HomeMy WebLinkAbout050691 PC Agenda AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
May 06, 1991 6:00 PM
VAIL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
29915 Mira Loma Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
Chairman Chiniaeff
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Chinlaeff
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
Plannin9 Secretary before Commission gets to that item. There is a three ~3)
minute time limit for individual speakers.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Minutes
2.1 Approval of minutes of April 15, 1991 Planning Commission Meeting.
NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Administrative Plot Plan No. 125
Tomand Properties
Terminus of Bedford Court
Construct 35 foot high Freeway Oriented Sign
Direct Staff to Approve
Steve Jiannino
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
.~,. :":.'?'~.~?'~?~i~=:,i?':~:.,,:~.:,~'~,'~: :~;:~.,,i~:ii, .~., :'.~iI ;~ :.' ":.j'::;.:;. ~-, .~ !.'.~:¥:..:.:~.~..~..~:.....,..: ...~..,..~ .. ¥.... .
Location: Northwesterly sic e o ~)~z ~do'~. approxlma e y l~O. feet
Southwest of Diaz Road.
~: ~::~,?~p~:'~: ::':::~:~:.:;~:.:::~,:::~:::::~b~:,~:'S~C~;a:~9~2q;6::~uare:Foot Automotive Service
Rec~'meHd~ti0n: :ApprOVal ' .~
Case Planner: Scott Wright
5, Case· No: Vesting Tentative Tract No, 231~2, First Extension of
· Time ,: , , ,: ~,-*
App. lica.t: . Cost" .a.r,..o.~,' ', ," ,,
" :"" ""'."'::,:~.'.'P~bpo~al~. .' ..... F:i~t '.'E.~teh~on'~'~f Time for a 20 Ijt single family
SubdiVlsion.
Recommendation: Approval
Case Planner: Scott Wright
Location: North of Rancho California Rd., East of Margarita Rd.
Proposal: Request for Substantial Conformance and Change of Zone
to allow Duplex and Fourplex Units in Planning Area 37 of
Specific Plan 199.
Recommendation: Recommend Approval
~ Case Planner: Mark ~Rh~ade~
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Tentative Tract No, 25603: Amd, #3and PlOt Plan No. 227
Tierra Investment, Walter::B:. DixOn. :,
South of Marga~ita Road., 'apprOximately 11300 feet east ef
Mora9a _Road: ' '
Multi:famil.y :subdiviSiOn of:~O~8:a~c~es;intO 51~ residential
lots and two open space lots and to construct 5q four
plexs, one per lot,
Recommend Approval
Steve Jiannino
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
ReCOmmendation:
Case ,Planner:
Conditional .USe Permit No, 2901 (Revised)
Rancho Car Wash
N/E Corner of Jefferson Ave., and Winchester Road
Application {Post Facto} to Permit Gasoline Sales and to
add four (~) Additional Pumps.
ApproVal
Mark Rhoades
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Tentative Tract Map 25338
Leigh Waxman
S/E Corner of Solana Way and Ryecrest Drive
Construct 32 Condominium Units on 2.56 Acre
Approval
Mark Rhoades
10.
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Parcel Map No. 26625
Hawthorne Development
Northeasterly Corner of Business Park Drive and Ranch
Way.
To create 13 parcels representing buildings under
construction and one 5.6 acre parcel of common parking
landscaped areas.
Approval
Scott Wright
Planning Director Report
Planninq Commission Discussion
Other Business
ADJOURNMENT
Next meeting: May 20, 1991, 6:00 p.m., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma
Drive, Temecula, California
SJ/Ib
pc/agnS/06
ITEM #2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 15, 1991
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was
called to order Monday, April 15, 1991, 6:00 P.M. at Vail
Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Dennis Chiniaeff.
PRESENT: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Chiniaeff
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland
Also present were Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh, Acting
Planning Director Gary Thornhill, Deputy City Engineer Doug
Stewart, and Minute Clerk Gail Zigler.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Approval of Agenda
GARY THORNHILL advised the Commission that Item 14 was
continued to May 20, 1991 and Item 15 was continued off
calendar.
COMMISSIONER FAREY moved to approve the agenda of April 15,
1991, as amended, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD.
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland
2. MINUTES
2.1 Approve the minutes of April 1, 1991.
COMMISSIONER FORD amended page 4, paragraph 6, as
follows: wording for Item No. 2, "prior to the
occupancy of the 240th unit, the plans for the Pala
Road Bridge will be updated, checked and in place,
ready for construction."; page 5, first paragraph,
PCMIN4/15/91 -1- APRIL 18, 1991
amended as follows: sixth sentence to read "Temecula
and other appropriate agencies, ready for construction
prior to the 240th unit."
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF amended the page 5, second paragraph
as follows: "regional park "A" (Temecula Creek) be."
Assistant City Attorney JOHN CAVANAUGH amended page 1,
paragraph 6, as follows: John Cavanaugh advised Chairman
Chiniaeff and the Commissioners that no more than two (2)
of them could attend without a notices hearing.
COMMISSIONER FORD moved to approve the minutes of April
15, 1991, as amended, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY.
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
3. FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PUBLIC USE PERMIT 660
Proposal for extension of time for approved day care
center. Located on the East side of Lyndie Lane
North of Rancho California Road.
OLIVER MUJICA provided the staff report.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 6:15 P.M.
JAMES KENT, 23832 Rockview Boulevard, E1 Toro,
construction manager for Kinder-Care Learning Centers,
answered questions by the Commission regarding roof
materials and fencing, as well as traffic and parking
concerns.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF suggested that conditions be added
requiring a minimum six foot high exterior fence and
that the roof materials used be either clay or concrete
tile.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR asked staff to comment on the parking
spaces and off-site parking.
GARY THORNHILL stated that during the initial analysis
of this project the parking was staff's primary concern
and staff still feels it may be a little under; however,
PCMIN4/15/91 -2- APRIL 18, 1991
PLi~TNIN~ COI, fi(ISSION NINUTES ~PRIL 1S, 1991
it would be minimal.
COMMI88IONER FAHEY moved to close the public hearing at
6:35 P.M. and Adopt Resolution No. 91-(next] approving
an Extension of Time for Public Use Permit No. 660 subject
to the Conditions of Approval by the County and City, to
include a condition requiring the use of concrete or clay
roof materials and that the exterior fencing be a minimum
Of six feet high, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD.
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff
NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Blair
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland
4. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23142, FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME
Proposal for first extension of time for a 20 lot single
family subdivision. Located on Bonny Road, North of
Zinfandel Avenue.
STEVE JIANNINO provided the staff report. Mr. Jiannino
advised the Commission that staff would be adding a
condition stating "Lot 22 shall be combined into Lot 1
and Lot 21 shall be combined into Lot 20."
ROBERT RIGETTI, representative from the Engineering
Department, advised the Commission that staff had viewed
the site and damages and met with the developer and some
of the residents. He added that staff had acquired some
copies of the written agreements between the developer
and the residente. Mr. Rigetti added that as a result
the Engineering staff has incorporated some additional
conditions which will assist staff in getting the repairs
completed. Mr. Rigetti also stated that the developer
had provided some erosion control; however, staff felt
that there were still some problems that needed to be
cleared up and they would be monitoring this closely.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF expressed a concern that the required
improvements might not be completed and asked the City
Attorney if the Commission could impose a cash deposit
for the improvements.
JOHN CAVANAUGH advised Chairman Chiniaeff that there
is an existing bond that the City can attach; however,
the developer would have to concur with the requirement
for a cash deposit.
PCMIN4/15/91 -3- APRIL 18, 1991
COMMISSION MINUTES
APRIL 15, 1991
ROBERT RI~ETTI added that the bond that is currently in
place, in the amount of $30,000, expires in May, at which
time staff will require a new bond be placed with an
adjusted amount.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 6:50 P.M.
ROBERT RENDERSON, 1784 Costa Meadows Drive, San Marcos,
representing the Costa Group, indicated the applicant's
concurrence with the conditions of approval and indicated
that the corrective measures required could be completed
within 45 days. Mr. Henderson also stated that the Costa
Group would not be willing to put up a cash deposit and
not knowing the adjusted amount of the new bond, could
not support that increase.
RALPH BROWNELL, 41487 Zinfandel, Temecula, expressed his
opposition to the extension of time being granted to the
developer. Mr. Brownell stated that the homeowners would
prefer to settle their claims with the developer and have
the damages repaired. Mr. Brownell added that if the
Commission did grant the extension of time, that the
developer be closely monitored to see that the required
improvements are completed.
BARBARA BENTLEY, 41473 Zinfandel, Temecula, expressed her
difficulties in getting the Costa Group to repair the
damages to her property due to their lack of erosion
control.
JOHN CAVARAUGH advised the Commission of the following
options: 1) that the Commission could grant the Extension
of Time and the homeowners could pursue the developer for
corrective measures through litigation; 2) the City could
sue the developer for enforcement of the County imposed
conditions for erosion control; 3) in lieu of the bond,
the City could require a cash deposit according to the
subdivision map act. He added that in the interim the
City has the opportunity to initiate a nuisance abatement
action which would declare the property a public nuisance
and the developer would have a certain amount of time to
make the improvements. If the improvements are not
completed during this time period, the City would then
go in and complete the improvements and lien the property
owner.
Mr. Cavanaugh suggested that the Commission require the
cash deposit at expiration of the current bond before the
bond expires.
PCMIN4/15/91 -4- APRIL 18, 1991
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 15, 1991
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned if the Commission had to
grant a one year extension.
JOHN CAVANAUGH advised the Commission that they could
impose a 45 day Extension of Time with Planning Department
follow-up every fifteen days for completion of
improvements. He added that if the developer was not
following through on the conditions of the time extension,
it could be cancelled.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to leave the public hearing open
and continue First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative
Tract No. 23142 to May 6, 1991, to allow staff to address
all the issues presented by the Commission, seconded by
COMMISSIONER FORD.
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland
5. TENTATIVE PARCEL HAP NO. 26723 (TPM 26723)
Proposal for residential subdivision of approximately
10.7 gross acres into 4 parcels. Located on the south
side of Santiago Road, approximately 3/4 mile west of
Margarita Road.
STEVE JIANNINO provided the staff report.
CHAIRMAN CRINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 7:20 P.M.
RICHARD HEFFNER, 42780 Santa Susan, Temecula, representing
the applicant, answered questions by the Commission
regarding pad sizes.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to close the public hearing at
7:25 P.M. and Adopt the Negative Declaration for
Tentative Parcel Map No. 26723 and Adopt Resolution No.
91-(next) approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 26723 based
on the analysis and findings contained in the staff report
and subject to the Conditions of Approval, seconded by
COMMISSIONER FAHEY.
PCMIN4/15/91 -5- APRIL 18, 1991
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS:
APRIL 15,
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Chiniaeff
None
Hoagland
1991
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1090, REVISED NO. I
Proposal for addition of seven
an existing mobile home park.
Kearny east of La Serena Way.
(7) mobile home spaces to
Located south of General
STEVE JIANNINO provided the staff report.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 7:30 P.M.
BILL SCHWEINFURTH, 1521 W. Glenoaks Boulevard, Glendale,
representing Heritage Mobile Homes Estates, advised the
Commission that when the mobile home park was originally
approved, it was approved for 200 spaces and there are
currently 181 spaces and are proposing to add another
seven spaces. Mr. Schweinfurth answered questions about
the sewer system that had been raised by Commissioner
Ford.
Mr. Schweinfurth questioned the following Conditions of
Approval:
Condition No. 13 requiring payment of applicable Quimby
fees; Condition No. 20 requiring requiring a Geological
Report; Condition No. 28 requires public improvements;
however, the applicant understands they are only required
to build a cul-de-sac as stated in Condition 41; and
Condition No. 43 requiring the payment of capital
improvement fees.
DOUG STEWART advised that the applicant could provide the
Buie Corporation Geological Report for staff to review to
comply with Condition 20 and regarding Condition 28, the
applicant is only required to do those improvements listed
on the improvement plans.
MR. SCnwIINFURTH stated that he would like that reflected
in Condition 28.
GARY THORNHILL advised that it was his opinion, and the
opinion of the City Attorney, that the requirement for
Quimby Fees, Condition No. 13, be deleted.
PCMIN4/15/91 -6- APRIL 18, 1991
PLI~NIN~
COMMISSION MINUTES
APRIL 15, 1991
DOUR STEWART advised that Condition No. 28 and Condition
No. 41 were tied to the improvements that are part of the
Buie Corporation project. If the Buie Corporation draws
bonds for these improvements, the applicant does not have
to post the bonds; however, if the applicant wishes to
complete their improvements prior to Buie posting the
bonds, then the applicant will be required to post the
bonds.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF stated that he would like to see some
landscape buffering between the mobile home park and the
Buie project.
COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to close the public hearing at
7:55 P.M. and Adopt the Negative Declaration for Revised
Conditional Use Permit No. 1090 and Adopt Resolution No.
91-(next] approving Conditional Use Permit No. 1090 based
on the analysis contained in the staff report and subject
to the Conditions of approval, deleting Condition No. 13,
seconded by COMMISSIONER BLAIR.
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: i COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland
7. PLOT PLAN 155, AMENDMENT #1
el
Proposal for the construction of an 11,500 square foot
retail building and a 4,500 square foot freestanding
restaurant pad.
STEVE JIi~NNINO provided the staff report.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 8:00 P.M.
ANTHONY POLO, Markham and Associates, 41750 Winchester
Road, Temecula, representing the applicant, advised the
Commission that the Homeowners Association adjacent to
the project has given their approval on this development.
Mr. Polo questioned the requirements of Condition 29 and
stated that he had received literature recently which
indicates that the Fish and Game department has come up
with clarification of some of their requirements. Mr.
Polo requested the option that the applicant provide
proof prior to final improvement, that if Fish and Game
PCMIN4/15/91 -7- APRIL 18, 1991
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 15, 1991
waives their requirement, the fee does not have to be
paid.
GARY THORNHILL agreed to amend Condition 29 per the
applicant's request.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR questioned the sign allotment for
this project and the existing development.
STEVE JIANNINO stated that this project had it's own
sign allotment separate from the existing project.
JOHN CAVANAUGH advised the Commission that although this
was a different project and therefore entitled to it's
own sign requirements, the Commission could make
restrictions on the height and width of the sign.
GARY THORNHILL added that staff would be willing to work
with Cal Trans; however, he was not sure that staff could
direct them on how to set their height requirements.
COMMISSIONER FAREY moved to close the public hearing at
8:10 P.M. and Direct Staff to approve Administrative Plot
Plan No. 125 subject to the Conditions of Approval, and
Adopt the Negative Declaration for Plot Plan No. 155 and
Adopt Resolution No. 91-(next) approving Plot Plan No. 155
based on the analysis and findings contained in the staff
report and subject to the Conditions of Approval, amending
Condition No. 29 to include language that states if the
applicant is exempt from the fees they are not required to
pay them. COMMISSIONER FORD seconded the motion; however,
recommended that Administrative Plot Plan No. 125 be
continued to May 6, to allow staff to work with Cal Trans
and the applicant on the height of the sign. COMMISSIONER
FAREY amended her motion to withdraw the approval of
Administrative Plot Plan No. 125 and continue to the
meeting of May 6, 1991.
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: i COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF declared a recess at 8:15 P.M. The meeting
reconvened at 8:25 P.M.
PCMIN4/15/91 -8- APRIL 18, 1991
PLaNNINg9
8 · PLOT
COMMISSION MINUTES
APRIL 15, 1991
PLAN NO. 18, REVISION NO. I
Proposal to revise the building area of a previously
approved Plot Plan, on a 5.1 acre site, from 46,613
to 47,412 square feet.
OLIVER MUJICA provided the staff report.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 8:30 P.M.
MARK ASPENSON, Palmilla and Associates, 41530 Enterprise
Circle South, Suite 206, Temecula, representing the
applicant, gave a brief description of the project and
answered questions by the Commission.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to close the public hearing at
8:35 P.M. and Adopt Resolution No. 91-(Dext) approving
Plot Plan No. 18, Revision No. 1, seconded by COMMISSIONER
FAHEY.
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland
9. PLOT PLAN NO. 228
el
Proposal to construct a 7,203 square foot restaurant
within a shopping center on a 5.1 acre site. Located
at the northwest corner of Rancho California Road and
Lyndie Lane.
OLIVER MUJICA provided the staff report.
DAVE KENDALL, Lee & Sakahara Associates, 3190K Airport
Loop, Costa Mesa, representing the applicant E1 Torito,
explained that an architectural feature of the E1 Torito
restaurants was to place a neon band around the periphed
of the building and asked if the Commission or staff would
oppose this design feature. He also questioned if there
would be opposition to the use of flood lights which is
another E1 Torito design feature.
The Commission nor the staff reflected any opposition to
the neon band; however, Doug Stewart advised the applicant
that they would have to conform with the requirements of
the Palomar Observatory lighting ordinance.
PCMIN4/15/91 -9- APRIL 18, 1991
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE8 APRIL 15, 1991
COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to close the public hearing at
8:40 P.M. and AdoPt Resolution No. 91-(next] approving
Plot Plan No. 228, subject to the Conditions of Approval,
seconded by COMMISSIONER BLAIR.
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland
10. FIRST
10.1
EXTENSION OF TIME VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 23102
Proposal for first extension of time for 37 lot
residential subdivision. Located west of Butterfield
Stage Road, North of La Serena Way.
MARK RHOADES provided the staff report.
GARY FATLAND, 3309 Solano Vista, Fallbrook, representing
the applicant, provided the Commission with a color
exhibit of what the Chardonnay Hills homeowner's
association will be maintaining. Mr. Fatland indicated
that they do not feel the Quimby Fee requirement if fair
due to the park space provided in the development. Mr.
Fatland also stated that the applicant currently has a
development agreement and therefore questioned if the
applicant would be required to pay the fees again as
set forth in Condition No. 12. He also indicated that
the applicant already has an approved stripping plan in
place and therefore questioned if Condition No. 39 was
applicable.
DOUG STEWART advised that on all projects that have
over-lapping development agreements, the fee requirement
of Condition No. 12 would only have to be paid once.
He added that if the applicant has an approved stripping
plan in place they would not be required to provide
another stripping plan.
GARY KING advised the Commission that there is a total
of 53.2 open acres which will be maintained by the HOA.
Of the 53.2 acres, over half of this is slope area and
the remaining areas are private park spaces and therefore
staff would like the Quimby Fee requirement remain.
PCMIN4/15/91 -10- APRIL 18, 1991
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
APRIL 15, 1991
COMMISSIONER FORD moved to close the public hearing at
8:55 P.M. and Adopt Resolution No. 91-(next) approving
the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 23102 subject to Conditions of Approval and based
on the findings contained in the staff report,
COMMISSIONER FAHEY.
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland
FIRST
11.1
EXTENSION OF TIME VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 23103
Proposal for first extension of time for 18 lot
residential subdivision. Located west of Butterfield
Stage Road, between La Serena Way and Rancho California
Road.
MRRK RHOADES provided the staff report.
CHAIItMANCHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 8:55 P.M.
GARY FATLAND, Marlborough Development, representing the
applicant, advised the Commission that most of the
grading has been completed on the project. Mr. Fatland
indicated the applicant's preference to put a rolled curb
in and omit the sidewalk and street lights on the cul-de-
sac in the one acre private homesite area. Mr. Fatland
also clarified that Condition No. 5, should reflect
Tentative Tract Map No. 23103.
BEVERLEY ASHBROOK, 32720 Rancho California Road,
Temecula, of Callaway Vineyard and Winery, advised the
Conunission that the grading that has taken place on the
site has caused pockets of cold air which will require
the vineyard to install wind machines to protect against
frost and requests that future property owners be advised
that these wind machines may be a nuisance.
CRAIG WEAVER, 32720 Rancho California Road, Temecula,
of Callaway Vineyard and Winery, addressed the Commission
with the problems caused by the grading of the
development and requested the Commission to give
consideration to these conditions when approving future
developments.
PCMIN4/15/91 -11- APRIL 18t 1991
PLANN~N~ COMM~88ION M~NU~E8
APRIL 15, 1991
GARY THORNHILL stated that staff could require an
advisory notice of the possibility of the wind machines
to potential home buyers.
GARY FATLAND concurred with this requirement.
COMMIBBIONER BLAIR requested staff's comments on the
applicant's request for rolled curb on the cul-de-sac
in the one acre homesite area.
DOUG STEWART advised that the City Engineer would not
be willing to approve less than the standard six inch
curb requirement.
COMMISSIONER FORD moved to close the public hearing at
9:10 P.M. and Adopt Resolution No. 91-(next) recommending
approval of the First Extension of Time for Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 23103 subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval, based on the findings contained
in the staff report, amending Condition No. 5 to reflect
TTM 23103 and add a condition requiring the applicant to
submit wording for language to be included in the White
Report regarding the adjacent property, seconded by
COMMISSIONER BLAIR.
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: i COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland
12. CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 12
12 · 1
Proposal for Change of Zone from A-2-20 to IP &.R-5
on 42.00 acres. Located west of Margarita Road, North
Of Solaria Way.
MARK RHOADE8 provided the staff report.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 9:15 P.M.
IDA SANCHEZ, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester Road,
Temecula, expressed the applicant's concurrence with the
staff report.
LARRYMARKHAM, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester
Road, Temecula, addressed the Commission's concerns about
the zoning. He stated that the reason the went with the
PCMIN4/15/91 -12- APRIL 18, 1991
PL~rNIN6 COMMISSION ~INUTES APRI~ 15, 1991
the R-5 zoning was to address the concern that ACS was
not going to occupy the property.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to close the public hearing at
9:30 P.M. and recommend Adoption of the Negative
Declaration for Change of Zone No. 12 and Adopt
Resolution No. 91-(next] recommending approval of Change
of Zone No. 12, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD.
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland
13. AMBIENT AIR BALLOON ORDINANCE
13.1
Proposal for ordinance establishing regulations for the
use of ambient air balloons and other similar
inflatables within the City limits.
OLIVER MUJICA provided the staff report.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned the wording of No. 4 under
Section 2 of the ordinance and recommended deleting the
word "consecutive" and replacing with the word "total".
Chairman Chiniaeff also suggested adding the words "if
held" to the reference to the Balloon and Wine Festival
under No. 4.
Chairman Chiniaeff suggested adding the wording "and
in conformance with the Palomar Lighting Ordinance." to
a. of Section 2.
Chairman Chiniaeff also recommended that the wording of
No. 4 under Section 2 of the ordinance reflect that a
thirty (30) calendar day permit may be issued by the
City, in lieu of the fifteen (15) calendar day permit,
during the month of the Temecula Annual Balloon and Wine
Festival, if held.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 9:40 P.M.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to close the public hearing at
9:40 P.M. and Adopt Resolution No. P.C. 91-(next)
recommending Adoption of the Ambient Air Balloon
Ordinance, seconded by COMMISSIONER FANEY.
PCMIN4/15/91 -13- APRIL 18, 1991
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS:
APRIL 15,
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Chiniaeff
None
Hoagland
1991
14. WESTERN RIDGELINE POLICIES
14.1
Proposal to develop interim Hillside and Open Space
policies to be used as the City of Temecula's Western
Ridgeline Policies until the General Plan is adopted.
Continued to the May 20, 1991, regular meeting of the
City of Temecula Planning Commission.
5e
FIRST
15.1
EXTENSION OF TIME-VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 23125
Proposal for first extension of time, 215 lot residential
subdivision. Located at the northeast corner of
Deportola and Butterfield Stage Road.
Continued off calendar.
PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT
GARY THORNHILL advised the Commission of the following:
the proposed joint meeting between the City Council and the
Planning Commission, scheduled for April 29, 1991 has been
cancelled.
any Commissioners that want to view the Buie Corporation site
should contact the Planning Department staff to make an
appointment.
* taking suggestions for joint meeting topics.
re-appointment for the two Commissioners with expiring terms
will be presented to the City Council at the regular City
Council meeting of April 23, 1991.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
None
PCMIN4/15/91 -14- APRIL 18, 1991
PLANNING CO!~ISSlON NINUTES
OTHER BUSINESS
None
APRIL 15, 1991
ADJOURNMENT
COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 P.M.,
seconded by COMMISSIONER BLAIR.
The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning
Commission will be held Monday, May 6, 1991, 6:00 P.M. at Vail
Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California.
Chairman Dennis Chiniaeff
Secretary
PCMIN4/15/91' -15- APRIL 18, 1991
ITEM #3
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Steve Jiannino, Senior Planner
May 6, 1991
Administrative Plot Plan No. 125
The Planning Commission continued Administrative Plot Plan No. 125 from the April
15, 1991 Commission Meeting to the May 6, 1991 Commission Meeting. The applicant
mentioned that tree trimming within the CalTrans right-d-way would take place to
increase the visibility of the proposed sign. The Commission had concerns regarding
the location and height of the sign along with the proposed tree trimming.
Administrative Plot Plan (PPA) No. 125 is a sign permit application for a free
standing freeway oriented sign. The sign is 35 feet in height and contains
architectural elements of the proposed shopping center on the site.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
DIRECT Staff to approve Administrative Plot
Plan No. 125 subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval.
SJ:ks
Attachment:
Conditions of Approval
A:PP155.MEM
ATTACHMENT 3
CI3*Y OF ~EMECUL?.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Administrative Plot Plan No. 125
P)ann~ng Commission Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
Planninq Department
1. The appearance of the sign shall conform substantially with that shown in
Exhibit A, except the si9n display area shall be a maximum of 150 square feet.
2. The applicant shall obtain required building permits from the Department of
Buildin9 and Safety.
3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a landscape and irrigation plan shall be
approved by the Planning Department around the base of the sign.
Li. 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.
A:PP155 2
· '~' PAR CREST PLAZA II ~'~""" ""'~'
ITEM
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
The Planning Commission
The Planning Department
May 6, 1991
Plot Plan No. 11339
Plot Plan No. 11339, a proposed automotive service center on Rio Nedo Street, was
continued at the Planning Commission Hearing of April 1, 1991 pending submittal of
revised elevations to improve the appearance of the proposed structure. Revised
elevations have been submitted to the Planning Department. The revisions consists
of an increased separation between the two front entrances, the addition of a second
awning to the front of the structure, and the addition of windows to the sides of the
building near the front and in the bay doors. Other than those changes, the
proposed building materials, color scheme, and overall shape of the structure remain
the same.
Because of the limited changes that have been made in the elevations, Staff remains
concerned that the proposed structure will present a plain, box-like appearance.
However, in the absence of any formally adopted architectural standards, Staff is
unable to make a negative finding on which to base a recommendation to deny the
project. At this time, Staff does not have sufficient information and/or direction to
assert that the future General Plan will contain stringent architectural standards,
and that the proposed project is therefore not likely to be consistent with the future
General Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1. ADOPT the Negative Declaration; and
ADOPT Resolution 91 - approving Plot Plan
No. 11339 based on the Findings and subject
to the Conditions of Approval contained in
the attached Staff Report.
SW: ks
A:PPl1339.MEH
Recommendation:
STAFF REPORT ~ PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
April 1, 1990
Case No.: Plot Plan No. 11339
Prepared By: Scott Wright
Continuance to the hearing of April 15, 1991
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Don Coop
Markham and Associates
To construct a 9,216 square foot automotive service
center on a 0.9 acre parcel
The northwesterly side at Rio Nedo Street,
approximately 720 feet southwest of Diaz Road
M-SC, manufacturing-service commercial
North: M-SC
South: M-SC
East: M-SC
West: M-SC
Not requested
Vacant
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant
Commercial officeacross Rio NedoStreet
Light Industrial
Light Industrial
Site Area: 0.9
Building Area: 9,216 sq. ft.
Lot Coverage: 21%
Landscaping: 6,0~6 sq. ft.(15% of site area)
Parking Spaces: 62 spaces
STAFFRPT\PP11339 1
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
Plot Plan 10uAS, a proposal to construct an office/
warehouse building on the subject property, was
approved at the Riverside County Planning
Director's Hearing of September 12, 1988. The
office/warehouse project was dropped by the
applicant, and Plot Plan 11339, a proposal to
construct an automotive service center, was
submitted to the County on June 28, 1989.
Plot Plan 11339 was continued at the county Land
Development Committee meeting of July 27, 1989
pending submittal of a traffic study, an amended
plan, and conceptual grading information.
Continuances on October 5, 1989 and November 16,
1989 occurred for the same reasons. There was a
fourth continuance on February 15, 1990 for
additional topographical and drainage information
and a road correction to the plot plan. A fifth
continuance occurred on April 16, 1990, apparently
for the same reasons. On May 16, 1990 the county
prepared a transfer form for transmittal of the
application to the City.
The project is to construct a 9,216 square foot
automotive service center. The building will
comprise two suites, and each side of the building
will have five service bays. Sixty-two parking
spaces with adequate interior landscaping and
substantial street frontage landscaping are
provided.
Relationship to Adjacent Structures
There are structures on the adjacent properties
east and west of the site, a construction supply
warehouse on the east and a vacant industrial
building on the west. Both buildings are at or very
close to the property line, and the walls facing the
subject property are windowless; therefore. the
service bays in the proposed structure will have a
minimal visual impact on the adjacent properties.
Overnight storage of vehicles will be restricted to
the area behind the building, and planting materials
along the rear property line will be required to be
of sufficient height to provide visual screening.
Traffic
The traffic analysis required by the City
Transportation Engineer indicated that the
proposed automotive service center will generate 370
STAFFRPT\PP11339 2
trip ends per day and 30-35 vehicles per hour
during peak hours. These volumes can be easily
accommodated by the existing street system, and
intersections in the vicinity of the site will continue
to operate at Level of Service A. The Standard
Signal Mitigation Fee and Public Facility Fee are
conditions of approval for the project.
Site Access and Interior Circulation
Access to the site is provided by two driveways 28
feet in width at the right of way line. The drive
aisles are 2L~ feet wide and adequate to accommodate
two way traffic. The turn radii at the rear of the
building are adequate for refuse vehicles and fire
trucks,
Liquefaction Potential
A site specific liquefaction investigation was
prepared in conjunction with Plot Plan 10qq5,. The
report determined that the site is susceptible to
liquefaction and recommended removal and
recompaction of soil and review of foot Ioadings and
design plans by the project geotechnical engineer
prior to construction grading. The recommended
mitigation measures will be incorporated as
conditions of approval.
Parking
The parking requirement for automotive repair
businesses is one space per 150 square feet or four
spaces per service bay, whichever is greater. The
proposed 9,216 square foot structure is required to
provide 62 spaces. The site plan shows 62 spaces,
two of which are handicapped spaces at the front
adjacent to the entrances.
Loadinq Zone Waiver
Ordinance 348 requires 1 loading zone for
commercial and industrial structures between 7,500
and 1~,,999 square feet. The site plan does not
include a loading zone but does satisfy the stringent
parking requirement of one space per 150 square
feet of floor area. In view of the ample provision
for parking and multiple bay doors on both sides of
the building, staff recommends waiving the
requirement for a loading zone pursuant to
STAFFRPT\PP11339 3
Ordinances 3~8 Section 11.5 which allows exceptions
to development standards when appropriate for the
proposed use and not contrary to public safety.
Drainaqe and Potential Flood Hazards
Engineering Department conditions of approval
require the developer to provided written clearance
from the County Flood Control District prior to
issuance of Grading permits. Prior to issuance of
permits, the applicant is required to pay drainage
fees and submit Grading and Improvement Plans
with Hydraulic and Hydrologic calculations to the
Flood Control District for review and approval.
The 40 foot drainage easement at the rear of the
property, currently a drainage swale, will be filled
in and will contain a continuation of an existing
reinforced concrete pipe which can accommodate 100
year peak tributary storm flows.
Building Setback and Landscaping
The 34 foot building setback from the right of way
line exceeds the requirement for a 25 foot front
setback in the M-SC zone. Landscaping adjacent to
the street is 20 to 30 feet deep and exceeds the
requirement for a 10 foot landscape strip.
Ordinance 30,8 requires 10% of the site area in the M-
SC zone to be landscaped. Interior landscaping
shown on the site plan equals 18% of the parking
area, and the total area of landscaping equals 15% of
the site.
Buildinq Heiqht
The proposed one story structure will be 22 feet in
height which is within the 50 foot maximum building
height in the MoSC zone.
Elevations
Staff has expressed a concern to the applicant that
the proposed elevations are too plain and present a
box-like appearance. Staff suggested the addition
of a cornice and some decorative tile to provide more
contrast and articulation to the appearance of the
building. Rather than make the suggested changes
before the hearing, the applicant preferred to
schedule a public hearing, to have the elevations
STAFFRPT\PP11339 4
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
reviewed at the hearing by the Planning
Commission, and to receive direction from the
Commission regarding the elevations.
If the Commission finds the proposed elevations
acceptable and is prepared to approve the project,
findings, conditions, and a resolution approving
Plot Plan No. 11339 are attached in order to enable
the Commission to take action.
The proposed automotive service center is a
permitted use in the M-SC zone and is consistent
with the Light Industrial Land Use designation in
which the site is located.
An Initial Study was prepared for Plot Plan No.
11339 and is attached to this Staff Report. The
project will not result in any impacts which cannot
be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Staff
recommends adoption of a Negative Declaration for
Plot Plan No. 11339.
Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission CONTINUE Plot Plan No. 11339
to the hearing of April 15, 1991 for submittal of
revised elevations.
SW:ks
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Findings
Resolution
Conditions of Approval
Environmental Assessment
Exhibits
A. Vicinity Map
B. Site Plan
C. Elevations
Fee Checklist
STAFF R PT\PP.11339 5
FINDINGS
The proposed use is consistent with the M-SC
zone and the Southwest Area Plan Light
Industrial Land Use designation in which it is
located.
The project will not constitute an adverse
impact on surrounding land uses in that it
will be compatible with existing land uses in
the area; the site will not drain onto adjacent
properties, and project generated traffic will
not pose an undue burden on the streets in
the area.
The site is adequate for the proposed use in
that parking, internal traffic circulation, and
landscaping are adequate and meet all
applicable requirements.
The site will have adequate access from the
street. The project has two access driveways
on Rio Nedo Street.
Potential liquefaction hazards can be
adequately mitigated. The proposed Plot Plan
will not result in any significant
environmental impacts which cannot be
adequately mitigated.
The traffic generated by the project will not
constitute a significant adverse impact on the
level of service of the streets in the area as
determined in the Traffic Study for the
project. Also, the developer is required to
pay traffic signal mitigation and road
improvement fees.
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 due to the
fact that the project is consistent with the
current zoning for the site and with adjacent
development.
STAFFRPT\PP11339 6
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
due to the relatively small scale of the project
and its consistency with surrounding
development.
STAFFRPT\PP11339 7
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 11339
TO PERMIT OPERATION OF AN AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE
CENTER ON THE NORTHWESTERLY SIDE OF RIO NEDO
STREET APPROXIMATELY 720 FEET SOUTHWEST OF DIAZ
ROAD.
WHEREAS, Donald Coop filed Plot Plan No. 11339 in accordance with the
Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which
the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Plot Plan on
· at which time interested persons had an opportunity to
testify either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
approved said Plot Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE· THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. 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\PP11339 8
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 City Council 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. 11339 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:
STAFFRPT\PP11339 9
a)
The proposed use must conform to all the
General Plan requirements and with all
applicable requirements of state law and City
ordinances.
b)
The overall development of the land is
designed for the protection of the public
health, safety and general welfare; conforms
to the logical development of the land and is
compatible with the present and future logical
development of the surrounding property.
