiniaeff stated that he felt a variance was the
best way to handle the change in the height. He added
that he felt the traffic problems were being adequately
addressed and the project could be conditioned to complete
improvements prior to occupancy.
Chairman Chiniaeff recommended that the ordinance stay as
written and each application addressed on a case-by-case
basis.
COMMISSIONER FORD commented that he felt if the Commission
approved this building then they will be setting a
precedent for the I.P. zone.
PCMN121790 -16- 12/21/90
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
DECEMBER 17o 1990
GARY THORNHILL stated that in this case only we are asking
for the additional height, and all other applications will
be addressed on a case-by-case basis. He added that this
applicant had received commitments from the County when
planning the design of this building.
JOHN CAVANAUGH added that the Commission was making a
recommendation to change the ordinance which would be
creating a precedent; however, these are development
standards that will be coming before the Commission or
the City Council.
GARY THORNHILL added that until the general plan is
adopted staff will not encourage projects with this
height proposal.
COMMISSIONER FORD questioned if the Commission could
make a recommendation to the City Council to clarify
an ordinance before the general plan. He stated that
he liked the project; however, he was concerned with
future requests for amendments to the height ordinance.
He concurred that he also felt a variance was more
appropriate to the project and that he felt that they
could come up with the findings for a variance and that
some of the findings that were in the staff report were
no appropriate.
GARY THORNHILL stated again that in his personal opinion
once you approve a variance for height you also set a
precedent, and when you have a re-zoning applicant you
are not limited by time, etc. It is a legislative
decision by the approving body and it is a policy
statement.
JOHN CAVANAUGH added that on a change of zone is a policy
issue and findings are not required under state law;
however, a variance would require findings for denial.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF asked if the issue was that this
project was asking to vary from the standards of the
zone ordinance and unless you change the zone standards
you ask for variance.
GARY THORNHILL stated that there are provisions in the
code, in the I.P. zone district you may apply for a
re-zoning to change the height.
COMMISSIONER FAREY stated that she agreed with the
Mr. Thornhill's conclusion to pursue a change of zone
rather than a variance.
PCMN121790 -17- 12/21/90
PLANNIN~ COMMISSION MINUTES
DECEMBER 17, 1990
GARY THORNHILL clarified that the current way the
ordinance reads you do need a re-zoning for inhabitable
space above 50 feet, if you go above 75 feet is must
be uninhabitable space.
JOHN CAVANAUGH stated that the ordinance reads that no
building and/or structure can exceed 50 feet under the
present ordinance, unless you go through the process of
section 18.34 of the ordinance, which allows you to go to
75 feet for buildings (inhabitable space) or 105 feet for
other structures (uninhabitable space). Not only do you
have to amend the existing ordinance, you have to apply
for a zone change.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF asked why the Commission doesn't just
change the height and then the Planning Department can
determine the height limitation on a case-by-case basis.
GARY THORNHILL stated that staff preferred to keep the
height limit throughout the district.
COMMISSIONER FORD clarified with the Commission that they
did not want a reflective glass building. COMMISSIONER
FAREY and COMMISSIONER BLAIR stated that they did not want
reflective glass; however, COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND stated no
and CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF stated that he liked the building
the way it was.
COMMISSIONER FORD moved to close the public hearing at
9:50 P.M. and adopt the Negative Declaration for Plot
Plan No. 34, Tentative Parcel Map No. 25059 and
Change of Zone Nos. 6 and 7; and adopt Resolution No.
90-(next) approving Change of Zone No. 6; adopt
Resolution No. 90-(next) approving Change of Zone No. 7;
adopt Resolution No. 90-(next] approving Plot Plan No.
34; and adopt Resolution No. 90-(next] approving
Tentative Parcel Map No. 25059, subject to the
Conditions of Approval as presented and amended by
staff, seconded by COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND.
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford, Hoagland,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Blair
8. PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT
8.1 GARY THORNHILL advised the Commission of the following:
PCMN121790 -18- 12/21/90
CO~fi~ISSION HINUTES
DECEMBER 17, 1990
Interviews have been conducted for the general plan
consultants and the City will be inviting three of the
applicants to participate in the proposal process. He
added that the request for proposals will probably go
out in two weeks with an approximate two week turn-around.
Received approval from the City Manager for each
Commissioner to become a member of the American Planning
Association.
Will provide an area for Commissioner's concerns on the
future agendas.
Mr. Thornhill advised that when Tentative Tract 25212
off of Nicklas and Calle Medusa went to the Council, the
Council directed staff to look at that area and come back
with a recommendation on the appropriate land use
designation. Staff will putting together a package of
that whole area and bring it back to the Commission and
the Council. He added that this project was approved by
the City Council with a one acre restriction, instead of
the half-acre the Commission reviewed it at.
9. OTHER BUSINESS
9.1 COMMISSIONER FAHEY questioned if the Commission will have
access to the Lightfoot Study.
GARY THORNHILL advised that he would be presenting that
to the Commissioners as well as some selected developers.
Mr. Thornhill stated that the Planning staff is currently
working on the last of the transfer cases from the
County and is starting some of their own cases and he
added that they are looking at a pre-application process.
DOUQ STEWART advised the Commission of a provision of the
tract map which reflects that is some of the larger
projects are putting in more than $125,000 in off-site
improvements and they have recorded a phase of their map
they get an automatic three year extension on top of the
one year extension that the City grants, therefore many
of these projects will not be back before the Commission
for quite some time.
COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND commented on applicants requesting
continuance of their items the day of the meeting. He
indicated that he did not approve of continuing these
items at the last minute.
PCMN121790 -19- 12/21/90
PLANNING
COMMISSION MINUTES
DECEMBER 17, 1990
GARY THORNHILL advised the Commission that they had the
discretion of continuing the item or hearing the item. He
added that he would talk with staff about making
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF commented that he was pleased with the
public hearing signs being utilized; however, he suggested
they be placed in an area where they can be easily read.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF asked if any one is doing anything with
the Historical Review Committee notices.
GARY THORNHILL stated that yes they are addressed and any
item that comes before the Commission that is in the Old
Town area there will be a recommendation from the this
Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN CMINIAEFF adjourned the meeting at 10:10 P.M. The next
regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission will be
Monday, January 7, 1991, 6:00 P.M. at Vail Elementary School, 29915
Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California.
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairman
Secretary
PCMN121790 -20- 12/21/90
ITEM #2
Case No.:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
January 7, 1991
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 22627-1
Prepared By: Richard Ayala
Recommendation: Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Lyon Communities, Inc.
Greiner, Inc.
Change the product type on 93 of 220 lots.
North of Nicolas Road and east of General Kearny
Road.
R-2 (Multiple Family Dwelling)
North: R-1 (One-Family Dwelling)
South: R-R (Rural Residential)
East: Specific Plan No. 213 (Winchester
Properties )
West: Specific Plan No. 213 {Winchester
Properties )
Not requested.
Vacant
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Single Family Residential
Overall Project
Total Acreage:
Total Lots Proposed:
Proposed Density:
Proposed Minimum Lot Size:
SWAP Allowed Density:
53 acFes
220 lots
4.2 DU/AC
5,000 sq.ft.
2-5 DU/AC
STAFFRPT\VTM22627-1 1
Minor Chanqe
Total Acreage:
Total Lots Proposed:
No. of Lots Involved:
Minimum Lot Size:
26 acres
93 lots
93 lots
5,000 sq.ft.
BACKGROUND:
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 22627, Amended No. 2,
was originally approved by the Riverside County
Board of Supervisors on October 25, 1988. In
approving the project (VTM 22627 ), the County also
approved Change of Zone No. 5119 which was a
request to change the property's zoning from R-R
( Rural Residential ) to R-2 ( Multiple Family
Dwellings) and R-5 (Open Area Combining Zone -
Residential Developments ); and, approved the
Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment
No. 32361.
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 22627-1 is part of a
proposal to develop approximately 53 acres with 219
single family residences and one open space lot.
The subject property is located north of Nicolas
Road and east of General Kearny Road.
This Tentative Tract has been designed in
accordance with the development standards of the
R-2 zone. The R-2 (Multiple Family Dwellings) zone
sets forth strict development standards which are
formulated to encourage "excellence in design and
{ in ) the provision of housing opportunities through
an integration of site planning subdivision design
and housing development".
There has been one prior request by the applicant
for change of architectural floor plans, elevations,
and plotting of housing which was approved by the
Riverside County Elanning Commission on April 12,
1989.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Due to a change in ownership and market/design
considerations, the applicant is proposing to change
the architectural floor plans, elevations, and
plotting of housing for Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 22627-1.
The applicant is proposing three (3) new floor
plans, each having three (3) variations in
STAFFRPT\VTM22627-1 2
elevations. The proposed floor plans will provide
the tract with a variety of unit sizes and a varied
streetscape in conformance with the R-2 (Multiple
Family Dwellings) development standards.
Of the three new floor plans, one consists of a
single story three bedroom, two bath residence with
approximately 1,292 square feet of living space.
The other two floor plans are two story and range
from three to four bedrooms with three baths and
from 1,699 to 1,829 square feet. All floor plans
consist of a two-car garage. The previously
approved plans consisted of two story residences
ranging from 1,815 square feet to 2,2~5 square feet.
The proposed elevations consist of a Mediterranean
theme with S-tile roofs and textured stucco
exteriors with window surrounds. The interior of
these new homes are contemporary in design and
feature volume ceilings, clerestory glass windows,
bedroom retreats, and interior laundry rooms.
Plotting of housing is also proposed by the
applicant, due to the reconfiguration of the floor
plans in order to meet setback requirements.
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
The proposed project with a density of LL2 DU/AC
is consistent with the Goals contained in SWAP.
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 22627, Amended No. 2
has been previously approved, and the site is most
appropriately utilized in a residential capacity.
Due to the level of consistency that this project
maintains with SWAP Coals and Policies, and based
on previous determinations made for Vesting
Tentative Tract No. 22627, Amended No. 2 by the
County of Riverside, Staff finds that revised permit
for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 22627, Amended
No. 2 is likely to be consistent with the City~s
future General Plan when it is adopted by the City
of Temecula.
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
In compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act, the County prepared an Initial Study
for this project during the original review of
Tentative Tract Map No. 22627, Amended No. 2. It
STAFFRPT\VTM22627-1 3
was determined at that time by the County that
possible negative impacts to the environment could
occur as a result of project implementation.
However. adherence to conditions of approval,
policies, development standards would mitigate
those concerns. As such, a Negative Declaration
was recommended and adopted by the Riverside
County Board of Supervisors on October 25, 1988.
After reviewing the appllcant's proposal. Staff has
determined that the previous environmental
determination (Adoption of Negative Declaration for
Environmental Assessment No. 32361 ) still applies to
this request since this application is for the revision
of building design and plotting only. Therefore, an
additional initial study was not prepared nor is an
environmental determination recommended to the
Planning Commission.
FINDINGS:
The proposed use of action complies with
State planning and zoning laws due to the
fact that the proposed use conforms with
those uses listed as "allowed" within the
project site's existing R-2 (Multiple Family
Dwellings) land use designation.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed; and the internal circulation should
not create traffic conflicts as design
provisions include access points and parking
areas in conformance with adopted City
standards.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare nor affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the Initial
Study for this project due to the fact that the
conditions stated in the approval are based
on mitigation measures necessary to reduce or
eliminate potential adverse impacts of the
project as discussed in the above Findings,
Facts, body of the Staff Report, and Initial
Environmental Study.
Tentative Tract No. 22627-1, Amended No. 2,
is compatible with surrounding land uses.
The harmony in scale, bulk, height, density,
and coverage creates a compatible physical
STAFFRPT\VTM22627-1 4
relationship with adjoining properties due to
the fact that the proposal is similar in
compatibility with surrounding land uses.
Single family residential developments are
currently existing adjacent to the proposal;
and adequate area and design features
provide for siting of proposed residences in
terms of landscaping, parking, and internal
subdivision traffic circulation.
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 due to the
fact that the proposed project is consistent
with the adopted Southwest Area Community
Plan (SWAP) designation of 2-5 DU/AC.
The design of each subdivision is consistent
with the State Map Act in regard to future
passive energy control opportunities. Units
have significant southern exposure which
allows for passive heating opportunities.
Deciduous landscaping can be utilized to allow
solar penetration in winter and shading in the
summer due to the fact that adequate
structural exposure exists for passive solar
heating and landscaping,and architectural
features are provided for shading/cooling
during summer months.
The design of the subdivision, the type of
improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed projects, due to
the fact that the project currently proposes
two independent entry points accessing North
General Kearny Road which has been
determined to be adequate by the City
Engineer.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference, as contained in
the attached Staff Report, Exhibits, Initial
Study, and Conditions of Approval.
STAFFRPT\VTM22627-1 5
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
APPROVE Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 22627-1,
based on the analysis and findings contained in the
Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions
of Approval.
RA:ks
Attachments:
1. Conditions of Approval
2. Exhibits
STAFF R PT\VTM22627-1 6
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTHENT
SUBDIVISION
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22627 DATE:
AHENDED NO. 2
EXPIRES:
STANDARD CONDITIONS
The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County of
Riverside, its agents, officers, and employees fran any claim, a~tton, 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 Vesting Tentative Tract No. 22627, which action is brought
about within the time period provided for in California Government Code
Section 66499.37. The County of Riverside will promptly notify the
h
subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding against t e County of
Riverside and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the County fatTs to
promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or
fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not,
thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the
County of Riverside.
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California
Subdivision Hap Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule
A, unless modified by the conditions listed below.
This conditionally a proved tentative map will expire two ears after the
County of Riverside ~ard of Supervisors approval date, un{ess extended as
provided by Ordinance 460.
The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all
the requirements of the State of Caltforeta Subdivision Hap Act and
Ordinance 460.
5. 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
i
Safety. The report shall address the soils stability and geolog cal
conditions of the stte.
If any grading is proposed, the subdivider shall submit one print of
comprehensive grading plan to the Department of Butldtng and Safety. The
plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, as mended
by Ordinance 457 and as maybe additionally provided for in these
conditions of approval.
VE.%'T~NG TEIFATiVE ~ I). 22627, kit. t2
Coed¶ttons of ApTw'wal
Page 2
A grading permtt shall be obtatned from the Department of Butldtng and
Safety prior to coanencement of any grading outside of county maintained
road right of way.
8. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordaUon of the
final map,
The subdivider shall comply with the street improvement recommendations
outlined in the Riverside County Road Depari~ent's letter dated 7-27-BB, a
copy of which is attached.
10. Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract
map boundary to a County maintained road.
All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall
continue in force until the governing body accepts or abandons such
offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved
by the Road Commissioner. Street names shall be subject to approval of
the Road Conmntsstoner.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities,
util lties, etc., shall be shom on the ftn~ map if they are located
within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and
conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the County
Surveyor.
Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance
with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Oepartment's
letter dated 7-25-88, a copy of which is attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommendations
out1 tned by the Riverside County Flood Control Otstrtct's letter dated
7-27-88, a copy of which is attached. If the land division ltes within an
adopted flood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of Ordinance
460 appro rtate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities
shah be coVlected by the Road Commissioner.
15. The subdivider shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations
outlined in the County Fire Marshal's letter dated 7-26-88, a copy of
which is attached.
16. The subdivider shall comply with the receenendattonS set forth in the
Oe artment of Building and Safety transmtttal dated 7-26-88, a copy of
whVch is attached.
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
lIES1111G IBITATIVE TItACT leO. 22627, 4bad. #2
Coeditiens of/;proval
Page 3
vehicular access to all lots in each phase, and shall substantially
confore to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval.
18. Lots created by this subdivision shall c-reply with the following:
a. All lots shall have a mintmum size of 4630 square feet net.
b. All lot length to width ratios shall be in conformante with Section
3.8C of Ordinance 460.
Corner lots and through lots, if any, shall he provided with iddittonal
area pursuant to Section 3.8B of Ordinance 460 and so as not to contain
less net area than the least -mount of net area in non-corner and
through lots.
d. Lots created by this subdivision shall he in conromance with the
development standards of the R-2 zone.
When lots are crossed by major public utility easements, each lot
: shall have a net usable area of not less than 3,600 square feet,
exclusive of the uttllty easement.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free
condition and shall he either planted with interim landscaping or
provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the
Director of Building and Safety.
All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on
lectrtcal plans submitted to the De rtment of Building and S~fety
)or plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of
Riverside County Ordinance No, 655 and the Riverside County
Comprehensive General Plan,
19. Upon approval of this vesting tentative tract map, Tentative Tract Nap No,
and ~4n e ef Zone ~. 46Z2, as they pertain to the subject site,
be no11 an) void and of no further force or effect,
Prtor to RECORDATION of the final map the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
a. Prior to the recordation of the final map the applicant shall submit
written clearances to the Rherstde County Road and Survey Department
that all pertinent requirements outlined in the attached approval
letters from the following agencies have been mat:
County Fire Department
County Flood Control
County Parks Deportment
County Health Department
County Planning Department
VESTIRG TE)ITATIVE TitACT NO, 22627° )lind, #2
Conditions of AIq)roval
Page 4
be
Prtor to the record&tton of the ftnal map, Change of Zone No. 5119
shall be approved by the Board of Supervisors and shall be effective.
Lots created by thts land dtvtston shall be tn conformance wtth the
developent standards of the zone ultimately applted to the property.
c. Prtor to recordatton of the ftnal map, the subdhtder shall convey to
the County fee slmple tttle, to all c~n or cemmon open space areas,
free and char of all 1tens, taxes, assessment, leases (recorded and
unrecorded) and easements, except those easements whtch tn the sole
d(scretton of the County are acceptable. As a condition precedent to
the County accepting tttle to such areas, the subdivider shall sube4t
the fo11on4ng documents to the Planntng Department for revtew, whtch
documents shall be subject to the approval of that department and the
Off(ce of the County Counsel:
1) A declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions; and
2)
A samph document conveying tttle to the purchaser of an
~nd~v~dual lot or unit whtch provtdes that the declarat(on of
covenants, condSt(ons and restrictions ts Incorporated there~n by
reference.
The declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions submitted
for revtew shall (a) provtde for a tam of 603mars, (b) provtde for
the establlsl~ent of a property owners' association comprised of the
emers of each Individual lot or untt and (c) contatn the following
provisions verbatim:
· Notwlthstandtng any provision tn thts beclaratlon to
contrary, the following prov?slon shall epply:
the
The property owners' association established heretn shall, tf
dormant, be activated, by Incorporation or othervise, at the
request of the County of RIverside, and the property owners'
assoclatton shall unconditionally eccept from the County o
t ~
RIverside, upon he County's demand, tltle to all or any part o
the *camnon area', more perttcularly described on Exhtbtt'E'
attached hereto. The dectston to requtre activation of the
property owners' association and the dectslon to requlre that the
association unconditionally accept title to the 'common area'
shall be at the sole discretion of the County of RIverside.
In the event that the common area, or any part thereof, ts
conve3~d to the property oveers' association, the association,
h
thereafter shall own suc 'common area', shall manage and
continuously m81ntatn such *cuenon area', or any part thereof,
absent the prior written consent of the Planntng Dtrector of the
VEST/IIG TE]ITATZlfE TRACT RO. 22627, MH. #2
CemdttlO~S Of Approval
Page 5
County of RIverside or the County's successor-In-Interest. The
property owners' association shall have the rtght o assess .the
stn
mmers of each Individual lot or untt for the tea o able cost of
mtntatntng such 'c~,m~n area', and shall have the rtght to lien
the property of any such owner who defaults tn the pa3anent of a
maintenance assesghent. An assessment 1ten, once created, shall
be prtor to all other 11ens recorded subsequent to the nottee of
assessment or other document creating the assessment 1ten.
Thts Declaration shall not be temtnated, 'substantially' amended
or property deannexed therefrom absent the prtor wrttten consent
of the Planning DIrector of the County of RIverside or the
County's successor-In-Interest. A proposed amendment shall be
considered 'substantial' tf tt affects the extent, usage or
maintenance of the 'common area'.
In the event of any confltct between thts Declaration and the
Articles of incorporation, the Bylaws, or the property owners'
association Rules and Regulations, tf any, this Declaration Shall
control."
Once approved, the declaration of covenants, conditions and
restrictions shall be recorded at the same ttme that the final map Is
recorded.
