Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout052091 PC Agenda AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING May 20, 1991 6:00 PM VAIL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 29915 Mira Loma Drive Temecula, CA 92390 CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: Chairman Chiniaeff Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff Hoagland, PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three ( 3 ) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Requestto Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commissioner Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Planning Secretary before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Minutes 2.1 Approval of minutes of May 06, 1991 Planning Commission Meeting. NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Sphere of Influence Presentation by Bill Meecham or Phil Carter from Phillip L. Anthony on the status of the Sphere of influence process currently being under taken by the City. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Case Planner: Recommendation: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861; and Variance No. 7 Presley of San Diego Highway 79 between Pala Rd. and Margarita Rd. Development for lu,5 detached Condominlum Units on approximately lu, acres and Variance to allow for the development of units below the required 1000 Sq. Ft. minimum ground floor living area per Ord. 3u,8. Richard Ayala Recommend Approval Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Case Planner: Recommendation: Plot Plan No. 10969 Robert Morris Main St. So. side between Front S Metcedes Construction of a 1700 Square Ft. Commercial Buildin9 with a 1700 Sq. Ft. Residential Caretakers unit on the Second Floor. Scott Wright Approval Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Case Planner: Recommendation: Parcel Map No. 253u,9 Anita L, Silliker Eastern Terminus of Jeramie Drive 3 lot residential subdivision of 8.2 acres Steve Jiannino Approval Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Case Planner: Recommendation: Change of Zone 5755 Bedford Properties Northwest corner of Diaz ~, Rancho California Roads Change of Zone from MSC (Manufacturing Service Commercial to C1/CP (General Commercial ) on 8 acres. Steve Jiannino Recommend Approval Case No,: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Case Planner: Recommendation: Plot Plan-10675, Extension of Time Bedford Properties South side of Single Oak Drive, 300 feet east of Business Park Drive. The applicant requests an Extension of time for Plot Plan 10675, a Two Story Office Building Scott Wright Approval Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Case Planner: Recommendation: Conditional Use Permit No. 10 Budget Car and Truck Rental 27u,72 Jefferson Avenue Request to operate a Rental Car Facility from an existing Retail Center. Mark Rhoades Approval 10. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Case Planner: Recommendation: Public Use Permit No. 625 ( Rev. ). Rancho Baptist Church 29775 Santiago Road Request to allow three t3) On Site Temporary Trailers. Mark Rhoades Approval 11. 12. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Case Planner: Recommendation: Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Case Planner: Recommendation: Plot Plan 69 ( Rev. ) Pac Tel West of 1-15 and South of Front Street To add Transmission and receiving equipment on an existing Antenna Tower. Mark Rhoades Recommend Approval Parcel Map 21769, Second Extension of Time Amended #3 Industrial Commercial Properties Rainbow Canyon Road immediately south of Temecula Creek Inn Golf Course A second extension of time for Parcel Map 21769, to create four parcels on a 91 .u, acre site. Scott Wright Recommend Approval 13. 15. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Case Planner: Recommendation: Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Case Planner: Recommendation: Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Case Planner: Recommendation: Revised Parcel Map 21769 Industrial Commercial Properties Rainbow Canyon Road immediately south of Temecula Creek Inn Golf Course. To create three parcels on a 91 .u, acre site. Scott Wright Recommend Approval Variance No. 6 Superior Electrical Advertising, Inc. Northwest corner of Jefferson Avenue and Overland Drive Variance in order to allow an additional freestanding sign display in lieu of the maximum allowed freestanding signs per Ord. 348. Richard Ayala Deny Substantial Conformance No. 17 TAYCO Southwest corner of Rancho California Road and Vintage Hills Drive Allow the exchange of one ( 1 ) dwelling unit of density from Planning area 14 to Planning area 13 of Specific Plan No. 199 (Margarita Village}. Oliver Mujica Approve 16. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Case Planner: Recommendation: 17. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Case Planner: Recommendation: Tentative Parcel Map No. 26766; and Substantial Conformance No. 17 TAYCO South Side of Rancho California Road, between Butterfield Stage Road and Vintage Hills Drive Subdivide 10.81 acres into one {1) Single Family Residential Lot and one ( 1 ) open space parcel. Oilvet Mujica Approve Western Ridgeline Policies City of Temecula City Wide Develop interim Hillside and Open Space Policies to be used as the City of Temecula~s Western Ridgellne Policies until the Ceneral Plan is adopted. Oliver Mujica Recommend Approval Planninq Director Report General Plan Update Planninq Commission Discussion Other Business ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: June 03, 1991, 6:00 p.m., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California SJ/Ib pc/agnS/20 ITEM #2 MINUTES OF A REGULaR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEHECUL~ PLANNING COHHISSION MONDAY, I~Y 6, 1991 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order Monday, May 6, 1991, 6:00 P.M., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Dennis Chiniaeff. PRESENT: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey Also present were Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh, Deputy City Engineer Doug Stewart and Minute Clerk Gail Zigler. PUBLIC COMMENT None COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Agenda steve Jiannino advised the Commission that Item 6, Change of Zone No. 9, Substantial Conformance No. 11, was continued off-calendar. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND moved to approve the agenda, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Fahey 2. Minutes 2.1 Approval of minutes of April 15, 1991 Planning Commission Meeting COMMISSIONER FORD requested the minutes be amended as follows: Page 2, Item 3, fifth paragraph, amendby adding the following sentence to the end of the paragraph: Applicant agreed to the changes as was indicated.; Page 13, first paragraph, amended to read: "not going to occupy the property; however, they would utilize the property as a buffer zone.". PLAI~IN~ COMXISSION HINUTES lk~y 6, 1991 COMMISSIONER FORD moved to approve the minutes of April 15, 1991 as amended, seconded by COMMISSIONER BLAIR. AYES: 3 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 1 ABSTAIN:i COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS: Fahey COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland Chiniaeff NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 3. ADMINISTRATIVE PLOT PLAN NO. 125 3.1 Proposal to construct 35 foot high Freeway Oriented Sign located at the terminus of Bedford Court. STEVE JIANNINO provided the staff report. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND moved to Direct staff to approve Administrative Plot Plan No. 125 subject to the Conditions of Approval, AYES: 4 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. Blair, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff None Fahey PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 4. PLOT PLAN 11339 Proposal to construct a 9,216 square foot automotive service center located at the northwesterly side of Rio Nedo Street, approximately 720 feet southwest of Diaz Road. STEVE JIANNINO provided the staff report. ,COMMISSIONER FANEY arrived at 6:15 P.M. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF re-opened the public hearing at 6:15 P.M. PCMIN5/06/91 -2- MAY 9, 1991 PLANNIN~ COMMISSION MINUTES MAy 6, 1991 ANTHONYPOLO, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester Road, Temecula, advised the Commission of the applicant's changes to the front of the building and answered questions by the Commission. CMAIRMANCHINIAEFF expressed a concern for the view of the cars from the street and suggested that a screen wall be placed along the property lines with parking inside and outside of the wall. COMMISSIONER FORD concurred with his suggestion. COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to continue the item and have staff work with the applicant to address the suggestion for the screen wall. The motion failed due to lack of a second. STEVE JIANNINO advised the Commission that Condition 34 addresses the issues of storage and asked for clear direction from the Commission on what they are suggesting. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF stated that he was suggesting a decorative wall that came out at least as wide as the depth of the parking spaces on the sides of the buildings and a screen gate to block off the parking area. DON COOP, 41755 Rider Way, Temecula, applicant, concurred with Chairman Chiniaeff's suggestion for a decorative screen wall. COMMISSIONER FORD stated that he would recommend that the wall be continued along the back of the property. COMMISSIONER FORD moved to close the public hearing at 6:30 P.M. and to Adopt the Negative Declaration and Adopt Resolution 91-(next) approving Plot Plan No. 11339 based on the findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval, with modifications requiring decorative screen walls to be placed as discussed and a minimum of 24" box trees on the street frontage, seconded by COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN:i COMMISSIONERS: Fahey PCMIN5/06/91 -3- MAY 9, 1991 PL3NNING COIO(ISSION MINUTES MAY 6, 1991 5. VESTING TENTATIVE TP,~CT NO. 23142~ FIRST EXTENSION OF TIHE el Proposal for first extension of time for a 20 lot single family subdivision located at Bonny Road, North of Zinfandel Avenue. STEVE JIANNINO provided the staff report. ROBERT RIGETTI provided the Commission with an update on the existing bond and the repairs that have been completed since the last public hearing. He stated that staff has been satisfied with the response from Costa Group. He added that staff had prepared an agreement to extend the bond, which had been signed by Costa Group. COMMISSIONER FORD questioned the wording of Item No. 2, under "WITHIN 45 DAYS AFTER FINAL MAP APPROVAL", which makes reference to the approval by the property owner. Assistant City Attorney JOHN CAVANAUGH recommended that this Item No. 2 be amended to read "Costa Group shall relocate the existing drainage swale within the Hubert property along Merlot Court closer to the existing City right-of-way in conformance with applicable City Ordinance." Deputy City Engineer DOUG STEWART concurred with the City Attorney's recommendation. C~IPa4AN CHINIAEFF re-opened the public hearing at 6:45 P.M. ROBERT HENDERSON, 1784 La Costa Meadow Drive, San Marcos, representing the Costa Group, concurred with the staff report and the changes as proposed by staff. He added that the Costa Group has made valiant efforts to work with staff and the property owners to resolve the repair issues. RALPH BROWNELL, 41487 Zinfandel Avenue, Temecula, presented the Commission with some pictures of his property. He advised the Commission that he has a list of repairs and costs estimates that he had provided to Costa Group and they went forth with these repairs at their own discretion. He added that he wants the repairs done on his terms. BARBARA BENTLEY, 41473 Zinfandel Avenue, Temecula, discussed their agreement with Costa Group to fill and plant their slopes, which have erosion damage. She PCMIN5/06/91 -4- MAY 9, 1991 PLANNING CO~,~ISSION MINUTES I~Y 6, 1991 also expressed a concern for not being listed under the repairs in the staff report. THOMAS BENTLEY, 41473 Zinfandel Avenue, Temecula, provided the Commission with pictures, opposed the extension of time, and advised the Commission that all previous agreements by Costa Group and them had been breached. MAUREEN HUBERT, 41412 Chenin Blanc, Temecula, opposed the extension of time, and provided the Commission with pictures of property damage. ROBERT HENDERSON advised the Commission of the repairs that Costa Group has completed that were listed on Mr. Brownell's list of damages and repairs. He also advised the Commission of the status of the repairs to the Bentley's property and stated that the Hubert's have requested that the Costa Group speak only with their attornery. COMMISSIONER FORD moved to close the public hearing at 7:10 P.M. and Adopt Resolution 91-[next] approving a first extension of time for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23142 subject to the attached Conditions of Approval as modified and amended to reflect that the Items No. 1, 2, 3 and 4, that were required to be completed "within 45 days after final map approval" be required "prior to map approval", COMMISSIONER HOAGLANDseconded and amended the motion to include Items No. 6, 7, 8 and 9, be completed prior to recordation of the map. ROBERT HENDERSON concurred with the amendments to the Conditions of Approval. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: i COMMISSIONERS: Fahey COMMISSIONER FAHEY opposed the extension of time, which she felt encouraged the continuance of the behavior shown by the applicant. 6. CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 9, SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE NO. 11 Proposal to request a substantial conformance and change of zone to allow duplex and fourplex units in Planning Area 37 of Specific Plan 199. PCMIN5/06/91 -5- MAY 9, 1991 PLANNING COMMIEEION MINUTES MAY 6o 1991 Item continued off-calendar per staff. 7. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 25603 AMENDMENT #3 AND PLOT PLAN NO. 227 Jl Proposal for a multi-family subdivision of 20.8 acres into 54 residential lots and two open space lots and to construct 54 four plexs, one per lot. STEVE JIANNINO provided the staff report. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 7:20 P.M. KEVIN MCKENZlE, 40550 La Colima Road, Temecula, representing Tierra Investment, advised the Commission of the changes that the applicant has implemented since the last Planning Commission meeting. He also advised the Commission that there have been some recent informal inquiries from the CSD about this land as City park land. The following individuals, members of The Neighborhood Coalition No. 25603, expressed strong opposition to the proposed project. Their concerns addressed the issues of increased high incident of crime, over-crowding of schools, apartment vacancy rates within the city, lack of park space in this area, danger of proposed crib wall, lack of proper maintenance of property, applicant's failure to properly notify affected residents of proposed development, as well as other issues. LISA BELLINO, 42111 Humber, Temecula. DUNCAM MACDONALD, 42135 Humbet, Temecula. ED DORAN, 39985 Stamos, Temecula. AL LE COU, 42050 Avenida Vista Ladera, Temecula. BILL BELLINO, 42111 Humber, Temecula. BELINDA CONTOPULOS, 42075 Humber, Temecula. LINDA VAN KIRK, 41756 Humber, Temecula. DON TULIMERO, 42109 Humber, Temecula. CLARK KEGLEYT, 41775 Humber, Temecula. ROB MARTINELLI, 30255 Corte Cantania, Temecula. DAVID MICHAEL, 41756 Humber, Temecula. CHRIS MARTINELLI, 30255 Corte Cantania, Temecula. ROB VAN KIRK, 41756 Humber, Temecula. VIOLA GOODRICH, 30099 Corte Carrizo, Temecula. S. VERNOY, 30268 Mercy Court, Temecula. LENA SEEMAN, 42700 Las Violetas Court, Temecula. DAVID CERVANTES, 29983 Via Puerta Del Sol, Temecula. ARTHUR YORKE, 30087 Corte San Luis, Temecula. GARY BURG, 30219 Corte Cantera, Temecula. MICHAEL RUNYEN, 31399 Corte Montiel, Temecula. GLEN W. SMITH, 42105 Humber, Temecula. PCMIN5/06/91 -6- MAY 9, 1991 PLKNNIN~ COMMISSION HINUTES !~Y 6, 1991 Chris Martinelli provided the Commission with information regarding the applicant's lack of proper notification to affected property owners. COMMISSIONER FAHEY stated that she felt some of the issues raised by the Commission at the previous hearing still existed and she saw very little change to the concept of the entire project. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND concurred and added his concern for the applicant's proposal of public streets in the project. He added that he felt that this was not an appropriate transition. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to close the public hearing at 8:35 P.M. and recommend Denial of a Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract Map No. 25603, Amendment No. 3; Deny Resolution 91-(next) recommending that the City Council approve Tentative Tract Map No. 25603; and Deny Resolution 91-(next) recommending that the City Council approve Plot Plan No. 227, based on the following: insufficient buffering and transitioning from multi-family to SFR, inadequate recreational facilities for a project of this size, the cumlative effect of high density housing in this area negatively impacts on traffic and the ability to provide services in this area, the topography of this particular area does not suit the proposed plot plan and grading plan resulting in excessive grading, circulation of traffic and location of units may adversely affect the surrounding property with noise and light, and the four- plex concept potentially provides inadequate maintenance of the property, seconded by COMMISSIONER BLAIR. COMMISSIONER FORD requested that the motion be amended to include the insufficiency of proper notification by the applicant, apparent willful destruction of habitat which warrants research of the E.I.R., grading and crib walls are a functional problem with the project, along with lack of facilities for the public. COMMISSIONER FAHEY and COMMISSIONER BLAIR concurred with the amendment. COMMISSIONER BLAIR stated that she was adamantly opposed to the project when it was first presented to the Planning Commission and remains adamantly opposed. She added that it was presented with little change and it is not a project for Temecula. PCMIN5/06/91 -7- MAY 9, 1991 PLi~'NING COI, fi~ISSION HINUTES HAY E, 1991 CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF stated that he supported the statements; however, he suggested that the Commission also advise the City Council of what the Commission would like to see as an acceptable transition between single family attached and detached. He stated that some of those issues would include ownership between the rental on one side and the single family detached on the other, common maintenance by an association and recreational amenities being provided and developed at densities that would provide a transition between properties. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF declared a ten minute recess at 8:40 P.M. meeting reconvened at 8:50 P.M. The 8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2901 (REVISED} Proposal for application (Post Facto) to Permit Gasoline Sales and to add four (4) additional pumps. Located at the northeast corner of Jefferson Avenue and Winchester Road. MARK RHOADE8 provided the staff report. DAVE DIORY, D2 Enterprises, 28465 Front Street, Temecula representing the applicant, answered questions by the Commission. Mr. Diory requested a explanation of finding (H) in the staff report. Mr. Diory also questioned if Condition 22 was applicable to this project. KURT KUZMANIC, owner/applicant, answered questions by the Commission. JOHN CAVANAUGH stated that under finding (H) "inconsistent" should be amended to read "consistent" and this was a finding required by State law. He also stated that the fee requirement of Condition 22 was for off-site improvements. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to close the public hearing at 9:00 P.M. and Adopt Resolution 91-[next) approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2901 (Revised), seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. PCMIN5/06/91 -8- HAY 9, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 'AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: MAY 6, Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff None 1991 9. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25338 Proposal to construct 32 Condominium Units on 2.56 acres located at the southeast corner of Solana Way and Ryecrest Drive. MARK RHOADES provided the staff report. He advised that there was an amendment to Condition No. 31 which would leave the approval of the CC&R'S to the Planning Director and the City Attorney. DOUG STEWART amended Engineering Department Condition No. 40 to include the following sentence "Developer shall seek reimbursement from Rancho California Water District for the frontage street improvements to the well site.". CMAIRMANCHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 9:05 P.M. LEIGH WAXMAN, 53 Edgar Court, Newbury Park, owner of the project, answered some questions by the Commission. Mr. Waxman advised the Commission that the CC&R's have been drafted and a copy will be furnished to the City Attorney. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned if the applicant would oppose any restrictions on the project against renting of the units. LEIGH WAXMAN advised that he would be willing to work with staff on this issue. DEAN DAVIDSON, 28951 Rancho California Road, Temecula, architect for the project, answered questions by the Commission. DAN STERIC, 2937 Sapra Street, Thousand Oaks, co-owner of the project, answered questions by the Commission. He advised the Commission that they are considering making this a gated development. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF suggested that the trees along Solana Way be a minimum of 24" box tree. ANDY CHANG, 27727 Jefferson, Suite 109, Temecula, landscape architect, encouraged the Commission's PCMIN5/06/91 -9- MAY 9, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 6o 1991 approval of the project presented. MS. MORRIS, 41730 Gilbert Court, Temecula, opposed more high density housing in this area. She added that they need park land in this area. JEFF COONEY, 30080 Corte Cantera, Temecula, stated that he prefers condominiums as opposed to apartments. Opposes the density of the project. ROSE MENDES, 29651 Amwood Way, Temecula, advised the Commission that this project is going to take away from the view which she paid a lot premium for. Need park space, not more apartment and condominiums. CHARLES HAY, 29662 Amwood Way, Temecula, opposes more high density housing in this area. He added that there is a need for more park land. LEIGH WAXMAN stated that he was surprised at the opposition to his development. He stated that they are building a quality development which has been in the planning process for the last four years. COMMISSIONER FAHEY stated that she felt uncomfortable approving one more project for this area without first sitting down with the City Council and discussing the plans for this area. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF stated that he felt this was the type of project that would provide an adequate transition from single family housing to multi-family housing. He added that this project does provide open space for the people within the project, and is architecturally attractive. COMMISSIONER BLAIR concurred. COMMISSIONER FORD questioned if the proposed density of the project was a transition from the apartments to the single family housing. He also questioned making this a gate guarded community. STEVE JIANNINO stated that they would have to address stacking before they approved it as a gated project. JOHN CAVANAUGH suggested that the Commission should make a determination on the minimum tree size requirement. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF requested a minimum of 24" box trees along the street frontage with some 36" box trees. PCMIN5/06/91 -10- HAY 9, 1991 PLKNNING COIOIISSION MINUTES I, fi~Y 6o 1991 The applicant concurred with the amendment. COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to close the public hearing at 9:45 P.M. and continue off-calendar to allow staff to work with the applicant on a more detailed plan addressing the project as a gated community, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned if the Commission could require the applicant to make this a gate guarded community. JOMMCAVANAUGH said that the Commission could not require the applicant to make this a gate guarded community. He added that there are many issues the applicant would have to address in order to make this a gate guarded Commission. AYES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford NOES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Hoagland, Chiniaeff COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND moved to close the public hearing at 9:45 P.M. and Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 25338 and request staff to prepare denial findings because the project is not in conformance with SWAP designation, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. COMMI8SIONER FORD stated that he felt that the density needs to be lessened, but the applicant should have the opportunity to work with staff. CHAIPa4ANCHINIAEFF concurred and added he felt it provided the proper buffering. AYES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Hoagland NOES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Chiniaeff CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF moved to close the public hearing and Adopt a Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract Map No. 25338 and AdoDt Resolution 91-(next} approving Tentative Tract Map No. 25338 subject to the Conditions of Approval as amended and requiring an additional condition requiring 24" and 36" box trees along Solana Way and a decorative block wall be installed along the Easterly property line in place of the existing wood fence, seconded by COMMISSIONER BLAIR. PCMINS/06/91 -11- MAY 9, 1991 PLANNING COMXISSION HINUTES I~Y 6, 1991 AYES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff NOES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford, Hoagland COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to continue Tentative Tract Map No. 25338 to the Planning Commission meeting of June 3, 1991, to allow staff to work with the applicant on the possibility of reducing the density down to 6 to 8 dwelling units per acre, seconded by COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff JOHN CAVANAUGH advised the Commission that they needed to continue the item to a specific date and continue the public hearing or continue the item off-calendar and to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND moved to reconsider the motion, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to close the public hearing at 9:50 P.M. and continue the item off-calendar to look at a possible re-design to reduce the density of the project to 6 to 8 dwelling units per acre. AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford, Hoagland NOES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff 10. PARCEL MAP NO. 26625 10.1 Proposal to create 13 parcels representing buildings under construction and one 5.6 acre parcel of common parking landscaped area located at the northeasterly corner of Business Park Drive and Ranch Way. STEVE JIANNINO provided the staff report. He amended the Conditions of Approval by deleting Condition No. 14. PCMIN5/06/91 -12- MAY 9, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 6, 1991 C~IRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 9:55 P.M. IDA 8ANCHEZ, Markham and Associates, 41750 Winchester Road, Temecula, representing the applicant, concurred with the staff report. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND moved to close the public hearing at 9:55 P.M. and Adopt Resolution No. 91-(next) approving Parcel Map No. 26625, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT STEVE JIANNINO advised the Commission of the following: · A representative from the consulting firm working on the sphere of influence will be present at the next meeting to provide an update. · An official recommendation will go to the City Council on May 14, 1991, for the General Plan Consultant. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCU8SION COMMISSIONER FAHEY questioned the date of the joint Planning Commission and City Council meeting. STEVE JIANNINO advised that the date had not yet been set. OTHER BUSINESS None PCMIN5/06/91 -13- MAY 9, 1991 PLANNING CO~fi~ISSION MINUTES ADJOURNMENT COIO~ISSIONER BLAIR moved to adjourn at 10:00 P.M., COMMISSIONER HOAGL~ND. The next regular meeting of the City Commission will be held Monday, June 3, Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, MAY 6, 1991 seconded by of Temecula Planning 1991, 6:00 P.M., Vail Temecula. Chairman Dennis Chiniaeff Secretary PCMIN5/06/91 -14- MAY 9, 1991 ITEM MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Planning Director May 20, 1991 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 The above subject case was presented before the Planning Commission on April 1, 1991, concurrently with Change of Zone No. 5 and Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267, which both were approved. However, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 was continued off-calendar by the Commission in order for Planning Staff to address the required 1,000 square foot minimum ground floor living area per Ordinance No. 3~,0, Section 18.5(5) within a PRD. A variance application was considered the appropriate mechanism for processing. Therefore, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 and Variance No. 7 will be presented concurrently per Planning Commission request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning Department Staff Recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council: 1. ADOPTION of the Addendum to EIR No. 281 for Tentative Tract Map No. 26861; and 2. ADOPTION of Resolution No. 91- recommending approval Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861. RA/GT:ks Attachments: 2. 3. q.. Resolution Conditions of Approval Staff Report (April 1, 1991 ) Minutes (April 1, 1991) A:TM26861 .HEM\ks ATTACHMENT I RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 26861 TO DEVELOP A 1~,.68 ACRE PARCEL INTO 1~,2 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED CONDOMINIUM UNITS LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 BETWEEN PALA AND MARGARITA ROADS AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR~S PARCEL NO. 926-016-025. WHEREAS, Presley of San Diego filed Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 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 Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map on May 20, 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 approved said Vesting Tentative Tract Map; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findincjs. 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: VTM26861 9 ~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 Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map and is consistent with the SWAP and meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: {1 ) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. (2) The Planning Commission finds, in recommending approval of projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: (a) There is reasonable probability that Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 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: VTM26861 10 (c) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. D. (1) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. ~,60, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are made: 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: VTM26861 11 a) b) c) d) e) f) g) There is a reasonable probability that the proposed R-3 portion of the project will be consistent with the future general plan. Furthermore, densities and uses proposed are similar to existing densities and uses in the vicinity of the project site. The overall density for the entire 221 acres is :3.7 units per acre which conforms to the SWAP designation of 2-5. The proposed project does not conform with Ordinance No. 30,8 development standards for Planned Residential Developments I PRD) due to the fact that the proposed development is proposing less than 1,000 square feet of ground floor living area which is required. Therefore, the applicant respectfully requests that the Planning Commission recommend an official waiver for the required minimum ground floor area. Adequate public street access will be provided to every lot. The legal owner of record has offered to make all required dedications. The proposed project is physically suitable in design for the proposed density due to the fact that only 596 Of the site net area is being designated as common recreation area for a project with a density of 9.7 DU/AC. Staff finds that site access will be adequate. Assessment District 159 will provide for street improvements on Pala Road and Highway 79, and two ( 2 ) access points to the site are shown on the map. There is a reasonable probability that the project will be consistent with the City~s General Plan once adopted, in that the proposed design includes sufficient common open space and may therefore be consistent with the future General Plan. It is likely that the proposed vesting tentative map will not constitute a substantial detriment to the future General Plan, if the proposed subdivision is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, in that it may set a precedence for required common open space A: VTM26861 12 that may not be detrimental to the Parks and Recreational elements of the General Plan. h) The project will not have a significant adverse affect on the environment. The County of Riverside Board of Supervisors certified EIR No. 281 in conjunction with the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 23267 and 23299. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 will not result in any new or substantially increased environmental impacts. The proposed project makes adequate provision for future passive or natural solar heating opportunities in that all proposed parcels have adequate southern exposure. j) The lawful conditions stated in the project's Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. k) These findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. E. As condltloned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Vesting Tentative Tract Map is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION 2__. Environmental Compliance. The County of Riverside Board of Supervisors certified EIR No. 281 in conjunction with the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 23267 and 23299. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 will not result in any new or substantially increased environmental impacts. An addendure to EIR No. 281 is hereby recommended for adoption. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 for the development of a 14.68 acre parcel into lu,5 single family detached condomlnium units located along the south side of Highway 79 between Pala and Margarita Roads and known as Assessor*s Parcel No. 926-016-025 subject to the following conditions: A. Attachment II, attached hereto. A: VTM26861 13 SECTION 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th 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 20th day of May, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS A: VTM26861 14 ATTACHMENT I I CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 Project Description: Development of lu,5 sinqle family condominium units on approximately 1u,.68 acres of land situated south of Hiqhway 79 between Pala Road and Marqarita Road. Assessor~s Parcel No.: 926-016-025 Planninq Department The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance ~,60, 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 vesting tentative tract map will expire two years after the approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance 0,60. The expiration date is Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. Legal access as required by Ordinance 0,60 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: VTM26861 15 10. 11. 12. 13. Prior to the recordatlon of the final map, Change of Zone No. 5 shall be approved by the City Council and shall be effective. Lots created by this land division shall be in conformance with the development standards of the zone ultimately applied to the property. A maintenance district shall be established for maintenance along Highway 79, the developer/applicant shall pay for all costs relating to establishment of the district. 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. The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations outlined in the County Health Department~s transmittal dated January 1991, 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 7, 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. 1~,. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following: 15. 16. Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development standards of the R-3 (General Residential ) zone. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes, landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director. Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: 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. A: VTM26861 16 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 Highway 79, "A" Street, and Via Rio Temecula. Wooden fencing shall not be allowed on the perimeter of the project. All lots with slopes leading down from the lot shall be provided with gates in the wall for maintenance access. Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent trees at key visual focal points within the project. Where street trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of interior streets and project parkways due to insufficient road right-d-way, they shall be planted outside of the road right-of- way. Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant plants where appropriate. All 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 sedlmentation 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. Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase. A: VTM26861 17 17. 18. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall provide evidence to the Director of Building and Safety that all adjacent off-site manufactured slopes have recorded slope easements and that slope maintenance responsibilities have been assigned as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. Should the paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer's successor's- in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars {$100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library development, Prior to the submittal of building plans to the Department of Building and Safety an acoustical study shall be performed by an acoustical engineer to establish appropriate mitigation measures that shall be applied to individual dwelling units within the subdivision to reduce ambient interior noise levels to 45 Ldn. 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. 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. A: VTM26861 18 19. 20. 22. g. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten {10) feet. All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and automatic irrigation. Prior to 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. landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans and shall be verified by City field inspection. Not withstanding the preceding conditions, wherever an acoustical study is required for noise attenuation purposes, the heights of all required walls shall be determined by the acoustical study where applicable. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. Prior to recordation of a final map, the subdivider shall submit to the Planning Director an agreement with the Community Services District which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City that the land divider has satisfied Quimby Act requirements in accordance with Section 10.35 of Ordinance No. ~,60. The agreement shall be approved by the City Council. 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 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861, 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 subdivlder 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 subdlvider 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. A: VTM26861 19 23. 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 66462 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. 25. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions/Reciprocal Access Easements: 26. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions I CC&R's) shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to final approval of the tract maps. The CCSR~s shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining the open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, all buildings in common open areas, and all interior slopes. 27. 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 CCF, 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 CCF, R'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. 28. 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, A: VTM26861 20 29. 30. Maintenance for all landscaped and open areas, including parkways, shall be provided for in the CC~,R's. Within forty-ei9ht (~,8) hours of the approval of this 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 Eight Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars ($875.00) which includes the Eight Hundred, Fifty Dollar ($850.00) fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.u,(d)(3) 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 lq Cal. Code of Regulations 1509~,. If within such forty-eight (q8) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Came Code Section 711 .~,(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. 31. 32. 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. ~,60. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: 33. As deemed necessary by the City Engineer or his representative, the developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: San Diego Regional Water Quality; 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. A: VTM26861 21 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 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. B, C, D, E, F, and G Streets shall be private streets and shall be improved with 33 feet of asphalt concrete pavement including rolled curb, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, 5 foot utility easements shall be dedicated running parallel on both sides of street. A 5 foot sidewalk shall be constructed on one side minimum of all private streets. Dedication shall be made or shown to exist to provide for a 71 foot half street right-d-way for State Highway Route 79 (142' right-d-way). Construct half street improvements within a I~ foot dedicated right-d-way Street "A" from State Highway Route 79 to Phase One and along the frontage of Phase One. In accordance with County Standard No. 102 In the event that State Highway 79 is not constructed by Assessment District 159 prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for Phase One, the developer shall design and construct a deceleration lane west of Street "A" and an acceleration lane east of Street "A", per CalTrans standards. State Highway 79 improvements shall be bonded for prior to Final Map. "A" Street access shall be limited to right turning movements in and right turning movements out only. There shall be no left turns permitted and no provision for such movements shall be provided for on Highway 79 South. Vehicular access shall be restricted on Highway 79 and so noted on the final map with the exception of approved public road connections as approved by the City Engineer. Dedicate a 38 foot minimum easement for public utilities and emergency vehicles access for all private streets and drives. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. 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. 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 CC&R's shall be signed and acknowledged by all parties having any record title interest in the property to be developed, shall make the City a party thereto, and shall be enforceable by the City. The CCBR's shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded, The A: VTM26861 22 CCSR~s shall be subject to the following conditions: a. The CCF, R's shall be prepared at the developer~s sole cost and expense. The CCBR's shall be in the form and content approved by the Director of Planning, City Engineer and the City Attorney, and shall include such provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials deem necessary to protect the interest of the City and its residents. The CC~,R's and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owner~s Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent 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 CC~,R~s shall provide that the property shall be developed, operated and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance. The CC~,R's shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the condition required by the CC~,R's, then the City, after making due demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and perform, at the owner's sole expense, any maintenance required thereon by the CCF, R's or the City ordinances. The property shall be subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not promptly reimbursed. The declaration shall contain language prohibiting further subdivision of any lots, whether they are lettered lots or numbered lots. ii. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by 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. 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 CCF, RIs or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrent with the map or prior to the issuance of building permit where no map is involved. 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. A: VTM26861 23 q7. q8. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 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. d. Sewer and domestic water systems. e. Undergrounding of existin9 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. q61 and as approvedby the City Engineer. Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation towards traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit. Street names shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineering Department. The minimum centerline radii shall be 300 feet or as approved by the City Engineer. All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the City Engineer. improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the City Engineer. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent. Street improvement plans per City Standards for the private streets or drives shall be required for review and approval by the City Engineer. A: VTM26861 56. 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 2~" x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. 57. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. 58° The subdivider shall submit four copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. 59. 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. 60. 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." 61. A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final map, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations should be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control District for review. 62. 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. ~,60 will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity, or use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the subdlvlder shall provide adequate facilities as approved by the Engineering Department. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 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: 65. 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: VTM26861 25 66. A permit shall be required from CalTrans for any work within the following right-d-way: State Hi~lhway 79 PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT: 67. 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: 68° Construct full street improvements includin9 but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior public streets. 69. Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. 70. Aspbaltic emulsion {fog seal) shall be applied not less than lu, days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39, and 9L~ of the State Standard Specifications. 71. 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. Department of Buildinq and Safety 72. Submit approved Tentative Tract Map to the Department of Building and Safety for addressing and street name review. 73. School fees shall be paid to Temecula Unified School District prior to permit issuance, Lighting on site pool area and recreation area shall comply with Mount Palomar Lighting Ordinance #655. A: VTM26861 26 75. Submit pool plans to Riverside County Health Department for review prior to structural plan review by the Department of Building and Safety. 76. Pool excavation area shall be fenced immediately the same day as excavation is complete. All plumbing trenches shall be fenced. 77. Obtain clearances from Land Use and from Building and Safety Departments. 78. Provide a geological report at time of submittal for plan review. A:VTM26861 27 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE · PERRIS. CALIFORNIA 92370 ~, c- (714) 657-3183 GLEN J. NE~.'MAN FIRE CHIEF MARCH 7, 1991 TO: CITY OF TEMECULA ATTN: PLANNING/RICHARD AYALA RE: TRACT 26861 With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land division, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protsction standards: FIRE PROTECTION Schedule A fire protection approved standard fire hydrants, (6"x4"x2t") located one at each street intersection and spaced no more than 330 feet apart in any direction, with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for 2 hours duration at 20 PSI. AppliCant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans '~o the Fire Department for review. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, containing a Fire Department approval signature block, and shall conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow. Once plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Department for signature. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. MITIGATION Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the City of Temecula, a cash sum of $400.00 per unit as mitigations for fire protection impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment, he/she may enter into a written agreement with the County deferring said payment to the time of issuance of the first building permit. Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and/or signs. Parking will be allowed only on one side of private streets. PLANNING DIVISION TRACT 26861 PAGE 2 Blue-dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets and driveways to indicate location of fire hydrants. They shall be mounted in the middle of the street directly in line with fire hydrants. All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to the Planning and Engineering staff. RAYMOND R. REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner /° By ~/~' Laura Cabral, Fire Safety Specialist LC/tm COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE /DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 4065 COUNTY CIRCLE: DR. RIV[RSIDE:, C,.%. 92503 (Ms,l,og Address - P.O. Box 7600 uarv 24, 1991 CITY 0F TEMECULA 43180 BUSINESS PARK DF:IVE. TEMECULA. CA 92390 SUITE 200 ATTN: Richard Ayala RE: VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23299: OF ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 926-160-011. ON FILE THE COUNTY RECORDER. RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA. (1 lots) BEING A PORTION IN THE OFFICE OF Deaf Gentlemen: The DePartment of Public Health has reviewed Tract MaD No. 23299 and recommends: A water system shall be installed accordino to plans and sDeclf~catlons as aDDroved by the water company and the Health Demartment, Permanent prints of the Plans of the water system shall be submitted in triplicate. with a minimum scale not less than one inch equals 200 feet, alono with the orlQznal drawzno to the County Surveyor. The orznts shall show the Internal Dzme d~ameter. location of valves and fire hydrants: Dioe and ~oznt specifications. and the size of the main at the nunct~0n of the new system to the ex~stzno system. The plans shall COmDIY In all respects with Div. 5, Part I. Chapter 7 of the California Health and Safety Code, California Admln~strative Code. Title 22. Chapter 16. and General Order No. ~03 of the Public Utilities Commlss~on of the State of California, when applicable. The ~lans shall be si~ned by a reolstered enUlneer and water comDanV with the follow~nq certlffcatlon: "I certify that the des~un of the water system in Tract MaD 23399 is in accordance w~th the water system exDansion Dlans of the Rancho Cal~fornla Water District and that the water services. storaue, and distribution JVstem will be adeUuate to ~rovlde water service to such Tract MaD" ,_~tv or Temecula F'a~:l~. 'I~,'o 3anu.~rv 24. ~t wlli ~UDDIV water to such tract mad at any sDeclflc be submitted ~o The CQU~ty~uryeyor.~ Office tO rev~e~ ~t least two W~e~s Rr~Q~,~Q ~_he_r~Gu~..~.~ ~be r.~cor~at!o~ Of the.fl~a!.~aP, This subdivision has a statement from Rancho California Water D~str~ct a~ree~n~ to serve domestic water to each and every lot ~n the subdivision on demand Drov~d~nQ ~at~sfactorv financial arrangements are comDleted w~th the subd~v~der. It w~ll be nece~sarv for f~nanclal arranQements to be made prior to the recordat~on of the final map. Th~s subdivision ~s w~thin the Eastern Municipal Water D~strlct and shall be connected to the sewers of the D~strict. The sewer system shall be ~nstalled accordln~ to plans and so~c~flcations as aDDroved by the Distr~ct, the County $u~vevoc and the Health Department. Fermanent prints of the plans of the sewer svstem shall be submitted in triplicate, alon~ w~th the original drawing, to the County $urvevor. The prints shall show the internal pipe d~ameter, location of manholes. complete profiles. Plpe an~ 3olnt specifications and the s~ze of the sewers at the .junction of the new svstem to the ex~st~n~ s~tem. A ~n~te plat ~nd~ca~n~ location of sewer lines and water lines shall be a portion of the sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall be s~ned b~ a registered engineer and the sewer d~str~ct w~th the follow~n~ certification: "I certify that the design of the sewer svstem in Tract MaD E3299 ~ in accordance with the sewer system expansion plans of the Eastern Munlc~pal Water District and that the waste system ~s adequate at th~s time to treat the antlc~pated wastes from the proposed tract CIL'/ Of Telt~ecI.ll~ F'acle Three A*.tn: F<~char,I Aval~. ?anuarv 24. l'_~C-! The plans must be ~ubmx~,t~d_...~o _the County Survevcr'S Offlee to revle~.~t lf.a!~.._.~FO_,Me~).P[lqf__tg_ th~f~q~e~t for the recordatlon of the It will be necelsarv for financial arranoement~ to be comz, letelV flnallzed prior to recordatlon of the flnal maD. -c;lnce(~,elv, M S~m artz vironmental Health SDec~alzst IV SM:dr Case No.: Recommendation: STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION April 1, 1991 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 Prepared By: Richard Ayala ADOPT the addendure to EIR No. 281 for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861; and ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: Presley of San Diego Crosby Mead Benton 8 Associates Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 Proposes a 10,2 unit single family detached condominium development on approximately 14.68 acres. South side of Highway 79 between Pala Road and Margarita Road. R-R (Rural Residential) North: R-A-5 ( ResidentialAgricultural, 5 Acre Minimum) South: A-1-10 (Light Agricultural, 10 Acre Minimum) East: SP (Specific Plan 217, Red Hawk) West: R - R ( Rural Residential ) R-3 ( General Residential } R-4 (Planned Residential) R-5 (Open Area Combining Zone, Residential Developments) 14.68 acres 189 acres 57.8 acres Vacant/Graded Land A:VTM26861 1 SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: BACKGROUND: North: South: East: West: Low Density Single Family Existing Sod Farm Vacant/Single Family Tract Under Construction Vacant Multi-Family Total Units: 145 Total Acres: 14.68 Density: 9.7 DU/AC Common Recreation Open Space: 26,500sq.ft. (0.6 acres ) Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 was presented before the Planning Commission on March 18, 1991 and was continued in order for Staff to come with an agreement with the applicant regarding the common recreation open space area; and also for the city attorney to interpret the minimum 1,000 sq.ft. ground floor living area requirement in Ordinance No. 348. Since then, both Planning Staff and the applicant have been in direct contact and have come to an acceptable agreement relating to the recreation area. The applicant has agreed to incorporate units 124, 144, and 145 into the recreation area design thus increasin9 the recreation area to 26,500 sq.ft., (190 square sq.ft. per unit) which Staff feels is acceptable for this type of development. The subject property was originally a portion of the Old Vail Ranch. It is located along the south side of Highway 79 between Pala and Margarita Roads. The original application, Change of Zone No. 5150 was a request to change the zoning on 221.2 acres of land from R-R (Rural Residential), and R-5 (Open Area Combining Zone). This zone change was approved by the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors on October 20, 1988. However, due to an oversight by the County, the zone change was never given a second reading and, therefore, was never officially adopted. The applicant submitted a new application, Change of Zone No. 5, to the City of Temecula Planning Department on September 24, 1990. A: VTM26861 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ANALYSIS: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 was submitted to the City of Temecula on December 21, 1990. On January 17, 1991, this project was reviewed by the Preliminary Development Review Committee (Pre-DRC) in order to informally evaluate the project and address any concerns, as well as suggesting possible modifications. The comments by the Pre-DRC included the following: 2. 3. 4. Open Space ( Common ) Setback ( Side Yard ) Traffic Impacts Access/Circulation Subsequent to the Pre-DRC meeting, Staff met with the applicant to discuss possible design modifications in order to address the Pre-DRC's concerns. On March 7, 1991, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 was reviewed at a Formal Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting; and, it was determined that Vesting Tentative Tract No. 26861 did not meet code requirements or Staff~s concerns regarding useable common open space. This tract proposes 142 single family detached condominium units on approximately 14.68 acres of proposed R-3 zoned land. The development is also proposing approximately 26,500 square feet (0.6 acres) of common recreational area composed of a swimming pool, wading pool, spa, cabana and a general use open space area with picnic benches and a tot lot. Access to the development is being provided from "A" Street and the proposed road adjacent to the creek. (See VTM 26861 Site Plan. ) The applicant is proposing to develop 142 single family detached condominium units on approximately 14.68 acres of proposed R-3 zoned land along with a 26,500 square foot (0.6 acres) recreational area. The project is situated along Highway 79 and is east of Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267. Access to the project is being provided by "A" Street and Via Rio Temecula along the Temecula Creek as shown on the site plan. A: VTM26861 3 The design as submitted and reviewed by Planning Staff represents a PR D ( Planned Residential Development) design. However, the project as submitted does not conform with the PRD Standards as required in an R-3 zone in that the ground floor living area of the proposed product types do not meet the minimum 1,000 square foot standard. Therefore, the applicant respectfully requests that the Planning Commission recommend an official waiver for the required minimum ground floor area. (See attachment IV for waiver request.) In addition, although the project contains the required q0% open space, the majority of the open space is located within the private rear yards of the units and only contains approximately 300 to 600 square feet of useable area. The proposed common open space within the project is approximately 5% of the site and is approximately 190 square feet per unit. Since there are currently no specific design criteria regarding open space requirement for R-3 projects or PRD's, the Planning Staff cannot address what portion of the required ~,0% open space should be useable common open space, but it is Staff~s determination that the common open space provided is not sufficient. The applicant has made a strong effort to meet Planning Staff's recommendation for common recreation open space and is proposing approximately 26,500 sq.ft. of recreation area. By deleting three additional units (124,144,145). The project as submitted does not conform to City adopted Ordinance No. 3q8 in regard to a smaller lot single family project, thus, not conforming to R-2 Single Family Restricted nor R-4 zones due to the density, lack of adequate street frontages, and rear yards. In Staff's opinion, the proposed project does not provide acceptable useable recreation open space to compensate for the proposed density with the proposed design concept of single family detached units. The project as proposed consists of a 20' minimum front setback and an 8~ minimum distance between dwelling units. In addition, private rear yard open spaces are being proposed with a minimum 10' setback and range between 300 to 600 square feet of useable area, thus, not conforming to R-2 and R-~, A: VTM26861 ~, GENERAL PLAN/SWAP CONSISTENCY AND COMPATIBILITY: development standards, However, the applicant is compensating the small private rear yard open spaces with additional recreation area in order to provide additional common open space area for its future residents. Planning Staff recommends that multiple family projects and PRD~s provide a minimum of 200 square feet per unit or 10% of the net area as common open space within the project. This recommendation would require the project to provide a 30,000 square feet to one acre site designated as common open space recreational area. The applicant is proposing approximately 26,500 sq.ft., thus, increasing the recreation area by 10,978 sq.ft. from the original proposal. The proposed development's access which has been determined to be acceptable to the Engineering Department. The project is proposed to be completely gated with 33~ private streets and 5' sidewalks on only one side of the street. The project also provides a 26,500 sq.ft. (0.6 acres) recreational area which is centrally located. In conclusion, although Planning Staff has determined that the project does not conform with ordinance 3q8, the applicant has made a strong effort to compensate the Ordinance 3~,8 deficiencies by providing an acceptable common recreation open space area. In addition, Planning Staff believes that the proposed development will be consistent with the City~s future General Plan. Therefore, Planning Staff recommends approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861. The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 alone is inconsistent with the SWAP. However, combined with Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267, they are consistent with the SWAP, in that they propose a density of 3.7 DU/AC, well within the designated density of 2-5 DU/AC required by the SWAP. Planning Staff believes that there is a probability that the project as developed and zoned will be consistent with the City~s General Plan once adopted, in that the proposed density acts as an A :VTM26861 5 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: FINDINGS: adequate buffer to adjacent residential and commercial areas. Environmental Impact Report No. 281 was completed on the subject property for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23299, the originally approved County tract map. The report indicated a number of mitigation measures that must be implemented in order to reduce the impact of the project below a level of significance. These mitigation measures included a new 4-lane bridge on Pala Road over Temecula Creek, the channelization of Temecula Creek, and several other significant measures that have not currently been implemented. Therefore, Planning Staff recommends that an addendure to Environmental Impact Report No. 281 be adopted. A copy of which is attached. There is a reasonable probability that the proposed R-3 portion of the project will be consistent with the future general plan. Furthermore, densities and uses proposed are similar to existing densities and uses in the vicinity of the project site. The overall density for the entire 221 acres is 3.7 units per acre which conforms to the SWAP designation of 2-5. The proposed project does not conform with Ordinance No. 3L~8 development standards for Planned Residential Developments | PRD ) due to the fact that the proposed development is proposing less than 1,000 square feet of ground floor living area which is required. Therefore, the applicant respectfully requests that the Planning Commission recommend an official waiver for the required minimum ground floor area. Adequate public street access will be provided to every lot. The legal owner of record has offered to make all required dedications. The proposed project is physically suitable in design for the proposed density due to the fact that only 5% of the site net area is being designated as common recreation area for a project with a density of 9.7 DU/AC. A: VTM26861 6 10. 11. Staff finds that site access will be adequate. Assessment District 159 will provide for street improvements on Pala Road and Highway 79. and two (2) access points to the site are shown on the map. There is a reasonable probability that the project will be consistent with the City~s General Plan once adopted, in that the proposed design includes sufficient common open space and may therefore be consistent with the future General Plan. It is likely that the proposed vesting tentative map will not constitute a substantial detriment to the future General Plan, if the proposed subdivision is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, in that it may set a precedence for required common open space that may not be detrimental to the Parks and Recreational elements of the General Plan. The project will not have a significant adverse affect on the environment. The County of Riverside Board of Supervisors certified EIR No. 281 in conjunction with the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 23267 and 23299. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 will not result in any new or substantially increased environmental impacts. The proposed project makes adequate provision for future passive or natural solar heating opportunities in that all proposed parcels have adequate southern exposure. The lawful conditions stated in the project's Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. These findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. A: VTM26861 7 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, the Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT the addendure to EIR No. 281 for Tentative Tract Map No. 26861; and ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861. RA:ks Attachments: 1. 2. Resolution (VTM No. 26861 ) Conditions of Approval {VTM No. 26861) Addendure to EIR No. 281 Waiver Request Exhibits A. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 (Site Plan) B. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 (Elevations and Floor Plans) A: VTM26861 8 ATTACHMENT I RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 26861 TO DEVELOP A lu,.68 ACRE PARCEL INTO lu,2 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED CONDOMINIUMUNITSLOCATEDALONGTHESOUTHSIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 BETWEEN PALA AND MARGAR ITA ROADS AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR~S PARCEL NO. 926-016-025. WHEREAS, Presley of San Diego filed Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 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 Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map 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 approved said Vesting Tentative Tract Map; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings. That 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: VTM26861 9 (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 Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map and is consistent with the SWAP and meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. (2) The Planning Commission finds, in recommending approval of projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: There is reasonable probability that Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. A: VTM26861 10 ~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. 0,60, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are made: a) That the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. b) That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. c) That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type of development. d) That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. e) That the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. f) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. g) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land division. A land division may be approved if it is found that alternate easements for access or for use will be provided and that they will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. {2 ) The Planning Commission in approving the proposed Tentative Tract Map, makes the following findings, to wit: A: VTM26861 11 a) b) c) d) e) f) g) There is a reasonable probability that the proposed R-3 portion of the project will be consistent with the future general plan. Furthermore, densities and uses proposed are similar to existing densities and uses in the vicinity of the project site. The overall density for the entire 221 acres is 3.7 units per acre which conforms to the SWAP designation of 2-5. The proposed project does not conform with Ordinance No. 30,8 development standards for Planned Residential Developments I PRD ) due to the fact that the proposed development is proposing less than 1,000 square feet of ground floor living area which is required. Therefore, the applicant respectfully requests that the Planning Commission recommend an official waiver for the required minimum ground floor area. Adequate public street access will be provided to every lot. The legal owner of record has offered to make all required dedications. The proposed project is physically suitable in design for the proposed density due to the fact that only 596 of the site net area is being designated as common recreation area for a project with a density of 9.7 DU/AC. Staff finds that site access will be adequate. Assessment District 159 will provide for street improvements on Pala Road and Highway 79, and two {2) access points to the site are shown on the map. There is a reasonable probability that the project will be consistent with the City~s General Plan once adopted, in that the proposed design includes sufficient common open space and may therefore be consistent with the future General Plan. It is likely that the proposed vesting tentative map will not constitute a substantial detriment to the future General Plan, if the proposed subdivision is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, in that it may set a precedence for required common open space A: VTM26861 12 that may not be detrimental to the Parks and Recreational elements of the General Plan. h) The project will not have a significant adverse affect on the environment. The County of Riverside Board of Supervisors certified EIR No, 281 in conjunction with the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 23267 and 23299. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 will not result in any new or substantially increased environmental impacts. i) The proposed project makes adequate provision for future passive or natural solar heating opportunities in that all proposed parcels have adequate southern exposure. j) The lawful conditions stated in the project's Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. k) These findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Vesting Tentative Tract Map is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. The County of Riverside Board of Supervisors certified EIR No. 281 in conjunction with the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 23267 and 23299. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 will not result in any new or substantially increased environmental impacts. An addendure to EIR No. 281 is hereby recommended for adoption. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 for the development of a 10,.68 acre parcel into lo,5 single family detached condominium units located along the south side of Highway 79 between Pala and Margarita Roads and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 926-016-025 subject to the following conditions: A. Attachment I), attached hereto. A: VTM26861 13 SECTION PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of April, 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 1st day of April, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS A: VTM26861 1 ~, ATTACHMENT II CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 Project Description: Development of lu,5 sinqle family condominlum units on approximately 1~,.68 acres of land situated south of Hiqhway 79 between Pala Road and Marqarita Road. Assessor's Parcel No.: 926-016-025 Planninq Department The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance u,60, Schedule A, unless modified by the conditions listed below. 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 vesting tentative tract map will expire two years after the approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance LI60. The expiration date is Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. Legal access as required by Ordinance u,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: VTM26861 15 10. 11. 12o 15o 16. Prior to the recordation of the final map, Change of Zone No. 5 shall be approved by the City Council and shall be effective. Lots created by this land division shall be in conformance with the development standards of the zone ultimately applied to the property. A maintenance district shall be established for maintenance along Highway 79, the developer/applicant shall pay for all costs relating to establishment of the district. 