(2) The City Council, in approving the proposed Plot
Plan, makes the following findings, to wit:
a)
The proposed use is consistent with the M-SC
zone and the Southwest Area Plan Light
Industrial Land Use designation in which it is
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; the site will not drain onto adjacent
properties, and project generated traffic will
not pose an undue burden on the streets in
the area.
cl
The site is adequate for the proposed use in
that parking, internal traffic circulation, and
landscaping are adequate and meet all
applicable requirements.
d)
The site will have adequate access from the
street on which it has frontage.
e)
Potential liquefaction hazards can be
adequately mitigated. The proposed Plot Plan
will not result in any significant
environmental impacts which cannot 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.
STAFFRPT\PP.11339 10
g)
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.
h)
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.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Plot Plan
proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and
is compatible with the present and future development of the
surrounding property.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
project will
Declaration,
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that the proposed
not have a significant impact on the environment, and a Negative
therefore, is hereby granted.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Plot
Plan No. 11339 for the operation and construction of an automotive service center
located on the northwesterly side of Rio Nedo Street 720 feet southeast of Diaz Road
subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this
Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ... day of
· 1991.
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
CHAIRMAN
STAFFRPT\PP11339 11
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 1991 by the following vote of the
Commission:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONER5
STAFFRPT\PP11339 12
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan No: 11339
Project Description: To construct a 9,216
square foot automotive service center
Assessor's Parcel No.: 909-254-005
Planninq Department
The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for a 9,216 square foot
automotive service center.
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. 11339. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any
Such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will
cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the
permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in
the defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend,
indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula.
This approval shall be used within two { 2) years of approval date; otherwise,
it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial
construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period
which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of
substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. This approval shall
expire on
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as
shown on Plot Plan No. 11339 marked Exhibit 1, or as amended by these
conditions.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
The applicant shall comply with the Engineering Department~s Conditions of
Approval which are included herein.
Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the
provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department~s transmittal
dated July 20, 1989, a copy of which is attached.
STAFFRPT\PP11339 13
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County
Flood Control District's transmittal dated February 21, 1990, 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 February
1:3, 1991, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the
Geologist's transmittal dated August 15, 1988, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho
Water District transmittal dated July 28, 1989, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern
Municipal Water District transmittal dated July 11, 1989, a copy of which is
attached.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, three (3) copies of a Parking,
Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans shall be submitted to the Planning
Department of approval. The location, number, genus, species, and
container size of the plants shall be shown. Plans shall meet all requirements
of Ordinance No. 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 62 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section
18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. 62 parking spaces shall be
provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit 1. The parking area shall be
surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on Li
inches of Class II base.
A minimum of two (2) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown
on Exhibit 1. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be
identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain
on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of
Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and
shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height
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:
STAFFR PT\PP11339 14
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
2~..
25.
"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
Rancho Water District
School District
Riverside County Flood Control
Fire Department
Eastern Municipal Water District
A Plot Plan application for signage shall be submitted and approved by the
Planning Director prior to occupancy.
Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on
Exhibit 2.
Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial
conformance with that shown on Exhibit 2 (Color Elevations ) and Exhibit
( Materials Board ).
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening
material shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
All trash enclosures shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy
permits. Each enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall be made with
masonry block and a steel gate which screens the bins from external view.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along
streets and within the parking areas.
All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans
submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval
and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No.
655.
This project is located,within a subsidence or liquefaction zone. Prior to
issuance of any building permit by the Department of Building and Safety, a
California Licensed Soils Engineer or Geologist shall submit a report to the
Building and Safety Department identifying the potential for liquefaction or
subsidence. Where hazard of liquefaction or subsidence is determined to
exist, appropriate mitigation measures must be demonstrated.
STAFFRPT\PP11339 15
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with
Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance which is
based on (the gross acreage of the parcels proposed for development) (the
number of single family residential units on lots which are a minimum of one-
half (1/2) gross acre in size). Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by
the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fees
required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required under
the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or
resolution.
One ( 1 ) Class I I I bicycle racks shall be provided in convenient locations as
approved by the Planning Director to facilitate bicycle access to the project
area.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts
to be determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the
installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved
plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed
with the Department of Building and Safety.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, all required landscape planting
and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the
Director of Building and Safety. The plants shall be healthy and free of
weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed
and in good working order.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits and/or building permit, the developer
or his successor's interest shall submit a mitigation monitoring program which
shall describe how compliance with required mitigation measures will be met
and the appropriate monitoring timing of the mitigation. The applicant shall
pay all cost associated with all monitoring activities.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or
any use allowed by this permit.
Within forty-eight (48) 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 711.4(d)(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 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight |48) 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
STAFFRPT\PP11339 16
711.4(c).
3q..
Vehicles stored outside overnight will be stored behind the building. The
planting along the rear property line will be of adequate height to provide
visual screening of the overnight storage area.
35. Used parts and motor oil shall be stored within the building prior to disposal.
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:
36. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Riverside County Flood Control district;
Planning Department;
Engineering Department; and
CATV Franchise.
37.
The developer shall submit four (u,) prints of a comprehensive grading plan
to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform
Building Code 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.
38.
The developer shall submit four (u,) copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
39.
A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and
submitted at the time of application for grading plan check.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to
the commencement of any grading outside of the City Right-of-way.
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.
5TAFFRPT\PP11339 17
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The
charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits.
If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to
this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer.
All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. All
plans, calculations, and specifications may be subject to review and approval
by Riverside County Flood Control.
All concentrated drainage directed toward the public street shall be diverted
through the undersidewalk drains.
Prior to any work being perfomed in Public Right-of-Way, fees shall be paid
and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office.
Existing City roads shall remain open at all times with adequate detours
during construction.
Developer shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed
guaranteeing the construction of all drainage facilities.
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:
48. All improvements shall be constructed as shown on the approved plans.
All driveways shall conform to the applicable County of Riverside standards
and shall be shown on the improvement plans in accordance with County
Standard 400 and 401 (curb sidewalk).
50.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public
facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the
project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim
or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally
established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for
the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement
for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to
Developer. Developer understands that said agreement may require the
payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest
such increase.
STAFFRPT\PP11339 18
Buildinq and Safety Department
51.
Provide 2 sets of fully dimensioned plans for Plan Review, which shall
incorporate structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing drawings to the
Department of Building and Safety.
52.
Provide a Geological Report, which reflects foundation investigations and sol Is
requirements for liquefaction at same time plans are supplied for plan review.
53.
Lighting on site and located on structures shall comply with Mount Palomar
Lighting Ordinance No. 655.
Applicant shall fill out an Application for Final Inspection. Allow two weeks
processing time to obtain all required clearances prior to final inspection.
55.
School fees must be paid to Temecula Unified School District prior to issuance
of building permits.
STAFFRPT\PP11339 19
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
,5:;>. FIRE DEPARTN'IENT
'E
' 2:r~ X~FcT 5,x' J~:TC .~NENUE · PFR~IS. CA!
~ ' (714) 657-3183
GLEN J. NEWMAN
FIRE CHeF
DATE: February 13, 1991
TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PLOT PLAN NO. 11339
With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced
plot plan, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection
measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or
recognized fire protection standards:
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for
the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings using the
procedure established in Ordinance 546.
Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1500
GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure,
which must be available before any combustible material is placed
on the job site.
A combination of on-site and offsite super fire hydrants (6"x4"x2ix2~),
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."
[~] LNDIO OFFICE
79-733 Couna7 Club D,-ivt, Suite I~, lad;o, CA 9220t
(6k9) ]424~.86 · FAX (619) 775-2072
PLANNING DIVISION
RE: PLOT PLAN NO. 11339 FACE 2
Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings requiring s
fir~ z2 v ,i 1500 62! ,z ~reater. " ~Lui ~ .... ~z,~ l~
department connection shall be located ~o the front, within 50 feet ,.~
a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement
that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be
included on the title page of the building plans.
Install a supervised waterfow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans
must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to
installation, as per UBC.
In lieu of fire sprinkler requirements, building(s) must be area separated
into square foot compartments, approved by the Fire Department, as per
Section 505 (e) of the Uniform Building Code.
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.
Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes.
Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A~10BC.
Centact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall'
be responsible to submit a check or money order in the amount of $558.00
to the Riverside County Fire Department for plan check fees.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall deposit
with the City of Temecula, a check or money order equaling the sum of
25¢ per square foot as mitlga~ion for fire protection impacts. This
amount must be submitted separately from the plan check review fees.
Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in
the Building and Safety Office.
All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to
the Planning and Engineering staff.
RAYMOND H. ~EGIS
Chief Fire Departmen~ Planner
Laura Cabral, Fire Safety Specialist
LC/tm
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92502
February 21, 1990
Riverside County
Planning Department
County Administrative Center
Riverside, California
Attention: Regional Team No. 5
Jeff Adams
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Re: Plot Plan 11339
Amended No. 1
Plot Plan 11339 is a proposal to construct an auto service center in the
Temecula area. The property is Lot No. 21 on the northwest side of Rio Nedo
between Diaz Road and Aqua Vista Way.
The referenced site is in the flood plain of Murrieta Creek. The sub-areas up
slope from this project must cross it in order to drain into the creek. Tract
No. 14936 is the map of record covering the site and it has the condition that
a drainage easement forty feet wide be reserved in the back for the above men-
tioned sources of runoff and flooding.
Following are the District's recon~nendations:
Plot Plan 11339 is located within the limits of the Temeeula Valley
subarea of the Murrieta Area Drainage Plan for which drainage fees
have been adopted. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area
Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of the new development.
This new development has a total of 0.90 acres gross. At the current
fee rate of $932.00 per acre, the mitigation charge is $838.00 The
charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of
permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee.
2. The proposed storm drain should be a sized to carry the 100 year peak
flows tributary to it.
A copy of the improvement plans and grading plans along with support-
ing hydrologic and hydraulic calculations should be submitted to the
District for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading or
building permits.
Questions concerning this matter may be referred to the Subdivision section of
this office at 714/787-2015.
Very
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE O[ TECHNOLOGY
Although the proposed project is more than 30 miles from Palomar Observatory,
we request that ant outdoor li$htin$ conform to the following guidelines
which are formuletad to ~ioimize the adverse effects of light pollution:
1. Use the minimum ~motmt of light needed for the task.
2. Orient and shield light to prevent direct upward ill~ination.
Turn off lights ac 11:00 p.m. (or earlier) unless, in co~n~ercial
applications, the associated business is open past chat time, in which
cue the lights should be turned off at.closing.
Use lo~-pressura sodium l~nups for roadways, wallc~ays, equipment yards,
parkinS lots, securit7 and other similar applications. These lights
need not be turned off at 11:00 p.m.
Adoption of these guidelines will help preserve the conditions needed for
the continuation of research st Palomar Observatory. For further informs-
- .~lon, please call (818) 356-&035.
Robert J. Brucato
Assistant Director
August 15,198~
Soil Tech
28700B Las Haciendas Street
Suite 103
P. O. Box 1568
Ten~cula, CA 92390
Attention:
Gentlemen:
Mr. H. Wayne Balmbridge
Mr. Anthony B. Brown
Mr. John T. Reinhart
Mr. David L. Jones
SUBJECT:
Liquefaction Hazard
Project No. 2712-PS-BB
Plot Plan 10445
County Geologic Report No. 538
Rancho California Area
We have reviewed ydur report entitled "Liquefaction Hazard. Investigation, Lot 21,
Tract 14936," dated August l, 19BB.
Your report determined that the 'potential ~or liq~efact~o~ at the subject site is
considered to be very likely'to the~N'x~mu~d~h~explored;'.Should liquefaction
occun in the soil deposits ~elo~ the water table,' it i~ 'l'fk~ly that the surface
soils will experience settlement.
Your report recoanended that in consideration of the potential for liquefaction
induced differential settlement below the proposed structure, removal and
recompaction of the near surface on-site soils should be performed. This over-
excavation should project 5 feet outside the footing area and extend a minimum
of 5 feet below the bottom of the proposed footings. Larger isolated square
footings with vertical loads in excess of 25 kips may require additional removals.
Footing loading and design plans should be reviewed by the project geotechnical
engineer prior to construction grading in order to determine the need for addi-
tional removals.
Although minor in nature, we would like to point out that paragraph 2.2 Borings
should read "Two (2) exploratory berings" rather than "Three (2)."
4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
~714) 787-6181
46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201
(619! 342-8277
Soil Tech
August 15, 1988
Page 2
It is our opinion that the report was prepared in a competent manner and satisfies
the additional information requested under the California Environmental Quality
Act review and the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. Final approval
of the report is hereby given.
The recommendations made in your report for mitigation of liquefaction potential
shall be adhered to in the design and construction of this project.
Very truly yours,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Roger S. St eter, PlanningDirector
Engi.eeri.g G o og"
CEG-1205
SAK:et
cc: jean Keller - Markham and Associates
Norm Lostbom - Building & Safety (2}
· Patti Nahill - Planning Team 1
T0:
FROM:
RE:
Uo,..nLy O1 l-tlveI L,Ue
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
DATE:
.~!VEF'SIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT.
X~'-j,: attl Nahzll
~~ronmental Health Specialist
IV
PLOT PLAN 11339
The Environmental Health Services has reviewed Plot
Plan 11339 and has no ob.3ectlons. Sanitary sewer and water
services are avallable in this area. Prior to any building
plan submittals. the followinQ items will be submitted:
1. "WIll-serve" letters from the water and
sewsring agencies.
2.
A g!~f~_!~[ from the Environmental Health
Services Hazardous Materials Management Branch
(Jon Mohoroskl (714) 358-5055). wlll be required
indicating that the proaect has been cleared for:
a. Underground storage tanks.
b. Hazardous Waste Generator Services.
c. Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance
wZth AB 2185)
d. Waste reduction manauement.
SM:tac
co: Jon Mohoroski,
Hazardous Materials Branch
July 28, ]989
Board of Directors:
James A. Darby
President
Jeffrey L. Minklet
St. Vice President
Ralph Daily
Doug Kulberg
Jon A. Lundin
T. C. Rowe
Richard D. Steffey
Officers:
John F. Hennigar
General Manager
Phillip L Forbes
Director'of Finance-
Treasurer
Thomas R. McAliester
Director of OperaTions
& Maintenance
Edward P. Lemons
Linda M. Fregoso
District Secre~'y
McCormick a Kidman
Riverside County Planning Department
4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor
Riverside, California 92501-3657
Subject: Water Availability
Reference: Tract Map 14936, Lot 21
Plot Plan 11339
Gentlemen:
Please be advised that the above-referenced
property is located within the boundaries of Rancho
California Water District. Water service,
therefore, would be available upon completion of
financial arrangements between RCWD and the property
owner.
Water availability would be contingent upon the
property owner signing an Agency Agreement which
assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.
If you have anyquestions, please contact Senga
Doherty at (714) 676-4101.
Very truly yours,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon
Civil Engineer
F012/jkf59f
R A N C H 0 C A L I F 0 R N I A W A T E R D I S T R I C T
2~'1E, 1 ],1 .... '~ · :-- ,-/rr ....... , TE"P~"~ · r! o,2,~gn.n!74 , '~41 a':..,1r,! , FA_X "-~'
Laslern ~ 'v k~unlc'pat Vv ater b/isl, rict
~$1D[ CO
Riverside Co. Planning Dept.
4080 Lemon St., 9th Floor
Riverside, Ca 92501
The District is responding to your request for comments on the subject project
relative to water and/or sewer service. The items checked below apply to this
project review.
The subject project:
~/Is not within EMWD's:
/water service area
sewer service area
/Will be required to construct/provide
be served by EMWD:
the following facilities if to
Sewer Service
Any and all necessary regionally sized onsite and offsite gravity sewers and
appurtenant works that might include monitoring manholes, lift stations, force
mains, and effluent disposal/use. Sewers will not be allowed along lot
lines/private land. Fee payment and participation in regional sewers, treatment,
and effluent disposal must be met. Only wastes acceptable to EMWD regulations
will be allowed. -sC-~r_~ A? ccv~--~c~ c~N~tr~, ~, ~ z~o' ~ i:~l cPr"
EASTERN MUNICIPAL.WATER DISTRICT
Planning Department
· 8-~nn Ssn]acm!c CHEorna92~g>l)00 · Telephonel?),llq'%16'6
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
II
Backqround
1. Name of Proponent:
Donald Coop
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
PO Box 1234
Temecula, CA 92390
(714) 676-3301
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
February 6, 1991
Agency Requiring
Assessment:
CITY OF TEMECULA
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Plot Plan No. 11339
Location of Proposal:
To construct a 9,216 square foot
automotive service center on the
northwesterly side of Rio Nedo Street
720 feet southwest of Diaz Road.
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
X
Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil?
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\PP11339 20
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\PP11339 21
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct addi-
tions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations7
Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flood-
ing or tidal waves?
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or number of any native species of
plants (including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare, or endangered species
of plants?
Introduction of new species of
plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
Substantial reduction in acreage
of any agricultural crop?
Animal Life. Will the proposal result
in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
(birds, land animals including rep-
tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms or insects ) ?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals?
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP11339 22
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
X
STAFFRPT\PP11339 23
15o
16.
Yes Maybe No
Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking? __ __ X
Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems? __ __ X
Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? __ __ X
Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic? X
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 protection7 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\PP11339 24
Yes Maybe No
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 view7
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?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP11339 25
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\PP11339 26
III Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
1 .a,b.
1 .c,d.
1.e.
1.f.
1.g.
2.a.
3.a,c,
d,f.
3.b.
3.e.
Yes. Topsoil recompaction and replacement to a depth of 5 feet will
occur. Topsoil replacement is necessary to mitigate the potential for
liquefaction and subsidence. This is not considered a significant
impact.
No. The project will not result in substantial changes in topography or
destruction of unique geologic features. The site is flat, and
substantial changes in topography will not be required.
Maybe. The potential for wind and water erosion will increase during
construction. Wind erosion will be mitigated by the use of watering
trucks and planting vegetation after grading. Increased water runoff
due to the addition of impermeable surfaces will be accommodated by
drainage facilities as approved by the Engineering Department.
No. The site is not located near any body of water which would be
impacted by siltation or deposition.
No. County Geologic Report No. 538 was prepared for a previous
development proposal to be located on the subject property. The report
states that the potential for liquefaction and/or seismically induced
ground subsidence can be mitigated by recompaction and replacement
of topsoil to a depth of 5 feet. The County Engineering Geologist found
that the report satisfies the requirements of the Alquist-Priolo Special
Studies Act. The recommendations of the report shall be Conditions of
Approval for this project.
No. The project will not result in a significant increase in emissions.
The nature of the project is not such that it will attract substantial
volumes of new traffic to the region.
No. The project will not involve any process which would create
objectionable odors or cause any alterations in the climate.
No. The site is not located near any streams or bodies of water.
Drainage will be directed to streets or to drainage facilities. The
project does not include any structure or excavation which would alter
the flow of direction of ground water.
Yes. Increased runoff due to the addition of impermeable surfaces will
be accommodated by drainage facilities as approved by the Engineering
Department.
Yes. During construction, the proposed project will increase turbidity
in local surface water. This impact is temporary and is not considered
sign ificant.
STAFFRPT\PP11339 27
3.g,h.
3.i.
u,.a-d.
6.b.
7.
9.a,b.
10.a.
10.b.
No. The project will be served by the Rancho Water District and will
not involve any direct withdrawals or additions to ground water. Due
to the limited depth of excavation for soil replacement and compaction,
it is unlikely that ground water will be encountered. The project will
not result in unusual or excessive water usage.
No. The site is located above the 100 year flood elevation. The project
will provide a continuation of an existing pipe to convey 100 year storm
runoff to Murrieta Creek.
No. No unique, rare, or endangered plant species have been identified
in the area in which the site is located. The possible introduction of
new species of plants to the site as part of the required landscaping is
not considered a significant impact. The site has already been
disturbed and is not used for any agricultural crops.
No. The site has already been disturbed. Prior to issuance of grading
permits, the applicant is required to pay fees which will contribute to
the implementation of Riverside County's Habitat Conservation Plan.
Yes. On-site noise levels will increase temporarily during construction
and in the long term due to increased traffic volumes. This is not
considered a significant impact because the surrounding land uses are
not noise sensitive and noise levels are unlikely to exceed State daily
average noise level standards.
No. The proposed project and existing adjacent land uses do not create
severe noise levels.
No. The proposed project is located within the Mt. Palomar
Observatory Street Lighting Policy Area. In order to prevent
"skyglow" interference with the Mt. Palomar telescope, low pressure
sodium vapor lighting shall be used.
No. The proposed project is consistent with the designation of the site
and its vicinity for commercial and light industrial land uses.
No. The project will not result in a substantial increase in the rate of
consumption of any natural or non-renewable natural resource.
Yes. The proposed automotive center will involve the use of motor oil
and may involve the use of other hazardous substances. The applicant
shall provide a list of hazardous substances which will or may be used
on the site and a submit a plan for their disposal to the County Health
Department prior to issuance of building permits.
Maybe. If closure of a lane on Rio Nedo Street during construction is
necessary, emergency vehicle response may be inhibited. Any street
or lane closures during construction shall be coordinated with the Police
and Fire Departments.
STAFFRPT\PP11339 28
11,12.
13.a,f.
13.b.
13.c,d,e.
14.a,b,
e,f.
14.c,d.
15.a,b.
16.a-f.
17.a,b.
18.
19.
20.a-d.
Maybe. The project will provide additional jobs and could attract more
population to the area. However, the number of new jobs created will
probably not be substantial, and at least some of the jobs will be taken
by current residents of the area. The increase in population and
demand for housing in the area due to this project are unlikely to be a
significant impact.
No. The project will generate 370 additional trips per day which will
not constitute a significant impact on the streets and intersections in
the vicinity which currently operate at Level of Service A.
No. All required off-street parking will be provided on the site.
No. The project will not impact public transportation systems, air
water, or rail traffic, or alter present patterns of circulation.
Yes. The proposed project will require public services in the areas of
police, fire, road maintenance, and public facilities. Fire impact
mitigation fees and property taxes will provide adequate mitigation for
the additional need for public services generated by the project. The
project is subject to the standard Facility Fee.
Maybe. Any impact on schools or recreational facilities resulting from
an increase in population due to new employment opportunities will be
mitigated by Conditions of Approval upon new housing.
No. The proposed project will not result in a substantial use or
increase in demand for fuel or other energy sources.
No. The proposed project will not result in a need for substantial
alterations of existing utility systems.
Maybe. The project will involve the use of motor oil and may involve
the use of other hazardous substances. A list of hazardous materials
which will or may be used at the site and a disposal plan shall be
submitted to the City and to the County Department of Environmental
Health Services and clearance obtained prior to issuance of building
permits.
Maybe. The proposed project will not obstruct any scenic view
currently available to the public. Overnight vehicle storage will be
behind the building and landscaping at the rear property line will be
sufficient to provide visual screening.
No. The site is not currently used for recreational purposes and is not
located in or near a potential recreational trail alignment.
No. The site is not located in an area of paleontological sensitivity or
an area of sensitivity for archaeological resources.
STAFFRPT\PP11339 29
21 .a.
21 .b,c.
~1 .d.
No. The project will not degrade the environment. The site has
already been disturbed,
No. Project generated traffic impacts will not constitute a significant
impact on the streets and intersections in the vicinity.
Maybe. The project will involve the disposal of used motor oil. Used
oil will be recycled and will not be disposed in a manner which will
pollute soil or ground water. The use of any hazardous materials will
require a clearance from the County Department of Health.
STAFFRPT\PP11339 30
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 althou9h 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\PP.11339 31
~ Ci1Y OF 1EMECULA )
! \
SIT
VICINITY MAP
r
CASE NO.
p,C. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
CASE NO.: Plot Plan No. 11339
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. 27
N/A
Condition No. 11
(Engineering)
Condition No. 9
( Engineering )
N/A
Condition No. 10
Condition No. 9
STAFFRPT\PP11339 32
ITEM #5
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM;
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Steve Jiannino, Senior Planner
May 6, 1991
First Extension of Time for Tentative Tract Map No. 23142
This project has been continued by the Planning Commission from the April 1 and
April 15, 1991 Commission meetings to gather extra information about the previous
grading and erosion that has occurred on the site. The Commission has requested
additional information on the bonds in place on the tract and the erosion damage that
has taken place on the site and adjoining properties. The extension, if approved,
would continue the map approval to October 25, 1991, approximately six (6) months.
Staff was directed to meet with the developer and individual property owners to
assess what issues needed to be resolved related to erosion and stormwater runoff
damage which occurred during the past rainy season.
Staff had reviewed the site on previous occasions prior to the April 15 meeting and
had determined that damage to properties adjacent to Tract 23142 had occurred, and
said damage was directly related to the developer~s failure to comply with the
conditions of the original grading permit issued by the County of Riverside.
Staff has been provided with repair estimates prepared by a licensed contractor for
two of the property owners. The amounts are as follows:
Brownell Residence
Bentley Residence
$ 7,400. O0
$ 5,750. O0
Physical inspection of damage to other adjacent properties and to improvements
within the City right-d-way are estimated by Staff to be in the approximate amount
of $10,000.00. Thus, the total repair and restoration work to be performed may
amount to approximately $23,000.00.
Staff has determined that there are presently two bonds in place in the following
8mou nts:
Grading and Erosion Control
Landscaping
$ 22,500.00
$ 31,000.00
If needed, these bonds can be liened by the City to perform the necessary work to
protect adjacent properties from future erosion and stormwater runoff damage
attributed to this site.
A:TR23142-A
Planning Commission
May 6, 1991
Page 2
On Friday, April 26, Staff met with the Huberts, the Brownells, and the Bentleys
to review their specific concerns and determine what repairs and restoration were
needed on each specific property. In an effort to identify more specifically the work
to be performed, a second meeting was held on Monday, April 29, between Mr.
Robert Henderson of the Costa Group and residents of the Hubert, Brownell and
Holllday properties. The following time table was constructed from the discussions
which occurred at this meeting, and the Costa Group has informed Staff that they
are willing to comply with this schedule:
PRIOR TO PLANNING COMMISSION OF MAY 6, 1991:
Costa Group shall continue to comply with all conditions of their original
grading permit.
Costa Group shall repair all damage to Mr. Brownell's garage wall and
electrical box to homeowner's satisfaction.
Costa Group shall repair rear yard damage to the Davis and O'Malley
properties, as well as relocate the existing brow ditch onto Tract 23142 and
connect it to an adjacent ditch on Marlborough Development's property.
Costa Group shall execute new agreement for grading, erosion control and
landscaping with the City of Temecula.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
Costa Group shall continue to comply with all conditions of their original
grading permit.
Costa Group shall have complied with all bonding requirements for Tract
231~,2.
Costa Group shall initiate exploratory work to determine extent of damage
within City right-of-way and adjacent properties.
Costa Group shall initiate clean up and continue maintenance of all erosion
control and drainage devices related to Tract 231~,2 and protection of all
downstream properties.
An iron grate shall be firmly installed in place over the existing inlet
structure at the end of the brow ditch adjacent to the City right-of-way as
directed by the City Engineer.
A:TR23142-A
Planning Commission
May 6, 1991
Page 3
WITHIN ~,5 DAYS AFTER FINAL MAP APPROVAL:
Costa Group shall hydroseed slope at the rear of the Hubert property and will
repair and install a sufficient irrigation system to maintain the landscaping per
the original conditions of approval of Tract 20879.
Costa Group shall relocate the existing drainage swale within the Hubert
property along Metlot Court closer to the existing City right-of-way in
conformance with City Ordinance and to the satisfaction of the property
owner,
Costa Group shall complete repair and restoration of all damaged facilities and
improvements within the public right-of-way and adjacent properties, as
deemed necessary and approved by the City Engineer.
Costa Group shall continue to comply with all conditions of their original
grading permit.
In summary, Staff has determined that the Costa Group has failed to comply with the
original conditions of their grading permit. If continued in place and bound with a
new agreement, the existing bonds should be sufficient to cover all repair and
restoration work that has currently been identified. A scheduled program has been
constructed to resolve existing issues between the Costa Group and the adjacent
property owners.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT
Resolution 91- approving the First Extension of Time
for Tentative Tract Map No. 23142 subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval.
SJ/RR:ks
A:TR23142-A
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City of Temecula Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Planning Director
April 15, 1991
First Extension of Time for
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23142
The above referenced case was continued from the April I, 1991 Planning Commission
meeting to the April 15, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. The project was
continued to allow the Engineering Department to develop conditions of approval
regarding the grading of the site and erosion control of the existing graded slopes.
These conditions were to include bonding for grading repair and erosion control of
existing slopes with time limits set for the bonding and for the completion of the
grading.
The applicant was also requested to appear or to have a representative present with
the authority to accept additional conditions of approval.
First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 231u,2 is a proposal to
subdivide 6 acres into 20 residential lots. The site has been previously mass
graded. The neighbors attended the April 1, 1991 Planning Commission meeting to
protest the extension because of the existing unsafe condition of the site.
The Staff Report and draft Planning Commission minutes dated April 1, 1991 are
attached and incorporated into this report by reference. An update on the grading
and erosion control concerns and conditions will be presented at the Commission
Hearing. If the issues have not been addressed to Staff's satisfaction, Staff will
request a continuance of the project to May 6, 1991.
GT:ks
Staffrpt\VTM231~,2\mb
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
April 1, 1991
Case No.: Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23142, Extension of Time
Prepared By: Scott Wright
Recommendation: ADOPT the Resolution approving the extension of time for
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23142.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Costa Group
ALBA Engineerin9
The applicant requests an extension of time for a 20
lot R-1 subdivision.
Bonny Road north of Zinfandel Avenue
R-1 and R-5
North:
South:
East:
West:
R-R
R-1
Specific Plan 199, 2-5 du/ac
Specific Plan 199, 2-5 du/ac
Not requested
North: Vacant
South: Single family residential
East: Vacant, graded
West: Vacant
No. of Acres: 6 acres
No. of Lots: 20 single family lots, 2
open space lots
Min. proposed
lot size:
7,611 square feet
The applicant requests an extension of time for
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~,2. The
project is to create a 20 lot single family subdivision
on a 6.0 acre site. The lots range in size from 7,611
square feet to 18,183 square feet. The landscaped
slopes on both sides of the street at the entrance to
Staffrpt\VTM23142\mb I
BACKGROUND:
the site are designated as open space lots to be
maintained by a landscape assessment district or a
homeowners association.
The Riverside County Board of Supervisors
approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23142
and Change of Zone 5115, from R-R to R-1 and R-5,
on October 25, 1988. On the recommendation of the
County Planning Staff, the Board of Supervisors
added the stipulation that the landscaped slopes at
the entrance to the site, lots 21 and 22, should be
zoned R-5. The site has been graded for street
improvements and building pads, and concrete lined
bench drains have been installed along the
southerly and easterly boundaries of the site. The
City received the request for a time extension on
October 5, 1990.
ANALYSIS:
Lot Size and Dimensions
The lots are between 7,611 square feet and 18,183
square feet in area and conform to the R-1
standards requiring a minimum of 7,200 square feet,
60 feet of average width, 35 feet of street frontage
on knuckles or cul-de~sacs, and 100 feet of depth.
Site Access
Each lot takes access from Bonny Road which
provides access to the site from Zinfandel Avenue.
The proposed single means of ingress and egress is
consistent with County Fire Department policy
which only requires a second access where there are
35 lots or more, or the street exceeds 1,320 feet in
length. Vesting Tentative Tract 23142 contains 20
residential lots, and Bonny Road is 640 feet long.
Drainaqe and Slope Stability
Lots 10 through 17 have tops of slopes which are not
at the property line resulting in areas which slope
downward toward adjacent properties. Concrete
lined bench drains have been installed along the
property line abutting said lots in order to prevent
impacts to adjacent properties due to water runoff
from the site. County Condition No. 5 requires
submittal of a soils report addressing soils stability.
County Condition No. 6 requires compliance with
Ordinance 457 which stipulates that all slopes
greater in height than three feet must have erosion
control planting.
Staffrpt\VTM23142\mb 2
Compatibility with Adjacent Land Uses
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23142 is compatible
with the existing R-1 development south of the site
and with anticipated future development at a
density of 2-5 dwelling units per acre east and west
of the site. The R-R parcel northwesterly of the
site contains a steel tank water reservoir.
Archaeoloqical and Paleontoloqical Resources
The Archaeological Report prepared for this project
stated that no artifacts were found on the site. The
site is located in an area known to contain fossil
resources. Condition No. 19(e) requires that the
developer retain a qualified paleontologist to
evaluate the impacts of grading and implement
measures necessary to recover and preserve any
fossil resources found on the site.
Additional Facts Not Included in the Oriqinal
Conditions of Approval
The original Conditions of Approval did not include
provisions requiring the developer to satisfy the
requirements of the Qulmby Act or to agree to pay
public facility fees. Staff has recommended that the
developer agree to pay these additional fees not
originally included in the Conditions of Approval for
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23142.
Kanqaroo Habitat Conservation Fee
Pursuant to Condition of Approval No. 19(a) in the
attached County Staff Report, Kangaroo Rat Habitat
Conservation fees were paid prior to the issuance of
grading permits by the County.
Processinq Time
This staff report was completed in draft form and
set aside because recordation of the map seemed
imminent, and recordation of the map would make
action on the extension of time unnecessary.
However, after several weeks the final steps
required for recordation have still not been taken,
Therefore, Staff is proceeding with the time
extension request.
Staffrpt\VTM23142\rob 3
ZONING AND GENERAL
PLAN CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS:
The size and dimensions of the lots are consistent
with the requirements of the R-1 Zone, and the
proposed density of 3.3 units per acre is consistent
with the Southwest Area Community Plan
designation of 2-4 dwelling units per acre.
On October 25, 1988 the County adopted a Negative
Declaration for Environmental Assessment No, 32354
in conjunction with the approval of Vestin9
Tentative Tract No. 23142.
Extension of Time for Vestinq Tentative Tract No.
23142
The proposed density is consistent with the
Southwest Area Plan land use designation.
The proposed density of 3.3 units per acre is
within range of the SWAP designation of 2-4
units per acre.
Vesting Tentative Tract 23142 is compatible
with the surrounding zoning and adjacent
existing land uses.
Adequate public street access will be
provided to every lot. The legal owner of
record has offered to make all required
dedications.
Staff finds that site access will be adequate,
A second means of access is not required for
subdivisions of 35 lots or less.
There is a reasonable probability that the
project will be consistent with the City~s
General Plan once adopted, in that the
proposed density is consistent with the
Southwest Area Plan land use designation,
and the revised map is compatible with
surrounding zoning, existing land uses in the
vicinity, and approved subdivisions.
It is unlikely that the proposed revised
tentative map will constitute a substantial
detriment to the future General Plan if the
proposed subdivision is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan. Surroundin9
zoning, existing land uses, and approved
subdivisions are all residential.
Staffrpt\VTM23142\mb 4
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The project will not have a significant
adverse affect on the environment, The
County of Riverside Board of Supervisors
adopted a Negative Declaration in conjunction
with the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract
23142.
The site is physically suitable for the type
and density of the development proposed.
The proposed project makes adequate
provision for future passive or natural solar
heating opportunities in that all proposed
parcels have adequate southern exposure.
10.
The project meets the requirements of
Ordinance 348 and 460 in that all lots conform
to the minimum size and dimension
requirements of the zoning code and abut
upon dedicated street.
