Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout012891 PC Special Meeting AgendaAGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING January 28, 1991 6:00 PM VAIL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 29915 Mira Loma Drive Temecula, CA 92390 CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: Chairman Chiniaeff Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff Hoagland, PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commissioner Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Planning Secretary before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Minutes January 7, 1991 NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Case No.: Applicant: Representative: Location: Proposal: Recommendation: Case Planner: Case No. Applicant: Representative: Location: Proposal: R ecommendation: Case Planner: Case No. Applicant: Representative: Location: Proposal: Recommendation: Case Planner: Case No.: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Planner: Recommendation: 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 Southeast corner of Ormbsy Road and Estero Street 2 lot residential subdivision. Denial Steve Jiannino Tentative Parcel Map 211038, Plot Plan 76 Leland\Sung Development Leland\Sung Development Moreno Drive, Adjacent to Motel 6 Subdivide 0.99 acres into 3 parcels and construct a 92 Unit Motel and convert an existing building into a Restaurant. Approval Mark Rhoades Plot Plan No. 138 John and Christins McCusker South Corner of Mercedes and Third Street Revised Permit for a Portable Classroom Richard Ayala Continued 2-u,-91 meeting Plot Plan 10675, Extension of Time Bedford Properties Bedford Properties South Side of Single Oak Drive, approximately 300 feet east of Business Park Drive To construct a Two Story Office Building with 25,7q2 Sq. Ft. of leasable floor area. Approval Scott Wright Case: Applicant: location: Representative: Proposal: Recommendation: Case Planner: Case No. Applicant: Representative: Location: Proposal: Recommendation: Case Planner: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 21821 Bedford Properties North of Via Norte and East of Calle Fiesta Robert Beln, William Frost 8 Associates Subdivide 7.71 acres into five ( 5 ) single family residential lots. Continue off calendar Oilvet Mujica Change of Zone 5631 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 Bedford Properties Robert Rein, William Frost S Associates Pauba Road, East of Ynez Road Change the zoning designation of the subject property from R-R (Rural Residential 20,000 Sq. Ft. minimum) to R- 1 (One-family dwelling - 7,200 Sq. Ft. minimum). Vesting Tentative Tract 25320 Subdivide 56.6 acres into 102 residential lots and Lt open space lots. Recommend Approval Oilvet Mujica ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: February 0u,, 1991, 6:00 PM, Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California. SJ/Ib plancom\PCA 1-28 ITEM #1 MEETING MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA HELD JANUARY 07, 1991 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula was held Monday, January 7, 1991, 6:00 P.M. at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Dennis Chiniaeff. 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 December 17, 1990. The minutes of December 17, 1990 were amended as follows: Page 4, COMMISSIONER BLAIR amended her statement to read "indicating gas and food ahead and this should be adequate notice for the motorist."; Page 5, COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND added that his recommendation for amending Commissioner Blair's motion was denied by Commissioner Blair; Page 10, CHAIPa{ANCHINIAEFF amended third paragraph by deleting the word "Navagation" and replacing with "Aviation" and amended the seventh paragraph to read "would start a new time period for expiration"; Page 14, CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF amended the fourth paragraph to read "City Attorney if the applicant wanted"; Page 17, COMMISSIONER FORD amended the first paragraph by deleting "we" and replacing with "the applicant"; and Page 18, COMMISSIONER FORD amended the fifth paragraph to read "Commissoner Ford clarified with the Commission that they did not want a non-reflective glass building." COMMISSIONER FORD moved to approve the minutes of December 17, 1990 as amended, seconded by COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND. PLANNING COIO~ISSION MINUTES JANUARY 7, 1991 AYES: 4 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Chiniaeff COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS: Fahey Hoagland, NON PUBLIC MEi~RING ITEMS 2. VE8TING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 22627-1 2.1 Proposal to change the product type (arch. design) on 93 of 220 lots. Applicant Lyon Communities, project located north of Nicolas Road and east of General Kearny Road. RICHARD AYALA provided the staff report. He stated that the applicant was proposing three new floor plans, each having three variations in elevations. COMMISSIONER FAHEY arrived at 6:15 P.M. MARK PERELMAN, 4330 La Jolla Village Drive, San Diego, representing Lyon Communities, indicated their concurrence with the staff report. COMMISSIONER PORD requested clarification of some issues of the staff report. COMMISSIONER HOAGLANDmoVed to approve the minor change to Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 22627-1, subject to the Conditions of Approval provided in the staff report, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN:i COMMISSIONERS: Fahey PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS PCMIN1/07/91 -2- 1/14/91 PLANNING 3. PLOT 3.1 COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARy 7, 1991 PLAN NO. 11767 Proposal for the construction of a self-service car wash with 6 bays and 12 parking spaces. Applicant Michael and Linda Merica, project located at 28853 Front Street. STEVE JIANNINO provided the staff report. COMMI88IONER HOAGLAND requested clarification of Condition Nos. 32 and 13. Staff amended Condition No. 13 by deleting the last parenthesis starting with "Decomposed". COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND recommended that staff add a condition requiring an under sidewalk drain. STEVE JIANNINO advised that staff would be adding Condition No. 45 relating to the filing of the Notice of Determination of the Negative Declaration. COMMISSIONER BLAIR requested clarification of Condition No. 22. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned a conflict of wording between Condition No. 20 and No. 22. STEVE JIANNINO advised that "north" should be removed from Condition No. 22. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 6:35 P.M. PETER POZZUOLI, 26 Rollingwood Lane, Fallbrook, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission's questions. COMMISSONER HOAGLAND asked if the facility would utilize re-cycled water and if the applicant had obtained a "Will Serve" letter from Rancho Water. MR. POZZUOLI stated that utilizing re-cycled water was not in the plans yet and indicated that they did not have a "Will Serve" letter. Assistant City Attorney JOHN CAVANAUGH suggested that Chairman Chiniaeff ask if the applicant's representative concurred with the amendments to the Conditions of Approval. HA. POZZUOLI expressed concurrence with the amendments. PCMIN1/07/91 -3- 1/14/91 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 7, 1991 plan sign and that the approval shall be used within one year of the approval date; however, the sign is already erected. Commissioner Ford recommended that the landscaping plans be submitted, approved and completed in a tighter time frame, with preliminary submittal within 30 days and finalization in 60 days. JOHN CAVANAUGH advised that the ordinance provided for extension provisions for variances. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 7:00 P.M. MIKE WILSON, 1240 Railroad Street, Corona, MSI, representing the applicant, stated that when they were called upon to install the sign there were unsure if the permit had been issued and after placing the sign, discovered the permit had not been in place. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF stated that he felt it was imperative that staff go back to the specific plan and see what the applicant had been approved for in the way of signage and also stated that the landscape improvements for that intersection should be completed. GARY THORNHILL stated that he did not expect that the specific plan dealt with temporary signage; however, the permanent signage and landscaping should have be delineated in the plan, and those findings could be brought back to the Commission. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to continue Variance No. 3 to the meeting of January 28, 1991 and leave the public hearing open, to allow staff to investigate the specific plan, seconded by COMMISSIONER BLAIR. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PCMIN1/07/91 PARCEL HAP 25607 5.1 Proposal for a 2 lot residential subdivision. Applicant Robert Paine, property located at the southeast corner of Ormsby Road and Estero Street. STEVE JIANNINO provided the staff report. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 7:10 P.M. -5- 1/14/91 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 7, 1991 MIKE BENESH, 28991 Front Street, Temecula, Benesh Engineering, representing the applicant, clarified that there was an 18 foot grade difference between the proposed lot and the lot owned by the Power's who had submitted a letter of complaint regarding the sub-division of this lot. The Commission as a whole expressed a concern for the continued sub-division of the lots in this area and of what appeared to be an avoidance of the State Sub-Division Map Act, as well as the impacts on traffic circulation, etc. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to deny Tentative Parcel Map No. 25607 based on the impact that additional houses in this particular area, in a cumlative fashion, will have on the area as a whole. Assistant City Attorney JOHN CAVANAUGH recommended that in the event that the Commission wished to deny this particular parcel map, it was recommended that the matter be continued so that they could elaborate on the findings to support the denial. COMMISSIONER FAHEY'S motion failed due to lack of a second. COMMISSIONER FORD moved to close the public hearing at 7:15 P.M. and continue Tentative Parcel Map No. 25607 to the meeting of January 28, 1991, to bring forth findings to support the denial based upon what the Commission feels is a continuous abandonment of the State-Map Act, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 6. PARCEL MAP 25686 CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF stepped down due to a conflict of interest and turned the gavel over to COMMISSIONER FORD. 6.1 Proposal to convert an existing warehouse building to a 2 unit condominium for ownership purposes. Applicant Jonan Management Services, project located at 43550 Business Park Drive. PCMIN1/07/91 -6- 1/14/91 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 7, 1991 CHAIRMAN STEVE JIANNINO provided the staff report. COMMISSIONER FORD opened the public hearing at 7:20 P.M. MARK TOLPERT, representing the applicant, concurred with the Conditions of Approval and revised Condition No. 12. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to close the public hearing at 7:20 P.M. and adopt Resolution No. 91-(next] subject to the Conditions of Approval and revised Condition No. 12, seconded by COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN:i COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff CHINIAEFF returned to his seat. 7. PLOT PLAN NO. 179 7.1 Proposal to construct a 57,284 sq. ft. industrial building and a 3,250 sq. ft. testing facility on 4.5 acre site. Applicant Johnson and Johnson, project located at the southwest corner of Rio Nedo and Tierra Alta Way. OLIVER MUJICA provided the staff report. He stated the following modifications to the Conditions of Approval: Condition No. 25 amended to read "shall pay all costs associated with monitoring activities."; and the addition of Condition No. 56 regarding the requirements for AB3158, the words "prior to recordation of the final map" deleted. COMMISSIONER FANEY questioned the impacts on the area in the event of a hazardous materials accident. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 7:35 P.M. STEVEN COHARA, 1570 Linda Vista Drive, San Marcos, addressed the Commission for any questions. GARY SMITH, 31448 Armado, Temecula, BWIP representative, advised the Commission that the test lab facility was a closed loop system that would never have more than five (5) gallons of hazardous liquids. He stated that a spill would not pose a threat to the atmosphere. He added that PCMIN1/0V/91 -7- 1/14/91 PLANNING COI~IISSION MINUTES JK~UARy 7, 1991 storage would consist of no more than 150 gallons of the following: acetone, lubricating oils and one drum of acid. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND stated that a requirement for permits from SCAQMD be included in Condition Nos. 11 and 43. GARY THORNHILL also recommended that since staff did not have elevations for the test lab building, a condition be added requiring the color of materials be consistent with or match that of the proposed building. He suggested this be added as Condition No. 57. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to close the public hearing at 7:40 P.M. and adopt the Negative Declaration for Plot Plan No. 179 and adopt Resolution No. 91-(next) approving Plot Plan No. 179, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval w~th amendments to Conditions No. 11, 25 and 43 and the addition of Condition No. 56 as submitted by staff and Condition No. 57 requiring the test lab building utilize colors consistent with that of the proposed building, seconded by COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 8. PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT GARY THORNHILL discussed the following items with the Commission: Advised the Commission that he would be meeting with the City Manager in the near future to adopt some interim design guidelines and questioned if the Commissioners had an opportunity to review any of the guidelines that were submitted. Wildan will be providing an oral status report at the next City Council meeting of their goals, projects, and statistics, etc., and each Commissioner will be receiving a shorter written version. * Presently working very hard on the R.F.P.'s, and they are almost complete and ready to submit. Will be discussing a number of work programs (the old town study would be one of them) and also doing some work on the land use analysis for the Nicolas Road and Calle Medusa area. PCMIN1/07/91 -S- 1/14/91 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JRN~ARY 7, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND requested a numerical listing of the variances, C.U.P.'s, etc., that the Commission has acted on, including their locations. COMMISSIONER FAHEY questioned the status of the recruitment for a City Planning Director. GARY THORNHILL advised that it would probably be three or four months before that person comes on board and he would work with that individual for quite some time. He added that the City Planning Director would also start hiring City staff. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF requested that a location map with adjacent land uses and zoning be included with the agenda items. COMMISSIONER FORD questioned the status of the Murdy Ranch specific plan. OLIVER MUJICA advised the Commission that the applicant was revising the plan and reducing the number of units. He stated that the applicant is expected to bring it back to staff in the next three or four weeks. 10. OTHER BUSINESS COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND moved to cancel the meeting of January 21, 1991 and reschedule the meeting for January 28, 1991, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PCMIN1/07/91 -9- 1/14/91 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 7, 1991 ADJOURNMENT The next meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission will be held on Monday, January 28, 1991, 7:00 P.M. at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula. Chairman, Dennis Chiniaeff Secretary PCMIN1/07/91 -10- 1/14/91 ITEM #2 TO: FROM: DATE: MEMORANDUM Planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Planning Director January 28, 1991 SUBJECT: Variance No. 3 PROPOSAL: BACKGROUND: ANALYSIS: Variance No. 3 proposes to allow an existing eighteen {18) foot high 200 square foot temporary subdivision sign situated at the northeast corner of Rancho California Road and Margarita Road for the ~,73 acre Temeku Master Planned Community. On January 7 , 1991, the Planning Commission considered the applicant~s proposal; and, continued this item, in order to allow the Planning Department Staff the opportunity to: Check proposed landscape improvements for the northeast corner of Rancho California Road and Margarita Road in relation to Specific Plan No. 199. 2. Elaborate on the time frame for the landscape improvements to be installed. Attach a condition regarding the maximum period of time for the sign to remain. Research the project~s intersection ( Rancho California and Margarita) Identification M0numentation Plan according to Specific Plan No. 199. In response to the Planning Commission's request, the following items have been addressed: The applicant has submitted the proposed temporary landscape improvement plans to accompany the existing subdivision sign. These improvements include hydroseed turf along with shrubs and a variety of trees as shown in the submitted landscape plans. These improvements will extend approximately 665 feet along Margarita Road and 1,0~,0 feet along Rancho California Road from the subject site. Staff has found these proposed STAFFRPT\VAR3 1 improvements to be inconsistent with Specific Plan No. 199. However, the landscape improvement plans as submitted are temporary, like the subdivision sign and will ultimately be replaced by permanent landscaping per Specific Plan No. 199 Development Standards. Therefore, Planning Staff has determined that the proposed temporary landscape improvement plans are acceptable in conjunction with the temporary subdivision sign, since the proposed landscaping will ultimately be consistent with S. P. 199. Condition No. 3 for Variance No. 3 has been revised as follows: "The applicant shall submit a substantial landscape planting plan surroundingthetemporarysubdivision sign prior to issuance of a building permit. Thelandscaping improvements shall be installed within 60 days of the approval date or the variance will be subject to revocation." An additional condition has been included relating to the maximum time period allowed for the temporary subdivision sign and landscaping in order to ensure ultimate compliance with S.P. 199, as follows: "The approved temporary subdivision sign and landscaping shall be removed within two |2) years of the approval date and be replaced by permanent landscaping in conformance with the project intersection identification monumentation plan per Specific Plan No. 199 Development Standards". Project Intersection Identity Monumentation occurs at the corner of Rancho California Road as it Intersects Margarita Road. The Intersection Identification Monumentation Plan per Specific Plan No. 199 consists of foreground flowering accent groundcover; informal street tree groupings; and entry accent palm trees with project theme masonry wall and pilasters. ( See attachment). STAFFRPT\VAR3 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: Adopt Resolution 91 approving Variance No. 3 based on the findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached conditions of approval. RA:mb Attachments: 2. 3. 5. Exhibits Resolution Conditions of Approval Staff Report (January 7, 1991 ) Minutes {January 7, 1991 ) STAFFRPT\VAR3 3 11' OR 12'R~HT OF WAY 20' MIN. LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT ZONE PROJECT THEME ENTRY MONUMENTATION PLANTER pROJECT THEME MASONRY WALL ENTRY ACCENT PALM TREES PROJECT THEME ENTRY MONUMENTATION SIGNAGE WALL FOREGROUND FLOWERING ACCENT GROUNDCOVER PROJECT THEME MASONRY pILASTER LOW PROJECT THEME ENTRY MONUMENTATION PLANTER INFORMAL STREET TREE GROUPINGS !VERGRBEN BACKGROUND GROVE TREES MEANDERING 5'-6" SIDEWALK TURF PARKWAY - 4:1 MOUND MAXIMUM 32' MIN. LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT ZONE 12' RIGHT OF WAY FIGURE 111-26 VILLAGE 'A': PROJECT INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION MONUMENTATION PLAN A Margarita Village ~ANCHO CALIFORNL6 DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVINC 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 28, 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__=. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30 } months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. (2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: STAFFRPT\VAR3 ~ (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. 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 5 (2) (c) 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 thisordinance 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: (a) There are exceptional circumstances applicable to the subject property in that the site encompasses ~,73 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. (b) The variance is necessary for preservation of the applicant's ability to adequately identify the subject~s ~,73 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 6 (C). 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 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 advertising 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 advertising 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 following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. SECTION 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this first day of DENNIS CHINIAEFF CHAIRMAN STAFFRPT\VAR3 7 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: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNINC COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS STAFFRPT\VAR3 8 ATTACHMENT B CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VARIANCE NO. 3 Council Approval Date: Expiration Date: Planninq Department The applicant shall submit a Plot Plan application for approval of the temporary subdivision sign. The appearance and location of the Temporary Subdivison sign shall conform substantially with that shown in Exhibits A,B,C, and D. The applicant shall submit a substantial landscape planting plan surrounding the temporary subdivision sign prior to issuance of a building permit. The landscaping improvements shall be installed within 60 days of the approval date or the variance will be subject to revocation. (Amended per Planning Commission January 7, 1991 ). 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. The approved temporary subdivision sign and landscaping shall be removed within two (2) years of the approval date and be replaced by permanent landscaping in conformance with the project intersection identification monumentation plan per Specific Plan No. 199 Development Standards. (Amended per Planning Commission January 7, 1991 ) STAFFRPT\VAR3 9 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 348, 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 8 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 F, Multi Family Residential Single Family Residential Commercial Existing Project: Size of Property: Height of Sign: Area of Sign: T~:~uCeuntryClub 473 acres 18~ 200 sq.ft. On August 24, 1990, the applicant submitted Plot STAFFRPT\VAR3 10 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ANALYSIS: Plan No. 1~,5 requesting approval to retain an existing 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 3~,8 regarding the permitted square footage of subdivision signs. According to Ordinance 3u,8, 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 3~,8, 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 the existing 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 11 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 signage 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 3~,8, 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 3~,8 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.~, (a) (2) of Ordinance 3~8 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 ~,73 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 12 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 signis 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 II Categorically Exempt from the requirement for environmental review. There are exceptional circumstances applicable to the subject property in that the site encompasses ~,73 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. The variance is necessary for preservation of the applicant's ability to adequately identify the subject's ~,73 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 13 STAFF RECOMMENDAT ION: 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 Planning 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: Resolution Conditions of Approval Vicinity Map Sign Location Sign Elevation Letter from Applicant RA:mb STAFFRPT\VAR3 14 VICINITY MAP p Mothational Systems Inc pROJECT LACER DATE 1~823W. 23rd Street. Nauonal Ct~'.CA92050 619/474-8246 11240 R~llroad SUtet. Coroaa. CA 91720 714/73,1-3970 4749 Las Pom~as Rd.. ~ul~e L. Livermore. CA 945~0 4! 5/449-3900 DIRECTIONAL M'~P F'I 12473 Gladstone A~e.. Suite L. S)lmar. CA 91342 818/8~8-3122 D 4275 Bell Dr.. Suite de7. [.as %e~s. NA 89118 702/25:1-6470 x S~IAIGIrrSIGN T ~IIN SIGN · FOLESIGN · ~iIAILEll INt, E~TOIIY L [] SIGN GONE 0 SIGN DATE RECEIX ED IEMMIKS J .TE.MEKU.' ;' :CQUNTKY CLUB ACTIVE ADULT COMMUNITY SINGLE FAMILYAND CONDOMINIUM HOMES 18 HOLE CHAMpIONSHIp COLF COURSE COMPLETE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES . CALLt-8OO-2-TEMEKU A DEVELOPMENT OF · ~,~f"'" THE BUiE CORPORATION . AND FIRST NEVADA, LTD. .t /2/_ / t 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. 82:{ V, ;Z,~ul 5tr~,l.I. '%atil~luil Cit}, L~ ~12n,~{I 619 4T4-R:a4(i 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. Sincerely, M~~~T?3IO SYSTEMS, INC. JG:my TBC026 PLANNING DRAFT COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 7, 1991 CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF remarked that although the staff report states that there will be no de-greasing of automobiles allowed, he felt it would be hard to control the de- greasing and suggested that a condition be added requiring a grease trap on the premises. COMMISSIONER FORD suggested that a condition be added stating that governing water and sewer agency requirements must be met prior to issuance of building permits. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF verified the applicant's concurrence with these additional conditions. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND moved to close the public hearing at 6:45 P.M. and adopt Negative Declaration for Plot Plan No. 11767 and Adopt Resolution No. 91-(next) approving Plot Plan No. 11767, subject to the Conditions of Approval amended as follows: Condition No. 13 modified by the deletion of the parenthesis beginning with "Decomposed"; Condition No. 22 modified by the deletion of the word "North"; and the addition of Condition 45 requiring the filing of the Notice of Determination of the Negative Declaration; Condition 46 requiring an under side walk drain; Condition 47 requiring "Can and Will Serve" letters from water and sewer agencies prior to the issuance of building permits; and Condition 48 requiring a grease trap be installed on the premises. The motion was seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff 4. VARIANCE NO. 3 4.1 Proposal for a request for Variance to allow a 200 square foot temporary subdivision sign. Applicant Buie Corporation, project located at northeast corner of Rancho California Road and Margarita Road. RICHARD AYALA provided the staff report. GARY THORNHILL stated that due to the size of the development, staff did not feel the size of this sign was inappropriate. COMMISSIONER FORD clarified that the approval was for the temporary sub-division sign modified to a temporary master PCMIN1/07/91 -4- 1/14/91 DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 7, 1991 plan sign and that the approval shall be used within one year of the approval date; however, the sign is already erected. Commissioner Ford recommended that the landscaping plans be submitted, approved and completed in a tighter time frame, with preliminary submittal within 30 days and finalization in 60 days. JOHN CAVANAUGH advised that the ordinance provided for extension provisions for variances. CMAIRFd%N CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 7:00 P.M. MIKE WILSON, 1240 Railroad Street, Corona, MSI, representing the applicant, stated that when they were called upon to install the sign there were unsure if the permit had been issued and after placing the sign, discovered the permit had not been in place. CHAIRM/4N CHINIAEFF stated that he felt it was imperative that staff go back to the specific plan and see what the applicant had been approved for in the way of signage and also stated that the landscape improvements for that intersection should be completed. GARY THORNHILL stated that he did not expect that the specific plan dealt with temporary signage; however, the permenant signage and landscaping should have be delineated in the plan, and those findings could be brought back to the Commission. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to Variance No. 3 to the meeting of January 28, 1991 and leave the public hearing open, to allow staff to investigate the specific plan, seconded by COMMISSIONER BLAIR. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 5. PARCEL MAP 25607 5.1 Proposal for a 2 lot residential subdivision. Applicant Robert Paine, property located at the southeast corner of Ormsby Road and Estero Street. STEVE JIANNINO provided the staff report. CHAIP, MAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 7:10 P.M. PCMIN1/07/91 -5- 1/14/91 ITEM #3 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City of Temecula Planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Planning Director January 28, 1991 Parcel Map No. 25607 Parcel Map No. 25607 was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of January 7, 1991 for Staff to return with a Resolution of Denial for the project. Staff has reviewed the project and submitted a revised Staff Report reflecting the Planning Commission's direction for denial of the project. A copy of the original Staff Report dated January 7, 1991 is attached for your review. Upon further review, Staff has revised the analysis and the findings for the project. With the additional input and increased analysis, Staff is recommending denial of Parcel Map no. 25607. SJ: ks STAFFRPT\PM25607 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION January 28, 1991 Case No.: Tentative Parcel Map No. 25607 Prepared By: Steve R. Jiannino Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 91- denying Tentative Parcel Map No. 25607 based on the Findings contained in the Staff Report. 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 STAFF 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 previously graded and two house pads currently exist within the 1.u, acres. The Planning Commission has approved two other Parcel Maps on Estero Street, Parcel Map No. 2u,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 ~, 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: Direct access is achieved from Estero Street to Ormsby Road which connects to Santiago Road. Ormsby Road is a paved road which is in need of repair. Ormsby connects with Santiago Road which is scheduled to be a major road but is currently a dirt road or partially paved. A paved access to the tract is available through the residential tract to the west, Windsor Crest. The circulation through the residential tract is not the most appropriate since Ormsby Road is a residential collector, but it does not currently connect with a fully improved major road, Santiago Road. STAFF R PT\ PM25607 2 FINDINGS: the cumulative effect of increased density within the area on the existing road systems, and 2) a soils and geologic report, including detailed information on the potential for soil and groundwater contamination caused by the cumulative effects of subsurface disposal from the proposed project. There is a reasonable probability that this project may be inconsistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time. The project may not propose the proper infrastructure for the proposed density with use of septic disposal. The proposed use complies with State planning and zoning law. The project conforms to the current zoning for the site and to Ordinance No. 460, Schedule G. The site is not suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configurations, access, and density. The project does not have appropriate access and does not provide sewer service, The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements may cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidable injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The cumulative effects to traffic circulation and possible soil and groundwater contamination need to be studied in detail. 