The developer shall be respenstble for maintenance and upkeep of all
slopes, landscaped areas and Irrigation systems unttl such ttme as
those operations are the responsibilities of other parties as approved
by the Planning DIrector.
e. A ftnal plan of develolment shell be subnttted for Planntng Department
348. The final plan of dT; e contatn the following
el ements:
a. The stte's ffnal gredtng plan .
A ftnal stte plan showtrig the lots, butldtng footprints, all
setbacks, yard spaces and floor plan and elevation assignments to
tMtvtdual lots,
c. Construction plans of the 'dwellings to be constructed tn the
subdivision, The plans shall be tn a fom suttable for submission
to the Deperl~ent of Butldtng and Safety for plan checking.
d. Atyptcal mechanical plan showtng the locatton and placement of
mechanical equtl~ent for tedtvtdual dwellings.
VESTING TE]ITATIVE TRACT NO. 22627,/ed. #2
Conditions of Mimprowal
Page 6
The requtred ftnal plan of development shall be tn substantial
confonnance with the proJect's approved grading plan, stte plan, floor
plans and elevations except as provided for tn Sectton 7.11g(2).
f. Thls subdivision my be recorded In phases sub3ect to the following:
1. Proposed phasing, including phase boundaries, sequencing and floor
plan selection, shall be subject to Planning Dtrector's apppoval.
2. Each proposal phase shall comply with the provisions o/Section
7.11 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348.
e
If any phase of the subdivision will be developed with fewer than
the approved number of floor plans, the cumulative mix of floor
plans resulting from the sequential recordation of phases shall
comply with Section 7.11f(3) of Riverside County Ordinance No.
348.
go
Prior to recordatlon of the final map, an Environmental Constraints
Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared tn con3unctton with the ftnal map to
delineate 1denttried environmental concerns and shall be permanently
ftled with the offtce of the County Surveyor. A copy of the ECS shall
be transmitted to the Plannlng Department for revtew and approval.
The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded final
map to the Planning Department and the Department of Butldtng and
Safety.
he
The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints
Sheet: "County Reologtcal Report No. 352 was prepared for this
property and is on file at the Riverside County Planntng Department."
21. Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERHITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
Prior to the issuance of grading pamtts detailed c~,,on open space
area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be subaltted for Planning
Department approval for the phase of development in process. The
plans shall be certified by a landscapa architect, and shall provide
for the following.
1. Permanent- automatic Irrigation systems shall be installed on all
landscaped areas requiring Irrigation.
2. Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be opaque
up to a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity.
3. All uttltty service areas and enclosures shall be screened from
view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle
VESTIIIG TBITATIVE 11tACT NO. 22627, Jld. #2
Conditions of ~pproval
Page 7
treatments, as approved by the Planntng DIrector.
be placed underground.
Utilities shall
4. Parkways and landscaped buildtrig setbacks shall be landscaped to
h
provide vtsual screening or a transit(on tnto t e prtmary use area
of the stte. Landscape ehments shall tnclude earth bermlng,
ground cover, shrubs and specimen trees tn conjunction wtth
meandering sfdewalks. benches and other pedestrian amentries where
appropriate as approved by the Planning Department.
5. Landscaping plans shall Incorporate the use of specfmen accent
trees at key visual focal potnts wtthtn the project.
~here street trees cannot be
tntertor streets and project
r~ght-of-way, they shall be
rtght-of-~ay.
planted wtthtn right-of-way of
parkrays due to Insufficient road
planted outstde of the road
7. Landscaping plans shall Incorporate nathe and drought tolerant
plants .here appropriate.
All extsttng spectmen trees and significant rock outcroppings on
the suSJect property shall be shove on the proJect's grading plans
and shall note those to be removed, relocated and/or retained.
9. All trees shall be mintmum double staked.
grwtng trees shall be steel staked.
Weaker and/or slow
b. Any oak trees removed wtth four (4) 1rich or larger trunk diameters
shell be ,replaced on a ten (10) to one (1) basis as approved by the
Planntng Dtrectoro Replacement trees shell be noted on approved
landscaping plans.
If the project ts to be phased, prtor to the appreval of grading
permits, an overall conceptual gradin plan shall be submitted to the
Planntng Director for approval. The pTan shall be used as a guideline
for subsequent detailed grading plans for tndhtdual phases of
developnent and shall tnclude the following:
1. Techniques .htch wtll be utilized to prevent eroston and
sedtmentatton durtng and after the grad(ng process.
2) Approxtmete ttme frames for grading and identification of areas
which may be graded during the h~gher probebllity rain months of
January through March
3) Prellmlna~ pad and roadway elevations
YESTING TENTATIVE TRACT I10. 22627, kd. #2
ConditiOns of Approval
Page 8
4) Areas of temporary grading outstde of a particular phase
All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded natural terrain and
exceeding ten (10) feet tn verttcal height shall be contour-graded
Incorporating the following grading techniques:
1) The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the
angle of the natural terratn,
2) Angular forms shall be discouraged, The graded fore sha.11 reflect
the natural rounded terrain,
3) The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded vtth curves with
radII designed tn proportion to the total height of the slopes
where drainage and stability pemtt such rounding,
4)
t4here cut or ftll slopes exceed 300 feet tn horizontal length, the
horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved in a continuous,
undulattng fashion,
eo
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall provtde
evidence to the Director of 9utldtng and Safety that all adjacent
off-site manufactured slopes have recorded slope easements and that
slope maintenance responsibilities have been assigned as approved by
the Director of Building and Safety.
22, Prior to the issuance of BUXLDXNG PERHXTS the following conditions shall
be satisfied:
No building permits shall be issued by the County of Riverside for any
residential lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer's
successor's-in-interest provtdes evidence of compliance with publtc
factltty flnanctn measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($ZO0}
per lot/untt shal~ be deposited with the RIverside County Depertment
of Butldtng and Safety as mitigation for publtc 11brary development.
M1 botldtng plans for all new structures shall Incorporate, all
required elements from the subdhtston's approved fire protection plan
as approved by the County Ftre Parshal,
c. Bolldtng elevations shall be tn substantial conformance wtth that
shown on Exhtbtt D (Design Hanual),
d. t4atertals used tn the construction of all buildings shall be in
1
substantial conformance vtth that shown in Exhtbit D (Co or
Elevations) and Exhtbtt D (Hatertale Board),
VESTING TEXTATIVE TRACT I10. 22627, Md. #2
Co~diU~s of )4pproval
Page 9
Prior to the issuance of butldtng permits, landscaping and Irrigation
plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval. The plans
shall address ell ~reas and aspects the tract requiring landscaping
and Irrigation to be Installed including, but not ltmtted to, parkway
planting, street trees, slope planting, and Individual front yard
landscaping.
f. All dwellings to be constructed vtthtn thts subdivision shall be
designed and constructed with fire retardant (Class A) roofs as
approved by the County Fire Marshal.
g. Roof-mounted mochanice1 equipment shall not be permitted wtthtn the
subdhision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving
devtces shall be permitted wtth Planning Department approval.
h. Buildtrig separation between al1 buildings tncludtngiflreplaceJ shall
not be less than ten (I0) feet.
t. All street side yard setbacks shall be a mtntmum of ten (10) feet.
M1 front yards shall be provided wtth landscaping and automatic
irrigation.
Prtor to the tssuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following condtUons shall
be satisfied:
a. Prior to the final building inspection approval by the Building and
Safety Depertment, a six foot high wall shall be constructed along the
south lot lines of lots 165 through 219. The required wall shall be
1 the Director of the Department of Buildtrig
subject to the approve of
and Safety a~d the Planning DIrector.
b. Prior to the final butldtng inspection epprovel by the Butldtng and
Safety Department e six foot high chain link fence shall be
constructed along the south bounda~ of the Santa Gertrodts Creek
flood Channel. The requtred fence shall be subject to the approval
of the Nrector of the Department of Building and Safety.
c. Wall and fence locations shall conform to attached Exhtbtt F. Wall
and fence mtertals and destgn shall confom to those shown in Exhibit
D (Design Kanual).
All landscaping and Irrigation shall be installed tn accordance with
approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy penntts. If
seasonal conditions do not pemtt planting, interim landscaping and
erosion control measures shall be uttltzed as epproved by the Planntng
Director and the Director of Butldtng and Safety.
Z
0
N
f3
Z
LU
VESTING TENTAtiVE TRACT R0., 22627,/aid,
Co~ltto~s of Approval
Page 10
8/23/88
e. Prior to t~e ftnal betldtng Inspection approval by the Bulldtng and
Safety Department, ,landscape screening, deslgned to be opaque up to a
te
mtntmum hetght of stx feet at maturity, shall be Installed along h
south boundary of the Santa Gertrudts Creek adjacent to the chatn link
fence,
Concrete sidewalks shaql be constructed throughout the subdlv(ston tn
accordance wtth the standards of Ordinance 461,
Street trees shall be planted throughout the subdivision tn accordance
wtth the standards of Ordinance 460.
OFFICE OF ROAD COMMISSIONER & COUNTY SURVEYOR
. Ouly 27, 19~8
Riverside County Planning Conntssion
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA92501
Re: Tract Hap 22627 - Amend #2
Schedule A - Team 1
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Mtth respect to the conditions of approval for the referenced tentative land
division map, the Road Department recentends that the landdivider provide the
following street improvement plans and/or road dedications in accordance with
Ordinance 460 and Riverside County Road Improvement Standards (Ordinance 461),
Zt is understood that the tentative map correctly shows acceptable centerline
profiles, ali existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses with
appropriate O's, and that their mission or unacceptabiltty my require the map
to be resubmitted for further consideration, These Ordinances and the following
conditions are essential parts and a requirement occurring in ONE is as binding
as though occurring in a11, They are intended to he complementary and to
describe the conditions for a complete design of the improvement. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall he referred to the Road
CocBtssioner's Office.
The landdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages
caused by alteration of the drainage pattams, i,e.. concentra-
tion of diversion of flow, Protection shall he provided by
constructing adequate drainage facilities including enlarging
existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement or by
both, All drainage easements shall he shom on the finaT map
and noted as follows: "Drainage Easement - no building,
obstructions, or encroachrents by land fills are allowed", The
protection shall be as approved by the Road Department.
The landdivider shall accept and properly dispose of all offsite
drainage timring onto or through the site. In the event the
Road Commissioner parsits the use of streets for drainage
purposes, the provisions of ArticTe X! of Ordinance 11o..460
wiT1 apply. Should the quantities exceed the street
capacity or the use of streets he prohibited for drainage
purposes, the subdivider shaTT provide adequate drainage
factHties as approved by the Road Department.
L
July Z7, 1988
3. Major drainage is involved on this landdivision and its resolution
shall be as approved by the Road Department.
4. Sierra No,re Drive, Silver Ridge Ct., Cross Creek Ct., Bogart Pl.
and Pauma Valley Road shall be improved within the dedicated ri ht
of my in accordance with County Standard Ro. 104, Section A. 140'/
(40'/60')
01
The landdivider shall provide uttllty clearance from Eastern
I~nicipal Mater District prior to the recordation of the final map.
The minimum centerline radii shall be 250' or as approved by the
Road Department.
Nicolas Road shall be improved with concrete curb and gutter located
43 feet from centerline and match up asphalt concrete paving;
reconstruction; or resurfacing of existing paving as determined by
the Road Co,~tssloner within e 55 foot half width dedicated right
of my in accordance with County Standard No. 100.
The minimum lot frontages along the cul-de-sac shall be 35 feet.
All driveways shall conform to the appl !cable Riverside County
Standards and shall be shown on the street improvement plans.
minimum of four feet of full height curb shall be constructed
between driveways.
A
Men blockwalls ere required to he constructed on top of slope, a
debris retention wall shell be constructed at the street right of
~ay line to prevent silting of sidewalks as epproved by the Road
Coaatssloner.
The mtnlmomgarege setback shall be 30 feet measured from the face
of curb.
North ~enerel Kearny Road shell be improved with 34 feet of asphalt
concrete pavement within · 45 foot part width dedicated right of
wy in accordance with County Standard Ro. 103, Section A. (22'/
33').
Tract Flap 22627 - Amend #2
July' 27, 1988
Page 3
31
20.
21.
22.
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed throughout the landdivision
in accordance with ~ounty Standard No. 400 and 401 (curb sidewalk).
Priman/and secondary access roads to the nearest paved road main- '
tatned by the County shall be constructed within the public right
of my in accordance with County Standard No. 106, Section B. (32'
/60') at a grade and allgreen, as approved by the Road Commissioner.
This is necessary for circulation purposes.
Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall
deposit with the Riverside County Road Department. a cash san of
$150.00 er lot as mitigation for traffic signal impacts. Should
the developer choose to defer time of
the enter
pa~nnent, he may
into a written agreement with the County deferring said pa~nnent
to the time of issuance of a building permit.
Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending
a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and
alignment as approved by the Riverside County Road Coaafssioner.
Completion of road fmproveaents does not imply acceptance for
maintenance by County.
Electrical and canmunications trenches shall be provided in
accordance with Ordinance 461, Standard 817.
Aspbaltic enulsion (fog seal ) shall be applied not less than
fourteen da~s following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall
be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square ~ard. Asphalt
emulsion shell confom to Sections 37, 39 and 94 of the State
Standard Specifications.
Standard cul-de-sacs shall be constructed throughout the land
division,
Corner cutbacks tn conformance with County Standard No. 805 shall
be shom on the final map and offered for dedication.
Lot access shall be restricted on Nicolas Road and so noted on the
ff~l map.
Landdhfsfons creating cut or f!11 slopes adjacent t~ the streets
shall profide erosion controls sight distance control and slope
easements as approved by the Road Department.
All centerline Intersections shall be at 90' with a minimum 50'
tangent measured from flow line.
The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be
coordinated with TR 21430. TR 23280 and TR 23428.
Tract?lap 22627 - Amend
July 27, 1988
Page 4
25. Street lighting shall be required in accordance with Ordinance 460
and 461 throughout the subdivision. l~e County Service Area (CSA)
Administrator dete~tnes whether this proposal qua1 ifies under an
existing assessment district or not. If not, the land owner shall
file an application with LAFC0 for annexation Into or creation of
a "Lighting Assessment District" in accordance with Governmental
Code Section 56000.
All private and public entrances and/or intersections opposite this
project shall be coordinate with this project and shom on the
street improvement plans,
A striping plan is required for Nicolas Road. The removal of the
existing striping shall be the responsibility of the applicant.
Traffic signing and striping shall be done by County forces with
all Incurred costs borne by the applicant.
The crossing over the Santa Gertrudts Creek at North General Kearny
Road shall be as approved by the Road Deparment and Rood Control.
GH:lh
Very truly yours,
Gas Hughes
Road Dtvtston Engineer
County ox nlverslQe
TO: RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: July 25, 1988
FROM:
., S;. Sanitarian, Environmental Health Services
Tract Hap 22627
The Environmental Health Services has reviewed Tract Hap 22627, Amended No. 2
dated July 14, 1988. Our current comments will remain as previously stated in
our letter dated February 15, |988,
$M:bo
D,~UNTy OF RIVERSIDE- DEPARTMENT ~ TH
RI~/'~<S]D!~- COUNTY PLAJ~NZNG
4060 Lemon Street :~4~NGDEpA~T~I~t~'7
P
A~: ~v~d Vsh~gren
lIE; Tract Hap 22627: Being s division of Parcel I through 4
of Parcel Hap 7384 as shown by map on file in Book 50, Pages.
20 and 21 of Parcel Haps ~n the Office of the County
Recorder, County of Riverside, State of California.
(224 Lots)
Gentlemen:
The Department of Public Health has reviewed Tentative Hap
No. 22627 and recommends that:
X water system shall be installed according to
plans and specification as approved by the water
company and the Health Department. Permanent
prints of the plans of the valet system shaZ~
be submitted in triplicate. with a minimum scale
not less th,n one inch equal, 200 feet. alon9 with
the original drawing to the County Surveyor. The
prints ahall ,how the internal pipe diameter.
loc,tion of v, lve$ and fire hydr,nt,; pipe and
~oint ,pecifications. and the ,ize of the main
at the junction of the new system to the
eli,ring ,ystem. The plan, shall comply in
· ll re,pect, with Div. 5. Part l, Ch,pter ? of
the C,lifornie Health and S,fety Code. California
Admini,tr,tive Code, Title 22. Ch,pter 16. and Gener,l
Order No. 103 of the Public Utilitie, Commi**ion of the
State of C,ltforni,.vhen applicable. The plans ,h,ll
be ,igned by a regi,tered engineer and water company
vtth the followin9 certific,tion: "X certify that the
deeign or the v, ter sy, tem in Tr,ct H,p 22627 i, in
accord,nce with the w,ter ,ystem exp,n,ion plans of the
Rancho C, liforni, W, ter District and that the
water service.storage and distribution sy, tem will be
· dequate to provide w,ter ,errice to ,uch tract. Thi,
certification doe, not con, titute a guarantee th,t it
w~ll ,upply water to ,uch tract at ,ny ,pecific
quantities. flows or pre,sure$ for fire protection or
,ny other purpose". This certific,tion ,hall be ,iGned
by , re,pon,ible offici,l of the water company.
I}
Riverside County Planning Dept.
Page ho
Attn: David Wahlgren
.February 5, 1988
This Department has a statement from the Rancho California
~ater District agreeing to serve domestic voter to each and
every lot in the subdivision on demand providing
satisfactory financial arrangements are compieted with %he
subdivider. It viII be necessary for the financial
arrangements to be made prior to the recordation of the
final map,
This Department has a statement from the Eastern Municipal
Water District agreeing to allow the subdivision sewage
system to be connected to the sewers of the District. The
sewer system shall be installed according to plans and
specifications as approved by the District, the County
Surveyor and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the
plans of the sewer system shall be submitted in triplicate,
along with the original drawing, to the County Surveyor. The
prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of
manholes, complete profiles, pipe and joint specifications
and the size of the sewers at the junction of the new system
to the existing system. A single plat indicating location
of sewer lines and voter lines shall be a portion of the
sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall be signed by a
registered engineer and the sewer district with the
following certification: "I certify that the design of the
sewer system in Tract Map 22627 is in accordance with the
sever system e~pansion plans of the Eastern Municipal Water
District and that the waste disposal system is adequate at
this time to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed
tract.'
.Riverside County Planning Dept.
Attn David Wahlgren
Page Three
February 5, 1988
It viii bj necessary for the financial arrangements to be
made prior to the recordsalon of the final map.
It will be necessary for the annexation proceedings to be
completely finalized prior to the recordation of the final
map.
Sincerely,
a~m~a~,~S~nitarian
Environmental Health Services
SM:tac
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Riverside County
Planning Department
County Aclminlstrattve Center
Riverside, California
Me have revteved thts case and have the following comments:
Except for nuisance nature local runoff vhich may traverse portions of the
property the project is considered free from ordinary storm flood hazard.
Hovevet, · storm of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New construc-
tion should comply vtth all applicable ordinances.
The topography of the area consists of well defined ridges and natural water-
courses ~htch traverse the property. There is adequate area outside ~f 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 ehvattng the finished floors a minimum of
)8 inches above adjacent ground suffice. Erosion protection shall be provided
for mobile home supports,"
Thts project Is tn the
drainage plan fees shall be paid in accordance with the applicable r~lesArea
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
tmplted density.
v The Dtstrlct's report dated/t~. f,/7rt ts still current for-this project.
The District does not object to the proposed minor change.
The attached comments apply.
Very truly yours,
~c
KENNETH L. ED~/ARDS
)HN H. KASHUBA
entor Ctvtl Engineer
DATE:
/~INETH L, EDWARD~ P. o, sox los2
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
March 9, 1988
Riverside County
Planning Department
County Administrative Center
Riverside, California
Attention: Regional Team No, 1
David Wahlgren
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Re: Vesting Tract 22627
This is a proposal to divide about 56 acres in the Santa
Gertrudts Valley area· The site is between Ntcolas Road and
North General Kearny Road and along the north side of Santa
Gertrudls Creek·
Our review indicates that almost the entire property is located
within the Santa Gertrudla Creek 100 year flood plain as delin-
eated on the Flood Insurance Rate Hap published by the Federal
Emergency Hanagement Agency (FEMA). The developer proposes to
construct a flood control channel along the stte's south boundary
to convey the flows from Santa Gertrudls Creek and drain all the
onslte and offsite storm runoff into this channel through street
or storm drain systems. Local offsite storm flovs are tributary
to the east property boundary, no indication Is shown how the
flows would be handled.