11.
The lawful conditions stated in the project's
Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary
to protect the health, safety, and welfare,
12.
These findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
associated by reference,
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
ADOPT Resolution 91 - approvin9 a first
extension of time for Vesting Tentative Tract No.
23142 through October 25, 1991 based on the
analysis and findings contained in this report
subject to the Conditions of Approval in the
attached County Staff Report and the attached City
of Temecula Conditions of Approval,
SW:mb
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
Resolution
Conditions of Approval
County Staff Report
Exhibits:
Vicinity Map
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23142
Fee Checklist
Staffrpt\VTM23142\mb 5
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A FIRST EXTENSION OF
TIME FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23142
TO SUBDIVIDE A SIX ACRE PARCEL INTO 20 SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS LOCATED ON BONNY ROAD
NORTH OF ZINFANDEL AVENUE AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 946-060-004
WHEREAS, Costa Construction, Inc. filed a time extension request for
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231u,2 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 Extension of Time
for Vesting Tentative Tract Map on May 6, 1991, at which time interested persons
had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission Hearing, the
Commission approved said Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23142;
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\VTM23147\mb 6
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 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 Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 23142 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. I of County Ordinance No.
~,60, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are
made:
a)
That the proposed land division is consistent
with applicable general and specific plans.
Staffrpt\VTM23142\mb 7
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 approving the Extension
of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 231~,2, makes the following
findings, to wit:
The proposed density is consistent with the
Southwest Area Plan land use designation.
The proposed density of 3.3 units per acre is
within range of the SWAP designation of
units per acre.
Vesting Tentative Tract 231~,2 is compatible
with the surrounding zoning and adjacent
existing land uses.
Staffrpt\VTM23142\mb 8
10,
11.
Adequate public street access will be
provided to every lot. The legal owner of
record has offered to make all required
dedications.
Staff finds that site access will be adequate.
A second means of access is not required for
subdivisions of 35 lots or less.
There is a reasonable probability that the
project will be consistent with the City~s
General Plan once adopted, in that the
proposed density is consistent with the
Southwest Area Plan land use designation.
and the revised map is compatible with
surrounding zoning, existing land uses in the
vicinity, and approved subdivisions.
It is unlikely that the proposed revised
tentative map will constitute a substantial
detriment to the future General Plan if the
proposed subdivision is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan. Surrounding
zoning, existing land uses, and approved
subdivisions are all residential.
The project will not have a significant
adverse affect on the environment. The
County of Riverside Board of Supervisors
adopted a Negative Declaration in conjunction
with the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract
231q2.
The site is physically suitable for the type
and density of the development proposed.
The proposed project makes adequate
provision for future passive or natural solar
heating opportunities in that all proposed
parcels have adequate southern exposure.
The project meets the requirements of
Ordinance 348 and 460 in that all lots conform
to the minimum size and dimension
requirements of the zoning code and abut
upon dedicated street.
The lawful conditions stated in the project's
Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary
to protect the health, safety, and welfare.
Staffrpt\VTMZ3142\mb 9
12.
These findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
associated 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. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves a First
Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~,2 for the subdivision of
a 6 acre parcel into 20 single family residential lots located on Bonny Road north of
Zinfandel Avenue and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 9~6-060-00u, subject to the
following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
SECTION 3.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of May, 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 6th day of May, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
Staffrpt\VTM23142\mb 10
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planninq Department
Prior to recordation, the subdivider shall satisfy the requirements of the
Quimby Act by payment of fees and/or contribution of land or shall provide
an agreement approved by the City Council providing for payment of fees
and/or contribution of land.
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 the developer requests its building permits
for the project or any phase thereof, the developer shall execute the
Agreement for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been
provided to the Developer. The 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.
The first extension of time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. Z3142 shall
expire one year from the expiration of the original approval unless extended
as provided by Ordinance 460. The expiration date shall be October 25, 1991.
Lot 21 shall be combined with Lot 20 to form one ( 1 ) lot, and Lot 22 shall be
combined with Lot 1 to form one ( 1 ) lot. The slope areas are to be maintained
by the individual lot owners.
Enqineerinq Department
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
The Developer shall comply with the 5tare 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. 460.
Staffrpt\VTM23142\mb 11
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
7. 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;
CalTrans; and
Parks and Recreation Department.
The following perimeter landscaped parkways are required to be annexed into
the landscape maintenance districts:
Lots 21 and 22.
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, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing,
striping, and other traffic control devices as appropriate.
b. Sewer and domestic water systems.
10.
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.
11. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent.
12.
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.
13.
Developer shall repair and replace any and all damage to adjacent properties
along the southerly tract boundary due to erosion and runoff as determined
by the City Engineer. All work shall be complete within L~5 days of this
approval.
Staffrpt\VTM23142\mb 12
14.
Developer shall have in place a bond for grading, erosion control and
landscaping for slope protection. Any existing bonds shall be continued in
force by the developer until acceptance of all improvements by the City
Engineer.
15.
Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CATV Franchises of
the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time
of street improvements.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
16.
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. Th~
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:
17.
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.
18.
The existing brow ditch and energy dissipation along the southerly tract
boundary shall be relocated out of lots u,O, 41 and 42 of adjacent Tract No.
20879, and onto the developer~s property. The brow ditch shall be extended
to connect with the existing drainage structure along the northeasterly tract
boundary. All reconstruction of the brow ditch and associated grading shall
be as approved by the City Engineer.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
19.
Construct full street improvements including, but not limited to drainage and
erosion control, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement. sidewalk, drive
approaches, parkway trees and street lights, including the extension of
Bonny Road to Zinfandel Avenue.
Transportation Enqineerinq
PRIOR TO RECORDATION:
20.
A signing plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved
by the City Engineer for Bonny Road and shall be included with the street
improvement plans.
21.
Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering
for the design requirements.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
22. All signing shall be installed per the approved signing plan.
Staffrpt\VTM23142\mb 13
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBDIVISION
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23142
DATE:
A)IENDEX) NO. 1
EXPIRES:
STANDARD CONDITIONS
~,'he subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County of
.tverstde, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or
)r~eeding against the County of Riverside or its agents, officers, or
mploy~e, tO attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the County
uf Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body
concernin Vestin Tentative Tract No. 23142, Amended No. 1, which action
is brougRt mboul within the time period provided for in California
Government Code Section 66499.37, The County of Riverside will promptly
notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the
County of Riverside End will cooperIre fully in the defense. If the
County fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action,
or roceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider
sh·~l not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold
harmless the County of Riverside.
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California
Subdivision Pap Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule
A, unless modified by the conditions listed below.
This conditionally approved tentative mp will expire t~ years after the
County of Riverside bard of Supervisors approval date, unless extended as
provided by Ordinance 460.
4. The final mp shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to ell
the requtrenenta of the State of colifornil Subdivision Pap Act and
Ordinance 460.
S. The subdivider shall submtt one copy of · soils report to the Riverside
County Surveyor's Office end tw copies to the Departmnt of Building and
Safety. The re rt shell address the so ls stability and geological
conditions of ~J~s
¢
If any grading is proposed, the subdivider shall submit one print of
comprehensive grading plan to the Department of Buffdim3 mnd Safety. The
~an comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, as amended
~ shall
by Ordinance 457 end as maybe additionally provided for in these
conditions of approval.
VESTING TENTAtiVE TIACT I10. 23142, 4ad. #1
Conditions ef Jqllmwll
Page 2
7. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Oeparl3~ent of Building and
Safety prior to comnencmnt of any grading outside of county maintained
road right orgy.
8. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the
final map.
The subdivider shall comply with the street improvement recoenendations
outlined in the Riverside County Road Depari3nent's letter dated 3-23-BB, a
copy of whtch is attached.
10. Legal access ms required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract
map boundary to a County maintained road.
All mad easemnts shell be offered for dedication to the public and shall
continue in fore until the governing body mccepts or abandons such
offers. All dedications shall be free from Ill encumbrances as approved
b the Road Commissioner. Street names shall be subject to approval of
~e Road Coemnissioner.
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 County
Surveyor.
Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance
with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's
letter dated 4-04-88, a copy of which is attached.
14. The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommendations
outlined by the Riverside County flood Control District's letter dated
3-29-88, I copy of which is attached. If the lind division lies within an
adopted flood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of Ordinance
460 appro flare fees for the const~ction of are drainage facilities
shall be c~V1Kted by the Road Commissioner.
The subdivider shill comply with the fire improvement rec~,w,endations
outlined tn the County Fire Nmrshml's lettmr dated 3-23-88, m copy of
which is attached.
16. Subdivision phasing, including mny proposed common open space area
improvement phasing, if applicable, shill be subject to Planning
Deparb~ent Ipprovll. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate
vehicular access to mll lots in emch phase, and shall substantially
1
conform to the intent and purpose of the subdlvts on approval.
17. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following:
VESTIIIG TEMTATIVE 11LIL'T IB. 23142, Mild.
Conditions of AR)rev·l
Page 3
a. All lot hnSth to width ratios shall be in conform·rice with Section
3.8C of Ordinance 460.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a ~eed-free
condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or
provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the
Director of Building and Safety.
Prior to RECORDATION of the final mp the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
Prior to the recordation of the final nap the applicant shall subeat
written clearances to the Riverside County Road and Survey Oepart~ent
that ·11 pertinent requirements outlined in the attached approval
letters from the following agencies have been mat:
County Fire Department
County Flood Control
County Health Department
County Planning Department
Prior to the recordation of the final map, Change of Zone No. 5115
shall be approved by the Board of Supervisors and shall be effective.
Lots created by this land division shall be in confo~mance mth the
development standards of the zone ultimately applied to the property.
c. Prior to recordation, the subject property shall be annexed into CSA
143.
Prior to recorderton of the final map, the subdivider shall convey to
the County f·e simple time, to ·11 common or c~n open space areas,
free and clear of all liens, taxes, assessment, hases (recorded and
unrecorded) and easements, except those easements which in the sole
discretion of the County ·re acceptable. As · condition precedent to
the County ·ccepttng time to such. areas, the subdivider shell submit
the following documents to the Planning Department for review. which
documants shall be sub3ect to the approval of that department and the
Office of the County Counsel:
1) A declar·tton of covenants, conditions and restrictions; and
2) A s·mple document conveyt title to the purchaser of an
individual lot or unit ~hn~ch provides that the declaration of
covenants, conditions and restrictions is incorporated therein by
reference.
VESTilETENTATXVETIUkCTI0. 23142, kid. tl
Conditions of Approval
Page 4
The declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions submitted
for review shall (a) provide for I tam of 60 years, (b) provide for
1
the esteb is~nent of e property mmers' Issociation comprised of the
owners of each individual lot or unit and (c) contain the following
provisions verbatim:
*Notwithstanding any provision in this Declaration to the
contrary, the following provision shall apply:
The property ~ers' association established herein shall, if
dotant, be activated, by incorporation or otherwise, at the
request of the County of Riverside, and the property owners'
association shall unconditionally accept from the County of
Riverside, upon the County's demand, title to all or any part of
the 'comn area', were particularly described on Exhibit 'A'
attached hereto. The decision to require activation of the
property owners' association and the decision to require that the
association unconditionally accept title to the 'con~non area'
shall be at the sole discretion of the County of Riverside.
In the event that the co,non area, or any part thereof, is
conveyed to the property owners' association, the association,
thereafter shall o~m such 'coBnon area', shell manage and
continuously maintain such 'c~n area' Ind shall not sell or
transfer such *common area' , or any part thereof, absent the
prior written consent of the Planning Director of the County of
Riverside or the County's successor-in-interest. The property
owners' association shall have the right to assess the owners of
each individual lot or unit for the reasonable cost of
maintaining such 'cmmn area', and shall have the right to lien
the property of any such owner who defaults in the payment of a
maintenance assessmnt. An assessmnt lien, once created, shall
be prior to all other liens recorded subsequent to the notice of
assessment or other document creating the assessment 1ten.
This Declaration shall not be tlmtnated, 'substantially' amended
or property deannexed therefrom absent the prior wTitten consent
of the Planning Director of the County of Riverside or the
1
County's successor-in-interost. A proposed amendment shal be
considered 'substantial' if It affects the extent, usage or
maintenance Of the 'C~,.~n aroa'.
In the event of any conflict betcan this Declaration and the
Articles of Incorporation, the Bylaws, or the pro arty owners'
association Rules and Regulations, if any, this DecVaretion shall
control."
VF_STTRG 1TNTAT[YE TWACT NO. 23142, ~ci. IT
Conditions of Aeeroval
Page S
Once approved, the declaration of covenants, conditions and
restrictions shall be recorded at the same time that the final map ~s
recorded.
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 approve~
by the Planning DireCtor.
Prior to recordorion of the final map, an Environmental Constraints
Sheet (ECS} shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to
delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently
filed with the office of the County Surveyor. A copy of the ECS shall
be tran~nitted to the Planning Department for review and approval.
The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded f~nal
map tq the Planning Department end the Department of Building and
Safety.
The follmwing note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints
Sheet: 'County Biological Report No. 189 was prepared for th~s
property and is on file at the Riverside County Planning Department.
h. The applicant shall participate in a fee program and shall pay the
h
ultimate fee imposed for mitigation of impacts to the Step ens
Kangaroo Rat. Prior to final map approval or issuance of grading
permits, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall enter into a
deposit a reamant with the County end shall deposit monies based on a
rate of )750.00 per residential lot to be used towards payment of the
fee or if an ordinance implementing the fee is in effect, the
app icant shall lay the fee.
Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
a. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the biological mitigation
fNnd tn Condition18h shall be comphted. (A~lendet.)~.P8~l~nninq Cor~ission
b. Prior to the issuance of grading lamits besetled common open space
area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be subnetted for Planning
be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide
for the following.
I. Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all
landscaped ereas requiring irrigation.
2. Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be opaque
up to a minimum height of six (6) feet at mmturity.
WSTI!IG TENTATIVE TRACT ID. 23142o Md.
Conditioi~s of Aperove1
Page 6
All utiltty service areas and enclosures shall be screened from
view with llndscaping and decorative barriers or barge
treeDents, as approved by the Planning Director, Utilities shall
be placed underground.
s
Where street trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of
interior streets and ro~ect arkways due to insufficient road
right-of-way, they sha~l be pVanted outside of the road
right-of-way.
5. 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.
7. All trees shall be minimum double staked.
growing trees shall be steel staked.
Weaker and/or slow
All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded
exceeding ten (10) feet in vertical height shall
incorporating the following grading techniques:
natural terrain and
be contour-graded
,) ;; ;V1 .,r.d.d slo. sh.ll be gr, du.ll, .djust.d to the
ea ~hl°
a iV1tetra t n.
2) Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded ram shall reflect
the natural rounded terrain.
3) The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves with
the s apes
radii designed in. proportion to the total height of I
where drainage end stabiltt~y pemtt such rounding.
4)
Where cut or f111 slopes exceed 300 fat in horizontal length, the
horizontal contours of the slope shall be curYed in m continuous,
undulettng fashion.
Prior to the issuance of redtng pemits, the developer shall provide
evidence to the Director o) Building end Safety that all adjacent
off-site mnufactured slopos have recorded slope easements and that
slope mtntenance responsibilities have been assigned as epproved by
the Director of Building and Safety.
Prior to the tssuence of grading permits, m qualified paleontologist
she1-1 be retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the
p~oposed grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts.
V[STTIIG TE)ITATIYE TRACT NO. Z3142. Md. ft
Co~dtttons of Ai)pro~al
Page 7
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. Idhen
necessary, the paleontologist or representative shall have the
iv.rt. redirect or h. lt gr.ding .ctiv,t, to
Prior to the issuance of BUILDXNG PEPJqXT$ the followin9 conditions sha~l
be satisfied:
No building permits shall be issued by the County of Riverside for any
residential lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer's
successor's-in-interest provtdes evidence of compliance with public
facility financtn A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100)
per lot/unit Shall measures.
be deposited with the Riverside County Department
of Building and Safety as mitigation for public library development.
A plot plan shall be submitted to the Planntng Department pursuant to
Section t8.30 of Ordinance No. 348 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 governmental
agency other than the Riverside County Planning Department. The plot
plan shall ensure the conformance of the final site develoment with
the tract's approved Design IMnual (Exhibit N), and shall contain the
following elements:
1. A final site plan sho~ing the lots, building footprints, all
setbacks, fences and/or malls, I~d floor plan and elevation
assignments to individual lots.
2. One (1) color and materials sample board (maximum size of 8 X
inches by 3/8 inch thick) containart precise color. texture and
matertel smatches or photographs (whtc~ my be from suppliers'
brochures). Zndicate on the board the name, address and phone
numbers of beth the sample board prepafar and the project
applicant, tract number, and the manufacturer and product numbers
where posstble (trade names also acceptable).
One (1) copy of the architectural elevations colored to represent
the selected color combinations, fith s~mbols keyed to the color
and materials board. The writton color and muterat1 descriptions
shall be located on the elevation.
Stx (6) coptes of each of lossy photographic color prints (size 8
X 10 inches of color and mterlals board and colored
) both
irchitecturel elevations for permanent ftltng, hearing body review
and agency distribution. All writing must be legible.
VESTIN TE)ITATIVE TItACT I). 23142, Jill
Comfittoes ef Al:qw~ral
Page 8
Said plot plan shall require the approval of the Planning Director
prior to the issuance of any building pemits for lots included within
the plot plan. The submittal of plot plans prior to the issuance of
building permits ma~ be phased provided:
A separate plot plan shall be submitted to the Planning Deparbnent
h
for each p ase, which shall be accompanied by appropriate filing
fees,
e41
2. Each individual plot plan shall be approved by the Plannin9
Director prior to the tssuance of building pemits for lots
included mthln that plot plan.
Prior to the tssuance of INfiding pemits, composite landscaping and
irrigation plans shaql be submitted for Planning Department approval.
The plans shall address lll areas and aspects the tract requiring
landscaping and irrigation to be installed including, but not limited
to, parkey planting, street trees, slope planting, and indhidual
front yard landscaping.
All dwellings to be constructed vtthin this subdivision shall be
designed and constructed vtth f~re retardant (Class A) roofs as
approved b~ the Count~ Fire 14arshal.
Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be pemitted within the
subdivision, however sol ar equiment or any other energy saving
devices shall be benflitted with Pllnning Department approval.
f. All front yards shall be provtded with landscaping and automatic
irrigation.
g. A fencing plan shall be submitted for Planning Department approval.
P~tor to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERIqXTS the following conditions shall
be satisfied:
GN:sc
9/13/88
lie11 and/or fence locations shall contom to approved plans.
All landscaping end ~rrtgatton shall be ~nstalled In accordance with
approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy pemits. If
seasonal conditions do not pemlt planting, tnterm landscaping and
erosion control measures shall be utiltzed as approved by the Planning
Director and the DIrector of Butldtng and hfety.
OFFICE OF ROAD COA4MIS~IOA, ER (, COLWTY SLRVEYOR
laRor o,
March 23, 1988
Riverside County Planning Con~isston
4080 Leqon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
Re: Tract Map 23~42- Amend
Schedule A - Team I
Ladies and Gentleran:
With respect tO the ConditiOnS Of approval for the referenced tentative land
division mp, the Road Department reco~nends that the landdivider provide tne
following street improvePint plans and/or road dedtcaUons in accorOance with
Ordinance 460 and Riverside C~unty Read l~rovemnt Standards (Ordinance 461).
It is understood that the tentative n~p COrreCtly ShOwS acceptable centerline
profiles, ell existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses with
appropriate Q'st and that their omission or unacceptabtltty ray require the rap
to be resubrnitted for further consideration. These Ordinances and the following
conditions are essential parts and a requiren~nt occurring in ONE is as Din~ing
as though occurring in all. They are intended to be complementary an~ to
describe the conditions for a complete design of the i~provement. All questions
regarding tt~ true meanin9 of the conditions shall be referre~ to the R~ao
Commissioner's Office.
The landdivider shill protect does,ream properties fro~ daNgas
caused by alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentra-
tion of diversion of flow. Protection shall be provideD by
constructing adequate drainage facilities including enlarging
existin facilities or by securtn a drainage easement or by
both. Xll drainage easMnts shaV1 be sho~ on the final Np
and noted is follows: 'Drainage Easement - no building,
obstructions, or enCroachmints by land fills are allowed'. The
protection shall be es approved by the Road Oeperr~nent.
The lenddivider shall accept and properly dispose of all offsite
drainage flowtrig onto or through the stte. Zn the event the
Road Cenmtsstoner permits the use of streets for drainage
purposes, the provisions of Article XI of Ordinance No. 460
will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street
capacity or the use of streets be prohibited for drainage
purposeS, the suHivtdlr shall provide adequate drainage
facilities Is approved by the Road OeperUnent.
Iract Nap 23%4Z - Anlm~ #1
.March 23, %988
Page 2
3. Mljor drainage is involved on this landdiviSion and its resolution
s~ei1 be as approved by the Road Department.
"A" Street (including any offset. right of way) Shall be improved
within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County
Standard No. 105, $ection A. (36'/60').
5. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed throughout the landdivision
in aCCOrdanCe with County Standard No. 400 and 401 (cur~ sidewalk),
6. lm access road to the nearest paved road maintained by the County
Shall be constructed within the public ri ht of way in accordance
with COunty Standard No. 106, Section 8, 13Z'/60°) at a grade and
&It gnment aS approved by the Road Commissioner.
Prior to the recordarSon of the final map, the developer Shall
deposit with the Riverside County Road Department, a cash sum of
$150.00 per lot as mitigation for traffic signal impacts. 5nould
t~e developer choose to defer the time of payment, he my enter
imto a written agreement with the COunty deferring said payment
to the time of iSSuance of a INilding permit.
Z~provement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile
extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the prOjeCt boundaries at
a grade and alignment as approved by the Riverside COunty Road
Commissioner. COmplttion of road improvenents does not imply
acceptance for maintenance by County.
Electrical and communications trenches shall be provided in
accordance with Ordinance 461, Standard 817.
AsphaltiC emulSiOn (fOg seal) shall be appl'teo not less than
fourteen days following placement of the asphalt Surfacing and
shall be Ipplted at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard.
Asphalt emulsion'shell conform to Sections 37, 39' and 94 of the
State Standard Specifications.
Standard knuckles and offset cul-de-sacs shall be constructed
t~roughout the division.
Corner cutbacks in conformnce with COunty Standard No. 805 shall
be shown on the final nip and offered for dedication.
Trac*t ~ap 23~42- knend tl
~tcln 23, 1988
P,e(~e 3.
13. Linddivisions creedrig cut or ftli slopes adjacent to t~e s~ree=s
shell provide erosion control, Sight distance and slope easements
as appr~d by tRe Pa~ad Oepar~ment.
14. The landdivider shall provide utility ClearanCe from Rancho Calif.
Water Company prior to the recordation of the final map.
lS. The meximum centerline gradient shall not exceed 15%.
16. The minimum lot frontages along the cul-de-sacs snell be 35 feet.
17. Street trees shall be planted in conformante with the provisions
Of Article 13a of Ordinance 460.53 and their location(s) snell be
ShOwn on ~treet improvement plans.
18. All drive~ys shall conform to the applicable Riverside County
Standart~-
19. The minimum garage setback shall be 30 feet measured from the face
of curb.
20. All centerline intersections shall be at 90' with a minimum
tangent measured from flow line.
21. The street design and improvement concept of this project snell
coordinated with MB 16g/16-19-
22. Street lighting s~all be required in accordance with Ordinance
and 461 throughout the subdivision. The County Service Area (CSA)
~dmintstrator determines whether this prOpOSal qualifies under an
existing assessment ets:rict or not. If not, the land owner
shall file an application with LAFCO for annexation into or
creation of a "Lighting AsseSsment District" in accoroance with
Governmental Code Section 560C0.
Very truly yours.
Road Division Engineer
GH:lh
County of Rixrez-Bide
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT.
TRACT Ke 231&2. Amended No. I
~a~s April &. 1988
EnviTo.~entll Hellth Services
Environmental Health Services has reviewed Tract Map 231&2,
Amended No. I dazed ~arch 21, 1988. Our current comments will
remain as szazed in our letter dazed Februaz7 18, 1988.
~iVE~SID~ COUNTY
pLANNING C~EpARTMENT
COUNTY I IVERSIDE
DEPARTMENT
4080 Lemon Street - ~-o
R~verside. CA 92502 &~"'7 "'r '-.,
c .... '- ' · '
AILN: Greg Nell
!t~; Tract Map 23142: Being k subdivi$ton of a portion of the
Ranthe Tamecull, which was granted by the government of the
United States to Lull Vignes by Book 1. Page 37 of patents
dated January 18, 1860 recorded in the 0ff~ce of the County
Recorder of San Diego. StILe of California.
(20 Lots)
Gentlemen:
The Department of Public Health has reviewed Tentative Map
No. 23142 and recommends that:
A water system shall be installed accordlAg to
plans and specificsLion as approved by the water
company end the Health Department. Permanent
prints of the plans of the water system shall
be submitted in triplic&te, with a minimum sclle
not less then one inch equals 300 feet. along with
the original drawing to the County Surveyor. The
prints shall show the internal pipe diameter.
lotaLlen of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and
3mint specifications, ~nd the size of the ma$n
at the 3unction of the new system to the
existing system. The plans shall comply in
ellrespects with Div. S, Part l, Chapter 7 of
the California Health and Safety Code, Celiforn,a
Administrative Code, Title 22, Chapter 16. and General
Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of the
State of California,when applicable. The plans shall
be signed by a registered engineer and water company
with the following certification: 'I certify that the
design of the water system in Tract Map 23142 xs xn
accordance with the water system expansion plans of the
Ranthe California Water District and that the water
service,storage and distributxon system will be
adequate to provide water servxcs to such tract.
Riverside County Planning Dept.
Page Two
Attn: Grog NeaX
February 18, lg88
This certification does not constitute t guarantee that
it will supply water to such tract at any specific
quantities, flows or prellurel for fire protection or
any other purpose". This certification shell be signed
by a responsibXe o[ficia~ st the voter company.
This Department has · statement from the Ranthe California
Water District agreeing to serve domestic voter to each and
every lot in the subdivision on demand providing
satisfactory financial arrangements are completed v~th the
subd~v~der. Zt will be necessary for the financial
arrangements to be made prior to the records!ion of the
finiX map.
This Deportment has a statement from the ~astern Municipal
Voter Distr~ct agreeing to allow the subdivision sewage
system to be connected to the severs of the District. The
sever system shall be installed according to plans and
speci~icat~ons as approved by the District, the County
Surveyor and the Hea~th Deportment. Permanent prints o~ the
plans of the sever system shall be submitted ~n
along v~th the original drawing, to the County Surveyor. The
prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location
manholes, compleLe profiles, pipe and 3o~nt specifications
and the s~ze of the severs at the 3unction of the new system
to the existing system. A single plat indicat~ng ~ocat~on
of sever lines end water lines shall be a portion
sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall be signed by a
registered engineer and the sever district with the
following certification: 'l certify that the design or the
sever system in Tract Nap 23142 is in accordance with the
sever system expansion plans of the ~astern Xunicipal Water
District and that the waste disposal system is adequate at
this time to treat the anticipated vastel from the proposed
tract,' ;bt_iiSaa_Sga~_~t_t~elt~t~_tm_~bt_Cm~-~
R~vers~de County Plmnning Dept.
Page Three
ATTN: Grog Neal
February ~8, 1988
Zt will be necessary for financXaZ arrangements to be made
prXor to the recordat~on of the fin&~ map.
It v~Z be nacessary [or the annexation proceedings Lo be
comp~eLely t~n&lized prior to recorda~on or the ~ns! map.
Sincerely,
$M:tac
KENNI'fi,4 I,. EDWARDI P. 0. BOX goal
Riverside County
Planning Departmnt
County Administrative Center
Riverside, California
Attention: Regional Team~,~,_/Gr/,,4~. Re:
Area: ~~ ~z~
We have revtew~ this case and have the following
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
APR 0 6 1988
I~VER~UE COUNTY
PLANNING IXPARTMENT
Except for nuisance nature local runoff which may traverse portions of the
property the project is considered free from ordinary storm flood hazard.
However, m storm of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New construc-
tion should comply with ell 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 Area
drainage plan fees shall be paid in accordance with the applicable r~les 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 Dtstrtct's report dated ~-Z'~;} ts still current for this project.
The District does not object to the proposed minor change.
The attached comments apply.
Very truly yours,
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
KINNI'TN L B'DWARDI t'mll IAnKIS' rrnlrrr
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
March 2, 1988
RIverside Co~mty
Planning Department
Coumty Administrative Center
Riverside, CAlifornia
Attention: Reglonal Team No, 1
Greg Neal
Ladies and Gentle~n:
Re: Vesting Tract 23142
This is a proposal to divide 6 acres in the Temecula Valley a~ea. The proper-
ty is between Sou~h General Kearny Road and Rancho California Road aboum 2000
feet wast of Butterfield Stage Road.
The property is located at high ground and receives very little offsite storm
r~moff. Onsite storm runoff~ould be conveyed by the proposed Bonny Road and
discharged at the site's southwast corner through an offsite storm drain
system.
Following are the Dtstrtct's recommendations:
This vesting tract map is located within the limits of the Murrieta
CreekYTmecula Valley Area Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have
been adopted by the Roard. Drainage fees shall be paid as set forth
under the provisions of the "Rules and !egulations for Administration
of Area Drainage Plans", amended July 3, 198~:
Drainage fees shall be paid to the Road Ommntssioner as part of
the filing for record of the subdivision final map or parcel map,
Or If the recording of a final parcel map Is waived, drainage fees
shall be paid u a condition of the waiver prior to recording e
certificate of compliance evidencing the waiver of the parcel map;
At the op~tm of the la~d divider, upon filing a required af-
fidavit requesting defermerit of the payment of fees, the drainage
fees shall be paid to the )ulldlng Director a~ the time of
suance of a grading parmlt or building permlt fOr each approved
parcel, ditchever may be fir~ obtained m~er the recording of ~e
subdtvislm final map or parcel map; however,
Drainage fees shall be paid to the Road Ommtssioner as a part of
the filing for record of the subdivision final map or parcel map,
or before receiving a waiver to record a land division, for each
lot within the land dtvlslon where construction a~tivtty as evi-
denced by orie of the following actions has occurred since May
1981:
Riverside Co~mty
Planning l:>apar~ent
Re: Vesting Tract 231~2
-2- Hatch 2, 1988
(a) A grading permit oP ~ullding permit has been obtained.
(b) Gradlng or 8truerurea have been $nltlated.
Offsite drainage facilities should be loeged within publicly dedicat-
ed drainage easements obtained l~rom the affected property owner(s).
The doe~eent(a) should be recorded and a oopy submitted to the
District prior to reeordation oft he final map.
3- All lots should be graded to drain to the adjacent street or an ade-
quate outlet.
The 10 year atorm flow should be contained within the curb a~d the 100
year atorm flow should be contained within the street right of way.
When either of these erit4rl/is exceeded, additional drainage facili-
ties should be 1natalled.
A drainage easement should be obtained ~rom the affeoted property
owners for the release of eoncentrmted or diverted atom flows. A
copy of the reoorded drainage easement should be submitted to the
District for review prior to the recordatlon of the final map.
Evidence of a viable maintenance mechanism should be submitted to the
District md County for review and approval prior to recordation of
the final map.
A copy or the improvement plans, grading plans and final map along
with supporting hydroZoite m~d hydraulto calculations should be sub-
mitted to the District via the Road DepmrtJnant for review md approval
prior to recordargon oft,he flnml map. Grading plans should be ap-
proved prior to issuanoe of Fading permits.
questions coneerntng thlsmttermaybe referred to Robert Chiang of this of-
flee mfc 71~FT87-2333-
Very ta-ulyyo~r8,
~lt~'Civ!~llffi~g~neer
ca: Rmneho hclrie Engineering Corp.
~C:pln
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMBNT
IN COOP~P, ATION WtTH THE
CALIFO~NI& DEPAKTMENT Off FC)~ESTRY
RAY HEBRARD
3-23-88
PLANNING DEPARTMI~T
TEAM Z
TR 23~42 - AMENDED tl
PbnnJnl & Ealineer~nl Office
4080 ~e'mon SC~eet. Suite I l
RJverside, CA 92501
(714)
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land division,
the Fire Department reconunends the following fire protection measures be provided
in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection
standards:
FIRE PROTECTION
Schedule "A" fire protection approved standard firs hydrants, (6"x4"x2%") located
one at each street intersection and spaced no sore than 330 feet apart in any
direction, with no portion of any lot frontage sore than 165 feet from a hydrant.
Minimum fire flow shall be lO00 GPM for 2 hours duration at 20 PSI.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one coW of the water system plans to the Fire
Department for review. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and
spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be
signed/approved by a registered civil engineer end the local water company with
the following certification: el certify that the design of the water system is
in accordance with the r~uirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire
Department.w
The rquired water systee, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted
by the approi~riate water agency prior to any combustible building material being
placed on an individual lot.
Prior to the recordsalon of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the
Riverside County Fire Department, · cash sW of $400.00per lot/unit as mitigation
for fire protection impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of
pa~qaent, he/she my enter into · written agreement with the County deferring said
payment to the time of Issuance Of I building permit,
all questions regarding the meaning of the conditions shell be referred to the
Fire Departsent Planning and Engineering staff,
stub
April 27, 1988
Mr. Richard MacHete, Supervising Planner
Riverside County Planning Department
40S0 Lemon Street, 9th Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
SUBJECT: Vineyards Vesting Tentative Tract
Nap Number 23102
Dear Mr. MaCHete:
The following summarizes our findinVs reVarding ~he fiscal
lmpac~ analysis for ~he pro3ect identified above. The
appendix attached summarizes ~he basic assumptions used in
~he analysis. Please no~e ~ha= these results reflect the
curren~ levels of service provided by the county based on
Fiscal Year 1986 - 1987 actual costs (per capita factors)
and Departmental and Auditor-Controller review of operations
and facility costs for services reviewed using case study
analysis. Staff to the Growth Fiscal Impact Task Force and
Departments ere currently reviewing service levels provided
and the need to increase the levels of service. Current
findings ere that existing levels of service are no~
adequate in most cases. Should the desired level of service
be utilized in the fiscal analysis performed, it would
significantly increase =he costs associated with this
development.
COUNT/FUND
(Opersttoas and
Hain~enance)
FISCAL IMPACT
AFTER BUILDOUT
CUMULATIVE FISCAL
IMPACT AT BUILDOUT
county General ($1,336) $1,414
Fire
Free Library (S71)
SUBTOTAL COUNT/
1789
Road Fund (l%21) ($421)
GRAND TOTAL ($2,382) $368
The following special circumstances appl~ to this project:
1. The developer assumptions included a factor of 2.1
persons per dwi111ng unit. CAO staff utilized a factor of
2.69 persons per household, which is closer to the
count~wide average for this type of unit.
2. Please note the attached letter, dated March 28, 1988,
from the Riverside City and Count~ Public Library concerning
this project.
3. Flood Control staff has indicated that flood control
facilities constructed within Zone 7 are unlikely to be
sufficiently funded for maintenance costs. current
estimates indicate that funding shortages should occur for
=he next ten years. Suggested mitigation measures include a
cash deposit by the project developer or use of an
assessment mechanism. The amount of deposit would be
determined by a present value analysis and project timing.