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. The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations outlined in the County Health Department~s transmittal dated January 1991, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined in the County Fire Departmentis letter dated March 7, 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. 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-3 (General Residential ) zone. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes, landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director. Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: (1) Prior to the issuance of grading permits detailed 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. A: VTM25861 16 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 Highway 79, "A" Street, and Via Rio Temecula. Wooden fencin9 shall not be allowed on the perimeter of the project. All lots with slopes leading down from the lot shall be provided with gates in the wall for maintenance access. Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent trees at key visual focal points within the project. Where street trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of interior streets and project parkways due to insufficient road right-d-way, they shall be planted outside of the road right-of- way. Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant plants where appropriate. All 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. Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase. A: VTM26861 17 17. 18. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall provide evidence to the Director of Building and Safety that all adjacent off-site manufactured slopes have recorded slope easements and that slope maintenance responsibilities have been assigned as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. Should the paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redlrect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit within the project boundary until the developeris successor's- in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars {$100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library development. Prior to the submittal of building plans to the Department of Building and Safety an acoustical study shall be performed by an acoustical engineer to establish appropriate mitigation measures that shall be applied to individual dwelling units within the subdivision to reduce ambient interior noise levels to 45 Ldn. All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required elements from the subdivisionis approved fire protection plan as approved by the County Fire Marshal. Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval. The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requiring landscaping and irrigation to be installed including, but not limited to, parkway planting, street trees, slope planting, and individual front yard landscaping. 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. A: VTM26861 18 19. 20. 21. 22. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet. All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and automatic irrigation. Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal conditions do not permit planting, interim landscaping and erosion control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning Director and the Director of Building and Safety. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans and shall be verified by City field inspection. Not withstanding the preceding conditions, wherever an acoustical study is required for noise attenuation purposes, the heights of all required walls shall be determined by the acoustical study where applicable. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. Prior to recordation of a final map, the subdlvider shall submit to the Planning Director an agreement with the Community Services District which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City that the land divider has satisfied C)uimby Act requirements in accordance with Section 10.35 of Ordinance No. 0,60. The agreement shall be approved by the City Council. 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 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861, which action is brought within the time period provided for in California Government Code Section 660,99.37. 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. A: VTM26861 19 23. 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 660,62 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. 25. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions/Reciprocal Access Easements: 26. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCF, R's) shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to final approval of the tract maps. The CCF, R's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining the open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, all buildings in common open areas, and all interior slopes. 27. 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 CCF, 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 CCF, R~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. 28. 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. A: VTM26861 20 29. Maintenance for all landscaped and open areas, including parkways, shall be provided for in the CCF, R's. 30. Within forty-eight 1~,8) hours of the approval of this 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 Eight Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars {$875.00) which includes the Eight Hundred, Fifty Dollar 15850.00) fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.~,{d)~3) plus the Twenty-Five Dollar ~$25.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 1~ Cal. Code of Regulations 1509~,. If within such forty-eight 1~8) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711 .LH 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. The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act, and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions. 32. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered Civil Engineer, subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No. L~60. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: 33. As deemed necessary by the City Engineer or his representative, the developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: San Diego Regional Water Quality: 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; GaiTtans; and Parks and Recreation Department. A: VTM26861 21 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. q.O. o, 1. 0,2. 0,3. 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. B, C, D, E, F, and G Streets shall be private streets and shall be improved with 33 feet of asphalt concrete pavement including rolled curb, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, 5 foot utility easements shall be dedicated running parallel on both sides of street. A 5 foot sidewalk shall be constructed on one side minimum of all private streets. Dedication shall be made or shown to exist to provide for a 71 foot half street right-of-way for State Highway Route 79 t 10,2' right-d-way). Construct half street improvements within a q~ foot dedicated right-d-way Street "A" from State Highway Route 79 to Phase One and along the frontage of Phase One. In accordance with County Standard No. 102 ~331/0,0,1). In the event that State Highway 79 is not constructed by Assessment District 159 prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for Phase One, the developer shall design and construct a deceleration lane west of Street '~A" and an acceleration lane east of Street "A", per CalTrans standards. State Highway 79 improvements shall be bonded for prior to Final Map. "A" Street access shall be limited to right turning movements in and right turning movements out only. There shall be no left turns permitted and no provision for such movements shall be provided for on Highway 79 South. Vehicular access shall be restricted on Highway 79 and so noted on the final map with the exception of approved public road connections as approved by the City Engineer. Dedicate a 38 foot minimum easement for public utilities and emergency vehicles access for all private streets and drives. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. 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. A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions {CCF, R's) shall be prepared by the developer and submitted to the Director of Planning, City Engineer and City Attorney. The CCF, R~s shall be signed and acknowledged by all parties having any record title interest in the property to be developed, shall make the City a party thereto, and shall be enforceable by the City. The CCF, R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded. The A: VTM26861 22 CC~,R's shall be subject tothe following conditions: a. The CCSR~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 CCF, R~s and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owner~s Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent with the final map. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City. The CCBR~s shall provide for the effective establishment, operation, management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas and facilities. The CCSR~s shall provide that the property shall be developed, operated and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance. The CCSR's shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the condition required by the 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 CCBR's or the City ordinances. The property shall be subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not promptly reimbursed. The declaration shall contain language prohibiting further subdivision of any lots, whether they are lettered lots or numbered lots. ii. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by homeowneris association or other means acceptable to the City. Such proof of this maintenance shall be submitted to the Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to issuance of building permits. iii. Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all roads, drives or parking areas shall be provided by CCBR'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. 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. A: VTM26861 23 0,7. 0,8. 0,9. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 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, signin9, striping, and other traffic control devices as appropriate. b. Storm drain facilities. c. Landscaping. 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. 0,61 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. Street names shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineering Department. The minimum centerline radii shall be 300 feet or as approved by the City Engineer. All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the City Engineer. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent. Street improvement plans per City Standards for the private streets or drives shall be required for review and approval by the City Engineer. A: VTM26861 20, 56. The subdivider shall submit four prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2u," x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. 57. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. 58, The subdivider shall submit four copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. 59. 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. 60. On-site drainage facilities, located outside of road right-d-way, shall be contained within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating "Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions." 61. A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final map, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations should be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control District for review. 62. 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. ~60 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. 63. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 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: 65. 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: VTM26861 25 66. A permit shall be required from CaITrans for any work within the following right-of-way: State Hiqhway 79 PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT: 67. 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: 68. 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. 69. Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. 70. Asphaltic emulsion lfog 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 90, of the State Standard Specifications. 71. Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to Developer. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated lassuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such increase. Department of Buildlnq and Safety 72. Submit approved Tentative Tract Map to the Department of Building and Safety for addressing and street name review. 73. School fees shall be paid to Temecula Unified School District prior to permit issuance. Lighting on site pool area and recreation area shall comply with Mount Palomar Lighting Ordinance #655. A: VTM26861 26 75. Submit pool plans to Riverside County Health Department for review prior to structural plan review by the Department of Building and Safety. 76. Pool excavation area shall be fenced immediately the same day as excavation is complete. All plumbing trenches shall be fenced. 77. Obtain clearances from Land Use and from Building and Safety Departments. 78. Provide a geological report at time of submittal for plan review. A: VTM26861 27 FIRE DEPARTMENT 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE - PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370 (714) 637-3183 GLEN J. NEVCMAN FIRE CHIEF l.'ha, RcH 7, 1991 TO: CITY OF TEMECULA ATTN: PLANNING/RICHARD AYALA RE: TRACT 26861 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 fire hydrants, (6"x4"x2{") located one at each street intersection and spaced no more than 330 feet apart in any direction, with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for 2 hours duration at 20 PSI. AppliCant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans ~o the Fire Department for review. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, containing a Fire Department approval signature block, and shall conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow. Once plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Department for signature. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. MITIGATION Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the City of Temecula, a cash sum of $400.00 per unit as mitigations for fire protection impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment, he/she may enter into a written agreement with the County deferring said payment to the time of issuance of the first building permit. Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and/or signs. Parking will be allowed only on one side of private streets. PLANNING DIVISION TRACT 26861 PAGE 2 Blue-dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets and driveways to indicate location of fire hydrants. They shall be mounted in the middle of the street directly in line with fire hydrants. All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to the Planning and Engineering staff. RAYMOND H. REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner /" '2,-' ' ' :- , '- By '/? ' Laura Cabral, Fire Safety Specialist LC/tm DCOUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PARTMENT OF HEALTH J40 COUNTY CIRCLE DR. R]VERSiDE. C~,. 92503 (Mllhng Address - P-O. Box 7600 925,3-, CITY OF TEMECULA 43150 BU::'.INESS PARK DRIVE. TEMECULA CA o~390 S ~ITE 200 AI'IN: RZchard Ayala RE: VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23299: BEING A PORTION OF ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 926-160-011. ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER. RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA. (1 lots) Deaf Gentlemen: lT, e Department of Public Health has reviewed Tract Ma~, No. 23299 and recommends: \ A water system shall be Installed accordlno to plans and specifications as aDoroved bv the water company and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the water system shall be submitted in triplicate, with a minimum scale not less than one Inch e~uals 200 feet. alonc wzth the orlulnal drawlno to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the Internal plDe diameter, location of valves and fire hydrants: plDe and 7pint sDeczflcatlon$, and the size of the main at the .1unction of the new system to the exzstzno system. The plans shall comply in all respects wzth Ply. 5. Part I. Chapter 7 of the California Health and Safety Code, CalifornlaAdmznlstrative Code. Title ChaPter 16. and General Order No. 103 of the Public Utzlities Commission of the State of California. when applicable. The plans shall be sioned by a re~lstered enolneer and water company wzth the followznq certlffcation: "I certify that the deslun of the water system in Tract Map 23299 zs in accordance with the water system expansion plans of the Rancho CalzfornZa Water Dlstrict and that the water services. storage. and dzstribution system wlll be adequate to provzde water service to such Tract MAD". Attn: Pitharc Ava~a Jant',~rv 24. 199! This certification d:,es not constitute a ouarantee that it will SMr.,DIV water to such tract mar., at any sDeciflc ~uantltles. flows or Dress,lres for flre Protection or any cthe~ purpose". Thl~ certification ~hall be ~l~ned by a res~,~nsible offlc:~l of the ~;ater c,:,moanv. TPte plans m~_zst be submitted to The Co.~.zqty ~qr>'eypr ~ Office to review ~t l~st t~o F~e~s pr!Q~ ~Q t_he _[~u~,t,._[oE..~.be r~or~at!pD .of the ,f loal , mad, This subdivision has a statement from Rancho California Water District aoreelna to serve domestic water to each and every lot in the subdivision on ~emand provldlna satisfactory financial arranoements are completed wlth the subdivider. It will be necessary for financial arranoemente to be made prior to the recordatlon of the final map. This subdivision is within the Eastern Municipal Water District and shall be connected to the sewers of the District. The sewer system shall be l~stalled accordlnQ to plans and specifications ae aDDroved by the DIstrict. the County Su~vevo~ and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the sewer system ~hall be submitted in trlollcate, alone with the original drawing. to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal DiDo ~lameter, location of manholes. complete profiles. pipe and 3olnt sDeclflcatlons and the size of the sewers at the ~unct~on of the new evetom to the ex~stln~ system. A single plat ~ndicatlnQ location of sewer llnee and water line~ shall be a portion of the sewage plans and profiles. The plans ~hall be siCned bV a registered engineer and the sewer district with the followln~ certification: "I certxfv that the de~lan of the sewer svstem in Tract Map 23299 ~e in accordance with the sewer s~stem expansion plans of the Eastern Municipal Water District and that the waste disposal evetom is adequate at this time to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed tract maD." A',t:~: R~chard Avala. 2anuacv 24 . 197! The plans must be sU,bml~.t.~d_,,t_-n _the g_.ounty Surveyor 's Office to rev~e~[ _a.~_ l!as_t_,_...~_wO_~e_eK.~ ...l~r_~,o_.,.r_ __t.~_ t_he f_eq~t for the rec©r~tatlon of the [}nil .map, It wlil be necessary for flnanclal arranoements to be completely flnallzed prior to recordatlon of the final maD. S~m Mart~-~vironmental Health S[,ecl~l~t IV SM:dr ~ ATTACHMENT I I I ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 281 The Riverside County Board of Supervisors certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 281 in conjunction with the approval of Change of Zone No. 5150 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 23267 and 23299. The EIR included mitigation measures to reduce environmental impacts to levels of insignificance. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 which supersedes Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23299 has 87 fewer residential units than Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23299 and therefore, will generate less traffic and result in reduced impacts to the environment and to public services and utilities. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 will involve minimal grading and therefore, is unlikely that any additional amount of earth movement will result in any increased significant impacts. The Conditions of Approval are adequate to mitigate any potential impacts regarding drainage and non- renewable fossil resources to levels of insignificance. Pursuant to Section 1516u, of the California Environmental Quality Act, this addendure has been prepared to demonstrate that the changes resulting from the proposed Change of Zone and New Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Revised Tentative Tract Map will not result in new or substantially increased significant impacts, that there have been no changes in the circumstances surrounding the project that would require important revisions to the EIR due to new significant impacts, and that no new information has arisen which would indicate that the project will have significant effects not previously discussed or underestimated, or that alternatives or mitigation measures not previously considered would substantially reduce any significant impacts. By reducing the number of residential units, the new project will reduce the level of impacts on the environment and on public facilities and services. A: VTM26861 28 ~ar=h 9, 1991 ~r. Steve Jlannlno. Senior Planner City of Temecula 43172 Business Park Drive Tem~cula CA 92390 Dear ~r. Jiann!no: I am pleaued the plmnnin8 ~taff .sea a place in the commucity for this type o~ PRD and reeolni~ee the need for more ex}liclr deval~pm~n~ ~tandard6 for the~e types ~f p~ojects. I~ is appareB~ ~o ms the 1.000 s~usre foo~ minimum ground floor area requirement you mention in your letter dated March 6, 1991 is meant for multi- family buildings, ts that mittjOB (l~.~[~}} O~ ordinance 348 loss ~n to say "eaoh dwmlliu$ uni: in a building shall have ~he mini~u~ Eloor living Irma reRuirmd by section 19.11 of this ordinance." In settles 18.11 i: states: "No dwelling shall he constructed unless il has a mx.lmun floor building area of no: lass than 750 squarw feet." However, if i~ iS your opinion that an o£ficial waiver is still r~Ruired to aDdrove ~bis project. I would ]xk~ to respectfully re~uest ~haE wai~er at this time. Once aSaln, ~hmnk you for yOdr con~inuiu2 e~forts in the review this project. Sincerely, PRE~LEY OF ~AN DI~GO Project Hanagor ~AC/lw cc: Jerry Nordeman, Presley of San Diego Gary Thornhill, Planning Director Richard Ayala, Case Planner CITY OF TEMECULA ~ VICINITY MAP ~ CITY OF TEMECULA ) .-/ SP ZC \ R-2 R-I SP ZONE cz 5tee ZONE MAP ) f CAsE ~0. P.C. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA ) 0 THE MEADOWS VA t HAWI, SP fT7 SWAP MAP CASE P.C. DATE Z LLI EX!.IIBIT ~' o~ EXHIBff D- / b PL~ fications to Condition 20E and recommend that the C: not ept any of the parks within this project be, they sub-standard, and that Condition 61(B-22 that the ans for the Pala Road and bridge r will be ed, reviewed and approved by City of Temecula and r appropriate agencies. s shall be prepared in a that is approved the City Engineer, COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER FORD for future consideration system. park "A" be available incorporated in a City park COMMISSIONER the City may easement if a City p : 0 motion to recommend that consider tang park "A" as an rates to be included in ~stem, COMMISSIONER concurred. COMMISSIONERS: Blair, F ey, Ford, Hoagland, iniaeff COMMISSIONERS: None ~ VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 26861 . Proposal to plan for the development of 147 detached condominium project. Located on Highway 79 between Pala Road and Margarita Road. CMAIRMAN CEINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 7:30 P.M. RAY CASEY, 12120 Milano, San Diego, representing Presley of San Diego, gave a brief description of the revisions that were worked out with staff on this item. At the last hearing for this item, the City Attorney was requested to make an opinion on the apparent conflict of the Temecula zoning ordinance, section 18.5 and 18.11. Assistant City Attorney JOHN CAVANAUGH advised the -applicant and the Commission that the intent of the ordinance was to require that these condominium units have to have 1,000 square feet of ground area. Mr. Cavanaugh advised the Commission that, because it is the City Attorney office's legal opinion that the 1,000 minimum square foot requirement applies, the applicant could possibly apply for a variance to the square footage requirement. PCMIN4/01/91 -5- April 4, 1991 rI A~NING COM, MI~SIOF FJNUTEE GARY THORNHILL advised the Commission that, because the applicant is presenting a "detached" unit as opposed to an "attached" unit, there may be some justification for a variance; however, staff would have to come back to the Commission with a report and prepared findings. COMMISSIONER HOAGLARD moved to close the public hearing at 7:50 P.M. and continue Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 off-calendar, seconded by CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None TENTATIVE PARCEL HAP NO. 25981 . l T~Proposal to subdxvxde 3.01 acres into three residentia2 lOtS. Located s~u~h of Pauba Roa~ and east of Showai AYALAprovided the staff report. IIONER FORD requested that CoDdition Nc to read "and to Pauba Road". 