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. STAFFRPT\PM25607 4 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 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 conditloned. The project will not interfere with any easements. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: Adopt Resolution No. 91- denying Parcel Map No. 25607 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report. SJ:ks Attachments Resolution Exhibits STAFF R PT\PM25607 5 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING 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 and January 28, 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: 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: 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 6 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. STA F F R PT\ PM25607 7 D. (1) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. ~,60, a subdivision map shall be denied if any of the following findings are made: a) That the proposed land division is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. b) That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. c) That the site of the proposed land division is not physically suitable for the type of development. d) That the site of the proposed land division is not physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. e) That the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are 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 likely to cause serious public health problems. g) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will 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. STAFFRPT\PM25607 8 (2) The Planning Commission in denying Tentative Parcel Map, makes the following findings, to wit: a) There is a reasonable probability that this project may be inconsistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time. The project may not propose the proper infrastructure for the proposed density with use of septic disposal. b) The proposed use complies with State planning and zoning law. The project conforms to the current zoning for the site and to Ordinance No. L~60, Schedule G. c) The site is not suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configurations, access, and density. The project does not have appropriate access and does not provide sewer service, d) The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements may cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidable injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The cumulative effects to traffic circulation and possible soil and groundwater contamination need to be studied in detail. e) 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. f) 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. g) 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 nat interfere with any easements. STAFF R PT\PM25607 9 h) That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. SECTION 2. PASSED, DENIED AND ADOPTED this 28th 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 28th day of January, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS STAFFRPT\PM25607 10 ZONING CASE CZ 911 RmR RmR ~0 ~j / ~ II · LOCATION ~^~' ~"~ ~b~7 DU/A ~GARITA ~IL SP 19!! iSP 180 Ii COMMUNITy % tt -/ \ /.-- 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: LOCAT ION: 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 Vaunt Single Family Homes Single Family Residential Tract Total Acres: No. of Lots: Maximum LotSize: Minimum Lot Size: 1.~2 acres 2 lots .806 acre .61~ acre STAFF R PT\PM25607 I 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. 24633 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 ~ 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 17,200 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 which 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 C. STAFF R PT\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 conditioned, 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. ~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 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: SJ:ks Attachments 1. . 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 projectis Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protact 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 hereln incorporated by reference. Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 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 Initial Study Exhibits STAFFRPT\PM25607 ~ RESOLUTION NO. 91° A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PARCEL MAP NO. 25607 TO SUBDIVIDE A 1 .~, 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 Commissioo approval of said Parcel Map; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECT ION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Cede Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are 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 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 fol Iowi ng: 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. I1 ) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. u,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 divisior~ 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) i) There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the Ceneral 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 C. 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 hous~ 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 ~ 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 1.1~ acre parcel into 2 parcels located at the southeast corner of Ormsby Road and Estero Street subject to the following conditions: 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 Temacula 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\PM25607 5 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Tentative Parcel Map No: 25607 Project Description: 2 Lot Residential Subdivision Assessor's Parcel No.: 9~,5-070-011 Planninq Department The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance L~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 conditlonally approved tentative map will expire two years after the approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance ~60. 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 Departmentis 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 Districtis 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 ~60, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities STAFFRPT\PM25607 1 30. 11. 12. 13. 15. 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, Palemar Observetory. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. Should the paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. STAFFRPT\PM25607 2 16o 18. 19. Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer's successoris- in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars 15100) 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 110) feet. e. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten 110) 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 Temacula, 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 66~99.37. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecuia. 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. STAFF R PT\PM25607 3 20. 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. 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 Quimby 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. 0,60 as amended through Ordinance No. 0,60.93. * Plus 20% for offsite improvements Enqineering Department. The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering Department. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further consideration. The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act, and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions. 20,. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered Civil Engineer, subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No. ~60. PRIOR TO 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. STAFF R PT\PM25607 ~ 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 ~u~,'/66'). 27. Estero Street shall be improved with full street improvements within the dedicated right-d-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. b. Domestic water systems. 29. Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. ~61 and as approved by the City Engineer. 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. 33. A drainage easement shall be provided acress 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. STAFFRPT\PM25607 5 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. 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 Enqineerinq PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: 37. 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. STAFFRPT\PM25607 6 KIVBRSIDI COUNTY PIP~ DEPARTMENT CALIFORNIA DEPA~ENT ~ ~TRY OL~N ~. NE~AN ~IRE CH~P ~ovem~ar ~9, 1990 PLaNNinG i aNSINEaRING 3700 Li"l'~ rrKEET T0~ ATTN: CiTY OF TiMSCaLA PLANNI~a DEPARTMENT PARCEL HAP 25607 With respect to the conditionl of approval for the shove referenced land division, the Fire Department zaemuaande the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Riverli~e County Ord$nlncee end/or recognized [ira protection standards: FIRE PROTECTION Schedule 'G" firs protection. An approved standard fire ~,ydrent shall be lacecad to Chat no portion of the frontage of any 330 feet lro~ · ~ire hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GH for 2 hours duration SC 20 PSI. The epplleent/davslope~ shall provide written certification from the epDropTiece ~ater company =hat the required fire hydrants are either axistins or chac financial errInSensate have been made to provide Ehem. The retuired v~Esr system, iuludin8 fire hydranee. shall be installed and scce~ed by the epproprie~e va~ez als~ay pries ~s lay combustible buildins ma=e=ial heine placed ou en individual lot. Prior to the teesfashion o~ =he final up, the developer shall deposit w~th the Riverside County tire DIpstiMers · o&lh sum of e~O0,O0 pot rot/unit Is miClSetiom for ~ite ptotectioa ispe~s. All ~uestions selarding the mssninI of reed/C/one shell be teeerred to she Fllnnlng end Engineering stelE. Cbisf Fire Department PLanner Hlohael E. Grays Depuny Figs Department Planner ins KENNETH L., EDWAI~DS CHIEF ENGINEEN RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92502 April 6, 1990 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 adjacent roadbeds and should offsite runoff. shall be installed along the provide protection against A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final map along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic cal- culations should be submitted to the District via the Road Department for review and approval prior to recorda- tion of the final map. Grading plans should be approved prior to issuance of grading permits. Questions concerning this matter may be referred to the Subdivision section of this office at 714/787-2884. c: Benesh Engineering e~n~oH. KASHUBA · r Civil Engineer DHT:mcy .'.',,'ZSi~ .SOUSCE.' ~.C.u.j,O. SCHLEDULIE _=.'lf~5:;T ?.H. {IF ANY)' ?-~ eCv"l~70'~ WAIVER nzouSs'r~ EE,~ASTMENT OF HEALTH HAS BEVIEW"D THE HAP DESCRIBED ABOVE. IF ANT QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS T~NSHI~AL. CONTACT (714) 707-G543. i:.~CG2~M~NDATION8 AR~ AS FOLLOWS: The Environmental Health Services, P~vi=~on (EI'ISD) has reviewed the ::zgi%t be encountered in this are= may not be conducive I.o ul I'octxv9 z'3;~s~h~!iLy rnpnr[ chnll hp submitted for toylow and aperoyal bV jL:LS. fills, colnpaction, etc. and perform the te=t5 and b,jrll~U~ necessary subsurface sewaqe d~sposal system depths. SOilS engineer must provide a oredine plan for revle~/ nnd om,l~rova] . ',<:ic'.i shall include and ~ddros~ the i. The proposed cuts and/or fills xn the areas of subsurface sewage d~smosal svsteln. piE, cod in natural undisturbe.~a soil. 02. theco pro.iects whore the eradine p|ail.'. are I) rol)ar,),l by ram. lm,Tm' lLl2.tt:tlod OIl t)~O OradillO 'plan subt. xtted for revaow and auuruval with tim,_. ::LiS engineer's signature and seal as to the apRropraatoness Of the A copy of' the'final eradine plan. on a scale not. smaller than :.::_:.:urn with detailed _::~/,:-:sion, shall be submitted for rev~ev ~nd auproval . .... :7::i=U'i'Y DiR!2CTUR .'.'.LTI{/:'OR ENVIROIqlIEN'FAL 1. '. l_'l': I .'.:: 117 (P, EV. 01/9U) ( T l ~11.1:~ ) CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY Backqround 1. Name of Proponent: Robert Paine Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 6563 Via Arboles Anaheim, CA 92808 1213) 633-0161 Date of Environmental Assessment: November 19, 1990 Agency Requiring Assessment: CITY OF TEMECULA Name of Proposal, if applicable: Location of Proposal: Tentative Parcel Map No. 25607 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? 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\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, mudstides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Air. Will the proposal result in: Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? The creation of objectionable odors? Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, whether locally or regionally? Water. Will the proposal result in: Substantial changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? Substantial changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including, but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? Alteration of the direction or rate of flow or ground waters? Yes Maybe No X X X X X X X X X X X STAFFRPT\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 (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare. or endangered species of plants? Introduction of new species of plants into an area of native vegetation, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? :d. Substantial reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including rep- tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? Yes Maybe No X X X X X X X X X STAFF R PT\PM25607 3 10. 11o 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: ae 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, posticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 'b. 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\PM25607 u, 15. 16. Effects on existing parking facili- ties. or demand for new parking? Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, b/cyclists or pedestrians? Public Services. Will the proposal have substantial effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks or other recreational facilities? Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Other governmental services: Energy. Will the proposal result in: Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? Yes Maybe No X X X X X X X X X X X X STAFFRPT\PM25607 5 17. 18. 19. 20. b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? Human Health. Will the proposal result in: Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard ( excluding mental health)? Exposure of people to potential health hazards? Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure. or object? Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d& 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 ST A FF R PT\PM25607 6 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environ- mental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future. ) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumu- lativdy 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\PM25607 7 III Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation 1.a,c,d e,f,g. 1.b. 2.a,b,c. 3.a-i. u,.a,b,c, d. 5.a,c. 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, STAFF R PT\PM25607 8 lq,a,b,c, d,e, l~.f. 15.a,b. 16.a,b,c, e,f. 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 1~, 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 recordation. 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 excavatio~ 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 Fol' CITY OF TEMECULA STAFFRPT\PM25607 10 ITEM MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Cary Thornhill, Planning Director January 28, 1991 Plot Plan No. 76, Tentative Parcel Map No. 24038 This item was continued from the December 3, 1990 Planning Commission meeting. The Planning commission continued this item due to concerns regarding traffic impacts at Front Street, project visibility from Sam Hicks Monument Park, and the restaurant use on proposed Parcel No. 3. The traffic impacts have been summarized in the attached letter by the applicantIs traffic engineer. Impacts to both intersections of Front Street and Moreno Drive are identified, as well as Front Street and Rancho California road. The visibility of the project from Sam Hicks Monument Park has been softened by the addition of buffer landscaping at the eastern boundary of the park. The applicant has had several meetings with City Staff, including the City"s Community Service and Planning Departments regarding the proposed landscaping within Sam Hicks Monument Park. The revised landscape plans reflect the recommendations of Staff with the placement of trees and shrubs within the park boundary. A pilaster and wrought iron wall treatment will be installed to reduce the hazard of graffiti. A minimum ten ~ 10) foot wide planter strip will be adjacent to the wall on the park side. At least six (6) box trees will be planted in the proposed park planter strip, as well as a dense line of shrubs. The park planting will be installed by the applicant, with irrigation tied in to the existing park irrigation system. A total of six ~6) other 36" box trees will be planted within the park area, subject to Staff approval. The final landscaping plans for Sam Hicks Monument Park has not been developed. The final landscaping plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and the Community Services Director. Additionally, at least five (5) trees have been added on site as visual relief. All proposed trees on site between the park and hotel will be a minimum of 20," box with 25 percent being 36" box or greater. Because of the substantial increase in buffer landscaping, no changes were made to the building elevations. The proposed restaurant use on Parcel 3 has been labeled "not a part" on the current plot plan. Any future development on Parcel No. 3 will require a separate plot plan review and approval. STAFFRPT\PP76 1 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Tentative Parcel Map No. 2u,038, and Plot Plan No. 76; ADOPT Resolution 91 - recommending approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2u,038 based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; and, ADOPT Resolution 91- approving Plot Plan No. 76, based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. MR:ks STAFFRPT\PP76 2 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS · PLANNERS 3600 LIME STREET, SUffE 226 · RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 · [714]274-0566 , TELEX 573439 · FAX [714)274-9220 January 18, 1991 Mr. Kirk Williams City of Temecula Transportation Dept. 43180 Business Park Drive, Suite 200 P.O. Box 3000 Temecula, CA 92390 Subject: Plot Plan 76 Dear Mr. Williams: In response to traffic impact concerns recently expressed by some of the Planning Commissioners, Wilbur Smith Associates would like to offer the following summary and clarification of Plot Plan 76 Traffic Impact Analysis findings: Project Trip Generation The proposed project, which now includes only a 92-room hotel (the restaurant has been dropped from the project), would generate approximately 53 vehicle trips (total in and out) during the morning peak hour and 58 vehicle trips during the evening peak hour. This level of vehicle trip generation is very low and represents an average of approximately one vehicle entering and one vehicle exiting the project site every two minutes during the morning and evening peak hours. A number of factors would further reduce project-related traffic volumes which could be expected at off-site intersections. These include the following: o With multiple access routes serving the site. the small amount of traffic generated by the hotel would be further diluted to even smaller numbers of vehicles (at any one location). o Project trip generation stated earlier, is based on 100 percent occupancy of the hotel. Typical occupancy rates for the hotel would be less than 75 percent. ALBANY. NY , ALLIANCE. OH BAL11MORE, MD · C/Mr<O, EGYPT · CHARLESTON, SC · COLUMBIA, SC * COLUMBUS, OH * FALLS CHURCH, VA HONG KONG , HOUSTON, TX * iSELIN. NLJ " JACKSONVILLE. FL * KNOXVILLE. TN * LEXINGTON. KY · LONDON. ENGLAND · LOS ANGELES. CA MLM F', * MNNEADOLE M%' · NEENA!4 Wi * NBV HAVEN, CT , ORLANDO, FL · pHOENIX, AZ · PFFrSBUPGH, PA · PORTSMOUTH, NH · P'IOV1DENCE ~ O If it is assumed that the hotel would serve persons visiting Temecula for business and recreational purposes, these trips would impact area streets whether they originate from the project site or other hotel sites within Temecula and in outlying areas. The proximity of the project site to downtown business would encourage the number of "walking" trips made by hotel guests. The current CPS zoning for the site allows for a variety of fairly intensive commercial uses. The vast majority of these uses would result in vehicle trip generation levels for the site which are much higher than for the proposed hotel use. Traffic Conditions And Project Impacts Analysis of current traffic conditions in the study area has identified a need for various improvements at the Front Street intersections with Rancho California Road and Moreno Road. It is clearly recognized by Wilbur Smith Associates that these and other more significant improvement measures will be needed in the downtown Temecula area to accommodate traffic generated by existing and expected future development. Wilbur Smith Associates analysis of project related traffic impacts (assuming development of both the hotel and restaurant) found extremely small and in some cases immeasurable off-site impacts due to the project. The current development proposal which does not include the restaurant results in project impacts which are so small that they fall at or below the lower threshold of standard traffic analysis technique sensitivities. The addition of project traffic to existing traffic flows would be far less than the typical variations in traffic from one day to the next. The conservatively estimated project traffic increases represent less the a 3 percent increase at any of the area study intersections during the more critical evening peak hour. Riverside County traffic impact study guidelines use 5 percent as the lower threshold for identifying locations which would experience significant traffic increases due to a project. Project traffic increases at the Rancho California Road/Front Street intersection and the Front Street 6th Street intersection are less than 1.5 percent. Conclusions And ~'~commendations It is clear that the currently proposed hotel project would have insignificant off-site impacts and would not trigger the need for any new roadway improvements. Roadway/intersection improvements identified in the earlier traffic study are still valid since they really address existing traffic congestion problems. Analysis findings indicate that a new signal on Front Street at S. Moreno Road could be warranted at some point in the future, but well after 2 build-out of this project. The decision to signalize the intersection, however, should be based on a more detailed analysis of downtown Temecula circulation system needs and alternative system improvements. It appears, based on our study, that a low vehicle trip generator such as the proposed hotel project would fit in well with any new development and redevelopment strategies for the downtown Temecula area, which include a desire to minimize area traffic. Please feel free to call on Wilbur Smith Associates if you have any additional questions or concerns. Respectfully submitted, Wilbur Smith Associates Robert A~ Davis Senior Transportation Engineer 3 pLi~WNING COM14IaSlON MINUTES DECEMBER 3, 1990 ..... m MJssm 13. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 24038~ PLOT PL.%N 76 13.1 Proposal to subdivide 4.99 acres into 3 parcels and construct a 92 unit motel and convert an existing building into a restaurant located at Moreno Drive Adjacent to Motel 6. STEVE JI/~NNINO provided the staff report on this item. COI(MlSSlONER HOAGEu~ND stated that the staff report did not indicate any additional traffic that might be generated by this project at the intersection of Moreno Road and Front Street. KIRK WILLIARS advised that the peak hours of the motel would be off-peak hours of the traffic patterns. He PCMIN12/3/90 -11- 12/7/90 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTEB DECEMBER 3, 1990 added that they concluded the traffic generated by the motel would be distributed throughout the day and off- peak. COMMISSIONER EOAGLAND questioned the placement of this motel/restaurant adjacent to the historical Sam Hicks Park. GARY THORNHILL stated that the department posted public hearing notices and had not received any negative response. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFP questioned truck parking. STEVE JIANNINO stated that the trucks would utilize street parking. KIRK WILLIAMS stated that they did condition the project for 165' of red curb in front of the project. GARY THORNHILL stated that it would be impossible to provide that type of parking within the project. He added that the City is looking into a City wide ordinance regarding truck parking. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned if this project was being conditioned to install traffic signals at Moreno and Front Streets. KIRK WlLLIAMS stated that the trips generated by this project will not serefly impact this intersection. DOUG STEWART added that the staff is looking at putting in a raised median at the intersection of Moreno and Front Streets to allow right-in and right-out only. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 8:35 P.M. JOHN JOHNSON, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester Road Temecula, representing the applicant, addressed the staff withquestions relative to some of the Conditions of the Plot Plan. He stated that on Condition No. 1, the applicant did some minor revisions after their meetings with staff which provided them with two additional parking spaces, and therefore, they propose to increase the motel to 94 units; Condition No. 16, their request was for the deletion of one handicapped parking space in front of the restaurant to be utilized for additional drainage; PCMIN12/3/90 -12- 12/7/e0 PLANNING COIOilSSlON MINUTES DECF, MBER 3, 1990 Condition No. 21, they proposed to construct a decorative block wall with wrought iron and pilasters; and Condition No. 31, they propose that the wording be changed to require a substantial conformance when the elevations for the restaurant are proposed. COMMISSIONER FAHEY questioned if the applicant would prefer that Condition No. i remain as written or to continue the item to investigate the increase. DEL CURLAN, 29847 Villa Alturez, Temecula, representing Leland/Sung Development, stated that they would prefer to go forward with the project. JIM BACARELLA, 29892 Corte Tolano, Temecula, opposed the motel/restaurant adjacent to the historical Sam Hicks Park and stated that he felt the project would have a negative impact on the traffic on Front Street. COMMISSIONER HOAGLRND questioned staff's comments to the applicant's request for the amendments to the Conditions of Approval. GARY THORNHILL stated that they would prefer to see the conditions remain as written. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND questioned the possibility of increased incident of graffiti on the wall if left a solid block wall. GARY THORNHILL suggested that they could construct the wrought iron and pilaster wall with a hedge along the front between the wall and the park. COMMISSIONER FANEY stated that she felt the building was to tall for the area proposed. COMMISSIONER FORD concurred.with Commissioner Fahey, adding that he was concerned with the impact that the project would have on traffic and felt that signalization should be addressed. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF stated that no matter what is put here it will be located next to Sam Hicks Park. He also stated that he felt the proposed height of the building was too tall for the area and that he felt the project was going to impact traffic. He also expressed a concern for what was happening in relation to the restaurant area. k,/ PCMIN12/3/90 -13- 12/7/90 PLANNIN~ COMMI88ION MINUTE8 DECEMBER 3, 1990 COMMISSIONER FORD clarified that the approval for the restaurant was going to come back to the Commission at a later date. GARY THORNHILL stated that it would be coming back; however, the applicant was requesting an approval on the use, which he opposed. COMMISSIONER FORD suggested that staff look at restricting parking off of Sixth Street as well. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND questioned approving this item not to include the restaurant. GARY THORNHILL recommended that Condition 31 of the Plot Plan require that all uses submitted shall be applied for at a later date and not be part of this approval. He also recommended amending Condition No. i to delete the last four words. COM3{ISSIONER FAREY asked if staff could address some of the concerns presented by the Commission more clearly. GARY THORNHILL stated that if it was the issues of compatibility, height, etc., then they were looking at a major re-design. COMMISSIONER FORD stated that if it was not sent back to staff, he would not approve it. He requested staff's guidance. STEVE JIANNINO stated that a concern of the City Council in May was approving the project with no Parcel Map. They wanted to make sure the project fit the Parcel Map. COMMISSIONER FAIIEY stated that what the Commission was saying is that they did not like the way this project fit the map. STEVE JIANNINO stated that staff would prefer that it not be approved. JOHN CAVANAUGH advised the Commission that they could approve the plot plan and the parcel map; or, approve the parcel map and plot plan without the restaurant; or, approve the plot plan with conditions; or, just deny the whole project including the parcel map; also, they could continue it with direction to staff of what the Commission wants. PCMIN12/3/90 -14- 12/?/90 FLKNNIN~ COMN~2SliON NINUTES DECEMBER 3, 3.990 COMMISSIONER FORD moved to close the public hearing at 8:55 P.M. and continue this item and direct staff to address the concerns expressed by the Commission. JOHN CAVANAUGH advised the Commission that a better solution might be to deny the project and have the applicant work with staff and then bring it back. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF called for a second to the motion. The motion failed due to lack of a second. Chairman Chiniaeff stated that he felt it was an appropriate use for the location; however, he felt that the building was to high and had a negative impact on the park. He felt it would be better to let staff work with the applicant and address those concerns rather than deny the whole project. COMMISSIONER FAHEY stated that although the use and location may be appropriate, there is nothing else the Commission likes about the project and the issues that need to be addressed would constitute a redesign. COMMISSIONER BOAGLAND stated that he felt the concerns that are being addressed by the Commission are beyond the applicant's ability to deal with. The traffic problems were already there, the Park was already there and he feels that the applicant has shown a great effort in conforming to the zone. COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to close the public hearing and continue the item off calendar to allow the applicant time-to address the Commission's concerns relating to the height of the building, the additional impact on the area and park and work with staff, seconded by CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF. GARY THORNHILL expressed concern for the time frame involved and advised that the city council was directing staff to charge additional fees for the additional staff time spent on redssigning the project to get the project through. Gary Thornhill advised that if it was continued, they may have to bring it back with a recommendation for action on the parcel map as well as the plot plan and the applicant work out a deposit with staff to pay for the additional time spent on this item. Gary Thornhill suggested asking the applicant to apply ~ PCMIN12/3/90 -15- 12/7/90 PLANNING COMMI88ION MINUTES DECEMBER 3, 1990 for a 90 day time extension. COMMISSIONER BLAIR withdrew her motion, and the 2nd concurred. CHAIRMAN CRINIAEFF asked if the applicant was willing to apply for a 90 day extension. LARRY MARFaAM stated that they would prefer to continue the item to a determined date, but would agree to a 90 day extension. GARY THORNHILL stated that staff could bring it back on the second agenda for the month of January. COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to close the public hearing and re-notice and continue Tentative Parcel Map 24038, Plot Plan 76 to the second agenda in January, seconded by CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF. COMMISSIONER FAHEY expressed disagreement with the motion due to the substantial redesign and the increased cost to the city. AYES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff NOES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford, Hoagland The motion failed to carry. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to deny Tentative Parcel Map 24038 and Plot Plan 76 based on the design, height of the building, traffic concerns and proposed restaurant. The motion failed due to lack of a second. COMMISSIONER BOAGLAND moved to reconsider the motion to continue, seconded by CHAIRMAN CMINIAEFP. CHAIRMAN CBINIAEFF called for the vote on the motion to continue Tentative Parcel Map 24038, Plot Plan 76 to the second agenda in January and close the public hearing. AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford PCMIN12/3/90 -16- 12/7/90 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION December 3, 1990 Case No.: Tentative Parcel Map No. 24038 Plot Plan No. 76 Prepared By; Mark Rhoades Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 90- approving Plot Plan No. 76 and Parcel Map No. 24038 APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Leland/Sung Development Markham 8 Associates Subdivide 4.99 acres into 3 parcels, construct a 92 unit motel, and convert an existing structure into a restaurant. Southerly side of Moreno Road, adjacent to Motel 6. C-P-S North: South: East: West: ( Scenic Highway Commercial ) C-1 / C-P I General Commercial ) R-3 ( General Residential ) Park 1-15 Freeway R-3 {General Residential) N/A Parcel 1 - Motel 6 Parcel 2 - Vacant Parcel 3 - Vacant Structure North: Motel South: Vacant/Fire Station East: Freeway West: Park STAFFRPT\PP76 3 PROJECT STATISTICS: No. of Acres: ~.99 Square Feet of Proposed Motel: 16,000 sq. ft. Proposed Restaurant: u,,300 sq.ft. No. of Proposed Parcels: 3 BACKGROUND: PROJECT DESCRiPTiON: Tentative Parcel Map No. 2~038 was initially reviewed by the City Council as a receive and file item in May of 1990. At that time, Staff raised concerns relative to parcel size and configuration where no plan of development existed. At the public hearing meeting for which the proposed map was subsequently scheduled, the applicant requested that the tentative parcel map be continued off calendar. This would be until such time as a Plot Plan application could be considered concurrently with the proposed parcel map. On June 21, 1990, Plot Plan 76 was submitted to the City of Temecula. Plot Plan No. 76 is an application for a 92 unit motel and an adjacent restaurant facility. After Plot Plan No. 76 was submitted, it began to be reviewed with Tentative Parcel Map No. 2~,038. The two projects were reviewed by the Preliminary Development Review Committee on August 2, 1990. Revisions and corrections were resubmitted and the project was reviewed and conditioned at the Formal Development Review Committee on November 8, 1990. Tentative Parcel Map No. 2~,038 is an application to subdivide a ~,.99 acre parcel into three (3) commercial lots. A Motel 6 currently exists on proposed Parcel No. 1. The remaining two (2) parcels will be considered for separate uses under Plot Plan No. 76. Plot Plan No. 76 is an application for a 92 room Days Inn Motel, and an adjacent restaurant use. Parcel No. 3 contains an existing structure which will eventually be converted to the restaurant. The project is located at the southerly leg of Moreno Road, on the south side of the street. Adjacent to and east of the project site is the Motel 6 and Interstate 15 Freeway. South and west of the project are Sam Hicks Monument Park and a fire station. STAFFRPT\PP76 ~, PLOT PLAN The proposed plot plan is for a 15,972 square foot, 92 unit motel structure and an adjacent 4,300 square foot restaurant use. The proposed motel is fronting Moreno Road. The proposed restaurant use is behind {south) the motel and northerly of 6th Street. The restaurant will have no direct street frontage. No elevations are proposed for the restaurant at this time. The restaurant use is conditioned to return to the Planning Commission for approval of the elevations when they are proposed. Adjacent to the proposed Days Inn Motel is an existing Motel 6. The Motel 6 was approved and constructed under the auspices of Riverside County Planning Department. Parkinq and Circulation Under Ordinance 3LI8, the parking requirement for a motel is one space per room, plus two (2) spaces for a resident manager, Under this requirement, the motel would be required to provide 9~ parking spaces, The proposed project is providing 9~ spaces which includes the three ( 3 ) handicap spaces required by the code, The proposed restaurant use is providing 58 parking spaces. Nine (9) bicycle rack spaces are being provided in lieu of three {3) auto spaces. This is allowed by the code under Section 18.12.7{e). The maximum serving area for the proposed restaurant use would be approximately 2,~,00 square feet. The floor plan for the restaurant will be reviewed by the Planning Commission with the elevations when proposed. Access for the proposed project site will be taken from Moreno Road and from 6th Street. A 25 foot wide easement exists from 6th Street to proposed Parcel No. 3. The two access points and parking lot circulation will serve both projects. Reciprocal parking and access will be recorded under the CCSR~s which are conditions of the project. STAFFRPT\PP76 5 The Engineering Department has conditioned this project to pay traffic mitigation fees for impacts to Rancho California Road and Front Street. The traffic report for the project was accepted by the Traffic Engineering Department. Landscapinq The proposed landscaping and shading plans exceed the requirements of Ordinance 3~8. A substantial number of trees are proposed for the site. The trees will be a minimum of 15 gallon in size. The landscaping adjacent to the freeway will be required to have a substantial number of 2~," box trees. Architecture/Materials The proposed motel exterior will consist of three (3) similar stucco colors; cream, beige, and tan. Wrought iron and accent trim will be painted a mint green. The roof will consist of mission style tan concrete tile. The proposed motel will be three (3) stories high for a total of ~8s6". The maximum allowed height is 50 feet. The architecture is reminiscent of mission style with broken roof lines, varying wall projections and offset floor levels (front elevations). The project also incorporates arches, trellis and log (timber) projections. A large porte- cochere extends across the driveway at the Moreno Road access point. The porte-cochere lends to the visual appeal of the project view from the public right-of-way by increasing the horizontal orientation of the structure. The external air conditioning units for the project will be screened by wrought iron mesh on the upper floors, arch projections on the middle floors, and landscaping on the lower floors. Project visibility from the freeway will be minimal from the southbound lanes. The only portions which may be visible are some tower elements and portions of the top floor. Motel 6 is between this project and the freeway. The project will have no visibility from the northbound lanes of 1-15. STAFFRPT\PP76 6 Currently, there are no proposed elevations for the restaurant use. Such elevations and plans, when proposed will require additional Planning Commission approval. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP The tentative parcel map is an application to subdivide ~. 99 acres into three ~ 3 ) parcels. Parcel No. I will contain 2.73 net acres, Parcel No. 2 will contain 1.53 net acres, Parcel No. 3 will contain .73 acres. Parcel No. 1 is the site of the existing Motel 6. Parcel No. 2 is the site of the proposed Days Inn, with Parcel No. 3 being the site of the proposed restaurant use. There are no minimum parcel sizes in the C-P-S zone. Adequate access exists for all three (3) parcels in question. Access to Parcel No. 3 exists under a recorded easement from 6th Street. Reciprocal access agreements between Parcel Nos. 2 and 3 will also be recorded under the project CCBR~s. GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: Zoninq Consistency The proposed site is currently zoned C-P-S lScenic Highway Commercial ). This zoning permits both of the proposed uses provided a plot plan is approved by the Planning Commission. South and east of the project lies some existing R-3 l General Residential ) zoning. However, the property to the south supports an existing dedicated park and fire station. The vacant R-3 zoning to the east is not likely to support residential development because of the expand{ ng nature of the commercial development to the south and west. North of the project is 1-15 and west of the project is C-11C-P {General Commercial) zoning. The proposed motel and restaurant uses are compatible with the existing C-P-S {Scenic Highway Commercial) zoning. Southwest Area Plan Consistency The project site as identified by the SWAP, is commercial. All of the adjacent uses are also commercial, except to the east which is freeway. STAFFRPT\PP76 7 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: FINDINGS: Sufficient infrastructure exists in the immediate vicinity to serve the proposed project. The project and tentative parcel map, as proposed, are in conformance with the Southwest Area Plan. Several areas of potential impact were identified in the Initial Study, including but not limited to, soil disruption, possible geologic hazards, drainoge, flooding, endangered species, traffic, and public SerViCeS, Soil disruption, geologic hazards, and drainage has been mitigated through the grading plan which was accepted by the Engineering Department. The proposed project site is not within a flood zone, however, it is in a fee area. The fees will be paid to County Flood Control for the future improvements within the drainage basin. Impacts to endangered species (Stephen~s Kangaroo Rat), traffic, and public services will be mitigated through the payment of fees as identified in the Conditions of Approval and Initial Study. All potential impacts have been mitigated to a level of non-significance. A negative declaration is recommended for adoption. Tentative Parcel Map No. 2u,038 The proposed division is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan and Zoning Code. There is no minimum lot size in the commercial zone, and the area is identified by SWAP as commercial. The lot design is logical and meets the approval of the City~s Planning and Engineering Departments. A. The lot design facilitates parking, access, and site design. The legal owner of record has offered to make all dedications required. STAFFRPT\PP76 8 A. Conditions of Approval require dedication prior to final map recordation. The project will not have a significant adverse affect on the environment. A Negative Declaration is recommended and all impacts will be reduced to insignificant levels through recommended conditions of approval. An Initial Study was prepared including mitigation which will alleviate all impacts. There is a reasonable probability that the project will be consistent with the City~s General Plan once adopted, based on analysis contained in the Staff Report. The surrounding area currently supports commercial projects, and is identified by SWAP as 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. If the proposed use is inconsistent, it will not be detrimental because of the commercial nature of surrounding USeS . The project as proposed provides adequate provisions for future passive or natural solar heating or cooling opportunities. All three ~3) proposed parcels include sufficient southern exposure. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. This Staff Report contains mapping, Conditions of Approval, and an Initial Study which support the Staff recommendation. STAFFRPT\PP76 9 Plot Plan No. 76 There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 76 will be consistent with the City~s future adopted General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law. Plot Plan No. 76 is a commercial project. The proposed site is designated as commercial by SWAP. 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. If the proposed use is inconsistent, it will not be detrimental because of the commercial nature of surrounding uses, The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws. The proposed use complies with local planning and zoning laws which are prepared in conformance with State planning and zoning laws. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use. The proposed site plan and tentative parcel map are in conformance with Ordinance 3~8. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare. Potential impacts are mitigated to a level of non-significance under the Initial Study and Conditions of Approval. STAFFRPT\PP76 10 10. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk, height, intensity, and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties, through appropriate building mass reduction techniques and landscape installation, and distance from planned adjacent structures. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area. A. The project conforms to existing zoning and SWAP designations. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. A. The project will take access from Moreno Road and 6th Street. The design of the project, the type of improvements, and the resulting street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project. The project has a 28 foot wide drive aisle from Marino Drive to 6th Street. CC~,R~s will be recorded which will ensure access. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. This Staff Report contains mapping, Conditions of Approval, and an Initial Study which support the Staff recommendation. STAFFRPT\PP76 11 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Tentative Parcel Map No. 2~,038, and Plot Plan No. 76; ADOPT Resolution 91 - recommending approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2~,038 based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; and, ADOPT Resolution 91- approving Plot Plan No. 76, based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. MR:ks Attachments: 2. 3. .q.. 5. 6. Resolution 91- Recommending Approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2~038 Conditions of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map No. 2~038 Resolution 91- Approving Plot Plan No. 76 Conditions of Approval for Plot Plan No. 76 Initial Study Exhibits STAFFRPT\PP76 12 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PARCEL MAP NO. 2~,038 TO SUBDIVIDE A 4.99 ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 PARCELS AT THE SOUTHERLY SIDE OF MORENO ROAD ADJACENT TO SAM HICKS PARK AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 921-070-022, 023 AND 024. WHEREAS, Leland/Sung Development filed Parcel Map No. 24038 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 3, 1990 and January 28, 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 recommended approval of said Parcel Map; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: {1 ) The clty is procC-~-~ding 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. STA F F R PT\ PP76 13 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 'ISWAPu ) 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 approvin9 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. 2qO38 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. L~60, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are made: STAFFRPT\PP76 1~ 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 Parcel Map, makes the following findings, to wit: a) The proposed division is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan and Zoning Code. There is no minimum lot size in the commercial zone, and the area is identified by SWAP as commercial. STAFFRPT\PP76 15 b) c) The lot design is logical and meets the approval of the City~s Planning and Engineering Departments. A. The lot design facilitates parking, access, and site design. The legal owner of record has offered to make all dedications required. d) e) f) g) A. Conditions of Approval require dedication prior to final map recordation. The project will not have a significant adverse affect on the environment. A Negative Declaration is recommended and all impacts will be reduced to insignificant levels through recommended conditions of approval. An Initial Study was prepared including mitigation which will alleviate all impacts. There is a reasonable probability that the project will be consistent with the City~s General Plan once adopted, based on analysis contained in the Staff Report. The surrounding area currently supports commercial projects, and is identified by SWAP as 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. If the proposed use is inconsistent, it will not be detrimental because of the commercial nature of surrounding uses. The project as proposed provides adequate provisions for future passive or natural solar heating or cooling opportunities. All three (3) proposed parcels include sufficient southern exposure. STAFFRPT\PP76 16 h) That said findings are supported by minutes· maps· exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. This Staff Report contains mapping, Conditions of Approval, and an Initial Study which support the Staff recommendation. E. As conditloned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Parcel Map proposed is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment· there will not be a significant affect on this case because the mitigation measures described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Parcel Map No. 24038 for the subdivision of a ~,.99 acre parcel into 3 parcels located on the south side of Moreno Road adjacent to Sam Hicks Park subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. SECTION PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of · 1991. DENNIS CHINIAEFF CHAIRMAN STAFFRPT\PP76 17 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 28th day of January, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS STAFFRPT\PP76 18 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Tentative Parcel Map No: 2q.038 Planninq Department The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 0,60, Schedule 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 0,60. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance z&60. The subdivider shall submit one copy of a soils report to the City Engineer and two copies to the Department of Building and Safety. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. Legal access as required by Ordinance q60 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. STA FFR PT\PP76 19 10. 11. 12. 13. 15. Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, the following agencies shall provide written verification to the Engineering Department that all pertinent Conditions of approval and applicable regulations have been met: Planning Department Temecula Valley School District Fire District Engineer Department County Health Department Water District Flood Control District Easter Municipal Water District. A copy of the final grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. All on-site cut and fill slopes shall: Be limited to a maximum slope ratio of 2 to 1 and a maximum vertical height of thirty (30) feet. Setbacks from top and bottom of slopes shall be a minimum of one-half the slope height. b. Be contour-graded to blend with existing natural contours. c. Be a part of the downhill lot when within or between individual lots. All slopes over three {3) feet in height shall be landscaped and irrigated according to the City Development Code. A detailed landscaping and irrigation plan, prepared by a qualified professional, shall be submitted to the City Planning Department for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits. The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations outlined in the County Health Department~s transmittal dated September 25, 1989, 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 November 1~, 1989, 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 u,60, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities shall be collected by the City prior to issuance of Grading Permits. The applicant shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined in the County Fire Department's letter dated November 29, 1989, a copy of which is attached. All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as outlined in the Southwest Area Plan. STAFFRPT\PP76 20 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern Municipal Water District transmittal dated October 6, 1988, a copy of which is attached. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following: Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development standards of the C-P-S ( Scenic Highway Commercial ) zone. Craded 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 recommendation. Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: Prior to the issuance of grading permits detailed common open space area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval for the phase of development in process. The plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for the following: Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all landscaped areas requiring irrigation. Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height of six {6) feet at maturity. All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle treatments, as approved by the Planning Director. Utilities shall be placed underground. STAFFRPT\PP76 21 22. Parkways shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscape elements shall include earth betruing, ground cover, shrubs and specimen trees. Wall plans shall be submitted for the project perimeter. Wooden fencing shall not be allowed on the perimeter of the project. All lots with slopes leading down from the lot shall be provided with gates in the wall for maintenance access. Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent trees at key visual focal points within the project. Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant plants where appropriate. All existing specimen trees and significant rock outcroppings on the subject property shall be shown on the projectis grading plans and shall note those to be removed, relocated and/or retained. All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow growing trees shall be steel staked. All cut slopes located adjacent to ungreded natural terrain and exceeding ten |10) feet in vertical height shall be contour- graded incorporating the following grading techniques: The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the angle of the natural terrain. Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall reflect the natural rounded terrain. The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves with radii designed in proportion to the total height of the slopes where drainage and stability permit such rounding. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall provide evidence to the Director of Building and Safety that all adjacent off-site manufactured slopes have recorded slope easements and that slope maintenance responsibilities have been assigned as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. Should the paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or STAFFRPT\PP76 22 representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. 23. 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. 2u,038, which action is brought within thetime period provided for in California Government Code Section 66u,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 TemecuJ~i. 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. 25. Within forty-eight ~8) hours of the approval of the project, the applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand, Two Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars i$1,275.00), which includes the One Thousand, Two Hundred, Fifty Dollars {$1,250.00) fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711 .~ld){2) plus the Twenty- Five Dollar ($25.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 1~, Cal. Code of Ragulations 15075. If within such forty-eight {~,8) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Came Cede Section 711 .q.(c). Enqineerlnq 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 emission may require the project to be resubmitted for further consideration. 26. The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act, and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions. STAFFRPT\PP76 23 27. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered Civil Engineer. subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No. ~60. PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL: 28. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District; Eastern Municipal Water District; Riverside County Flood Control district; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; Planning Department; Engineering Department; Riverside County Health Department; and CATV Franchise. CalTrans 29. Moreno Road shall be dedicated to ~u,~ from centerline on the final map. 30. A declaration of Covenants. Conditions and Restrictions (CCF, R's) shall be prepared by the developer and submitted to the Director of Planning, City Engineer and City Attorney. The CCF, R~s shall be signed and acknowledged by all parties having any record title interest in the property to be developed, shall make the City a party thereto, and shall be enforceable by the City. The CCF, R~s shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded. The CCF, R's shall be subject to the following conditions: a. The CCF, R's shall be prepared at the developer's sole cost and expense. The CCF, R's shall be in the form and content approved by the Director of Planning, City Engineer and the City Attorney. and shall include such provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials deem necessary to protect the interest of the City and its residents. The CCF, R's and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owner's Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent with the final map. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City. The CCF, R~s shall provide for the effective establishment. operation. management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas and facilities. The CCF, R~s shall provide that the property shall be developed. operated and maintained so as nat to create a public nuisance. The CCF, R's shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the condition required by the CCaR~s. then the City, after making due demand and giving reasonable natice, may enter the property and STAFFRPT\PP76 perform, at the owneris sole expense, any maintenance required thereon by the CCF, R~s or the City ordinances. The property shall be subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not promptly reimbursed. The declaration shall contain language prohibiting further subdivision of any lots, whether they are lettered lots or numbered lots. ii. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by an association or other means acceptable to the City. Such proof of this maintenance shall be submitted to the Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to issuance of building permits. iii. Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements including access between Parcel Nos. 2 and 3 as shown on Plot Plan No. 76 ensuring access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all roads, drives or parking areas shall be provided by CCF, R's or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrent with the map or prior to the issuance of building permit where no map is involved. 31. 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. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY: 32. Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Nagative Declaration for the project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to 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 f:c:) and specifically waives its right to protest such increase. STAFFRPT\PP76 25 COUNTy OF RIVERSIDE j DEPARTMENT ~:~' ~ :'~ L~ of HEALTH ~ September 25, RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. 4060 Lemon Street jAN 2 3 1990 Riverside, CA 92502 ATTN: Jeff Adams RIVER61 DE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT RE: PARCEL MAP 24038: See attached leual description. (3 Lot) Gentlemen: The Department of Public Health has reviewed Tentative MaD No. 24038 and recommends that: A water system shall be installed according to plans and specification as approved by the water company and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plan& of the water system shall be submitted in triplicate, with a minimum scale not less than one inch equals 200 feet, alonq with the oriqinal drawing to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of valves and fire hydrants: pipe and joint specifiCations,t~nd the size of the main at the junction of the new system to the existing system. The plans shall comply in all respects with Div. 6, Part I, Chapter 7 of the California Health and Safety Code, California Administrative Code, Title ZZ, Chapter 16, and General Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, when applicable. J Riverside County Planning Dept. Page Two ATTN: Mike McCabe September 25, 1989 The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in Parcel Map 24038 iS accordance with the water system expansion plans of the Rancho California Water District and that the water service, storage and distribution system will be adequate to provide water service to such parcel m'ap. This certification does not constitute a guarantee that it will supply water to such parcel map at any specific quantities, flows or pressures for fire protection or any other purpose".This certification shall be signed by a responsible official of the water company. _~__~_~!~_~_~_~!~[f~_~9 £i~!._~P. This Department has a statement from Rancho California Water Distrlct agreeing to serve domestic water to each and every lot in the subdivision on demand providing satisfactory financial arrangements are completed with the subdivider. It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be made prior to the recordation of the final map. 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 D~strict. The sewer system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as &pproved 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 ~oint specifications and the size of the sewers at the ~unction of the new system to the existing system. A single plat indicating location of sewer lines and water lines shall be a portion of the sewage plans and profiles. HiV~f~i~ COUn{V Planninc Pace Three ATTN: Mike McCabe September 25, 1969 The plans shall be signed by a registered enoineer and the sewer district with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the sewer system in Parcel Map 24038 is in accordance with the sewer system expansion plans of the Eastern Municipal Water District and that the waste disposal system is adequate at this time to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed parcel map." _~_~_pl~_~gf~_~ It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be completely finalized prior to recordation of the final map. Sincerely, ~~rti~z~nmental Health Environmental Health Services Specialist IV SM:tac Attachment KENNETH L EDWARDS 1995 MARKET STREET P.O. BOX 1033 TELEPHONE (714) 787-2015 FAX NO. (714) 788-9965 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92502 Riverside County Planning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California Attention: Regional Team P1 anner We have reviewed this case and have the following comments: Except for nuisance nature local runoff which may traverse portions of the property the project is considered free from ordinary storm flood hazard. However, a storm of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New construc- tion should comply with all applicable ordinances. The topography of the area consists of well defined ridges and natural water- courses which traverse the property. There is adequate area outside of the natural watercourses for building sites. The natural watercourses should be kept free of buildings and obstructions in order to maintain the natural drainage patterns of the area and to prevent flood damage to new buildings. /- A note should be placed on an environmental constraint sheet stating, "All new buildings shall be floodproofed by elevating the finished floors a minimum of 18 inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosion protection shall be provided for mobile home supports." This project is in the/td~r//e_4~(~t_~e~w~ty~L/~/p/l~c/~)/D· Area drainage plan fees shall be paid in accordan ith the ap able rules and regulations. The proposed zoning is consistent with existing flood hazards. Some flood control facilities or floodproofing may be required to fully develop to the implied density. The District's report dated is still current for this project. The District does not object to the proposed minor change. This project is a part of free of ordinary storm flood hazard whe. improveme.ts"r°jectbe constructed in accordance with approved plans. The attached comments apply. Very truly yours~p~/ JOHN H. KASHUBA Senior Civil Engineer ,.I i~r- PLANNING & ENGINEERING 46-209 OASIS STREET. SUITE 405 INDIO, CA 92201 (619) 342-8886 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION GLEN J. NEWMAN FIRE CHIEF 11-29-89 TO: ATTN:. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JEFF ADAMS RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT RE: PARCEL MAP 24038 - AMENDED #1 With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land division, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: Upgrade fire hydrants on the corner of Mercedes Street and 6th Street, and fire hydrant in cul-de-sac on 6th Street to a super fire hydrant (6x4x2½x2i). All questions regarding the meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Fire Department Planning and Engineering staff. RAYMOND H. REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner By Kurt Mantwell, Fire Safety Specialist ml Administrative Center · 1777 Atlanta Avenue Riverside, CA 92507 December 6, t989 Riverside County Planning Department Attention: Jeff Adams County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 RE: Parcel Map 24038, Amended #1 'Ladies and Gentlemen: The Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety has the following comments and conditions: The developer shall obtain Planning Department approval for all on-site and off-site signage advertising the sale of the parcel map pursuant to Section 19.5 of Ordinance 348. Fireplaces may encroach l' into required minimum 5' side yard setback. Mechanical equipment may not be located in required minimum 5' side yard setback. Senior Land Use Technician /sn BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT GRADING SECTION TO: FROM: DATE: RE: PLANNING / J.A. HOWARD MILLS November 16, 1989 LDC Parcel Map 24038 AMD #1 The "Grading Section" has reviewed a conceptual grading plan for this site. The plan is acceptable. Consequently, the "Grading Section" recommends approval of this project if the following conditions are included. Prior to commencing any grading in excess of 50 applicant shall obtain a grading permit and approval the Building and Safety Department. cubic yards, the to construct from Prior to issuance of any building permit, the property owner shall obtain a grading permit and approval to construct from the Building and Safety Department. Plant and irrigate fill slopes greater than or equal to 3' and/or cut slopes greater than or equal to 5' in vertical height with grass or gound cover. Slopes that exceed 15' in vertical height are to be provided with shrubs and/or trees per count ordinance 457, see form 284- 47. Grading in excess of 199 cubic yards will require performance security to be posted with the Building and Safety Department. NOTE: For the final grading plan, please provide the applicable information from Building and Safety Department grading forms: 284-120, 284-21, 284-86, and 284-46. Thank you. vv",t, District October 6, 1988 Riverside County Health Department c/o Massaro Welsh 15/2 N. Waterman Av., ~ulte b San Bernardlno, CA. 924U2 Gentlemen: Re: Availability of Sanitary Sewer Service for Parcel Map 24038 We hereby advise you relative to the availabiiity of sanitary sewer service for the above referenced proposed development as follows: The property to be occupied by the subject proposed development: /~ Is presently locaied within the boundary lines of this Di'strict's Improvement District No. U-8 and is eligible to receive sanitary sewer service, /"7 Must be annexed to this Dtstrtct's Improvement District No. following which it will be eligible to receive sanitary iewer service, /"7 provided: Z) 2) If you have to contact this office. MUst be included in a new District improvement dis-trict, assess- ment district or other program to be formed and implemented for the purpose of providing .sanitary sewer facilities and service for the general area within which this proposed development is located, following which it will be eligible to receive sanitary sewer service, The developer completes all necessary financial and other arrangements therefore, as determined by the District, with the District by April lg90 ; and That no limiting conditions exist which are beyond this District's control or cannot be cost-effectively and/or reasonably satisfied by the District, which conditions may include but.are not limited to, acts of God, regulatory agency requirements or decisions, or legal actions initiated by others. any questions or con~nents regarding the foregoing, do not hesitate Very truly_yours, Robert N. Spradlin Manager of New Business RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING OF PLOT PLAN NO. 76 TO PERMIT OPERATION OF A 92 ROOM HOTEL AT THE SOUTH SIDE OF MORENO ROAD ADJACENT TO SAM HICKS PARK AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 921-070-022, 023 AND 024. WHEREAS, Leland/Sung Development filed Plot Plan No. 76 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 December 3, 1990 and January 28, 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. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty {30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: I1 ) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. ~ 2 ) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: la) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. STAFFRPT\PP76 26 Ib) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to v~it: (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. 76 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 18.30(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. STAFFRPT\PP76 27 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 approving of the proposed Plot Plan, makes the following findings, to wit: a) There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 76 will be consistent with the City's future adopted General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law. Plot Plan No. 76 is a commercial project. The proposed site is designated as commercial by SWAP. 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. If the proposed use is inconsistent, it will not be detrimental because of the commercial nature of surrounding USeS . c) The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws. The proposed use complies with local planning and zoning laws which are prepared in conformance with State planning and zoning 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. The proposed site plan and tentative parcel map are in conformance with Ordinance 3u,8. e) The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare. STAFFRPT\PP76 28 f) g) h) i) j) Potential impacts are mitigated to a level of non-significance under the initial Study and Conditions of Approval. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk, height, intensity, and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties, through appropriate building mass reduction techniques and landscape installation, and distance from planned adjacent structures. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area. A. The project conforms to existing zoning and SWAP designations. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. A. The project will take access from Moreno Road and 6th Street. The design of the project, the type of improvements, and the resulting street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project. The project has a 28 foot wide drive aisle from Marino Drive to 6th Street. CC~;R's will be recorded which will ensure access. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. STAFFRPT\PP76 29 This Staff Report contains mapping, Conditions of Approval, and an Initial Study which support the Staff recommendation. E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Plot Plan proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect on this case because the mitigation measures described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval have boon 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. 76 for the operation and construction of a 92 room hotel located on the south side of Moreno Road adjacent to San Hicks Park and known as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 921-070-022, 023 and 02~, subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. SECTION PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th 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 mooting thereof, held on the 28th day of January, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS STAFFRPT\PP76 30 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Plot Plan No: 76 Project Description: Plot Plan for a 92 Room Motel and Adjacent Restaurant Use Planninq Department The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for a 92 room hotel and adjacent restaurant use. 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. 76. 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 baginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. This approval shall expire on The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on Plot Plan No. 76 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 Departmentis Conditions of Approval which are included herein. Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions sat forth in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittal dated August 20, 1990, a copy of which is attached. STAFFRPT\PP76 31 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District's transmittal dated November 14, 1989, a copy of which is attached. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated November 6, 1990, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the San Bernardino County Museum transmlttal dated July 28, 1990, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the CalTrans transmittal dated August 1, 1990, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho Water District transmittal dated October 6, 1990, a copy of which is attached. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, three 13) 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. 348, 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 96 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. 96 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 4 inches of Class II base. Parking for Parcel 3 will be determined when an application for development is submitted. 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 reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height 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: STAFFRPT\PP76 32 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. "Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at ~ or by telephone " In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at 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. 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 project perimeter, excepting the Moreno Road frontage, and the CalTrans right-d- way which requires chain link. 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. The wall plans shall be submitted with landscape plans, and shall be approved prior to issuance of building permits. The wall separating the hotel and Sam Hicks Monument Park shall be constructed of wrought iron and decorative block. 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 decorative 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. The placement of landscaping shall conform substantially with the revised plan submitted January 15, 1990. A minimum of 12 trees shall be planted within Sam Hicks Monument Park and shall be a minimum of 36" box or greater. The shrubs indicated in the park area shall be a STAFFRPT\PP76 33 minimum of five (S) gallon, planted 36" on center. All on site trees, generally located between Sam Hicks Monument Park and the motel structure, shall be a minimum of 24" box, with 25% being 36" box or greater. Final landscape and irrigation plans shall require final approval by the Planning Director and the Community Services Director. The proposed landscaping buffer within Sam Hicks Monument Park shall be a minimum of ten ~10) feet wide adjacent to the property line. In addition to trees and shrubs, the planter shall contain ground cover in the form of drought tolerant grass. All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 9 Class I I bicycle racks shall be provided in convenient locations as approved by the Planning Director to facilitate bicycle access to the restaurant 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 planrings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed with the Department of Building and Safety. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, all required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Building and Safety. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall beproperly constructed and in good working order. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. Existing pine trees adjacent to the southwesterly property line of proposed Parcel No. 3 shall remain, and shall be reflected on future proposed landscape plans. If it is proven that it is impossible to retain the existing tr==:, then final landscape plans shall indicate the replacement of trees which are 36" box or greater. Any development proposed on Parcel 3 shall be reviewed under a separate plot plan or other appropriate permit process. STAFFRPT\PP76 34 32. 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. 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: 33. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District; Eastern Municipal Water District; Riverside County Flood Control district; City of Temecula Fire Bureau: Planning Department; Engineering Department; Riverside County Health Department; and CATV Franchise. CalTrans Concentrateddrainageflowsshallnotcrosssidewalks. Under sldewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards. 35. A permit shall be required from CalTrans for any work within the following right-of-way. Interstate Highway 15 36. The developer shall submit four lu,) prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Cede and Chapter 70 as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2~&"x36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. STAFFRPT\PP76 35 A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. if the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. 38. 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. 39. 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. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF' CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY: Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Nagative Declaration for the project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to Developer. Developer understands that said agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated lassuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such increase. Transportation Enqineerinq PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: Lt2. A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Traffic Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for Moreno Road from Front Street I North ) to Front Street l South) and for 6th Street from the northeasterly terminus to Metcedes Street. L~3. Main circulation aisleway shall be designed for 281 width minimums. Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering for the design requirements. STAFFRPT\PP76 36 PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS: All signing and striping shall be installed per the City requirements and the approved signing and striping plan. On-street parking shall be prohibited along the Moreno Road frontage of the project (approx. 165 feet) by posting the proper signage along the curb as approved by the City Engineer. The exact locations and sign type shall be included in the design of the signing and striping plan. Within forty-eight {~,8) hours of the approval of the project, the applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand, Two Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars 151,275.00), which includes the One Thousand, Two Hundred, Fifty Dollars {$1,250.00 ) fee, in compliance with A B 3158, requi red by Fish and Game Code Section 711. u,~ d ) ( 2 ) pl us the Twenty- Five Dollar ($25.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 1~, Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight (~8) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711 .~,lc). STAFFRPT\PP76 37 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CITY OF TEMECULA ATTN: Mark Rhoades Plot Plan No. 76 / DATE: 08-20-90 Health Specialist IV The Environmental Health Services has reviewed Plot PLan No. 76 and has no ob3ectlons. SanltarV sewer and water services are available in this area. Prlor to any bulldlnu plan submittals. the followlnQ ltems will be required: "W~ll-serve" letters from the water and sewerznu aUencles. Three complete sets of plans for the sw~mmxnu pool/spa wxll be submitted. in order to ensure compliance wlth the California Admlnlstrat~ve Code. Californxa Health and Safety Code and the Uniform Building Code. Three complete sets of plans for each food establishment wzll be submitted. lncludlnq a fxxture schedule. a finzsh'schedule. and a plumbznq schedule in order to ensure compliance wxth the California Uniform Retazl Food Facilxtles Law. SM:dr STATE OF CALIFOINIA--BUSINES5, TRANSFOIITATION AND HOUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 8, P.O, BOX 231 lu:RNARDINO, CALIFC~NIA 92402 TDD (714} 383-4609 'August 1, 1990 t RECIriVIrD AUG- 9 1990 08-Riv-15-4,980 Your Reference: PP 76 * Planning Department City of Temecula City Hall 43172'Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed Plot Plan No. 76 located at Moreno Road and west of Front Street. Please refer to the attached material on which our comments have been indicated by the items checked and/or by those items noted under additional comments. If any work is necessary within the state highway right of way, the developer must obtain an encroachment permit from the Caltrans District 8 Permit Office prior to beginning work. If additional information is desired, please call Mr. Nahro Saoud of our Development Review Section at (714) 383-4384. T~[OW~ District Development Review Engineer Att. CALTRAN$ DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FORM (YOur Reference) Date Plan checker (Co Rte PM) WE WOULD LIKE TO NOTE: ~l/Cnf~t~Eticn/Demolitien wig present or proposed State right of ~ay should be investigated for potential haz~rdcMls ~te (asbestos, petroc~c~l~, etc.) and nitigated as per requiren~nts of regulatory agencies. ~nen plans are sutnitted, please conform to th~ requirements of the attached '~tandout". This will expedite the review process and time required for Plan Ctt~ck. _ Although the traffic and drainage generated by this proposal do not appear to have a significant effect on t~ state hiF~m~ay system, consideration must be given to the cumulative effect of continued develcm~nt in this arm. Any n~asures necessary to mitigate th~ ctmulative in~t of traffic and drainage shall be provided prior to or with development of the are that r~c~itates them. Z'/It appears that d~e traffic and drainage generated by t~bis proposal could have a significant effect on the state hig~y system of th~ ares. Any m~es nec~.~ry to mitigate the traffic and drainage i~ts shall be included with tim develo~t. ~-/7his portion of state highway is included in the Califonda ~'k~er Plan of State Highways Eligible for C~ficial Scenic Highway Designation, end in th~ future your agency my wish to have tJ~is r~ute · officially designated as a state orphic highway. 7his portion of state highway has been officially designated as a state scenic hig~y, an~t developmint in this corridor should be cc~tible with the scenic bi~y concept. It is recogm~pd dmt there is considerable public concern abut noise level~ adjacent to heavily traveled ~Ligh~ays. Land development, in order to be c~tible with this concern, my require speda] noise attenuation measures. Developnent of property should include any n~c_~ary noise attenuation. WE REQUEST THAT THE ITSqS CHECKED BELOW BE INCLUDED IN THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THIS PROJECT: Normal right of way dedication to provide . half-width on the state highway, Normal street improvements to provide half-width on the state highway. Curb and gutter, State Standard along the state highway. Parking shall be prohibited along the state highway by painting the curb red and/or by the proper placement of "no parking" signs. radius curb returns be provided at intersections with the state highway. A standard wheelchair ramp must be provided in the returns. Z-~ A positive vehicular barrier along the property frontage shall be provided to limit physical access to the state highway. Vehicular access shall not be developed directly to the state highway. Vehicular access to the state highway shall be,provided by existing public road connections. Vehicular access to the state highway shall be provided by __standard driveways. Vebic,,b~r access shall not be provided within__ of the intersection at Vehioll~r acc~_ to the state hi~may s1~11 be provided by a road-type connection. Vehicu]ar access connections shall be paved at least within the state ,hilly right of Access points to tJ~e state high~.ay ~mll be developed in a manner that ~ll provide sight distam~e for ~rph along the state /j--"/~landscaping along the state higmey shall be low and forgiving in nature. A left-turn lane, including any necessary widening, aba]] be provided on the state hig:j~.~y at Consideration shall be given to tj~ pro~vision, or future provision, of sigr~li~tion aD~ li~;ht~ng of the intersection of fd/~,-'/.~/2 C~/~,,-,~,,,~/ m~d r~-~ state high~ay.d~//~ A tr~fic stay ~t~g ~ ~d off-site fl~ ~ttems ~ vo!~s, pro~ble ~;-~, ~d pro~ r~ti~ i~Ees ~ ~ pre~. Adequate off-street parking, which does not require becking onto the state hio~may, shall be provide. ParIcing lot shall be developed in a n~nner that will no~ cause any v~]ic,,l~r movement c~lflicts, includ~ parking stall entrance and exit, wirj]in of the entrance frce the state [~gh~ay. __ Hm~dicap parking ~mll not be developed in the busy drive~ey entrance are. ~_-' Care shall be taken ~_n developing this property to preserve and perpetuate tj~ existin~ draifmge petten~ of the state highly. Particular consideration should be given to c~r,,1-~tive increesed stonn runoff to insure that a ~i~j-~.~y draanage problen is not. created. e-/TAny nec~ry noise attenuation .%h~] ] be providM as [~rt of the develo~nent of this property. Please refer to attac~ adoi~io~al Cc~.~nts. REQUEST: A copy of any conditions of approval or revised approval. copy of any docunents providing additional state highway right of way upon recordation of the nap. WE REQUEST T~iE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW DURING THE APPROVAL PROCESS: z-~. Any proposals to further develop t~LiS property. y,~ A copy of tj~ traffic or envirorment~_l study, __ A c~ck print of the Ibrcel or Tract ~p. ~ A check print of the Plans for any improvers witJlin the state hi~m~y right of ~ey. ~ A d~c~ print of tJ~ GracL~g and DraL~age Plans for tJ~is property ~en awi 1able. HANDOUT STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS (Revised October 1, 1989) INTRODUCTION This "HANDOUT" is intended to provide the permittee and/or the permittee's representative(s) with a few basic guidelines for the design of typical roadway improvements and grading proposals within the State highway right of way. IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ALL THE DESIGN CRITERIA that may be used in ~he review of a specific project NOR DOES IT CONTAIN ANY TREATMENT FOR UNUSUAL SITUATIONS which call for special consideration. Additional information and design standards may be found the latest editions of the following publications: ASHTO (Policy on Geometric Design of Highways & Streets) in Obtainable from: American Accociation of State Highway and Transportation 444 N. Capitol St., NW Suite 225 Washington, D.C. 20001 caltrans Highway Design Manual Caltrans Standard Plans Caltrans Standard Specifications These publications may be obtained from: Department of General Services Publications Distribution P. O. Box 1025 North Highlands, CA 95660 (916) 973-3700 IT SHOULD BE NOTED: The developer MUST OBTAINAN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE WORK from: Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Permit Section 247 west Third Street San Bernardino, CA 92402 HANDOUT Page 2 of 11 II. STANDARDS ALL WORK within the State highway right of way SHALL BE TO STATE STANDARDS, the Title Sheet of the Plans shall include a General Note with such statement. III. GENERAL SUBMITTALS REQUIRED General Note Statements, Street Improvement Plans, Grading Plans, Striping & Signing Plans, Landscape & Irrigation Plans, ~lectrical Plans, and Signal Plans shall include sufficient pertinent details to provide the contractor and the State's representative with adequate information of the proposed project. A. TITLE SHEET The Title Sheet or Cover Sheet shall have a Vicinity Map with the project site indicated, General and/or Construction Notes, Legend, Quantities, and Index of the sheets. The Vicinity Map MUST cover a minimum of two (2) miles along the State route and at least one (1) major intersection. B. GENERAL NOTE STATEMENTS ALL OF THE FOLiOWING GENERAL NOTE STATEMENTS SHALL BE SHOWN ON THE PLANS. An ENCROACHMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED before any work may begin in or near the State right of way. ALL WORK within the State right of way SPLALL CONFORM to the latest STATE STANDARD PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS or as directed by the State's representative (Standards other than State must be pre-approved and justified). NO EQUIPMENT or MATERIALS may be stored on the State right of way. ALL disturbed areas in the State right of way MUST BE treated for erosion control (hydroseeding or equivalent, or as directed by the State's representative). The responsibility for maintaining erosion control WILL NOT be released until the seeding is well established. The CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE for the COST OF CALTRANS CLEANING ANY DRAINAGE STRUCTURES/CHANNELS which have become cluttered with debris and/or silt as a result of, or caused by, the construction project. HANDOUT Page 3 of 11 ACCESS CONTROL on the freeway WILL BE MAINTAINED at all times, i.e., the work inside the State right of way MUST BE FENCED OFF with no access to the work area from the freeway. NO FREEWAY RAMPS or FREEWAY LANES MAY BE CLOSED or obstructed at ANYTIME unless specifically allowed per the encroachment permit and/or as directed by the State's representative. ALL fence relocated to facilitate the construction of this project inside the State right of way SHALL BE REPLACED WITH CL-6 FENCE as shown in the State's Standard Plans or with a block wall in accordance with acceptable local agency standards. Where Type CL-6 fence does not exist, the State right of way fence MUST BE upgraded to TYPE CL-6 FENCE, as shown in the Standard Plans. The STRUCTURAL SECTION shown within the State right of way is for ESTIMATING purposes ONLY. The actual section WILL BE designed by a Soil Engineer after native soil testing has been completed. A traffic index (TI) of shall be used in the design of the travelled way, and a TI of shall be used for the shoulder design. The laboratory reports and the design calculations SHALL BE SUBMITTED to the State's representative for APPROVAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION of the structural section. ALL State drainage structures MUST first BE COMPLETELY CLEANED of debris and/or silt by the contractor PRIOR to making the connection. The contractor SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE for ensuring that any State drainage facility which is connected to or directly affected by the contractors operation SHALL BE clean and operational PRIOR TO FINAL ACCEPTANCE of the permit work by the State. Adequate clean-outs and access openings SHALL BE PROVIDED in any construction within the State's right of way for future maintenance and repair work as needed. This work shall be furnished at NO COST TO the STATE. where SURVEY MONUMENTS exist, such monuments SHALL BE PROTECTED or shall be REFERENCED and RESET pursuant to Business and Professions Code, Sections 8700 to 8805 (Land Surveyor's Act). HANDOUT Page 4 of 11 The pavement MUST BE saw-cut 2' minimum from the edge of pavement. The saw-cutsMUST BE perpendicular or parallel to the State highway centerline. ALL signing, striping and pavement markings SHALL BE in conformance with the current edition of the TRAFFIC M3~AL, published by the State of California, Department of Transportation, and the SPECIAL PROVISIONS. All pavement markings SHALL BE thermoplastic unless otherwise noted on the plans. The exact location of ALL SIGNS shall be determined in the field by the State'~ representative. ALL conflicting striping and pavement markings NOT SHOWN on the plans SHALL BE REMOVED from the pavement by sandblasting by the contractor. ALL conflicting signs SHALL BE either removed or relocated by the contractor. Relocatable signs SHALL BE installed as specified on the plans or as determined in the field by the State's representative. ALL signs, roadside markers, electroliers, etc., SHALL BE PROTECTED and/or REPLACED in-kind according to the current State Standard Plans and the current Traffic Manual, at NO COST TO the STATE. PLANS All Plans shall include and distinguish the existing and proposed construction in the Plan View. Details and dimensions must be included to accurately ascertain how the proposed project will "FIT" the existing conditions. The existing centerline, bearings, distances, stationing, and any monumentation shal~ also be included. All dimensions and offsets shall be referenced from the centerline of the State highway at specific stations. Right of way and property lines shall also be included on the Plans. All Plans must include cross-sections· There must be Construction Notes for each item of the proposed work and must be referenced to the location on the Plans. All slopes in the State right of way shall be 2:1 or flatter. HANDOUT Page 5 of 11 STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS The Street Improvement Plans MUST BE SIGNED by a REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER. The Street Improvement Plans MUST CALL OUT all existing and proposed hydrants, street lights, and power poles. ALL curb, gutter, wheelchair ramps, and driveways within the State right of way MUST BE to State Standards. The curb and gutter in the 'State right of way MUST BE placed over a minimum of 4" Class 2 aggregate base compacted to 95%relative compaction as per California test No. 216. ALL pavement overlays MUST begin, end, and run perpendicular or parallel to the State highway centerline. The overlay MUST BE feathered to the next lane line. We DO NOT PERMIT radius-return driveways within the State right of way unless justified by traffic volumes prior to permit issuance. A soils report and design of the actual structural section MUST BE APPROVED by this office before the placement of the structural section. All improvements between the curb and the State right of way line must include a letter "to own and maintain" the area by either the local agency or the property owner if the local agency declines (see Landscaping Plan). CROSS-SECTIONS Typical cross-sections must be included. Cross-sections are required for any work within the State right of way. We NEED cross-sections at 50' intervals, from 100' each side of the project limits, along the State right of way. Special sections are required where existing or proposed conditions change significantly, such as a driveway. On projects 200' or less in length, 25' are required with a minimum sections. cross-sections every of four (4) cross- HANDOUT Page 6 Of 11 You must furnish this office with a letter stating you will own and maintain the proposed sidewalk. Additional cross-sections at the center of culverts, drainage inlets, driveways and road connections may also be necessary. The cross-sections MUST SHOW the existing ground or pavement surface and the proposed improvement including the curb, gutter, driveway, sidewalk, thickness and limits of the overlay and any other pertinent structural section information. Cross-sections shall indicate both vertical and horizontal scales and must not be distorted by more than a factor of five (vertical = 1/5 or horizontal). Existing and proposed elevations shall be shown at grade breaks. Cross-slopes between grade breaks shall be indicated on the finish surface. Curbs, gutters, driveways and sidewalks shall also be indicated. On cross-sections, the centerlines, property lines and right of way lines shall be indicated by a vertical line and must be labeled accordingly. It is important that the cross-section stationing correspond to the stationing on the plans, and that the work