The cost of maintaining flood control facilities will
not be known until f~nal design phases, when facility needs
have been fully identified. Flood Control staff will,
therefore, condition project approvals to identify a means
of financing facilit~ maintenance and operation
necessary) prior to recordation of subdivisions.
Based on the analysis and assuming that the average sales
price of the units will be $125,000, overall vineyards
(vesting Tentative Tract Map Number 23142) will have a
positive fiscal impact at buildout of $368. After buildout,
this project will have an annual negative fiscal impact to
the County of 22,382 at curren~evels of service.
Initial Review BY: ~
Review Approved By:
Riverside City and County Public Libra..-)
arc 28, 1968'
Mr. Kevin Rughas
Rancho Pacific Engineering
27447 Enterprise Circle West
Tamecull, CA 92390
Dear Mr. Hughes=
SUBJECTz VESTING TENTATiVE TRACT 23142-RANCHO CALIFORNIA AREA
I em writing in response to your request for information re-
garding the impact of · proposed project upon library service.
The proposed project would adversely effect existing library
services. The increase in population to be served would require
an increase in funding to the County Library to maintain the
current level of service.
However, the current level of service hal been recognized as
substantially inadequate. The itSlobed charts show how the
current number of volumes per capita and the current square
feet per capita ere inadequate and have declined during the
Zest decade due to the impact of rapid opulstion growth
throughout the County. See etaached charts ~ ppendix C and D)
The fiscal impact of sn additional 42 persons (20 d~elling
units) is stated below in 1988 dollars in amounts needed to
l)maintein the current, inadequate level of service only and to
2)provide the desired level of service. The desired level is
inclusive of the current level.
Facilities
(one time cost only)
Maintain Current
Level of Service
Provide Desired
Level of Service
Collection (volumes)
(one time cost only)
$ 964 $ 1,377
Subtotal for Facilities
end Collection
gone time cost only)
1,918 $ 4,359
Services
(annual ongoing cost)
$ 386 $ 794
Unda M. Woe4. Director
P.O. Box 428
PI ~,-;da. C~lifomi8 92502-O4AA
Letter to RANPAC, Tract J23142, 3/28/88, Page 2-
These costs might be mitigated by:
The assessment of a library facilities
in 1988 dollars at a cost of $96 per
maintain the current level of service,
tie1 unit to provide the desired level
and collections fee
residential unit to
or $218 per residen-
or service·
The determination that the proJect's estimated assessed
valuation will provide st least $386 per year in 1988
~o f nance ongoing
dollars to the County Library District i
expenses at the current level of service, or $794 per year
to finance ongoing expenses at the desired level of
service.
Feel free to contact me at (714)782-5213, if you have further
questions.
Sincerely yours,
Head of Branch Services
BED:mJb
Enclosures: Appendix C and D
cc: Linda Wood, Library Director
Norm Caouette, Senior Administrative Analyst
.#20/B/eg
Ea,t,rn /[unicipat ,r Di,trict
D J~m~
JemBN lUNLJ,
Gemmr (rk. ¥~m~k~, W~
.DmnrrefSe,,,,e~Catfenm
D~F. Imm
Apt11 21, 1988
Land Development Coesnfttee
RIverside County Plannt~TooloDrpartment
4080 Lemon Street, 9th
Riverside, California 9250]
SUBJECT: VESTZNG TRACT 23142/ZONE CHANGE 5115
The Dtstrtct ts responding to your request for conw~ents on the subject
proJect(s) relattve to the provision of water and sewer service. The items
checked below apply to thh project revtew.
The subject project:
X
Zs not w~thln EHWO's:
X water servtce area
sewer servtce area
Nust be annexed to this Dtstrtct's Zmprovement Dtstr~ct NO. in order
to be eligible to receive domestic water/sanitary sewer serve.
X itl1 be requtred to construct the following fattittles; tf serviced by EHk~:
a.) Water Service
b.) Sewer Servtce Onstte/offstte regionally stzed gravtty sewers
and participate ~n regional sewer facilities. No sewers allowed now or future
along lot lines.
Very Truly Yours,
EASTERN HUN]CZPAL WATER D/STR/CT
Planning Department
March 9, 1988
1988
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
pLANNING DEPARTiv:'-;;"'
Officers:
Start T. Mills
Ge~ezti Me~qt, r
Phillip L. Forb8
Dias~tor ~ Finance -
~sarer
Norman L Thomas
Thomas R. Mc.4aeter
Bayban J. Reed
DisuSe Secm~mry
Rutas and Tadrow
Riverside County Planning Department
4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor
Riverside, California 92501-3857
Subject: water Availability
Reference: Vesting Tract 23142
Gentlemen:
Please be advised that the above-referenced
proper~y is located within the boundaries of Rancho
California Water District. Water service, therefore,
would be available upon completion of financial
arrangements between RCWD and the property owner.
water availability would be contingent upon the
property owner signing an Agency Agreement which
assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.
If RCWD can be of further service to you, please
contact this office.
Very truly yours,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Senga P. Doherty
Engineering Services Representative
FOXZ/Jk-,,,OVS
L
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
28061 DIAZ ROAD · POST OFFICE BOX 174 · TEMECULA, CA 92390-0174 · (714) 676-4101 · FAX 1714W 676-0615
DATE: ~inulry 15, 1988
TO:
Assessor
Buildtrig lnd Safety
SurveTor - Dave Duds
Road Department
Health - Ralph Luchs
'Fire'Protection .....
Flood Control Dtstri~t
FiSh & Game
LAFCO, S Patslay
U.S. Postal Service - Ruth E. Ilevtdson
Rancho California Water Co
Eastern Nunlcipal Water District
Southern CaHfornia Edison
Southern California Gas
Genera] Telephone
Temecula Union School Dist
Elsinore Union High School Dtst
Temecule Chamber of Commerce
Mr. Palomit Observatory
Sierra Club
County Parks Department
Corrnisstoner iresson
RiVER}iDE COURCV
PLAnninG DEPARC!TIErlC
CHANGE OF ZONE SllK- (Tm-1) - E.A. 323~4
- Costs Construction Inc. - Rancho
Pacific Enpineertng - hncho Callfronts
Area - First Supervisortel District -
North of Rancho Calfornta eoad and HaSt
of Butterfield Stage - 6 acres - Request
Zone Change from R-R to R-I - Concurrent
Case Tract 23142 - Hod 11g - A.P.
9Z3-210-~IS
Please review the case described above, along with the attached case map. A Land
Dtvtston Corfntttee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for Hatch 3, lo88. If tt dears,
tt will then go to public hearJng.
Your connents Ind recommendations Ire reauested prior to February 18, 19R~ in order that
we may ~nclude then in the staff report for thh particular case.
Should you have any ~jesttons r~ardtn~ this 1tom, please do not hasttats to contact
Gre9 Nail st 787-1373
Planner
COffiqENT$:
The Fire Department has no
commentl or condttlO~l.
'b-lE: 3~Z-aS SIGNA~mE
PLEASE print name and tttle
D',r'T. '-." TI"-
f|.-..~
RECEIVED
GEORGe l- TATUM, Planning Officer
don0 LEMON STREET, 9'" FLOOR 46-209 OASIS STREET. ROOM 304
ikjfilt~ f,&t tCf'~DNIA 92201
Riverside County Planning Department
February 17, 1988
Sanicarian, Environmental Health Se~wices
m-~, C~.nge of Zone 5115
~e ~nvironmental Health Services has reviewed ~his change of
zone case and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and wa~er
services are available in ~his area.
SH:slw
GEN~ FOlqM 4,
PINKS
SUBMITTAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALJFORNIA
FROM: THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUmlMrrrALDAllE:
SUBJECT: CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5115 - VESTZNG TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 23142 -~..,~
Costa Construction - First Supervisorial District - Rancho California
Area - 6.0 Acres -'22 Lots o Schedule A - REQUEST: R-R to R-1
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
The Planning Comnission and Staff Reco~nend:
ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No.
'~'2'3'~l"6~'sed on the findings incorporated in the environmental
assesprit and the conclusion that the proposed project will not have
a significant effect on the environment; and
DENIAL of CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5115 from R-R to R-1 in accordance with
Exhibit 2, but
APPROVAL of CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5115 from R-R to R-1 and R-5 in
accordance with Exhibit 4, based upon the findings and conclusions
incorporated in the Planning Commission minutes dated September 28, 1988; a
APPROVAL of VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23142, A~ENDED NO. 1 subject
to the attached conditions, based on the'findings and conclusions
incorporated in the Planning Commission minutes dated September 28, 1988.
~G~:sc R~/~n*~gD'c~t°r
1/a8
Prey. Ala. rd. DeiNm. Coatmeats Dbt.
AGENDA N(
Zoning &tea: Rancho California
First Supervisoris1 DiStrict
E.A. Number: 32354
Regional Team No. !
aINIGE OF ZONE I10. 5115
VESTING TENTATIVE TIACT I). 23142
RIVErSIDE a)UIfTY PLAItflING DEPARTIEIT
STAFF llEP0eT
1~' Appl icant:
.'~ Engineer/Rap.:
Type of Request:
Location:
Existing Zoning:
Surrounding Zoning:
Existing Land Use:
Surrounding Land Use:
9. Comprehensive General Plan
Designation:
10. Land Division Data:
11. Agency ~ecommendattons:
12. Lettars:
13. Sphere of Influence:
ANALYSIS:
Costa Construction, Inc.
RanPac Engineering
Schelule *A* su~ivision and zone
change from R-R to R-1.
NOrth of Rancho California Road and
West of Butterfield Stage Read.
R-R, R-l, R-2, R-S, C'I/C-P, A-l-lO
Vacant
Vacant land, single family ho~es
under construction, vineyards and
horse ranches.
Land Use: Cotegory II
Density: 2-8 OU/acre
Total Acreage: 6.0
Total Lots: 20 single family lots,
2 open space lots.
DU Per Acre: 3.3
Proposed Man. Lot Size:
ft.
See letters dated:
CZ 5115
7200 sq.
VTR 23142
ROad: R~nt 3-23-88
Health: 2-17-88 4-04-B8
F'lood: NO Co~.~ent 3-29-88
Fire: 3-01-88 3-23-88
Opposing/Supporting: None received
Not within a City Sphere
Pr~JoctDescrtpttoe
Change of Zone No. 5115 and Vesting Tentative Tract 14o. 23142 are re ests to
chin · the zoning on 6.0 acres of lind in the Pancho California area ~rGm R-R
to ~1 and to create 20 single fmmily lots. The proposed project will hmve an
average density of 3.3 dwelling units per acre with a minimum lot size of 7200
square feet.
'7
GINaGE OF ZONE NO. SItS
VESTZIIG TEXTAliVE TIACT 10. 23142
Nt)l)g)ll0. t'
Staff Report
Page 2
The project site is located north of Rancho Califo~ia Road and west of
Butterfield Stage Road. The project site is surrounded by, but not a part of,
the Pargirlie Village Specific Plan (S.P. lgg). The project site also lies
adjacent and north of Tentative Tract No. 20879, which was approved on November
26, 1985 by the Board of Supervisors and which created Z40 R-Z lots on 45 acres
of land.
The project site ts presently vacant. Burrounding land uses include single
f~mily houses under construction on Tract No. 20879 to the south, a water tank
to the north,est, and vineyards and a horse ranch to the east. The remaining
surrounding area Is vacant.
Zoning on the property ts currently R-R. Surrounding zoning includes R-1 to
the south, A-IntO tn the vineyard area to the east and R-R, R-2, R-I, R-5 and
C-1/C-P zoning in the area encompassed by the 14argarita Village Specific Plan.
Design Considerations
The proposed project has been designed in accordance with the R-1 single family
residential development standards, and all other pertinent standards of
Ordinance 348 and 460.
Due to the tracts vesttrig status, additional materials were su~eitted for
review in accordance with Ordinance 460. A drainage plan, a hydrology study,
and a grading plan were submitted and found to he adequate. These plans will
he implemented through the conditions of approval.
As is the appltcant's option, · design manual addressing architecture,
landscapin aM irrigation, and fencing was submitted and reviewed. These
developmen~ guidelines vtll be imphmented through an Ordinance 348, ~ection
I8.30 plot 1an which wtll need to he submitted and approved by the Planning
Department pr~r to the IssuanCe of any building pemits.
Project Conslstency/C~npatfblltty
The project site 1tea within the Itancho Caltforntirremecula Subarea of the
Southwest Tlrr|to Land Use Planntng Area. Land use pollctes for this a~ea
state that future ~evelo;ent shall generally be Category Z and It, with
IT! develo tn the areas. The project site ltes adjacent
Catqo~ is aeve;oment null tng areas
to In R-X subdhtsioe (TR 20879) vt~ I density of 3.t dwelling units per acre,
and ts surrounded by the Hlrgerito Vtlllge Specific Plan, with adjoining
p operty designated for Medium density develoi~ent (2-5 dwelltrig units er
acre). The ire therefore can be dest naiad I Ca ory IX area. Due to
p~oposed density of the project and with ~he Ivltlabilt~ty Of lll the necessary
services and facilities, the project ts considered consistent with the
Co~prehensive General Plan and is compatible with ares develoment.
CHAJe~ OF Z30~ I10. SllS
VESTXIIG TENTATIVE TIACT NO. 23142
Stiff Report
Page 3
The applicant ts proposing R-I zoning for the entire tract. Because t~ open
're being created .ith this trect. staff ,,ls it
pr t 1 i zoning on these t~o lots. Therefore staff ~e)uld
o p ace
recumnend · change of zone from R-R to R-1 and R-5,
Ftsc·l Analysts
Under current policy regarding processing of vestin tentative maps, a fiscal
analysis is required to bee submitted to the County ~or review. The fiscal
analysis prepared for this project showed a net benefit to the County of
$368.00 upon INlqdout of the project, and · net annual deficit of $2,382.
Th~se figures ~ere reached by using an assumed ·vetage selling price of
$125,000 per house.
Environmental Assess~aent:
The initial study for Environmental Assessment No. 32354 indicated these
,.viro..nt, co.c,r.s: ,. ,rosio. potanti, ; 2. i,,cts to St, h.ns
Rat; 3. Paleontologic·l Resources; 4. Nt, Pal·mar Impacts; S. library
i~act.
The biological report prepared for this project found that Stephen· Kangaroo
Rats ~re inhabiting portions of the roJect site. Since this report was
prepared, the County his ·stab1 s~ed ·n interim Step ens Kangaroo Rat
t h
mitigation program. The applicant is condttioned to participate in this
program, with participation to tnclude pa~ent of $750 per unit toward
establisl~nent of habitat area, so therefore the impacts are considered
mitigated.
Erosion impacts wtll be mitigated through erosion control landscaping and
adherence to pro r Count gradtrig standards. Plloontologtc·l resources will
be mitigated t~er~agh ~1 conditions of approval which v111 require that a
qualified Paleontologist be consulted prior to grading and any recanthand··ions
be adhered to. fit. Paler impacts vtll be mitigated by adherence to County
LJghtlng O~dlnance No. 655. An~ impacts to librat7 services will be mitigated
through payment of 8 $tO0,O0 per unit library mitigation fee,
FINDZIPS:
1. The ·ppltcsnt proposes chinglng the zoning on 6.0 acres of land in the
Rencho Cmltfornt· Arem from R-R to R-1 led to dtvide the property into 20
single famtl~ lots ·rid t~o open space lots.
The project wtll have a den·try of 3.3 dwelltrig units per acre.
CHANGE OF ZI)IIE I0. 511S
VESTXR6 TE)fTATZVE TRACT I0. 23142
MEX)B) I0. 1
Staff Report
Page 4
3. The project Is located ad3acent to Tract No. 20879 (Board of Supervisors
ipproved November 26, 1985) vhlch created 140 single family lots on 45
ac~es.
4. The project is surrounded by the l&irgarita Village Specific Plan (S.P.
..c.nt .r..... d..i..t.d ,or .d,.. d...i,y re.,d..t,., C -5
S. Surrounding land uses tnclude single fimlly homes, vineyards, a horse
ranch and vacant land.
6. Surrounding zoning includes R-R, R-Z, R-2, R-5, C-1/C-P and A-z-IO.
7. The project is located within the Rancho Caqtfornia/Temecula Subarea of
the Southwest Territory Land Use Planning Area.
8. The t~o open space lots are p~oposed to have R-z zontng.
9. The fiscal analysts indicates a financial net benefit to the county of
$368.00 at INildout and I net annual deficit of $2,382 every year
thereafter.
10. Environmental concerns tnclude erosion, biological impact, PaleontologYtel
resources, fit. Paloeksr resources and library impacts. All environmental
concerns can be mitigated by the conditions of approval,
GON~LUSTO~S:
1. The project is consistent with the ~omprehenstve General PTan.
2. The proposal is coqatible with area develoFment.
3. R-5 Iontrig Is a more appropriate zone for the two O~en Space lots.
4. The project vtll not have a significant effect on the environment.
RECOI~ENDATIOlB:
ADOPTlOll of a Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 32354,
; the cnocluston that the project will not have a significant effect on
the environment; and,
DENIAL of ~ OF ZOME I). 5115 from 114 i~ 9,1, in accordance with Exhibit
CHARGE OF ZONE IlO. SllS
VESTING TEXTATIVE TItACT NO. 23142
NiNDEDIIO. 1
Staff Report
Page S
APPROV&L of (31NIGE OF ZOIIE RO, 5115 from R-R to Rol and R-S in accordance with
~4; and,
APPROVAL of VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT RO. 23142, subject to the conditions of
~, and based upon the ftndtngs and conclusions incorporated in this
staff report.
9/~3/88
HORSE
&cz4ees . VAC.
· ;,e~lp, GOSTA CONSTRUCTION, ,lilt,
~Use R-R TO R-I
· ;.AJ'e8 RANCHO {3A~IFORNI& 8up.DM. IM
iSe. 3e T.7~,q~q~2W. AINeKx's 8 III . ~ ~,~
;(3iouMtlnRANOHO.OAI'IF. iRD. NITERIAL I10~
~EiImen~BUTrrERFIELD STAGE I~ MTERIAL riO'
:IlL Ik. ILII. 55C !its 8/29/~8 I)mw~ 8if IGw
IO0' ~ OOUNTrY PLANNIN~ CEPARTMENT
"'! ,-- s,,s, ','. ~I PRoPosED ZONING~12
,..j-'~-. ' A-I-IO
'~, \.
! "' "' !App. COSTA GONS'T~R~CTI01, INC.
' iUee R-R TO 'R"~I
~ , ~Aml RANCHO C. ALI~IA Sup.Dist. lst
: ' :C, ixNImion,RAN GHO CALIIr.. lID. ARTERIAL I10'
.o 8cm~.f
I[~ 51151TR 23t42 lIECOMMENDED' ZONING
· ~: II II1-1 _i _
:_"~'~ T. TS,,K IIW.Aeeeee:r's 8k. 12~
:=' ..-, i/~,. ~tJ~.k~.B N riD. MTBIIAL
e,. ca.see om e/~/ee om,,n By ice
: :VE:L DE counc.v
PLAnI,n DEPA ClTiEnC
APPLICATION FOR I, AND UIE AND DEVELOPMENT
BATE: Dmemmbe~ 17, 1967
CONDITIONAL USE
I~RMIT NO.
PARCEL MAP NO.
K.OTPLANNO.
INCOCdI~.ETE AIN~JCAT'IONS W~LL NOT BE ACCEPTED.
kIIIL~ANT INFORIIAIION
AmdllnfsName:
Made~A~lmms:
TeWg~me N~:
Z Owr4rlNsme:
MAilme A~I~'
TellM~neNc~:
3. ReOtetmUt~e:
Telelmane N~:
438-3833 (l&m-S~mJ
lame al above.
(l&m-i~m.)
lancho PatlILt EnQ~neer~nq CO:P-
( 7~4 s 676-4024 (m &~-S ~m.)
92390
me ;olmny.
l. I~Odl~T INFORMATION
tract 224?3
C. ~ INFOAI~
1. ~~ 123-210-002
Io[&h of Ilncho C81ilocni8 load and Meat o{ luttetlield Stage Road
lancho-Teiecul8 Portion
IGNATURE ~1r PROI~RTY
4080 LEMON STREET, I~ FLOOR
ImV~IDE. C~JFORN~ e25m 4657
(714) 787-6181
OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201
(619) 342.8277
C~e,~ NO.
! I0.
ElmltF &JIg ONLY
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM
Z Ilmemllxlv'~ali~tatkonf41MIfet~elalmellte? yt~le
PART II: l~wlmnmemal Questionnaire
Num~olM!lm!
=liVr'=DiDi COUM
Plalr.111¢l DiP, = anl
APPLICATION FOR 1,4ND UII AND DEVELOPMENT
JAN 12 1988
IIf~R~DE COUNTY
R.A.NNING Dk~A/TTIRENT
IdCQIdKI'~.iaN~.r..A11ONIWILLlIOTlI,M~IP~.D.
a ~ IleOilM&110~
¶. IIIIgIffIIMmI: COSTA CDRSTRUCTZON, XNC-
MIilI,IMMNM: 2380 ~J~RO YZDA ROIZ..E, SUZTE A, CAR~.SRAD, CA
TI41~N~,: ~ a"um. qiqq, m&m.-llmJ
TIIII~/INI.:
Isi, eum.: ..~,7
TIM: I 714 I 6?6-4024 (li.m.-llaJ
I. IIOJ!CT
1. PgfWaofllQuest(~escrilellfolegl):(OrliMnoZ41eefRo.)
Change of Zone from I-R to
1. ~PI~IINelI~ 923-210-002
IIc, fth of bncho Cllifornil load and wilt of lutter~eZ~ Stage Road
Z ~ Imncho feNcaldron ~
IIGtITURI OIr IIROelRTY OWNERel
dOIO LEMC)N ITRFIrT. I"' FLOOR
(714# 7874181
4&,JOg ~ASIS STREET
~mleelermles
OFFICIAL HEARING NOTICE
COUNTY AI)I4:XNZSTIIATTVE CENTER, NINTH FLOOR
4080 LOiN $TRE[T
RZYERSIDE, CALIFORNZA 92501-3657
Roger $. Seretar, Planning 01rector
A PLILIC IF. AJLTIIG has been scheduled before the PLANNING CO144ISSION to
n
Co eider the application(s) descrtt~l belov. The Planntng Oeparment has
tonenaively found thlt the proposed project(s) at11 have no significant
environmental effect led has tentatively completed negative declaration(s).
The Plonntng Cmnlsslon aft1 coastdot vhether or not to adopt the negattve
declaration slang vtth the proposed project st thts hearing.
Place of Hearing: Daard bee. 14th Floor, 44)80 Lemon Street. RiversMe. CA
Date of Hearlog: M~'DNESDAYo SEPTDIB[R Z8. ~8
The ttae of haartn9 ts indicated vtth each application 11seed below.
Any person m~ sutnlt ~rtttee coonants to the Planntng Department before the
heartnO or mY appear end be heard tn sup art of or opposition to the adoptton
of the negative declaration and/or approvaF of thls project it the tim. of
hearing. If ou challenge IV of the pro acts in court, 7ou my be limited to
retain only tr~ose issues 7ou or somone etae rataN at the publlc bearing
described tn thts nottee, Or 4~ writtee correspondence delivered to the
Planning Cceedsslon at, or prior to, the publ¶c heartrig. The environmental
findtrig along wtth the proposed project application ray be vtewed at the pub1
tnforaatlon counter Nondry through Friday from 9:00 I.e. unit14:00 p.m.
CHANGE OF ZONE 5~15, E.A. 32354, located tn the Rancho California Area end
First Supervtsorlel Otstrlct lS en application submatted to amend
Ordinance No. 3480 RIverside County Lend Use Ordtneece. htd amendment
~uld change Zone R-R (:Rural ResidehUe1) to R-X (Single Family
Dwelling) or other such zones el the Planntn
appropriate for property 9enerell. y described es north of Rancho
California bed, east ofJutterfleld3kdp
MD
VESTING TRACT RAP 23~42, E,A, 32354, II en application
submitted b7 C~sta
Construction, :oc.~ for property located tn the hncho California Ares
and First SuperviSortel DIstrict uhtch proposes to dlvtde LOt acres
Into 20 lots oe preptrt~ 9enere11~ desertbid as north of Rancho
California Road, vest of Butta~flold Stage Road.
TIll OF HEARIN: 10:OO a.m.
RANCHO CALIF- DEV. CO.
P.O. BOX 755
TEMECULA, CA 92390
923-210-008
923-210-014
VINEYARDS TRACT NO 20879
% COSTA CONSTRUCTION
2380 CAMINO VIDA ROBLE A
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
RANCHO CALIF- DEV. CO.
P.O. BOX 755
TEMECULA, CA 92390
923-210-008
923-210-O14
VINEYARDS TRACT NO. 20879
% COSTA CONSTRUCTION
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
923-210-012
923-210-016
:IiVE:DiDE counc,u
PLArl!linG DEPA:iCfilEnC
Amended [.A. 9-2-88
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM: STANDARD EVALUATION
ENVtRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (F,A) NUMBER:
PROJECT CASE TYPE(I) AND NUMBERS(a): Ve~ttng Trart Nn
APPtJCANm:~ NAME: COsl'~ Co-$tructton,
NAME OF PERSON(a) PREPARING E.a~: l;'rer3 Noel
L PROJECT INFORIk~ATION
A,
MOOU~; NUMBER(m):
DE~IFTION (includepro0osedminimumlotlizelnd uses ulppliclble): Suhd~vtdnn Of 6
acres into 20 lots with a minimum of 7200 square feet, Chanae of Zone from
Rural - ResidenUal (R-R) to one family dwelllnq restdenUal (R-11 units
B. TOT~4. PROJECT N:IE/k ACRES A n
C. ~EBCXq'$ I=~dqCEL NO.(m): q?l-?10-nl5
D. EXITING ZONING: R-g IS THEPROPOSALINCONFORMANCE? N~
E PROPOSED Z(~NING: R-1 S THEPROPQSALINCONFORMANCE?_Y_F~
F. STREET REFERENCES: Nnrth O~ uln;ho California Read znd Wcst of ~
Butterfield Stage Road.
G. SECTION, TOWNSHIP, RANGE DESCRIPTION OR ATTACH A LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Portion of Rancho Temecula
H. BREFDESCRIFTIONOFTHEEXISTINGENVtRONMENTAL~TTINGOFTHEPROJECTSITEAND ~S SURROUNDINGS:
Vacant property in native erasseas and brush. Surroundtn~ area i~ currently
vacant, but with rapid development occurrin~ to the west.
IL COMPREHENSNE GENERAL letAN OPEN IPACl AND CONSERVATION DESIGNATION
M Or lad of rite project Ntl il In 'Adopte S( eclfic PriM," "REMAJ~' or "Rlncho Villages Community
POliCy ~u'ems". Complete ~ III, N (B end C only~ V end VL
M Or lad d the project lltl il In "~ hk)t Designated II 01)on Spice". Complete ~t~)ns Ill, ,
(A, Bend Donly),V mmnd Vl.
All Or plrl ol the p~ject IRe his an Open Spice Ind Gonswvltion designation other ~ln those mentioned
8boe, Complete Sections III, N (~ B, end E only~ V end
_ t It INYIRONMENTAL HAZARDI AND IqEIOURCEI AISESIMENT
A. ~c~e~4n~t~e~te~x~x~and~e~determine~x~e~e~c~p~n~tOun~i~C~~~~r~
Vt.3(CkcleOhe}. Thi~inf{wnNi~i~necee~ryt~det~rminetheNN~t~indu~e~u~a~ityr~t~g~in~ecti~l~
NA - N~ Alxi:ele C~ Ese~ Nerme-H~h PJsk ( Neme-Low ,i~k )
B. ~n~ic~e~h~m~Y}~rn~(N)wh~r~ny~nvir~nm~ti~'Z~r(~/1(~/~r~u~i~U~m~y~gn~fic~N~y~ct~rN~ected
8dcllcxwl "b'tl ICNfGeL egencies mneulted. fir~lingl ~ f8~ end 8ny initiation mealurel unN.' SecUre V. NIO, wf~'l in~icate~.
e~e sw Na~'o~sW ~s~ use sues~ ~t ~se s:ce~t~y reUr~(s). (~ee ~efi~U~S st b~ttc~ ;f ~is Mge).
HAZARDS
6 N
7- N
8. Y
9- II
10 N
11-N
I N Nqutll-Pfi~o Special ~tudies or County Fault 12.
Hlzlffi Zortes(Fig. Vl.1)
( NA ) PS U n (Fig. w.3) (
2 N Lkluefacti~nPotenU&tZoneCFlg. Vl.1) 13. N
( NA ) S ~S U S (me. ~.4) (
3 e Groundsl~king Zone(Ire Vt.1)CLASS [Z 14. N
( NA ) S PS U e (F~. W.S) (
4- N Siopm(n,v. Co. eO0Sc~e S~x Ma,H)
S- N Lln~lslide Rllk ZQne(Ftiv. Co. 80C)SClJe
Seismic ~ or Oh-Nto InN:actjon) 16. N
( NA ) S PS U n (F~. ~.S}
nockfa~ Hazmd ((~-site Inspecan) ~7. _Y_.
Expansive S~ts (U.S~.A. Soil l& N
~servation Sewice S~ Surveys) 19. Y
Eroa~on (U.S.OX S~ Conset, stUn SOILS 20..~_
Se~ce S~t Sum) AtC2 21.
Wind Srsos~n S ek}wsand (F~g. m.~ ,T~fE3 22.
~Y
~e.y
aoJl_
Dam InunSition Aml (Fig. VI.7)
F'kxxlplains (Fig. Vt./)
(NA) U R (Ire.
RESOURCES
.. /drportN~se(Fig. ll.18.S, tl.le.11
· %/1,12 & 1964 AICUZ Report, MAP.B)
~ A B C O (Fig, Vl.t t )
.. Rljlrold Noile (Fig. V1.13 · %/1.16)
HA) A e C D (F~,W.~t)
.. Hig~.wly Noile (Fig. V1.17 - VI29)
)
NA & 9 C D (Fig, V1A1)
~ Noise
NA A B C D (Fig, Vl.lt)
Project Gene,lted Noise Affecting
Noise Senlitive Usel (Fig. V1.I 1)
Noise Senllttve I:Toiect (Fig. %/I.11 )
Nr Qulilty Implcts From Project
Project Sefiaitive to Air QuNity
Water C~Jllity Impac~l From Project
P~ject Sensitive to Water (}uNity
HMard~je Mlte~aJ$ and Wintea
HI,T&'dcml Fire Arel (Fig. %/I.30 - VI.31)
Definitions for land Use Suitability and Noise Acceptability Ratings
NA - NOt ~ 8 - Genefllly SuItlbie !~ - Pr0visionlily Suitable
U - Generllly Unl~ltlble R - Rtstficted A - Generally Acceptable
I - Ccmdltiorally k:~ C - Generally Una¢cl~tlbll D - LInd Use Discouraged
'i'
1. OPEN SPACEANO CONSERVATION MAP DESIGNATION(I): Not designated as Dpen SDacP
~. I,N~IDUSEPLANNINGAREk ~nuthwe~t Territnry
~ SUBN:IEkFANY: e,nrhn PwlHrnrn~/Tern~r,,la
4. C(~UNrrY POUCY AREA IF ANY: Mf Palhair t)h~ervatn,y
street lighting policies
5. COMMUNITY R.AN, IF ANY:
6. COMMUNTTY PLAN DESIGNATION(a), IF ANY:
SUMMARY OF POUC~S AFFECTING PROPOSAL: Future land II~e,~ gen~r~lly ('Atpgnry l
or II with Category II! in the outer portions.
)it. Palomar Observatory Policies apply as the property lies within their
30-mile radius. Low pressure sodium lighting and appropriate shielding should
be implemented.
Fix III ~, hidrAte with I yes (Y) Ot rt~ (N) whether Iny public f~cillties end/o~ marvices issues may sign fficantly affect
o~ be affected by the proCxal). N1 referenced figures ire contained in the ComDrehen$ive General Ran. For any i~
m/rkld y~s ~ write data sources, lgencies ¢onlultad, findings of fact, end mitigation measures under Sec~on V.
PUBUC FACIUTIES AND SERVICES
1- N CirculNion(lrmg. N.l-IV.11.DiNNmlin 10, N
SIc. V Existing, Ranned l Required Roads)
2- N 8ikeTrds(Iri. N.12-N.13) 11.N
3 N Wmw (Agency Latere) 12. Y
4. N ~~~) 13~L
5- N RmSen~a(FI~N. le-N,18) 14N
6 N ShedlSedca(IqgN.11-N.18)
7. Y Sche etR N.17-N.18 lS,L,
8- II SeIIWe~a(FI~N.11,N.18) le N
8- N I~f4 and Recmatm (Fl~ N. l I - N 20) 17,
Equestmiin Trails (Fig. N.19 ~ N.24/
Riv. Co. 800 ~ Eque~tmmn Trlil Maps)
I,ffilities (Fig. N25 · N.26)
Llxtnem (Flg. N.11 · N,18)
Hielib Servlcel (F~. N.11 - IV.18)
Aklxxtm (Fig. 11.18~, - It.18.4,
IL18,8 - 11.18.10 & N2I · N36)
If el of pet ;I the project re locate In "Aii~ted $pecif, c Plans', "REMAP" o~ 'q=lmncho Villages Community Policy
keam", review in ~ N s~ectc policies epplying ~ the pmpoMl, end complete me feaowing:
2. Bleed on thta hitill sludy, i ~ p~ Conlistent with the polk:;ies Ind designati~nm of the appropriate docur
- D. Ilslorpst~thspmisctsSsisln'AmssnotOeslgnsSdssOpsnSpsce" snd isnel~eCommunitypSsn
, , cornmine
qusstions l,~a, 6snd T. C~lmplsls questtees4,5,61nd Tll lt ll ln eCammunltY Pisn.
1, Lsndusecstsgae~'les)~tosupportthspmixssdpmject Alsolndicatelsndusetylae
(t& msidentls~, oomme~:~l, sic.) r..ategm-y TT -
Curtain Isnd ~ cmsgary(ies) Im N s~ laessd an exis~ng condltianr~
6& msideqti~ oommscts~ e~) Categnry II -
Also k~licste land use tyl:e
3. I! D.1 aM from D.2, will N diffeesnos be msotved 8t the development stage? Ex,olain:
Is the prowl compltibie with existing md
net, ex~
If n~ reference by SeCtima~lbaue Numl;w thoee lssues identJfying lnconsisancles: Yes
F_ I sl m pert al the PeMs~ sits Is h m Open $psce sml Consentmien designation, comiCere the following:
1. SISIS the cles~lnatk~s)c
=. Is ms proposal c~-aimnt with ms aeslgnstiar4sp If n~ e,4N~n:
'V, WORMAllON iOURCII, RNIXNQI OF FACT ~ MfflGATION MEAIUFIEI
A. N)DITIONAL NFORMATION REQUIRED BEFORE ENVIRONMENTAL kSSE$.~vIENT CAN BE COMPLETED:
DATE DATE H)EOUACY
8ECT1ON/ NFORMATION NFOeMAlqON NFORMA11ON Dt'1EN~C,
ISSUE NO. REQUIRED REQU~ RECEFV~D Ct'TS, q~.DAT~
III B-~8 6~olog~cal Report 2-5-88 4-88
Ill B-34 Archaeological Report 2-5-88
B, For each issue marked yes (Y) under Sections fiI.B ~ NJ. kle~tify the $ectk~q end issue number en~ do the
Iollowihg, in the f(x~at u shown ~
1. List 811 edditioraJ relevant clots sources, including agencies coneulte{I.
2, Site 811 find'rags of ~ reglrding anviro~mentl; concarol.