Following are the Dtstrlct's recommendations:
This tract is located within the limits of the MuFtieta
Creek/Santa Gertrudis Valley Area Drainage Plan for which
drainage fees have been adopted by the Board. Drainage
fees shall be pald as set forth under the provisions of
the wRules and Regulations for Administration of Area
Drainage Plans", amended July 3, 198~:
Drainage fees shall be paid to the Road Commissioner
as part of the filing for record of the subdivision
flnal map or parcel map, or if the recording of a
final parcel map is waived, drainage fees shall be
paid as a condition of the waiver prior to recording
acertlflcate of compliance evidencing the waiver of
the parcel map; or
At the option of the land divider, upon filing a re-
quired affidavit requesting defermeat of the payment
of fees, the drainage fees shall be paid to the
Building Director at the time of issuance of a grad-
ing permit or building permit for each approved par-
cel, whichever may be flrst obtained after the
recording of the subdivision final map or parcel map;
however,
RIverside County
Planning Department
Re: Vestlag Tract 2~27
-2- Hatch 9, 1988
Dralnage fees shail be paid to the Road Commissioner
as a part of the filing for record of the subdivision
final map or parcel map, or before receiving a walver
to record a land division, for each lot within the
land division where construction activity as evi-
denced by one of the following actions has occurred
since Hay 26, 1981:
grading permit or building permit has been
obtained.
(b) Gradlag or structures have been Initiated.
The proposed channel should be constructed to the
Distrtct's standards, The design of the proposed flood
control channel should utilize the following assumptions:
a. Design discharge = 7800 cfs
b. Freeboard = 2 feet
e. Effects of transitions, curves and bridge piers
should be included in the hydraulic analysis.
The following should be included in the design:
a. The channel should be soft bottomed,
b. Invert should be maintained at natural ~rade to pre-
vent headward erosion or do~stream siltstics.
Side banks should be hardened with concrete or
riprap, which should extend from the top of bank to a
depth below flow line based on design velocities.
No levees will be permltted. All building sites ad-
Jacent to the channel should be constructed above the
adjacent top of channel.
Access ro~ds should be provided along each side of
the channel,
Offsite training dikes may be necessary to guide
flows toward the channellzed section. Offsite ease-
ments should be secured from the affected property
owners. Alternatively, facilities should be "pulled
back" onslte.
Riverside County
Planning Department
Re: Vesting Tract 22627
-3- March 9, 1988
tlr ·
Prior 'to initiation of the final construction drawings
for those facilities required to be built as part of the
Hurtlets Creek/Santa Gertrudts Valley Area Drainage Plan,
the developer should contact the Riverside County Flood
Control and Hater Conservation District to ascertain the
terms and conditions of design, construction, inspection,
transfer of rights of Hay, project credit in lieu of fees
and reimbursement schedules which may apply. Title re-
ports and title insurance must be provided for all right
of way to be transferred to the District. The developer
should note that If the estimated cost for required area
drainage plan facilities exceeds the required drainage
fees and the developer Hishem to receive credit for reim-
bursement in excess of his fees, the facilities will be
constructed as a public works contract. Scheduling for
construction of these facilities will be at the discre-
tion of the District.
Permission should be secured from the upstream property
owner if any increase in water depths greater than 6
inches is proposed and from the downstream property owner
for the concentration of flows. Copies of these docu-
ments should be submitted to the District for review
prior to recordstics of the final map.
All lots abutting the proposed flood control channel
should be elevated above 100 year flood water surface.
Offsite storm flows tributary to the property form the
east should be collected and safely conveyed through the
property to Santa Gertrudis Creek·
Onsite drainage facilities located outside of road right
of way should be contained within drainage easements
shown on the final map. A note should be added to the
final map stating, eDrainage easements shall be kept free
of buildings and obstructions'.
Offsite drainage facilities should be located within
publicly dedicated drainage easements obtained from the
affected property owner(s). The document(s) should be
recorded and a copy submitted to the District prior to
recordstics of the final map.
9- All lots should be graded to drain to the adjacent street
or an adequate outlet.
Riverside County
Planning Department
Re: Vesting Tract 22627
-4- Harch 9, 1988
The 10 year storm flow should be contained within the
curb and the 100 year storm flow should be contained
wlthin the street rlght of way. When elther of these
crlterta ls exceeded, additional dralnage facilities
should be Installed.
Drainage facilities outletting sump conditions should be
deslgned to convey the tributary 100 year storm flows.
Additional emergency escape should also be provided.
A drainage easement should be obtained from the affected
property owners for the release of concentrated or di-
verted storm flows. A copy of the recorded drainage
easement should be submitted to the District for review
prior to the recordatton of the final map.
Evidence of a viable maintenance mechanism should be sub-
mitted to the District and County for review and approval
prior to recordatlon of the final map.
Temporary erosion control measures should be implemented
immediately following rough grading to prevent deposition
of debris onto downstream properties or drainage
facilities.
A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and flnal
map along with supporting hydrologlc and hydraulic cal-
culations should be submitted to the District via the
Road Department for review and approval prior to recorda-
tton of the final map. Grading plans 'should be approved
prior to issuance of grading permits.
Questions concerning this matter may be referred to Robert Chtang
of thls offlee at 71~/787-2333.
Very truly yours,'
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
~'; · nginee
OHN H.
entor Civil Engineer
cc: Rancho Pacific Engineering
RC:bab
RIVE!~IDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
IN COOPERATION WITH THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
RAY HEBRARD
7-26-88
PLANNING DEPARTNENT
TEAIf Z, DAVID gAHLCREN
'fi~ 22627 - &HENDE:/)
Piamdng & EoStMertn: Off/ce
40~0Lemo~-eet,~ultell
R/vers|de. CA 92501
~14)
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced ~end division,
the Fire Department r_eccmwends the following fire protection measures be provided
in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances end/or recognized fire protection
· tandards:
Schedule 'A* fire protection approved standazd fire hydrants, (6"x4"x2½") located
une at each street intersection en, d ·paced no more than 330 feet a~ert in 'any
direction, with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet frc~ a hydrant.
Miniature fire flow shall be 1000 GPN for 2 hours duration at 20 PSI.
a~pltcant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire
Department for review. Plans shall conform to f~re h~drant types, location and
spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be
signed/a~proved by a registered civil engineer end ~he local water con~any with
the following certification: el certify that the design of the water system is
in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire
Department."
The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted
by the appropriate water agency prior to any cce~ustible building material being
placed ~ an individual lot.
Prior to the recordatton 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 ~.-acts. ~hould the developer choose to defer the t~me of
payment, ha/she may enter into a written agreement with the County deferring said
payment to the time of issuance of a building pe~q~Lt.
Xli questions regardj~g the meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the
Fire Department Planning and Engineering staff.
RAYMOHD H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
County Administrative Center · 4080 Lemon Street, 2nd Floor
Riverside. Califomia 92501-3661
July 26, 1988
Riverside County Planning Department
Attentions David Wahlgren
County Administrative Center
Riverside, CA 92501
RE= Vesting Tract 22627, Amend #2
Ladies and Gentlemen~
The Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety
has the following con~ents and conditionsz
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall
obtain Planning Department approval for all on-site and off-
site signage advertising the sale of the subdivision pursuant
to Section 19.6 of Ordinance 348.
Fireplaces may encroach 1' into required minimum 5' side yard
setback.
Mechanical equipment may not be located in required minimum 5'
side yard setback.
Very truly yours,
Thomas H.-Ingram, Director
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY
La~ Div i s ion
Building Inspection (714) 787.6480. Administration (714) 787-2020
Land Use Enforcement {714) 787-4079 · Engineering Plan Seh. ice (714) 787-2011
DEPARTNENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY
John B~schoff, Supervising Planner
June 11, 1986
F~%OMe Eric Trabo~ay, Deputy Director
Review of Lique[action Rdport for Tract 21430
We have reviewed the reports entitled:
Liquefaction Evaluation, Tentative Tract No. 21430 Rancho
California Area, Riverside County, California, dated Feb-
ruary 5, 1986; prepared by Pioneer Consultants, J.N~ 3686-003
Addend~u to Report Dated February 5, 1986, dated March 24,
1986; prepared by Pioneer Consultants, J.N. 3686-003
and reviewed the information with Pioneer Consultants in a meeting June 6,
1986. In addition, additional information vas sent to Pioneer Consultants
in a registered letter dated June 9, 1986, regarding reported historic
high groundwater elevations in Nicholas Valley.
Pioneer Consultants has concluded ~hat although they expect liquefaction
at depth, they do not expect a detrimental effect to the proposed devel-
Ol~nent and no special mitigation reco6gnenda{ions were made.
-284-143 1/80
DATE: 3anuar722, 1~88
TO:
ASSeSSOr
Butldtng and Safety '
Surveyor - Dave Duda
Road Departmnt
Health - Ralph Luchs
Ftre Protection
Flood Control Dtstrtct
Ftsh& Game
LAFCO, S Patsley
U.S. Postal Servtce- Ruth E. Oevtdson
:liVE:BiDE COUnC.u
PLAnninG DEPARErnEnC
FEB 0'.;. RECEIVED
I FEB . 2 1988
PLAN !~, ,'~ d PA~O.M~R OBSER".'.'iTORY
Rancho Caltf. Mater
Southern Caltf. Edison
Southern Calif. Gas
Ganeral Telephone
Dept. of Transportation ~8
Temecula Unton
Elstnore LMton
lit. Palomar
Conan(sstoner Bresson
VESTING TRACT 22627/CHANGE OF ZONE 5119
(Tm-1) - E.A. 32361 - Rancho Pactflc
Engineering - Hurttara Area - First
SupervtSortal DtstHct - North & South c
Margartta, Mest of Vta*Lobo - R-/,R-3,R-
Zone - 53 acres tnto 223 lots - (REQUES]
CZ To change the zone from R-1,R-3,R-5 ~
R-2 & R-5) - Nod 119 - A.P.
919-350-022-024,025
Please revtew the case described above, along wtth the attached case map. A Land
01vtston Coemtttee meettrig has been tentathely scheduled for March 10, 1988. If tt
clears, tt w~11 then go to puhllc hearlng.
Your co~nents and recomendatlons are reauested prior March 3, 1988 to tn order thatwe
may tnclude them tn the staff report for thts partlcular case.
Should you have any questions regarding thts ttem, please do not hesttate to contact
Davtd Mahlgren at 787-1363
Planner
COee[NTS:
?LEASE SEE ATTACHED
DATE: 2/2/88 SIGNATURE
PLEASE prtnt name and tttle Dr.
Robert J. Brucato/Asststant Dtrector/Palomar
4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 7RTJ~q o*
46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
INDIO, CALIFORNIA 9220T *'
::... -. .....8~7f-r.--
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
This cue is within 30 miles of the Palomar Observetot7 end is therefore
within the zone requiring the use of lm~-pressure sodium vapor lamps fo.r
street lighting, en stipulated by the Riverside County Board of SupBrvisors.
We request that the design for other types of outdoor li2hting that may be
employed on this propert~ be made consistent vith the spirit of the decision.'
of the Board of Supervisors vhich is intended to.mitigate the adverse effects
such facilities have on ~he astronomical research at Palomar. Beneficial
steps to that end include:
1. Use the minimum amount of li2ht needed for the task.
2. Orient and shield light =o prevent direct u.Dvard illumination.
Turn off lights at 11:00 p.m. (or earlier) unless, in commercial
applications, the associated business is onen past that time, in vhich
case the lights should be turned off at closing.
Use lov-pressure sodium lsmps for roadrays, valkvays, equipment yards,
parking lots, security and other similar applications. These lights
need not he turned off at 11:00
For further information, call (818) 356-&035.
Robert J. Brucato
Assistant Director
DATE: Januar~ 22, 1988
TO: Assessor
Butldtng and Safety ,
Surve3mr - Dave Duda
Road Department
Health - Ralph Luchs
Fire Protection
Flood Control District
Fish &Game
LAFCO, S Paisley
U,S. Post~l Service - Ruth E. Davidson
RiVErSiDE counc,u
PLAnninG DEPARCfilErlC
Rancho Caltf. Water
Southern Calif. Edison
Southern Caltf. Gas
General Telephone
Dept. of Transportation
lemecula Union
Elsinore Union
Nt. Palomar
Comfsstoner 8resson
VESTING TRACT 22627/CHANGE OF ZONE 5119 -
(Tm-1) o E.A. 32361 - Rancho Pacific
Engineering - Murrteta Area - First
Supervisortal District - North & South of
Pargartta, West of Vta* Lobo - R-1,R-3,R-5
Zone - 53 acres into 223 lot~ - (REQUEST
CZ To change the zone from R-1,R-3,R-5.to
R-2 & R-5) - Nod 119 - A.P,
919-350-022-024,025
)lease review the case described above, along with the attached case map. A Land
Division Committee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for Parch 10, 1988. If it
clears, it w111 then go to public hearing.
Your cmnents and recomendations are reouested prior Narch 3o 1988 to in order that we
my tnclude them in the staff report for this particular case.
Should you have any questions regarding this item, please do not hesitate to contact
David Wahl~ren at 787-13q3
Planner
CO!~ENTS:
The Elsinore Union High School Dtstrtct facilities are overcrowded and our
educational programs seriously tmpacted by increasing studnet population caused
by new residential. co,nerctal and industrial construction. Therefore. pursuant
to California Government Code Section 53080 of AS 2926 and $B 327, this district
levies i fee against ali new development projects vtthtn 1is boundaries.
DATE:=~/~/f SIGNATURE
PLEASE print name and title
4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 7874181
46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201
(619) 342-8277
JUly 15, 1988
Mr. Richard MacHott, Supervising Planner
Riverside County Planning Department
4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
SUBJECT: Vesting Tentative Tract Map Number 22627
Dear Mr. MacHott:
The following summarizes our findings regarding the fiscal
impact analysis for the pro3ect identified above. The
appendix attached summari~es the basic assumptions used in.
the anal~sis. Please note that these results reflect the
current levels of service provided by the County based on
Fiscal Year 1986 - 1987 actual costs (per capita factors)
and Departmental and Auditor-Controller review of operations
and facility costs for services reviewed using case study
analysis. Staff to the Growth Fiscal Impact Task Force and
Departments are currentl~ reviewing service leve!s provided
and the need to increase the levels of service. Current
findings are that existing levels of service are not
adequate in most cases. Should the desired level of service
be utilized in the fiscal analysis performed, it would
significantly increase the costs associated with this
development.
COUNTY FUND
(Operations and
Maintenance)
FISCAL IMPACT
AFTER BUILDOUT
CUMULATIVE FISCAL
IMPACT AT BUILDOUT
County General ($7,757) $14,096
Fire (S3,701) ($7,436)
Free Librat7 ($63) ($127)
SUBTOTAL COUNTY ($11,521)
$6,533
Road Fund ($4,829) ($9,655)
GRAND TOTAL
($16,350)
(S3,122)
Rabest T. Andetsen Administrative Center
4080LEMON~ · 12TI,I FLOO¢% · iiBrr, RSIDE. CALIFO RNLA92501 t (714)787-2544
The following special circumstances apply to this pro3ect:
1. The developer assumptions included a factor of 28.?5%
of income used for taxable sales. CAO staff utilized a
factor of 22.5%, which is closer to the countywide average.
2. Please note the attached letter, dated June 29, 1988,
from the Riverside City and County Public Library concerning
this project.
3. Flood Control staff has indicated that flood control
facilities constructed within Zone 7 are unlikely to be
sufficiently funded for maintenance costs, Current
estimates indicate that funding shortages should occur ~or
the next ten years. Suggested mitigation measures include a
cash deposit by the project developer or use of an
assessment mechanism. The amount of deposit would be
determined by a present value analysis and project timing.
The cost of maintaining flood control facilities will
not be known until final design phases, when facility needs
have been fully identified. Flood Control staff will,
therefore, condition project approvals to identify a means
of financing facility maintenance and operation (if~
necessary) prior to recordation of subdivisions.
Based on the analysis and assuming that the average sales
price of the units will be $144,166, overall Vesting
Tentative Tract 22627 will have a negative fiscal impact at
buildout of S3,122. After buildout, this project will have
an annual negative fiscal impact to the County of $16,350 at
current levels of service.
Initial Review By:
Review Approved
~ne 29, 1988
Riverside
Libra
r, Kevin Hughes
ANPAC
7447 Enterprise Circle West
~mecula, CA 92390
~ar Nr, Hughes:
SUB3ECT: VESTING TENTATIVE TIU~CT 22627-RANCHO CALIFORNIA
(2ND REVISION per Mr, Hughes)
I am vriting in response to your request for information re-
garding the impact of a proposed project upon library service.
The proposed project would adversely alEact existing library
services. The increase in population to be served would require
an increase in funding to the County Library to maintain the
r ~ent level of service.
However, the current level of service has been recognized as
substantially inadequate. The attached charts show how the
current number of volumes per capita and the current square
feet per capita are inadequate and have declined during the
last decade due to the impact of rapid opulation
throughout the County. See attached charts ~pendix C growth
and D).
The Eiscal impact of an additional 600 persons (223 dwelling
units) is stated below in 1988 dollars in amounts needed to
1)maintain the current, inadequate level of service onl and to
2)provide the desired level of service. The desired ~evel is
inclusive of the current level.
Facilities
(one time cost only)
Maintain Current
Level of Service
~ 13,632
Provide Desired
Level of Service
~ 42,600
Collection (volumes)
(one time cost only)
$ 13,774
$ 19,678
Subtotal for Facilities
and Collection $ 27,406
(one time cost only)
Services $ 5,508
(annual ongoing cost)
$ 62,278
$ 11,340
llmb K WreNS. Dimmr · !,O. !oz 4(38 · ~ CA 92502.0468 · (?| 4) 'ie, lo~ll I
Letter to RANPAC, e22627, 6/29/88, Page 2.
These costs might be mitigated
The assessment of a library facilities and collections fee
in 1988 dollars at s cost of $123 per residential 'unit to
maintain the current level of service, or $279 per residen-
tial unit to provide the desired level of aervice.
The determination that the proJect*s estimated assessed
valuation will provide at least $5,508 per year in 1988
dollars to the County Library District to finance ongoing
expenses at the current level of service, or $11,340 per
year to finance ongoing expenses at the desired level of
service·
Feel free to contact me at (714)782-5213, if you have further
questions.
Sincerely,
Auth
Assistant Library Director
~A:mJb
Enclosures: Appendix C and D
cc: Linda Wood, Library Director
Norm Caouette, Senior Administrative Analyst
Appendix C
Fieca/
Year Population'
~ndSnO Served Volumes
3~77 368,466 3J0, S?I
3t?b 3l?,402 325,305
3t79 3l?,402 325,27i
3llO 2S2,Sl8 343,566
39e3 267,133 341,638
3~82 .325,074 363,205
2re4 . '433,452 347,213
2985 458,?45 35J,428
2tB6 495,550 .402,100
3987 533,351 446,472
J,14
3,74
'2.74
2,30
3,30
3.31
· B&sed upon lCCPL A~nual Reports
I-ZV~I~SID£ c.l~r AND COON. ~iJILZC LZI/~RF
78 llTe4Ol
7~ JlTe4OJ
lO 2Sl,See
ma 267.833
84 423,4S2
IS 458,745
~ 415,SS0
87 ': S33.359
Ignore Feet
62.914 037
62.184
Jl.ll4
· 63,314
65.634
.24
°25
.21 "
73,254 .38
74,054 .26
75,358 .IS
lS,OS$
e
· laced on ICCPL Annual Reports :-'
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
March 11, 1988
Riverside County
Planning Department
County Administrative Center
Riverside, California
Attention: Regional Team No. 1
David Wahlgren
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Re: Change of Zone 5119
Case Number 5119 is a request to change the land use zoning on 53
acres in the Murrteta Hot Springs area. This case is concurrent
utth tentative Map Number 22627 whlch proposes subdividing It~
Into 223 lots. The property 18 located on the north slde of
Ntcolas Road at about one-half mlle east of Winchester Road.