indicated on the cross-sections and plans is within the same limits. PROFILES Profiles shall include the centerline, top of curb, flow- line, trim-line or edge of pavement profiles, as applicable. The horizontal scale should match the Plan View, and the vertical scale should be 1" = 4' or 1" = 5' (generally, 1/10 of the horizontal scale), or whatever will provide the needed detail. The Profiles should be combined into the Plan Views, using half-plan/half-profile sheets. GRADING pLANS The Grading Plans MUST include existing and proposed contours with finished surface and flowline elevations -called out at control points. HANDOUT Page 7 of 11 Cross-slope and side-slope ratios MUST BE indicated on the plans. The top and toe of the side slopes must be indicated for the proposed grading. The profile of drainage facilities SHALL BE provided, i.e., channels, pipes, ditches, etc. Hydraulic calculations must be provided for all new drainage systems calculated at 100-year storm (Q100). When a connection is to be made to an existing culvert in the State right of way, the junction structure must have a cleanout; this may be a Flood Control District design. The flow in an unlined channel shall not exceed the permissible velocity stipulated in Table 862.2 of the State Highway Design Manual. All lined channels must be constructed per Table 872.2 of the Highway Design Manual. STRIPING AND SIGNING PLAN The Striping and Signing Plan may be shown on the Street Improvement Plans, but separate Striping and Signing Plans are preferred. ALL existing signs and striping MUST BE shown, identified, and dimensioned according to the TRAFFIC MANUAL details. ALL relocated and new signing and striping MUST BE shown, identified, and dimensioned according to the TRAFFIC MANUAL details. All existing and proposed signals and detector loops must he identified. ALL striping, marking, and markers MUST BE shown and MUST conform to the STATE TRAFFIC MANUAL. ~NDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION PLANS The Landscape and Irrigation Plan MUST BE signed by a REGISTERED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. You MUST furnish this office with a letter stating you will own and maintain the proposed landscaping and irrigation (unless the landscape is a replacement in- kind required by Caltrans). KkNDOUT Page 8 of 11 The fixed object-traffic hazard rule must be followed. The Sight Distance Rule MUST BE applied to the street or driveway to determine proper placement of landscape planrings. All landscape planting, other than required replacement of existing plants, will be covered by an "own and maintain condition" contained in the encroachment permit (or separate permit as needed)· These conditions shall remain in effect for a specific time period as defined in the permit and/or Cooperative :~ighway Improvement Agreement of public agency/private party, as applicable. ELECTRICAL PLAN Any work involving electrical lighting WILL REQUIRE a 50- scale Electrical Plan on a separate sheet. The Electrical Plan SHALL BE prepared on a reproducible film media with blue-line prints provided for the reviews. Design details such as striping, crosswalks and handicap ramps SHALL BE shown on the Electrical Plan. The use of a reproduction of an existing "As-Built" as the basis for a modification plan IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. If road work is involved, the entire package SHALL BE PROVIDED for review, i.e., Electrical Plan, Striping Plan, Landscape & Irrigation Plan, and Roadway Plan. Plans MUST show the existing system as well as the proposed system. The proposed plans MUST BE in BOLD PRINT and the existing facilities SHALL BE shown in dashed or broken lines. Wattage and mounting height of the street lights SHOULD BE specified. SIGNAL PLAN A 20-scale Electrical PlanMUST BE provided depicting the existing conditions and the proposed modifications. The Plan MUST BE AN ORIGINAL DRAWING prepared on a standard layout size sheet (22" x.36"). A reproduction of an "As- Built" Plan WILL NOT BE ACCEPTABLE. HANDOUT Page 9 of 11 If road work is involved the entire package SHALL BE PROVIDED for review, i.e., Signal Plan, Striping Plan, Landscape & Irrigation Plan, and Roadway Plan. Design details such as striping, crosswalks and handicap ramps SHALL BE shown on the Signal Plan. Plans MUST show the existing system as well as the proposed system. The proposed plans MUST BE IN BOLD PRINT and the existing facilities SHALL BE shown in dashed or broken lines. Any work involving signals and/or lighting SHALL BE AT NO COST TO THE STATE unless prior agreements were made which shall have included all the supporting documentation, i.e., Traffic Studies, and Traffic Warrants. The accidental destruction of State facilities during construction SHALL BE replaced in-kind AT NO COST TO THE STATE. Furthermore, ANY damage resulting in signal failure SHALL BE REPAIRED IMMEDIATELY. Loop detector placement and designations SHALL BE consistent with the attached "TYPICAL DETECTION LAYOUT". NO detector loop SHALL BE installed in the path of a driveway or other intersection. The Conductor and Pole Schedules ARE NOT MERELY GUIDES: THEY SHALL BE COMPLETE AND ACCURATE. Lighting conductors SHALL NOT enter the signal controller cabinet. Luminaires SHALL BE furnished without photo-electric unit receptacles. If the luminaire housing is provided with a hole for the receptacle, the hole SHALL BE closed in a weather-proof manner. Only one (1) lamp-type ballast SHALL BE used. Overhead clearance of utility lines MUST BE ADDRESSED. A service wiring diagram SHALL BE PROVIDED. A dual Type III PE Control SHOULD BE specified with detail drawing. Nylon jacketed conductor~ SHALL NOT BE USED. PROVIDE a stub-out for future coordination. a HANDOUT Page 10 of 11 Controller software MUST BE approved by Caltrans. Caltrans Maintenance SHALL BE NOTIFIED 24-HOURS IN ADVANCE of any detector work so that adjustments can be made to the signal controller. The intersection lighting schedule SHALL NOT BE INTERRUPTED. SIGNAL SMUT-DOWNS SHALL BE LIMITED to the hours between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday EXCEPT holidays. NO SHUT-DOWNS SHALL OCCUR AFTER 12:00 NOON ON A FRIDAY PRECEDING A HOLIDAY. The electrical inspector SHALL BE notified 48 hours prior to performing any work that may cause damage to the existing signal system so that immediate adjustments or repairs can be made to maintain the system in operation. Traffic Operations SHALL BE notified at least 7 days in advance of the anticipated "TURN ON" Of signal controller from a new signal system and/or newly added phasing on existing signal controllers for modified signal systems. ADDITIONAL NEEDED ITEMS All plans MUST distinguish the existing and proposed construction in plan view.. Details and dimensions MUST be included to ascertain how the proposed work will"fit" existing conditions. Existing Statecenterline and stationing along the State route MUST be added to all plans. Please contact our Public Affairs office at (714) 383-4229 for details on how to obtain any needed maps (Right of Way, As-Builts, etc.). All dimensions and offsets MUST be referenced from the centerline of the State highway. The State right of way MUST be shown and labeled at ALL locations. There SHALL be a Construction Note for each item of work and they MUST be referenced on the plans. The plans NEED a "NORTH" arrow on each sheet. The plans MUST call out the scale used (40 or 50 scale preferred). HANDOUT Page 11 of 11 We NEED a Typical cross-section of a minimum of half- width of the State highway right of way. We NEED profiles at stations showing the centerline, top of curb, flow-line, and edge of pavement. We NEED hydraulic calculations, calculated at lO0-Year Storm (QiO0) Basis. The connection(s) to the State culvert(s) MUST have a cleanout at the point of connection. NO WIRE MESH may be used f~r concrete reinfcrcemcnt in the State right of way. Local agency (City, County, etc.) Standards will be permitted in the State right of way ONLY IF they exceed State Standards and are approved prior to permit issuance. There MUST be a minimum of a 10' wide area on the State side of the right of way fence so State vehicles can be driven along the fence for maintenance purposes. We MUST HAVE six (6) sets of PLANS Plans MUST BE 22" x 36" (maximum size) Plans MUST BE INDIVIDUALLY folded 8-1/2" x 11" You will need to submit an application to OWN AND MAINTAIN, which MUST BE in the name of the organization that will "own and maintain" the proposed system (utility, sidewalk or landscaping) when it is completed, if applicable. The following must also be submitted if applicable: Environmental Document Copy of the engineer's cost estimate Copy of the Conditions of Approval If you have technical questions, please call Raj Chharan at (714) 383-4536. If you have technical questions, at (714) 383-4536. please call Basem E. Muallem If you have technical questions, please call Bruce Gregg at (714) 383-4526. PLEASE DO NOT CALL FOR A STATUS ON YOUR PERMIT UNTIL 30 CALENDAR DAYS AFTER ALL PERTINENT DOCUMENTS, PLANS, INFORMATION, ETC. HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED. 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 TO: CITY OF TEMECULA November 6, 1990 PLANNING & ENGINEERING 3760 12TH STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 (714) 275-4777 ATTN: PLANNING DEPARTMENT PLOT PLAN 76 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 2250 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants, on a looped system (6"x4"x2~x2~), will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in the permit process to reflect changes in design, construction type, area separation or built-in fire protection measures. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." 6. Provide a six foot block wall along south and east property line. KENNETH L.. EDWARDS RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92502 Riverside County Planning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California Area: We have reviewed this case and have the following comments: k// Except for nuisance nature local runoff which may traverse portions of the property the project is considered free from ordinary storm flood hazard. However, a storm of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New construc- tion should comply with all applicable ordinances. The topography of the area consists of well defined ridges and natural water- courses which traverse the property. There is adequate area outside of the natural watercourses for building sites. The natural watercourses should be kept free of buildings and obstructions in order to maintain the natural drainage patterns of the area and to prevent flood damage to new buildings. A note should be placed on an environmental constraint sheet stating, "All new buildings shall be floodproofed by elevating the finished floors a minimum of 18 inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosion protection shall be provided for mobile home supports.' /This project is in the~l//V,//~R~(/~an e~wt~ A~. drainage plan fees shall be paid tn acco it ap~cable rules and regulations. The proposed zoning is consistent with existing flood hazards. Some flood control facilities or floodproofing may be required to fully develop to the implied density. The District's report dated is still current for this project. The Oistrict does not object to the proposed minor change. This project is a part of . The project will be free of ordinary storm flood hazard when improvements have been constructed in accordance with approved plans. The attached comments apply. /./ /.? / / -Very truly yours~ JOHN H. ILASHUBA Senior Civil Engineer RE: PP 76 Page 2 Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings requiring a fire flow of 1500 GPM or greater. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans. 7. A statement that the building will be automatically fire sprinklered must appear on the title page of the building plans. Install panic hardware and exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. Low-level Exit Signs, where exit signs are required by Section 3314 (a). 9. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. 10. Install a manual pull, smoke detection system as required by the Uniform Building Code and National Fire Protection Association. 11. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-iOBC. Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 12. Install a hood duct fire extinguishing system. Contact a certified fire protection company for proper placement. Plans must be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. 13. 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. 14. 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¢ per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts. This amount must be submitted separately from the plan check review fee. 15. Motel must meet highrise life safety standards per Riverside County Ordinance 546, Section 801. 16. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and Safety Office. All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to the Planning and Engineering staff. RAYMOND H. REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner Laura Cabral, Fire Safety Specialist LC:rmac AN BERNARDINO COUNTY MUSEUM 24 Orange Tree Lane , Redlands, CA 92374 ) t334 · 792-0052 * 825-4825 * 825-4823 July 28. lg~U COUNTY OF SAN 8ERNARDINO GENERAL SERVICES AGENCY DR. ALLAN D, GRIESEMER Director City of ?l'emecula Development Review Committee 'lemecula Planning; Department 43180 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 re: PALEONTOLOG1C SENSLTiVITY REVIEW Thank you for the opportunity to comment on nonrenewable paleontologic resources within the City of 'l'emecula. The museum generally reviews proposed deve|opments on an individual basis. This review, however, will summarized cases following the August 2 agenda you forwarded in order to insure s timely response. PP 76 The parcel is located on the fossiliferous Pauba Formation. Construction excavation will impact nonrenewable paleontologic resources. The developer must retain a qualified vertebrate paleontologist to develop a site-specific program to mitigate impacts to paleontologic resources. This program should include: (1) monitoring of excavation by e qualified paleontologic monitor; (2) preparation of recovered specimens, including sediment processing for small vertebrate fossils; {3) curation of specimens into an established repository; and {4) a report of findings with complete specimen inventory. Robert E. Reynolds Curator, Ear:h Sciences San Bernardino 'County lvluseum Wmr October 6, 1988 Board of Directore: Richsrd D. Steffey President James A. Darby St, Vice P~sident Pddph Daily Doug Kulberg Jon A. Lundln Jeffrey L, Minlder T.C. P~we Officers: Stan T. Mills General Manager Phillip L, Forbes Director of Finance - Thomas R. McAliester Director of Operations & Maintenance Doris V. Baker District Secretary McCormick & Kidman Legal Counsel Riverside County Division of Environmental Health Land Use Section Post Office Box 1370 Riverside, California 92502 Subject: Water Availability Reference: P.M. 24038, Lot I Gentlemen: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District. Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an ~gency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If you have any questions, please contact Senga Doherty at (714) 676-4101. Very truly yours, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Bob Lemons, P.E. Acting Director of Engineering F012A/D1005884 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY II Backqround 1. Name of Proponent: Leland/Sunq Development Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 27574 Commerce Center St., 138 Temecula, CA 92390 Date of Environmental Assessment: November 8, 1990 Agency Requiring Assessment: CITY OF TEMECULA Name of Proposal, if applicable: Tentative Parcel Map No. 2u,038/ Plot Plan No. 76 6. Location of Proposal: Southeast corner ofMoreno Road and Mercedes 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? X X The destruction, covering or modi- fication of any unique geologic or physical features? Any substantial increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off site? X STAFFRPT\PP76 38 Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earth quakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Air. Will the proposal result in: Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? The creation of objectionable odors? Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, whether locally or regionally? Water. Will the proposal result in: Substantial changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? Substantial changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including, but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? Alteration of the direction or rate of flow or ground waters? Yes Maybe No X X X X X X X X X X X STAFFRPT\PP76 39 Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct addi- tions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flood- in9 or tidal waves? Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants? Introduction of new species of plants into an area of native vegetation, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? Substantial reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including rep- tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? Yes Maybe No X X X X X X X X X STAFFRPT\PP76 ~,0 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, 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 STAFFRPT\PP76 ~,1 15. 16. Yes Maybe No b. Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking? X c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? __ X d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? __ __ X e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X __ Public Services. Will the proposal have substantial effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? X __ b. Police protection? X c. Schools? X d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X __ f. Other governmental services: __ __ X Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? __ __ X b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? __ __ X Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? __ ~ X STAFFRP'F\PP76 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\PP76 ~3 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environ- mental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future. ) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumu- latively considerable? {A project~s impact on two or more separate resources may be relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant. ) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substan- tial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Yes Maybe No X X X X STAFFRPT\PP76 I II Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation Earth 1. b-c. Air 2. a. No. Although the proposed project will result in cut and fill slopes there will not be changes in the base geologic substructures. The slopes shall be manufactured and compacted per the engineer~s requirements and as a result, should not result in unstable earth conditions. Yes. All development disrupts the soil profile to some degree and results in soil displacement, compaction and over-covering. Further analysis will determine if additional mitigations are required. Maybe. Development of the proposed project may require substantial grading; however, it will not alter the existing topography. Maybe. However, a Condition of Approval has been included which requires consultation with a licensed paleontologist who will mitigate any identified impacts. Yes. Wind and water erosion potentials will increase during the construction phase and remain high until disturbed areas are replanted. The wind erosion impact is considered high and significant but will be mitigated through minimal grading, retention of natural vegetation whenever feasible, and use of watering trucks and hydro-seeding disturbed areas after grading. No. There is no body of water near the project site which could be affected by the proposed project. Yes. The project site is located within a liquefaction and fault hazard zone area according to the Riverside County General Plan Geologic Hazard Map. A geologic report for the project will address and mitigate these potential issues. Maybe. Depending upon the amount of traffic generated by the project, an increase in carbon monoxide and particulate emissions will occur. This impact is not considered significant since the air emissions from this project is only an incremental impact to the area~s air quality. No. The proposed project should not create any objectionable odors or alter the area~s climate. STAFFRPT\PP76 0,5 Water 3. a,d-e. Plant Life 4. a-d. Animal Life 5. a,c. No. The proposed project will not affect any body of water. The closest body of water to the site is Mutt,eta Creek which is approximately one-half mile away. Yes. The proposed project will affect existing drainage and runoff patterns. However, a drainage and grading plan has been accepted which mitigates potential impacts to a level of non- significance. No. The proposed project will increase the amount of impermeable surfaces on the site which will reduce the amount of water absorption. However, the introduction of irrigation to the site will offset the water absorption rate; Drainage patterns will continue to flow to the streets and channels. No. The proposed project will not interfere with the direction or rate of flow of ground waters. No. The proposed project will not affect the public water supply or system. Yes. The proposed project is within the Mutt,eta Creek/Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan and watershed area. To help mitigate the project~s impact, a flood mitigation charge shall be paid. No. Although the development of the site will remove any of the plant species that currently exist on the site, no unique, rare or endangered species should be affected. New species of plants 'will be introduced to the site as par of the landscape requirements for the project. The addition of the new species is not considered a negative impact. The site is not currently used for agricultural purposes. No. The proposed project is in an area that has been experiencing urbanization for a number of years. It is anticipated that the only animal life on or in the vicinity of the site includes squirrels, rabbits, lizards, and other animals common to the area. It is highly unlikely that an endangered specie habitates the site. STAFFRPT\PP76 46 Noise 6. a. Liqht and Glare 7. Land Use Natural Resources 9. a-b. Risk of Upset 10. a. Population 11. Maybe. The proposed project is within the Stephen~s Kangaroo Rat fee impact area. Although the site contains no individuals of the species because of previous grading activities, the project will be required to pay fees in accordance with Ordinance 663. 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. Maybe. The proposed project is located within the Mt. Palomar Observatory Street Lighting Policy Area which recommends the use of low pressure sodium vapor (LPSV) lights to help avoid interference with the Mr. Palmar telescope known as '~Skyglow~. The use of LPSV lights will reduce the light and glare produced by the proposed project. No. The Southwest Area Plan designates the subject site for General Commercial. The surrounding land uses are also General Commercial. No. The proposed use will not increase the consumption rate of any natural or non-renewable natural resource. Maybe. If the operating tenant uses any hazardous materials in their operation, a list of hazardous substances and disposal plan would be submitted to the City. No. During construction, it should not be necessary to close any streets which would interfere with emergency vehicles. If street or land closure is necessary, it shall be coordinated with the City and Police Department. No. The proposed hotel/restaurant building will generate some jobs but not a significant amount to alter the area~s population. STAFFRPT\PP76 Housing 12. No. The proposed hotel and restaurant will not generate a significant number of jobs to create a demand for additional housing. Transportation/Circulation 13. a,c. Maybe. The proposed project will generate additional traffic to and from the site. However, it is not anticipated that this increase will be significant. The traffic that is generated by the project may add an incremental impact to the Rancho California Road/1-15 Interchange which is currently operating at capacity during peak hours. This potential impact may be mitigated by a transportation improvement mitigation fee. Yes. The proposed project will require parking to support the use. The project will need 149 parking spaces and 9 bicycle racks.. The proposed plan illustrates spaces. Maybe. The proposed project will improve a portion of Moreno Road which loops around and connect to Front Street. However, the Engineering Department has included Conditions of Approval with traffic mitigation measures. No. The proposed project will not affect waterborne, rail or air traffic. Yes. Any increase in traffic will increase the potential hazards to motor vehicles, b/cyclists, or pedestrians. Public Services lu,. a,b,c,e, Yes. The proposed hotel and restaurant use will require public services in the areas of police, fire, schools, maintenance of roads, and public facilities. This impact is not considered significant. The incremental impact should be evaluated and the appropriate fees assessed. Property taxes should mitigate the impact and continuing need for services over the long term. d,fe No. The project should not have a substantial effect on these public services. Ener.qy 15. a-b. No. The proposed project will not result in the substantial use or increase in demand of fuel or energy. STAFFRPT\PP76 ~8 Utilities 16. a-f. No. The proposed project requires the use of utilities but will not require substantial alteration to the exiting systems. Human Health 17. a-b. Maybe. If hazardous substances are used on site. then that may create a potential health hazard. If hazardous materials will be used at the site, a plan for their use and disposal will be submitted to the City. Aesthetics 18. No. The proposed project will not obstruct any scenic vista open to the public. The elevations of the proposed project are consistent in architectural materials as the surrounding buildings. Recreation 19. No. The subject site is not currently used for recreational uses. .Cultural Resources 20. a-d. No. The subject site has previously been mass graded and it is unlikely that the project will result in the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site. If a site is discovered, an archaeologist or paleontologist should be called on site to supervise the digging and determine if the site is significant. The proposed project will not impact any building of historic significance, affect unique ethnic cultural values or restrict sacred uses. Mandatory Findinqs of Siqnificance 21. a-d. No. The proposed project will not significantly affect the natural environment. have long term environmental impacts or have considerable cumulative impacts. STAFFRPT\PP76 ~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 Date For CITY OF TEMECULA STAFFRPT\PP76 50 EXHIBITS STAFFRPT\PP76 51 CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST CASE NO,: Tentative Tract Map No. 2qO38 Plot Plan No. 76 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 iADP) Condition of Approval Condition No. Condition No. Condition No. 31 Condition No. 30 Condition No. Condition No. Condition No. 13 T.P.M. 2~038 P.P. 76 32 9 37 STAFFRPT\PP76 52 VI~ IA/ / TY' NIA t~ 4~5 TEMECULA QUADRANGLE CALIFORNIA 7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPC)ORAPHIC) 487 730000 FEET ~ 117'O7'30" ~.~-,.,~ 33'30' 480 000 EET Iz02 27'30" z~,Ol I P~ 240Se I EX~STING ZONING SP. 180- TIERIRA VISTA R~ .App: MOTEL 6 OPERATING LP- JOHN BEENE LOG4T~ON,~L N,,P USe: DIVIDE 4.99 AC. INTO :5 LOTS Area: TEMECULA IstSup.Dist.c, c~' ~ Sec. 12 T. BS.R. 3W. Asaessor's Bk. 92.1 Pg. 07 Circulation 15 FREEWAY VARIABLE ~ E~t RANCHO CALIF. RD. ARTERIAL-- IIO' Rd. Bk. Pg. SGA DateOil22/90 Drawn By TEK/7~;r../ INO, BLDGS. VAC. GRADER ;OMME=IC I I LAND USE I I1 GRADED SP 180& TIERRA VISTA RQ VAC. HILLY -CZ4T'J~ / . App: MOTEL 60PERATI;IG LP- JOHN BEENE LOCATIONqAL MAP Use: DIVIDE 4.99 AC. INTO 3 LOTS Area: TEMECULA IstSup. Dist. c~uF. See. 12 T. BS,FL~W. A~eSsor's Bk. 921 Pg. 07 Circultjon i5 FREEWAY VARIABLE Element RANCHO CALIF. RD. ARTERIAL I10' FId. Bk. Pg.56A DateOil22/90 DrEwn BytB~/7~./ . / / // CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST CASE NO.: Tentative Tract Map No. 2~038 Plot Plan No. 76 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. Condition No. Condition No. 31 Condition No. 30 Condition No. Condition No. lo, Condition No. 13 T.P.M. 20,038 P.P. 76 32 9 37 STAFFRPT\PP76 7 ITEM MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Gary Thornhill January 28, 1991 Plot Plan No. 138, Revised Plot Plan No. 9683 RECOMMENDATION: Continuance to February 4, 1991 Plot Plan No. 138, Revised Plot Plan No. 9683 was submitted to the City of Temecula on August 23, 1990 for the review of an existing non-permitted modular classroom located on the south corner of Mercedes and Third Street within Old Town Temecula Historic District. Since the submittal date, Staff has been in direct contact with the applicant and has recommended they contact the Old Town Temecula Architectural Control Committee to discuss their project. On November 19, 1990, the Committee held a special meeting at Kid's World (subject site) to review the existing modular. The Committee found the modular to be non- conforming and in use without a Permit for Occupancy and suggested that the modular be removed or modified to meet architectural recommendations that were to be suggested from the Committee after another discussion with the applicants, which was never scheduled. Therefore, the Planning Staff held a meeting with the Committee on January 15, 1991 to discuss their major concerns regarding the modular. At the meeting, it was determined that the Committee did not want to see modulars within the Old Town Temecula Historic District but rather permanent structures with old western themes to depict old western times. Nevertheless, the committee is willing to meet with the applicant's architect to recommend architectural alternatives to enhance the modular in order to have it represent the character of the Old Town in conformance with the Old Town Historic District. At this time, Planning Staff is working with both applicant and committee to establish an acceptable exterior modification to the modular to conform to the Old Town Historic District development standards. Thus, Planning Staff requests that the Planning Commission continue Plot Plan 138, Revised Plot Plan No. 9683 to February 4, 1991. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department recommends that the Planning Commission continue Plot Plan No.138, Revised Plot Plan No. 9683 to their regular meeting of February 4, 1991. PLANNING\M8 ITEM STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION January 28, 1990 Case No.: Plot Plan No. 10675, Extension of Time Prepared By: Scott Wright Recommendation: Approve the Extension of Time for Plot Plan 10675 APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCAT ION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: Bedford Properties Bedford Properties To construct a two story office building with 25,742 square feet of gross leasable floor area. The southerly side of Single Oak Drive, approximately 300 feet east of Business Park Drive. M-SC, Manufacturing - Service Commercial North: M-SC South: Rancho California Road East: M-SC West: M - S C Not requested Vacant North: South: East: West: Vacant, Light Industrial Rancho California Road Office Office No. of acres [net): No. of stories: Building Height: Gross Leasable Floor Area: 2.2 acres 2 stories 35 feet 25,742 sq.ft. STAFFRPT\PP10675 1 Parking Spaces: Landscaping: 102 Standard 27 Compact u, Handicapped 133 Total 46,414 sq.ft. (46%of site area) BACKGROUND: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ANALYSIS: Plot Plan 10675 was approved and a Negative Declaration was adopted at the County Planning Director's Hearing of November 7, 1988. On November 6, 1990, the applicant submitted an application for an extension of time. The project is to construct a two story office building with 25,742 square feet of gross leasable floor area. Existinq Site Conditions The site has already been rough graded conjunction with the underlying parcel map. in Buildinq Heiqht The proposed building will be 35 feet in height which is within the maximum 50 foot building height in the M-SC Zone stipulated in Ordinance 348. Buildinq Setbacks and Landscapinq The site plan meets or exceeds the requirements to provide 25 foot building setbacks, 10 foot landscape strips adjacent to streets, and landscaping equal to 10% of the total site area in the M-SC Zone. Parking Based on the total gross leasable floor area, the project is required to provide 129 parking spaces. 