State specific mitigation measurso, If identifiable without requiring an environmental impact report (E.I.R.}
4. If edffitiOnll in/is required before I~e environmental elaeslment can be Completed, refer to
Subsection A.
5. If edclitionaJ shee~ ee needed to c~mplete this section, check 1he box 8t the and of the section and attach
.IIl. B~8
Ill B-17
~:)URCES, AGENCIES CONSULTED, FINDINGS OF FACT, M~IGATION MEASURES:
Nttiqatton for eroston shall Occur throgQh slooe landscaping and DroDer
erosion control technique during gredtng,
There are no extsttng noise produces whtch wt11 Impact the s~te, some
mitigation ts proposed.
III 8-2p&29
III Bo33&34
III 8-35
III B-36
IV
~V B-12
Biological Report No. 189 PreDated for tbls Droject found that Steohens
Kangaroo rats 4nb&Ht the stte. Oevelom~ent of the Site would result
the loss 'of this habitat, so therefore the. project mv have a
effect on the envtrorment.
Requested tnfomat4on concerning an archaeological reoort has not been
sulx~tted for rayted.
Potential PeTeontolgtcal resources ~11 require a Daleontoloqht be on
site durtng grading activity.
Nt. Pelomar Impacts mqttgated by utfi~zet~on of low pressure sodium l~ght~ng.
Impacts to schools m~t~oated thoruqh school fees.
This pro4ect vfil be required to DaY 11brarv m~t~gat~on fees.
[ V. I',MeORMATION IOUMCF..I, FINOINGI OF FACT .AND MITIGATION MF..AIUME8 (continued)
~ECrtON/
ISSUE NO.
*III B- 28 & 29
*IIIB- 33 & 34
~)URCES, AOENCIES CONSULTED, FINOINGSOFFACT, M~IGA~ON MEASURES:
After thts E.A. was found to have a positive declaration, a focused
aIR was requested to address Steohens Kanqaroo Rat impacts. Since the
N.0.P. was issued. the County has estab]ished an tntertm orogram for
the mitigation Of impacts to Stephens. Because the applicant will be
reCLutred to participate in this program, Inrludtng ptylnent of $750 per
dwelltnq unit, it iS determined that this project has mitiqated the
potential impacts and that a negative declaration may be prepared.
The ArChaeoloqtial Report orepared for this project was submitted for thit
oro)ect. This rtport indicated no resources were found. so therefore
no mitigation is necessary.
'Vt. ENVIRONMENTAl, IMPACT 01"TERMINAl'lOW:
effect M this case t:~uee the m~lgatlon fumesum deim~beQ:l in Section V have been applied to the
protect argl · Nlgltive Declareion my be preDered.
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I'T
VICINITY MAP
CASE
P.C. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
CASE NO.: Ve. eting Tentative Tract 231~2
The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this
project.
Fee
Habitat Conservation Plan
(K-Rat) Paid in conjunction with
underlying PM 19580.
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. 18h
Condition No. 1
~ City )
Condition No. 2
[ City )
Condition No. 7
| Roads Division)
Condition No. 20a
Condition No. 15
Condition No. lu,
Staffrpt\VTM231 u,2\mb 1 u,
ITEM ~6
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Plannin9 Commission
Thor.h,,,. P.an.,ng D,rector
May 6. 1991
Change of Zone No. 9, Substantial Conformance No. 11
This item was continued from the April 1, 1991 Planning Commission Meeting. The
proposal was continued because of site inaccessibility, and lack of a project
representative at the public hearing. Since that time the applicants (Buie
Corporation), have made themselves available for site tours. The applicants'
representative will also be presenting a slide exhibit which portrays the proposed
site and existing improvements.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
D IR ECT Staff to issue a Letter of Substantial
Conformance for Planning Area No. 37,
Specific Plan No. 199.
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending
approval of Change of Zone No. 9.
MR:ks
A:SC11 .MEM
Recommendation:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
April 1, 1991
Case No.: Substantial Conformance No. 11
Change of Zone No. 9
Prepared By: Mark Rhoades
1. DIRECT Staff to issue a Letter of Substantial
Conformance for Plannin9 Area No. 37, Specific
Plan No. 199
2. ADOPT Resolution No. 91 - recommending
approval of Change of Zone No. 9.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
Buie Corporation
Turrini 8 Brink
A change of zone application and request for
substantial conformance to allow duplex and four-
plex units in Plannin9 Area 37 of Specific Plan No.
199.
North of Rancho California Road and east of
Margarita Road.
Specific Plan, Medium Density Residential
North: Specific Plan, Golf Course
South: Specific Plan, Medium Density
Residential
East: Specific Plan, Very High Density
Residential
West: Specific Plan, Golf Course
Amend zoning criteria for Planning Area 37 to allow
duplex and four-plex units, which is allowed within
the medium density residential designation for
Specific Plan No. 199.
Model Units
STAFFRPT\SC11 1
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North: Vacant
South: Vacant
East: Vacant
West: Vacant
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Specific Plan No.: 199
Planning Area No.: 37
Tract No.: 23371-1
Total Units: 107
Acres: 23.7
Density: 4.6 DU/AC
BACKGROUND:
Substantial Conformance No. 11 and Change of Zone
No. 9 were filed concurrently on January 9, 1991.
The cases were filed for Planning Area 37 of Specific
Plan No. 199 (Margarita Village). The Margarita
Village Specific Plan was adopted by the County of
Riverside on September 6, 1988. Planning Area 37
is composed of 107 single family units on 23.7 acres.
The overall density is approximately 4,6 dwelling
units per acre.
As part of its model program, the Buie Corporation
has bonded and constructed a four-plex within
Planning Area 37, with proper City permits. The
applicant now requests the proposed Change of
Zone and Substantial Conformance to allow the
single model four-plex to remain and be utilized as
a permanent unit.
PROPOSAL:
Substantial Conformance No. 11
The applicant is requestin9 a letter of substantial
conformance from the Plannin9 Commission to add
lan9uage to the housing types allowed in the
specific plan. Currently, the subject Plannin9 Area
is approved for 107 patio homes. In order to
conform to the specific plan, the applicant proposes
to add the words "duplexes, four~plexes" to patio
homes. The addition of this language would bring
the four-plex unit into specific plan conformance.
The applicant is not proposing to construct any
additional units on the proposed site. The density
will remain the same, and with the exception of the
STAFFRPT\SCll 2
existing model four-plex, the balance of the units
will be patio homes. The proposed substantial
conformance will not affect any other portion of the
specific plan because other Planning Areas
designated Medium Density Residential allow
duplexes and four-plexes with each Planning Area
allowed a maximum number of units independent of
the housing type.
Change of Zone No. 9
The proposed change of zone is an application to
amend a section of Ordinance 348.2922 (Specific
Plan No. 199). The change in question is page 56 of
the subject ordinance.
In order for the existing four-plex to remain in
Planning Area 37, the zone (Specific Plan No. 199)
must be changed to reflect language which permits
the duplex/four-plex unit. By changing the zone
requirements, the unit would be in conformance
with Ordinance 348.2922.
As previously stated, no new units are proposed,
and the density will remain the same. The change
of zone will bring the existing unit into conformance
with ordinance requirements.
ZONING CONSISTENCY:
The proposed change of zone and substantial
conformance are being requested in order to bring
an existing four-plex into conformance with the
approved specific plan. If the change of zone and
substantial conformance are not approved, the
existing model four-plex will be demolished,
removed, and replaced by a production patio home.
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
The proposed projects are consistent with the SWAP
land use designation of SP (Specific Plan Area).
Staff finds it probable that this project will be
consistent with the new General Plan when it is
adopted.
Staff has determined that Change of Zone No. 9 and
Substantial Conformance No. 11 are exempt from the
CEQA requirements as defined in to Section 15061.
of the CEQA guidelines.
STAFFRPT\SC11 3
FINDINGS:
Chanqe of Zone No. 9
There is a reasonable probability that Change
of Zone No. 9 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 density which is already approved for the
existing specific plan, and the proposed
change is relatively similar in character to
the approved project.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future General Plan, if Change of Zone
No. 9 is ultimately inconsistent with the plan,
due to the fact that an approval of the change
of zone does not represent a significant
change in the current land use approval.
The project is compatible with surrounding
land uses. 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 and approved
specific plan.
Substantial Conformance No. 11
The project as modified meets the intent and
purpose of the adopted specific plan in that it
does not represent a change in land use
category or density.
The project as modified is consistent with the
findings and conclusions contained in the
resolution adopting the specific plan in that
no significant changes are proposed and the
project is exempt from CEQA guidelines.
STAFFRPT\SC11 4
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
DIRECT Staff to issue a Letter of Substantial
Conformance for Planning Area No. 37,
Specific Plan No. 199.
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending
approval of Change of Zone No. 9.
MR:ks
Attachments:
Resolution (Change of Zone No. 9)
Exhibits A - H
Large Scale Maps
STAFFRPT\SC11 5
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 9 TO C'HANGE ORDINANCE
3L~8.2922 TO INCLUDE DUPLEX/FOUR-PLEX USESWITHIN
PLANNING AREA 37 OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199. THE
PROJECT AREA CONTAINS 23.7 ACRES AND IS LOCATED
NORTHEASTERLY OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND
MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR~S PARCEL
NO. 9~,6-060-010.
WHEREAS, The Buie Corporation filed Change of Zone No. 9 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
April 1, 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:
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 sta~e 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\SCll 6
(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 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. 9 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 density which is already approved for the
existing specific plan, and the proposed
change is relatively similar in character to
the approved project.
b)
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future General Plan, if Change of Zone
No. 9 is ultimately inconsistent with the plan,
due to the fact that an approval of the change
of zone does not represent a significant
change in the current land use approval.
STAFFRPT\SC11 7
c)
The project is compatible with surrounding
land uses. The proposed project is
consistent with the zoning ordinance.
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 and approved
specific plan.
D. The Change of Zone is compatible with the health, safety
and welfare of the community.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
Based on the criteria established in Section 15061.3 of the California
Environmental Quality Act, Change of Zone No. 9 has been determined to be exempt.
SECTION 3.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of May, 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 6th day of May, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFFRPT\SC11 8
EXHIBITS A - H
STAFFRPT\SC11 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
~7
28
the front, side or rear yard except as provided for in
Section 18.19 of Ordinance No. 348.
(3) Except as provided above, all other zoning require-
ments shall be the same as those requirements identified in
Article VIII of Ordinance No. 348.
kk. Planning Area 37.
(1) The uses permitted in Planning Area 37 of specific
Plan No. 199 shall be the same as those uses permitted in
Article VI. Section 6.1 of Ordinance No. 348. In addition.
the permitted uses identified under Section 6.1(a) shall
also include noncommercial community association recreation
and assembly buildings and facilities; churches: medical and
dental offices: and onsite signs, affixed to building Walls°
stating the name of the structure. use. or institution,
however, the sign shall not exceed five percent (5%) of the
surface area of the exterior face of the wall upon which the
sign is located.
(2) The development standards for Planning Area 37 of
Specific Plan No. 199 shall be the same as those standards
identified in Article VI, Section 6.2 of Ordinance No. 348.
except that the development standards set forth in Article
VI, Section 6.2(b), (c), (d), and (e)(1). (2) and (4) shall
be deleted and replaced by the following:
A. Lot area shall be not less than four thousand
(4,O00) square feet. The minimum lot area shall be
determined by excluding that portion of a lot that is
used solely for access to the portion of a lot used as
a building site.
-56-
the front, side or rear yard except as provided for in
Section 18.19 of Ordinance No. 348.
(3) Except as provided above, all other zoning require-
ments shall be the same as those requirements identified in
Article VIII of Ordinance NO. 348.
kk. Planninq Area 37.
(1) The uses permitted in Planning Area 37 of Specific
Plan No. 199 shall be the same as those uses permitted in
Article VI, Section 6.1 of Ordinance NO. 348. In addition, the
~ermitted uses identified under Section 6.1(a) shall also
includeEuplexes, 4-plexes,~noncommercial community association
recreation and assembly buildings and facilities; churches;
medical and dental offices; and onsite signs, affixed to
building walls, stating the name of the structure, use, or
institution, however, the sign shall not exceed five percent
(5%) of the surface area of the exterior face of the wall upon
which the sign is located.
(2) The development standards for Planning Area 37 of
Specific Plan No. 199 shall be the same as those standards
identified in Article VI, Section 6.2 of Ordinance No. 348,
except that the development standards set forth in Article VI,
Section 6.2(b), (c), (d), and (e)(1), (2) and (4) shall be
deleted and replaced by the following:
A. Lot area shall be not less than four thousand
(4,000) square feet. The minimum lot area shall be
determined by excluding that portion of a lot that is used
solely for access to the portion of a lot used as a
building site.
-56-
PLANNING COMMISSION L~o t-t-.t l
EXHIBIT
APPROV.q.L DA'I~
CASE PLANNER ~
TABLE II-3
HOUSING TYPES
DENSITY HOUSING TYPE
Family-Oriented Housin~
High Townhouses & Condominiums
Medium-High Single Family Detached and
Patio Homes
PLANNING
AREAS/
DU TOTALS
158
326
Medium
Single Family Detached and
Patio Homes
1,847
Low
custom Single-Family Lots
(e.g. 10,000 sq. ft. to
larger than one acre).
Single Family Detached
5O
Retirement-Oriented Housin~
Very High
Apartments and Condo-
miniums
[585]
Medium-High
Patio Homes, duplex and
4-plex condominiums
[1,308]
Medium
Patio Homes [duplexes, [107]
~4-plexes] ~
Subtotal: 2,000
Grand Total: 4,381
Note: Text in brackets []
mance numbers 1 and 2.
amended by
-33-
Substantial confor-
PLANNING COMMISSION I'~'L'~I' I
EXHIBIT
APPRelAL DAlE
CASE PLANNER
CiTY OF TEMECULA )
,- .o.~.~.~..~,
cAsE
EXHIBIT NO. ~
~._P.C. DATE Li-I-'~ j ~
CITY OF TEMECULA )
/~
'VICINITY MAP )
r "~
CASE NO.f-,,Z,,(~/$,f--*~
P.C. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA )
PLANNING AREAS
37,38,39,40,41
A__Margarita Villaee
CASE
EXHIBIT NO.
~P.C. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
LOCATION MAP :)
CASE NO-C"Z'at/~'C' ~
P.C. DATE ~-I"~:~t J {
CITY OF TEMECULA
.')EL HOME COMPLEX
q:,ss No.Cl.%/6.C
EXHIBIT NO. H
~?.C. OArE
ITEM #7
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
May 6, 1991
Case No.: Tentative Tract Map No. 25603, Amd. No. 3, and
Plot Plan No. 227
Prepared By: Steve Jiannino
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission:
RECOMMEND adoption of a
Negative Declaration for
Tentative Tract Map No. 25603,
Amd. No. 3;
ADOPT Resolution 91-
recommending that the City
Council approve Tentative Tract
Map No. 25603 based on the
findings contained in the Staff
Report and subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval; and
ADOPT Resolution 91-
recommending that the City Council
approve Plot Plan No. 227 based on
the findings contained in the
Staff Report and subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
Tierra Investment
Walter B. Dixon
54 lot multi-family residential subdivision of 20.8
acres and accompanying development for
construction of 54 four-plex units, one per lot.
South side of Margarita Road, approximately 1,500
feet easterly of Moraga Road.
A:25603-TM.PC 1
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
R-3-3000
North:
South:
East:
West:
PROPOSED ZON I NG: Same
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
( General Residential, 3,000 square feet
per dwellin9 unit)
BACKGROUND:
R-1 (Single Family Residential,
7,200 square foot min. lot size)
R-3 ( General Residential )
R-1 (Single Family Residential.
7,200 square foot rain. lot size)
R-3-2,500 (General Residential,
2,500 square foot per
dwelling unit)
North:
South:
East:
West:
Single Family Residential Tract
Apartments Under Construction
Single Family Residential Tract
Vacant (Proposed Town Homes)
Area:
No. of Lots:
Min. Lot Size:
Max. Lot Size:
No. of Buildings:
No. of Units:
Density:
20.8 acres
54 residential lots
2 open space lots
1Z,000 sq.ft.
25,410 sq.ft.
54 four-plexes
216 dwellings
10.4 DU/AC
This project was first submitted to the County on
December 1. 1989. The first Land Development
Committee for this project was conducted February
1, 1990. The project was found to be incomplete at
that time and additional information was requested
for review of the project. The project was
transferred to the City of Temecula April 2L!. 1990.
A public hearing was held before the Planning
Commission for this tract, designed as a 57 lot
residential subdivision, on December 3, 1990. The
Planning Commission recommended denial of the
project and forwarded their recommendation to the
City Council. The City Council continued the item
and returned the item back to the Planning
Commission with requested redesigns. The City
Council requested that 1 ) a development plan, plot
plan, be submitted showing the proposed project;
2 ) the applicant attempt to minimize the grading; 3 )
that covenants, conditions and restrictions,
A: 25603-TM. PC 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
CC&R's, be established for the project; 4) that tot
lots be provided; and 5) the second access to
Margarita Road be deleted.
The applicant has responded to the City Council's
request with the submittal of Plot Plan No. 227 for
5u, four-plex units and by redesigning the tract map
to 5LI residential lots and two open space lots.
The project is for a 54 lot multiple family residential
subdivision and two open space lots of 20.8 acres.
The site is located on the south side of Margarita
Road approximately 1,500 feet east of Moraga Road.
Tentative Tract Map No. 25603, Amd. No. 3
The project is designed with one main access off of
Margarita Road which creates a four-way
intersection at Margarita Road and Avenlda Cima Del
Sol. An emergency access will be provided in the
southwest corner of the site. This access will be
coordinated with the approved condominium project
to the west.
The project circulation basically consists of two
north-south cul-de-sacs connected by two east-west
connected roads. The interior streets are 60 foot
right-d-way public streets with Margarita Road
being a 110 foot right-of-way street.
The current site topography consists of rolling hills
with a predominate east-west ridge. The proposal
is to provide large flat pads for construction of
four-plex units on the lot. The applicant is
proposing to grade the site to achieve a balance
grading by having approximately the same volume of
cut and fill. This will be accomplished by cutting
the hills in the middle of the site and moving the
dirt to the north and south to raise the lower areas
of the site.
To construct the pads along the southern portion of
the site a crib wall of 20 feet in height in some areas
is required to eliminate a long 2: 1 slope of 40 foot in
length to achieve the proposed pad elevation.
There is a concern regarding the height of the wall
for safety reasons bein9 on the interior of the lot.
A wrought iron fence, 4 feet high or higher, on top
of the wall would mitigate some of the safety
concerns.
A:25603-TM.PC 3
The visual impacts of the proposed grading,
especially to the single family property owners on
the southeast corner the property will be fairly
significant. The pads on Lots 22 to 2~, are 8 to 10
feet higher than the single family residence to the
east. These lots will be developed with two-story
four-plex units which are from 30 to 60 feet from the
single family residential property line. The pads
themselves will be at an elevation equal to the top of
the first floor of the adjoining single family
residence with the two-story structure on top of
that. This impact may be mitigated by increased
landscaping although the southern portion of the
site will appear to be perched over the residences to
the east and the proposed apartments to the south.
The apartments will be very visible from Rancho
California Road to the south because the pads are
raised above the adjoining property.
It has been suggested, by the adjoining property
owners, that this area of the site not be filled and
that dirt be exported from the site instead of
developing a grading plan with balanced cut and fill
quantities.
The current zoning for the site would allow a
maximum of 302 units. The proposed tract map and
corresponding plot plan results in a total of 216
units. The proposedfour-plex development concept
would result in a minimum of 3/4 of the units being
rentals. The concept of rental units as opposed to
a condominium project which would be individual
unit ownership is a major concern of the
surrounding single family residents.
The applicant proposes two open space tot lots
totalling approximately 16,000 square feet which is
about 296 of the site. These sites are approximately
/~,500 and 11,500 square feet respectfully with the
larger lot, Lot E containing two smaller pad areas,
a 2:1 slope and a 5 foot high retaining wall. Staff
has expressed concerns with previous projects
which lack useable common green. This project has
been redesigned to include the two open space areas
which were not proposed in the original project.
Plot Plan No. 227
Plot Plan No. 227 is a plot plan for the construction
of 5~, four-plex units on a 20.8 acre parcel. Plot
A:25603-TM.PC 4
Plan No. 227 has been filed in conjunction with
Tentative Tract Map No. 25603, Amd. No. 3. The
project is designed to have one four-plex unit
constructed on each numbered lot of Tentative
Tract No. 25603. The units consist of q,295 square
feet of living area with four two-car garages with an
area of 1,959 square feet. Each unit contains two
three-bedroom units and two two-bedroom units.
The applicant is proposing four separate elevations
of the buildings. Staff is recommending that wood
sidin9 not be used as a prominent feature and that
wood only be used as accent trim. Stucco, brick or
block are the most appropriate buildin9 materials
for the climate. The proposed four-plexes contain
building elements common in the surrounding
residential development.
Each unit contains q two-car garages and has two
open parking spaces which totals 10 parking spaces
per unit. Parking required by code is 10 spaces.
This proposal meets the City required parking
standards. The project is designed with public
streets, so on-street parking will alos be available
within the project.
Open space areas exist on all lots. The largest open
space area within the lots is located on the entry
side of the buildings. This area averages
approximately 3,000 square feet per unit. With the
useable open space area of some lots being 600
square feet or less on lots 37, 40, 41 and q2. Staff
still has major concerns regarding the lack of
common open space being provided within the
project; mainly because the individual lots do not
provide sufficient recreational areas in many cases.
Without specific development guidelines regardin9
useable recreational open space in multiple family
projects, Staff suggests that a minimum common
area of 200 square feet per unit be provided. In
this case, a one acre site would be required as
opposed to 16.000 square feet within two acres,
approximately 113 of which is 2: 1 slope as proposed.
It is Staff's opinion that a condominium, planned
residential development, could easily provide an
acre recreational site and the 216 units as proposed
with a different development design. The use of
public streets with a 60 foot right-of-way within the
proposed project requires 2 acres of land more than
private streets with a 36 foot curb to curb street
A:25603-TM.PC 5
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
CONCLUSION:
section. A planned development with private
streets would have at least two additional acres to
work with for possible open space recreational
areas ·
The proposed projects conforms to the SWAP
designation of 8-16 dwelling units per acre and the
current zoning of R-3-3,000 for the site. The
project conforms to Ordinance 348 development
standards. Multiple family development standards
may be changed when the new General Plan and
Development Code are adopted.
The environmental impacts of this project can be
mitigated by project design and compliance with the
Conditions of Approval. Therefore, a mitigated
Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption.
The applicant has redesigned the project to address
the issues raised by the City Council by:
Modifying the grading to lower the maximum
height of the crib wall from 29 feet to 20 feet;
Eliminating the second access to Margarita
Road;
3. Providing two tot lots;
4. Submitting Plot Plan No. 227 for the
construction of 54 four-plexes; and
5. Agreeing to incorporate CC&R's into the
project.
Staff still has concerns regarding the proposed
development of the site. Especially the ownership,
grading, common open space and buffering to the
single family residential project to the east.
Staff still maintains that a PRD, condominium
project, would be the most suitable type project for
this site,
These same concerns have been raised by the
surrounding property owners. In meeting with a
community group at the site, they indicated several
major concerns they had with the project. The
A:25603-TM.PC 6
FINDINGS:
major concerns were:
That 3/4 of the units are rentals the
community group would prefer a condomlnlum
project;
The impact of the grading especially with the
proposed fill areas and high retaining walls -
the community group would prefer that dirt
be exported instead of creating a balanced
site;
The lack of an open space buffer area along
the eastern portion of the site the
community group would prefer a developed
open space buffer with a tree screen to
buffer the single family residential
development; and
That Covenants, Conditions and Restricts
(CCSR's) be required to be recorded with the
project - the community group would prefer
that the CCSR~s be submitted as part of the
project and be reviewed and approved with
the Tentative Tract Map.
Staff has received at least nine letters in opposition
to the proposed project. These letters are attached
for your review.
Since the applicant has attempted to address the
City Council concerns and the project meets the
minimum development standard of Ordinance 0,60 and
Ordinance 30,8, Staff is making the following
findings for approval of the project.
Tentative Tract No. 25603
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 mitigated
Negative Declaration is recommended for
adoption.
The tract map has been reviewed for
possible environmental impacts. The
project has been conditioned to
mitigate possible environmental
impacts.
A:25603-TM.PC 7
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
current SWAP designation and zoning for the
site.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future adopted General Plan, if the
proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with
the plan in that the project is consistent with
current zoning for the site and the multiple
family development to the west and south.
The proposed use complies with State
planning and zoning law.
The project is consistent with current
zoning for the site.
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, as designed, requires
mass grading of the site and the use of
retaining walls and crib walls to a
height of 20 feet to provide for the
proposed flat pads. These walls and
pads will be required to conform to
City Engineering Standards.
The design of the subdivision or the
proposed improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or
substantially and avoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat.
An environmental initial study has
been completed and no unique habitats
were observed on site and no
significant impacts are anticipated.
The design of the subdivision is consistent
with the State Map Act in regard to future
passive energy control opportunities.
A:25603-TM.PC 8
Potential residential units will have
significant southern exposure which
allows for proper solar accessibility for
active solar potential.
All lots have acceptable access to existing
and proposed dedicated rights-of-way which
are open to, and are useable by, vehicular
traffic. The proposed internal public streets
connect to Margarita Road, a dedicated and
maintained public 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.
The project does not conflict with
existing easements, the Conditions of
Approval require the project to
conform to State, County and City
codes for subdivision development.
10.
The lawful conditions stated in the project~s
Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary
to protect the public health, safety and
general welfare.
11.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
Plot Plan No. 227
There is a reasonable probability that Plot
Plan No. 227 will be consistent with the City's
future General Plan, which will be completed
in a reasonable time and in accordance with
State law due to the fact that the proposed
four-plexes are consistent with the existing
zoning and the SWAP land use designation of
R-3-3,000 and 8-16 DU/AC.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future General Plan. if the proposed use
is ultimately inconsistent with the plan due to
the fact that the proposed project is
A:25603-TM.PC 9
consistent with the existing zoning, the SWAP
land use designation of 8-16 DU/AC, and the
approved developments to the south and
west.
The proposed use or action complies with
State planning and zoning laws due to the
fact that the proposed use complies with
Ordinance No. 348 and the action complies
with State Planning Laws.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation
patterns, access, and intensity of use due to
the fact that the proposed development
complies with the standards of Ordinance No.
348.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare due to the fact that the Conditions of
Approval require improvements to protect the
public health and welfare.
The project is compatible with surrounding
land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk.
height, intensity, and coverage creates a
compatible physical relationship with
adjoining properties to the south and west
due to the fact that the proposed development
is consistent with the zoning ordinance and
the existing adjoining approved multi-family
development to the south and west.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area due to the
fact that the surrounding properties are
proposed for development and the project is
consistent with these developments to the
south and west.
The project has acceptable access to a
dedicated right-d-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic due to the fact
that the vehicular improvements for the
proposed project have been approved by the
Traffic Engineering Staff and direct access
A:25603-TM.PC 10
10.
exists to Margarita Road.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the expanded
initial study performed for this project due to
the fact that Conditions of Approval have
been included for this project to mitigate
against possible impacts.
The design of the project and the type of
improvements are such that they are not in
conflict with easements for access through or
use of the property within the proposed
project in that the easements have been
provided for as shown on the site plan
marked Exhibit A.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
RECOMMEND adoption of a Negative
Declaration for Tentative Tract Map No.
25603, Amd. No. 3 and Plot Plan No. 227;
ADOPT Resolution 91- recommending that
the City Council approve Tentative Tract Map
No. 25603 based on the findings contained in
the Staff Report and subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval; and
ADOPT Resolution 91- recommending that
the City Council approve Plot Plan No. 227
based on the findings contained in the Staff
Report and subject to the attached Conditions
of Approval.
SJ: ks
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Resolution Recommending Approval
of Tentative Tract Map No. 25603
Conditions of Approval for
Tentative Tract Map No. 25603
Resolution Recommending Approval
of Plot Plan No. 227
Conditions of Approval for
Plot Plan No. 227
Initial Study
Exhibits
A:25603-TM.PC 11
ATTACHMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 25603, AMD. NO. 3 TO
SUBDIVIDE A 20.8 ACRE PARCEL INTO 54 MULTIPLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 2 OPEN SPACE LOTS
ON APPROXIMATELY 1,500 FEET EAST OF MORAGA
ROAD, ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-
370-005.
WHEREAS, Tierra Investmentfiled Tentative TractMap No. 25603, Amd.
No. 3, in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and
Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract application was processed in the time
and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Tentative Tract on
May 6, 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 Tract Map;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findinqs. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
( 2 ) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
A: 25603-TM. PC 12
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 Tract Map is consistent with the SWAP and
meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government
Code, to wit:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects
and taking other actions, including the issuance of
building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the
following:
a)
There is reasonable probability that
Tentative Tract Map No. 25603 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.
A:25603-TM.PC 13
cl
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.
460, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are
made:
a)
That the proposed land division is consistent
with applicable general and specific plans.
b)
That the design or improvement of the
proposed land division is consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.
c)
That the site of the proposed land division is
physically suitable for the type of
development.
d)
That the site of the proposed land division is
physically suitable for the proposed density
of the development.
e)
That the design of the proposed land division
or proposed improvements are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or
substantially and unavoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat.
f)
That the design of the proposed land division
or the type of improvements are not likely to
cause serious public health problems.
g)
That the design of the proposed land division
or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at
large, for access through, or use of,
property within the proposed land division,
A land division may be approved if it is found
that alternate easements for access or for use
will be provided and that they will be
substantially equivalent to ones previously
acquired by the public. This subsection
shall apply only to easements of record or to
easements established by judgment of a court
of competent jurisdiction.
(2) The Planning Commission in recommending approval
of the proposed Tentative Tract Map, makes the following findings, to
wit:
A:25603~TM.PC 14
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
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 mitigated
Negative Declaration is recommended for
adoption.
The tract map has been reviewed for
possible environmental impacts. The
project has been conditioned to
mitigate possible environmental
impacts.
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
current SWAP designation and zoning for the
site.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future adopted General Plan, if the
proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with
the plan in that the project is consistent with
current zoning for the site and the multiple
family development to the west and south.
The proposed use complies with 5tare
planning and zoning law.
The project is consistent with current
zoning for the site.
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, as designed, requires
mass grading of the site and the use of
retaining walls and crib walls to a
height of 20 feet to provide for the
proposed flat pads. These walls and
pads will be required to conform to
City Engineering Standards.
A:25603-TM.PC 15
f)
g)
h)
j)
k)
The design of the subdivision or the
proposed improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or
substantially and avoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat.
An environmental initial study has
been completed and no unique habitats
were observed on site and no
significant impacts are anticipated.
The design of the subdivision is consistent
with the State Map Act in regard to future
passive energy control opportunities.
Potential residential units will have
significant southern exposure which
allows for proper solar accessibility for
active solar potential.
All lots have acceptable access to existing
and proposed dedicated rights-of-way which
are open to, and are useable by, vehicular
traffic. The proposed internal public streets
connect to Margarlta Road, a dedicated and
maintained public 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.
The project does not conflict with
existing easements, the Conditions of
Approval require the project to
conform to State, County and City
codes for subdivision development.
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.
A:25603-TM.PC 16
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Tract Map
proposed is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the
proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect 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 recommends
approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 25603 for the subdivision of a 20.8 acre parcel
into 5~, multiple family residential lots and two open space lots located on the south
side of Margarita Road, 1,500 feet east of Moraga Road subject to the following
conditions:
A. Attachment 2, attached hereto.
SECTION
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of May, 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 6th day of May, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
A: 25603-TM. PC 17
ATTACHMENT 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Tract Map No. 25603, Amd. No. 3
Project Description: 54 lot multiple family
subdivision of 20.8 acres
Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-370-005
Planninq Department
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision
Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance Ll60, 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 prior to the expiration date.
This condltionally 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.
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: 25603-TM. PC 18
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
A maintenance district shall be established for maintenance of slopes along
Margarita Road, the developer/applicant shall pay for all costs relating to
establishment of the district. A landscape and maintenance easement shall be
recorded over the slope in favor of the TCSD upon map recordation.
A Homeowners Association shall be established for maintenance of Lots E and
F. Open Space/Common Area and the developer/applicant shall pay 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 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.
Be a part of the downhill lot when within or between individual lots or
as approved by the City Engineer.
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 November 13,
1990, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined
in the County Fire Department~s letter dated March 28, 1991, a copy of which
is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building
and Safety Department transmlttal dated March 28, 1991, a copy of which is
attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the TCSD
transmittal dated March 28, 1991, 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.
A: 25603-TM. PC 19
17o Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following:
18.
19.
20.
Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the
development standards of the R-3-3,000 ( General Residential, Minimum
3,000 square feet per unit) zone.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free
condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or
provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the
Director of Building and Safety.
The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes,
landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations
are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, 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 GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
(1)
Prior to the issuance of grading permits detailed common open space
area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning
Department approval for the phase of development in process. The
plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for
the following:
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.
A: 25603-TM. PC 20
Wall plans shall be submitted for the project perimeter and along
Margarita 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 proiect.
Where street trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of
interior streets and project parkways due to insufficient road
right-of-way, they shall be planted outside of the road right-of-
way.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant
plants where appropriate.
All 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.
Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase.
21.
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 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
A: 25603-TM. PC 21
22.
financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) per
lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library
development.
All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required
elements from the subdivlsion's approved fire protection plan as
approved by the County Fire Marshal.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and
irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval.
The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requiring
landscaping and irrigation to be installed including, but not limited to,
parkway planting, street trees, slope planting, and individual front
yard landscaping.
All dwellings to be constructed within this subdivision shall be designed
and constructed with fire retardant ( Class A ) roofs as approved by the
Fire Marshal.
Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall not
be less than ten (10) feet.
f. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet.
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.
Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the applicant shall enter
into an agreement with Inland Disposal, Inc., for the refuse service to
include the utilization of a small pick-up truck equipped with a llft
mechanism in order to move the containers out and back into the
project; thus, prohibiting the entering of large refuse trucks into the
project. Said agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Director for
approval.
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.
A:25603-TM.PC 22
Prior to recordation of a final map the subdivider shall submit to the Planning
Director an agreement with TCSD which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
City that the land divider has provided for the payment of parks and
recreation fees in accordance with Section 10.35 of Ordinance No. u,60.
25.
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. 25603, 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.
26.
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
provider. Telephone, cable TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired
in the residence.
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions/Reciprocal Access Easements:
27.
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 R's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining
the open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, and exterior
of all buildings.
28.
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 CC&R~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 CCSR'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.
A:25603-TM.PC 23
29.
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 (2) as share in the corporation, or voting membership in an
association, owning the common areas and facilities.
30.
Maintenance for all landscaped and open areas, including parkways, shall be
provided for in the CC&R's.
31.
Within forty-eight (48) 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 A B
3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711 .~( d) (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 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight (48) 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
711.4(c).
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.
32.
The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act,
and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions.