43(B) be CHAIRMAN iNIAEFF opened the public heax at 7:55 P.M. WILLIAM , 30675 Pauba Road, .a, presented the Commission ~ic~ures of at his property and advised the that not concur with the Conditions by Tor of Pauba Road. Mr. Kouvelis argued to Pauba Road that were being requested were not practical. CHAI MIKE BENESH, Benesh ~ring, 28991 Front Street, Temecula, concurred Kouvelis's comments and requested clari~ of dition No. 21. IC ISSIONER RD questioned if taff could condition t~e pro3e~ grade Pauba at the lght-of-way at this txme. ' stated that staff could c dition the a] to grade at this time, and ta a bond for ~ ~lete improvements. ~9~ CHINIAEFF declared a five minute recess at 8: P.M. to ff to prepare a condition for the applicant's a royal. /01/91 6 91 Recommendation: STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION May 20, 1991 Case No.: Variance No. 7 Prepared By: Richard Ayala Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving Variance No. 7 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: Presley of San Diego Crosby Mead Benton F, Associates A variance to allow less than the required 1,000 square foot minimum ground floor living area per Ordinance No. 3~,8, Section 18.5(5), for a PRD. South side of Highway 79 between Pala Road and Margarita Road. R-R ( Rural Residential ) North: R-A-5 South: A-1-10 East: SP West: R - R ( ResidentialAgricultural, 5 Acre Minimum) (Light Agricultural, 10 Acre Minimum) (Specific Plan 217, Red Hawk ) I Rural Residential) R-3 ( General Residential ) R-L~ (Planned Residential) R-5 (Open Area Combining Zone, Residential Developments) lq.68 acres 189 acres 57.8 acres Vacant/Graded Land A:VAR7 1 SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: North: South: East: West: Multi-Family Low Density Single Family Tract Under Construction Vacant Total Units: 142 Total Acres: 14.68 Density: 9.7 DU/AC Common Recreation Open Space: 26,500 sq.ft.(0.6 acres) BACKGROUND: On April 1, 1991, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 was presented before the Planning Commission along with Change of Zone No. 5 and Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267, which both were approved by the Commission. However, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 was continued off-calendar by the Commission in order for Planning Staff to address the required 1,000 square foot minimum ground floor living area per Ordinance No. 348 within a PRD. A Variance application was considered the appropriate mechanism for processing. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking approval through a variance to allow for the development of units with less than the required 1,000 square foot minimum ground floor living area per Ordinance 3~,8 for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861, located on the south side of Highway 79 between Pala Road and Margarita Road. The proposed units range from 507 to 890 square feet of ground floor living area. ANALYSIS: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 proposes to develop 142 single family detached condominlum units on approximately 1~,.68 acres of proposed R-3 zoned land along with a 26,500 square foot (0.6 acres) recreational area. The project is situated along Highway 79 and is east of Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267. A:VAR7 2 The design as submitted and reviewed by Planning Staff represents a PRD (Planned Residential Development) design. However, the project as submitted does not conform with the PRD Standards as required in an R-3 zone in that the ground floor living area of the proposed product types do not meet the minimum 1,000 square foot standard. Therefore, the applicant is seeking relief from the required minimum 1,000 square foot ground floor living area through a variance. The applicant~s intention is to provide an alternative moderate income form of housing at a lower density geared towards the first time home buyer. The proposed single family detached condominium units differ from the common attached condominium developments found in the City, in that they have similar characteristics found in an ideal single family home with front yards, side yards, and private rear yards. In addition, the applicant proposes a 26,500 square foot common recreational area with a swimming pool, spa, tot lot and play area for future residents. Although Ordinance No. 3u,8, Section 18.5{5), requires residential buildings to have a minimum ground floor living area of 1,000 square feet in a PRD, Planning Staff has determined that the project as designed is unlike any other condominium development in that the project proposes single family detached condominium units, rather than the conventional attached condominium developments. Therefore, a Variance is required to allow units with less than 1,000 square foot minimum ground floor living area. The project as proposed consists of a 20' minimum front setback and an 8~ minimum distance between dwelling units. In addition, private rear yard open spaces are being proposed with a minimum 10' setback and range between 300 to 600 square feet of useable area. The applicant is compensating the small private rear yard open spaces with additional recreation area in order to provide additional common open space area for its future residents. A:VAR7 3 GENERAL PLAN/SWAP CONSISTENCY AND COMPATIBILITY: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: In conclusion, although Planning Staff has determined that the project does not conform with Ordinance 3~,8, the applicant has made a strong effort to compensate the Ordinance 3L~8 deficiencies by providing an acceptable common recreation open space area and providing single family detached condominiums at a lower density than originally proposed and allowed within the proposed zoning classification. In addition, Planning Staff believes that the proposed development will be consistent with the City~s future General Plan. Therefore, Planning Staff recommends approval of Variance No. 7 for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861. The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 alone is inconsistent with the SWAP. However, combined with Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267, they are consistent with the SWAP, in that they propose a density of 3.7 DU/AC, well within the designated density of 2-5 DU/AC required by the SWAP. Planning Staff believes that there is a probability that the project as proposed and zoned will be consistent with the City's General Plan once adopted, in that the proposed density acts as an adequate buffer to adjacent residential and commercial areas. Environmental Impact Report No. 281 was completed on the subject property for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23299, the originally approved County Tract Map. The report indicated a number of mitigation measures that must be implemented in order to reduce the impact of the project below a level of significance. These mitigation measures include a new L~-Iane bridge on Pala Road over Temecula Creek, the channelization of Temecula Creek, and several other significant measures that have not currently been implemented. Therefore, Planning Staff has recommended that an addendure to Environmental Impact Report No. 281 be adopted for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 due to the fact that the required mitigations have been adopted as Conditions of Approval for either Tentative Tract Map No. 23267 or Tentative Tract Map No. 26861. A:VAR7 ~, FINDINGS: The applicant's intention is to provide an alternative moderate income form of housing at a lower density. However, the project's design does not meet PRD Standards. A literal interpretation of the code, requires that residential buildings have a minimum ground floor living area of 1,000 square feet. Nevertheless, the applicant exceeds the common open space area required per PRD standards. In addition, the applicant has incorporated a 26,500 square foot common recreational area into the project. Planning Staff has determined that the project as designed is unlike any other condominium development in the City, in that the project proposes single family detached condominium units rather than the conventional attached condominium developments. Whereas strict adherence to the ordinance would not allow this type of product to be developed as a PRD. This alternative housing product, at a density much less than the proposed classification would allow, establishes special circumstances on the parcel. The variance is necessary in order for the applicant to develop single family detached condominium units with the characteristics found in an ideal single family home, rather than the common attached condominium developments. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to public welfare in that the development, as designed and conditioned, is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the circulation patterns, access and density. I n addition, the proposal will not have an adverse affect on surrounding property because it does not represent a significant change to the present and proposed land use of the area. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the Southwest Area Community Plan or future General Plan when it is adopted in that the proposed development is consistent with existing densities and uses in vicinity of the project site. In addition, the A:VAR7 5 overall density for the entire 221 acres (VTM 23267 and VTM 26861) is 3.7 DU/AC which conforms to the SWAP designation of 2-5 DU/AC. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving Variance No. 7 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report. RA:ks Attachments: Resolution Conditions of Approval A:VAR7 6 ATTACHMENT I RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 7 TO PERMIT THE DEVELOPMENT OF UNITS BELOW THE REQUIRED 1,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM GROUND FLOOR LIVING AREA PER ORDINANCE NO. 348 LOCATED AT THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 BETWEEN PALA ROAD AND MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 926-016-025. WHEREAS, Presley of San Diego filed Variance No. 7 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Variance application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Variance on May 20, 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 Variance; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findinqs. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. ( 2 ) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions. including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: A:VAR7 7 (a) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. ~C) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The proposed Variance is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. (2) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: (a) There is reasonable probability that Variance No. 7 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:VAR7 8 (C) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. Pursuant to Section 18.27(a), a variance may be granted because of special circumstances applicable to a parcel of property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings; the strict application of this ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity that is under the same zoning classification. The Planning Commission in approving the proposed Variance, makes the following Findings, to wit: a) The applicant~s intention is to provide an alternative moderate income form of housing at a lower density. However, the project's design does not meet PRD Standards. A literal interpretation of the code, requires that residential buildings have a minimum ground floor living area of 1,000 square feet. Planning Staff has determined that the project as designed is unlike any other condominium development in that the project proposes single family detached condominium units rather than the conventional attached condominium developments, therefore requiring a variance from the required 1,000 square foot minimum ground floor living area. b) The variance is necessary in order for the applicant to develop single family detached condominium units with the characteristics found in an ideal single family home, rather than the common attached condominium developments. c) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to public welfare in that the development, as designed and conditioned, is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the circulation patterns, access and density. I n addition, the proposal will not have an adverse affect on surrounding property because it does not represent a significant change to the present and proposed land use of the area. A:VAR7 9 d) The 9ranting of the variance will not be contrary to the Southwest Area Community Plan or future General Plan when it is adopted in that the proposed development is consistent with existing densities and uses in vicinity of the project site. In addition, the overall density for the entire 221 acres (VTM 2:3267 and VTM 26861) is :3.7 DU/AC which conforms to the SWAP designation of 2-5 DU/AC. D. PursuanttoSection 18.26(e), noVariancemaybeapproved unless the applicant demonstrates the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health safety and welfare of the community, and further, that any Variance approved shall be subject to such conditions as shall be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the community. E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Variance proposed is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. The County of Riverside Board of Supervisors certified EIR No. 281 in conjunction with the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 23267 and 2:3299. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 will not result in any new or substantially increased environmental impacts. An addendum to EIR No. 281 is hereby recommended for adoption. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the city of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Variance No.' 7 to permit for the development of units below the required 1,000 square foot minimum ground floor living area per Ordinance No. 3~,8 located at the south side of Highway 79 between Pala Road and Margarita Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 926-016-025. SECTION PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of May, 1991. DENNIS CHINIAEFF CHAIRMAN A:VAR7 10 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 20th day of May, 1991 by the following vote of the Council: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS A:VAR7 11 ITEM t5 STAFF REPORT -PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION May 20, 1991 Case No.: Plot Plan No. 10969 (PP 10969) Prepared By: Charles Ray Recommendation: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Plot Plan No. 10969; and ADOPT Resolution 91- approving Plot Plan No. 10969 based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCAT ION: EXISTING ZONING: Mr. Robert D. Morris Mr. Robert D. Morris Request to construct approximately 3,u,00 square feet of Z-story retail commercial building (2 floors La 1,700 square feet each), including a second story residential caretaker unit on the second floor of the proposed use. Southwesterly of Metcedes and Main Streets in Old Town Temecula. C-P ( General Commercial ) A: PP10969 I SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: BACKGROUND: ANALYSIS: North: C - 1 / C -P South: C - 1 / R-1 East: C-P West: C - 1 ( General Commercial ) ( General Commercial ) (Single Family Residential ) ( General Commercial } J General Commercial ) As existing, no change proposed in conjunction with this project, Paved Parking Area North: South: East: West: Antique Shop/Vacant Restaurant/Vacant Professional Offices Commercial Retail Site Area: Bldg Coverage: Total Floor Area: Parking Provided: 7,500+/- sq.ft. 1,700+/- sq.ft. 20% 3,~00+/- sq.ft. (2 stories approx. 1,700 sq.ft. each) 10 automobile spaces { 9 standard spaces and 1 handicapped accessible space) 1 each Class II bicycle rack Plot Plan No. 10969 was transferred from the Riverside County Planning Department to the City of Temecula in June of 1990. Subsequently, the applicantsubmitted necessary additional information as well as minor design changes requested by the City. The proposal was reviewed on a Formal basis by the City Development Review Committee |DRC) on April 3, 1991. The applicant was, at that time, provided project Conditions of Approval, the most significant of which is the City Engineering Department's requirements for improvement of the abutting rear alley (reference Condition No. qT). Land Use/Architectural Compatibility The proposed use is identified as one of those allowed under the subject site's current zoning designation of general commercial { Reference Exhibit B) . Additionally, like structures and uses are currently constructed in the vicinity of this proposal; further confirming its compatibility with neighboring development. The proposed structure is characteristic of early western architecture A:PP10969 2 GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: evidenced throughout the Old Town Historical Preservation District. To this end the project has been reviewed by the Old Town Temecula Historical Preservation District Local Review Board, which has "found the (proposed) structure meets the criteria (of) the preservation district .... "(see attached, Review Board correspondence dated April 1, 1991 ). As such, the project is considered physically and technically compatible with current and anticipated development standards for the proposal site specifically, and the surrounding area in general. Site Access Access to the site is provided by Main Street, an improved dedicated City right-of-way (Reference Exhibit A). Additional improvements required of this project will be provided as conditioned by the City Engineering Department regarding necessary adjacent and off-site access improvement. Parkinq/On-Site Circulation Parking provided and on-site circulation as designed are appropriate to meet the demands of this proposal. Automobile spaces conform in quantity and dimensions specified by City Code and on-site accessibility for patrons as well as emergency vehicles is considered adequate. Fire Protection Requirements Information requested by the Riverside County Fire Department specifying proposed/anticipated construction materials and methodologies was supplied by the applicant, resulting in the project's current fire protective measures contained in the attached Conditions of Approval. As indicated above, the applicant has also complied with necessary on-site emergency vehicle access requ i rements. The project, as proposed, conforms with existing zoning ordinances affecting the subject site, and is generally consistent with Southwest Area Plan ( SWAP ) recommendations for the site and surrounding properties ( Reference Exhibit C) . As discussed previously, the proposal is also compatible with existing and anticipated A:PP10969 3 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: FINDINGS: development in its vicinity. As such, it is likely Plot Plan No. 10969 will be consistent with the City~s General Plan recommendations for the property in question, upon the plan's eventual adoption. Pursuant to applicable portions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Environmental Assessment was prepared for Plot Plan No. 10969. Based on that assessment and its findings, it was determined the project in question will not have a significant impact on the built or natural environment; a Negative Declaration of potential project environmental impacts is recommended for adoption. There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 10969 will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law. The project, as proposed, conforms with existing applicable city zoning and development ordinances. Further, the proposal is characteristic of similar development approved by the City to date. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with the City's future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The project is of insignificant scale in context of the broad goals and directives anticipated in the City's General Plan. The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws. Reference local Ordinances No. 348, 460; and California Governmental Code Sections 65000-66009 (Planning and Zoning Law). The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use. Adequate site circulation, parking, and landscaping are provided; as well as sufficient area to appropriately construct the proposed structure, reference proposed Plot Plan No. 10969, Exhibit D of the Staff A:PP10969 4 Report. The project, as designed and conditioned, will not adversely affect the public health or welfare; nor will it adversely impact the built or natural environment as determined in the Initial Environmental Assessment of this proposal. Reference the attached project Conditions of Approval and Initial Environmental Study, Attachments 2 and 3 respectively. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area. The project conforms with applicable land use and development regulations, and reflects design aspects currently existing in the proposal's general vicinity. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. The project site's primary frontage is on Main Street, a dedicated City right-d-way. Improvement of the abutting rear alley-way shall be as per the City Engineering Department (reference Attachment No. 3, Conditions of Approval, PP 10969). The design of the project together with the type of supporting improvements are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through, or use of the property within the proposed project. None are exhibited on the underlying parcel map, nor are easements evident on deed{s) describing the property in question. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. Supporting documentation is attached. A:PP10969 5 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Plot Plan No. 10969: and ADOPT Resolution 90- approving Plot Plan No. 10969 based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. CR:ks Attachments: 2. 3. q. Resolution Conditions of Approval Environmental Assessment Exhibits A. Vicinity Map B. Zonin9 Map C. SWAP Recommended Land Use D. Site Plan/Landscape Plan/Floor Plans E. Elevations Letters of Correspondence Fee Checklist A:PP10969 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION 91- A: PP10969 7 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLOT PLAN NO, 10969 TO CONSTRUCT A 2 STORY STRUCTURE FOR COMMERCIAL USES TOTALl NG 3,~O0+/- SQUARE FEET: FIRST FLOOR - 1,700+/- SQUARE FEET COMMERCIAL; SECOND FLOOR - CARETAKER RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCY OF 1,700+1- SQUARE FEET: TOTAL OCCUPIABLE FLOOR AREA OF BOTH FLOORS: 3,~00+/- SQUARE FEET; ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 0.17+/- ACRES LOCATED SOUTHWESTERLY OF MA I N AND MERCEDES STREETS IN OLD TOWN TEMECULA AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 922-0~1-00~, WHEREAS, Mr. Robert D. Morris filed Plot Plan No. 10969 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 20, 1991, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report regarding the Plot Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: (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:PP10969 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. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (c) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP" ) was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: (1) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. (2) The Planning Commission finds, in recommending approval of projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: a) There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 10969 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. A:PP10969 9 D. (1) Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan may be approved unless the following findings can be made: a) The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. b) The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. (2) ThePlanningCommlssion, in recommending approval of the proposed Plot Plan, makes the following findings, to wit: a) There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 10969 will be consistent with the CityJs future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law. The project, as proposed, conforms with existing applicable city zoning and development ordinances. Further, the proposal is characteristic of similar development approved by the City to date. b) There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with the City~s future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The project is of insignificant scale in context of the broad goals and directives anticipated in the City~s General Plan. c) The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws. Reference local Ordinances No. 3~,8, z~60; and California Governmental Code Sections 65000-66009 (Planning and Zoning Law). d) The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use. Adequate site circulation, parking, and landscaping are provided; as well as sufficient area to appropriately construct the A:PP10969 10 e) f) h) i) proposed structure, reference proposed Plot Plan No. 10969, Exhibit D of the Staff Report. The project, as designed and conditioned, will not adversely affect the public health or welfare; nor will it adversely impact the built or natural environment as determined in the Initial Environmental Assessment of this proposal. Reference the attached project Conditions of Approval and initial Environmental Study, Attachments 2 and 3 respectively. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area. The project conforms with applicable land use and development regulations, and reflects design aspects currently existing in the proposal's general vicinity. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-d-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. The project site's primary frontage is on Main Street, a dedicated City right-of-way. Improvement of the abutting rear alley-way shall be as per the City Engineering Department (reference Attachment No. 3, Conditions of Approval, PP 10969 ). The design of the project together with the type of supporting improvements are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through, or use of the property within the proposed project. None are exhibited on the underlying parcel map, nor are easements evident on deed ( s ) describing the property in question. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. Supporting documentation is attached. A: PP10969 11 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. 10969 to construct a 2 story structure for commercial uses total 3,400+/- square feet: first floor 1,700+/- square feet of commercial, second floor caretaker residential occupancy of 1,700+/- square feet; total occupiable floor area of both floors: 3,400+/- square feet; on a parcel containing 0.17+/- acres located southwesterly of Main and Metcedes Streets in Old Town Temecula and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 922-044-004 subject to the following conditions: A. Attachment 2, attached hereto. SECTION 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th 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 20th day of May, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS A:PP10969 12 ATTACHHENT NO. 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A: PP10969 13 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Plot Plan No: 10969 Project Description: Construction of a 2-story Commercial Buildinq with Retail on the First Floor and a Residential Caretaker's Unit on the Second Floor, 3,~00+/- square feet total, 1,700+/- square feet per story. Assessor~s Parcel No.: 922-04t~-004 Planninq Department The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for construction of a first floor 1,700 square foot commercial structure with a 1,700 square foot second story residential caretaker's unit (total building area of both 1st and 2nd story areas is approximately 3,400 square feet). 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. 10969. 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. 10969 marked Exhibit D, 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. A:PP10969 14 The applicant shall comply with the Conditions of Approval specified by the City Department of Building and Safety included herein. The applicant shall comply with the Engineering Department's Conditions of Approval included herein. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County Department of Health transmittal dated March 27, 1991, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County Geologist transmlttal dated May 7, 1990, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County Fire Department transmittal dated September 10, 1990, a copy of which is attached. 11. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, three (3} copies of a Parking, Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans shall be submitted tothe Planning Department of approval. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. Plans shall meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 3~,8, Section 18.12, and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. 12. 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. 13. A minimum of ten ~10) parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 3L~8. Ten (10) parking spaces shall be provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit A. The parking area shall be surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on L~ inches of Class II base. A minimum of one ( 1 ) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on Exhibit A. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed 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: A: PP10969 15 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. "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 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 E. Any proposed roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening material shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along streets and within the parking areas. All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655. 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. 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 II bicycle rack shall be provided in convenient locations as approved by the Planning Director to facilitate bicycle access to the project area. A:PP10969 16 23. 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, or as otherwise determined by the City Planning Director in concert with the City Building Official and the affected water surveyor, 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. As referenced, prevailing drought/weather conditions may delay physical installation of required landscaping. However, installation shall be guaranteed by bonding as specified above. 25. , All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. 26. 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 Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 1~, Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight (u,8) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711 .~,(c). 27. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. Department of Buildinq and Safety 28. The applicant shall fill out an application for final inspection. Allow two (2) weeks processing time to obtain all required clearances prior to final inspection. 29. Applicable school fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. 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. A:PP10969 17 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: 30. 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; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; Planning Department; Engineering Department; Riverside County Health Department; CATV Franchise; and Old Town Temecula Historical Preservation District Local Review Board. 31. The developer shall submit two (2) prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code and Chapter 70 as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2~,"x36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. 32. The developer shall submit two (2) copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. 33. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-d- way. No grading shall take place prior to the improvement plans being substantially complete, appropriate clearance letters and approval by the City Engineer. 35. All site plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and other improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency with approved plans. 36. Improvement plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer shall be required prior to issuance of an Encroachment Permit. Final plans shall show the location of existing utility facilities both within the right-d-way and the alley and within the property boundary. 37. Prior to any work being performed within the alley, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer~s Office. 38. 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. A:PP10969 18 39. Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. 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 and alley improvements, includin9, but not limited to: pavement. A.C. curb and sidewalks, drive approaches, signing, and onsite improvements as appropriate. 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. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT: A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact. Prior to building permit, the subdivider shall notify the City's C.A.T.V. Franchises of the intent to develop. Conduit shall be installed to C.A.T.V. Standards prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY: Asphalt concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along all public street frontages as directed and approved by the City Engineer. Construct full width alley improvements including but not limited to A.C. pavement to connect to existing paved improvements. 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 A:PP10969 19 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:PP10969 20 ATTACHMENT NO. ] ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY A:PP10969 21 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY II Back.qround 1, Name of Proponent: Mr. Robert Morris Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 44050 El Prado Road Temecula, CA 92390 Date of Environmental Assessment: May 10, 1991 Agency Requiring Assessment: CITY OF TEMECULA Name of Proposal, if applicable: Plot Plan No. 10969 (PP 10969) 6. Location of Proposal: Southwesterly of Metcedes and Main Streets in "Old Town" Temecula Environmental Impacts ( Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets. ) Yes Maybe No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X Disruptions, displacements, compac- tion or overcovering of the soil? X Substantial change in topography or ground surface relief features? X The destruction, covering or modi- fication of any unique geologic or physical features? X Any substantial increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off site? X A:PP10969 22 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 A:PP10969 23 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 X X A:PP10969 24 10. 11. 12. 13. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Light and Clare. Will the proposal produce substantial new light or glare? Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: Substantial increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? Substantial depletion of any non- renewable natural resource? Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (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: Ceneration of substantial additional vehicular movement? Yes Maybe No X X X X X X X X X X X A: PP10969 25 Yes Maybe No b. Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking? X __ c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? __ __ X d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? __ __ X e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? __ X 1~,. Public Services. Will the proposal have substantial effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? __ X b. Police protection? __ X c. Schools? X d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? __ X f. Other governmental services: __ __ X 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? __ __ X b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? __ __ X 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the followin9 utilities: a. Power or natural gas? __ X A:PP10969 26 17. 18. 19. b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? Human Health. Will the proposal result in: Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard {excluding mental health ) ? Exposure of people to potential health hazards? Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? Yes Maybe No X X X X X X X X X X X X m .X A:PP10969 27 Yes Maybe No 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environ- mental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future. ) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumu- latively considerable? (A project's impact on two or more separate resources may be relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant. ) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substan- tial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? __ X X X X A:PP10969 28 II I Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation Earth 1.a. 1.b. 1 .c,d. 1.e. 1.f. 1.g. Air 2.a,b. 2,c. Water 3.a. No. The project, while located in a potential liquefaction zone, will not in itself create unstable earth conditions. Further, as documented by the "Preliminary Geotechnical and Liquefaction Investigation, Lots 23 and 2~ of Block 19, Town of Temecula," dated July 23, 1988. liquefaction potential at the subject site is considered extremely low. Yes. Compaction and overcovering of soil is necessary to effect the construction proposed. However, the limited scale of this proposal precludes any significant impacts on surface soils. No. No unique topographic or geologic features exist. No significant change in topography is proposed. No. Insignificant change in regional surface erosion can be expected if this project is eventually realized, i.e. , additional on-site structures and paving will undoubtedly reduce erosion at the project site. Resultant environmental impacts are nominal. No. No construction is proposed that would logically affect beach sands; nor should the project produce deposition/erosion which may modify stream channels or lake beds. No. Reference Item No. 1 .a. above No. Nominal addition of localized air pollutants may result from increased auto traffic accessing the project site, as well as short-term pollution generated by construction activities. Regional effects are considered nominal. No. Microclimatic changes may result in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Based on the scale of this proposal, environmental effects are anticipated to be largely undetectable. No. The proposed structure is not located within defined marine or fresh water flows. No effect on these environmental assets is anticipated. A: PP10969 29 3.b. 3.d,e. 3,f,g. 3.h. Plant Life ~.a-d. Animal Life 5.a-c. Noise 6.a. 6.b. Maybe. Currently permeable ground will be rendered impervious as a result of this proposal. Consequently, surface runoff and absorption rates on the project site itself will change substantially. However, proper site design and construction should mitigate any potential adverse impacts. No. The project site is not within a known flood hazard area; no identified potential adverse impacts. No. Increased runoff from the project site may nominally increase surface levels and turbidity of off-site bodies of water. However, due to the limited project scale proposed. this possibility is unlikely. No. Reduced permeation at the project site may eventually affect underlying groundwater, Possible environmental alteration is unlikely, as are negative impacts, No. No intense water usage is proposed nor anticipated as a result of project implementation. No. No quantities of native plants to speak of, are currently present on, or in the vicinity of the subject site, including species identified as "rare or endangered". Further, new species which may be introduced cannot be considered invasive because of the referenced lack of native varieties. Similarly, no impacts are anticipated on agricultural assets. No. Minor losses of small common species, e.g., lizards, insects, rodents, and their urban habitats may result from this project. Numerically and qualitatively, these losses should be environmentally insignificant. Further, if not previously paid, the applicant is required to submit Stephen~s Kangaroo Rat habitat procurement fees in an amount specified by City ordinance. Such monies are to be used for purchase of suitable habitat for the Kangaroo Rat as it is gradually displaced due to generalized development of the Temecula Valley, to which this proposal contributes incrementally. Maybe. No. Minor increases in ambient noise levels may occur subsequent to project implementation and commercial occupancy of the project site. Aural impacts will be insignificant. A:PP10969 30 Liqht and Glare No. While the project could potentially impact night skies, the proposal is required to comply with applicable City/Palomar Observatory lighting policies and ordinance( s ); which address potential night-sky li9htin9 impacts of development proposals that might logically affect activities of the Mr. Palomar Astronomical Observatory. Land Use No. The proposed construction of a commercial building is consistent with those uses allowed by the underlying land use zoning designation. Natural Resources 9.a,b. No. The proposal is of limited scale and would not logically deplete substantial renewable or non-renewable natural resources. Risk of Upset 10.a,b. No. The proposal does not entail storage or use of hazardous substances; nor is the subject site within a designated emergency/evacuation plan movement corridor. Population 11, No. The project does not contain population relocation elements. Housinq 12. No, No housing is proposed to be added nor deleted. Transportation/Circulation 13.a,c. No. The project consistsof nominal additional commercial construction. Logically, traffic impacts should also be nominal. 13.b. Yes. In compliance with City ordinance, the project as designed provides a total of 10 additional off-street, improved parking spaces as referenced in the proposal~s Conditions of Approval (attached). 13.d. No. The project may attract additional traffic to the subject site upon its implementation. Impacts are expected to be insignificant given the proposal's limited scale. 13.e. No. The project is not in a location which would logically affect waterborne, rail or air traffic. A:PP10969 31 13.f. Maybe. Increases in traffic may increase the possibility of resultant traffic accidents. Impacts are likely to be unnoticeable in view of the proposal's limited scope. Public Services 14.a,b. Maybe. New commercial development, even of the limited scale proposed, may generate at least nominal increased demands for police and fire protection services, utility provisions and, indirectly, schools. Mitigation is realized through assessment districts, property taxes, and similar funding mechanisms. 14.d. Maybe. Construction is not proposed which would directly impact schools or parks. However, the applicant is required by state law to contribute applicable school fees as partial mitigation for secondary impacts on school systems resulting from commercial development. 14.e. Maybe. Nominal increases in road maintenance activities in the immediate vicinity of the proposal may be required due to minor traffic increases anticipated. Mitigation of such impacts are as specified by the City Engineering Department in the project's Conditions of Approval. 14.f. No. Impacts on other governmental services have not been identified at this time. Enerqy 15.a,b. No. Reference Item Nos. 9.a. and b. Utilities 16.a-f. Maybe. Nominal service line extensions/increased demands may be required for the utilities referenced. No significant impacts are anticipated. Human Health 17.a,b. No. The project does not include introduction of potential health hazards to the region; nor are there existing health hazards identified at the project site. Aesthetics 18. No. Obtrusive/offensive visual elements are not proposed. Further, the application has been reviewed for architectural compatibility and complies with the City's applicable guidelines and standards in this regard. Reference also the attached corresponding from the Old Town Temecula Historical Preservation District Local Review Board. A:PP10969 32 Recreation 19. No. Recreational opportunities are neither created nor diminished as a result of this project, No impacts anticipated. Cultural Resources 20.a,c,d. No. Construction is not proposed which could affect archaeological, religious or cultural assets. 20.b, No. Reference item No. 18 above. Mandatory Findinqs of Siqnificance 21 .a-d, No. Reference items 1 through 20. A:PP10969 33 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. May 10, 1991 Date For CITY OF TEMECULA X A:PP10969 16 ATTACHRENT NO. ~ EXHITITS A: PP10969 35 CITY OF TEMECULA ) CASE p.c. oATS 'S'/Uft, I CITY OF TEMECULA ) P.C. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA ~ r~iS'r: c CASE NO.1;~lO~l P.C. DATE t Jl CASE P.C. DATE ATTACHMENT NO. 5 LETTERS OF CORRESPONDENCE A: PP10969 36 County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH i'.: ~' .. BATE: 9:2-27-*.3i r,:nmentai Health :lpecz~i~gt IV ].. 'W~[f-serve" ietters fF:,m the ~oproprl&te · ,-zater and 5ewerzng agencies. A clearance letter from the Hazardous Materials ManaGement Branch Services {Jon Mohoroskl, ~-50%5~. ~II1 be requlred ~ndlcatlng that the E,r,u.~ect has been cleared for: a [_]ndecan:und str, raqe tank's. b Hazaz-,'~ous Waste Generator Sevvlces . AB cc: Jon Mohoroskz , Hazardous Mat,ar~als Branch May 7, 1990 RiVE=I iDE COUnt,u PLAnnin( DEP R nlEn Soil Tech, Inc. P.O. Box 1568 Temecula, CA 92390 AUG 2 7 lggO AI'FENTION: H. Wayne Bainbridge Anthony B. Brown John T. Reinhart David L. Jones SUBJECT: Liquefaction Hazard Project No. 2756-PS-88 Plot Plan No. 10969 A.P.N.: 922-044-004 County Geologic Report No. 724 Temecula Area Gentlemen: We have reviewed the liquefaction aspects of your report entitled "Preliminary Geotechnical and Liquefaction Investigation, Lots 23 and 24, Block 19, Town of Temecula, Riverside County," dated July 23, 1988. Your report determined that the potential for liquefaction is considered to be very unlikely at the subject site. Liquefaction mitigation measures were not recommended in your report. It is our opinion that the report was prepared in a conpetent manner apj satisfies the additional information requested under the California Environmental Quality Act review an~ the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. Final approval of the report is hereby given. SAK:jg co: Very truly yours, Steven A Kupferman Englnee l~O eoloOlst CEG 1205 / Applicant - Robert Morris Norm Lostbom - Building & Safety (2) Planning Team 5 - Gloria Guzman 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787'6181 46'209 OASIS STREET. ROOM 304 INDIO. CALIFORNIA 92201 (619> 342-8277 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 FfRE PROTECTION GLEN ]. FIRE CHIEF Sept. 10, 1990 PLANNING & ENGINEERING 3760 12TH STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 (714) 275-4777 TO: CITY OF TEMECULA ATTN: PLANNING DEPARTMENT RE: PLOT PLAN 10969 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: 1. The existing water mains and fire hydrants will provide sufficient fire protection for the proposed project. 2. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. 3. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC. Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 4. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to submit a check or money order in the amount of $558.00 to the Riverside County Fire Department for plan check fees. 5. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Fire Department, a check or money order equaling the sum of 25¢ per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts. This amount must be submitted separately from the plan check review fee. 6. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and Safety Office. All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to the Planning and Engineering staff. RAYMOND H. REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner Laura Cabral, Fire Safety Specialist OLD TOWN TEMECULA HISTORICAL PRESERVATION DISTRICT LOCAL REVIEW BOARD Special Meeting March 26° 1991 Members Present: Guests Present: Donald Cummins, Bill Harker Bob Hemme Bob Morris.Tony Tobin, The meeting convened at 8:30 a.m. at 28465 Front Street, Suite 201 This special meetinK was called to review plans for a two story building proposed for construction by applicants Loyd Sever and Harold Moore (Plot Plan #10969) ~o be located on Main Street between the new Tomac building and the old Sears Catalog store. The Review Board found the proposed structure meets the criteria for' the preservation district if it is built according to the plans submitted and was therefore approved by the Board. Bob Hemme, member of the Temecula RDA Advisory Committee gave the Board a quick review of the current status of the situation regarding the Redevelopment District and outlined some of the elements under consideration in the attempts being made to settle the present litigation which is holding up the release of funds. There being no further buslness William A. Harker Recording Secretary the meeting was adjourned at April 29, 1991 ~C~;V~D MAY 0 3 199~ COMMU;;tT¥ SERVICES City of Temecula City Hall 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 Water Availability APN 922-044-004 Plot Plan 10969 Dear Sir or Madam: Please be advised that the above referenced-property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). 