Over half of the property is in the flood plaln of Santa
Gertrudls Wash. The flood plaln is also officially mapped under
the Natlonal Flood Insurance Program as shoun on Panel Number
0602qS-27q5 of the FIRM maps by FEMA. The FEMA mapping implies
hlgher rates for property insurance and strlcter rules for en-
gineering analysis. Flood control facilities and other
£1oodprooftng u111 be requlred to develop to the proposed
denslty.
Questions regarding this matter may be referred to the
Subdivision sectlon at 71q/787-288q-
Very truly yours,
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
cc: Rancho Pacific Engineering
DHT:bab
rE: ~anuary22, 1988
TO: Assessor
ktldtng and Safety
Surveyor - Dave Duds
Road Department
leealth - Ralph Luchs
~ Fire Protection"'
flood Control R!strtct
Fish &Game
LAFCO, S Pe¶sley
U.S. Postal Service - Ruth E. hvtdson
RiVERb;OE COUncy
PLA~~E~G D PA CBEnC
Rancho Ca14f. Mater
Southern Caltf. Edison
Southern Callf. Gas
General Telephone
Dept. of Transportation #8
Temecula Union
ETstnore Union
Ht. Palomar
Ctmnisstoner Bresson
~ESTINGTRACT*22627)CHA~GE*OF ZONE'S~'19~9-
(Tm-1) - E.A. 32361 - Rancho Pactflc
Engtneer4ng - Nurrteta Area'- F4rst
Supervisor¶a1 District - North & South of
lqargar¶ta, Meat of ¥1a*Lobo - R-1,R-3,R-5
Zone - $3 acres tnto 223 lots - (REQUEST
CZTo change the zone from R-1,R-3,R-S t~
R-2 & R-S) -~od 119 - A.P.
919-350-022-024,025
~lease revtew the cas~ described above, along wtth the attached case map. A Land
nfvlsfon Committee meetfng has been tentatfvely scheduled for Hatch 10, 1988.* If tt*
dears, tt wt11 then go to public heartng.
Your comnents and recommendations are requested prior Hatch 3, 1988 to In order thetwe
may !ndude them In the staff report for thts particular case.
Should you have any questions regarding thts Item, please do not hesttate to contact
David Mahlgren at 787-1363
Planner
The Fire Department has
no com~nts or conc~;Lt, ILons.
DATE: 3-8-s8 SIGNATURE
PLF. A~E prtnt ,am and tttle
4080 LEMON STREET. 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE., CALIFORNIA 92501
iT14) 787-6181
46-209 OASIS STREET. ROOM 30.4
INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 '-
(619l 342'821/'w'
VICINITY MAP
N.T.S.
i
tl
\
; NV'ld
II
!i1
le
NY'ld llO0'laf
4
V NOI,LVAi'II
g NV'ld
· NOLLVA!'I!
g NV'Id
~ -,-,,,-.- r
0 IiOI:L'V, AI'IB
C NV'ld
i
I"11'1
ITEM #3
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
January 7, 1991
Case No.: Plot Plan No. 11767
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:
Michael and Linda Merica
Peter Pozzuoli
To construct a six bay self serve car wash with
drying areas in the rear.
28853 Front Street
C-P (General Commercial)
North: C-P
South: C-P
East: C-P
West: R - R
Not requested.
Vacant
North:
South:
East:
West:
( General Commercial )
( General Commercial )
( General Commercial )
( Rural Residential )
Vacant
Vacant
Commercial Uses
Flood Control Channel
Total Gross Area:
Total Buildable Area:
1.41 acres
.51 acres
BACKGROUND:
The application was submitted to the Riverside
County Planning Department on February 5, 1990.
The case was transferred to the City in July and
has been taken to a Preliminary and Formal
Development Review Committee. Landscaping and
STAFFRPT\PP11767 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
circulation were the main issues brought up at these
hearings.
The proposed project is located on the west side of
Front Street approximately 1,200 feet south of First
Street. The parcel was created through Parcel Map
No. 22286. Currently. the property is vacant and
relatively flat. A flood control channel easement
occupies the western two-thirds of the property,
leaving only .51 buildable acres out of a total of
1.41 acres. The properties to the north and south
are aJso vacant.
The applicant is proposing to construct a 6 bay self
serve car wash with drying spaces under a canopy
at the rear of the property. 12 parking spaces have
been provided on-site.
The project, as conditioned, meets the requirements
of Ordinance No. 3L~8 regarding parking,
landscaping, and setbacks. 12 parking spaces have
been provided in the front and rear portions of the
property, and building and driveway setbacks are
adequate.
The buildings consist of two structures. The six
bay wash structure utilizes a standard
contemporary design that maximizes the floor plan
of the design. This structure is situated in the
center of the property and faces Front Street for
circulation purposes. The carport structure in the
rear portion of the property is for drying and
vacuuming bays. To further enhance circulation on
site, a condition has been included to relocate the 6
bay wash structure to within 3 feet of the northern
property line. This will allow for a 27 foot 2-way
drive aisle along the southern property line. This
design change was requested by Staff on the
original plans. However, the applicant was unable
to have their'designer alter the plans due to
unforeseen difficulties.
Staff has also conditioned a 15 foot landscape
setback along Front Street between the driveway
and the parking spaces. This landscape setback
will provide a visual buffer from the street and
provide an area for signage.
Facilities to recycle and dispose of waste water
should be provided on site. Any type of system
STAFFRPT\PP11767 2
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS:
established must be approved by the Riverside
County Health Department,
The property is in a flood hazard area and for this
reason, the Riverside County Flood Control District
is requiring that the entire buildable area of the
project be raised to a level above the flood plain.
The project is located in the C-1/C-P zone which
permits the operation of a car wash, In addition,
there is a reasonable probability that the project, as
proposed, will be consistent with the City's future
general plan.
An initial study was completed on the project and it
was determined that the project would not have a
significant impact on the environment. Therefore,
it is recommended that a Negative Declaration be
adopted for the application.
There is a reasonable probability that Plot
Plan No, 11767 will be consistent with the
City's future General Plan, which will be
completed in a reasonable time and in
accordance with State law due to the fact that
the surrounding area is dominated by
commercial development and therefore, the
land use designation will likely be commercial.
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 due to
the fact that the project is in conformance
with SWAP and anticipated land use and
design guidelines.
The proposed use or action complies with
State planning and zoning laws. The
proposed use as designated is a permitted use
in the C-1/C-P zone.
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.
Adequate area has been provided for
buildings, parking and circulation; and all
STAFFRPT\PP11767 3
10.
landscape and setback requirements have
been satisfied.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare. The conditions stated in the
approval are based on mitigation measures
necessary to reduce or eliminate potential
adverse impacts of the project as discussed in
the above Findings, Facts, body of the Staff
Report, and Initial Environmental Study.
The project is compatible with surrounding
land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk,
height, intensity, and coverage creates a
compatible physical relationship with
adjoining properties. The proposal as
designed will be compatible with surrounding
land uses. Adequate area and design
features provide for siting of proposed
facilities in terms of landscaping, parking,
and internal traffic circulation.
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
property and surrounding sites are
commercially zoned and will likely be
designated for commercial uses in the future.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment due to the small scale of the
project.
The design of the project and the type of
improvements are such that they are not in
conflict with easements for access through or
use of the property within the proposed
project. This is clearly represented in the
site plan and project analysis.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
STAFFRPT\PP11767 4
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Plannin9 Commission:
ADOPT a Negative Declaration for Plot Plan
No. 11767; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 91 - approving Plot
Plan No. 11767, based on the analysis and
findings contained in the Staff Report and
subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
SP:ks
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
R esol ution
Conditions of Approval
Initial Study
Exhibits
STAFFRPT\PP11767 5
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
PLOT PLAN NO. 11767 TO CONSTRUCT A 6 BAY SELF
SERVICE CAR WASH AND DRYING CARPORT ON A
PARCEL CONTAINING 1.L~1 ACRES LOCATED AT 28853
FRONT STREET AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NO. 922-100-023.
WHEREAS, Michael and Linda Merica filed Plot Plan No. 11767 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 5tare and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
pertaining to said Plot Plan on January 7, 1991, 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. Findin.qs. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The planning agency finds, in approvincJ projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
[a) There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
STAFFRPT\PP11767 1
(b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
(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, (herelnafter "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.
(2) The Planning Commission finds, in recommending
approval of projects and taking other actions, including
the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title,
each of the following:
a)
There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan
No. 11767 proposed will be consistent with
the general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
D. (1) Pursuant to Section 18.301 c), no plot plan may be
approved unless the following findings can be made:
STA FFR PT\PP11767 2
a)
The proposed use must conform to all the
General Plan requirements and with all
applicable requirements of state law and City
ordinances.
b)
The overall development of the land is
designed for the protection of the public
health, safety and general welfare; conforms
to the logical development of the land and is
compatible with the present and future logical
development of the surrounding property.
( 2 ) The Planning Commission, in recommending approval
of the proposed Plot Plan, makes the following findings, to wit:
a)
There is a reasonable probability that Plot
Plan No. 11767 will be consistent with the
City~s future General Plan, which will be
completed in a reasonable time and in
accordance with State law due to the fact that
the surrounding area is dominated by
commercial development and therefore, the
land use designation will likely be commercial.
b)
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 due to
the fact that the project is in conformance
with SWAP and anticipated land use and
design guidelines.
c)
The proposed use or action complies with
State planning and zoning laws. The
proposed use as designated is a permitted use
in the C-1/C-P zone.
d)
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.
Adequate are has been provided for
buildings, parking and circulation; and all
landscape and setback requirements have
been satisfied.
e)
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare. The conditions stated in the
approval are based on mitigation measures
STAFFRPT\PP11767 3
necessary to reduce or eliminate potential
adverse impacts of the project as discussed in
the above Findings, Facts, body of the Staff
Report, and Initial Environmental Study.
f)
The project is compatible with surrounding
land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk,
height, intensity, and coverage creates a
compatible physical relationship with
adjoining properties. The proposal as
designed will be compatible with surrounding
land uses. Adequate area and design
features provide for siting of proposed
facilities in terms of landscaping, parking,
and internal traffic circulation.
g)
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
property and surrounding sites are
commercially zoned and will likely be
designated for commercial uses in the future.
h)
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment due to the small scale of the
project.
i)
The design of the project and the type of
improvements are such that they are not in
conflict with easements for access through or
use of the property within the proposed
project. This is clearly represented in the
site plan and project analysis.
j)
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
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.
STA FFR PT\PP11767 ~,
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 mitigation 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 Commission hereby approves Plot
Plan No. 11767 to construct a 6 bay self service car wash with drying carport located
at 28853 Front Street and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 922-100-023 subject to the
following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
SECTION ~,.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of January, 1991.
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 7th day of January, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFFRPT\PP11767 5
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan No: 11767
Project Description: For the construction of
a 6 bay, self serve car wash
Assessor's Parcel No.: 922-100-023
Planninq Department
The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for the construction of a 6 bay,
self serve car wash with drying stalls in the rear portion of the property.
The permlttee shall defend. indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or
proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees
to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its
advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Plot Plan
No. 11767. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any
such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will
cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the
permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in
the defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend,
indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula.
This approval shall be used within two ~2 ) years of approval date; otherwise,
it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial
construction contemplated by this approval within the two ~2) year period
which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of
substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. This approval shall
expire on January 7, 1993.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as
shown on Plot Plan No. 11767 marked Exhibit A, or as amended by these
conditions.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
The applicant shall comply with the Engineering Department's Conditions of
Approval which are included herein.
Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the
provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department~s transmittal
dated August 10, 1990, a copy of which is attached. Degreasing operations
shall not be permitted on the property.
STAFFRPT\PP11767 1
10,
11.
12.
13.
Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County
Flood Control District's transmittals dated March 20, 1990 and November 15,
1990, copies of which are attached.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section
of Ordinance No. 5u,6 and the County Fire Warden~s transmittal dated August
10, 1990, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the
Ceologist's transmittal dated April 6, 1987, a copy of which is attached.
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. 3u,8, Section 18.12, and shall be accompanied by the
appropriate filing fee.
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.
A minimum of 12 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section
18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 3u,8. 12 parking spaces shall be
provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit{s) A. The parking area shall be
surfaced with (asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on u,
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
l/u, gallon per square yard of seal coat oil. )
A minimum of one ( 1 ) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown
on Exhibit A. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be
identified by a permanently affixed reflectori zed 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
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 __
STAFFRPT\PP11767 2
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
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 least 3 square feet in size.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance
and/or permits from the following agencies:
Planning Department
Engineering Department
Environmental Health
School District
Riverside County Flood Control
Fire Department.
A Plot Plan application for a Sign Program shall be submitted and approved by
the Planning Director prior to occupancy.
Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance 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) and Exhibit C
(Materials Board).
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening
material shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
Prior to the final building inspection approval by the Building and Safety
Department, a six foot high decorative block wall or combination landscaped
earthen berm and decorative block wall shall be constructed along the north
and west property lines. The required wall and/or berm shall be subject to
the approval of the Director of the Department of Building and Safety and the
Planning Director.
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.
Landscape screening shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height
of six {6) feet at maturity along the north, south and east property lines.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along
streets and within the parking areas.
All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans
submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval
and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No.
655.
STAFFRPT\PP11767 3
This project is located within a subsidence or liquefaction zone. Prior to
issuance of any building permit by the Department of Building and Safety, a
California Licensed Soils Engineer or Geologist shall submit a report to the
Building and Safety Department identifying the potential for liquefaction or
subsidence. Where hazard of liquefaction or subsidence is determined to
exist, appropriate mitigation measures must be demonstrated.
26.
Prior to the issuance of 9radin9 permits, the applicant shall comply with
Ordinance No. 663 by payin9 the fee required by that ordinance which is
based on (the gross acreage of the parcels proposed for development) (the
number of single family residential units on lots which are a minimum of one-
half (1/2) gross acre in size). Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by
the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the 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.
27.
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.
28.
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.
29.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
30.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or
any use allowed by this permit.
31.
A 15 foot landscape area shall be located along the easterly property line along
Front Street between the driveway and the parking spaces indicated on the
plot plan.
32.
The washing bays shall be moved to within 3 feet of the northerly property
line to provide a wider 127 foot) driveway along the southerly property line.
Buildinq ~, Safety Department
The applicant shall fill out an application for final inspection. Allow two ~2)
weeks processing time to obtain all required clearances prior to final
inspection.
STAFFRPT\PP11767 ~
Enqineerinq Department
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
3~,. 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.
35.
The developer shall submit four (4) prints of a comprehensive grading plan
to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform
Building Code and Chapter 70 as may be additionally provided for in these
Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 24"x36" mylar by a
Registered Civil Engineer.
36.
The developer shall submit four (4) copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
37.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to
commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of-
way.
38.
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.
39.
A permit from the Riverside County Flood Control District is required for
work within its right-d-way.
40.
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.
STAFFRPT\PP11767 5
PRIOR TO iSSUANCE OF BUiLDiNG PERMIT:
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.
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.
Top of slope shall be located at property line, or a retaining wall shall be
required in the event that the developer cannot obtain permission to locate the
slope on adjacent property.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY:
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public
facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the
project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. if an interim
or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally
established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for
the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement
for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to
Developer. Developer understands that said agreement may require the
payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest
such increase.
STAFFRPT\PP11767 6
Riverside County
Planning Department
Re: Plot Plan 11767
-2- March 20, 1990
2. The proposed equipment room finished floor should be
floodproofed to at least elevation 1002.91.
A copy of the improvement plans and grading plans should
be submitted to the District for review and approval
prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. A
registered engineer must sign, seal and note his
expiration date on plans and calculations submitted.
Questions concerning this matter may be referred to Art Diaz Of
this office at 714/787-2704.
c: Michael and Linda Merica
~SOe~~oQ~'Eivil Eng~SYH~neer
AD:Slw
NOV 1 g lPg
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
CHIEF E~NGINEER
1995 MARKET STREET
P.O, BOX 1033
TELEPHONE (714) 275-12OO
FAX NO. (714) 788-9965
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92502
November 15, 1990
City of Temecula
43172 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
Attention: Steve Padovan
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Plot Plan 11767
Murrieta Creek
Plot Plan 11767, located on the west side of Front Street approx-
imately 1,150 feet south of First Street, proposes the construc-
tion of a self-serve car wash.
The entire property is located in the Murrieta Creek Flood Plain
with the western portion of the property within a FEMA delineated
floodway.
The District is currently designing this portion of Murrieta
Creek so the 100 year floodway would be confined within the
proposed improvements. The right of way for these improvements,
as shown on Exhibit "A", are in conflict with a negligible
portion of the property at the southwest corner. This is men-
tioned for informational purposes only and there is no need to
dedicate this area for future improvements.
The County Board of Supervisors and the City of Temecula have
adopted the Murrieta Creek Area Drainage Plan for the purpose of
collecting drainage fees. Those fees are used to construct
needed flood control facilities within the particular area. The
Area Drainage Plan fees apply to new land divisions and other
types of new development.
Virtually all new development causes increased storm runoff.
These increases are particularly troublesome in those watersheds
where an Area Drainage Plan has been adopted. In order to miti-
gate the downstream impacts brought about by increased runoff,
the District recommends that Conditional Use Cases~ Plot Plans
and Public Use Cases be required to pay a flood mitigation
charge. Mitigation charges~ where appropriate~ will be similar
to the current Area Drainage Plan fee rate.
Should you have any questions concerning
contact this office at 714/275-1210.
Attachment
EWR:pln
erllll3a
this matter, please
enior Civil Engineer
RECEIVED AUG 13 1990
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
IN COOPERATION WITH THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
AND FIRE pROTECTION
GLEN J. NEWMAN
FIRE CHIEF
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
46-209 OASIS STREET, SUITE 405
INDIO. CA 92201
(619) 342-8886
August 10, 1990
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
3760 12TH STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
(714) 275-4777
TO:
ATTN:
RE:
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PLOT PLAN 11767
With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plot
plan, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures
be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized
fire protection standards:
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel
or construction of all commercial buildings using the procedure established
in Ordinance 546.
Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM
for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, which must be
available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
The required fire flow shall be available from a super fire hydrant
(6"x4"x2~x2½), located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from
any portion of the building as measured along vehicular travelways.
Applicant/developer shall be responsible to submit written certification
from the water company noting the location of the existing fire hydrant and
that the existing water system is capable of delivering GPM fire flow
for a hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure. If a water
system currently does not exist, the applicant/developer shall be responsible
to provide written certification that financial arrangements have been made
to provide them.
5. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes.
6. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC.
Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment.
RE: PP 11767 Page 2
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¢ per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts.
This amount must be submitted separately from the plan check review fee.
9. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the
Building and Safety Office.
All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to the
Plamning and Engineering staff.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
By
Laura Cabral, Fire Safety Specialist
rmac
: iVE ] iDE courl ,u
PL ilRiRG DEP,
April 6, 1987
Soil Tech
27715 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 109
P. O. Box 1568
Temecula, CA 92390
Attention:
Mr. John T. Reinhart
Mr~ Wayne Baimbridge
' Subject:
Liquefaction Hazard
Project No.: 1966-PS-87
Tentative Parcel Map 22286
County Geolgoic Report No. 392
Gentlemen:
We have reviewed the liquefaction aspects of your report entitled: Preliminary
Soils and Liquefaction Investigation, Tentative Parcel Map 22286, dated
February 6, 1987.
Your report determined that the potential for liquefaction on the subject
property is considered to be likely during an earthquake of 6.0 Richter
magnitude and ground acceleration of 0.37 along the Elsinore fault.
Your report recommended that:
Proposed structures should be founded on a uniform compacted fill mat.
This compacted mat should extend a minimum of 2.5 times the footing
width below the bottom of the proposed footings, but not less than
five feet below the bottom of the footings.
2. A copy of the proposed and approved footing plans should be as sub-
mitted to the geotechnical engineer for review prior to site grading.
It is our opinion that the report was performed in a competent'manner and
satisfies the additional information required under the California Environ-
mental Quality Act review and Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan.
We recommend that the following note be placed on the Final Parcel Map:
"County Geologic Report No. 392 was prepared fo~'this property on February 6,
1987 by Soil Tech, and is on file at the Riverside County Planning Department.
4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 787-6181
46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201
(619) 342-8277
Soil Tech - 2 - April 6, 1987
The specific item of concern in this report is possible soil liquefaction.