33.
The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered
Civil Engineer, subject to all the requirements of the 5tare of California
Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No. 460.
PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL:
34.
As deemed necessary by the City Engineer or his representative, 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;
A: 25603-TM. PC 24
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
q.O.
41.
42.
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department; and
CATV Franchise.
Margarita Road shall be improved with 43 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. 100 (43'/55') .
Avenlda Cima Del Sol, between Margarita Road and Luna Del Oro, shall be
improved with ~ 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 (44V66').
Avenida Cima Del Sol, south of Luna Del Oro and Streets B, C, and D, shall
be improved with 40 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. 10LL Section A (40V60~).
In the event road or off-site right-of-way are required to comply with these
conditions, such easements shall be obtained by the developer; or, in the
event the City is required to condemn the easement or right-of-way, as
provided in the Subdivision Map Act, the developer shall enter into an
agreement with the City for the acquisition of such easement at the
developer's cost pursuant to Government Code Section 66462.5, which shall
be at no cost to the City.
Vehicular access shall be restricted on Margarita Road and so noted on the
final map.
Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard
No. 805.
Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall
be delineated or noticed on the final map.
The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be
executed guaranteelng 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, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control
devices as appropriate.
b. Storm drain facilities.
c. Landscaping (street and parks).
d. Sewer and domestic water systems.
A:25603-TM.PC 25
q3.
~.
45.
46.
47.
48.
40.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated
with adjoining developments.
.Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. 461 and as approved by the
City Engineer.
Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the
Engineering Department a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation
towards traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time
of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written
agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a
building permit.
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 (2) feet from the property
line.
The subdivider shall submit four prints of a comprehensive grading plan to
the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building
Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions
of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 24" 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-of-way, shall be
contained within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note shall be
added to the final map stating "Drainage easements shall be kept free of
buildings and obstructions."
A drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners for
the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent
property. A copy of the recorded drainage easement shall be submitted to the
City for review prior to the recordation of the final map.
A:25603-TM.PC 26
55.
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.
56.
Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City~s CATV Franchises of
the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time
of street improvements.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
57.
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.
58. All lot drainage shall be to the street by side yard drainage swales
independent of any other lot.
59.
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:
60.
A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for
review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil
Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final
Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
61.
Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and
gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and
street lights on all interior public streets.
62.
All street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
63.
Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all
times with adequate detours during construction.
Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than 1~, days following
placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon
per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39, and
9~, of the State Standard Specifications.
A: 25603-TM. PC 27
65.
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.
Transportation Enqineerinq
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
66.
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer,
and approved by the City Engineer, for Margarita Road from Avenlda Sonoma
to Avenida Cima Del Sol, including all necessary transitions. These signing
and striping plans shall be included with the street improvement plans. This
design shall include a left turn pocket on Margarita Road westbound for
southbound Avenida Cima Del Sol with 125' of storage capacity and 120' of
approach transition.
67.
Traffic signal interconnect shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer
to show 11/2" rigid conduit with pull rope, and #3 pull boxes on 200 foot
centers along the property fronting the south side of Margarita Road. This
design shall be shown on the street improvement plans and must be approved
by the City Engineer.
68.
Design a flashing yellow school zone signal for the intersection of Avenida
Barca and Margarita Road. The plans shall be designed by a Civil Engineer,
approved by the City Engineer, and shall be separate from the street
improvement plans. The developer shall enter into a Reimbursement
Agreement with the City to receive a 35% reimbursement for the cost of design
and construction for this flashing yellow signal upon recordation of Tract No.
25443.
69.
Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering
for the design criteria.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
7O.
A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Civil
Engineer and approved by the City Traffic Engineer and the City Engineer for
any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as
required by the City Engineer.
A: 25603-TM. PC 28
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
71. All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and
striping plan.
72. All traffic signal interconnect shall be installed per the approved plan.
73. All flashing yellow school zone signals shall be installed and operational per
the special provisions and the approved plan,
A:25603-TM,PC 29
GLEN J. NEWMAN
FIRE CHIEF
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE * PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370
(714) 657-3183
March 28, 1991
T0: CITY OF TEMECULA
ATTN: PLANNING DEPT
RE: TRACT 25630 and PLOT PLAN 227
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 2000
GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure,
which must be available before any combustible material is placed
on the job site.
Approved super fire hydrants, (6"x4"x2x2½) shall be located at each
street intersection and spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction
with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a hydrant.
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."
5. In lieu of Fire Sprinklers, the buildings shall be area separated
(2 hour walls) into maximum 3600 square foot compartments.
6. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes.
7. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC.
Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment.
[~ INDIO OFFICE
79-733 C, ounti~ Club Drive, Suite F, lndio, CA 92201
(619) 342~886 · FAX (6i9) 775-2072
PLANNING DIVISION
~t TEMECULA OFF1CE
41002 County Cente~ Drive, Suite 225, Temecuh, CA 92390
(714) 694-5070 * FAX (714) 694-5076
['1 RIVERSIDE OFFICE
3760 12th Street, Riverside, CA 92501 ~ printed on recycledpaper
(714) 275-4777 · FAX (714) 369-7451
Tract 25630 and Plot Plan 227
Page 2
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
$400.00 per unit as mitigation for fire protection impacts. This amount
must be submitted separately from the plan check review fees.
9. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in
the Building and Safety Office.
All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to
the Planning and Engineering staff.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief~ Fire Department Planner
By
Laura Cabral, Fire Safety Specialist
LC/tm
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMItFEE AGENDA
THURSDAY, MARCH 28, 1991
Items numbered one through six have been scheduled for the formal Development Review Committee.
The applicants will attend the meeting and draft conditions of approval will be available.
ITESI NO. 1
Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Proposal:
Location:
A.P. #
Case Planner:
ITEM NO. 2
Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Proposal:
Location:
A.P. #
Case Planner:
O)
(l)
Plot Plan No. 227 and Tentative Tract Map No. 25603,
Amendment No. 3
Tierra Investments
Walter Dixon
54-1ot multi-family subdivision with corresponding Plot Plan for
fourplex units on the individual lots
South of Margarita Road, approximately 1,000 feet east of
Moraga Road
921-370-005
Steve Jiannino
Comply with applicable provisions of the 1988 editions of the
Uniform Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes, 1990
National Electrical Code, California State Administrative Code,
Title 24 Handicapped and Energy Regulations and the Temecula
City Code
Request for street addressing must be made prior to submittal for
Building Plan Review
Parcel Map No. 25349
Anita Silliker
ALBA Engineering, Inc.
3-1ot residential subdivision of 8.29 acres
Eastern Terminus of Jeramie Drive
945-130-003
Steve Jiannino
(1) Request for street addressing must be made prior to submittal for
Building Plan Review
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
PARK PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
SUBDIVISION
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DATE: March 28, 1991
TO: Planning Department
FROM: Gary L. King, Park Devel. opment Coordinator
Temecuta Community Services District (TCSD)
MAP NO.: 25~0~
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.:
PROJECT D~S~8!PTIQN: 54
correspondjn~ Plot Plan
lots.
lot multi-family subdivision with
for four-plex units on the individual
STANDARD CONpI~ONS
Easements, when required for slopes, shall be shown on
tile 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 Director of
TCSD.
All slopes and open space shall be improved as to
Riverside County Service Area ]43 Landscape Standards
Book]et (RCSALSB Manual). A detailed landscaping and
irrigation plan, prepared ~y a qualified professional,
shall be submitted 'to the TCSD for review and approval
prior to issuance of grading permits.
A Homeowners Association shall be established for
mai. ntenance of Lots "E" and 'F" and/or any additional
open space not otherwise identified herein.
TIle developer shall be responsible for maintenance and
upkeep of all slopes, landscaped areas and irrigation
systems until such time as those operations are the
responsibility of the TCSD.
Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS detaiJed common
open space area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be
submitted for TCSD approval for the phase of development
in process. The plans shall be certified by a landscape
architect, and sha[1 be in accordance with the RCSALSB
Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS, composite
landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for
TCSD approval. The plans shall address all areas and
aspects of the tract requiring landscaping and irrigation
to be installed inc|uding, but not limited to, slope and
open space planting.
Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS, all
landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in
accordance with approved plans and shall be verified by
TCSD.
Neighborhood park sites associated with that phase of
development shall be developed in accordance with
approved plans and shall be verified by TCSD.
Prior to the RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP, the subdivider
shall enter into an agreement with TCSD which will
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the TCSD that the land
divider has provided for the payment of parks and
recreation fees in accordance with Section 10.35 of
Ordinance No. 460. The agreement shall be approved by
the City Council prior to the recordation of the final
map.
The developer or his assignee must conform to the TCSD
Quimby Ordinance, nnless waived to time of issuance of a
building permit,
Following satisfaction of these conditions, and upon
completion of a 120 day maintenance period of said
slopes, the dedication of said slopes by means of an
Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (Easement Deed) shall
presented to the city counsel for acceptance.
be
Rrrrrn/r'n NOV 1 .q 1990'
COUNT7 OF RIVERSIDE
DEPAR MENT OF HEALTH
4065 COUNTY CIRCLE DR. RIVERSIDE. CA. 92503 (Mm,linq Address - P.O. Box 7600 92513-7600)
November 13. 1990
CITY OF TEMECULA
43180 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
TEMECULA, CA 92390
ATrN: S~v'E JIANNINO
RE: TENTATIVETRACTMAP NO.
M.B. 54/25-30.
(58 LOTS)
25603:
LOT 28, TRACT NO. 334,
Dear Gentlemen:
The Department of Public Health has reviewed Tentatzve Tract
Map No. 25603 and recommends that:
A water system shall be installed accordina to
plans and specifications as aDproved by the water
company and the Health Department. Permanent
Drints of the plans of the water system shall be
submitted in triDlicate, with a minimum scale not
less than one inch equals ZOO feet, alonq wlth the
oriUinal.drawing to the County Surveyor. "i"ne prlnts
shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of
valves and fire hydrants; pipe and joint
specifications, and the size of the maln at the
junction of the new system to the existing system.
The plans shall comply in all respects with Div. 5,
Part I, Chapter 7 of the California Health and
Safety Code. California Administrative Code, Title
22. Chapter 16, and General Order No. 103 of the
Public Utilities Commission of the State of
California, when applicable. The plans shall be
siqned by a registered engineer and water company
with the following certification: "l certify that
the desiqn of the water system in Tract Map 25603 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 MAD".
City of Temecula
PaQe Two
Attn: Steve Jiannino
November 13, 1990
This certification does not constitute a guarantee that
it will supply water to such tract mad at any specific
quantities, flows or pressures for fire protection or any
other purpose". This certification shall be sicned by a
responsible official of the water company. Ib_e_,_~l~ns
~_.!~z__t~_~_ tQ__Th_9_~nty $urvqv~/s 0~fice.!~__r__ev__~__a._~
l_~.~.~t tWO we~ Drlor tO the request for
This subdivzsion has a statement from Rancho California
Water District a~reeinQ to serve domestic water to each
and every lot in the subdivision on demand providing
satisfactory financial arrangements are completed w~th
the subdivider. It will be necessary for financial
arranuements to be made prior to the recordation of
the final maD.
Th~s subdivision ls w~th~n the Eastern Municipal Water
D~strlct and shall be connected to the sewers of the
District. The' sewer system shall be installed accordino to
plans and specifications as aDDroved by the District, the
County Surveyor and the Health Department. Permanent Drlnts
of the plans of the sewer system shall be submitted in
triplicate, along with the original drawing, to the County
Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter,
location of manholes, complete profiles, pipe and joint
specifications and the size of the sewers at the junction of
the new system to the existing system. A single plat
indicatinu location of sewer lines and water lines shall be
a portion of the sewaue plans and profiles. The plans shall
be signed by a registered engineer and the sewer dlstrict
w~th the following certification: "~ certify that the
design of the sewer system in Tentative Tract No. ~9603 is
in accordance wlth the sewer system expansion plans of the
Eastern Municipal Water District and that the waste dlsposal
system is adequate at this time to treat the anticipated
wastes from the proposed tract map."
CltV of Temecula
Paue Three
Attn: Steve Jiannino
November 13. 1990
T__h__~_~_]~_n...~_B/~_~ t b e subm ~J~j~e_..~__t_~_tb~__C_~aD_~_Y_ Su rvevo r ' s Of f i c e
t_Q___r.e._~_~_~_W. ~.~__1_~]~_~ ~o weeks l?rior to the. reaue~_t__J_Q_r th~
~_e!o_r_ci.atlon of the final ma, lh.
It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be
completely finalized prlor to recordation of the final maD.
Szncerelv,
M v o tal Health Specialist IV
ir nmen
SM:dr
ATTACHMENT 3
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
PLOT PLAN NO. 227 TO CONSTRUCT 54 FOUR-PLEXES
ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 20.8 ACRES LOCATED ON
THE SOUTH SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD 1,500 EAST OF
MORAGA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.
921-370-005.
WHEREAS, Tierra investment filed Plot Plan No. 227 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 May 6, 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 theTemecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The city is proceedin9 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: 25603-TM. PC 30
(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.
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and
meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government
Code, to wit:
(1) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The Planning Commission finds, in approving of
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 Plot Plan
No. 227 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.
A:25603-TM.PC 31
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 p(ot plan may be
approved unless the following findings can be made:
a)
The proposed use must conform to all the
General Plan requirements and with all
applicable requirements of state law and City
ordinances.
b)
The overall development of the land is
designed for the protection of the public
health, safety and general welfare; conforms
to the logical development of the land and is
compatible with the present and future logical
development of the surrounding property.
( 2 ) The Planning Commission, in recommending approval
of the proposed Plot Plan, makes the following findings, to wit:
a)
There is a reasonable probability that Plot
Plan No. 227 will be consistent with the City's
future General Plan, which will be completed
in a reasonable time and in accordance with
State law due to the fact that the proposed
four-plexes are consistent with the existing
zoning and the SWAP land use designation of
R-3-3,000 and 8-16 DU/AC.
b)
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future General Plan, if the proposed use
is ultimately inconsistent with the plan due to
the fact that the proposed project is
consistent with the existing zoning, the SWAP
land use designation of 8-16 DU/AC, and the
approved developments to the south and
west.
c)
The proposed use or action complies with
State planning and zoning laws due to the
fact that the proposed use complies with
Ordinance No. 348 and the action complies
with State Planning Laws.
d)
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation
A: 25603-TM. PC 32
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
patterns, access, and intensity of use due to
the fact that the proposed development
complies with the standards of Ordinance No.
348.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare due to the fact that the Conditions of
Approval require improvements to protect the
public health and welfare.
The project is compatible with surrounding
land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk,
height, intensity, and coverage creates a
compatible physical relationship with
adjoining properties to the south and west
due to the fact that the proposed development
is consistent with the zoning ordinance and
the existing adjoining approved multi-family
development to the south and west.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area due to the
fact that the surrounding properties are
proposed for development and the project is
consistent with these developments to the
south and west.
The project has acceptable access to a
dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic due to the fact
that the vehicular improvements for the
proposed project have been approved by the
Traffic Engineering Staff and direct access
exists to Margarita Road.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the expanded
initial study performed for this project due to
the fact that Conditions of Approval have
been included for this project to mitigate
against possible impacts.
The design of the project and the type of
improvements are such that they are not in
conflict with easements for access through or
use of the property within the proposed
A:25603-TM.PC 33
project in that the easements have been
provided for as shown on the site plan
marked Exhibit A.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Plot Plan
proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and
is compatible with the present and future development of the
surrounding property.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the
proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the
Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration,
therefore, is hereby granted.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Plot
Plan No. 227 to construct 54 four-plex units located on the south side of Margarita
Road, 1,500 feet east of Moraga Road and known as Assessor~s Parcel No. 921-370-
005 subject to the following conditions:
A. Attachment 4, attached hereto.
SECTION 4.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of May, 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 6th day of May, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
A: 25603-TM. PC 34
ATTACHMENT ~
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan No: 227
Project Description:
Assessor"s Parcel No.:
54 four-plex units on
20.8 acres
921-370-005
Plannin.q Department
The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for 5~ four-plex units, 216
units, on 20.8 acres.
The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or
proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees
to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its
advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Plot Plan
No. 227. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any such
claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate
fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any
such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the
permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold
harmless the City of Temecula.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of approval date; otherwise,
it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial
construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period
which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of
substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. This approval shall
expire on
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as
shown on Plot Plan No. 227 marked Exhibit A, or as amended by these
conditions.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
The applicant shall comply with the Engineering Department's Conditions of
Approval which are included herein.
A:25603-TM.PC 35
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section
of Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated March
28, 1991, a copy of which is attached.
A minimum of 540 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section
18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. 540 parking spaces shall be
provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit PP 227 "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.
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
Rancho Water District
School District
Riverside County Flood Control
Fire Department
Eastern Municipal Water District
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the following additional plans shall
be submitted for Planning Department approval:
Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans.
Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on
Exhibit B.
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening
material shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
No building permits shall be issued by the City of Temecula for any residential
lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer, or the developerrs
successors-in-interest, provides evidence of compliance with public facility
financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) per lot/unit
shall be deposited with the City of Temecula Department of Building and
Safety as mitigation for public library development.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, Tentative Tract Map no. 25603 shall
be recorded or the appropriate phase recorded.
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 Margarita
Road and the property boundary. 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. A minimum 4 foot high wrought iron fence
shall be constructed along the top of the crib wall on the southern portion of
the site.
A: 25603-TM. PC 36
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
All trash enclosures shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy
permits. Each enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall be made with
masonry block and a steel gate which screens the bins from external view.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along
streets and within the parking areas.
All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans
submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval
and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No.
655.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with
Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance which is
based on (the gross acreage of the parcels proposed for development) (the
number of single family residential units on lots which are a minimum of one-
half (1/2) gross acre in size). Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by
the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fees
required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required under
the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or
resolution.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts
to be determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the
installation of planrings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved
plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed
with the Department of Building and Safety.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, all required landscape planting
and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the
Director of Building and Safety. The plants shall be healthy and free of
weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed
and in good working order.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay to the City all
applicable Quimby Act fees or shall provide land in lieu of fees.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or
any use allowed by this permit.
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 {$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-
Five Dollar ($25.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the
A: 25603-TM. PC 37
Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152
and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight (48) 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
711.4(c).
Enqineerinq Department
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this
project. and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
26.
Margarita Road shall be improved with 43 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. 100 (~,3'/55'}.
27.
Avenida Cima Del Sol, between Margarita Road and Luna Del Oro, shall be
improved with ~,4 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 (4L~'/66').
28.
Avenida Cima Del Sol, south of Luna Del Oro and Streets B, C, and D, shall
be improved with 40 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. 104, Section A {40~/60~).
29.
In the event road or off-site right-of-way are required to comply with these
conditions, such easements shall be obtained by the developer; or, in the
event the City is required to condemn the easement or right-of-way, as
provided in the Subdivision Map Act, the developer shall enter into an
agreement with the City for the acquisition of such easement at the
developer's cost pursuant to Government Code Section 66462.5, which shall
be at no cost to the City.
30.
Vehicular access shall be restricted on Margarita Road and so noted on the
final map.
31.
Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard
No. 805.
32.
Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall
be delineated or noticed on the final map.
A: 25603-TM. PC 38
33.
3~.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
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, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control
devices as appropriate.
b. Storm drain facilities.
c. Landscaping (street and parks).
d. Sewer and domestic water systems.
The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated
with adjoining developments.
Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. 461 and as approved by the
City Engineer.
Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the
Engineering Department a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation
towards traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time
of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written
agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a
building permit.
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 (2) feet from the property
line.
The subdivider shall submit four prints of a comprehensive grading plan to
the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building
Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions
of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 24" 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: 25603-TM. PC 39
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.
44.
On-site drainage facilities, located outside of road right-of-way, shall be
contained within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note shall be
added to the final map stating "Drainage easements shall be kept free of
buildings and obstructions."
45.
A drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners for
the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent
property. A copy of the recorded drainage easement shall be submitted to the
City for review prior to the recordation of the final map.
46.
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.
47.
Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City~s CATV Franchises of
the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time
of street improvements,
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
48.
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.
49.
All lot drainage shall be to the street by side yard drainage swales
independent of any other lot.
50.
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:
51.
A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for
review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil
Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final
Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
52.
Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and
gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and
street lights on all interior public streets.
A: 25603-TM. PC 40
53. All street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
54.
Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all
times with adequate detours during construction.
55.
Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than 14 days following
placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon
per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39, and
94 of the State Standard Specifications.
56.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public
facility mitigation as required under the ElR/Negative Declaration for the
project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim
or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally
established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for
the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement
for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to
Developer. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the
payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest
such increase.
Transportation Enqineerin.q
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS:
57.
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer,
and approved by the City Engineer, for Margarita Road from Avenlda Sonoma
to Avenida Cima Del Sol, including all necessary transitions. These signing
and striping plans shall be included with the street improvement plans. This
design shall include a left turn pocket on Margarita Road westbound for
southbound Avenida Cima Del Sol with 125~ of storage capacity and 120' of
approach transition.
58.
Traffic signal interconnect shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer
to show 11/2" rigid conduit with pull rope, and #3 pull boxes on 200 foot
centers along the property fronting the south side of Margarita Road. This
design shall be shown on the street improvement plans and must be approved
by the City Engineer.
59.
Design a flashing yellow school zone signal for the intersection of Avenida
Barca and Margarita Road. The plans shall be designed by a Civil Engineer,
approved by the City Engineer, and shall be separate from the street
improvement plans. The developer shall enter into a Reimbursement
Agreement with the City to receive a 35% reimbursement for the cost of design
and construction for this flashing yellow signal upon recordation of Tract No.
25443.
A: 25603-TM. PC 41
60. Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineerin9
for the design criteria.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
61. A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Civil
Engineer and approved by the City Traffic Engineer and the City Engineer for
any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as
required by the City Engineer.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
62. All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and
striping plan.
63. All traffic signal interconnect shall be installed per the approved plan.
64. All flashing yellow school zone signals shall be installed and operational per
the special provisions and the approved plan.
A:25603-TM.PC 42
GLEN J. NEV~'MAN
FIRE CHIEF
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTNIENT
~. XN JACIN'IO A\ [?,. . · PERil,,
(714) 657-3183
March 28, 1991
TO: CITY OF TEMECULA
ATTN: PLANNING DEPT
RE: TRACT 25630 and PLOT PLAN 227
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 2000
GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure,
which must be available before any combustible material is placed
on the job site.
Approved super fire hydrants, (6"x4"x2x2½) shall be located at each
street intersection and spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction
with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a hydrant.
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."
5. In lieu of Fire Sprinklers, the buildings shall be area separated
(2 hour walls) into maximum 3600 square foot compartments.
6. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes.
7. Instali portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC.
Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment.
[] INDIO OFFICE
79-733 Country Club Drive. Suite F, lndio, CA 92201
(619) 342-g886 · FAX (619) 775-2072
PLANNING DIVISION
~ 7E.MECULA OFFICE
41002 County Center Drive, Suite 225, Temeculn, CA 92390
(714) 694-5070" FAX (714) 694-5076
[] RIVERSIDE OFFICE
Tract 25630 and Plot Plan 227
Page 2
Prior to the issuance of buj]dinZ permits, the developer shall dep~qjt
$400.00 per unit as mitigation for fire protection jn~p,~cts. i:~.> ameunt
must be submitted separately from the plan check review fees.
9. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in
the Building and Safety Office.
All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to
the Planning and Engineering staff.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
~a~ra Cabral~ ~ire ~afet~ ~pecialist
LCltm
C}~I ~ fly TI:~IITCt'/A
DEYEIADI'MEN~r REX iEx,~, CONIMIT]'EE AGEN~DA
TIlURSDAY, MARCH 28, 1991
Items numbered one through six have been scheduled for the formal Development Review Committee.
The applicants will attend the meeting and draft conditions of approval will be available.
ITE~I NO. 1
Case No.:
Appl i cant:
Representative:
Proposal:
Location:
A.P. #
Case Planner:
ITEh, I NO. 2
Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Proposal:
Location:
A.P. #
Case Planner:
(l)
Plot Plan No. 227 and Tentative Tract Map No. 25603,
Amendment No. 3
Tierra Investments
Walter Dixon
54-1ot multi-family subdivision with corresponding Plot Plan for
fourplex units on the individual lots
South of Margarita Road, approximately 1,000 feet east of
Moraga Road
921-370-005
Steve Jiannino
Comply with applicable provisions of the 1988 editions of the
Uniform Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes, 1990
National Electrical Code, California State Administrative Code,
Title 24 Handicapped and Energy Regulations and the Temecula
City Code
Request for street addressing must be made prior to submittal for
Building Plan Review
Parcel Map No. 25349
Anita Silliker
ALBA Engineering, Inc.
3~lot residential subdivision of 8.29 acres
Eastern Terminus of leramie Drive
945-130-003
Steve Jiannino
(1) Request for street addressing must be made prior to submittal for
Building Plan Review
'-, AND
SUBD] V | SION
CONIllTJONS OF APPROVAl
T(): l~lahning }~,.parLmcnt
F'i~,;h,. Garr 1,. }~ing. Park Development Coordinator
Temet:ula CommuniLy Services DisLrict {I'CSD)
HAP NO.: 25._6_0,3
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.:
pRDJECJ',DESCBI. P'IION: 54 lot mnlti-family subdivision with
corresponding PJot Plan for four-piex units on the individual
lots.
_STANDARD .C_ON_DI.T_!ON_S
Easements, when required for slopes, shall be shown on
the 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 Director of
TCSD.
All slopes and open space shall be improved as to
Riverside County Service Area ]43 Landscape Standards
Booklet (RCSALSB Manual). A detailed landscaping and
irrigation plan, prepared by a qualified professional,
shall be submitted 'to the TCSD for review and approval
prior to issuance of grading permits.
A Homeowners Association shall be established for
maintenance of Lots "E" and "F' and/or any additional
open space not otherwise identified herein.
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
responsibility of the TCSD.
Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS detailed common
open space area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be
submitted for TCSD approval for the phase of development
in process. The plans shall be certified by s landscape
architect, and shall be in accordance with the RCSALSB
Manual.
,o I,c inst~lect including, but not limited to, slope and
open sl,ac'c
I't~!,t ~,. tb.: ;ss:t,~m~ of O('CUFAN('¥ PER.s:ITS,
l~ds~al,in~ a:~d irrigation shall be installed
ac¢olilance with approved plans aud shall be ~er~fied
TCSD.
Neighborhood park sites associated with that phase
development shall be developed in accordance with
approved plans and shall be verified by TCSD.
of
Prior to the RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP, the subdivider
shall enter into an agreement with TCSD which will
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the TCSD that the land
divider has provided fox' the payment of parks and
recreation fees in accordance with Section 10.35 of
Ordinance No. 460. The agreement shall be approved by
the City Council prior to the recordation of the final
map.
The developer or his assignee must conform
Quimby Ordinance, unless waived to time of
building permit.
to the TCSD
issuance of
9.. Following satisfaction of these conditions, and upon
completion of a ]20 day maintenance period of said
slopes, the dedication of said slopes by means of an
Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (Easement Deed shall be
presented to the city counsel for acceptance.
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
"'~A, MAF~T~ ~~ v ronmentai Health Sr, ec~a!~st
c'LcI~ F'LAN NO
C I IY OF TEMECULA
ATTN:- Steve _~lannzno
0.3-27-91
The En'-rmi-onment31 H~_~!th 5~nvmi:es has reviewed Flot Plan
II
ATTACHMENT 5
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
Backqround
1. Name of Proponent:
Tierra Investment/Walter Dixon
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
PO Box 322
Temecula, CA 92390
(714) 699-6349
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
March 28, 1991
4. Agency Requiring
Assessment:
CITY OF TEMECULA
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Tentative Tract Map No. 25603 and
Plot Plan No. 227
Location of Proposal:
South side of Marqarita Road
approximately 1,500 feet easterly of
Moraqa Road.
Project Description:
54 lot multiple family subdivision plot
plan for development of 54 four-plex
units, one per parcel.
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
Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features?
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
X
A: 25603-TM. PC 43
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on
or off site?
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?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A:Z5603-TM.PC ~A
Plant
ao
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?
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?
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)?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A: 25603-TM. PC 45
10.
11.
12.
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals?
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
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 emer9-
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?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A: 25603-TM. PC 46
13.
15.
Transportation/Circulation.
proposal result in:
a.
b.
c.
d.
Will the
Yes Maybe N_~o
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? X
Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking? X
Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems? __ X
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
A:25603-TM.PC L~7
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
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?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A: 25603-TM. PC u,8
21.
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?
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
X
A:25603-TM.PC 49
I I I Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
1.a,
1.b,c.
1.d.
1.e,
1.g.
2.b,c.
No. The project is not located in any known unstable earth areas. The
proposed grading should not effect geological substructures.
Yes. The current topography consists of rolling hill type terrain. The
area is proposed to be mass graded which will be a major change in the
topography of the site and cause possible soil erosion. The project
proposes the use of a 20 foot high crib wall as a retaining wall along a
portion of the site. All the proposed grading shall be certified by a
qualified engineer. All mitigative measures will be included in the
grading and building permit process for the project. Prior to any
grading or construction, a City permit must be obtained and adhered
to. Adherence to the grading and building permits including proper
use of required erosion control measures shall mitigate impacts.
Maybe. The project includes mass grading which will alter the rolling
hill topography of the site. This type of topography is quickly
disappearing in Temecula. This project being of an in-fill project will
not have a significant effect.
Yes. See 1. b.
No. The area is fairly far removed from any existing body of water or
stream. Deposits in these areas will be minimal.
Maybe. The site is not in a fault area as shown on any current maps.
The large retaining crib wall may pose a hazard, but adhering to
engineering requirement for the wall should mitigate any significant
concerns. Mitigation shall be by obtaining and maintaining engineering
and building permits.
Maybe. Air emissions will result during grading, especially dust, due
to the grading and construction activities. This impact will be for a
limited time and mitigation will be accomplished by use of erosion control
methods. The impact will not be a significant impact.
No. The project is a residential subdivision and should not have a
substantial effect to the air. No unusual developments are proposed
and no objectionable odor are anticipated.
No. There are no streams or bodies of water in the vicinity. There
should not be any significant impact due to this project.
Yes. The project will add road and housing units which will decrease
the absorption rate of the site. All development causes a decrease in
absorption rate, this will not be a significant impact.
A: 25603-TM. PC 50
3.d,
3.e.
3.f.
3.g.
3.h.
3.i.
~.a.
u,.b.
~.d.
5.a.
5.b.
5.c.
Yes. The project proposes mass grading and will alter the current
drainage patterns. The course of flood waters will also be altered. The
project will have to conform to the recommendations of the Riverside
County Flood Control District and the City Engineer to mitigate flood
and drainage concerns. Adherence to these standards will mitigate
potential impacts.
No. See 3. a.
No. See 3. a.
No. The proposed grading does not include any cuts which are deep
enough to alter the current ground water direction.
Maybe. The covering of the soil with buildings and streets will
decrease the available ground water, although this impact should be
mitigated by the introduction of irrigated landscape areas which will
increase the availability of ground water. Therefore, this project
should not have a significant effect on the ground water.
No. The residential project will not have a significant effect on the
availability of water. Although the cumulative effect of additional
residential units may have an impact, this is a regional problem and this
project will have a small effect on the overall region.
No. The project is not within a flood hazard zone and will not pose a
threat to people.
Yes. The native vegetation will be removed. No unique species were
observed on site. There will not be a substantial impact.
No. No rare or unique plant species were observed on site.
Yes. The proposed multi-family project will introduce new vegetation
to the area. The project is conditioned to use drought tolerant and
native plant species. There will not be a significant impact.
No. The area is not currently used for agricultural products.
Yes. The development process will eliminate existing native animal
species. This will not be a significant impact. The project is a
residential in-fill project.
Maybe. The area is within the K-Rat Habitat Study Area. No Stephen's
Kangaroo Rats were observed on site. The project has been conditioned
to pay the appropriate fees for K-Rat mitigation.
Maybe. The existing site will be graded. No wetlands or unique
habitat exists on site. The project will not have a significant impact.
A: 25603-TM. PC 51
6.3.
6.b.
7,
9.a,b.
10.a,b.
11.
12.
13.a.
13.b.
13.c.
13.d,e.
13.f.
14.a-f.
Yes. The area is currently vacant. The major noise increase will be
during construction and grading activities. This will be for a limited
time period and will not be a significant impact.
No. No severe noise producing activities are proposed.
Maybe. All lighting will be hooded and directed away from public
rights-of-way and adjoining properties. The project is conditioned to
conform to the recommendations contained in the Palomar Observatory
Outdoor Lighting Policy.
No. The project conforms to existing zoning and to SWAP.
No. The project is a residential project and will not have a substantial
impact on natural resources.
No. The project is a residential in-fill project and will not pose a
threat.
Yes. The area is currently vacant and proposes
development. This will alter the population, but the
consistent with current zoning and SWAP.
residential
project is
Yes. The project will create housing units on vacant land. The area
is zoned for this, so no significant impact will occur.
Yes. The project could provide a maximum 216 dwelling units which will
increase vehicular movement. Mitigation will be achieved by adherence
to Engineering and Traffic Conditions.
Yes. The project will increase the demand for new parking. The
project will provide the required parking for the proposed use per code
to mitigate the impact.
Maybe. The project will increase travel on existing roadways. The
project will be conditioned to provide for necessary street improvements
and pay capital improvement fees as mitigation measures.
No. The project will not impact the circulation pattern or alternate
transportation methods.
Yes. The project will increase traffic and possible hazards. Part of the
mitigation will be with the installation of flashing yellow lights for
increased pedestrian safety and installation of street improvements
include payments of fees.
Yes. The project proposes a residential development which will
increase service needs. The project is conditioned to pay the proper
fees for mitigation,
A: 25603-TM, PC 52
15.a,b.
16.a-f.
17.a,b.
18.
19.
20.a.
20.b-d.
21 .a-c.
21 .d.
No. The project will not require a substantial use of energy.
No. All necessary utilities exist in the vicinity of the site. The project
is a residential in-fill project.
No. The project is a residential in-fill project and will not pose a
significant hazards.
Maybe. The mass grading of the site and use of retaining walls and
crib walls could be objectionable aesthetically. This impact will be the
greatest on the immediate area and may be mitigated by increased
landscaping and appropriate landscaping design.
Yes. The multi-family residential project with minimal recreational
facilities will impact the current City recreational facilities. Mitigation
will be achieved by adherence to the Quimby Ordinance.
Maybe. The area is in a possible sensitive paleontology area. During
grading activities, a qualified paleontologist shall be present. If any
artlfacts or sensitive areas are observed, appropriate mitigation
measures will be established by the qualified paleontologist.
No. There are no known cultural or religious sites in this area.
Maybe. The project impacts the environment in may ways, but no
significant impacts will occur of the mitigation measures are followed.
No. No substantial impacts will occur.
A: 25603-TM. PC 53
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
March 28, 1991
Date
For CITY OF TEMECULA
A:25603-TM.PC 54
II
lilii il I i
]l[':l": s',ii
--" If'
.il"i'
' !! .........
~:.
~!{iol ' {= :' ':' *:: ~: '::
,!
,J
'/
~LA2 ~,.