133 spaces are shown on the site plan. Access and Interior Traffic Circulation Adequate access is provided by a driveway 30 feet in width on Single Oak Drive. All drive aisles are 24 feet wide and satisfy the width requirement for two-way drive aisles as stipulated in Ordinance 348. Although it is currently the policy of the City Traffic Engineer to request 28 foot drive aisles, the Fire Department has stated that 24 foot aisles will be adequate for this project. STAFFRPT\PP10675 2 Traffic Siqnal Mitiqation Fee Pursuant to the County Road Department~s Condition No. 2, the City Transportation Engineer has stipulated that the applicant may either agree to contribute, prior to issuance of a building permits, 15% of the cost of the traffic signal to be installed at Business Park Drive and Rancho California Road, or may submit a traffic analysis addressing trip generation, distribution, and percent impact at said intersection, and contribute a portion of the signal cost based on the percent impact as determined by the analysis. Subsidence Potential The site is located in an area potentially susceptible to soil subsidence. County Planning Condition No. 26 requires certification by a California licensed professional to certify that the proposed structure is safe and structurally integrated. Plot Plan Time Extensions Ordinance 3~,8 Section 18.30 (f) stipulates a two year term for plot plan approvals during which substantial construction must occur. No provision is made for extending the term of the approval if substantial construction has not occurred. Section 18.28(f), however, permits time extensions for conditional use permits. There is no logical reason to allow extensions for conditional uses, which typically involve a greater degree of concern for public health and safety and/or land use compatibility, and not to allow extensions for plot plans. Staff therefore recommends applying Section 18.28(f) to Plot Plan 10675 in order to permit an extension of time and enable the City to issue building permits in view of the fact that the building plans are already approved. GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: The proposed use is permitted in the M-SC zone. The site is located in an area designated for Light Industrial Uses. The Southwest Area Plan identifies the M-SC Zone as consistent with the Light Industrial designation. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The County adopted a Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment 32967 at the Planning Director~s Hearing of November 7, 1988. STAFFRPT\PP10675 3 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 10. These findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: APPROVE a one year extension of time for Plot Plan 10675 based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the Conditions of Approval contained in the attached County Staff Report and the following additional conditions: Pursuant to County Road Department Condition No. 2 requiring payment of traffic signal impact mitigation fees, prior to issuance of building permits the applicant shall contribute 15% of the cost of installing a traffic signal at the westerly intersection of Business Park and Rancho California Road, o. Zr the applicant shall submit a traffic analysis and contribute to signalizing the intersection in an amount based on the percent of the traffic impact on said intersection generated by the project in question. 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 El R/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 or 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. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance which is based on the gross acreage of the parcel proposed for development. Should Ordinance 663 be superseded by the STAFFRPT\PP10675 5 provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fees required by Ordinance 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required under the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. SW:mb Attachments: 2. 3. q.. Resolution County Staff Report Exhibits: Vicinity Map Plot Plan Elevations Fee checklist STAFFRPT\PP10675 6 RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVINC A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PLOT PLAN NO.10675, A TWO STORYOFFICE BUILDING LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SINGLE OAK DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET EAST OF BUSINESS PARK DRIVE. No. 10675 in Subdivision WHEREAS, Bedford Properties filed an extension request for Plot Plan accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said plot plan extension application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said plot plan extension on January 28, 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 recommended approval of said plot plan extension; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. (2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: a) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. STAFFRPT\PP10675 7 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 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 Plot Plan No. 10675 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is .ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. D. ( 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. STAFFRPT\PP10675 8 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 approving the proposed Plot Plan Extension, makes the following findings, to wit: a) The proposed office building is consistent with the Area Plan land use designation and the zone in which it will be located. b) The project will not constitute an adverse impact on surrounding land uses in that it will be compatible with existing land uses in the area. c) d) The site is adequate for the proposed use in that parking, internal traffic circulation, and landscaping are adequate and meet all applicable requirements and development standards in the M-SC Zone. The site will have adequate access from the street on which it has frontage. e) Potential subsidence hazards can be adequately mitigated. f) The traffic generated by the project will not constitute a significant adverse impact on the level of service of the streets in the area and the developer is required to pay traffic signal mitigation and road improvement fees. g) There is a reasonable probability that the project will be consistent with the City's General Plan once adopted, in that the proposed office building is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan land use designation and the M-SC Zone and is compatible with surrounding zoning and existing land uses in the vicinity. h) It is unlikely that the proposed revised tentative map will constitute a substantial detriment to the future General Plan if the proposed office building is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The project is compatible with surrounding zoning and existing land uses. STA FFR PT\PP10675 9 i) The lawful conditions stated in the project~s Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. j) These 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. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicated that the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment, and a Negative Declaration was adopted by Riverside County on November 7, 1988 at the Planning Director's Hearing. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the city of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves a one year Extension of Time for Plot Plan No. 10675, a two story office building located on the south side of Single Oak Drive 300 feet east of Business Park Drive 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: STAFFRPT\PP10675 10 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT I have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth herein above in this Resolution of approval for a one year Extension of Time for Plot Plan No. 10675. DATED: By Name Title STAFFRPT\PP10675 11 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Department Engineering Department John Middleton, Senior Project Manager January 14, 1991 ENCINEERINC DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR: Plot Plan 10675 Plot Plans, CUP 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. 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. STAFFR PT\PP10675 1 Z MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Department Transportation Engineering Department January 14, 1991 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR: Plot Plan No. 10675 Transportation Enqineerinq PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: 1. This Development shall enter into an agreement with the City to contribute fifteen percent (15%) of the construction costs for the signal at Rancho California Road and Business Park Drive or' provide a traffic impact report determining the exact percentage of impact to this intersection based on vehicular volumes and turning movements and contribute the specified percentage. STAFFRPT\PP10675 13 CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST CASE NO,: PP10675 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 City Condition No. 3 N/A City Condition No. 2 City Condition No. 1 N/A County Condition No. 9 County Condition No. 8 STAFFRPT\pp10675 1LI PINKS PLANNING DZRECTOR'S HEARING CASE SUMMARY DATE: NOVEHBER 7, 1988 CASE NO. PLOT PLAN NO. 10675 E.A.: 32967 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION: A two-story office building on 2.66 acres of land. A.~EA: Rancho California SPHERE OF INFLUENCE: Not within a Ctt, y Sphere GErtERAL PLAN: a. LAND USE: Category II - Commercial b, OPEN SPACE/CONS.: Areas Not Designated c. C~.IMUNITY POLICIES: Moun% Palmar Special Lighting Area ZON I NG: a. SITE: PeSC b. ADJACE;|T: MPSC, I-P and R-R LAqD USE/AREA DEVELOPMENT: a. SITE: Vacant b. ADJACENT: Office buildings RECOW1EII]ATION: ADOPTION of a Negative Dec3aratton for E.A. 32967 end APPROVAL of PLOT PLAN NO. 10675 based on the following: 1. The project is consistent with the General Nan. 2. The project meets the requirements of Ordinance 348. 3. The project ts consistent with the zoning on the parcel on which ~t ts ]ocated and meets the developmnt standards of the zone. AG:sc 11/02/88 PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING DATE: NOVEffiBER 7, 1988 lIVERSIDE COURTT PLARIII!IG DEPARllENT ClIDITIONS OF APPROVAL De Revere Partnership 4631 Teller Ave., Ste. Newport Beach, Ca 92660 PLOT PLAN NO, 10675 ProJect Description: Two-Story Office Building, Assessor's Parcel No,: 921-020-041 Area: Rancho California The permittee shaql defend, 4ndemntfy, and hold harmless the County of RIverside, its agents, officers, and employees frm any claim, a:tton, or proceeding against the County of Riverside or its agents, officers, or enployees to attack, set aside° votd, or annul, an approval of the County of Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislatNe body ~ any such cla~, action, or proceeding agalnst the County of Riverside and w~11 cooperate fully In the defense, if the County fails to p,~ptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or rafts to cooperate fully tn the defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, ~ndemnlfy, or hold hamless the County of Riverside, This approval shall be used w~thtn two (2) years of approval date; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever, By use Is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by thts approval within the tm (2) year period which ~s thereafter diligently putseed to cmqpletton, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval, The de~elolxnent of the pre:ntses shall conform substantially with tha~ as sho~n on plot plan marked Exhibit A - Amended No, 1, or as amended by d these con tttons. In the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period of one [1) year or more, thts approval shall become null and void. Any outside 11ghttng shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine d¶rectly upon adjoining propert~ or public rights-of-way, and shell comply with Ordinance No. 655, The applicant shall compl ~th the street Improvement ~ecenmendattons outlined tn the Count~ ~oad Department transmittel dated a 10-4-88, copy of .htch ts attached· PLOT PLAIt NO. 10675 Conditions of Approval Page 2 7. Water end sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department tranmtttal dated lO-OT-BB, a copy of which is attached. 8. lriood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District transmittel dated 10-05-B8, a copy. of which is attached. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittel dated 10-04-B~, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Department of Building and Safety transmittel dated 10-04-SS and lO-O6-S~, copies of which are attached. All landscaped areas Shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy pernits. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscapeJ areas shall be maintained in a viable growth condition. pl.nting thin t.n feet permitted t~ grow higher than i~; or exit driveway shall not be inches. Prior to the issuance of grading or building pennits, 6 copies of a Shadin , Parkin , Landscaping and Irrigation Plan shall be submitted to the P~anning ~partment for approval. The location, nunberm genus, ~Icies and container size of the pla~ts shall be shown. Plans shall meet requirements of Ordinance 348, Section ZB.ZZ. A ntntmun of 133 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section IB.17, Riverside County Ordinance NO. 348, as shown on the Approved Exhibit A, Amended No. 1. The parking area shall be surfaced w .h aspbaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on 4 inches of Class II base. A minimum of four handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on Exhibit A, Amended No. 1, Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed roflectorized sig~ constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height of 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parkin space finished rode, or centered at mintmen height of 36 ~tnished a inches from ~e parking space or grode, sid..lk. ground, shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to off-street parking facility, not less than ~7 inches by 22 inches in size with lettering not less than X inch ~n height, which clearly and conspicgousl~ states the follow ng: PLOT PLM I~. 113675 ComdttJons of Aleroyal Page 3 "tinauthorized vehicles not dlsplaytng distinguishing placards or license plates tssued for physically handicapped persons may be to~ed away at owner's expense, Towed vehicles my be reclaimed at or by telephoning ," %n addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the symbol of accessibility in blue patnt of at least 3 square feet tn size, Prtor to the issuance of a butldtng pemtt, the applicant shall obtain clearance and/or permits fran the following agencies: Road Department Environmental Healt~ Riverside County Flood Control Ft re Department ~rttten evidence of compliance shall be presented to the Land Use Division of the Department Of Building and Safety. )rtor to the issuance of building permits the following additional and/or revised plans shall be su~itted for Planning Department approval: Signing Program Landscaping, Irrigation and Shading Plans BuilJing elevations shall be in substantial conformante with that shovm on Exntbit B. ~t.ria, s used i... construction of ..l~ '"l~;"l"t~ o'~'~ ~ ;? substanttal confonnance with that sho~n o xh ol ev I on and Exhibit C (Natertals hard), These are as follows: Natertal Color Wtndow~ t'll;I'(1Tass ~'~'F~tan Royal Blue Windows SS-14 Glass Guardian Green Column Concrete Fbrd Blue Tinted Concrete Base Concrete Gray Roof°mounted equipment Shall be shielded from ground view. material shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Screening One (1) trash enclosure which ts adequate to enclose a total of one (1) bin shall be centrally located within the project, and shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy peaits, The enclosure ;..~J~ ~t;c~:~J~ ,..~,.~. and sh.ll b..d. with .sonr, block .nd a c h from external view. 21. Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along streets and within the parking areas. PLOT PLNI It0. 10675 Conditions of Approval Page 4 All street ltghts and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall c 1 with 9mp y the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655 and the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. This project site is within a significant groundshaking zone. Nitigation shall be the application of the proper Uniform Building Code standards in the development of this project. Six (6) Class II bicycle racks shall be provided in convenient locations to facilitate bicycle access to the project area. Prior to issuance of building permits, performance securities, in a'qodnts 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 adeqjate maintenance of the planting for one year shall b~ filed with the Director of Building and Safety. This project is locate~ within a Subsidence Report Zone. Prior to issuance of any building pen~it by the Riverside County Department of Building and Safety, a. California Licensed Structural Engineer shall c;rtify that the intended structure Or building is safe and struct,Jrally integrated. This certification shall be based upon, but not be limited to, the site specific seismic, geologic and ggotechnical conditions. Where hazard of subsidence or fissure development is determined to exist, appropriate mitigation measures must demonstrated. orlor to issuance of occupancy permits, all required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Building and Safety. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good w~rklng order. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kV or greater, shall be installed underground. 29. All of the foregoing conditions shall be c~mplted with prior to occupancy or any use al.lowed by this permit, AG:sc 11/02/8B OFFICE OF ROAD CO~!.%flSSIO,%'ER ~. COt'%'T)' 3LRVEYOR October 4, 1988 RIverside County Planning Commission 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92051 Re: (Office Bldg.) Plot Plan 10675 - ~nend ~1 Team I - SffiD ~9 Ladies and Gentlehen: With respect to the conditions of approval for the above reference~ item, the Roa~ Departrent has the following recommendations: Prior to issuance of a building permit or any use allowed by this permit, the applicant shall complete the following conditions at no cost to any govern;.~ent agency: No additional right of way shall be required on Rancho California Road or Single Oak Drive since adequate right of way exists. Prior to issuance of a butldtng permit° or any use allowed by this permit, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Roa~ Department the sum of $8,150.00 towards mitigating traffic impacts for signal requirerents. (3.26 acres x $2,500 - $B,150.00) Prior to issuance of a building permit or any use allowed by this permit, and prior to doing any work within the State highway right of wayt clearance and/or an encroachment permit must be obtained by the applicant from the District OB Office of the State Department of Transportation in San Bernardino. Prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit, the applicant construct the following at no cost to any government agency: 4. No additional road improvements will be required at this time. shall 5. Drainage control shall be as per Ordinance 460, Section 11.1; Plot Plan 10675 - Amend October 4, 1988 Page 2 All work done within County right of way shall have an encroach- merit permi t. The single driveway shall conform to the applicable Riverside County Standards and shall be shown on the street improvement plans, The applicant shall comply with the Caltrans recomDendationS as outlined in their letter dated August 9, 1988 (a copy of whic~ is attached). LJ:lh Principal Eng. Technician STALL ~ CAt~FOIINIA---~USINeS$. TRANSPO~TATTON AND M~ING A~N~ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIS~ I. ~.O. ~X 231 - ,'*~-T "~'~?~."~ TDD 1714) 3834a4W August 9, Development Review 08-Riv-15-~.98 Your Reference: PP 10675 Planning Department Attention Mr. Alex Gann County of Riverside ~080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 ~,~r, Gann: Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed Plot Plan 10675 tocate~ westerly of 1-15 and Front Street, north of Rancho California Road at Business Park Drive in Ran~ho California. Please refer to the attached material on which our comments have been indicated by the items checked and/or by those itezs ncte~ under additional comments. If any work is necessary within the state highway right of we'y, the developer must obtain an encroachment permit from the CeltTans District 8 Permit Office prior to beginning work. additional information is desired, please call Mr. Thomas J. Neville at (714) 383-4~8~- 1/ery truly yours, H. N. LEWANDOWSKI Dta~rto~ Permits Engineer Art. co: Lee Johnson, Riverside County Road Department 08-Riv-15-4.98 (Co-Rte-PM) PP 10675 (Your Reference) ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: This appears to be Parcel 3 of Parcel Map 19580-1. Individually, this development will have minimal traffic impact on our highway system. Collectively, when all of the parcels are developed, there could be some traffic impacts to the Rancho California Rd/I-15 Interchange. Traffic signals have already been warranted at the ramps. Therefore, this development and future developments in this area should contribute to the funding of the signals. Consideration should also be given to the cumulative effect of continued development in this area. Any measures necessary to mitigate the cumulative impact of traffic should be provided prior to or with development if the area. · . County of Riverside RIVERSIDE COERrl~ PIA~,'ING DEPT. 0cr. ober 7, 1988 "TO:- DATE: ATTN: ,~rX C ~ STEVE HINDE, SR. SANITARIAI~, ENVIRON?IENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FROM: PLOT PLAI'; 10675. Amended No. i Environmental Health Services has reviewed Plot Plan 10675, Amended No. i dated September 14, 1988. Our current comments v111 remain as etated in our memo dated August 23, 1988. SH:=ac County of Riverside TO: FROM: RE: COUNTY P~ING DEPT. DATE: Plot Plan 10675 08-23-88 Heaith 5vcs The Environmental Health Services has reviewed Plot Plan 10675 and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services are available in th~s area. Prior to any buildin9 plan submittals, will-serve letters from the water and sewerlng agencies will be required. SH:tac 6EN. FORM t (Rev. a/6'~) , KeNN[TH L,. I'I2~fARDI IIII MA~IKrr RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT Riverside County Planning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California Attention: Regional Team No. } Ak~ ~ We have revieved thts case and have the following comments: Except for nuisance nature local runoff which may traverse portions of the property the project is considered free from ordinary storm flood hazard. However, a storm of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New construc- tion should comply with all applicable ordinances. The topography of the area consists of well defined ridges and natural water- courses which traverse the property. There is adequate area outside of the natural watercourses for building sites. The natural watercourses should be kept free of buildings and obstructions in order to maintain the natural drainage patterns of the area and to prevent flood damage to new buildings. A note should be placed on an environmental constraint sheet stating, "All new buildings shall be floodproofed by elevating the finished floors a minimum of 18 inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosion protection shall be provided for mobile home supports." This project is in the drainage plan fees shall be paid in accordance with the applicable r~lesArea and regulations. The proposed zoning ts consistent with existing flood hazards. Some flood control facilities or floodproofing may be required to fully develop to the im~lted density. 1'he Dtstrtct's report dated is still current for this project. The District does not object to the proposed minor change. The attached comments apply. if.'+:3.,+;.., CO: Very truly yours, KENNETH L. EDWARDS Ch fg~Kiiee~ nior Civil Engineer The County Board of Supervisors has adopted the M, rr;e~ Ct~e~./ 'T~ ,~ V~II ~ea. Drainage Plan for ~he purpose of collec%~ng ~a~age fees. Those fees are used to construct needed flood control facilities within the particular area. The Area Drainage Plan fees apply to new land divisions and other types of new development. Virtually all new development causes increased storm runoff. These increases are particularly troublesome in those watersheds where an Area Drainage Plan has been adopted. In order to miti- gate the downstream impacts brought about by increased runoff, the District recommends that Conditional Use Cases, Plot Plans and Public Use Cases be required to pay a flood mitigation charge. Mitigation charges, where appropriate, will be similar to the current Area Drainage Plan fee rate. Following is the District's recommendation:- A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the erea of new development. The new development in this case includes a total of F. 8~ acres. At the current fee rate of $ q~Z per acre, the mitigation charge equals $ ~q~ The charge is payable to the Flood Control District prio~ to issuance of permits. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. Mitigation Charge (mitcharg) This project As a part of e~r~I ~p Iqg~o-I . The project will be free of ordinary s~orm flood hazard when improvements have been constructed An accordance with approved plans. Pl,mnlnS & ~r,~L~inS Offi~ 46-209 C),ms ,~t~-t. ~,i~ 405 bdio. CA 92~01 (619) 342-8&86 RIVERSIDL COUNI'¥ [IRE D[:PARTHEN] IN COOPU'tAIlON Wlllt IHE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMEhlT OF FOR[STr,C,' AND FIRE PROTECTION RAY HEBRARD I IR[ CIIILt 10-0~-88 Ri~eb.J~:. (. A V~SU 1 (714) 787 b6Ub ATTN: RE: PLANNING DEPAR'X"H~ ALF. J( GANN PLOT PL.~J~ 10675_ ,ed~iENDED #1 Rltb respect to tile condltjuns of approva] regarding tile abuve r~ferenced i, loc plan, the Fire Department recommends the following fire prateorion meas,lr~ be provided in accordance'with Riverside County Ordinances slid/or r~cugnizgd fire protection sta~ards: The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for tile remodel or construction of all commercial buildings using time procedure established in Ordinance 546. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 3000 GPN for a 3 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, which must be available before any combustible material is placed on tile Job site. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants 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, ~e required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in tILe permit process to reflect changes in design, construction type, area sel,uruti-n Or built-in fire protection measures. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of tILe water system plun~ t,, time Fire Department for review. Plans sisal] conform to tile fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and, the system shull meet LIne fire rh,w requirements. Plans aimall be signed/approved by a registered civil c,~.in~r amd .the local safer cospany with the fulhNing ccrtjficaLion: "1 c~rtily ~t ~e assign of the safer system is in accordance ulth the r~qutremgnc~ prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings requiring a fire flow of ~500 GPN or greater. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet uf a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the tltle page of the building plans. SnbJect: Plot Plan 10675 Install a supervised waterflow fire ulurm systum us rcqnircd by thu Uniform Building Code. 8. Certain designated areas rill be required to be maintained as fire lungs. 9. Install portable fire exttngulsl,ers with a minimum rating of 2A-1OBC. Contact · certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. hrlor to the lssuance of building permits, the developer shall deposit ~tth the Riverside County Fire Department, a check or money order gqualin~ the sum of $~00.00 per unit as mitigation for fire protection impacts. This amount must be submitted separately from the plan check revjg~ fee. 11. Final conditions will be addressed when buildinG plans are reviewed in the Building and Safety Office. All questions r~$ardlng the meaning of conditions shall be rgferred t, the Planning and Engiugertng staff. RAYNUND H. REGIS' Chief FIre Department Planner ~s Alston, Deputy FIre Har~t~al ama October 4, 1988 Administrative Cerlter, 1777 Atlanta A'.'-.-" Riverside. CA 925S7 Riverside County Planning Department Attentionz Alex Gann County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street Riverside. CA 92501 RE: Plot Plan 10675. Exhibit A, Amend #1 Ladies and Gentlemen.- The Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety has the following comments and conditions: Where no specific uses for proposed structures are indicated, Building and Safety may require additional Planning Department approvals. An additional plot plan or an approved exhibit for on-site signage will be required. Prior to the issuance of building permits, written clearance is required from the following: · Temecula Unified School District · Elsinore Union High SchOol District If approved elevations are required from the Planning Department the approved plans must be submitted to the Land Use Division concurrently with submittal of structural plans for review. Prior to acceptance of structural plans for Building and Safety review, one complete set of approved conditions from Planning Department must be attached. Administration (714) 682-8840, (714) 787-2020 Planning Department Plot Plan 10675 Page 2 Prior to issuance of building permits, epplicent must with any applicable conditions of Parcel Map 19580-1. Very truly yours. Thomas H. Ingram, Director DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY comply ' ~°3-~- ? 9'~."- ~'.' , Norman A, Lostbom, Deputy Director Land Use Division pL~EI~A CG~CE.:rI'UA~GRADING PLAZl fOR THIS P~O,lZCl, 1. Show the existing contours and the proposed 2, Show the adjacent street grades and elevations 3, '4, elevations for this 5n~ any drainage facility intended as a part of this project. Show adjacent existing offsite topograhy sufficient to illustrate projects compatibility with its neighbors. project. this COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE Department of Building and Safety TO: Planning -- File FROM: Grading Section INI:IAL~ th, fo, lo. lng a condi tion of ,pprov.l= commencing any grading exceeding 5~) cubic yards, the owner of that property shall obtain a grading permit from the Department of Building and Safety ___b. Prior to approval of this use/subdivision a grading permit and approval of the rough grading shall be obtained from the Building and Safety Department. ~__c, Prior to issuance of any building permit, the property owner shall obtain a grading permit and approval to construct from the Building and Safety Department. ___d, Constructing a road, where greater than 5e cubic yards of materia] is placed or moved, requires a grading permit. The Grading Section has no comment on this site E8~-13~ COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE DEPARTHENT OF SUILDZNG AND SAFETY TO= File FRDH: Grading Section INZTIAL= ~/ The following 'X ' marked comments pertain to this project. Refer to the attached standard vesting tract comments. The information submitted is too vague for specific comment, Please refer to departmental forms EB~--qbm EBb-Elm eb, & 2e4-1ae when preparing a grading plan. In order to permit your grading plan, the following items will beheaded. a. Obtain grading plan raylaw. b. Provide 3 copies of Preliminary Soils ~epDrt c. Provide I copy Df each of the hydrD1ogy -- h draulic r,view. st,nd.rd i,prove.,,, pl,.. ,,d d. PrDvide clearances from the following department. __=__Other ............................. e. Provide copy of Planning Department conditions of approval for the approved or tentative approved case. f. Provide an erosion control plan prepared by licensed landscape architect. Provide a conceptual grading plan. Nhen obtaining a plan review permit, grading plan to Building and Safety and plan review. submit 5 copies of for distribution Refer to form aB4-1aJ for additional comments. Refer to any specific plan related to this project. This property is located in the Rancho California Potential Subsidence area. Per Board Resolution 88-61, additiona] gaDtechnical information is required. 84-119 (5188) 11. . ___15. .... 