Very truly yours,
,RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SAK:rd
c.c. Tony Terich - TO-MAC Eng.
· Norm Lostbom - Bldg. & Safety {2}
Planning Team 1 - Leslie Likins
:liVE:BiDE count,u
PLA!lrli!I DEPA:IClTIEnC
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM:
EIWIRC:)NMENTAL ASSESSMENT (E.A.) NUMBER: ~ ~/'7~(f:"-~ MODULE NUMBEFI(s~
PROJECT CASE TYPE(s) AND NUMBERS(a): ~,
NAME OF PERSON(s) PRERt. RING EA: --j
ITANDARD EVALUATION
//
L PROJECT INFORMATION
A. DESCRIPTION (include Proixmed minimum k:4 a end uses u NXdlcel:de):
~ ~ ~-:~,~-:vc~4 (7) ~-( --:eLF: ~____~v'~c:&
:F5 ,A~,su-~ I,~ 'P~:- c';,-n., r:~F'77.7'!,,~/~'-~FL.4-.
· f
B. TOTAL PROJECT AREA: ACRES ~j' '~/ : ~t BARE FEET
C. ASSESSOWS PARCEL NO.(s): ~//.2 '_1. -/t1,~'/- ~,~L ~
q.-/'c,-f-~
D. EXIST;NO ZONING: / IS THE PROPOSAL. IN CONFORMANCE?
E. F~OPOSED ZQNING: : "U* / Z"/:D IS THE PROPOSAL IN CONFORMANCE?
F. 8'TREET REFERENCES: /d~YF C~T' ~,rf"F ~.~'7'T.., /~,.~.,77, ~ /"'f~' :.-,r', "
6. SECTION. TOWNSHIP, RANGE DESCRIPTION OR ATTACH A LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
I.L BRIEF BESCRFTION OF THE EXBTICG ENVIRONMENTAL 8EtTNG OF THE FROJECT SITE AND ITS SURROUNDING~
l. COMPFIEHEhINE GENERAL PlAN OPEN IPACE AND ¢ONIERVATION DEII(INAI10N
lUcy Ares". CometeBecUc~a,N(lereCon~Vanc~VL
{A. IeNI DeeAVend VL
IL INV!IIONMEIfrAi. HAZAIII)I AND REBOURCEI AIIEIIMENT
WD6
1, N
NA PS U R (Fig. V~.3)
2. Y~ LkluMBction Potential Zcme (Fig. V~.l)
NA 8 PS U R (F'~. W~4)
3. Y Gmunclsh~ngZone(FeW.~)
NA 8 PS U R Ore.
S~sm~ Maps {x On-site ~:pec~on)
NA 8 PS U R (Fe. ~1.6)
6/~ Rock~ Hazard (On-mite ~oec'don)
e,,~ Wmd EmmlQe&Blowsand(Fig. Vt.1.
On:l. 4~0,~ec. 14.2 & OfeL484)
10..~ Dam kwadetjoe Ami(Fig. VLT)
n. ~
NA U n (Re. VLe)
12. .,~ Aiqx~N~se(Fig. n.18.5,11.18.11
& V1.12 & 1~84 AJCAJZ ReDoft, MJ~.F.B.)
NA A B C D (Fig, V~.11)
13. ~ Railreed Noise (Fig. Vt.13 - VUG)
NA A I C D (Fie. VUl)
14./%J H~hwly Ikk~le (Irg. %/I.11 · ~)
NA A B C O (Fig, V1.11)
15..J::~._ OtherNoise
NA A B .C D (Fe. V~.11)
16...~.L PfojectGene,-at~NolseAffecting
Noise Sensttive Ules(Fig. V1.11)
17. ..Z~_ Nolse Sensitlve Project(r:g. Vl.11)
18.~, AjrQuaJitylnqactsFromProject
le._Z~. PfojectSensJthwloAirQuaJtty
21....h_ Project Sendlye to Water Quamy
22._Z~L HazarQ, ousldatef',eisandWastes
:!3. _b_ Huardma Fim Ama(Fig. V1.3O-V~.31)
24.__ Other
REIOURCEI'
~3~' 8oenic l.ighways(Iqg. Vt.45) Vt.33
Nislodc Reeeuma(FiO. qA.,12- )
A~ el :l,,J~c&t ~ ~;,i~-'/~/~-
3t,,_,. ~
DMinltJon$ for Lead Uee 8ultebillty end N01se Acceptebllity hones
N. LAMDUIEIXlr. nI.~L~TION
1. Often SPACE AND CONSERVATION MAP Df, S~NATION(s):
S ~M~F~: ~ ~~
1. BUMMARY OF POtJClES AFFECTING F'R~
B. For eft project,, ink:lcltw wtffi · ym~ (Y) or no (N} whether iny pul~ic fm::ilitiel Ind/or IMvtcws illurns rely ~ignificmntly Iffmct
~r be IffectecI by the propoMI. All Itfetefx~l figure$ Ire cordlin~ in ~te ~he GetterN latin. FOr Iny ieaue
INBUC FACILITIES AND IERVlP,,,~
1.._,_~/(Fig. N.1W.11.lin
k.V~~&Reqgi~dFk2e~)
'2.__,. BIke TM (FIg. N.12-N.13)
10 ~
~ EQgelIY~Tltb(Fig, N.19.N.241
11~ IL1eJ-LlI.1OIN2/-N36)
(Xly~lphmmmdl~lkmm, mm
r,/dorpmtofmmpmNm~mmkmmmmln',m, dmmidapmdlk:Pkm",Ve'RmnmmV/mOmC, mmum~Pomm~
1. 81akN~levantlanduadlm~,,,ir
IV. lAND ~ DETBRMINATION (eofdimaed)
O. IfalorPedoHhePel:dectellekln"ano40esignMedisC)lMnBi:~lce'.lndlsrBotin8~~.~
elaelonsl, 2, ,!, 6 and ?. C, Qffq~ieleQueeijons4, E, Gand?liNielnmCoff~Pien.
(l~m~dentid. ae~-)
S If D.1 allfin from D2, we em deemmace be mk21ved at em dP.,ek2FT~l%t cage? Expkjn:
/
E. idlorlmftdhpmjec~allekkm0PenBPeoeandConeel~lDQndNlgnadiof~oomPlieelelogowing:
1. Imleem~_~,."
V. NFORMATION IOURCII. FINDINGI OF FACT ~ND MITIGATION MIAIUR!t
ADDITIONAL NFORMATION FIEQI, RRED BEFORE ENVIRONMENTAl. ASSES,,e, MENT CAN BE COMPI.~i ED:
REQUIRED
DATE DATE ADEQUACY
INFQ!IMA110N IFORMAllON I't~ke4A'n~
RECEN~D fiT. S,NO,DATE)
F,x each issue mlrked yes (Y) uncle Sections I1LB encl N.B, identify the Section end issue number end do the
lollOwing, in the funnat ms shewn below:
1. Lilt Ill I~diti~ releviqt I:lltl Iourcll, iflcluding Igenctel Conlulted.
2. Stste me findings of fact regarding environmental concerns.
3. 8t/re spec~t¢ mltigltlon measure, If identifiable v/4hout requiring In environrnee4sl implct rN}ort (E.LR.)
4. If 8d4$itlonsl information is rm;lulred before the environmental siseMinent tin be complete, refer to
5. If mtOItiOnSl sheets are needed to ux~plete this section, check ~he box st the en~l of the Mction en{I attach
IECT.~N!
ISSUE NO.
.
SOURCES, AGENCIES CONSULTED, FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MEASURES:
V. INFORMATION IOURCEI, FINDINO8 OF FACT AND MITIGATION MEASUREI (c4ntlnved)
SECTION/
IBSUE NO. 8OURCES, AGENCIES CONSULTED, FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MEASURES:
0heachedpegee,
VI. EI4VBIONMENTAL IMPACT. DLrrIRMINATION:
f'l The peojlct edll m hl~ · ltgniCant elieel on lie I-~k~ra i'kl and · NegNive Deck. my be
I'! The lxdect oould heve aeignlfcente on lhe envifonmen~howeve, lewe fetbe aNgnWwcant
elboilnlhisoaalxcauaNmltlgatlonmeuumdeec~xcllnSk-~nVhavtbeenan~iscltothe
Name:
Parcel 2 of parcel map 82886
designation.
Propsed use : A seven - bay, self
Type of sewage : Waste water
Sewer
exists within a
- service carwash.
distr'ict : Eastern Municipal Water District
C-P
UT!LI]'IES
Water :
Rancho California Water
28061 Diaz Rd.
Temecula, CA 92390
(?I. LF) 676 -- 4101
District
Southerr~ California Gas
25100 Trumble Rd.
Rc:,mo 1 and .., CA 92380
(714) 335 - 7659
Electricity:
Southern California Edison
86100 Menifee Rd.
Romoland, CA 98380
(714) 943 - 8836
General Telephone
120 3rd St.
Perris, CA 92370
(7!4) 657 - ?635
F'arcel 2 of P.M. 22286 is situated along Front Street,
Temecula, California. Fr'ont Street has an 80 roof wide road
right of wa':'. Access to Parcel 2 from Front Street is
restr'icted to a single 40 foot wide opening as shown on the
recorded parcel map 8P-:P86 and also ~n the Str'eet Improvement
F'lan (see attached exhibits). Additional ingress/egress to
parcel 2 from Front Street may be coordinated with the
adjacent lot (lot 3) to the north on a reciprocal basis.
For further information regarding Front Street access~ contact
Lee Johnson
Serlior Engineering Technician
(71A.) 787 - 6554.
The portion of the proper'ty desigr~ated as lot 2 of F.M. 22286,
which lies within the Murietta Creek floodway, is dedicated
to the public for ch-ainage purposes. See Constaint map for
pare:el 2. P.,M. 22286.
VICINITY
ZON I h,.l G
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
CASE NO.: Plot Plan No, 11767
The following 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. 26
N/A
Condition No.
Condition No.
N/A
Condition No. 9
Condition No. 8,
STAFFRPT\PP11767
ITEM
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
January 7, 1991
Case No.: Variance No. 3
Prepared By: Richard Ayala
Recommendation: Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCAT ION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
BACKGROUND:
Buie Corporation
MSI
A variance from the requirements of Ordinance 3L~8,
Section 19.6 (A-l) in order to allow a 200 square
foot temporary subdivision sign, instead of the 100
square feet permitted under the code.
Northeast corner of Rancho California Road
Margarita Road.
Specific Plan No. 199
North:
South:
East:
West:
R-R ( Rural Residential )
R-1 (One-Family Dwellings)
R-1 (One Family Dwellings)
C-1/C-P ( General Commercial )
Not Requested
Master-Planned Community
North:
South:
East:
West:
Single Family Residential
Single & Multi Family Residential
Single Family Residential
Commercial
Existing Project:
Size of Property:
Height of Sign:
Area of Sign:
Temeku Ceantry Club
473 acres
18'
200 sq.ft.
On August 2~,, 1990, the applicant submitted Plot
STAFFRPT\VAR3 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
Plan No. lq5 requesting approval to retain an
existin9 temporary subdivision sign, which was
erected without City approval, for the Temeku
Country Club project, situated on the northeast
corner of Rancho California Road and Margarita
Road. After reviewing the application, the
Planning Department Staff notified the applicant
that the existing temporary subdivision sign did not
comply with the provisions set forth in Ordinance
348 regardin9 the permitted square footage of
subdivision signs. According to Ordinance 348,
Section 19.6, no subdivision sign shall exceed 100
square feet in area and no more than two such signs
shall be permitted for each subdivision. The
applicants existing temporary subdivision sign
contains 200 square feet, and is thus non-
conforming per the Development Code.
On October 12,1990, Planning Staff met with the
applicant in order to discuss the applicant's desire
to maintain the subject sign; and determined that a
variance would be the appropriate vehicle for the
applicant to obtain approval of the existing non-
conforming subdivision sign. Correspondingly,
Variance No.3 was submitted on November 1, 1990.
The existing non-permitted subdivision sign is
approximately 18' in height and approximately 11.5'
in width with a surface area of 200 square feet
containing a display area of approximately 76 square
feet and advertises the entire community; single
family and condominium homes, 18 hole championship
golf course and complete recreational facilities. The
sign is situated on the northeast corner of Rancho
California Road and Margarita Road.
Maximum Number of Subdivision Siqns Allowed
Ordinance 3L18, Section 19.6, permits a maximum of
two (2) 100 square feet subdivision signs per
subdivision; No sign can be constructed within 100
feet of any existing residence that is outside of the
subdivision boundaries; and no sign can be
artificially lighted. Therefore, literal
interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance would
prohibit theexisting non-permitted subdivision sign
since it is 200 square feet in size, which is two times
larger than permitted. However, the Zoning
Ordinance would permit two (2) 100 square foot
signs on the subject property, which in terms of
STAFFRPT\VAR3 2
total sign area is consistent with the applicants
request.
Planning Staff has reviewed the existing non-
permitted subdivision sign and has determined that
the subdivision sign has approximately 76 square
feet of signage area (see exhibit C} . However, with
the slgnage area incorporated within its
architectural structure, the sign exceeds the
allowable square footage of 100 square feet, due to
its irregular shape. Thus, the applicant is seeking
relief through a variance for the 200 square foot
existing non-permitted subdivision sign.
Although Ordinance 348, Section 19.2 clearly
interprets surface area as being the smallest
geometric form of measurement of a square,
rectangle,triangle, circle, or combination thereof,
that encompasses the face of the sign on which the
measure is displayed, Section 19.6 (Subdivision
Signs) states that no sign shall exceed 100 square
feet in area, not surface area. Thus, creating
ambiguity between Section 19.2 and 19.6 of
Ordinance 348 and added interpretation conflicts
within the code. As previously shown,calculating
sign area, the sign is less than the allowable 100
square feet with an overall total area of 200 square
feet including architectural treatment.
Section 19.4 (a) (2) of Ordinance 348 permits a
maximum height of 20 feet. Therefore, the existing
non-permitted subdivision sign, which is eighteen
(18') feet in height, complies with the height
restriction.
Size and Location of Site
Temeku Country Club encompasses 473 acres that
spans approximately 2.5 miles along Rancho
California Road. Included in this master-planned
community will be two single family home projects
and one multi-family home project. A total of 95
units are to open early this spring. An additional
1900 units are tentatively scheduled to open during
the life of the master-planned community in addition
to the proposed commercial area.
STAFFRPT\VAR3 3
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
Visual Impact of Subdivision Siqn
The existing non-permitted subdivision sign is a
monolith shaped monument sign with the name and
logo of the project at the top and contains the
description of the project within the text of the
sign.
The existing non-permitted subdivision sign is not
contrary to the Southwest Area Community Plan or
the future General Plan when adopted, in that the
sign's size, height, and type of on-site outdoor
advertising is minimal for identification.
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS:
Pursuant to Section 15311 of the California
Environmental Quality Act, ( CEQA ), signs are Class
I I Categorically Exempt from the requirement for
environmental review.
There are exceptional circumstances applicable to
the subject property in that the site encompasses
473 acres and abuts two major roadways, Margarita
Road and Rancho California Road, with
approximately 2.5 miles of street frontage. A literal
interpretation of the code requirement would allow
two (2} 100 square feet signs to be constructed on
the subject site. The variance requested is to
substitute the al Iowed two ( 2 ) 100 square feet signs
for one (1 } 200 square foot sign. The total
approximate square footage for sign area is 76
square feet. However, the sign area incorporated
within the architectural sign structure is 200 square
feet due to its irregular shape. No other subdivision
signs will be erected on site. The proposed sign is
a temporary sign and the proposed sign area is for
signage at a rate_ of .5 square feet of sign area per
acre.
The variance is necessary for preservation of the
applicant's ability to adequately identify the
subject's 473 acre development with minimal
signage, a privilege which other residential
developers in the City enjoy since the proposed 200
square foot sign is equivalent to the two (2) 100
square foot signs permitted under the Zoning
Ordinance.
STAFFRPT\VAR3 4
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
1.
The granting of the variance will not be detrimental
to public welfare or to adjacent properties in that
the sign does not obstruct the line of sight of
motorists and will have an attractive appearance
enhanced by substantial landscape planting
treatment.
The granting of the variance will not be contrary to
the Southwest Area Community Plan or Future
General Plan when it is adopted in that the sign's
size, height, and type of on-site outdoor
advertising is minimal for identification for a project
of this scale.
Staff recommends that the Plannin9 Commission:
Adopt Resolution 91__ approving Variance No. 3
based on the analysis and findings contained within
the Staff Report and subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval.
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Resolution
Conditions of Approval
Vicinity Map
Sign Location
Sign Elevation
Letter from Applicant
RA:mb
STAFFRPT\VAR3 5
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 3 TO
PERMIT A 200 SQUARE FOOT TEMPORARY SUBDIVISION
SIGN AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF RANCHO
CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MARGARITA ROAD.
WHEREAS, Buie Corporation filed Variance No. 3 in accordance with the
Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which
the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Variance application was processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Variance on
January 7, 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 Variance;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findinqs. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
(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\VAR3 1
(a)
There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
(b|
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan,
(C)
The proposed use or action 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 Variance is consistent with the SWAP and
meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government
Code, to wit:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects
and taking other actions, including the issuance of
building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the
following:
(a)
There is reasonable probability that Variance
No. 3 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.
STAFFRPT\VAR3 2
(1)
(2)
Ic)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
Pursuant to Section 18.27(a), a variance may be
granted because of special circumstances applicable
to a parcel of property, including size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings; the strict
application of this ordinance deprives such property
of priviledges enjoyed by other property in the
vicinity that is under the same zoning classification.
The Planning Commission in approving the proposed
Variance, makes the foilwing Findings, to wit:
There are exceptional circumstances
applicable to the subject property in that the
site encompasses 473 acres and abuts two
major roadways, Margarita Road and Rancho
California Road, with approximately 2.5 miles
of street frontage. A literal interpretation of
the code requirement would allow two (2) 100
square feet signs to be constructed on the
subject site. The variance requested is to
substitute the allowed two ( 2 ) 100 square feet
signs for one ( 1 ) 200 square foot sign. The
total approximate square footage for sign area
is 76 square feet. However, the sign area
incorporated within the architectural sign
structure is 200 square feet due to its
irregular shape. No other subdivision signs
will be erected on site. The proposed sign is
a temporary sign and the proposed sign area
is for signage at a rate_ of .5 square feet of
sign area per acre.
(b)
The variance is necessary for preservation of
the applic~nt's ability to adequately identify
the subject's 473 acre development with
minimal signage, a privilege which other
residential developers in the City enjoy since
the proposed 200 square foot sign is
equivalent to the two (2) 100 square foot
signs permitted under the Zoning Ordinance.
STAFFRPT\VAR3 3
(C).
The 9ranting of the variance will not be
detrimental to public welfare or to adjacent
properties in that the sign does not obstruct
the line of sight of motorists and will have an
attractive appearance enhanced by
substantial landscape treatment.
(d).
The granting of the variance will not be
contrary to the Southwest Area Community
Plan or Future General Plan when it is
adopted in that the sign's size, height, and
type of on-site outdoor advertisin9 is minimal
for identification for a project of this scale.
D, PursuanttoSection18.26(e), no Variance 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 Variance 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 Variance
proposed is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
Pursuant to Section 15311 of the California Environmental Quality Act,
on-site advertisin9 signs are categorically exempt from environmental review.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the city of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Variance No, 3 to permit a 200 square foot temporary subdivision sign located at the
northeast corner of Rancho California Road and Margarita Road subject to the
followin9 conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto,
SECTION 4.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this first day of
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
CHAIRMAN
STAFFRPT\VAR3 4
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held
on the day of , 1990 by the following vote of the
Council:
AYES:
PLANNINC COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFFRPT\VAR3 5
ATTACHMENT B
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
VARIANCE NO. 3
Council Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
Planninq Department
1. The applicant shall submit a Plot Plan application for approval of the
temporary subdivision sign.
2. The appearance and location of the Temporary Subdivison sign shall conform
substantially with that shown in Exhibits A,B,C, and D.
3. The applicant shall submit a substantial landscape plantin9 plan surrounding
the Temporary Subdivision sign prior to issuance of a building permit.
This approval shall be used within one year of the approval date; otherwise
it shall become null and void, and a new application will be required.