COU
SP 180
ZONING
CASE
.~00
3Z 2757
CZ 2757 /'
,gso ' CZ '
./
~,.~CZ 4161
) ~'R-~-~000 cz 4~79
Rm
r,~> CZ~5798
R-2
cz 44 ss CZ 284~
ITEM #8
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
May 6, 1991
Case No,: C.U.P. 2901 (Revised)
Prepared By: Mark Rhoades
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
1, ADOPT Resolution 91-
approving Conditional Use
Permit No. 2901 (Rev.)
based on the analysis and
findings contained herein.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
Rancho Car Wash
D2 Enterprises
A request to permit existing gasoline sales, and to
add 4 additional gasoline pumps and storage tank.
Northeast corner of Winchester and Jefferson
Roads.
C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North: C-P-S
South: C-P-S
East: Freeway (I-15)
West: C-P-S
Not Requested
Car Wash and Gasoline Dispensing Facility
North: Retail Center
South: Commercial, Fast Food
East: Freeway
West: Gasoline Dispensing Facility
A: CUP2901 1
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
The proposed Revised Conditional Use Permit was
submitted to the Riverside County Planning
Department on September 12.1989. The project was
transferred to the City of Temecula Planning
Department in May, 1990. After staff received
initial information requested from the applicant, the
proposal was taken to the preliminary development
review committee on October 9, 1990. The project
was taken to final D.R,C. on December 11, 1990.
The applicant submitted final information and
consequently the proposed project was scheduled
for a public hearing,
The proposed project is an application for a revision
to an approved Conditional Use Permit { No, 2901 ).
The original project approval was for a full service
Car Wash, Lube and Detail bays, After the project
was approved the applicant placed four (4) gas
pumps on site, within the approved vacuum area,
The existing pumps were approved and permitted
by the Riverside County Department of Health,
However, the Gasoline dispensing use was not a
part of the originally approved project. The
proposed revision is requested in order to bring the
site and use into conformance with the project
approval. In addition to the existing pumps, the
applicant proposes another four (4) dispensers
which will be located on two {2) islands, and an
additional storage tank.
Site design -
The current site design is in conformance with that
approved by Riverside County for C.U.P. 2901.
The previous and proposed additions of gasoline
pumps and underground tanks has not and will not
substantially alter the original approval.
Circulation -
The gasoline pumps and associated islands are
proposed to be placed in line with the existing pump
islands. The islands are proposed to conform to the
existing Car Wash circulation pattern, and will not
obstruct any required drive aisles,
Zoning Conformance -
The proposed revised Conditional Use Permit is in
conformance with the development standards and
requirements set forth in Ordinance 348, as adopted
by the City of Temecula.
A: CUP2901 2
GENERAL PLAN
CONSISTENCY:
Southwest Area Plan -
The proposed project is in conformance with the
existing S,W.A,P, designation of "C" Commercial,
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS AND
SUPPORTING FACTS:
Staff has determined that the proposed revised
Conditional Use Permit No. 2901 is a Section 15303
categorical exemption from the California
Environmental Quality Act.
The site of the proposed use together with
the on-site parking required and provided is
suitable in size to accommodate the proposed
intensity of development.
The proposed use will not have a substantial
adverse effect on abutting property of the
permitted use there of. The proposed use is
not on scale of intensity to impact adjacent
uses.
The site for the proposed use has adequate
access to the fully improved Jefferson Avenue
as evidenced in the site plan for C.U.P. 2901
( Rev. )
The proposed project will not inhibit or
restrict future ability to use active or passive
solar energy systems. Adequate building
exposure is provided for these alternatives.
As conditioned, the project will not have a
significant adverse effect on the environment
as the project is exempt from the C.E.Q.A.
Guidelines.
There is a reasonable probability that the
project will be consistent with the City~s
General Plan once it is adopted, based on
analysis in the staff report and the proposal~s
conformance with existing applicable
ordinances and Conditions of Project
Approval.
A:CUP2901 3
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The lawful conditions stated in the approval
are deemed necessary to protect the public
health, safety and general welfare. The
Conditions stated in the attached Staff
analysis are based in mitigative measures
necessary to reduce the severity of, or
entirely eliminate potential adverse impacts of
the project, including potential impacts on
adjacent parking facilities, human health and
safety, and City fire protection services.
There is not a probability of detriment to, or
interference with the future adopted General
Plan Land Use if the proposed use is
ultimately inconsistent with the new General
Plan. The proposed use is of insignificant
scale in the context of regional development,
Further, if found to be ultimately
detrimental, the use is subject to termination
under City ordinance provisions contained in
Section 18.31 of City Ordinance No. 348
These findings are supported by Staff
analysis, minutes. maps and exhibits,
associated with this application and herein
incorporated by reference.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
ADOPT Resolution 91 - approving
Conditional Use Permit No. 2901 (Rev.),
based on the analysis and findings contained
herein.
MR:ks
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
Resolution
Conditions / Letters
Exhibits
Fee Checklist
A:CUP2901 4
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 2901 (REV.) TO PERMIT EXISTING AND
PROPOSED GASOLINE DISPENSING PUMPS CENTER AT
THE CORNER OF JEFFERSON AND WINCHESTER
AVENUES., TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA.
WHEREAS, Rancho Car Wash, filed CUP No. 2901 ( Rev. ) in accordance with
the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said CUP application was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said CUP on May 6, 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 CUP;
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.
A: CUP2901 5
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 CUP is consistent with the SWAP and meets the
requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit:
( 1 ) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation
of the general plan.
(2) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits,
pursuant to this title, each of the following:
(a)
There is reasonable probability that CUP No. 6
proposed will be consistent with the general plan
proposal being considered or studied or which will
be studied within a reasonable time.
(bl
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. Ill Pursuant to Section 18.26(e), no CUP may be approved
unless the applicant demonstrates the proposed use will not be detrimental to
the health safety and welfare of the community, and further, that any CUP
approved shall be subject to such conditions as shall be necessary to protect
the health, safety and general welfare of the community.
( 2 ) The Planning commission, in approving the CUP, makes the
following findings, to wit:
A:CUP2901 6
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g
The site of the proposed use together with
the on-site parking required and provided is
suitable in size to accommodate the proposed
intensity of development.
The proposed use will not have a substantial
adverse effect on abutting property of the
permitted use there of. The proposed use is
not on scale of intensity to impact adjacent
uses.
The site for the proposed use has adequate
access to the fully improved Jefferson Avenue
as evidenced in the site plan for C.U.P. 2901
( Bey. )
The proposed project will not inhibit or
restrict future abil ity to use active or passive
solar energy systems. Adequate building
exposure is provided for these alternatives.
As conditioned, the project will not have a
significant adverse effect on the environment
as the project is exempt from the C.E. C}. A.
Guidelines.
There is a reasonable probability that the
project will be consistent with the City's
General Plan once it is adopted, based on
analysis in the staff report and the proposal's
conformance with existing applicable
ordinances and Conditions of Project
Approval.
The lawful conditions stated in the approval
are deemed necessary to protect the public
health, safety and general welfare. The
Conditions stated in the attached Staff
analysis are based in mitigative measures
necessary to reduce the severity of, or
entirely eliminate potential adverse impacts of
the project, including potential impacts on
adjacent parking facilities, human health and
safety, and City fire protection services.
There is not a probability of detriment to, or
interference with the future adopted General
Plan Land Use if the proposed use is
ultimately inconsistent with the new General
Plan. The proposed use is of insignificant
scale in the context of regional development.
Further, if found to be ultimately
A: CUP2901 7
detrimental, the use is subject to termination
under City ordinance provisions contained in
Section 18.31 of City Ordinance No. 348
These findings are supported by Staff
analysis, minutes, maps and exhibits,
associated with this application and hereln
incorporated by reference.
As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3. the C.U.P. proposed is
compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
The proposed revised C.U.P. has been determined to be exempt from
the C.E.Q.A. pursuant to Section 15303 of that document.
SECTION 3. Conditions
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
C.U.P. 2901 (Rev.) for the placement of existing and additional
gasoline dispensing pumps at the Northeast corner of Jefferson and
Winchester Avenues, Temecula, California subject to the attached
conditions.
SECTION 4.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 6th day of May, 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 6th day of May, 1990 by the following vote of the Commission
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
A: CUP2901 8
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
C.U.P. 2901 (Revised)
Project Description: Car Wash
and Gasoline Dispensing Facility
APN 910-200-061
Planninq Department
The use hereby permitted by this Revised C.U.P. is for the placement of two
(2) additional gas pump islands and four (~,) gas pumps, and to allow four
existing gas pumps, and one additional storage tank.
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. 216. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any such
claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate
fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any
such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the
permlttee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold
harmless the City of Temecula.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of approval date; otherwise,
it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial
construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period
which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of
substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. This approval shall
expire on *
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as
shown on Conditional Use Permit No. 2901 (Rev.) marked Exhibit A, or as
amended by these conditions.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-d-way.
The applicant shall comply with the Engineering Department's Conditions of
Approval which are included herein.
Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the
provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittal
dated October 22, 1990, which are included herein.
Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County
Flood Control District~s transmittal dated November 28, 1989, a copy of which
is attached.
A:CUP2901 9
10.
11.
12.
13.
15.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section
of Ordinance No. 5L~6 and the County Fire Department~s transmittal dated
October 29, 1990, which are included herein.
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 20, parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section
18.12, City of Temecula Ordinance No. 3L~8.
A minimum of 1 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on
Exhibit A. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be
identified by a permanently affixed reflectori zed sign constructed of porcelain
on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of
Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and
shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height
if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade,
or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished
grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous
place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17
inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing
placards or license plates issued for physically
handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's
expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at
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
Building 8 Safety Department
School District
Fire Department
CalTrans
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the following additional plans shall
be submitted for Planning Department approval:
Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans.
No roof-mounted equipment shall be permitted on any building within the
project site.
A:CUP2901 10
16.
All Trash enclosures shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy
permits. As a minimum, each enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall
be constructed of masonry block with a solid steel gate which screens the bins
from external view.
17.
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.
18.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts
to be determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the
installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved
plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed
with the Department of Building and Safety.
19.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, all required landscape planting
and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the
Director of Building and Safety. The plants shall be healthy and free of
weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed
and in good working order.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
21.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or
any use allowed by this permit.
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 BUILDING DEPARTMENT PERMIT:
22.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project. 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.
A: CUP2901 11
Transportation Enqineerinq Department
23. No Comment
Department of Buildinq and Safety
24. The applicant shall fill out an application for Final Inspection, allow two (2)
weeks for processing time to obtain all required clearances prior to final
inspection.
25. Provide two ( 2 ) complete sets of plans for Plan Review to Buildin9 and Safety.
A:CUP2901 12
FROM:
FIE:
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
,' [TY OF TEMECULA DATE:
A?fN: Mark Rhoades
[ 0 - 2 2 - '? 0
CONDITIONAL 0SE PERNIT NO. 290IT-
'?b!e EnvlF-_,nlclental Health f.~eFvlces has revlewed Condltlonal
_!se 9ermIt No. 29Ui and has no, objections. Sanitary sewer
~l]~ wa~eff 5efvlce~ are trailable 1~ this area. P'plo~ tQ
D,z!~,iilng plan submltta!~ the folLowln~ items will De
'Will-serve" letters from the water and sewecing
Three cc. mplete sets of plans for e~ch food
establishment will be submItted. tncludln<l e
flxture schedule. a finish schedule. and a OiumblnG
schedule In order to e~ufe Co~Dllar~ce with the
CRllfc. rn~a Uniform Setall FooG F~cilltles Law.
[f there are to be any hazardous materls. hs, a
clearance lett-e[ from the Env~i-onmental Health
:!,errices Hazardous Materials Mana,nement Branch (Jen
~ 358-5055~ .....
that ~he nro ~ect has been cleared fez:
a. Under~reund storaQe tanks .
Hazardous Waste Disclosure
AB 2185).
f~:dr
KENNETH L EDWARDS
CHIEF ENGINEER
1995 MARKET STREET
P.O, BOX 1033
TELEPHONE (714) 787-2015
FAX NO, (7141 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 No.~H
Planner~oR/~
Area: ~bU~
Re:
We have reviewed this case and have the following comments:
Except for nuisance nature local runoff which may traverse portions of the
property the project is considered 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 . Area
drainage plan fees shall be paid in accordance with the applicable rules and
regulations.
The proposed zoning is consistent with existing flood
control facilities or floodproofing may be required to
implied density.
hazards. Some flood
fully develop to the
The District's report dated ,9-5/-~7 is still current for this project.
The District does not object to the proposed minor change.
This project is a part of The project will be
free of ordinary storm flood hazard when improvements have been constructed in
accordance with approved plans.
The attached comments apply.
cc: D~ ~VT~F-RP~/SE3
Very truly yours, -- /
~JOHN H. KASHUBA
Senior Civil Engineer
DA E: 2/:, /
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
October 29, 1990
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
3760 12TH STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
(714) 275-4777
TO:
CITY OF TEMECULA
ATTN:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE:
CUP 2901 ~ REVISED PERMIT - AMENDED
With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced
plot plan, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection
measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or
recognized fire protection standards:
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the
remodel or construction of all commercial buildings using the procedure
established in Ordinance 546.
2. Gasoline pumps must be inspected by fire department prior to operation
of pumps.
3. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes.
4. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC.
Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment.
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
Laura Cabral, Fire Safety Specialist
ml
STATE OF CALIFORNIA~USiNESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 8, P.O. BOX 231
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92402
TDD (714) 383-4609
September 22, 1989
Development Review
08-Riv-79-R2.28
Your Reference:
CUP 2901
Planning Department
Attention Gloria Guzman
County of Riverside
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
Dear Mrs. Guzman:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed Revised
Conditional Use Permit 2901 located north of Winchester Road
(State Highway 79) and east of Jefferson Road near Rancho
California.
Although the traffic generated by this proposal does not appear
to have a significant effect on the State highway system,
consideration must 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 of this area.
We have no specific comment on this proposal.
If additional information is desired, please call Mr. Thomas J.
Neville at (714) 383-4384.'
Very truly yours,
H. N. LEWANDOWSKI
District Permits Engineer
December 6, 1989
Board of Directors:
James A. Darby
President
Jeffrey L. Minkler
Sr, Vice President
Ralph Daily
Csaba F. Ko
Doug Ku]berg
Stephen M. Silla
Richard D. Steffey
Officers:
John F. Hennigar
Phillip L Forbes
Thomas R. McAliester
Edward P. Lemons
Director of Engineering
Perry, R. Louek
Linda M. Fregoso
McCormick. Kidman
& Behrens
Riverside County Planning Department
4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor
Riverside, California 92501-3657
Subject: Water Availability
Reference: APN 910-200-061
Revised C.U.P. 2901
Gentlemen:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located
within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District. Water
service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial
arrangements between RCWD and the property owner.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner
signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights.
if any, to RCWD.
If you have any questions, please contact Senga Doherty at (714)
676-4101.
F012/dpw409f
Very truly yours,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon
Engineering Manager
cc: Senga Doherty
R A N C H O C A L I F O R N I A W A T E R D I S T R I C T
28o61 DIAZ ROAD o POST OFFICE BOX 9017 · TEMECULA, CA 92390-0737 o (714) 676-4101 ° FAX (714) 676-0615
CITY OF TE:MECULA ~
Y/IIA/17"Y M,~P
,v.r.$.
VICINITY MAP
r ~
CASE NO.C~ 2{~01 C!Z~,~
P.C. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA
//
/
L!
SWAP MAP
CASE NO.~,q61
P.C. DATE
CITY OF TEMFCULA )
/ \
E~ ~P-s
·
J
ZONE MAP
r ~
case NO. C.u.~. ~?~,~
P.C. DATES~c,~II ~
CITY OF TEMECULA
./
r ~
CASE NO.(--.t~'?' ?-'~)C|
P.C. DATE.~./,cfqt j
CITY OF TEMECULA )
CASE
P.C. DATE~J4rql
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
CASE NO.: Conditional Use Permit No. 2901 ( Rev. |
The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this
project.
Fee
Habitat Conservation Plan
(K-Rat)
Parks and Recreation
( Qu imby )
Public Facility
( Traffic Mitigation )
Public Facility
( Traffic Signal Mitigation )
Public Facility
(Library)
Fire Protection
Flood Control
(ADP)
Condition of Approval
N/A
N/A
Condition No. 22
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
A:CUP2901 13
ITEM #9
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
May 6, 1991
Case No.: Tentative Tract Map No. 25338
Prepared By: Mark Rhoades
Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends
that the Plannin9 Commission:
ADOPT a Negative Declaration for
Tentative Tract Map No. 25338; and
ADOPT Resolution 91-
approving Tentative Tract Map
No. 25338 subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval, based on
the findings contained in the
Staff Report.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
Dan and Stephanie Sterk/Leigh and Carole Waxman
Leigh Waxman
Proposed 32 unit condominium subdivision on 2.56
acres.
The proposed project is located at the southeast
corner of Solana Way and Rycrest Drive.
R-2 (Multiple Family Dwellings)
North:
South:
East:
West:
R-2 (Multiple Family Dwellings)
R-2 (Multiple Family Dwellings)
R-2 (Multiple Family Dwellings)
R-2 (Multiple Family Dwellings)
No change requested.
Vacant
STAFFRPT\TM25338 1
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Single Family Residential
Vacant
Single Family Residential
Vacant
Proposed Units: 32
Number of Acres (gross): 2.56
Density: 12.5 DU/AC
Number of Structures: 4
Open Space: @ 35,000 sq.ft.
Parking Provided: 78 spaces
The application for Tentative Tract Map No. 25338
was originally submitted to the Riverside County
Planning Department on September 20, 1989. The
project was transferred to the City of Temecula
Planning Department on April 19, 1990. The project
was taken to the Preliminary Development Review
Committee on September 13, 1990. Corrections and
requested information were submitted and the
project was heard at the March 14, 1991 Formal DRC
meeting. Final materials were resubmitted and the
project scheduled for the Planning Commission
meeting of May 6, 1991.
The proposed project site was previously approved
for Plot Plan No. 10322 by the County of Riverside
in March of 1988. Plot Plan No. 10322 was an
approval for 32 apartment units with a site plan
nearly identical to that proposed for Tentative
Tract Map No. 25338. A grading permit was issued,
and some rough grading conducted on site. Based
on the issuance of grading permits, the County of
Riverside issued the applicant a letter stating that
substantial construction had been completed prior
to the project expiration in March of 1990. The City
Attorney has concurred with Staff that a
determination for substantial construction is reliant
on the issuance of building permits and having
foundations poured. Therefore, 5taft has
determined that Plot Plan No. 10322 is expired.
Tentative Tract Map No. 25338 is an application to
construct a 32 unit condominium project.
Proposed Use
The proposed project is an application for a
tentative tract map. The tentative tract is a one lot
condominium map, encompassing 32 two-story
condominium units.
STAFFRPT\TM25338 2
Site Desi,qn
The units are dispersed on the site in four
structures, each structure contalnin9 eight (8)
units.
The four structures are arranged in two rows,
opposing each other from the rear, The two rows
are separated by open space, sidewalk and
recreation amenities, Parking is situated at the
project perimeter in order to maximize the amount of
useable common open space. Each unit is provided
with a small court yard at the front of the unit, and
a fenced patio in the rear.
The buildings are well set back from all property
lines. A 35 foot buildin9 setback from the east
property line would separate the proposed use from
adjacent single family detached homes.
Architecture
The proposed architecture is a mixture of Spanish
and Mediterranean styles. The elevations exhibit
beige stucco with red clay barrel tile roofing and
window overhangs. The trim is brown stained
rough sawn wood with white sills. Windows and
slidin9 doors will be paned,
The proposed structures are offset approximately
five feet every two units to provide visual breakup.
The garages are detached with the exception of the
end units where they are attached.
Landscaping
The proposed landscaping meets the requirements
set forth in Ordinance 348, Staff~s concern with
this project is that the adjacent residences may be
impacted by the proximity of drive aisles and a pool
area, In response to this concern, the applicant
has submitted a landscape detail for the easterly
property line. The applicant is proposing a heavy
evergreen tree line on the subject boundary, Trees
have also been added adjacent to the proposed
structures to provide further bufferin9. A
percentage of the proposed buffer trees have been
conditioned to be minimum 24" box.
STAFFRPT\TM25338 3
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
Parkinq/Circulation
The project proposes to take access from two points
on Solana Way. A 24 foot wide drive aisle provides
through circulation at the project perimeter.
Parking is provided with one garage per unit, and
an additional 46 spaces placed at the perimeter.
The project requires 76 spaces while the proposed
site plan reflects 78 spaces.
Land Use
The project site is bordered on the east, south and
west by existing R-2 zoning. To the east of the
project site is an existing R-2 single family
subdivision. To the south is a vacant lot and then
a high density apartment complex. West of the site
there is vacant land. To the north of the project
site across Solana Way is existing R- I ( Single Family
Residential ) zoning, and a medium density
subdivision.
ZoninR
The proposed project is zoned R-2 (Multiple-Family
Dwellings). Multiple family dwellings are permitted
provided the proposed project conforms with
Planned Residential Development Standards. The
project as proposed and conditioned, will conform
with the development standards contained in the R-
2 zone, and PRD requirements.
The current SWAP designation for the proposed site
is 2-5 dwelling units per acre. That designation is
not appropriate for this area (See Exhibits). Prior
to the adoption of the SWAP Land Use Plan, two
projects had been approved in the immediate area
with densities exceeding 12 units per acre. SWAP
has not been adopted by the City, and is used as a
guideline. Staff has determined that the proposed
use is appropriate in density to the existing area.
An initial study was prepared for the project which
identified possible impacts to earth disruption,
drainage, and public services. However, the site
has been rough graded under a previous permit. A
clearance letter will be required from the County
Flood Control Department and the site grading and
STAFFRPT\TM25338 4
FINDINGS:
drainage plan has been deemed acceptable by the
City Engineering Department. Appropriate fees will
be paid to mitigate public service impacts. A
Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption.
There is a reasonable probability that this
project will be consistent with the City's
future General Plan, which will be completed
in a reasonable time and in accordance with
State law, due to the fact that the project is
consistent with existing site development
standards in that it proposes articulated
design features and site amenlties
commensurate with existing and anticipated
residential development standards.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future and adopted general plan, if the
proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact
that the project is in conformance with
existing and anticipated land use and design
guidelines standards.
The proposed use or action complies with
state plannln9 and zoning laws, due to the
fact that the proposed use conforms with
those uses listed as "allowed" within the R-2
zoning designation of Ordinance 3L~8.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation
patterns, access, and density, due to the
fact that; adequate area is provided for all
proposed residential structures; adequate
landscaping is provided along the project's
public and private frontages; and the
internal circulation plan should not create
traffic conflicts as design provisions are in
conformance with adopted City standards.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare, due to the fact that the conditions
stated in the approval are based on mitigation
measures necessary to reduce or eliminate
potential adverse impacts of the project.
STAFFR PT\TM25338 5
10.
11.
Tentative Tract Map No. 25338 is compatible
with surrounding land uses. The harmony in
scale, bulk, height, density and coverage
creates a compatible physical relationship
with adjoining properties, due to the fact
that the proposal is similar in compatibility
with surrounding land uses; and adequate
area and design features provide for siting of
proposed development in terms of landscaping
and internal traffic circulation.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area, due to the
fact that the proposed project is consistent
with the current zoning of the subject site.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the Initial
Study for the project, due to the fact that
impact mitigation is realized by conformance
with the project's Conditions of Approval.
The project has acceptable access to a
dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact
that the project currently proposes access
points from Solana Way which have been
determined to be adequate by the City
Engineer.
The design of the subdivision, the type of
improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed projects, due to
the fact that this is clearly represented in the
site plan and the project analysis.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applicants and herein
incorporated by reference, due to the fact
that they are referenced in the attached Staff
Report, Exhibits, Environmental Assessment,
and Conditions of Approval.
STAFFRPT\TM25338 6
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
ADOPT a Negative Declaration for Tentative
Tract Map No. 25338; and
ADOPT Resolution 91 - approvin9
Tentative Tract Map No. 25338 subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval, based on
the findings contained in the Staff Report.
MR:ks
Attachments:
2.
3.
Resolution 91-
Conditions of Approval
Exhibits
Public Correspondence
STAFFRPT\TM25338 7
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP NO. 25338 TO SUBDIVIDE A 2,56 ACRE PARCEL
INTO A 32 UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-330-050,
WHEREAS, Leigh Waxman filed Tentative Tract Map No. 25338 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 May 6, 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 Tentative Tract Map;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findinqs. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
( 2 ) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
STAFFRPT\TM25338 8
(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.
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the
SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the
Government Code, to wit:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
( 2 ) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects
and taking other actions, including the issuance of
building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the
following:
{a)
There is reasonable probability that
Tentative Tract Map No. 25443 proposed will
be consistent with the general plan proposal
being considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
(b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
STAFFRPT\TM25338 9
Ic)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
D. (1) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No.
~,60, no subdivision or extension of time may be approved unless the
following findings are made:
a)
That the proposed land division is consistent
with applicable general and specific plans.
b)
That the design or improvement of the
proposed land division is consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.
cl
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 approvincJ the proposed
Tract Map makes the following findings, to wit:
STAFFRPT\TM25338 10
a)
b)
cl
d}
e)
f)
There is a reasonable probability that this
project will be consistent with the City's
future General Plan, which will be completed
in a reasonable time and in accordance with
State law, due to the fact that the project is
consistent with existing site development
standards in that it proposes articulated
design features and site amenities
commensurate with existing and anticipated
residential development standards.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future and adopted general plan, if the
proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact
that the project is in conformance with
existing and anticipated land use and design
guidelines standards.
The proposed use or action complies with
state planning and zoning laws, due to the
fact that the proposed use conforms with
those uses listed as "allowed" within the R-2
zoning designation of Ordinance 348.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation
patterns. access, and density, due to the
fact that; adequate area is provided for all
proposed residential structures; adequate
landscaping is provided along the project's
public and private frontages; and the
internal circulation plan should not create
traffic conflicts as design provisions are in
conformance with adopted City standards.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare, due to the fact that the conditions
stated in the approval are based on mitigation
measures necessary to reduce or eliminate
potential adverse impacts of the project.
Tentative Tract Map No. 25338 is compatible
with surrounding land uses. The harmony in
scale, bulk, height, density and coverage
creates a compatible physical relationship
with adjoining properties, due to the fact
STAFFRPT\TM25338 11
that the proposal is similar in compatibility
with surrounding land uses; and adequate
area and design features provide for sitin9 of
proposed development in terms of landscapin9
and internal traffic circulation.
g)
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area, due to the
fact that the proposed project is consistent
with the current zoning of the subject site.
h)
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the Initial
Study for the project, due to the fact that
impact mitigation is realized by conformance
with the project's Conditions of Approval.
The project has acceptable access to a
dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact
that the project currently proposes access
points from Solana Way which have been
determined to be adequate by the City
Engineer.
j)
The design of the subdivision, the type of
improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed projects, due to
the fact that this is clearly represented in the
site plan and the project analysis.
k)
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applicants and herein
incorporated by reference, due to the fact
that they are referenced in the attached Staff
Report, Exhibits, Environmental Assessment,
and Conditions of Approval.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Tentative
Tract Map is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
STAFFRPT\TM25338 12
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
Tentative Tract Map No. 25338 for the subdivision of a 2.56 acre parcel into 32
condominium units located east of Rycrest Road and south of Solana Way and known
as Assessor's Parcel No. 921-330-050 subject to the following conditions:
A. Attachment 2, attached hereto.
SECTION
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of May, 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 6th day of May, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFFR PT\TM25338 13
ATTACHMENT 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Tract Map No: 25338
Project Description: Application for 32 unit
condominium subdivision on 2.56 acres.
Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-330-050
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 prior to the expiration date.
This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the
approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. The expiration
date is
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final
map.
Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 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.
Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area
improvement phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning Department
approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access
to all lots in each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and
purpose of the subdivision approval.
STAFFRPT\TM25338 14
10.
11.
12.
13.
15.
16.
A Homeowners Association shall be established for maintenance of Open Space/
Common Area and the developer/applicant shall pay 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:
a. Be limited to a maximum slope ratio of 2 to 1.
b. Be contour-graded to blend with existing natural contours.
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 October 9, 1990,
a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the fire improvement recommendationsoutlined
in the County Fire Department's letter dated March 20, 1991, a copy of which
is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Rancho
Water District's transmittal dated October 30, 1990, a copy of which is
attached.
All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of
Technology, Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as outlined in the
Southwest Area Plan.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern
Municipal Water District transmittal dated November 30, 1989, a copy of which
is attached.
Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following:
Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the
development standards of the R-2 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.
STAFFRPT\TM25338 15
17.
18.
19.
20.
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 recommendations
dated
Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
(1)
Prior to the issuance of grading permits detailed common open space
area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning
Department approval for the phase of development in process. The
plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for
the following:
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 betruing, 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
Solana Way. 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,
STAFFRPT\TM25338 16
21.
22.
23.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent
trees at key visual focal points within the project.
Where street trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of
interior streets and project parkways due to insufficient road
right-of-way, they shall be planted outside of the road right-of-
way.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant
plants.
All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow
growing trees shall be steel staked.
A separate drip line system shall be installed for the irrigation of
all trees and large shrub plantings located on site.
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.
5096 (14) of the trees along the easterly property line shall be
minimum 2LP box or greater.
All indicated trash enclosures shall be enclosed by a 6~ high
decorative masonry wall, and opaque gates.
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 grading permits, the applicant shall obtain a letter of
clearance from the Riverside County Engineering Geologist.
Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the followin9 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.
5TAFFRPT\T'M25338 17
24.
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 45 Ldn.
All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required
elements from the subdlvision's approved fire protection plan as
approved by the County Fire Marshal.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and
irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval.
The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requiring
landscaping and irrigation to be installed including, but not limited to,
parkway planting, street trees, slope planting, and individual front
yard landscaping.
All dwellings to be constructed within this subdivision shall be designed
and constructed with fire retardant ( Class A ) roofs as approved by the
Fire Marshal.
Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the
subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving
devices shall be permitted with Planning Department approval.
Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall not
be less than ten (10) feet.
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.
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with
approved plans and shall be verified by City field inspection.
Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the applicant shall enter
into an agreement with Inland Disposal, Inc., for the refuse service to
include the utilization of a small pick-up truck equipped with a lift
mechanism in order to move the containers out and back into the
project; thus, prohibiting the entering of large refuse trucks into the
project. Said agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Director for
approval.
STAFFRPT\TM25338 18
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
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 submit to the Planning Director an agreement with TCSD
which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City that the land divider has
provided for the payment of parks and recreation fees in accordance with
Section 10.35 of Ordinance No. L~60. The agreement shall be approved by the
City Council prior to the recordation of the final map.
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. 25338, which action is brought within the time period provided
for in California Government Code Section 66u,99.37. The City of Temecula will
promptly notify the 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 should 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 Code
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.
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
provider. Telephone, cable TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired
in the residence.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
STAFFRPT\TM25338 19
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions/Reciprocal Access Easements:
31.
The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCBR's) shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Department prior to final approval of the tract map.
The CCBR's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining the
open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, and exterior of
all buildings.
32.
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 CCSR~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.
33.
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 (2) as share in the corporation, or voting membership in an
association, owning the common areas and facilities.
34.
Maintenance for all landscaped and open areas, including parkways, shall be
provided for in the CCBR's.
35.
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 ($1,275.00), which includes the One
Thousand, Two Hundred, Fifty Dollars ( $1,250. O0 ) fee, in compliance with AB
3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711 .~,(d){2) plus the Twenty-
Five Dollar ($25o00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the
Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152
and 11~ Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight (48) hour
period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department
the check required above, the approval for the project granted hereln shall
be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section
711 .~(c).
STAFFRPT\TM25338 Z0
Enqineerinq Department
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act,
and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions.
The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered
Civil Engineer, subject to all the requirements of the State of California
Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
38.
As deemed necessary by the City Engineer or his representative, 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;
CalTrans; and
Parks and Recreation Department.
39.
All road easements and/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication to
the public and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such
offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the
City Engineer.
Solana Way 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 (88'/6~,').
41.
Dedicate a 2~, foot easement for public utilities and emergency vehicles access
for all private streets and drives.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage
facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located
within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances
shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the City Engineer.
STAFFRPT\TM25338 21
A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCSR's) shall be
prepared by the developer and submitted to the Director of Planning, City
Engineer and City Attorney. The CCF, Rts 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 CCBRts shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded. The
CCSR's shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. The CCBR's shall be prepared at the developer's sole cost and expense.
The CC~,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 CCBR'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 CCSR~s shall provide for the effective establishment, operation,
management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas and
facilities.
The CCGR's shall provide that the property shall be developed,
operated and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance.
The CCF, R's shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the
condition required by the CCF-R~s, then the City, after making due
demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and
perform, at the owner's sole expense, any maintenance required
thereon by the CCF, R~s or the City ordinances. The property shall be
subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not
promptly reimbursed.
All parkways, open areas, and landscaping 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.
The developer, or the developer's successor, shall execute a current Public
Facilities Agreement with the City of Temecula which provides for the payment
of the sum of money per residential unit then established by Resolution of the
City Council, prior to the issuance of any building permits for any individual
lots.
STAFFRPT\TM25338 22
~6.
~7.
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, 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.
e. Undergrounding of existing and proposed utility distribution lines.
The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated
with adjoining developments.
Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. ~,61 and as approved by the
City Engineer.
Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the
Engineering Department a cash sum 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.
~9. The minimum centerline radii shall be 300 feet or as approved by the City
Engineer.
50. All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the
City Engineer.
51.
52.
53.
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.
Street improvement plans per City Standards for the private streets or drives
shall be required for review and approval by the City Engineer.
All driveways shall conform to the applicable County of Riverside standards
and shall be shown on the street improvement plans in accordance with County
Standard ~,00 and u,01 (curb sidewalk).
STAFFRPT\TM25338 23
55.
The subdivider shall submit four prints of a comprehensive grading plan to
the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building
Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions
of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 24" x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil
Engineer.
56.
A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and
submitted at the time of application for grading plan check.
57.
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.
58.
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.
59.
On-site drainage facilities, located outside of road right-of-way, shall be
contained within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note shall be
added to the final map stating "Drainage easements shall be kept free of
buildings and obstructions."
60.
The subdivider shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage
flowing onto or through the site. In the event the City Engineer permits the
use of streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Article XI of
Ordinance No. 460 will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street
capacity, or use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the
subdivider shall provide adequate facilities as approved by the Engineering
Department.
61.
Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface
drainage entering the property from adjacent areas.
62,
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,
63.
Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CATV Franchises of
the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time
of street improvements.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
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.
65.
Prior to any work being performed on the private streets or drives, fees shall
be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's
Office.
STAFFRPT\TM25338 24
66.
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.
67.
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:
68.
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.
69.
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:
70.
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 private streets.
71. All units shall be provided with garage door openers.
72.
Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all
times with adequate detours during construction.
73.
Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than 1~, days following
placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon
per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39, and
94 of the State Standard Specifications.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public
facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the
project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim
or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally
established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for
the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement
for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to
Developer. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the
payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest
such increase.
STAFFRPT\TM25338 25
Transportation Enqineerinq
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
75.
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer
and approved by the City Engineer for Solana Way and shall be included in the
street improvement plans.
Building & Safety Department
76.
Submit pool and restroom plans to Riverside County Health Department prior
to submitting plans for review.
77.
School fees shall be paid to Temecula Unified School District prior to permit
issuance.