17. Including the asph.sltic concrete, base earth ~ved this pro~ect will esceed 5~ Therefore, a grading porto. it is required. material, cubic yards. Observe slope setbacks from permit areas and/or structures per section ?ale and figure ~9-1 of the Uniform Building Code as modified by Ordinance qS?. Driveway grades shall be 15~ or less. Show street and pad elevations. Insure that a 1~ grade can be maintained from back of pad to street. Design V-ditches at top of slopes to handle the year storm flDw. Provide (1) one copy of the hydrologic/hydraulic ca]o's and drawings. Provide. recorded drainage easements for the proposed lot to lot drainage. all properties and at outlets, flows at the inlet and outlet to all drainage structure inlets and Provide building footprints on lots. Design each lot to drain separately. Do not use common Projects having an imbalance between the cut and fill shall specify the location of their import or export° Show slopaim including terraces. to scale. PropDied D/f--site grading Nail require written notarized permission from the affected property owner. No obstruction or diversion of natural water courses shall be permitted. Provide topography beyond permit area, especially ,here adjacent property is developed or being developed. Slope height may affect adjacent properties. On flag lots show the location, ~cole that will be required to May/access. grade, cut fills to construct the drive Z34-119 (5188) · DATE: August 1o 1988 TO: ASSeSSOr Building and Safety Surveyor - Dave Duda Road Department Health - Ralph Luchs FIre Protection Flood Control Dtstrict F~sh & Game LAFCO, S Patsley U.S. Postal Servtce- Ruth E. Davtdson Conrnissimer 8resson C.j. Crotinger Rancho Hater Southern Cal~f. Edison Southern Calif. Gas General Telephone Dept. of Transportation Temecula Union School Elstnore Union fligh School Temecula Towns Assoc. t4t. Palomer Sierra Club San Bernard~no Huseum RiVEdbiDE coun;,u PLAnninG DEPAR;r;1En; PLOT PLAN 10675 - (Tm-1) - E.A. 32967 - De Revere Partnership - Rancho California Area - First Supervisorial District - Single Oak Drive at Business Park Drive - H-SC Zone - 2.66 acres - 1 lot - (REQUEST Approval for 2-Story Office Building) - Hod 119 - A.P. 921-020-041 Please review the case described above, along with the attached case map. A Land D~v~ston Co~tt~ee ~eeting has been tentatively scheduled for August 25,1988. If it clearso tt will then go to publfc headng. Your con~ents and recommendations are requested prior to August 25, 1988 in order that we may include the tn the staff report for thts particular case. Should you have any questions regarding thfs item, please do not hesitate to contact Alex Gann at 787-1363 Planner COr4H~NTS: /)ATE: RU6 "e Re S/GNATURE PLEASE prfnt name and tttle PLEASE SEE &'rTACHED ~r.* Robert J. ~r.j~to Assistant D~r.-~tor ~a;om=r Observ_,to~,, 105-24 C.,~i~o~ia !nStitL, t!. o~ Technolog3f ~,*-.za,'~:':,· C.~!!t~.rr.!a 91125 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787-~181 46-209 OASIS STkEET, ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-8277 e CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY This proposed project is within 45 miles of Palomar Observatory and is therefore subject to the provisions of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655 regulating outdoor lighting. The full text of the ordinance is enclosed for ?our review. In general, ?ou will note that it requires: The use of low-pressure sodium lamps for roadways, walkways, equipment yards, parking lots, security and other similar applications; That other lights be turned off by 11:00 p.m.; That lights be oriented and shielded to prevent direct upward illumination. These practices will help preserve the conditions needed for the continuation of important astronomical research at Palomar Observatory. Robert J. Brucato Assistant Director DATE: August 1, 1988 TO: Assessor Butldtng and Safety Surveyor - Dave Dude Road Departa~nt Hea]th- Ralph Luchs Ftre Protection Flood Control Dtstrtct FIsh & Game LAFCO, S Palsley tl.$. PostaT Servtce- Ruth E. Davidson Conrntssfoner Bresson C.J. Crottnger Rancho k/ater Southern Calff. Edison: Southern Ca1 if. Gas General Telephone Dept. of Transportation t8 Temecula Union School E1stnore Union High Schoo~ · Temecula Towns Assoc'; ...... Nt. Palomit Sterra C~ub San Bernardtrio Huseum RiVERbiDE COUn;,- PLAnninG DEPAR; EnC PLOT PLAN 10675 - (Tm-1) - E.A. 32967 - De Revere Partnership - Rancho California Area - First Supervisortel District - Stngle Oak Drive at Business Park Drive - M-SC Zone - 2.66 acres - I lot - (REQUEST Approval for 2-Story Office Building) - Nod 119 - A.P. 921o020-041 Pleaserevte~ t~.e case described above. along with the attached case map. A Land Division Committee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for August 25,1988. Zf It clears, tt will then go to public hearing. Your c;ents and recommendations are requested prior to August 25, 1988 in order t~at we ma3r include them tn the staff report for this particular case. Shouqd you have any questions regarding this item, please do not hesitate to contact Alex Gann at 787-1363 Planner CORHEJ[[S-' 1'he El stnore Unton Htgh School Dlstrtct facilities are overcrowded and our education programs seriously impacted by increasing student population caused by new residential. commertcal and industrial construction. 'Therefore, pursuant to California Government Code Section 53080 of AB 2926 and SB 327, this district levies a fee against 811 new development projects within its boundaries. .... OAT U6 12 1988 SZGNATUR,E PLr_ASE prtnt name and tttle Dr. Supertntendent 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDF, CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 7876181 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-8277 C C IJNTY OF RIVERSIDE PLANNING DEPART)SENT TO: Oeve DIllo~ RE: Parcel Hip 14933 and 1H80 Z Mve reviewed two geologic reports by Nedall, Arqon, Worswtck & Associates, Znc. dated !4a ch 20, 1981, and December 20, 1981 These reports address gaDtechnical as acts of a pro osed industrial park within Parcel Nap Hoe; 14933 and 19580 and af~uent storage Castns to the northwest. Pioneer Consultants previously submitted to our office a c~mpostta 9eolo tc report for Parcel Pap Ho. 14933 dated Hatch 21, 1975~ ~anuary 19, 19?g~ August )l, 1979; tn regards to liquefaction, seismic design, and uncompacted trench backfill. We rec~r,~anded that a not4 be placed on the final parcel map identifying the report and potinUal hazards, The two reports by Nedall, Aragon, Worswick & Associates, :nc., include essentially all of the property covered by Pioneer Consultants report plus s~e additional area * the west and northwest, These reports found no hazardous faulting Or liquefaction conditions, however there is e moderate potential for seismic induced landslides in the hilly terrain, and of flooding in the industrial.park should the proposed effluent storage basins fail du~ing en earthquake. In r~j~rds to faulting, Nedall's report does not alter any of the recommndattons made in Pioneer's report. However, Hedall.'l report has determtn~ that the potential hazard of liquefaction is venylow and does not require any mitigation. This conclusion differs fr~ioneer's who recomended that in order to mitigate the small probability of liquefactions that the building footings should be kept at least ten (10 feet above ~e groundwater table or no lower thin elevation 1008. This type of mitigation is no longer considerWd to be effective and, therefore, Z recomend that it be superseded byge(all's telmrS which plans no rearfictions or mitigations on the develol=e t due to liquefacti~, ASS/rk cc: Bldg. I Safe~ Attn: BIll Harvey Kacor Oev. CO. Attn: Chrts D, Hopper Nedall, Are on, Worsw(c Assoc. ,at.: ..i, .rn.ndo Pioneer Consultante. Attn: David Turner : l'lo~ea~ C~suits~..ta : ,. ~hou|d bu kopg nt 1cast 10 Zoat ibovo the 2roundracer ca~lo vt~|s . foocl~ vidCh of S ~cet. This vould ~o~ puttee2 the beta of ~e no lows: shoe elevation 1008, e (2) Structures should be desi;~ud to v~ch~tcnd tt)o eftecru of a magnitude Structures l~o~ld be deliine~ ~ot to Collapse duress s ~c;~ltuda 7.5 quGkao occurring nee:by. (3) The exploT~tory trowel%el vote bagkfllled~rLtho~T.' cnpstc~o~ co~tTo~. ural tooting which are to be placed In ~e backZ~llod areas should be ye~n- satisfies the additional ~n~o~aclon rtqut~td ~ndec the CaI~?o~6 Quality Act :av~ev, * It ~s our ~eco~endagton chic t~e ~011~2 noes be placed on the fin~3. ~p pr~or co ~c~ Yeco~dac~on stat~uit "County GeeInSet Xe~ort No. 202 yes Co: ch~s properc~ on Janua~ 19, 1979, by ?~onear Consultants, ~d ~s on ~la ~t the tronchback~lll.e It should be perticularly muphasized t~t uncompacted tronchbatk~l~ ,.xisc ~s ~sovn on the m~p in ~he ~ocket of the rs~o~t, Sortiemane Iant~tlvo struttorch ~nd utility lines should not be placed over the trenchDe withnext adequately tomp~ccin5 the backSill oz provSd~n2 ~ttiat~n2 design end construction. VaW truly youxs, no; ~sncho Zerl W. ~nrg, St, Geolo21st, Bill Xarvay RM ILMI .KA"T'ZENITEIN,Owee~.RoMdo~ RONALD W. IUI.I. IVAN, Neeeel RUSSELL I. CAMPBEtJ.. litroe JEtS L LILLIIRIDGE, ce.e~o MARION V. ASHLEY, hme KAY H. OI..ESEN, tow, I~m, ., ' ' ~ionear Consultants 25l Tennessee Street gadlauds, Ca 91373 Ja"Ai: David V. tuner PATR IClA NI:ML"Tlq · AJ.C.P. ·Im, AN NING DIRECTOR dOIOLIMONITREET. I?PIIq.OOR. RIVKleIIOtCt. LIPI~NIAOII~I IUJJECrt County Gaolslit Report ~o. 202 J.H. 1208 - 1A2 J.X. 1208 - 095 J'arcal J',dp ~o. 2.6933 gauche ~ Cell o~nia Ve have rayLaved the s.ubJect report prepared by yourself and Jo~n Stickel. The report determined theft evidence of resent faultinS yes found on the property, T~trsfcrl fault rupture ~s not expected v~thin the buildinS ares, (2) Severe seismic s~akiul ac the site should be aacicipattd. vithin the next years and Structural should be dellpad accordSally, Differential settleeat over thl lice may occur due to local faulting and poet- consolidation of the near surface deposits, Heyever, fou~detio~ deslie can be established such that any damage viII be minimized. There is a passtheiSt7 of liquefaction occurln2 duties the desaSh earthquake, .hovevet, it is a small probability, The adverse affects of liquefaction can be mittSated by keeptel the bulldial foundation at least l0 feat above the water table. tandslidin2 and ssrthquake- induced floodins are not considered haserda. HovevOte the southeast,portion of the lice lles vathie a 100 year flood It is probable Chit local earthquakes of gichter Halallude 6.0uy affect the project more than once duties the lifetime of the proposed structures. Earth- quakes of this mat, naiads could be expected to lenarate bedrock accelerations at the site in excess of 0.572 and a duration of sireel Iround shckfn2 of 22 seconds. It is possible that a local earthquake of RichCerHslnitude 7,5 affect the project at least once durin2 the lifetime o£ the proposed structures. /m earthquake of this maSnitgde could be expected to 26neraee bedtack steele- scions at the site in excess of 0,712 and dutacio~ of str~2 2:o~d shmkin~ of 37 seconds. ~t able accelerations ate peak acceler8tions and ate uoi considered repressrelive for desi~ parsneers, ~e bpeatable HaSh Cto~d VlClAIITY I~IAP I i 1-- .41t CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST CASE NO.: PP 10675 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 City Condition No. 3 N/A City Condition No. 2 City Condition No. 1 N/A County Condition No. 9 County Condition No. 8 STAFFRPT\pp10675 2 ITEM #7 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Planning Commission r~ Oliver Mujica, Senior Planne January 28, 1991 Case No.: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 21821, Revision No. 1 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 21821, Revision No. 1, was scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting of January 28, 1991; and the Public Hearing Notices were sent to the surrounding property owners. On January 23, 1991, the applicant submitted a letter to the Planning Department requesting a continuance "Off-Calendar" in order to address development concerns. It should be noted that Public Hearing Notices will be sent to the surrounding .property owners advising them of the rescheduled meeting. R ECOMMEN DAT I ON: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission CONTINUE Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 21821, Revision No. 1, "Off-Calendar". OM:ks STA FFR PT\VTM21821 ITEM 18 Case No.: R ecommendatlon: 1. STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION January 28, 1991 Change of Zone No. 5631 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 Prepared By: Oliver Mujica ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending adoption of the Negative Declaration for Change of Zone No. 5631 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320; ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending approval of Change of Zone No. 5631; and ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SWAP DESIGNATION: Bedford Properties Robert Bein, William Frost S Associates Change the zoning designation of the subject property from R-R ( Rural Residential ) to R-1 ( One- Family Dwelling); and subdivide approximately 56.6 acres into 102 single family residential lots and 4 open space lots. North side of Pauba Road, between Ynez Road and Margarita Road. R-R { Rural Residential ) 2-5 DU/AC STAFFRPT\VTM25320 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: as suggesting possible modifications. The comments by the Pre-DRC included the following: 1. Park Site Considerations 2. Maintenance of Slope Areas 3. Grading 0,. Drainage 5. Slope Stability 6. Design Manual 7. Traffic 8. Density 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 January 3, 1991, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 was reviewed by the Formal Development Review Committee; and, it was determined that the project, as designed, can be adequately conditioned to mitigate the DRC's concerns. The DRC has forwarded a recommendation of approval subject to conditions. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 proposes to subdivide the subject 56.6 acre parcel into 102 single family residential lots, as follows: Minimum Lot Size: Average Lot Size: Minimum Pad Size: Average Pad Size: 7,200 sq.ft. 13,233 sq.ft. 6,000 sq.ft. 7,822 sq.ft. in addition, the following open space lots are provided: Lot 103: Lot 10o,: Lot 105 {Slope) Lot 106 { Accessway ) 0.6 acres 0.4 acres 12.6 acres 0.3 acres The proposed subdivision has been designed in accordance with the standards of the proposed R-1 ~One-Family Dwelling) zone, as well as Ordinance Nos. 30,8 and q60. STAFFRPT\VTM25320 3 SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: BACKGROUND: North: R-R (Rural Residential) South: R-1 lOne-Family Dwelling) and R-R IRural Residential) East: R-R (Rural Residential) West: R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) R-1 (One-Family Dwellings) Vacant North: South: East: West: Sports Park Single Family Residential Sports Park Single Family Residential Total Land Area: No. of Proposed Lots: Min. Residential Lot Size: Proposed Density: SWAP Designation: 56.6 acres 102 residential ~ open space 7,200 sq.ft. 1.8 DU/AC 2-5 DU/AC On Novamber llL 1989. the applicant filed Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 to the Riverside County Planning Department, which proposed to subdivide the subject 56.6 acre site into 103 residential lots and ~ open space lots; and Change of Zone No. 5631. The project was reviewed by the Riverside County Land Division Committee (LDC) on December 1~. 1989; February 1, 1990; and March 29, 1990. During these meetings the LDC requested and reviewed the following items: 3. 5. 6. 7. Paleontological Survey Biological Survey Slope Stability Report Traffic Study Design Manual Archaeological Survey Slope Analysis Subsequently, this project was transferred to the City of Temecula on April 2~, 1990. On September 13, 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 STAFFRPT\VTM25320 2 Access from Pauba Road will be provided by Streets "A" and "B" ( Lots 1-65); Street "E" ( Lots 66-80,); and Street "F" (Lots 85-102). )nternal circulation will be provided by Street "A" (Lots 10,-57 ): Street "B" (Lots 1-13); Street '~C" {Lots 58-65); Street "D" ( Lots 66-80, ); and Street "G" ( Lots 85-102 ). Gradinq and Landform Alteration The project site is located within a fairly prominent natural ridgeline and hillside of Temecula. However, the mass grading effort was designed to adhere to the gross natural topography of the site in its original condition. While substantial grading and recontourin9 of this site, which includes 50,0,000 c.y. of excavation and 540,000 c.y. of fill will occur in the immediate area, the overall plan is intended to promote preservation of site topography. The terraced landform creates view lots for a majority of the lots within the proposed subdivision, in which the slopes range from 25 to 85 feet in height. It should be noted that a recommended Condition of Approval has been included to require that all slopes over five ( 5' ) feet in height shall be landscaped immediately upon the completion of grading and shall be maintained by the homeowner's association. Slopes Planting shall commence as soon as slopes are completed on any portion of the site and shall provide for rapid short term coverage of the slope as well as long-term establishment cover per City of Temecula standards. Cut slopes equal to or greater than five |5') feet in vertical height and fill slopes equal to or greater than three (3') feet in vertical height will be planted with a ground cover to provide stability and protect the slope from erosion. Slopes exceeding fifteen ~15~) feet in vertical height will be planted with shrubs, spaced not more than ten {10') feet on center or trees spaced not to exceed twenty 120~ ) feet on center or a combination of shrubs and trees at equivalent spacings, in addition to the ground cover. Special consideration will be given to the slopes along the northern side of the tract where a variety of plant types and sizes will be provided for visual and aesthetic purposes. STAFFRPT\VTM25320 5 GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: The plants selected and planting methods shall be suitable for the soll and climatic conditions. All areas required to be landscaped shall be planted with turf, ground cover, shrub or tree materials selected from the plant palette contained in the guidelines. Draina~.e The existing surface run-off currently flows towards the west, along Pauba Road, and drains into the lake of the Lake Village Community; and towards the north onto the sports park and into the existing desalination basin to the northwest of the subject property. The proposed drainage plan has been designed to maintain the existing flows through the use of terrace drains that will drain onto the sports park; and a storm drain structure will be constructed from Pauba Road along the westerly property line and into the desalination basin, which in turn will flow into the Lake Village Lake. The Planning Department Staff has been contacted by the Lake Village Community Association (letter dated January 16, 1991 ) regarding their concerns with potential affects of drainage and run-off from the proposed project; and the potential impact on the wildlife and migratory bird population residents in Lake Village. In response to these concerns, Staff has contacted the US Department of Fish and Wildlife and has learned that the Lake Village Lake is within their jurisdiction and all developments that may impact this lake must be reviewed and approved by their agency. Therefor, Staff has included a Condition of Approval that requires the clearance from the US Department of Fish and Wildlife, prior to the recordation of the final map. The proposed project is consistent with the SWAP Land Use Designation of 2-5 DUIAC. In addition, Staff finds it probable that this project will be consistent with the new General Plan when it is adopted. STAFFRPT\VTM25320 6 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: 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 I 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." In addition, pursuant to the requirements of Assembly Bill 3158 {Chapter 1706) which authorizes the charging of certain fees for the filing of Negative Declarations which provide funding for the Department of Fish and Game, the Planning Department Staff has included the following Condition {See Condition No. 28) within the recommended Conditions of Approval: "Within 'forty-eight ~ ~,8 ) hours of the approval of the project, the applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand, Two Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars J$1,275.00), which includes the One Thousand, Two Hundred, Fifty Dollars ~$1,250.00) fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.~,{d)~2) plus the Twenty- STAFFRPT\VTM25320 7 FINDINGS: Five Dollar ($25.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight (u,8) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711 .u, lc)." Chanqe of Zone No. 5631 There is a reasonable probability that Change of Zone No. 5631 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 subject request is consistent with the SWAP designation of 2-5 DU/AC. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan, if Change of Zone No. 5631 is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that an approval of such a change from Rural Residential to One- Family Dwellings may be consistent with the goals and/or policies of the City's future General Plan. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony creates a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties, due to the fact that the adjoining developments are also single family in nature and the proposed project is consistent with the zoning ordinance. 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 density is consistent with the zoning ordinance. STAFFRPT\VTM25320 8 Vestinq Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 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, due to the fact that the project is consistent with the surrounding current residential develop- ment. 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, due to the fact that the project is consistent with surrounding development. The proposed use complies with State planning and zoning law, due to the fact that the project conforms to the current zoning for the site and to Ordinance No. 460, Schedule A. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configurations, access, and density, due to the fact that the project has access to public roads and a design manual will be implemented with this project. 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 due to the fact that the lots are large enough to provide sufficient southern exposure. STAFFRPT\VTM25320 9 10. 11. All lots have acceptable access to existing and proposed dedicated rights-d-way which are open to, and are useable by, vehicular traffic, access is provided from Pauba Road. 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. The lawful conditions stated in the project's Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending adoption of the Negative Declaration for Change of Zone No. 5631 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320; ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending approval of Change of Zone No. 5631; and ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320. OM:ks Attachments: Resolution (Change of Zone No. 5631 ) Resolution ~ Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 ) Conditions of Approval (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320) Environmental Assessment Lake Village Community Association Letter Exhibits: A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map STA FFR PT~VTM25320 10 D. E. F. G. H. SWAP Map Tract Map Building Envelope Plan CFoss Sections Base Map Cross Sections Design Manual Large Scale Plans STAFFRPT\VTM25320 11 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5631 TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM R-R { RURAL RESIDENTIAL) TO R-1 (ONE-FAMILY DWELLING) FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED ON PAUBA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 9~5-050-00~. WHEREAS, Bedford Properties filed Change of Zone No. 5631 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Change of Zone application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Change of Zone on January 28, 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 recommended approval of said Change of Zone; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: 11 ) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. (2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: a) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. STA FFR PT\VTM25320 12 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 Planning Commission in recommending approval of the proposed Change of Zone, makes the following findings, to wit: a) There is a reasonable probability that Change of Zone No. 5631 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 subject request is consistent with The SWAP designation of 2-5 DU/AC. b) There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan, if Change of Zone No. 5631 is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that an approval of such a change from Rural Residential to One- Family Dwellings may be consistent with the goals and/or policies of the City~s future General Plan. c) The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony creates a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties, due to the fact that the adjoining developments are also single family in nature and the proposed project is consistent with the zoning ordinance. STAFFRPT\VTM25320 13 d) 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 density is consistent with the zoning ordinance. D. The Change of Zone is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant affect 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 That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Change of Zone No. 5631 to change the zoning designation from R-R {Rural Residential) to R-1 lOne-Family Dwelling) for the subject property located on Pauba Road and known as Assessor~s Parcel No. 9u,5-050-001). PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th 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 28th day of January, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS STAFFRPT\VTM25320 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 25320 TO SUBDIVIDE A 56,6 ACRE PARCEL INTO 102 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 4 OPEN SPACE LOTS LOCATED ON PAUBA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 945-050-004. WHEREAS, Bedford Properties filed Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Tentative Tract Map on January 28, 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 recommended approval of said Tentative Tract Map; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECT ION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. ~ 2 ) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: (a) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. STAFFRPT\VTM25320 15 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 Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. (2) The Planning Commission finds, in 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 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is. ultimately inconsistent with the plan. ~c) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. D. (1) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. u,60, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are made: STA FFR PT\VTM25320 16 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 Cemmission 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\VTM25320 17 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, due to the fact that the project is consistent with the surrounding current residential develop- ment. 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, due to the fact that the project is consistent with surrounding development. The proposed use complies with State planning and zoning law, due to the fact that the project conforms to the current zoning for the site and to Ordinance No. 0,60, Schedule A. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configurations, access, and density, due to the fact that the project has access to public roads and a design manual will be implemented with this project. 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 due to the fact that the lots are large enough to provide sufficient southern exposure. All lots have acceptable access to existing and proposed dedicated rights-d-way which are open to, and are useable by, vehicular traffic, access is provided from Pauba Road. 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 ST A FF R PT\VTM25320 18 conditioned. The project will not interfere 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 Tentative Tract Map is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that 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 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 for the subdivision of a 56.6 acre parcel into 102 single family residential lots and u, open space lots located on Pauba Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 9u,5-050-0011 subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. SECTION q..~., PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of January, 1991. DENNIS CHINIAEFF CHAIRMAN STA FFR PT\VTM25320 19 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 28th day of January, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS STAFFRPT\VTM25320 20 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Tentative Tract Map No: 25320 Project Description: Subdivide 56.6 Acres into 102 Residential Lots and 4 Open Space Lots Assessor's Parcel No.: 945-050-001~ Planninq Department The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule A, unless modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days pPior 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 January 28, 1993. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance 460. The subdivider shall submit one copy of a soils report to the City Engineer and two copies to the Department of Building and Safety. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. Legal access as required by Ordinance L~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. STAFFRPT\VTM25320 21 10. 11. 12. 13. Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area improvement phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access to all lots in each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval. A Homeowners Association shall be established for maintenance of Lots 103 through106. OpenSpaceJCommonAreaandthedeveloper/applicantshallpay for all costs relating to establishment of the Homeowners Association. A copy of the final grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. All on-site cut and fill slopes shall: Be limited to a maximum slope ratio of 2 to 1. Setbacks from top and bottom of slopes shall be a minimum of one-half the slope height. b. Be contour-graded to blend with existing natural contours. c. Be a part of the downhill lot when within or between individual lots. All slopes over three ~3) feet in height shall be landscaped and irrigated according to the City Development Code. A detailed landscaping and irrigation plan, prepared by a qualified professional, shall be submitted to the City Planning Department for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits. The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations outlined in the County Health Department's transmittal dated December 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. 15. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following: 16. Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development standards of the R-1 I One-Family Dwelling) 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. STAFFRPT\VTM25320 22 17. 18. 19. Prior to recordat(on 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 recommendations. Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: Prior to the issuance of grading permits detailed common open space area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval for the phase of development in process. The plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for the following: Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all landscaped areas requiring irrigation. Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity. All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle treatments, as approved by the Planning Director. Utilities shall be placed underground. Parkways shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscape elements shall include earth berming, ground cover, shrubs and specimen trees. Front yards shall be landscaped and street trees planted. Wall plans shall be submitted for the project perimeter and along Pauba Road. Wooden fencing shall not be allowed on the perimeter of the project. All lots with slopes leading down from the lot shall be provided with gates in the wall for maintenance access. Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent trees at key visual focal points within the project. STAFFRPT\VTM25320 23 Where street trees cannot be planted within right-d-way of interior streets and project parkways due to insufficient road right-d-way, they shall be planted outside of the road right-d- way. Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant plants where appropriate. All existing specimen trees and significant rock outcroppings on the subject property shall be shown on the project's grading plans and shall note those to be removed, relocated and/or retained. All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow growing trees shall be steel staked. If the project is to be phased, prior to the approval of grading permits, an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. The plan shall be used as a guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual phases of development and shall include the following: Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process. Approximate time frames for grading and identification of areas which may be graded during the higher probability rain months of January through March. 3. Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. u,. Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase. All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded natural terrain and exceeding ten {10) feet in vertical height shall be contour- graded incorporating the following grading techniques: The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the angle of the natural terrain. Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall reflect the natural rounded terrain. The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves with radii designed in proportion to the total height of the slopes where drainage and stability permit such rounding. Where cut or fill slopes exceed 300 feet in horizontal length, the horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved in a continuous, undulating fashion. STAFFRPT\VTM25320 2q 20. 21o Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall provide evidence to the Director of Building and Safety that all adjacent off-site manufactured slopes have recorded slope easements and that slope maintenance responsibilities have been assigned as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. Should the paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer's successor's- in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars {$100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library development. Prior to the submittal of building plans to the Department of Building and Safety an acoustical study shall be performed by an acoustical engineer to establish appropriate mitigation measures that shall be applied to individual dwelling units within the subdivision to reduce ambient interior noise levels to L~5 Ldn. 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. Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval. The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requiring landscaping and irrigation to be installed including, but not limited to, parkway planting, street trees, slope planting, and individual front yard landscaping. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Planning Department approval. Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall comply with the tractis approved Design Manual. STAFFRPT\VTM25320 25 All street side yard setbacks shall comply with the tract's approved design manual. All front yards shall be provided with landscapin9 and automatic irrigation. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a plot plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department pursuant to Section 18.30 of Ordinance No. 3u,8 accompanied by all applicable filing fees, as a plot plan that is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act and is not transmitted to any 9overnmental agency other than the Riverside County Planning Department. The plot plan shall ensure the conformance of the final site development with the tract's approved Design manual, and shall contain the following elements: A final site plan showing the lots, building footprints, all setback, and floor plan and elevation assignments to individual lots. One ( 1 ) color and materials sample board ( maximum size of 8 x 13 inches by 3/8 inch thick) containing precise color, texture and material swatches or photographs (which may be from suppliers" brochures). Indicate on the board the name, address and phone numbers of both the sample board preparer and the project applicant, tract number, and the manufacturer and product numbers where possible (trade names also acceptable). One ( 1 ) copy of the architectural elevations colored to represent the selected color combinations, with symbols keyed to the color and materials board. The written color and material descriptions shall be located on the elevation. Six {6) copies of each of glossy photographic color prints (size 8 x 10 inches) of both color and materials board and colored architectural elevations for permanent filing, hearing body review and agency distribution. All writing must be legible. Said plot plan shall require the approval of the Planning Director prior to the issuance of any building permits for lots included within the plot plan. The submittal of plot plan~ prior to the issuance of building permits may be phased provided: 1. A separate plot plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for each phase, which shall be accompanied by appropriate filing fees. Each individual plot plan shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of building permits for lots included within that plot plan. STAFFRPT\VTM25320 26 22. 23. 25. Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal conditions do not permit planting, interim landscaping and erosion control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning Director and the Director of Building and Safety. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans and shall be verified by City field inspection. Not withstanding the preceding conditions, wherever an acoustical study is required for noise attenuation purposes, the heights of all required walls shall be determined by the acoustical study where applicable. 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 Tract Map No. 25320, which action is brought within the time period provided for in California Government Code Section 66~,99.37. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests, and if he or she shoGId fail to do so, the developer shall at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Cede Section 66~62 at such time as the City acquires the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the developer, at the developer~s cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. STAFFRPT\VTM25320 27 26. 27. 28. 30. 31. 32. 33. 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 recordat/on 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. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCSR's) shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to final approval of the tract maps. The CCS RIs shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining the open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, and exterior of all buildings. No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owner's group, or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development, Such entity shall operate under recorded CCBR~s which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CCBR~s shall permit enforcement by the City of Provisions required by the City as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the City prior to making any such sale, This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes. Every owner'of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such dwelling unit or lot, either ( 1 ) an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or 12) as share in the corporation, or voting membership in an association, owning the common areas and facilities. Maintenance for all landscaped and open areas, including parkways, shall be provided for in the CCSR's. Within forty-eight ill8) hours of the approval of the project, the applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand, Two Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars {$1,275.00), which includes the One Thousand, Two Hundred, Fifty Dollars {$1,250.00) fee in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711 .Llld)(2) plus the Twenty- Five Dollar ($25.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the STAFFRPT\VTM25320 28 Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 1~, Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight {~8) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711 .u, lc). Riverside County Fire Department Schedule "A" fire protection approved standard fire hydrants, ( 6"xu?'x2 1/2" ) located one at each street intersection and spaced no more than 330 feet apart in any direction, with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for 2 hours duration at 20 PSI. 35. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, containing a Fire Department approval signature block, and shall conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow. Once plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Department for signature. 36. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. 37. All buildings shall be constructed with fire retardant roofing material as described in Section 3203 of the Uniform Building Code. Any wood shingles or shakes shall have a Class 'lB" rating and shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. 38. Prior to the recordat/on of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Fire Department, a cash sum of $q00.00 per lot/unit as mitigation for fire protection impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of *payment, he/she may enter into a written agreement with the County deferring said payment to the time of issuance of the first building permit. Riverside County Department of Public Health 39. A water system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as approved by the water company and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the water system shall be submitted in triplicate, with a minimum scale not less than one inch equals 200 feet, along with the original drawing to the County surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and joint specifications, and the size of the main at the junction of the new system to the existing system. The plans shall comply in all respects with Div. 5, Part 1, Chapter 7 of the California Health and Safety Code, California Administrative Code, Title 22, Chapter 16, and General Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities STAFFRPT' VTM25320 29 Commission of the State of California, when applicable. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and water company with the following certification: "1 certify that the design of the water system in Tract Map 25320 is in accordance with the water system expansion plans of the Rancho California Water District and that the water service, storage, and distribution system will be adequate to provide water service to such Tract Map." This certification does not constitute a guarantee that it will supply water to such tract map at any specific quantities, flows or pressures for fire protection or any other purpose". This certification shall be signed by a responsible official of the water company. The plans must be submittad to the County Surveyor~s Office to review at least two weeks prior to the request for the recordation of the final map. This subdivision has a statement from Rancho California Water District agreeing to serve domestic water to each and every lot in the subdivision on demand providing satisfactory financial arrangements are cempletad with the subdivider. )t will be necessary for financial arrangements to be made prior to the recordation of the final map. This subdivision is within the Eastern Municipal Water District and shall be connected to the sewers of the District. The sewer system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as approved by the District, the County Surveyor and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the sewer system shall be submittad in triplicate, along with the original drawing, to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe diemeter, location of manholes, complete profiles, pipe and joint specifications and the size of the sewers at the junction of the new system to the existing system. A single plat indicating location of sewer lines and water lines shall be a portion of the sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and the sewer district with the following certification: "1 certify that the design of the sewer system in Tract Map 25320 is in accordance with the sewer system expansion plans of the Eastern Municipal Water District and that the waste disposal system is adequate at this time to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed tract map." The plans must be submitted to the County Surveyor~s Office to review at least two weeks prior to the request for the recordation of the final map. Transportation Enqineerinq PRIOR TO RECORDATION: A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for Pauba Road along the project frontage including any transitions. Signing plans only shall be required for internal Streets A through G. These plans shall be included with the street improvement plans. STAFFRPT\VTM25320 30 ~,5. Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering for the design requirements. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS: A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the City Engineer. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS: All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and striping plan. 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. )t 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. 0,60. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: 50. 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; - CATV Franchise; - Parks and Recreation Department; and - US Department of Fish and Wildlife. 51. All road easements and/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrance as approved by the City Engineer. STAFFRPT\VTM25320 31 52. 53. 55. 56. 57. 58. Pauba Road shall be improved with 32 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. 102 ~6~'/88~). Street "A" from Pauba Road to Street "B", Streets "B", "E", and "F" shall be improved with qO 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. 10~, Section A (u,0"/60~). Street "A" east of Street "B", Streets "C", "D", and "G" shall be improved with 36 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. 105, Section A (36~/60~). Curb return radii of 35~ feet shall be installed at the intersection of Street "F" and Street "G". Vehicular access shall be restricted on Pauba Road and so noted on the final map with the exception of street intersections as approved by the City Engineer. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCBR~s) shall be prepared by the developer and submitted to the Director of Planning, City Engineer and City Attorney. The CCBR'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 CC8 R's shall be prepared at the developer's sole cost and expense. The CCF, R's shall be in the form and content approved by the Director of Planning, City Engineer and the City Attorney, and shall include such provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials deem necessary to protect the interest of the City and its residents. The CCF, R~s and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owner~s Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent with the final map. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City. The CCBR's shall provide for the effective establishment, operation, management, use, repair and maintenance of all slope areas within the subdivision. All slopes exceeding 5~ in height shall be maintained by the homeowners association. STAFFRPT\VTM25320 32 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. The CCF, R's shall provide that the property shall be developed, operated and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance. The CCF, R's shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the condition required by the CC~,R~s, then the City, after making due demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and perform, at the owner~s sole expense, any maintenance required thereon by the CCF, R~s or the City ordinances. The property shall be subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not promptly reimbursed. All parkways, open areas, and landscapin9 shall be permanently maintained by homeowner~s association or other means acceptable to the City. Such proof of this maintenance shall be submitted to the Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to issuance of building permits. A Notice of Intention to form and/or join the Landscape and Lighting District shall be filed with the City Council. The engineering costs involved in District information shall be borne by the developer. 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, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, and other traffic control devices as appropriate. b. Storm drain facilities. c. Landscaping [street and parks). d. Sewer and domestic water systems. Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. ~61 and as approved by the City Engineer. Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum 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. The minimum centerline radii shall be 300 feet or as approved by the City Engineer. STAFFRPT\VTM25320 33 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. .70. 71. 72. 73. 75. All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the City Engineer. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent. All driveways shall be located a minimum of two 12) feet from the property line. The subdivlder shall submit four prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2u," x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. 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 study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. On-site drainage facilities, located outside of road right-d-way, shall be contained within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating "Drainege easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions." If required after approval of the final drainage report, a drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners for the release or concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent property. If a drainage easement cannot be obtained from the property owners adjacent to Lot 20, then the storm drain system shall be designed to outlet north of Lot 30 into the existing drainage basin. All lots containing storm drains for public use shall contain a dedicated easement for storm drain purposes and provide for an access road to the storm drain outlet. The subdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement. Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City~s CATV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time of street improvements. STAFFRPT\VTM25320 3q. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS: 76. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer"s Office. 77° A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-d- way. 78. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT: 79. 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. 80. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY: 81. Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior public streets. 82. Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal ) shall be applied not less than lu, days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39, and 9u, of the State Standard Specifications. 83. 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 E)R/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 benofit to the project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such increase. STAFFRPT\VTM25320 35 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY II I Backqround 1. Name of Proponent: Bedford Properties Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 28765 Single Oak Drive Temecula, CA 92390 (71~) 676-56~1 Date of Environmental Assessment: January 7, 1991 Agency Requiring Assessment: CITY OF TEMECULA Name of Proposal, if applicable: Vestinq TentativeTractMal~ No. 25320 6. Location of Proposal: North Side of Pauba Road, between Ynez and Marqarita Roads Environmental Impacts ( Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets. ) Yes Maybe No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in.: Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X Disruptions, displacements, compac- tion or overcovering of the soil? X X X Substantial change in topography or ground surface relief features? The destruction, covering or modi- fication of any unique 9eologic or physical features? Any substantial increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off site? X STAFFRPT\VTM25320 36 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\V TM25320 37 Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct addi- tions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flood- ing or tidal waves? Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native species of plants { including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants? Introduction of new species of plants into an area of native vegetation, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? Substantial reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals {birds, land animals including rep- tiles, fish and shellfish, benthlc organisms or insects)? Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? Yes Maybe No X X X X X X X X X STAFFRPT~VTM25320 38 10. 11. 12. 13. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce substantial new light or glare? Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: Substantial increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? Substantial depletion of any non- renewable natural resource? Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? Possible interference with an emerg- ency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? Yes Maybe No X X X X X X X X X X STAFFRPT\VTM25320 39 15. 16. Yes Maybe No b. Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking? __ __ X c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? __ __ X d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? __ __ X e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? __ X Public Services. Will the proposal have substantial effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? X __ b. Police protection? X __ c. Schools? X d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X __ f. Other governmental services: __ X Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? __ __ X b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? __ __ X Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? __ __ X STAFFRPT\VTM25320 17. 18. 19. b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? Human Health. Will the proposal result in: Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard l excluding mental health)? · Exposure of people to potential health hazards? Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? Yes Maybe No X X X X X X X X X X X X X STAFFRPT\VTM25320 41 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environ- mental goals? {A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future. ) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumu- latively considerable? I A project~s impact on two or more separate resources may be relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant. ) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substan- tial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? __ Yes Maybe No X X X X STA F F R PT\ VTM25320 42 Ill Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation Earth 1.a. 1.b. 1 .c-d. 1,e, 1.f. No. The project site will be graded as part of a mass grading effort. There will be substantial grading for this project, which includes 5~,0,000 cubic yards of excavation and 5qO,000 cubic yards of fill. However, a conceptual mass grading plan for the project was reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and designed in accordance with Temecula~s 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. The proposed development disrupts the soil profile and results in soil displacement, compaction, and overcovering. However, a slope stability report was prepared for this project, in which specific recommendation were made in order to develop the project. Therefore, this impact is not considered significant, due to the fact that the Conditions of Approval include mitigation measures in regards to all grading. Yes. The project site is located within a fairly prominent natural ridgeline and hillside of Temecula. However, the mass grading effort was designed to adhere to the gross natural topography of the site in its original condition. While substantial grading and recontouring of this site, which includes 5kt0,000 c.y. of excavation and 5~,0,000 c.y. of fill, will occur in the immediate area, the overall plan is intended to promote preservation of site topography. Therefore, this impact is not considered significant. Maybe. Wind and water erosion potentials will increase during the construction phase and remain high until disturbed areas are replanted and the proposed drainage facilitles are constructed. The wlnd 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 TemeculaJs 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. Yes. Although the project site is not adjacent to any creek or stream bed, the lake for Lake Village is located to the west of the project which may be impacted by the development of this project. However, in order to mitigate the downstream impacts brought about by runoff and the proposed drainage facilities, the Riverside County Flood Control and STAFF R PT\ V TM25320 ~3 1.g. Air 2.a. Water 3,a,d. 3.b. Water Conservation District has indicated that Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 will be required to pay a flood mitigation charge, which has been included as a Condition of Approval. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant. Maybe. The subject site is not located within a subsidence or liquefaction zone and is not subject to liquefaction and subsidence by the Riverside County General Plan. However, to mitigate any potential hazards, a geological report will be prepared prior to any construction of the property. The report will include mitigation measures. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant. Maybe. The proposed project consisting of 102 residential units 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. Yes. The proposed project will increase the amount of impermeable surfaces on the site and the existing drainage pattern will be altered, especially along the northern property line. 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. Yes. Flood waters will continue to be directed to the streets and flood channels. The lake within the Lake Village Community may be impacted by the development of this project. However, in order to mitigate the downstream impacts brought about by runoff and the proposed drainage facilities, the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (the District) has indicated that the project will be required to pay a flood mitigation charge (Area Drainage Plan fee), which has been included as a Condition of Approval. In addition, the Department of Fish and Game has indicated that the project must be reviewed by their STAFFRPT\VTM25320 ~u~ 3.8, 3.f. 3.9. Staff. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant since appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented with the project. Drainage plans for the site will have to meet the requirements of the City~s Engineer. 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. 3.h. 3.i. No. The proposed project will not significantly affect the public water supply. Maybe. Conditions of Approval are included for this project which require proper design and installation of drainage conveyance devices. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant since appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented with the project. Veqetation u,.a,c. ~.b. q..d. Yes. The proposed project involves a mass grading of the subject site which will eliminate all of the existing native plants; and the proposal includes landscaping and erosion control 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 sensitive vagetational associations or species were identified on-site. No. No agricultural production occurred on-site. STAFFRPT\VTM25320 ~5 Wildlife 5.a,c, 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 the tract map. Implementation of the tract 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. Noise 6.a-b. No. A noise assessment was prepared for this project. Analysis indicates that the project site is exposed to significant levels of noise as a result of traffic on Rancho California Road. However, it is concluded that the project design, as recommended herein, will comply with the interior noise exposure standard placed on residential construction by the County of Riverside and the State~s noise insulation standards. it is further recommended that the final engineering design of the project be reviewed by a recognized acoustical engineer to ensure compliance with the Countyis noise standards. 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. STAFFRPT\VTM25320 Natural Resources 9.a-b. No. This project itself will not significantly increase the rate of use of natural resources. Construction materials and petroleum products will be used extensively to support the specific plan project overall. Risk of Upset 10.a-b. No. The proposed project will not promote a risk of explosion or release hazardous substances nor will it interfere with emergency response plan or an emergency evaluation plan. Population 11. Yes. Although the project proposes to increase the density to 102 lots, the proposed project is consistent with the City Land Use Designation which allows a maximum of 283 lots {according to SWAP). Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant. Housinq 12. No. Since the proposed project creates housing, the proposed land use will not create a demand for additional housing. Transportation/Circulation 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 significant. In addition, appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented through the Conditions of Approval. Public Services lo,.a-e. Yes. lu,.f. No. The proposed project will have significant adverse effect 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. STAFFRPT\VTM25320 I.I.7 Utilities 16.a-f. No. The proposed project might require the use of utilities but will not require substantial alteration to the existing system. Human Health 17.a-b. No. The proposed project will not have significant adverse effect on human health. Aesthetics 18. No. Because the proposed project has been designed to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, there will be no significant impact on aesthetics. Recreation 19. Yes. The proposed project will result in an impact upon existing recreational opportunities. However, the proposed project provides adequate recreational facilities for the subject residents and appropriate Quimby fees will be paid. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant since appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented with the project. Cultural Resources 20.a-d. No impact. 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, tothe disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals. However, no significant impacts will occur if the mitigation measures are followed. 21 .c. 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. 21 .d. No. The proposed project will not have impacts which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. STAFFRPT\VTM25320 48 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NECATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 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 January 7, 1991 Date For CITY OF TEMECULA STAFFRPT\VTM25320 LAKE VILLAGE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P.O, Box 907 / Temecula, California 92390 January 16, 1991 Planning Commission City of Temecula P.O. Box 3000 Temecula, CA 92390 Attention: Oliver Mujica Dear Sirs, Please be advised that myself and other homeowners wish to address the Commission regarding the Tentative Tract Map No. 25320. Our concerns are: Affects of drainage and runoff from this development into the Lake Village lakes. The environmental impact on the wildlife and migratory bird population resident in Lake Village. Our increasing liability due to unauthorized entrance to Association property by surrounding neighbors. Recommendation: Deny request to change zone from R-R to R-1. Strongly recommend to the City to purchase this land for additional park facilities to allow additional activity for families along with the sports program. I would like to request an opportunity to speak to the Planning Commission on January 28, 1991 at their meeting to be held at 6:00 PM. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. On behalf of the Marcia Slaven Secretary/Treasurer CITY OF TEMECULA ~ Project Site HI~H~'AY r CASE No. TH25~f~ VICINITY MAP ) P.C. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA ) RD CZ 911 I DO0 -2 I/2 2200 ZONE MAP ) RmR II '(I I I ~l r CASE P.C. DATE I' CITY OF TEMECULA ~ IARGARITA VlLLAGI SP 19~· SWAP MAP r ~ CASE NO."/'/'~f~2,~ P.C. DATE 01111 rrZ W ~.0 U:Orr I-frO