STAFFRPT\V~R3 1
VICINITY MAP
[] 823 w, 23rd Street. Natlonal CIty. CA 92050 619/474~8246
· 1240 Railroad SLeet, Corona, CA 91720 714/734-3970
[] 4749 Las Posl~as Rd., Sult~ L. Livermore. C~. 94550 4) 5/449-1900
DIRECTION~L MAP
[] 12473 Glacistune .A~e.. Sulle L, S)lmar, CA 91342 8tB/89H-3122
[] 4275 Bell Dr., Suite #7, Las ',egas Nx, 89118 702/253-6470
x S*I'UtlGHT SIGN IN~· ENTOR't' L
T TURN SIGN
· POLESIGN [] SIGN GONE
· I*KAILER
SIGN DOWN
DATE RECEIX ED _ REMARKS
L
.TE.M'EK.U
:COUNTP(Y CLUB
ACTIVE ADULT COMMUNITY
51NCLE FAMILYAND CONDOMINIUM HOMES
18 HOLE CHAMPIONSHIP COLF COURSE
COMPLETE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
OPEN !HI'S FALl:
, CALL1-800-:2-TEMEKU
A DEVELOPMENT OF
· ~,~"" THE BUIE CORPORATION
AND FIRST NEVADA LTD.
/2/__ ~ /I
'k
,,/
/
,S ~ eA, I
/2/_
T M .KU
em ~c
October 30, 1990
· ( ·
Mr. Richard Ayala
Assistant Planner
Planning Department
City of Temecula
Temecula, California 92390
Dear Mr. Ayala:
RE: TEMEKU COUNTRY CLUB
Motivational Systems, Inc., on behalf of our Client, The
Buie Corporation, hereby requests a variance for the on-site
sign located on the Temeku Country Club project. The sign
is situated on the northeast corner of Rancho California and
Margarita Roads in the City of Temecula.
The Buie Corporation requests a variance for this sign
because they feel there are exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances which apply to Temeku that generally do not
apply to other properties within the neighborhood.
Temeku is a project of 473 acres that spans approximately
2.5 miles along Rancho California Road. Included in this
master-planned community will be two single-family home
projects and one multi-family home project, for a total of
95 units to open early this spring. An additional 1900
units are tentatively scheduled to open during the life of
the master-planned community in Addition to the proposed
commercial area.
The Buie Corporation felt that to market this community and
to reach the greatest number of future clients without using
an over abundance of signs throughout the community, they
would have designed only one temporary identification sign
that is clean and simply designed to blend in with the
ambiance of Temecula. The Buie Corporation is advertising
the entire community, to include its golf course,
restaurant, pro shop and homes, in one sign -- definitely a
benefit to the neighborhood.
//
Mr. Richard Ayala
October 30, 1990
Page Two
Re: Temeku
The granting of this variance will not materially or
detrimentally affect the public welfare in any manner, but
rather improves the surrounding neighborhood by reducing the
number of signs along the heavily signed route of Rancho
California Road.
Motivational Systems, Inc., on behalf of The Buie
Corporation, therefore requests that a variance be granted
for the temporary identification sign located on the corner
of Margarita Road and Rancho California Road. We feel that
the granting of this variance will not be contrary to the
objectives of the Genral Plan and respectfully request the
issurance of a variance.
Sincere ly,
M .IO SYSTEMS,
INC.
JG:my
TBC026
ITEM
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
January 7, 1991
Case No.: Tentative Parcel Map No. 25607
Prepared By: Steve R. Jiannino
Recommendation:
Adopt Negative Declaration and
Adopt Resolution 91- approving
Tentative Parcel Map No. 25607
based on the Findings contained in
the Staff Report and subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
Robert Paine
Benesh Engineering
2 lot residential subdivision
Southeast corner of Ormsby Road and Estero Street
R-R ( Rural Residential )
North: R-R (Rural Residential)
South: R-R (Rural Residential)
East: R-R { Rural Residential)
West: R-1 (One-Family Dwelling)
PROPOSED ZONING: Same
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Single Family Homes
Vacant
Single Family Homes
Single Family Residential Tract
Total Acres:
No. of Lots:
Maximum Lot Size:
Minimum Lot Size:
1.42 acres
2 lots
.806 acre
.614 acre
ST A FF R PT\ PM25607 1
BACKGROUND:
ANALYSIS:
The application for Tentative Parcel Map No. 25607
was submitted to the Riverside County Planning
Department January 23, 1990. The project was
transmitted to the City of Temecula Planning
Department in June as an incomplete application.
The project has been processed by the City through
both the Pre-DRC and the Formal DRC meeting.
The applicant has addressed the concerns of Staff.
The project is being forwarded to the Planning
commission for your consideration.
The site has been graded with two existing house
pads. The Planning Commission has approved two
other Parcel Maps on Estero Street, Parcel Map No.
2~633 and Parcel Map No. 25538, at recent Planning
Commission meetings. This project continues the
established trend of 1/2 acre lots along Estero
Street.
Staff has conditioned this project in a similar
manner as the previous two parcel maps.
Parcel Map No. 25607 proposes to divide Parcel u, of
Parcel Map No. 16705 into two parcels;
Parcel 1 - .806 acres
Parcel 2 - .61~ acres.
The proposed lot sizes conform to the development
standards of the R-R ( Rural Residential ) zoning for
the site. The proposed 1/2 acre lots provide a
transition area between R-1 ( 7,200 square foot lots)
to the west and the larger rural lots to the south
and east.
Circulation:
Access to the project will be from Estero Road which
is paved and connects to the Windsor Crest
Development wh, ich connects to Pauba Road or from
Ormsby which is paved but contains pot holes and
connects to Santiago which is only partially paved.
Zoning
The project conforms to the current zoning for the
site, R-R, which allows a minimum lot size of .5
acres. The project has been conditioned to conform
to the improvement standards of Ordinance No. L~60,
Schedule G.
STAFFRPT\PM25607 2
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS:
The subject parcel is designated as 1-2 dwelling
units per acre according to the Southwest Area
Plan. The proposed land division is consistent with
this designation, resulting in the potential of 1.6
DU/AC. It is anticipated that the proposed land
division, as conditloned, will be consistent with the
City's forthcoming General Plan as a transitional
land use between the approximate 0.25 acre lots and
the surrounding larger parcels.
An initial study has been completed for the project
and a Negative Declaration is recommended for the
proposal.
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 General
Plan being prepared at this time. The project
is consistent with the surrounding current
residential development.
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 project is of a small scale and
is consistent with surrounding development.
The proposed use complies with State
planning and zoning law. The project
conforms to the current zoning for the site
and to Ordinance No. u,60, Schedule G.
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 project has access to public
roads and already has two graded house
pads.
The design of the subdivision or the
proposed improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or
STAFFRPT\PM25607 3
substantially and avoidable injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat as determined in the
initial study.
The design of the subdivision is consistent
with the State Map Act in regard to future
passive energy control opportunities. The
lots are large enough to provide sufficient
southern exposure.
All lots have acceptable access to existing
and proposed dedicated rights-of-way which
are open to, and are useable by, vehicular
traffic, access is provided from Estero
Street.
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 as
conditioned. The project will not interfere
with any easements.
10.
The lawful conditions stated in the projact's
Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary
to protect the public health, safety and
general welfare.
11.
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:
SJ:ks
Attachments
Adopt the Negative Declaration for Parcel Map
No. 25607; and
Adopt Resolution No. 91 - approving Parcel
Map No. 25607 based on the Analysis and
Findings contained in the Staff Report and
subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
Resolution
Conditions of Approval
I nitlal Study
Exhibits
STAFFRPT\PM25607 4
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PARCEL MAP NO. 25607
TO SUBDIVIDE A 1.4 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 PARCELS AT
THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ORMSBY ROAD AND
ESTERO STREET.
WHEREAS, Robert Paine filed Parcel Map No. 25607 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
January 7, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify
either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
approval of said Parcel Map;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECT ION 1. Findin,qs. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
( 2 ) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
a)
There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
STAFFRPT\PM25607 1
b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, ( hereinafter "SWAP" ) was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Parcel Map is consistent with the SWAP and
meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government
Code, to wit:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects
and taking other actions, including the issuance of
building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the
following:
a)
There is reasonable probability that Parcel
Map No. 25607 proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
D. (1) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No.
~60, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are
made:
STAFFRPT\PM25607 2
a)
That the proposed land division is consistent
with applicable general and specific plans.
b)
That the design or improvement of the
proposed land division is consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.
c)
That the site of the proposed land division is
physically suitable for the type of
development.
d)
That the site of the proposed land division is
physically suitable for the proposed density
of the development.
e)
That the design of the proposed land division
or proposed improvements are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or
substantially and unavoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat.
f)
That the design of the proposed land division
or the type of improvements are not likely to
cause serious public health problems.
g)
That the design of the proposed land division
or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at
large, for access through, or use of.
property within the proposed land division.
A land division may be approved if it is found
that alternate easements for access or for use
will be provided and that they will be
substantially equivalent to ones previously
acquired by the public. This subsection
shall apply only to easements of record or to
easements established by judgment of a court
of competent jurisdiction.
(2) The Planning Commission in recommending approval
of the proposed Tentative Tract Map, makes the following findings, to
wit:
a)
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.
STAFFRPT\PM25607 3
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
There is a reasonable probability that this
project will be consistent with the General
Plan being prepared at this time. The project
is consistent with the surrounding current
residential development.
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 project is of a small scale and
is consistent with surrounding development.
The proposed use complies with State
planning and zoning law. The project
conforms to the current zoning for the site
and to Ordinance No. ~,60, Schedule G.
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 project has access to public
roads and already has two graded house
pads.
The design of the subdivision or the
proposed improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or
substantially and avoidable injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat as determined in the
initial study.
The design of the subdivision is consistent
with the State Map Act in regard to future
passive energy control opportunities. The
lots are large enough to provide sufficient
southern exposure.
All lots have acceptable access to existing
and proposed dedicated rights-of-way which
are open to, and are useable by, vehicular
traffic, access is provided from Estero
Street.
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 as
conditioned. The project will not interfere
STAFFRPT\PM25607 4
with any easements.
j)
The lawful conditions stated in the project~s
Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary
to protect the public health, safety and
general welfare.
k)
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Parcel Map
proposed is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
project will
Declaration,
An initial Study prepared for this project indicates that the proposed
not have a significant impact on the environment, and a Negative
therefore, is hereby granted.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Parcel
Map No. 25607 for the subdivision of a 1 .~ acre parcel into 2 parcels located at the
southeast corner of Ormsby Road and Estero Street subject to the following
cond it ions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of January, 1991.
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 thereef, held
on the 7th day of January, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFF R PT\PM25607 5
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Parcel Map No: 25607
Project Description: 2 Lot Residential
Subdivision
Assessorts Parcel No.: 945-070-011
Plannlnq Department
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision
Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance ~,60, Schedule G, unless
modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in
accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request,
if made 30 days prior to the expiration date.
This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the
approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. The expiration
date is
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final
map.
Legal access as required by Ordinance ~,60 shall be provided from the tract
map boundary to a 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.
The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations
outlined in the County Health Department's transmittal dated November 9,
1990, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined in
the Riverside County Flood Control District's letter dated April 6, 1990, a
copy of which is attached. If the project lies within an adopted flood control
drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of City of Temecula Land Division
Ordinance 460, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities
STAF F R PT\PM25607 1
10.
11.
12.
13.
lq.
15,
16.
shall be collected by the City prior to issuance of Occupancy Permits.
The applicant shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined
in the County Fire Department~s letter dated November 19, 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.
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-R 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 recordation of the final map, an Environmental Constraints Sheet
(ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to delineate
identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed with the
office of the City Engineer. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the
Planning Department for review and approval. The approved ECS shall be
forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to the Planning Department
and the Department of Building and Safety.
The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet:
"This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar
Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the
California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be
retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed
grading with respect to potential paleontologlcal impacts, Should the
paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a
pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading
contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or
representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt
grading activity to allow recovery of fossils.
Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
a. No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential
STAFFRPT\PM25607 2
17.
18.
19.
20.
lot/unit within the project boundary until the developeris successoris-
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.
All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required
elements from the subdivisionis approved fire protection plan as
approved by the County Fire Marshal.
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.
Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall not
be less than ten (10) feet.
e. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet.
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.
The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Temecula, its agents, officer, and employees from any claim, action, or
proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officer, or employees
to attach, 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. 2~,633, which action is brought within the time period provided
for in California Government Code Section 66L~99.37. The City of Temecula will
promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding
against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the
City fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or
proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not,
thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of
Temecula.
All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable
TV shall be provided for underground, with easements provided as required,
and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility
provided. Telephone, cable TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired
in the residence.
Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the developer or his assignee must
conform to the park district Quimby Ordinance, unless waived to time of
issuance of a building permit.
STAFFRPT\PM25607 3
21. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
Parks and Recreation
22.
TCSD Conditions: Upon request of a building permit for construction of a
residential structure or structures on one or more of the parcels within four
years a predetermined 0uimby Act fee to be used for neighborhood and
community park or recreational purposes in the amount equal to the fair
market value of .01295* acres shall be paid by the owner of each such parcel
as a condition to the issuance of such permit as authorized by Riverside
County Ordinance No. 460 as amended through Ordinance No. ~,60.93.
* Plus 20% for offsite improvements
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.
23.
The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act,
and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions.
24.
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. 460.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
25. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Riverside County Flood Control district;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department;
CATV Franchise; and
Parks and Recreation Department.
26.
Ormsby Road shall be improved with 22 feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or
bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-
of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 103, Section A (44'/66').
STAFFRPT\PM25607 4
Estero Street shall be improved with full street improvements within the
dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 105, Section
B (36~/60~) with concrete curb and gutter. The developer shall enter into a
reimbursement agreement with the City for the construction of Estero Street
east of Ormsby Road. Parcels 1, 2, and 3 of Parcel Map No. 16705 shall be
required to reimburse the developer for the cost of design and construction
of Estero Street within their frontage prior to any permit issuance or prior to
any subdivision approval.
28.
The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be
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, drive approaches, street lights, signing, and striping.
Domestic water systems.
29.
Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. 1~61 and as approved by the
City Engineer.
30.
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.
31. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent.
32.
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 drainage easement shall be provided across Parcel 1 for the benefit of Parcel
2.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT:
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:
35.
Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and
gutter, A.C. pavement, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights.
STAFFRPT\PM25607 5
36.
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 Engineering
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
A signing plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved
by the City Engineer for Estero Street and Ormsby Road and shall be shown
on the street improvement plans.
38.
Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering
for the design requirements.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
39.
All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and
striping plan.
ST A FF R PT\ PM25607 6
Z~DIO, CA t~20t
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTIv!ENT
IN COOPeRATiON WITH
CAL];ORN]~, 0EPIFITMENT OF FOREST;iV
AND FIRE PROTECTION
PIRII CHIEF
November 19, 1990
PLANNING Q IiN(31NEERING
~7eo IITH 8TKEET
~IVBRSID~ CA PzsOt
(~14) 275-4777
ARTS:
CiTY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PARCEL MAP 25607
With respect to nhe conditions of approval for the above referenced hnd division,
the Fire Departmen~ recommends the follow~n8 fire protection measures be provided
in accordance wi=h R~verside County 0rdinancee and/or recognized fire protection
standards:
~IRE PROTECTION
Schedule 'G" fire protection, An approved standard fire hydrenn (b"x4"xat")
shall he located so Chat no portion of Chs fronUdge o{ any lot is more than
330 feet ETc. a [ire hydrant. Minimum fits flow shall be 1000 GPM for 2
hours duration a= 20 PSI.
The applicant/developer e~all provide ~ritten certification from the appropriate
water ecmpamy ~he~ Che required/ire hydrants ere either exis=in~ or ~ha~
{insn=isl srtsnasmsn=s hive been made to provide =hem.
The required valet system, includin8 fire hydrants, shall be insrailed and acce~ted
by ~he appEoprie~e wa~et a{ency prior to any combustible bulldin~ ma=er~el bein8
placed on an individual lo~.
MITIGATION
Prior to the recordsalOn of the {ins! map, the developer shell depoeig with
the Riverside County ~ire Department, a oath sum of $400,00 per lot/unit as
mitlaetion for fire protection impacts.
questions reSardinS the meanins of conditions shall be referred to the
Plennlng and Engineertn~ easEL
RAYHOND H. R~Ol$
Chief P~re Department Planner
NIches1 E. Grey,
Depur. y Flre Dspertmen~ Planner
KENNETH L EDWARDS
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92502
April 6, 1990
i995 MARKET STREET
P.O. BOX ~O33
TELEPHONE (7~4) 787-2Oi5
FAX NO. (714) 788-9965
Riverside County
Planning Department
County Administrative Center
Riverside, California
Attention: Regional Team No. 1
Sung Key Ma
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Re: Parcel Map 25607
This is a request to divide 1.42 acres into two lots; the smaller
lot would be .52 acres net. The property is located in the Ran-
cho California area on Ormsby Road between Santiago and Pauba
Roads.
The topography of this area consists of rolling hills with the
swales subject to occasional flash flooding. Extensive develop-
ment is occurring in the region with new grading and building
adjoining this project.
Following are the District's recommendations:
1. Local runoff in Estero Street should be directed to out-
let into Ormsby Road.
Curb and gutters or AC berms shall be installed along the
adjacent roadbeds and should provide protection against
offsite runoff.
A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final
map along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic cal-
culations should be submitted to the District via the
Road Department for review an8 approval prior to recorda-
tion of the final map. Grading plans should be approved
prior to issuance of grading permits.
Questions concerning this matter may be referred to the
Subdivision section of this office at 714/787-2884.
c: Benesh Engineering
V ry ~u~,
ve~nriYoH. KASHUBA
· r Civil Engineer
DHT:mcy
,RECEIVED .NOV 16 1990
E. NVigOI~HFiHT;,,L }IE/",L'i'}i SEI{ViL:E5 DIVIGiOH
3636 UNIVERSITY AVEJ,~UE,
IliVEI~SIDE. CA '~2503
PAI1CEL HAP II
I~EG I 0NAL TEAH , ~U~
SCHEDULE
WAIVER nEOugs'r~
DEPARTb~ENT OF HEALTH HAS REVIEWED THE HAP DESCRIBED ABOVE. IF 'illEl{I::
QUESTIONS CONCERNING THiS TRANSHI~AL, CONTACT (714) 707-0543. OU
2~ECOi'i}!ZNDATI ONE ARE AS FOLLOWS: '
The Environmental Health Servlcos,Dlvislon (El'lED) has reviowed the
fa:~s~j!ity rnpnrt ~,h,~ll h~ submitted for ~evlew and approval by tbc,
~::'~'i:cnmentnl Health Services Dzviszon ~e/~
fills, compaction, eLc. and perfbrm the tests as~d
n:cc-ssary subsurface sewaqe disposal systela depths.
sh~ll include and Addro~s the rollowanu:
The proposed cuts and/or fills In the areas of
subsurface sewage disposal system.
· .' placed in natural urldisturbe,~ soil. '.
~'~ those pro,jects whore the Gradilia plan~ are uroval,~,l by ol, l,,~s
sails engineer's signature and seal as Lo the app. ropriatoness of the
_'dztzired
-"~ cbpy Of' the final ~radina plan, on a scalp not, sn, al let than I
::.::i:.:um with detailed subsurface GowaQo disuosal data to
-::'sr~::sion, s]l~.ll be stzbmitted for review and approval .
-'J.- :/i{UUi'Y DiI{![CTQI{
:'.'.LTI{ i;'OR/CNVISOIqHEHTAL
:, ',. '_,. 1'2 I
:.'-:! 117 (REV. 01/90)
~']'i<iLFj~
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
II
Backqround
1. Name of Proponent:
Robert Paine
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
6563 Via Arboles
Anaheim, CA 92808
(213) 633-0161
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
November 19, 1990
Agency Requiring
Assessment:
CITY OF TEMECULA
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Tentative Parcel Map No. 25607
6. Location of Proposal:
Southeast Corner of Ormsby Road
and Estero Street
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
Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features?
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
X
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on
or off site?
X
STAFFRPT\PM25607 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
STAFF R PT\PM25607 2
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct addi-
tions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flood-
ing or tidal waves?
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or number of any native species of
plants i including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare, or endangered species
of plants?
Introduction of new species of
plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
Substantial reduction in acreage
of any agricultural crop?