78.
Lighting on site and located on structures shall comply with Mount Palomar
Lightin9 Ordinance No. 655,
79.
Submit approved map to Building and Safety Department for addressing prior
to Structural Plan Review.
80.
Temporary Fencin9 around pool shall be installed the same day excavation of
pool is completed. Fence all plumbing trenches the same day they are
exposed.
STAFFRPT\TM25338 26
CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
QUIMBY ORDINANCE
The amount of land to be dedicated, or fees paid, shall be based on the residential density of the subdivision.
The residential density shall be determined by multiplying the number of dwelling units by the number of
persons per unit by the ratio of the number of acres of park land required for each 1,000 persons (i. e., .005).
Credits given for proposed parks will be under the discretion of the Temecula Community Services District
(TCSD) Director.
Whenever the actual amount of land to be dedicated is less than the amount of land required to be dedicated,
the subdivider shall pay fees for the fair market value of any additional land that otherwise would have been
required to be dedicated plus 20% for offsite improvements.
For subdivisions containing 50 parcels or less only the payment of fees may be required; provided however,
that when condominium project, stock cooperative or community apartment project exceeds 50 dwelling units,
the dedication of land may be required even though the number of parcels may be less than 50.
Less than 5 Parcels
SubdMdons containing less than five [5) parcels wall be subject N the fo#ow~g condRions: Upon ~e request of a
building permit for constnttion ~f reddenbl structures on N,e or more of ~he parotis within four years following
approval of a tenta~ve map, parcel map, or planned develolarnent, real estate development, stock coopera6ve,
community aparbnent lyoiect and condominium for which a tentative map or parcel map is filed, a predetermined
Qu~nby Act fee in the amount equal to the fgr market value of reqlired acreage (Plus 2096 for ~ improvements)
shall be laid by the owner of seth such parel(M as a condition to ~he issuance of such 13ertnff as authorized by
Riverside County Ordinance No. 460 as amended ghrough Ordinance No. 460.93.
The following chart has been prepared to assist staff in calculating requirements of the existing Quimby
Ordinance:
Dwellings T__vpe
Acres Required*
l(ea)
Single Family (Detached Garage)
.01490
l(ea)
Single Family (Attached Garage)
.01295
l(ea) Mobile home
.01360
2(ea)
Dwellings Units Per SWucture
.01320
3 or 4(ea)
Dwelling Units Per Structure
.01240
or More Dwelling Units Per Stxucture
Plus 20% for offsite improvements.
3?- X .01170
The ~, rpois ' ~mem is ,~r in~rr^~ s"~ef ~aze only,,
lopment Coordinator (TCSD)
COUO! RIVERSIDE
/DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
4065 COUNTY C~RCLE OR, Ft~VERSIDE, CA, 92503 (Mad~nq Address - P.O. Bo~ 7600 92513-7600)
,Dctober 9. 1990
CITY OF TEMECULA
CiTY HALL
43180 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE.
TEMECULA. CA 92390
SUITE 200
A'I-rN: Mark Rhoades
67. PAGE 80 OF PARCEL MAPS. RECORD OF RIVERSIDE CALIFORNIA
(2 Lots)
The Department of Public Health has reviewed Tentative Tract
Mao No. 25338 and recommends that:
A water system shall be installed accordino to plans
and sDeclflcatIons as aDDroved by the watercompany
and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the
Plans of the water system shall be submitted in
triplicate. with a mlnlmum scale not less than one
inch eguats 200 feet. alonq with the orlQinal
drawlnc to the County Surveyor. The prints
shall show the internal Dire diameter. location of
valves and f~re hydrants; Dire and 7o~nt
specifications. and the size of the ma~n at the
1T. IF~CtlO~ Of the new system to the e]<lstlDo system.
The plans shall comply ~n all respects w~th D~v.
Part 1. Chapter 7 of the California Health and
Safety Code. California Administrative Code. TItle
22. Chapter 1~. and [3eneral Order No. t03 of the
Fubl;c Utilities Commission of the State of
California. when applicable. The o!ans shall be
slOned by a registered engineer and water company
with the followlnQ certification: "[ certify that
the design .Dr the water system in Tract MaD 25338 is
in accordance w~th the water system exDanslo~ Dians
of the Rancho California Water Distract and
that the water service, storage, ~nd d~strlbutlon
system will be ade,]uate to provide water Service to
.... ~ Tra~t MaD" .
City of Temecula
PaGe Two
ATTN: Mark Bhoades
October 9. 1990
This certification does not constitute a Guarantee that it
will 5tlopl'¢ water to sTlch tract mad at any sDeclflc
quantities. flows or pressures for fire protection or any
other PUrPOSe". Thls certification shall be sIGned by a
responsible official of the water company. The plans must
b~ ~u~m~tt~d. to The CountY
the
This stxbdlvlslon has a statement from Rancho California
Water District a~ree~n~ to serve domestic water to each and
every lot in the subdivision on demand providing
satisfactory f~nancial arrangements are completed with the
subdivider. It will be necessary for financial arrangements
to be made Drloc tci the recordation of the final map.
This subdivision 1s within the Eastern Municipal Water
Distr~ct and shall be connected to the sewers of the
D~st:'lct. The sewer system shall be installed according to
olans and specifications as approved bv the District. the
County Surveyor and the Health Department. Permanent prints
of the Olans of the sewer system shall be submitted in
triplicate. alon~ with the original drawinq, to the County
Surveyor. The prints shall show the Internal pipe d~ameter.
location of manholes. complete profiles. pipe and joint
specifications and the size of the sewers at the ~lnc~len of
the new system to the exlstlnq sVstem. A s~nqle plat
~ndIcatlng location of sewer l~nes and water lines shall be
a D,ortlon of the sewage plans and profiles. The miens 5halt
be signed by a registered engineer and the sewer district
with the followin~ certification: .1 certify that the
deslan of the sewer system in Tract Map 2533e 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
City of Temecuia
Paoe Three
ATTN: Mark Rhoades
October 9, 1990
The plans must be subm~.,t_O th~CogOtySurveyorS Office
to :evleW at!east two weeks.prioFt. Ot~e reqUeSt fo'
will be necessary for financial arrangements to be
completely fxnal~zed prior to cecordat~on of the final mam.
S~nce 8,1v,
SM:dr
ist IV
eVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
210 W~ST SAN'/ACINTO AV'ENL'E · P~RI~,[3, CALIFORNU,, 92370
(714) 6S7-3183
GLeN J. NRWMAN
FIRE CHieF
DATE: l~areh 20, i991
TO! CITY OF TE~CULA
ATTN: PLANNING D[PT
lt=~ TRACT 25335 RBVTSED LETTER
~lot plan, the ~irs 3apartment recoTmendS the following fire protee=ion
messuses be Froviaed in accordance with Riversi~e County Ordinances
reco~nieae ~=e protect!on standards:
."*he F~re Lspar~me~t ie requ~red tO set a minimum fire flov for
the remodel or c~nettuetion ~ all commercial buildings using ~he
p=c~edu:e ~e~ab~shed In Ordinance 5~6.
Prov~ds or ehow there exiees a wa~ar system capable of delivering 2500
G~M for a 2 hour ~uration at 20 ~$I residual operating pressure,
which muse be a~ailsble ~efors amy co=buetible material is placed
en the job
A co~binatioa ~f Qu-si:e and elf-site eupsr f{re hydrants, on a
looped sys~,'n (6f'x4"2~2~), w~ll be lessee/not lae~ ~han 25 feet
or ~ore nhan 165 ~sac from any portion oe the ~utld~n~ as measured
along approveC vehicular ~ravsiways. The re~u~red ~ire [lo~ shall
be available ~rom any a~J¢ hydrant(e) in =he system.
The required ~l=e ~iOW may be ad3ueted s~ a later point ~n the
proceSS :o reflect c~andes in desIZn, ~ons~ructiou type~ area
or bullS-in flre protsC~:lon measures.
AppLicant/developer shall furnish on~ copy o~ the water eye=am plans to
:he Fire Department for raylaw, Plans shall con~o=m. co the fire hydrant
types, iccation and spacing, and, the system shall meat ~he ~ire flow
requirementS. Plane shall he s!gnad/approved by a r=~iscets~ civil
anSinear an~ the local water company With the followin~ certi~ica=ion,
"I certify :hac the deslSn of the water system Is l~ acccrdauce with
=he requirements prescribed by :~e Klvereide County Fire Department."
~3 ~3~CUtA
4t002 CeuatV C~cr Drive, ~e 125, Temgul~ CA 9119Q
(71+) 694.g70. r,~ (7~,~)
~T~ ~tr'nttq 9n recycled a~oe,
25338 ~EVZSED LETtIE PAGE 2
Certain ~eeiS~ated areas ~ill ~e required to be maintained as ~ir$ lanes,
7. =natal1 ?oftable fits extinguishers with a minimum raCins of 2A-10BC.
CoNtact a cer~i~iea sx:iN~uiehsr company for proper placemen= O~ equipment.
Prior =e the ~esuance of ~uildimg penits. the applicant/developer shall
be responsible to s~bmi: g chec~ sT money order in the noun= cf ,558.00
to =he Riverside C~tiNty Fi~c ~epartment [ST pla~ check fees.
~rio= to =ha east&ante o~ Bu~ldin& permits, the devel0~er shall deposit
wl;h ~he C~t~ o~ Temeuula~ a ~he~k or money order e~alin~ the sum o~
~00.OO per unit e~ m~l~aEion for ~i=e protection impacts. This amoun~
must be eub~itted separately eron =he plan c~eck review
Blue-dot re{lessors shall he m~unnsa in ~ri~ate st=eats and driveways
!~icaue lc~etion o{ fine hydrants. They Ikall be mounted in the
of the st:eat directly in line with fire hydrants.
pisplay Boards; Displa7 board= tequiwed for a~er~mente, commercial complexes,
condomlnlule~ RV p~tks and mobile home perks rill
Each complex shall have en illuminated d~aSrematic
actual layou~ which shows name e[ complex, all sates=e. hutlain2 ~eslinators,
~nit ~uBberm, and fire hydran= locations within =he complex. These
directories shall be a minim~m 4to4' iN dlmene{on and locates next to road'4ay
access.
Individual bulldines shall be area separates into mea~imum 3600 eq ~=.
compartments. This requlreme~t ls Separate from the Uniecrm Buildin8
Code and is required ln-l~eu of ~n automatic tire sprinkler sye=e~.
13.
Final conditions ~ill ~e addressed ,;hen bulld~n~ plane era =eriewee in
the BuildinB a~d Safety Of[~ce.
All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred tu
the Pl~nnin~ and Engineering staff,
.RAYMOND 5. REGIS
Chief Fire Department ~lanner
Laura Cabtel, F~re Batsty S~ecl&liet
October 30, 1990
John F. Hennigor
Phillip L. Forbes
Thomas R. McAliester
Edward P. Lemons
Linda M. Fregoso
McCormick, Kidman
City of Temecula
City Hall
43172 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92390
SUBJECF: Water Availability
Reference:
Tract No. 25338
32 Condominium Units
Gentlemen:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District. Water service, therefore,
would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between
RCWD and the property owner.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an
Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to
RCWDo
If you have any questions, please contact Senga Doherty at (714) 676-4101.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P. E.
Engineering Manager
F186/jkt423f
cc: Senga Doherty
Engr. Files
Rancho California Water District
John M. Coudutes, President
Richard C Kelley, Vice Presiden
Wm G Aidrldge
Cheslet C G~Ibtrt
Rodget D. Siern~
Riverside Co. Planning Dept.
4080 Lemon St., 9th F]oor
Riverside, Ca 92501
SUBJECT~ '2_-~S'~__>_ '~A,1-t -- ~
The D~str~ct ~s responding to ~ouF ~eques~ for comments on
relative to water and/or sewer seFvice. The ~tems checked below
pro~ec~ review.
The subject p~o~ec~:
sewer service area
/'
Will be required to construct/provide the following
be served by ENWD:
the subject project
apply to this
facilities if to
Sewer Service
Any and all necessary regionally sized onsite and offsite gravity sewers and
appurtenant works that might include monitoring manholes, lift stations, force
mains, and effluent disposal/use. Sewers will not be allowed along lot
lines/private land. Fee payment and participation in regional sewers, treatment,
and effluent disposal must be met. Only wastes acceptable to EMWD regulations
will be allowed.
EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
Planning Department
2045 S. SanJacinto Street · Post Office Box 8300 · SanJacinto, California 92383-1300 · Telephone (714) 925-7676
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY MUSEUM
~24 Orange Tree Lane · Redlands, CA 92374 , (714) 798-8570 * 422-1610
September 12, 1990
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
GENERAL SERVICES AGENCY
DR. ALLAN D. GRIESEMER
Director
Mark Rhoades, Planner
Temecula Planning Department
43180 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
re: TENTATIVE TRACT 25338, PLOT PLAN 10322, DAN STERIC
The project is located on the very fossiliferous Pauba Formation. Excavation associated with
development will impact nonrenewable paleontologic resources.
The developer must retain a qualified vertebrate paleontologist to develop a site-specific
program to mitigate impacts to paleontologic resources. This program should include: (1)
monitoring of excavation by a qualified paleontologic monitor; (2) preparation of recovered
specimens, including sediment processing for small vertebrate fossils; (3) curation of specimens
into an established repository; and (4) a report of findings with complete specimen inventory.
Sincerely,
Dr. Allan D. Griesemer
Museums Director
ADG:RERAr
CiTY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
II
Backqround
1. Name of Proponent:
Leiqh Waxman
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
53 Edgar Court
Newberry Park, CA 91320
(805) 498-0882
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
March 4, 1991
Agency Requiring
Assessment:
CITY OF TEMECULA
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Tentative Tract Map No. 25338
6. Location of Proposal:
Southeast Corner of Solana Way
and Rycrest Drive
Environmental Impacts
Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets, )
Yes Maybe No
1. Earth, Will the proposal result in:
Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
X
Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil?
X
Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features?
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
X
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on
or off site?
X
STAFFRPT\TM25338 27
Changes in deposition OF 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
Fates, drainage patterns, or the
Fate and amount of surface Funoff?
Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
Discharge into surface waters, or
in any alteration of surface water
quality, including, but not limited
to, temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity?
Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow or 9round waters?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\TM25338 28
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct addi-
tions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flood-
ing or tidal waves?
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or number of any native species of
plants (including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare, or endangered species
of plants?
Introduction of new species of
plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
Substantial reduction in acreage
of any agricultural crop?
Animal Life. Will the proposal result
in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
(birds, land animals including rep-
tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms or insects ) ?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals?
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
_ _
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\TM25338 29
10.
11.
12.
13.
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
Yes Maybe No
a. Increases in existing noise levels? X __
Exposure of people to severe noise
levels? X
Light and Glare. Will the proposal
produce substantial new light or 91are?
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?
X
X
X
Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource? X
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal
involve:
A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances ( includin9,
but not limited to, oil, pesticicles,
chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
Possible interference with an emerg-
ency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan?
Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing or create a demand for
additional housing?
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
X
X
X
X
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? X
5TAFFRPT\TMZ5338 30
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. Schools7 X
d. Parks or other recreational
facilities? X
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads? X __
f. Other governmental services: __ X
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy? __ __ X
b. Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy? __ __ X
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? __ __ X
STAFFRPT\TM25338 31
17.
18.
19.
20.
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. 5olid 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\TM25338 32
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\TM25338 33
III Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
Earth
1,b.
1.f.
1.g.
Air
2,a.
2.b,
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. However,
a grading plan was completed which renders the level of impact to a
level of non-significance.
No. The site has been rough graded under a plot plan approval,
There will be no impact to 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 erosion impact will be mitigated through minimal
grading, retention of natural vegetation whenever feasible, 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.
No. The project is not located within an identified fault hazard or
liquefaction zone. A clearance letter will be required from the
Riverside County Geologist which will verify the absence of unforeseen
impacts.
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.
Maybe. Objectionable odors could be created during construction
activities. This impact is not significant because of the temporary
nature of construction activity.
No, The proposed project will not alter air movement or climate,
STAFFRPT\TM25338 34
Water
3.a,d-e.
3.b.
3.c.
3.f.
3.g.
3.h.
3.i.
Plant Life
~.a-d.
Animal Life
5.a,b.
No. The proposed project will not affect any body of water. The
closest body of water to the site is Murrieta Creek which is
approximately one-half mile away.
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. There will be no impact to the course or flow of flood waters
because the site contains no existin9 runoff or drainage channels.
No. The proposed project will not interfere with the direction or rate
of flow of 9round waters.
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 and mitigate any impact.
No. The proposed project will not affect the public water supply or
system.
Yes. The proposed project is within the Murrieta Creek/Temecula
Valley Area Drainage Plan and watershed area. To help mitigate the
project~s impact, a flood mitigation charge shall be paid.
No. Although the development of the site will remove any of the plant
species that currently exist on the site, no unique, rare or endangered
species should be affected. New species of plants will be introduced to
the site as part 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.
Maybe. 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 species habitares the site. However, the proposed
project is within the Riverside County Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat
Conservation Plan Fee Area and will be required to comply with
Ordinance 663.
STAFFRPT\TM25338 35
Noise
6.a,
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.
6.b.
Maybe. Adjacent residents may be exposed to severe noise as a result
of construction related activity. However, the noise would be
temporary and not considered a significant impact.
Liqht and Glare
Maybe. The proposed project is located within the Mt. Palomar
· Observatory Street Lighting Policy Area which recommends the use of
low pressure sodium vapor (LPSV) lights to help avoid interference,
known as "Skyglow", with the Mt. Palomar telescope. The use of LPSV
lights will reduce the light and glare produced by the proposed project.
Land Use
No. Since the project is proposed in an area that currently contains
high density residential development, the addition of the proposed
development will not be a substantial alteration to future uses.
Natural Resources
9.a-b.
No. The proposed use will not increase the consumption rate of
any natural or non-renewable natural resource.
Risk of Upset
10.a.
No. Hazardous substances will not be used or stored on site.
10.b.
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 Engineer
and Police Department.
Population
11.
Yes. The proposal will create new housing which will increase the
density and population of the area. But the project is consistent with
area development and is not considered a significant impact.
Housinq
12.
No. The proposed project will not create a demand for additional
housing.
STAFFRPT\TM25338 36
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 Solana Way/Ynez Road intersection which is
currently operating near capacity during peak hours. This potential
impact will be mitigated by a transportation improvement mitigation fee.
13.b.
Yes. The proposed project will require parking to support the
residential uses. The proposed plan illustrates spaces and garages.
13.d.
Maybe. The proposed project will improve a portion of Margarita Road.
However, the Engineering Department has included Conditions of
Approval with traffic mitigation measures, which make the impact non-
significant.
13.e.
No. The proposed project will not affect waterborne, rail or air traffic.
13.f.
Yes. Any increase in traffic will increase the potential hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians. However, design standards and
conditions of approval have been incorporated into the project which
provide safety and circulation standards making the potential for impact
non-significant.
Public Services
14.a-e.
Yes. The proposed residential use will require public services in the
areas of police, fire, schools, maintenance of roads, and public
facilities and parks. This impact is not considered significant. The
incremental impact will be evaluated and the appropriate fees assessed
for mitigation.
14.f.
No. The project should not have a substantial effect on other public
services.
Energy
15.a,b.
No. The proposed project will not result in the substantial use or
increase in demand of fuel or energy.
Utilities
16.a-f.
No. The proposed project requires the use of utilities but will not
require substantial alteration to the exiting systems.
Human Health
17.a,b.
No. The proposed project does not present a potential health hazard,
nor will people be exposed to potential health hazards.
STAFFRPT\TM25338 37
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.
Maybe. The proposed project is a residential development and will have
an incremental impact on the City's currently over-capacitated
recreational opportunities. However, the relative size of this project
will not create a significant impact with the open space included within
the project, and the compliance of the project to the City adopted
Quimby Ordinance.
Cultural Resources
20. a-d. No. The subject site has previously been mass graded and used as a
dump site, 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
Z1 .a-d.
No. The proposed project will not significantly affect the natural
environment, have long term environmental impacts or have
considerable cumulative impacts.
STAFFRPT\TM25338 38
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
March 4, 1991
Date
For CITY OF TEMECULA
STAFFRPT\TM25338 39
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
VICINITY MAP
r ~
CASE NO-1
P.C. DATES-(~°q~
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
LOCATION .MAP
CASE
CITY OF TEMECULA )
~' 12 AC MtN
.C
SWAP
r ~
CASE "0-11~5~
MAP-EYJ~Ik~I )P.C. DATE
CITY Or" TEr~'ECUL/, )
SWAP
CASE NO.
P.C. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
~,C2,4~
A-2-20
'= R-2
~ R-2
o C Z 4689
;-F
C-P
R-2
ZONE MAP
CZ 4689
R'-I
CZ 4'586
R ! 10,000
o CZ 2757
CASE NO~HZS:~e'
P.C. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA )
lu
CITY OF TEMECUL/,
CASE NO. "~'T"~"2.b""?2~
EXHIBIT NO.
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
ELEVATIONS
r
CASE
CITY OF TEMECULA )
J
mle
FLOORPLAN-TYPicAL )
r
c ASE NO.'IT'hq
EXHIBIT NO.
k,p.C. DATE
4-18-91
Mr. Mark Rhoades
Planning Commission
The City of Temecula
43180 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
Re:Case No.25338 Leigh Waxman
S/E Corner of Solana Way and Ryecrest Drive
Mark:
Our home as well as our neighbor's backs up to the subject property's
east boundary line.
Approximately 6 months ago, the owners of the subject property commenced
grading on the site. One of the first areas graded was a cut at our fence
line; A vertical cut of approximately 4 or more feet. Mr. Waxman was im-
mediately contacted to inquire about his contractors activities and his
resolvement of the "radical" grading at our property line. Mr. Waxman
assured us that his contractor was going right back in with a retaining
wall, which would remedy the situation.
Since that initial grading, no further permanent construction has taken
'place. Although minimal erosion had occurred prior to the recent rains,
those storms totally broke down the vertical grade cut, eroded dirt not
only from all the fence post concrete footings, but caused extensive
settlement in all the neighboring yards.
As of recent phone calls to Mr. Waxman and letters from our attorneys,
Mr. Waxman has brought to the site some fill dirt, which was simply
shoveled against the "eroded" east property linet We quess as a "Band-
Aid~" to resolve our concerns.
I am a lincensed contractor, involved daily in site grading and fully
aware of what Mr. Waxman has done and the potential problems he has
created.
The present status of Mr. Waxman's east property line, requires immed-
iate compaction, certified by a qualified soils engineer, and either
a retaining wall built or the slope properly graded to local building
code regulations.
You~ suppor 'n resolving this problem with the "Waxman" property will
4196 enate / Temecula
Day Phone 714-534-0125 / 714-699-7035
ITEM #10
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
May 6, 1991
Case No.: Parcel Map No. 26625
Prepared By: SGott Wright
Recommendation: ADOPT Resolution 91- approving
Parcel Map No. 26625
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
Hawthorne Development
Markham and Associates
A 13 parcel planned industrial subdivision of a
gross acre site of previously approved Plot Plan No.
11756.
The northeasterly corner of Business Park Drive
and Rancho Way.
M-SC ( Manufacturing-Service Commercial )
North: M-SC
South: M-SC
East: M-SC
West: M-SC
(Manufacturing-Service
Commercial )
(Manufacturing-Service
Commercial )
(Manufacturing-Service
Commercial )
(Manufacturing-Service
Commercial )
Not requested.
Industrial Buildings Under Construction
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant
Vacant
Industrial, Vacant
Industrial Under Construction
A: PM26625 1
PROJECT STATISTICS:
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
Size of Site:
No. of Parcels:
Parcel Sizes:
10.44 acres Igross)
14
0.17 to 0.41 acre and a
Common area parcel
encompassing 5.6 acres
( net )
Plot Plan No. 11756, a proposal for an industrial
park with 155,523 square feet of gross floor area,
was tentatively approved at the County Planning
Director's hearing on May 21, 1990. On June 22,
1990, the applicant filed Appeal No. 5 to the
Temecula City Council requesting tellelf tom County
Road Condition Nos. 1 through 5 requiring off-site
street improvements prior to occupancy. In lieu of
said conditions, the applicant agreed to deposit
$10,000.00 into a City Road Benefit Fund and to
either pay additional funds or to receive a refund
equal to the difference between the applicant's
estimated fair share of the cost of improvements and
the amount of the deposit. On this basis, the City
Council upheld Appeal No. 5 and approved Plot Plan
No. 11756 on August 14, 1990. As of this writing,
the construction of the buildings is substantially
complete. The paving and landscaping remains to
be done.
The proposal is a 13 parcel planned industrial land
division on the site of an approved plot plan for an
industrial business park. Parcels 1 through 12,
ranging from 7,405 square feet to 22,651 square feet
in area, are subdivisions of approved and
constructed building space. Parcel 13,
encompassing 5.6 acres of net site area, is a common
area comprising the parking lot and landscaping.
Parcel Size
Ordinance 348, Section 11.4(a) stipulates that the
minimum lot size in the M-SC Zone is 7,000 square
feet where sewers are available. The proposed
parcels encompass areas ranging from 7,405 square
feet to 22,651 square feet and conform to the
minimum lot size in the M-SC zone.
Environmental Concerns Addressed in Conjunction
With the Approval of Plot Plan No. 11756
An Alquist-Priolo Zone Geologic Report was
prepared for the area encompassing the sites of Plot
A:PM26625 2
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
Plan Nos. 11604 and 11756. A Liquefaction Report
was prepared for the underlying Parcel Map No.
19580.
The County Geologist concurred with the findings
and recommendations of the Alquist-Priolo Zone
Geologic Report which found no evidence of faults
on the site and did not recommend any restricted
use zones. The County Geologist also concurred
with the findings of the liquefaction report stating
that liquefaction mitigation measures are not
necessary at the site. The site is within the
Murrieta Creek/Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan
and is subject to flood mitigation fees. Payment of
traffic signal mitigation fees prior to issuance of
building permits is a condition of approval for Plot
Plan No. 11756.
Kanqaroo Rat Fees
Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation fees were paid
to the County on August 31, 1989 in conjunction
with underlying Parcel Map No. 19850. The site was
rough graded in conjunction with Parcel Map No.
19850.
The proposed planned industrial development is
consistent with the provisions of the M-SC Zone and
the Light Industrial Land Use Designation in which
it is located.
An Initial Study prepared in conjunction with Plot
Plan No. 11756 adequately identified the potential
environmental impacts of the project. Mitigation
measures were incorporated as conditions of
approval. After reviewing the applicant's current
proposal, Staff has determined that the previous
environmental determination (Adoption of Negative
Declaration for Plot Plan No. 11756) still applies to
this request since this application is for the
parcelization of building space only. Therefore, an
additional initial study was not prepared nor is an
environmental determination recommended to the
Planning Commission. 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
A: PM26625 3
Planning Department Staff has included Condition
No. 1~, within the recommended Conditions of
Approval.
FINDINGS:
The proposed Parcel Map will not have a
significant negative impact on the
environment, as determined in the previously
adopted Negative Declaration for the project.
There is a reasonable probability that this
project will be consistent with the General
Plan being prepared at this time.
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 proposed
project is consistent with SWAP, as well as
Ordinances Nos. 3u,8 and u,60.
The proposed use complies with State
Planning and Zoning Law. The project
conforms to the current zoning for the site
and to Ordinance 460, Schedule E.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configurations, access, and
density.
The design of the subdivision or the
proposed improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or
substantial and avoidable injury to fish or
wildlife or their habitat.
The design of the subdivision is consistent
with the State Map Act in regard to future
passive energy control opportunities.
All lots have acceptable access to existing
and proposed dedicated right-of-ways which
are open to, and are useable by, vehicular
traffic.
The design of the subdivision, the type of
improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
A: PM26625 4
10.
11.
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed project.
The lawful conditions stated in the project's
Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary
to protect the public health, safety, and
general welfare.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Plannin9 Commission:
ADOPT Resolution 91- approving Tentative
Parcel Map No. 26625 and reaffirm the Negative
Declaration adopted in conjunction with the approval
of Plot Plan No. 11756 based on the analysis and
findings contained in the Staff Report and subject
to the attached Conditions of Approval.
SW:ks
Attachments:
2.
3.
q..
Resolution
Conditions of Approval
Exhibits
Vicinity map
Tentative Parcel Map
Fee Checklist
A:PM26625 5
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PARCEL MAP NO. 26625
TO SUBDIVIDE A 10.4 ACRE PARCEL INTO
PARCELS AT THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF
BUSINESS PARK DRIVE AND RANCHO WAY AND KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 921-020-062 AND 063.
WHEREAS, Hawthorne Development filed Parcel Map No. 26625 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 May
6, 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. Findings. That theTemecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general 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.
A:PM26625 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. 26625 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.
L160, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are
made:
A:PM26625 7
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 Parcel Map will not have a
significant negative impact on the
environment, as determined in the previously
adopted Negative Declaration for the project.
A:PM26625 8
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
jl
There is a reasonable probability that this
project will be consistent with the General
Plan being prepared at this time.
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 proposed
project is consistent with SWAP, as well as
Ordinances Nos. 348 and 460.
The proposed use complies with State
Planning and Zoning Law. The project
conforms to the current zoning for the site
and to Ordinance ~,60, Schedule E.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configurations, access, and
density.
The design of the subdivision or the
proposed improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or
substantial and avoidable injury to fish or
wildlife or their habitat.
The design of the subdivision is consistent
with the State Map Act in regard to future
passive energy control opportunities.
All lots have acceptable access to existing
and proposed dedicated right-of-ways which
are open to, and are useable by, vehicular
traffic.
The design of the subdivision, the type of
improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed project.
The lawful conditions stated in the project's
Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary
to protect the public health, safety, and
general welfare.
A:PM26625 9
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.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby determines that
the previous environmental determination (Adoption of Negative Declaration for Plot
Plan No. 11756) still applies to said parcel.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Parcel
Map No. 11756 for the subdivision of a 10.4 acre parcel into 13 parcels located at the
northeasterly corner of Business Park Drive and Rancho Way and known as
Assessor's Parcel Nos. 921-020-062 and 063 subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
SECTION 4.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of May, 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 6th day of May, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
A: PM26625 10
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Parcel Map No: 26625
Project Description: To create 13 parcels on
the site of an approved commercial
industrial plot plan.
Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-020-062 and 063
Planninq Department
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision
Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance u,60, Schedule , 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 Ordinances,60. The expiration
date is
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final
map.
The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations
outlined in the County Health Department's transmittal dated April 18, 1991,
a copy of which is attached.
5. 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 Manufacturing-Service Commercial zone,
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.
A: PM26625 11
10.
11.
12.
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 Outdoor Lighting
Policy as outlined in the Southwest Area Plan.
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.
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 Parcel Map
No. 22625, which action is brought within the time period provided for in
California Government Code Section 66Ll99.37. 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 subdivlder of any such claim, action, or
proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not,
thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of
Temecula.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground, with easements provided as required.
No lot or 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 CCSR'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.
A: PM26625 12
13.
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 (2) as share in the corporation, or voting membership in an
association, owning the common areas and facilities.
Within forty-eight (48) 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 A B
3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(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 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight (48) 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
711.4(c).
En.qineerinq Department
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
15.
The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act,
and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions.
16.
The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered
Civil Engineer, subject to all the requirements of the State of California
Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No. 460.
17.
This project shall be subject to fulfillment of the approved amended conditions
of underlying Plot Plan No. 11756.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
18.
As deemed necessary by the City Engineer or his representative,
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;
A: PM26625 13
19.
20.
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department;
CATV Franchise;
Parks and Recreation Department.
An easement for joint use driveways and parking shall be provided prior to
approval of the Final Map, 5aid easement shall also provide for public Utilities
and emergency vehicle access.
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 CCSR~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 CCaR's shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded. The
CCSR~s shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. The CCSR's shall be prepared at the developer~s sole cost and expense.
The CCSR's shall be in the form and content approved by the Director
of Planning, City Engineer and the City Attorney, and shall include
such provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials
deem necessary to protect the interest of the City and its residents.
The CCSR*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 CC&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 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 CCaR~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 CCaR'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.
A: PM26625 14
ii.
All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently
maintained by property owner~s association or other means
acceptable to the City. Such prod 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
ensuring access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all roads,
drives or parking areas shall be provided by CC~,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.
21.
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 street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated
with adjoining developments, per the conditions of approval of underlying Plot
Plan No. 11756, as amended by City Council on August 1LL 1990.
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. If such impact fee has been paid by underlying Plot Plan No.
11756, no additional fee will be required.
Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CATV Franchises of
the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time
of street improvements.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
25.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The
charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits.
If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to
this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
26.
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
A:PM26625 15
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.
A: PM26625 16
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
4065 COUNTY CIRCLE DR. RIVERSIDE, CA. 92503 (M~iling Address - P.O. Box 7600 92513-7600)
· [ '~"f <'F TEHE:ftJ[,A
['ere:: ,:ui :,.. 7A ~ j ~gli
ATTN: Scott Wright:
RE: PARCEL MAP N0. 26625: BEING A DIVISION OF PARCELS 5
AND 6, LOT "C" (l'barrler stFlp) AND PORTIONS OF LOTS "A"
(Business Park DFlve) AND "B" (Rancho Way) OF PARCEL MAP
19580 AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 154 OF PARCEL MAPS AT
PAGES 92-96 THEREOF, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
IN THE TEMECULA RANCHO.
'The Lleoa. fmen~ or Public ._~,. n has reviewed Pa. rce:. MaD
,stle e~ the main et the nttnr_tl,r,n of (he new system tr, the
,.~ans shall comely In B. ii esoect
wlrh Div. ~ , Part 1 . Chapter 7 of the Callforn~a Health ~.n,x
Slfetv Code, Callf,D-nl,~ Admznlstrar, ive "odp, T=t Le 2~.
'FileDteE '~ ,-,¢ Public
f. JtILIttes Commission of ~he :Et~e nf Cri/ifc~rnla~ when
iDollcable. The olens sh~il he SiGnet by i resistester!
C:.tv of Temecuia
F'a~e Two
Attn: Scott Wrlqht
ADFti I~. [99[
be %,,ibm~r~ed E,D T['~e c?jD~trtty :~,urveyr:,r:s GIll:co tr, i-e'~!ew at
rk~e subdi-.ricler, [~ will be necezsar¥ fc, r fin_nr!cza!
~!, str ,.,zt , The se~zer system shall be lnutaii~.d accDr,u&Ino ~,D
i;?ca~icn of ~;anh,31e~. comDlete mr:DflleS. DIDO 3nd ~c'lnt
,~;lt~ th~ frllowlng certlflcat~on; "I certlf¥ that nhe
:~eslc:n of tb~e ~ewer svstem in F'arcei ~a%. 2f~25 1s in
~sstern Mttn:clDal Water D~iKrlct and thor. the
system ~5 ~,!e,~¥~te at th:s hlme tc, treat the
At~' Scott Wflc~ht
ADrz I ' ~ !~91
He~,itr~ S;,ecza/zsL
CITY OF T~IECULA ~
ITE---
": RA_,NCH0
.--el,.'
VICINITY MAP
-,~
CASE NO. ~'~
P.C. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
CASE NO.: Parcel Map No. 22625
The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this
project.
F~e
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
N/A
N/A
Condition No. 26
Condition No. 23
N/A
N/A
N/A
A:PM26625 17