Animal Life. Will the proposal result
Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
lbirds, 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\PM25607 3
10.
11.
12.
13.
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and Glare. Will the proposal
produce substantial new light or glare?
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
Substantial increase in the rate of
use of any natural resources?
Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource?
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal
involve:
A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances {including,
but not limited to, oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
Possible interference with an emerg-
ency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan?
Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, cfensity, 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
X
STAFFRPT\PM25607 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
1~,. Public Services. Will the proposal have
substantial effect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection? 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\PM25607 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
STAFF R PT\PM25607 6
Yes Maybe No
21.
Mandatory Findings of Significance.
Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or 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? 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? __
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PM25607 7
I II Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
1.a,c,d
e,f,9.
1.b.
2.a,b,c.
3.a-i.
~.a,b,c,
d.
5.a,c.
5.b.
6.a,b.
9.a,b.
10.a,b.
11.
12.
13.a,b,c,
d,e,f.
No. The site has previously been graded under an approved County
grading permit.
Yes. Houses will be erected on the existing graded pads. The building
construction cannot take place without proper permits. Any mitigation
necessary will be part of the building permit process.
No. The grading has been completed on the project no major air
emissions are anticipated.
No. The project has already been graded and no drainage course exist
on site.
No. The project has been previously graded no further impacts will
OCCUr,
No. The project site has been graded under previous permits.
Yes. The area is shown as Stephen's Kangaroo Rat habitat. The project
will mitigate impact by payment of the appropriate fees.
No. Only temporary construction noise impacts are anticipated.
Construction activity will only occur for a limited time and be during
the hours of 6 a.m. - 7 p.m.
Maybe. Street lights and residential lights will be required, but they
will have to conform to required standards.
No. The proposed project conforms to the planned land use of the area.
No. Only one residential unit is proposed no substantial impacts should
occur to Natural Resources.
No. Only a single family residence is proposed.
No. The project conforms to the zoning for the site and area
development.
No. Only one additional housing unit will be constructed.
No. Proper transportation facilities are provided for to the site.
STAFFRPT\PM25607 8
14.a,b,c,
d,e.
14.f.
15.a,b.
16.a,b,c,
16.d.
17.a,b.
18.
19.
20.a,b.
20.c,d.
21 .a,b,d.
21 .c.
Yes. The project adds to the cumulative impacts on City facilities and
resources. Mitigation will be achieved by payment of appropriate fees.
Maybe. See 14 a-e.
No. Only one single family residence is being proposed.
No. No major utility extensions will be required.
Yes. Septic tanks are proposed for project. Septic disposal must be
approved by the Riverside County Health Department. Soil percolation
test must be completed and shown as adequate prior to recordatlon.
No. No health hazards were apparent or proposed on site.
No. The project conforms to the area development.
No. The project is not located in a proposed recreational, open space
area.
Maybe. The project is within possible prehistoric areas if excavation
occurs a qualified Paleontologist or Archaeologist must be on site.
No. No cultural or religious potential was evident on site.
No. The project will not have a significant impact on the area.
Maybe. The project will add to accumulative impacts caused by
development. Proper mitigation measures are incorporated in the
Conditions of Approval.
STAFFRPT\PM25607 9
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
November 19, 1990
Date
For
CITY OF TEMECULA
STAFFRPT\PM25607 10
ITEM #6
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
The Planning Commission
The Planning Department
January 7, 1991
Parcel Map No. 25686
PREPARED BY: Scott Wright
Parcel Map No. 25686 was continued from the Hearing of December 17, 1990 to the
Hearing of January 7, 1991 at the appllcant's request. The applicant questioned the
appropriateness of the Facility Fee, Condition No. 12, to a parcel map converting an
existing structure to a two unit condominium for ownership purposes and resulting
in no additional impacts to public facilities.
The continuance was requested in order to enable the City Attorney to research the
applicability of the Facility Fee to the subject parcel map. At the time this memo was
prepared, there had been no response from the City Attorney.
STAFFRPT\25686, PM
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
December 17, 1990
Case No.: Parcel Map No. 25686
Prepared By: Scott Wright
Recommendation: 1. Adopt the Resolution approving
Parcel Map No. 25686
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Jonan Management Services
Loren Phillips and Associates
To convert an existing warehouse structure to a two
unit condominium for ownership purposes.
43350 Business Park Drive
M-SC ( Manufacturing - Service Commercial )
North: M-SC
South: M-SC
East: M-SC
West: M-SC
( Manufacturing - Service
Commercial )
( Manufacturing - Service
Commercial )
( Manufacturing Service
Commercial )
( Manufacturing Service
Commercial )
86,784 square foot warehouse building
North:
South:
East:
West:
Commercial/Light Industrial
Commercial/Light Industrial
Commercial/Light Industrial
Commercial/Light Industrial
No. of Acres:
Building Area:
No. of Condominium Units:
4.9 acres
86,784sq.ft.
2 units
STAFFRPT\PM25686 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
The project is to convert an existing two story
warehouse structure to a two unit condominium on
one lot for ownership purposes.
Requirements of Subdivision Map Act
Condominium projects are defined as subdivisions
by the State Subdivision Map Act. A tentative and
final parcel map is required in order to create two
condominium units. The design and location of the
buildings and the manner in which the buildings or
airspace are to be divided are not a part of the map
review process for condominium projects.
Requirements of Ordinance 460
Ordinance u,60 requires that all land divisions
conform to the provisions of the Subdivision Map
Act.
Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions
Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC~,R~s)
providing for reciprocal parking and access and for
maintenance of the common area shall be required as
a Condition of Approval.
The proposed condominium conversion is for
ownership purposes and will not affect the land use.
The existing warehouse is consistent with the
Manufacturing - Service Commercial zoning and the
light industrial land use designation of the site.
Land divisions creating four or fewer parcels are
categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA
per Section 15315 {Class 15).
FINDINGS:
Tentative Parcel Map No. 26586
The proposed Parcel Map will not have a
significant negative impact on the
environment and is categorically exempt from
the requirements of CEQA.
STAF F R PT\PM25686 2
10.
There is a reasonable probability that this
project will be consistent with the General
Plan being prepared at this time. The project
conforms to the SWAP guidelines and to the
current zoning for the site.
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 current 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, access, and
density.
The proposed condominium conversion is not
likely to cause substantial environmental
damage or substantially and avoidable injure
fish or wildlife or their habitat.
All units have acceptable access to existing
and proposed dedication rights-of-way which
are open to, and are useable by, vehicular
traffic.
The proposed condominium conversion is 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 prote~t 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.
STAFFRPT\PM25686 3
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Plannincj Commission:
ADOPT Resolution 90- approvincJ Parcel
Map No. 25686 based on the analysis and
findings contained herein and subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval.
SW: ks
Attachments:
Resolution
Conditions of Approval
Exhibits
STAFFRPT\PM25686 4
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PARCEL MAP NO. 25686
TO CONVERT AN EXISTING WAREHOUSE LOCATED AT
u,3350 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE TO A TWO UNIT
CONDOMINIUM.
WHEREAS, Loren Phillips ~, Associates filed Parcel Map No. 25686 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
December 17, 1990, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify
either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
approval of said Parcel Map;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findinqs. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
a)
There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
STAFFRPT\PM25686 1
b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, ( hereinafter "SWAP" ) was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Parcel Map is consistent with the SWAP and
meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government
Code, to wit:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects
and taking other actions, including the issuance of
building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the
following:
a)
There is reasonable probability that Parcel
Map No. 25686 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\PM25686 2
D. (1) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No.
u,60, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are
made:
a)
That the proposed land division is consistent
with applicable general and specific plans.
b)
That the design or improvement of the
proposed land division is consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.
c)
That the site of the proposed land division is
physically suitable for the type of
development.
d)
That the site of the proposed land division is
physically suitable for the proposed density
of the development.
e)
That the design of the proposed land division
or proposed improvements are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or
substantially and unavoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat.
f)
That the design of the proposed land division
or the type of improvements are not likely to
cause serious public health problems.
g)
That the design of the proposed land division
or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at
large, for access through, or use of,
property within the proposed land division.
A land division may be approved if it is found
that alternate easements for access or for use
will be provided and that they will be
substantially equivalent to ones previously
acquired by the public. This subsection
shall apply only to easements of record or to
easements established by judgment of a court
of competent jurisdiction.
{2 ) The Planning Commission in recommending approval
of the proposed Tentative Tract Map, makes the following findings, to
wit:
a) The proposed Parcel Map will not have a
significant negative impact on the
environment and is categorically exempt from
the requirements of CEQA.
STAFF R PT\PM25686 3
b)
There is a reasonable probability that this
project will be consistent with the General
Plan being prepared at this time. The project
conforms to the SWAP guidelines and to the
current zoning for the site.
c)
d)
f)
g)
h)
j)
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 current zoning for the site
and to Ordinance No. ~,60, Schedule E.
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 proposed condominium conversion is not
likely to cause substantial environmental
damage or substantially and avoidable injure
fish or wildlife or their habitat.
All units have acceptable access to existing
and proposed dedication rights-of-way which
are open to, and are useable by, vehicular
traffic.
The proposed condominium conversion is 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.
STAFFRPT\PM25686 4
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.
Parcel Map No. 25686 is categorically exempt from the requirements of
CEQA per Section 15315 (Class 15).
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Parcel
Map No. 25686 for the conversion of an exiting warehouse located at 43350 Business
Park Drive to a two unit condominium subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of
· 1990.
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held
on the day of 1990 by the following vote of the
Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ST A F F R PT\PM25686 5
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. 25686.
DATED: By
Name
Title
STAFFRPT\PM25686 6
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Parcel Map No: 25686
Project Description: To Convert an
Existinq Buildinq to a 2 Unit Condominium
Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-020-049
Planninq Department
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision
Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule E, unless
modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in
accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request,
if made 30 days prior to the expiration date.
This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the
approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. The expiration
date is December 17, 1992.
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 City maintained road.
The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or
proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees
to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its
advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Parcel Map
No. 25687. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any
such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will
cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the
permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in
the defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend,
indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations in the Fire Department
letter dated November 19, 1990, a copy of which is attached.
STAFF R PT\ PM25686 1
Enqineerinq Department
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act,
and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions.
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.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
9. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department; and
CATV Franchise.
10. Business Park Drive shall be dedicated to 39 feet from centerline.
11.
A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCE, R's) shall be
prepared by the developer and submitted to the Director of Planning, City
Engineer and City Attorney. The CC~,R~s shall be signed and acknowledged
by all parties having any record title interest in the property to be developed,
shall make the City a party thereto, and shall be enforceable by the City.
The CCSR~s shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded. The
CCF, R's shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. The CC~,R's shall be prepared at the developer~s sole cost and expense.
The CCSR~s shall be in the form and content approved by the Director
of Planning, City Engineer and the City Attorney, and shall include
such provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials
deem necessary to protect the interest of the City and its residents.
The CC~,R's and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owner~s
Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering
Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent
STAFFRPT\PM25686 2
with the final map. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City.
The CCF, R's shall provide for the effective establishment, operation,
management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas and
facilities.
The CC~,R's shall provide that the property shall be developed,
operated and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance.
The CCSR~s shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the
condition required by the CCF, R's, then the City, after making due
demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and
perform, at the owner~s sole expense, any maintenance required
thereon by the CC~,R~s or the City ordinances. The property shall be
subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not
promptly reimbursed.
12. Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public
facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the
project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim
or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally
established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for
the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement
for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to
Developer. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the
payment of fees in excess of those now estimated {assuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest
such increase.
STAFFRPT\PM25686 3
RIVERSIDE COU,'CrY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
IN ~O~PiI~ATION WITN THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF ~OREBTRY
AND FIRE PROTECTION
GLEN ). NEWMAN
FIRE CHIEF
PLaNNING&E~GI~E~ING
November 19,. 1990
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
3160 tlTR ~TREET
RIVERSIDe. CA 9Z501
TO: CTi~ OF TLM~CUZ/
A~TN: PL,~KNINC DEPARTMENT
RE: PARCEL MAP 25686
With respect co the conditions ol approval for tha above referenced land divilion,
the Fire Dep~rtmen~ recommends ~he f~llow~ng firs protection measures be provided
in sccordanc~ with Rivers~de County Ordinances and/or recognized fire ~roteotion
Provide minimum one (1) hour raced wall ac new property line, Wall mUSe be
ccnscrucced co meeC 1988 UnifOrm BuildinS Code,
All quasol. one reaardin8 the meaning of conditions shall be referred to the
Planning ar.d Enginestin8 staff,
RAYMOND H. RESIS
Chief ~ire Department Planner
LC|rmac
Laura Cabtel, Firs Safety S~ectalfs=
ITEM #7
Recommendation:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
January 7, 1991
Case No.: Plot Plan No. 179
Prepared By: 0liver Mujica
1. Recommend Adoption of Negative Declaration
2. Recommend Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCAT ION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
SWAP DESIGNATION:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
Johnson + Johnson
Lusardi Construction
Construct a 57,28~, square foot industrial building;
and a 3,250 square foot testing facility on ~.5 acres.
Southwest corner of Rio Nedo and Tierra Alta Way.
M-SC ( Manufacturing - Service Commercial )
North:
South:
East:
West:
M-SC I Manufacturing
Commercial )
M-SC ( Manufacturing
Commercial )
M-SC (Manufacturing
Commercial )
M-SC ( Manufacturing
Commercial )
- Service
- Service
- Service
- Service
General Light Industrial
Not applicable.
Vacant
North: Vacant
South: Vacant
East: Vacant
West: Vacant
STAFFRPT\PP179 1
PROJECT STATISTICS:
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
No. of Buildings:
No. of Acres:
Total Square Footage:
No. of Parking Spaces:
Building Height:
2
~,.5
60,534
180
29.5 Feet
Status
Plot Plan No. 179 was submitted to the City of
Temecula on October 2, 1990.
On October 25, 1990, this project was reviewed by
the Preliminary Development Review Committee
{Pre-DRC) in order to informally evaluate the
project and address any possible concerns, as well
as suggesting possible modifications. Thecomments
by the Pre-DRC included the following:
Traffic Impacts
Proposed Testing and Materials.
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
concerns.
On December 6, 1990, Plot Plan No. 179 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. In addition,
Conditions of Approval were prepared by the
Riverside County Fire Department to mitigate
potential environmental impacts, due to the
proposed hazardous materials involved with the
proposed land use. The DRC has forwarded a
recommendation of approval subject to conditions.
Plot Plan No. 179 is a proposal to develop the
subject 4.5 acre site with a 57,284 square foot
industrial building; and, a 3,250 square foot testing
facility. The proposed industrial building contains
36,930 square feet of manufacturing/distribution/
warehouse and 20,354 square feet of office space.
The testing facility consists of two main areas with
14 test units. The specialized test area is utilized
for testing seals in hazardous fluids such as light
hydrocarbons, high temperature liquids and hard
abrasive slurties. The General test area is used for
testing seals in non-flammable liquids such as
STAFFRPT\PP179 2
ANALYSIS:
water, oil, and high pressure CO2. Due to the
hazardous materials involved with the proposed use,
Staff has included the following condition (see
Condition No. 27 ) within the recommended
Conditions of Approval:
"Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits,
the applicant shall submit an emergency
response plan and an emergency evacuation
plan to the Planning Department and
Riverside County Fire Department for
approval."
The proposed development has been designed in
accordance with the standards of the M-SC
( Manufacturing - 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. 179; and has determined that the
proposed project will have a minimal impact to the
existing road system and given the proposed
mitigation measures, there will be no adverse
unmitigable significant traffic impacts resulting
from the development of this proposed project.
The proposed project will generate only 560 trip
ends per day with 80 vehicles per hour during the
AM peak hour and 85 vehicles per hour during the
PM peak hour. This is not a significant amount of
traffic and it can easily be accommodated by the
existing roadway system.
All of the intersections in the vicinity of the
proposed site will continue to operate at a level of
service "A" during the AM and PM peak hours for
existing plus project traffic conditions. The traffic
impacts of the proposed project upon these
intersections are not significant and can be
accommodated without causing any adverse change
in LOS at these intersections.
Mitigation measures shall include the standard
signal mitigation fees, public facility fees, a signing
and striping plan for Tetra Alta Way, and sight
distance calculations at each driveway access point
along Avenida Alvarado and Rio Nedo.
STAFFRPT\PP179 3
Parkin.q
One hundred, sixty-two ~162) parking spaces are
provided along the north side of the proposed
building. According to Section 18.12 {c){22) of
Ordinance 3~,8, "Industrial Uses", thefollowing off-
street parking is required when the number of
employees cannot be determined:
Office: 20,354 sq.ft. e 1/200=102
Manufacturing: 36,930 sq.ft. e 1/500= 74
Total Parking Spaces: 176
According to Section 18.12 le)(5) of Ordinance 348,
"Request for Special Review of Parking", the
applicant may submit, as part of a review of Plot
Plan No. 179, evidence and documentation
demonstrating conditions that warrant a parking
reduction. Thus, the applicant has submitted a
proposal to provide a ride-share program for the
employees. In addition, the applicant has provided
the following employee count per shift:
Shift #1 133
Shift #2 25
Shift #3 4
According to Section 18.12 ~c)(26) of Ordinance
348, "Manufacturing", two (2) parking spaces for
every three employees on each of the two ( 2 ) larger
shifts is required, which translates into eight-nine
(89) parking spaces required.
Therefore, since the total number of employees per
any given shift does not exceed 133,at this time;
and, the applicant is proposing to provide a ride-
share program pursuant to the guidelines of the
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Staff
is of the opinion that the proposed 162 parking
spaces are adequate to accommodate the proposed
project. It has also been noted that the 162 parking
spaces would allow a maximum of 243 employees per
shift.
As indicated on the site plan, the designated
employee parking area, as well as the proposed
loading area, will be enclosed by a six i6') foot high
concrete block screen wall. The proposed gate for
the loading area will remain open during regular
business hours; and, the gates for the employee
parking area will be opened during work shift
changes only.
STAFFRPT\PP179 4
Access
Access into the proposed development is provided
by thirty ~30') foot wide driveways on Rio Nedo,
Tierra AIta Way, and Avenida Alvarado, which has
been determined to be acceptable by the Traffic
Engineering Staff.
In compliance with the requirements of the Traffic
Engineering Department and the Riverside County
Fire Department, an internal twenty-eight ~ 28~ ) foot
wide driveway aisle is provided through the
proposed parking area.
Project Desiqn
The proposed industrial building, which has an
overall height of 29~6", is a concrete tilt-up
structure, which is contemporary in appearance,
and has been designed to feature sandblasted
concrete panels I medium grey ) and dark grey tinted
glass panels.
After reviewing the applicant*s exterior elevations,
Staff has determined that, although there are no
other buildings in the immediate area, the proposed
project design will probably be compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood, since the adjoining
properties are also zoned M-SC.
In regards to the potential outdoor storage within
the proposed loading area, Staff has included the
following condition (see Condition No. 28), within
the recommended Conditions of Approval, in order
to eliminate the potential visual impacts from
surrounding properties:
"All outdoor storage shall be located within
the loadin9 area only and shall not exceed the
height of six ( 61 ) feet or that of the proposed
concrete block screen wall, whichever is less.
Such outdoor storage area shall be submitted
for approval by the Planning Department."
Landscape
Adequate landscaping is planned for the site, in
which the proposed 22.5% landscaping for the site
exceeds the required landscaping under the
Development Code. Staff has determined that the
STAFFRPT\PP179 5
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
proposed landscape design is acceptable. However,
additional landscaping Ishrubs and/or vines)
should be provided in front of the proposed six ( 6' )
foot high concrete block screen wall, in order to
lessen the potential view impacts from the public
rights-of-way. A detailed landscape plan will be
submitted for approval by the Planning Department
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.
In order to ensure the implementation of the
mitigation measures adopted through the California
Environmental Quality Act {CEQA) process, which
in this case is the Negative Declaration per the
Environmental Assessment, the Planning
Department Staff has included the following
condition (see ConditiOn No. 25) within the
recommended Conditions of Approval:
"Prior to the issuance of grading permits
and/or building permit, the developer or his
successor's interest shall submit a mitigation
monitoring program to the Planning
Department for approval, which shall
describe how compliance with required
mitigation measures will be met and the
appropriate monitoring timing of the
mitigation. The required mitigation measures
are noted in the Environmental Assessment."
STAFFRPT\PP179 6
FINDINGS:
There is a reasonable probability that Plot
Plan No. 179 will be consistent with the City's
future General Plan, which will be completed
in a reasonable time and in accordance with
State law due to the fact that the proposed
industrial building is consistent with the
existing zoning and the SWAP land use
designation of General Light Industrial.
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 due to
the fact that the proposed industrial building
is consistent with the existing zoning, the
SWAP land use designation of General Light
Industrial, and the permitted uses of the
surrounding area.
The proposed use or action complies with
State planning and zoning laws due to the
fact that the proposed use complies with
Ordinance No. 3~,8 and the action complies
with State Planning 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 due to
the fact that the proposed industrial
development complies with the standards of
Ordinance No. 3~,8.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare due to the fact that the Conditions of
Approval include mitigation measures which
will be ensured through the implementation of
a mitigation monitoring program.
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 due to the fact that the
proposed industrial development is consistent
with the zoning ordinance.
STAFFRPT\PP179 7
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
OM:ks
Attachments: 1.
2.
3.
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 due to the
fact that the surrounding properties are also
zoned M-SC (Manufacturing-Service-
Commercial ).
The project has acceptable access to a
dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic due to the fact
that the vehicular improvements of the
proposed industrial building has been
approved by the Traffic Engineering Staff.
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 due to
the fact that a mitigation monitoring program
has been included for this project.
10.
The design of the project and the type of
improvements are such that they are not in
conflict with easements for access through or
use of the property within the proposed
project.
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission forward the following
recommendations to the City Council:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Plot Plan
No. 179; and,
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving Plot
Plan No. 179, based on the analysis and
findings contained in the Staff Report and
subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
Resolution
Conditions of Approval
Environmental Assessment
Exhibits: A. Site Plan
B. Exterior Elevations
Large Scale Plans
STAFFRPT\PP179 8
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
II
Backqround
1. Name of Proponent:
Johnson +Johnson
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
29377 Rancho California Road, Ste. 202
Temecula, CA 92390
(71~) 676-160q
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
November 30, 1990
Agency Requiring
Assessment:
CITY OF TEMECULA
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Plot Plan No. 179
6. Location of Proposal:
Southwest corner of Rio Nedo
and Tierra Alta Way
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
Substantial change in topography
or 9round surface relief features?
X
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
X
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on
or off site?
X
STAFFRPT\PP179 9
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 9round waters?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP179 10
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct addi-
tions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flood-
ing or tidal waves?
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or number of any native species of
plants l including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare, or endangered species
of plants?
Introduction of new species of
plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
Substantial reduction in acreage
of any agricultural crop?
Animal Life. Will the proposal result
Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
{birds, land animals including rep-
tiles, fish and shellfish, benthlc
organisms or insects)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals?
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildllfe habitat?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP179 11
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
i n vol ve:
A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including,
but not limited to, oil, pesticicles,
chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
Possible interference with an emerg-
ency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan?
Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing or create a demand for
additional housing?
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP179 12
Yes Maybe N_.~o
b. Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking? __ __ X
c. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems? __ __ X
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? __ __ X
e. Alterations to waterborne, tall or
air traffic? X
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? __ X
lb,. 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 9as? __ __ X
STAFFRPT\PP179 13
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
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP179
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehlstory?
Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environ-
mental goals? (A short-term
impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief,
definitive period of time while long-
term impacts will endure well into
the future. )
Does the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but cumu-
latively considerable? { A project~s
impact on two or more separate
resources may be relatively small,
but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment
is significant. )
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substan-
tial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? __
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP179 15
Ill Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
Earth
1.a.
1.b.
1.C.
1.f.
1.g.
No. The project site will require a minimal grading effort, since the
site was created under a previous approval. A conceptual grading plan
for the project was reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and
designed in accordance with Temeculals standards; and the Conditions
of Approval include mitigation measures in regards to grading.
Therefore, the proposed project will not create an unstable earth
condition or change the geologic substructure.
Yes. All development disrupts the soil profile to some degree and
results in soil displacement, compaction, and overcoverlng. However,
this impact is not considered significant, due to the fact that the
Conditions of Approval include mitigation measures in regards to all
grading.
No. Since the site has already been rough graded and is level, there
will not be any change in topography or ground surface relief features.
No. There are no unique geological or physical features on the site.
Maybe. Wind and water erosion potentials will increase during the
construction phase and remain high until disturbed areas are replanted
and the proposed drainage facilities are constructed. The wind erosion
impact is considered significant but will be mitigated through the use
of watering trucks and erosion control planting of disturbed areas after
grading. After the project is completed, 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.
Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant, due to the
fact that appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented with
the project.
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. Therefore, This impact is not considered to be
significant, due to the fact that appropriate Mitigation Measures have
been implemented with the project through the Conditions of Approval.
STAFFRPT\PP179 16
Air
2.b,c.
Water
3.a,d.
3.b.
3.f.
3.g.
Maybe. The proposed project consisting of a 57,284 square foot
industrial building will generate an increase in vehicle trips to the site.
The increased vehicle trips will increase the carbon monoxide emissions
and particulates in the area. However, since the ambient air quality in
the project vicinity is currently very good due to the local wind
patterns, this potential impact is not considered significant. The
proposed project will not by itself deteriorate the local area"s or
regional air quality, but will add to the cumulative impact on air quality
due to the substantial growth in the area.
No. The proposed project will not create any objectionable odors or
alter the area's climate.
No. The proposed project will not impact any body of water.
Maybe. The proposed project may increase the amount of impermeable
surfaces on the site and the existing drainage pattern may be altered.
However, water will be channeled to drainage easements and streets
through drainage facilities and control devices which will have to be
approved by the City Engineer and designed in accordance with
Temecula's Standards and the Conditions of Approval. Therefore, this
impact is not considered to be significant since appropriate mitigation
measures have been implemented with the project.
Maybe. Drainage patterns will continue to be directed to the streets
and flood channels. However, in order to mitigate the downstream
impacts brought about by runoff appropriate mitigation measures have
been implemented with the project and drainage plans for the site will
have to meet the requirements of the City's Engineer. Therefore, this
impact is not considered to be significant.
Yes. During construction, the proposed project will increase turbidity
in local surface waters. This impact is temporary and is not considered
significant. After the project is completed, water will be channeled to
drainage easements and streets, which will have to be approved by the
City Engineer. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be
significant since appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented
with the project.
No. The proposed project will not alter the rate of flow of ground
water.
No. Although the proposed project will increase the amount of
impermeable surfaces on the site, the addition of irrigation for the
landscape areas will help to off-set any loss of water absorbed into the
ground. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant.
STAFFRPT\PP179 17
3.h.
3.i.
V~etation
4.a,b.
4.c.
4.d.
Wildlife
Noise
6.a.
6.b.
No. The proposed project will not significantly affect the public water
supply.
No. According to the Riverside County General Plan Flood Hazard Map
the subject site is not within a hazard zone.
No. No native species or sensitive vegetational associations or species
were identified on-site.
Yes. The proposal includes landscaping which will be designed to City
standards. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant
since appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented with the
project.
No. No agricultural production occurred on-site.
No,
Maybe.
A survey for Stephen's Kangaroo Rat prepared for this
project analyzed biologic resources on-site. In that no
individuals of the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat were found
there is no occupied habitat within the bounds of this
project.
Implementation of this project as proposed will not result
in a taking nor would it result in any adverse effect on the
species or on the species' habitat. In that surrounding
lands to the north, south, east and west have previously
been developed at urban levels of use or are presently
being developed at such levels of use, preservation of this
site as a reserve is inappropriate. In addition, the site is
now isolated from all other known colonies by impassable
residential and other barriers and reinvasion of the site is
virtually impossible. Implementation of the project as
proposed will not have a significant effect and no
mitigation other than payment of fees under the Stephen's
Kangaroo Rat Fee Ordinance is required.
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\PP179 18
Liqht and Glare
Yes. However, the project has been conditioned to comply with
applicable lighting standards. Therefore, this impact is not considered
to be significant since appropriate mitigation measures have been
implemented with the project.
Land Use
No. Project is consistent with both the zoning designation and the
Southwest Area Community Plan.
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
Yes. The proposed use will require the use of hazardous substances.
However, this impact is not considered to be significant due to the fact
that the Riverside County Fire Department has prepared appropriate
Mitigation Measures which have been implemented through the
Conditions of Approval. During construction it should not be
necessary to close any streets which would interfere with emergency
vehicles.
10.b
Maybe. The proposed use may interfere with an emergency response
plan. However, this impact is not considered to be significant due to
the fact that a complete emergency response plan and emergency
evacuation plan will be required for approval prior to the issuance of
occupancy permits, which will be implemented through the Conditions
of Approval.
Population
11.
No. The proposed 57,28~, square foot industrial building will generate
some jobs but not a significant amount to alter the area~s population.
Housin,c/
12.
No. The proposed 57,28~ square foot industrial building will not
generate a significant number of jobs to create a demand for additional
housing.
Transportation / C i rcu lation
13.a. Yes.
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
STAFFRPT\PP179 19
significant.
have been
Approval.
In addition, appropriate mitigation measures
implemented through the Conditions of
Public Services
1L!.a-c,e. Yes.
l~,.d,f. No.
Except for parks and recreational facilities, the proposed
project will have significant adverse effect on public
services. However, these impacts are not considered to be
significant since appropriate mitigation measures have
been implemented through the Conditions of Approval.
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
18o
No. Because the proposed project has been designed to be compatible
with the surrounding neighborhood, there will be no significant impact
on aesthetics.
Recreation
19.
No. The subject site is not currently used for recreational uses.
Cultural Resources
20.a-d.
No. The subject site has previously been mass graded and it is unlikely
that the project will result in the destruction of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site. If a site is discovered, an archaeologist or
paleontologist should be called on site to supervise the digging and
determine if the site is significant. The proposed project will not
impact any building of historic significance, affect unique ethnic
cultural values or restrict sacred uses.
STAFFRPT\PP179 20
Mandatory Findinqs of Siqnificance
21 .a.
Maybe. The proposed project may have a significant impact on plant or
wildlife species. However, the 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. In addition,
during grading activities, a qualified paleontologist shall be present.
21 .b.
Maybe. The proposed project may have the potential to achieve short-
term, tothedisadvantageof long-term, environmental goals. However.
no significant impacts will occur if the mitigation measures are followed.
21 .c.
21 .d.
Maybe. The proposed project may have impacts which are individually
limited or cumulatively considerable which may have environmental
effects. However, no significant impacts will occur if the mitigation
measures are followed.
Maybe. The proposed project may have impacts which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly. However, no significant impacts will occur if the Mitigation
Measures are followed.
STAFFRPT\PP179 21
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
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
required.
November 30, 1990
Date
effe on .
For CITY~FTEMEC~A
X
STAFFRPT\PP179 22
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
PLOT PLAN NO. 179 TO CONSTRUCT A 57,284 SQUARE
FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING; AND A 3,250 SQUARE
FOOT TESTING FACILITY ON A PARCEL CONTAINING
4.5 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
RIO NEDO AND TIERRA ALTA WAY AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-290-036, 037, 060, AND
061.
WHEREAS, Johnson + Johnson filed Plot Plan No. 179 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 January 7, 1991, 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. Findin.qs. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
(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\PP179 23
There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
{b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
~C)
The proposed use or action 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.
{2) The Planning Commission finds, in recommending
approval of projects and taking other actions, including
the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title,
each of the following:
a)
There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan
No. 179 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\PP179 24
D. (1) Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan may be
approved unless the following findings can be made:
a)
The proposed use must conform to all the
General Plan requirements and with all
applicable requirements of state law and City
ordinances.
b)
The overall development of the land is
designed for the protection of the public
health, safety and general welfare; conforms
to the logical development of the land and is
compatible with the present and future logical
development of the surrounding property.
{ 2 ) The Planning Commission, in recommending approval
of the proposed Plot Plan, makes the following findings, to wit:
a)
There is a reasonable probability that Plot
Plan No. 179 will be consistent with the Cityis
future General Plan, which will be completed
in a reasonable time and in accordance with
State law due to the fact that the proposed
industrial building is consistent with the
existing zoning and the SWAP land use
designation of General Light Industrial.
b)
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 due to
the fact that the proposed industrial building
is consistent with the existing zoning, the
SWAP land use designation of General Light
Industrial, and the permitted uses of the
surrounding area.
c)
The proposed use or action complies with
State planning and zoning laws due to the
fact that the proposed use complies with
Ordinance No. 3u,8 and the action complies
with State Planning Laws.
d)
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 due to
the fact that the proposed industrial
development complies with the standards of
Ordinance No. 3u,8.
STAFFRPT\PP179 25
e)
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare due to the fact that the Conditions of
Approval include mitigation measures which
will be ensured through the implementation of
a mitigation monitoring program.
f)
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 due to the fact that the
proposed industrial development is consistent
with the zoning ordinance.
g)
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 due to the
fact that the surrounding properties are also
zoned M-SC (Manufacturing - Service
Commercial ).
h)
The project has acceptable access to a
dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic due to the fact
that the vehicular improvements of the
proposed industrial building has been
approved by the Traffic Engineering Staff.
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 due to
the fact that a mitigation monitoring program
has been included for this project.
j)
The design of the project and the type of
improvements are such that they are not in
conflict with easements for access through or
use of the property within the proposed
project.
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.
STAFFRPT\PP179 26
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 mitigation measures described in the
Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration,
therefore, recommended.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends
approval of Plot Plan No. 179 to construct a 57,28u, square foot industrial building;
and a 3,250 square foot testing facility located on the southwest corner of Rio Nedo
and Tierra Alta Way and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 909-290-036, 037,060, and
061 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 7th day of January, 1991.
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
CHA I RMAN
) 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 7th day of January, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFFRPT\PP179 27
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan No: 179
Project Description:
Industrial Complex
Assessor's Parcel No.:
60,534 Square Foot
909-290-036, 037,
060, and 061
Planninq Department
The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for a 57, 28~· square foot office
and industrial building containing 36,930 square feet of manufacturing/
warehouse/distribution area and 20,351~ square feet of office space; and a
3,250 square foot testing facility on LI.5 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 employees
to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its
advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Plot Plan
No. 179. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any such
claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate
fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any
such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the
permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold
harmless the City of Temecula.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of approval date; otherwise,
it shall become null and void. By use is meant the baglnning of substantial
construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period
which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the baginning of
substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. This approval shall
expire on January 7, 1993.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as
shown on Plot Plan No. 179 marked Exhibit A, or as amended by these
conditions.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-d-way.
The applicant shall comply with the Engineering Departrnent~s Conditions of
Approval which are included herein.
STAFFRPT\PP179 28
10.
11.
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, three (3) copies of a
Parking, Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans shall be submitted tothe
Planning Department for approval. The location, number, genus, species,
and container size of the plants shall be shown. Plans shall meet all
requirements of Ordinance No. 3L~8, Section 18.12, and shall be accompanied
by the appropriate filing fee.
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.
A minimum of 162 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section
18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 3~,8. 162 parking spaces shall be
provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit A, The parking area shall be
surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on ~,
inches of Class II base.
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 affixed reflector/zed 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
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
placar'ds 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 least 3 square feet in size.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance
and/or permits from the following agencies:
Planning Department
Engineering Department
Environmental Health
School District
Riverside County Flood Control
Fire Department.
STAFFRPT\PP179 29
12.
13.
1~.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
A Plot Plan application for a Sign Program shall be submitted and approved by
the Planning Director prior to occupancy.
Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance 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) and Exhibit C
{ Materials Board ).
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening
material shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
In accordance with the written request of the developer to the City of
Temecula, a copy of which is on file, and in furtherance of the agreement by
the developer to contribute to the financing of public facilities, no building
permit shall be issued by the City of Temecula for any units within the subject
property until the developer, or the developeris successors or assignees,
provides evidence of compliance with the terms of said agreement for the
financing of public facilities.
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 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.
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 superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation
Plan prior to the payment of the fees required by Ordinance No. 663, the
applicant shall pay the fee required under the Habitat Conservation Plan as
implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
Eight (8) Class III bicycle racks shall be provided in convenient locations as
approved by the Planning Director to facilitate bicycle access to the project
area.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts
to be determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the
installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved
plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed
with the Department of Building and Safety.
STAFF R PT\PP179 30
23.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, all required landscape planting
and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the
Director of Building and Safety. The plants shall be healthy and free of
weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed
and in good working order.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
25.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits and/or building permit, the developer
or his successor's interest shall submit a mitigation monitoring program to the
Planning Department for approval, which shall describe how compliance with
required mitigation measures wi II be met and the appropriate monitoring timing
of the mitigation. The applicant shall reimburse the City for all monitoring
activity cost.
26.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or
any use allowed by this permit.
27.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the applicant shall submit an
emergency response plan and an emergency evacuation plan to the Planning
Department and Riverside County Fire Department for approval.
28.
All outdoor storage shall be located within the loading area only and shall not
exceed the height of six ~6') feet or that of the proposed concrete block
screen wall, whichever is less. Such outdoor storage area shall be submitted
for approval by the Planning Department.
29.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the applicant shall submit a ride-
share program, pursuant to the guidelines of the South Coast Air Quality
Management District, to the Planning Department for approval.
Riverside County Fire Department
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 5zl6.
31.
Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 3000 GPM
for a three (3) hour duration at PSI residual operating pressure, which must
be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
32.
A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants, on a looped system
(6XLIX2X21/2), will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from
any portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular travelways.
The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant( s ) in the
system.
33.
Install panic hardware and exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform
Building Code.
STAFFR PT\PP179 31
3u~.
35.
36.
37.
38.
Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes.
Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC.
Prior to the 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
City of Temecula, 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 fees.
Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the
Building and Safety Office.
39. Warehouse and Manufacturinq Buildinq
Install a complete fire sprinkler system. The post indicator valve and
fire department connection shall be located to the front of the building,
within 50 feet of a fire hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the
building. A statement that the building will be automatically fire
sprinkled must appear on the title sheet of the building plans.
Install a supervised waterflow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans must
be submitted to the Fire Department prior to installation as per UBC.
Quantities of hazardous materials stored and used in warehouse
building shall be stored in proper containers and shall not exceed
amounts listed in table 9A UBC (1988).
Hazardous Chemical and Waste 5toraqe Buildinq
Install dry chemical fire extinguishing system. Plans must be submitted
to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation.
Hazardous material building shall be a minimum 50 feet from any
building or property line.
u, 1. Test Buildinq
a. Install extra hazard fire sprinkler system in building.
b. Install a minimum u,0 BC fire extinguisher in the building.
General
Propane tank must be a minimum 10 feet away from property lines, plans
must be submitted to the Fire Department for Approval prior to
installation.
STAFFRPT\PP179 32
Paint spray booth must meet provision set forth in Article u,5 UFC
{1988). Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department prior to
installation.
All buildings containing hazardous materials shall be placarded, using
labeling and placard system in NFDA 70~.
Enqineerinq Department
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Covernment Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
~3. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department;
CATV Franchise.
The developer shall submit four (o,) prints of a comprehensive grading plan
to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform
Building Code and Chapter 70 as may be additionally provided for in these
Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2u,"x36" mylar by a
Registered Civil Engineer.
The developer shall submit four |u,) copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
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.
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.
STAFFRPT\PP179 33
u,8. All concentrated drainage directed toward the public street shall be diverted
through the undersidewalk drains.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT:
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.
50.
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:
51.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public
facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the
project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim
or final 4~ublic 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 l 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:
52.
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer
and approved by the City Engineer for Tierra Alta Way and shall include stop
signs, stop lagends, stop bars at Rio Nedo and Avenida Alvarado, and a
center line stripe from Rio Nedo to Avenida Alvarado.
53.
Sight distance calculations shall be required for each driveway access point
with Avenida Alvaratio and Rio Nedo.
Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering
for the design requirements.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
55.
All signing and striping on Tierra Alta Way shall be installed per the approved
signing and striping plan.
STAFFRPT\PP179 3~,
I
t
!
lhll
!!i,!¥ ..
h :!i::ijl:Im ui~![il~ Ili,:lI'
']- ~, 1~-..'-.':" :' !I ',
,. il , :il If! ]