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 If you have any questions, please contact Senga Doherty. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P. E. Manager of Development Engineering SB:ajm35 cc: Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician Rancho Califo,nia Water Dihtrict ATTACHNENT NO. 6 FEE CHECKLIST A: PP10969 37 CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST CASE NO.: Plot Plan No. 10969 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. 21 N/A Condition No. Condition No. N/A Condition No. 5 of RCFD 9/10/90 Correspondence; reference Attachment No. 5 Condition No. 0,1 A:PP10969 38 ITEM #6 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION May 20, 1991 Case No.: Parcel Map No. 25349 Prepared By: Steve Jiannino Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Tentative Parcel Map No. 25349; and ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving Tentative Tract Map No. 25349, based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: Anita Silliker Alba Engineering 3 lot residential subdivision of 8.2 acres Eastern Terminus of Jeramie Drive R-R {Rural Residential) North: South: East: West: Same Vacant R-R R-A-2 1/2 R-R R-R ( Rural Residential ) ( ResidentialAgricultural, Minimum 2 1/2 acre lots) ( Rural Residential ) ( Rural Residential) A: PM25349 1 SURROUNDING LAND USES: SWAP DESIGNATION: PROJECT STATISTICS: North: South: East: West: Vacant Large lot rural residential Vacant Large lot rural residential 2 1/2 Acre Minimum Total Acres: 8.2 acres Number of Lots: 3 Minimum Lot Size: 2.5 acres BACKGROUND: This project was submitted to the Riverside County Planning Department September 28, 1989. The project was sent to the City of Temecula April 2~,, 1990. The project site is within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone and therefore, required a Geology Report on a Fault Study to be submitted and reviewed prior to accepting the project as complete. A Geology Study, County Geologic Report No. 769, was accepted as complete on March 21, 1991. The project has been reviewed at several Development Review Committee Meetings. The Committee's concerns have been addressed with the completion of the Geologic Report. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tentative Parcel Map No. 25349 proposes the subdivision of 8.2 acres into 3 lots with the smallest lot being 2.5 acres. The site is located at the eastern terminus of Jeramie Drive. The topography consists of vacant rolling hills with at least one natural drainage course traversing the site. The site also has a Southern California Gas easement of 46.5 feet in width running diagonally across the property. ANALYSIS: The proposed project is south of Santiago Road between Margarita Road and Interstate 15. Jeramie Drive is partially improved with asphalt paving from just west of the subject site to John Warner Road which, in the southern direction has an asphalt connection to Cabillo Avenue. A majority of the roadways in the vicinity are graded dirt roads, but with a short extension, an asphalt roadway can be provided to this site. A: PM25349 2 GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: A possible active fault has been found along the southern portion of the site. The fault seems to run along the edge of the Jeramie Drive right-d-way. The fault has been delineated on the Tentative Map with the 50 foot building set back as required in the County Geology Report. Parcel 3 is impacted most by the fault and the natural drainage course. The lot is a minimum 2.5 acres and a reasonable size building pad can be provided even with the physical limitations on the lot. With the natural drainage course and the gas easement crossing the property, a large portion of the site will remain undisturbed. The Biology Study done on the site indicated that no special mitigation measures would be required for the development of the three parcels. The project is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) designation of 2 1/2 acre minimum lot size. The site is currently zoned R-R with surrounding development being rural residential on lots of 2.5 acres or more. The proposed Parcel Map will therefore most likely be consistent with the City General Plan when it is adopted. An Initial Study was completed for the project. The Initial Study included a Geology Report and Biology Study. The recommendation from these additional studies have been incorporated in the Conditions of Approval for the project. A Negative Declaration is being recommended for adoption. FINDINGS: The proposed Parcel Map will not have significant negative impact on the environment, as determined in the Initial Study per"Formed for the project. A Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time, due to the fact that the project is consistent with the surrounding current residential development zoning and SWAP. A: PM25349 3 There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with, the future adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan,due to the fact that the project is consistent with surroundin9 development. The proposed use complies with State planning and zoning law due to the fact that the project conforms to the current zoning for the site and to Ordinance No. 460, Schedule H. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configurations, access, and density due to the fact that the project has access to public roads and sufficient building area. 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 as determined in the initial study. The design of the subdivision is consistent with the State Map Act in regard to future passive energy control opportunities due to the fact that the lots are large enough to provide sufficient southern exposure with passive or active solar possibilities. All lots have acceptable access to existing and proposed dedicated rights-of-way which are open to, and are useable by, vehicular traffic, access is provided from Jeramle Drive. The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project as conditioned. The project will not interfere with any easements. A: PM25349 4 10. 11. The lawful conditions stated in the project's Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Tentative Parcel Map No. 25349; and ADOPT Resolution No. 91 - approving Tentative Tract Map No. 25349. based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. SJ:ks Attachments: 2. 3. 4. Resolution Conditions of Approval Environmental Assessment Exhibits A: PM25349 5 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PARCEL MAP NO. 253~.9 TO SUBDIVIDE AN 8.2 ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 PARCELS AT THE EASTERN TERMINUS OF JERAMIE DRIVE. WHEREAS, Anita Silliker filed Parcel Map No. 253~,9 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 20, 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 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: PM25349 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. 253~9 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. c) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. D. (1) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. ~,60, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are made: A: PM253~,9 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 significant negative impact on the environment, as determined in the Initial Study performed for the project. A Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. A: PM25349 8 b) c) d) e) f) g) h) There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time, due to the fact that the project is consistent with the surrounding current residential development zoning and SWAP. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with, the future adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan,due to the fact that the project is consistent with surrounding development. The proposed use complies with State planning and zoning law due to the fact that the project conforms to the current zoning for the site and to Ordinance No. ~,60, Schedule H. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configurations, access, and density due to the fact that the project has access to public roads and sufficient building area. 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 as determined in the initial study. The design of the subdivision is consistent with the State Map Act in regard to future passive energy control opportunities due to the fact that the lots are large enough to provide sufficient southern exposure with passive or active solar possibilities. All lots have acceptable access to existing and proposed dedicated rights-of-way which are open to, and are useable by, vehicular traffic, access is provided from Jeramie Drive. A: PM25349 9 i) The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project as conditioned. The project will not interfere with any easements. j) The lawful conditions stated in the project~s Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. k) That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Parcel Map proposed is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study was performed for this project when determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, no significant impact would result to the natural or built environment in the City because impacts will be mitigated by adherence to the attached Conditions of Approval which have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Parcel Map No. 253~,9 for the subdivision of a 8.2 acre parcel into 3 parcels located at the eastern terminus of Jeramie Drive subject to the following conditions: A. Attachment 2, attached hereto. SECTION PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of May, 1991. DENNIS CHINIAEFF CHAIRMAN A: PM25349 10 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 20th day of May, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS A: PM253~9 11 ATTACHMENT 2 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Parcel Map No: Project Description: Assessor~s Parcel No.: 25349 3 lot residential subdivision of 8.3 acres. 9~5-130-003 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 H, 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 L~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 Li60 shall be provided from the tract map boundary to a City maintained road. 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. A copy of the final grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. All on-site cut and fill slopes shall: Be limited to a maximum slope ratio of 2 to 1 and a maximum vertical height of thirty (30) feet. Setbacks from top and bottom of slopes shall be a minimum of one-half the slope height. b. Be contour-graded to blend with existing natural contours. c. Be a part of the downhill lot when within or between individual lots. A: PM25349 12 10. 11. 12. 13. All slopes over three (:3) feet in height shall be landscaped and irrigated according to the City Development Code. A detailed landscaping and irrigation plan, prepared by a qualified professional, shall be submitted to the City Planning Department for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits. The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations outlined in the County Health Department's transmittal dated September 25, 1990, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined in the Riverside County Flood Control District~s letter dated April 23, 1990, a copy of which is attached. if the project lies within an adopted flood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of City of Temecula Land Division Ordinance 460, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities shall be collected by the City prior to issuance of Occupancy Permits. The applicant shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined in the County Fire Department's letter dated April 18, 1990, a copy of which is attached. All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as outlined in the Southwest Area Plan. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following: Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development standards of the R-R zone with 2 1/2 acre minimum lot size. 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. 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. [Geology Report Number 769 is on file and a fifty (50') foot setback must be maintained from the fault line, natural drainage shall stay free of obstacles. ] A:PM25349 13 14. The ECS shall delineate the fault line and 50 foot setback as required and shown in County Geology Report No. 769 on file in the Planning Department. The map shall delineate the natural drainage course and contain the notes. Natural drainage courses and the existing fault must be kept clear of obstructions . 15. The following notes shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet: 16. This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Instituteof Technology, Palomar Observatory standards. The map is within the Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone and County Geology Report No. 769 is on file in the Planning Department concerning this project. c. The natural drainage course shall be left free of obstacles. Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: (~) Prior to the issuance of grading permits erosion control 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: 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. All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded natural terrain and exceeding ten {10) feet in vertical height shall be contour- graded incorporating the following grading techniques: The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the angle of the natural terrain. Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall reflect the natural rounded terrain. The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves with radii designed in proportion to the total height of the slopes where drainage and stability permit such rounding. A:PM25349 14 17. 18. 19. 20. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall provide evidence to the Director of Building and Safety that all adjacent off-site manufactured slopes have recorded slope easements and that slope maintenance responsibilities have been assigned as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. Should the paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils Prior to the issuance of BUILDINC 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 developeris 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. All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required elements from the subdivision's approved fire protection plan as approved by the County Fire Marshal. All dwellings to be constructed within this subdivision shall be designed and constructed with fire retardant (Class A ) rods as approved by the Fire Marshal. Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall not be less than ten {10) feet. i. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officer, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officer, or employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Tentative A: PM25349 15 21. 22. 23. Parcel Map No. 25349, 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. 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. 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 ($I,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 (~8) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711,4(c). The applicant shall comply with the County Geologists recommendations outlined in the County Planning Department letter dated March 21, 1991, along with the mitigation measures called out in County Geology Report No. 769 on file in the Planning Department. Prior to recordation, final map recordation, and/or issuance of permits associated with this project: The "Zone of No Human Occupancy" shown on Plate No. 1, dated 3/5/91, accompanying your March 6, 1991 response letter shall be delineated on the Environmental Constraints Sheet ( EC5 } and/or project maps associated with this project. The area within this zone shall be labeled "FAULT HAZARD AREA". b. The following notes shall be placed on the ECS and/or project maps: This property is affected by earthquake faultin9. Structures for human occupancy shall not be allowed in the Fault Hazard Area. A:PM25349 16 "County Geologic Report No. 769, dated May 22, 1990, was prepared for this property by Soil and Testing Engineers, Inc., and is on file at the City of Temecula and the Riverside County Planning Department. The specific items of concern are earthquake faulting and uncompacted trench backfill." A copy of the final project maps and/or the ECS shall be submitted to the Riverside County Planning Department Engineering Geologist for review and approval prior to project approval and/or final map recordation. The fault location, exploratory trenches and fault hazard area shall be surveyed and staked by the project civil engineer prior to issuance of project grading permits. Changes in the fault location or additional faults encountered on the site during grading operations shall be further evaluated by the project geologist and incorporated into the as-built grading geotechnical report. This report shall be submitted to the Planning Department Engineering Geologist for review and approval prior to issuance of permits beyond grading permits. 25. Subdivisions containing less than five |5) parcels will be subject to the following conditions: Upon the request of a building permit for construction of residential structures on one or more of the parcels within four years following approval of a tentative map, parcel map, or planned development, real estate development, stock cooperative, community apartment project and condominium for which a tentative map or parcel map is filed, a predetermined Quimby Act fee in the amount equal to the fair market value of required acreage { Plus 20% for offsite improvements) shall be paid by the owner of each such parcel(s) as a condition to the issuance of such permit as authorized by Riverside County Ordinance No. ~,60 as amended through Ordinance No. 460.93. Enqineerinq Department The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering Department. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further consideration. 26. The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act, and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions. A: PM25349 17 27. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered Civil Engineer, subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No. ~,60. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: 28. As deemed necessary by the City Engineer or his representative, the developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: 5an Diego Regional Water Quality; 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; and Parks and Recreation Department. 29. 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. 30. Jeramie Drive shall be improved with an offset cul-de-sac per County Standard No. 800A, and shall include asphalt concrete pavement with curb and gutter, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-d-way in accordance with County Standard No. 10~,, Section A (60'/~0'). 31. An all weather access road to the nearest road maintained for public use shall be constructed with a 2~, foot graded section within a minimum ~,0-foot part width right-of-way in accordance with a centerline profile as approved by the City Engineer or his representative. 32. 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 66~,62.5, which shall be at no cost to the City. 33. Easements, when required for drainage facilities and utilities 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. All drainage easements shall be noted as follows: "Drainage Easement - no building, obstructions, or encroachments by land fills are allowed." A:PM25349 18 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. z~0. q. 1. 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. 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, street name, and other signing. b. Storm drain facilities. c. Domestic water systems. The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with adjoining developments. 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. 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, per County Standard No. 110,. 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 I~00 and u,01 (curb sidewalk). All driveways shall be located a minimum of two (2) feet from the property line. The subdivider shall submit two (2) prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 20? x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. A: PM25349 19 44. The subdivider shall submit two copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. 45. Drainage calculations shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. All drainage facilities and protection shall be as required and approved by the City Engineer. 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. 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. 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. 49. 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. 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. 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: 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 cul-de-sac. A: PM25349 20 53. 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. Department of Buildinq F, Safety Request for street addressing must be made prior to submittal for Building Plan Review. A: PM25349 21 ErlVii<0;~IIL1Ui'AL IIEAL'i|I SEI{V1UL:;S DIVISlUII 3636 UNIVERSITY AVENUE HlVgRSIDE, CA ~2503 PAI{C~L HAP II [{EG i 0HAL TEAt~ OF HEALTH HAS REVIEWED WA!'h;'-~ SOUACE: ~-, d PARENT P.M. (IF ANY)' SCItEDULE .~{ 0RD. 46 WAIVE~ REQUEST? EEPARTMENT THE HAP DESCRIBED ABOVE. IF THERE ANY GUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS TRANSHII'TAL. CONTACT (714) 787-6543. OU RECC'~II'iENDATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS: ' The Environmental Health Servicos,Division (E|'iSD) has reviewed the abcve Parcel Hap and while we are not brivileoed to receive army prellmlnar inforn:ation relative to subsurface sowacle alsposa~ or CO~HIOCLiOI~ tO ~ domosLic water supplY. it is our considered opinion that tho soils that _:=Ight be encountered in this area may hot be conducive to effective sabstlrface sewage disposal 5vs[ems and because of soll characteristics cutt~nq, etc. Prior to recordat/on of tho I/r~al map, an accoptablo ~oll~ [easlDility report shall be submitted for review and approval by the Environmental Hoalth Servicos Dzvisxon. cuts . fills . compaction. etc. and perfbrm the tests a~,d bor]l,q5 at the necessary subsurface sewage disposal system depths. the soils engineer must provide a uradina plan for review and aDprova' · .¢hich shall include and address the /ol IowlH~]: The proposed cuts and/or fills in the areas of ~ubsurface sewaCe disposal system. pia, ced in natural undisturbe.~J soil. reference to the elevation of the disposal svstonl. On those pro.iects whore the eradine Dlawls are prv, pa, ~,i included on the qradinu plan submitted for review and approval wxth the ;oi!s engineer's signature and seal as to the aparoDrlatones5 of the ~sading with regard to tho cor~clu~ons and rocosmunondat, mo~5 :oils enginoer's estimate bv more than two foet. add~Llonal reoorts may be -equired . A copy of the final Qradinc plan, on a scale not. smaller than I"=40' aa:<imum wiLh detailed subsurface se'waQe disposal data to include 1O0X -,C (SI~I4A '0KDiZPUTY DII(IfCTUR Ol' iEALTH FOR ENVIRONMENTAL EALTH :: '" /"" 0l/t.,I) I/IVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION GLEN J. NE\VMAN FIRE CHIEF April 18, 1990 PLANNING & ENGINEERING 46-209 OASIS STREET, SUITE 405 IND10, CA 92201 (619) 342,8886 TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT PLANNING & ENGINEERING 3760 12TH STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 (714) 787-6606 ATTN: RALPH WILLIAMS RE: PARCEL MAP 25349 - AMENDED #2 With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land division, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provide~ in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: FIRE PROTECTION Schedule "H" fire protection approved standard fire hydrants, (6"x4"x2~") located one at each street intersection and spaced no more than 660 feet apart in any direction, with no ~ortion of any lot frontage more than 330 feet from a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for 2 hours duration at 20 PSI. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and,'the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Dept." The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. HAZARDOUS FIRE ~REA The land division is located in the "Hazardous Fire Area" of Riverside County as shown on a map on file with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Any building constructed on lots created by this land division shall comply with the special construction provisions contained in Riverside County Ordinance 546. RE: ~M 25349 Page Z MITIGATION Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Fire Department, a cash sum of $400.00 per lot/unit as mitigation for fire protection impacts. All questions regarding the meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Fire Department Planning and Engineering staff. RAYMOND H. REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner By Kurt Mantwell, Fire Safety Specialist ml KENNETH L EDWARDS RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92502 ~.~ i-, Riverside County Planning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California Attention: Regional Team No. Planner ~)ph ~J.'l);~< 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 fl>r mobile home supports." This project is in the drainage plan fees shall be paid in regulations. Area accordance with the applicable rules and The proposed zoning is consistent with existing flood control facilities or floodproofing may be required to implied density. hazards. Some flood fully develop to the The District's report dated is still current for this project. The District does not object to the proposed minor change. This project is a part of free of ordinary storm flood hazard when improveme.ts aJh e."r°ject will be constructed in accordance with approved plans. cc:Alb The attached comments apply. s°"". i IV" gineer DATE: Alt2, 23, J~lclC.) II ATTACHMENT 3 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY Backqround 1. Name of Proponent: 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: Date of Environmental Assessment: Agency Requiring Assessment: 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: 6. Location of Proposal: 7. Proposal: Environmental Impacts Anita Silliker PO Box 6068 San Dieqo, CA 92106 (619) 535-1557 April 22, 1991 CITY OF TEMECULA Parcel Map No. 25349 Eastern Terminus of Jeramie Drive 3 lot residential subdivision of 8.2 acres Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets. ) Yes Maybe 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? Any substantial increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off site? X No X A: PM25349 22 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 ~3ilure, 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 A: PM253~9 23 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 X X A: PM25349 24 Yes Maybe No 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 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? 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? X X X X X X X X X X X A: PM25349 25 Yes Maybe No b. Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking? __ c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? __ d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? __ e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? __ 1~,. Public Services. Will the proposal have substantial effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? __ b. Police protection? __ c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? __ f. Other governmental services: __ 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? __ b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? __ 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? __ X X X X X X X X X X X X X X A: PM25349 26 17. 18. 19. b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? Human Health. Will the proposal result in: Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard ( excludin9 mental health)? Exposure of people to potential health hazards? Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? Yes Maybe No X X × X X X X X X X X X X A: PM253q9 27 21. Yes Maybe No 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? X 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. ) X 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. ) X Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substan- tial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? __ X A: PM25349 28 Ill Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation 1.8. 1.d. 1.e. 1.f. 1.g. Yes. The site is within the Alquist-Priolo Study zone, an area of possible faulting active. A special geology report was performed on the site for fault investigation activity. A fault was found and located by the geologist. The project will not have a significant impact because the site must be developed to the recommendations of the geologist as contained in County Geologic Report No. 769. Maybe. A new development causes displacement and overcovering of soils. The area consists of rolling hill type topography and the resulting building pads will result in the alteration of the current topography. All the proposed lots contain over 2.5 acres. The grading for the pads will result in less than half the lot being impacted by grading activities. The grading and building activities must conform to State, County and City Standards. Prior to any activity, a proper permit must be obtained and maintained. Adherence to the permit process will mitigate any adverse impacts that may result from this project. No. The overall character of the area should be maintained. No unique geologic or physical features exist on the site, therefore, no significant impact will occur. Maybe. The project will require the creation of cut and fill slopes to develop the building pads. This will increase the possibility of water and wind erosion. These possible impacts will be mitigated by adherence to standards erosion control techniques and will be inspected during the grading and building activities with obtaining and maintaining proper building and grading permits. No. The area is removed from existing rivers, creeks, and lakes. Therefore, no impact is anticipated. Yes. A possible active fault was found on site, but adherence to the mitigation measures in County Geology Report No. 769 will mitigate possible significant impacts. No. The project is a proposal for a 3 lot residential subdivision and no air impacts are anticipated. No major activity affecting air quality should occur. No. The area is far removed from maine or fresh water areas. Therefore, no impact shall occur. Maybe. The construction of new buildings will result in changes in absorption and runoff rates. The relatively small buildings in comparison to the large lots will result in a minimal impact to absorption and runoff rates. A: PM25349 29 3.d,e. 3.f. 3.g. 3.h. 3.i. q..b. q..c. q..d. 5oa. 5.b. ..S.c. No. The project is required to maintain all natural drainage courses, therefore, there will be no significant impact. No. See Item 3.a. No. The size of the proposed cuts in regards to the groundwater table will not result in any alteration in the direction or rate of flow of groundwater. No. The proposal does not include direct withdrawal or addition to the area groundwater. The project will use septic tanks for sewage disposal. The current water table and size of lots will not result in the contamination of the groundwater due to the use of septic tanks. The project is consistent with current County and State Standards for septic disposal. No. The proposal is for only 3 residential units and will not impact available public water supplies due to the small amount of use. No. The area is not located within a flood hazard zone or liquefaction zone. All natural drainage courses are required to be free of buildings or obstructions. No. The project will require grading activities to provide the building pads. A majority of the area will not be graded so the overall impact will be minimal. No. There was no unique or rare plant species seen on the site. No. The project area contains large lots and natural areas shall remain. No. The area is currently vacant and is not used for any agricultural purposes. Maybe. The project includes grading activities which will displace existing animal species. The majority of the site will be maintained in its natural state however, so there shall be no significant impact from the project. Maybe. The area is within the K-Rat study area. The County currently has a 10-A permit for the incidental take of the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat. The payment of the appropriate fee will provide mitigation for this project. Maybe. The project is for three residential units. Each lot will maintain the natural drainage area and the majority of the site will be ungraded. There will not be a significant impact to existing wildlife habitat. A: PM25349 30 6.a,b. 7. 8. 9. lO.a,b. 11. 12. 13.a-f. 14.a-f. 15.a,b. 16.a,b,c, e,f. 16.d. 17.a,b. 18. 19. 20.a-d. No. The project is for three residential units on over 8 acres of land. There will not be a significant noise impact. No. The three additional residential units will not create a significant impact to light and glare. No. The current area is zoned for residential property of 1 dwelling unit per 2 1/2 acres. No. The three residential units will not adversely effect natural resources. No. The project consists of only three residential units and shall not pose a risk of upset. No. The small size of the project, 3 additional units, will not alter population trends or densities. No. See Item 11. No. See Item 11. Maybe. All residential projects impact public services. The project will be required to pay the appropriate fees for mitigation. Therefore, there will not be an adverse impact to public services. No. See Item 11. No. These necessary utilities are provided to the site. Yes. The project will be required to install septic systems for each lot. The size of the lots exceeds the requirements of the County and State for subsurface sewage disposal in this area. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. No. The addition of three residential units shall not pose any health hazards. No. The project is not in any planned or designated view sheds. There will not be an adverse aesthetic impact with the project as proposed. No. The site is not shown as a recreational or open space site on SWAP and is not used as a public recreational area. No. No known cultural, religious or historic materials or sites are located within the project area. A: PM25349 31 21 .a-c. 21 .d. No. The addition of three residential units on the site of over 8 acres will not pose a significant impact. Maybe. Due to the possible active fault, a hazard may exist, but adherence to the mitigation measures in County Geologist Report No. 769 will provide safeguards for the project. A: PM25349 32 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 April 22, 1991 Date For CITY OF TEMECULA A: PM25349 33 Z f CITY OF TEMECULA ~ ~200' R-A-2 I/2 R-A-2 I/2 R-A-2 I/2 ~ ~ CZ 732 ~- ZONE MAP I I R-A-12 I I/2 , I I I r ~ CASE NO.P/vl '1'f'SV¢? P.C. DATE r/ CITY OF TEMECULA ~ /, VICINITY MAP CASE NO. p/~l ~,,,~"3 " ~P.C. DATE ,,.,t'-;O"~/J I CITY OF TEMECULA ~ SWAP MAP CASE P.C. DATEv~'-2,~"?/ ITEM #7 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION May 20, 1991 Case No.: Change of Zone No. 5755 Prepared By: Steve Jiannino Recommendation: 1. RECOMMEND to the City Council ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration for Change of Zone No. 5755; and 2. ADOPT Resolution 91- recommending approval of Change of Zone No. 5755 based on the Findings contained in the Staff Report. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: Bedford Properties HR Engineering, Inc. Change of Zone from M-5C (Manufacturing-Service Commercial ) to C-1/C-P ( Ceneral Commercial ) on an 8 acre site. Northwest corner of Diaz and Rancho California Roads. M-SC ( Manufacturing-Service Commercial ) North: R- R / M-SC South: M-SC East: R-R West: M-SC ( Rural Residential) (Manufacturing-Service Commercial ) (Manufacturing-Service Commercial ) ( Rural Residential ) (Manufacturing-Service Commercial ) C-1 / C-P ( General Commercial ) Vacant A: CZ5755 1 SURROUNDING LAND USES: SWAP DESIGNATION: PROJECT STATISTICS: BACKGROUND: ANALYSIS: North: South: East: West: Vacant Commercial/Office Vacant Office Manufacturing C ( Commercial ) Number of Lots: 2 Total Gross Acres: 8 Total Net Acres: 6.2 Proposed Zoning: C-1 / C-P This project was submitted to Riverside County on March 26, 1990. The project was transferred to the City of Temecula May ~,, 1990. The applicant submitted requested information April 15, 1991 to finalize processing of the project. The project was submitted to the Development Review Committee (DRC) April 2q, 1991 for formal review. The DRC had no major concerns or comments regarding the project. The project proposes the change in zoning classification on two parcels of land totaling approximately 6.2 net acres at the northwest corner of Diaz and Rancho California Roads from the current M-SC (Manufacturing-Service Commercial) to C-1/C-P ( General Commercial ). The surrounding areas are currently being developed with office, commercial, and light industrial type uses. Infrastructure currently exist within the area to support commercial activities on the site, such as: major streets and drainage facilities are constructed; the intersection of Diaz and Rancho California Roads is signalized; and water and sewer improvements exist which will support commercial development. The Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) which has been adopted as a General Plan guideline by the City designates this site as commercial. The City has adopted the policy of processing Change of Zone requests on a case-by-case basis requiring the submittal of a development plan in conjunction with the Zone Change applicant. Upon review of the area, with the existing improvements and development, Staff has chosen to process this case with an approval recommendation without a development proposal. The proposed zoning appears to be a logical land use with the development of offices, light industrial, and A:CZ5755 2 GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: FINDINGS: compatible commercial uses in the vicinity. A commercial development to support the existing and proposed developments in the area would be beneficial to the proposed developments and the City. Commercial uses may be developed which could decrease the day time travel trips across Margarita Creek for required support services for the developing employment base in the area. With Diaz Road to the east, Rancho California Road to the south, and Business Park Drive to the west, a suitable circulation pattern exists for commercial development with easy access to the employment based developments being constructed west of the site. This project is consistent with the SWAP designation of C (Commercial). The proposed zoning is also compatible with the current and proposed surrounding development. It is anticipated that the proposed zoning will be consistent with the ultimate City General Plan when it is adopted. An Initial Study has been completed for the project and a Negative Declaration is being recommended for adoption. It has been determined that the proposed Zone Change from M-SC to C-1/C-P will not have any significant impacts on the environment. The proposed Change of Zone will not have significant negative impact on the environment, as determined in the Initial Study performed for the project. A Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time, due to the fact that the project is compatible with the surrounding current office/industrial development, zoning, and SWAP. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with, the future adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan,due to the fact that the project is compatible with surrounding development and improvements. A:CZ5755 3 The site is physically suited for the proposed Change of Zone in that required infrastructure exists in the area include commercial roadways, drainagefacilities, and main sewer and water lines. The proposed Change of Zone is consistent with the SWAP designation of C { Commercial ). The proposed zoning provides a commercial support area for the employment based developments recently approved and under construction to the west of the site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: RECOMMEND to the City Council ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration for Change of Zone No. 5755; and ADOPT Resolution 91 - recommending approval of Change of Zone No. 5755 based on the Findings contained in the Staff Report. SJ: ks Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. Initial Study 3. Exhibits A:CZ5755 4 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL ZONE NO. 5755 CHANGING THE ZONE FROM M-SC TO C-11C-P ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF DIAZ AND RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR~S PARCEL NO. 921-020-058 AND 059. WHEREAS, Bedford Properties filed Change of Zone No. 5755 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 May 20, 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 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1, Findings, That the City of 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: CZ5755 5 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: The proposed Change of Zone will not have significant negative impact on the environment, as determined in the Initial Study performed for the project. A Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. b) 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 compatible with the surrounding current office/industrial development, zoning, and SWAP. c) There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with, the future adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan,due to the fact that the project is compatible with surrounding development and improvements. d) The site is physically suited for the proposed Change of Zone in that required infrastructure exists in the area include commercial roadways, drainagefacilities, and main sewer and water lines. A:CZ5755 6 e) The proposed Change of Zone is consistent with the SWAP designation of C ( Commercial ). The proposed zoning provides a commercial support area for the employment based developments recently approved and under construction to the west of the site. D. The Change of Zone is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. The proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration therefore is hereby granted. SECTION 3. Conditions, That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Zone Change No. 5755 to change the zoning on 8 acres of land from M-SC (Manufacturing - Service Commercial) to C-1/C-P (General Commercial) on property located at the northwest corner of Diaz and Rancho California Roads and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 921-020-058 and 059. SECTION 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th 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 20th day of May, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONER5 PLANNING COMMISSIONER5 A:CZ5755 7 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY Backqround 1. Name of Proponent: Bedford Properties Address and Phone Number of Proponent: Box 755 Temecula, CA 92390 Date of Environmental Assessment: March 18, 1991 Agency Requiring Assessment: CITY OF TEMECULA Name of Proposal, if applicable: Chanqe of Zone No. 5755 Location of Proposal: Northwest corner of Diaz and Rancho California Roads 7. Proposal: Chanqe of Zone from M-SC Manufacturinq - Service Commercial ) to C1-CP (General Commercial) on Acres. I I Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets. ) Yes Maybe No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X Disruptions, displacements, compac- tion or overcovering of the soil? X Substantial change in topography or ground surface relief features? X The destruction, covering or modi- fication of any unique geologic or physical features? X Any substantial increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off site? X A:CZ5755 8 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 A:CZ5755 9 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 X X A: CZ5755 10 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 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? 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 area7 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 A:CZ5755 11 Yes Maybe N__9o b. Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking? __ __ X c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? __ __ X d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? __ __ X e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? __ __ X lu,. Public Services. Will the proposal have substantial effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? __ __ X b, Police protection? __ __ X c. Schools? X d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? __ __ X f. Other governmental services: __ __ X 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? __ __ X b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? __ __ X 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? __ __ X A: CZ5755 12 17. 18. 19. b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? Human Health. Will the proposal result in: Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard ( excluding mental health)? Exposure of people to potential health hazards? Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? Yes Maybe No X X X X X X X X X X X X X A: CZ5755 13 Yes Maybe No 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environ- mental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future. ) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumu- latively considerable? (A project's impact on two or more separate resources may be relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant. ) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substan- tial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? __ X X X X A: CZ5755 14 III Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation 1 .a-g. ;~.a-c. 3.a-i. u,.a-d. 5.a-c. 6.a,b. 7. 8. 9,a,b. 10.a,b. 11. 12. 13.a-f. 14.a-f. 15.a,b. 16.a-f. 17.a,b. 18. 19, 20.a-d. No. No project is proposed at this time, therefore no impacts will occur at this time. The proposed change from Manufacturing Service Commercial to General Commercial should not result in any increased impacts. Necessary infrastructure already exist in the area. No. See Item 1 above. No. See Item I above. No. See Item 1 above, No. See Item 1 above. No. See Item 1 above. No. See Item 1 above. No. The site is shown on the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) as commercial. The SWAP is currently being used as a General Plan Guideline. The area currently has major infrastructure around the site including sewers, water, and commercial industrial roadways. No. See Item 1 above. No. The commercial only use would eliminate some possible manufacturing uses currently allowed within the existing zone which would reduce the potential impacts. No. See item 1 above. No. See Item 1 above. Major circulation roadways currently exist around the site. No. See Item 1 above. No. See Item 1 above. No. See Item 1 above. No. See Item 10 above. No. See Item 1 above. No. The site is not currently shown as a recreational site and the commercial use will not increase the demand for recreational areas. No. See item 1 above. A: CZ5755 15 21 .a-d. No. No project is proposed at this time. The infrastructure to support a wide range of commercial activities currently exist around the site. Therefore, no significant impacts should occur from this project. A:CZ5755 16 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a signi- ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi- ficant effect on this case because the mitigation measures described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. X Date For CITY OF TEMECULA A:CZ5755 17 CITY OF TEMECULA ~ VICINITY MAP CASE NO.CZ3'7..,~" P.C. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA ~ SP 18 0 SWAP MAP r ~ CASE NO.C Z ~?~'d' P.C. DATE M-SC CZ 2999 CITY OF TEMECULA ~ M-SC ,~~ CZ 970 \ //\ Z 846 CZ 1022 / / R-R C-P-S CZ 4727 CALIFORNIA c Z~ 002 RD cz _ ~Z 258 o, ,,, ZONE MAP ) CASE NO. EZ,,r7 P.C. DATE ITEM #8 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: The Planning Commission The Planning Department May 20, 1991 Plot Plan No. 10675, Extension of Time At the hearing of January 28, 1991, the Planning Commission continued Plot Plan No. 10675, Extension of Time off calendar pending adoption of an ordinance specifically providing for Extensions of Time for Plot Plans. On March 26, 1991, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 91-09 amending portions of Ordinance No. 90-0u, to allow Extension of Time for Plot Plans. The ordinance had its second readin9 on April 9, 1991 and became effective on May 9, 1991. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve a one year Extension of Time for Plot Plan No. 10675 based on the Analysis and Findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval contained in the attached Staff Report. SW: ks A:PP10675.MEM STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION January 28, 1990 Case No.: Plot Plan No. 10675, Extension of Time Prepared By: Scott Wright Recommendation: Approve the Extension of Time for Plot Plan 10675 APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: Bedford Properties Bedford Properties To construct a two story office building with 25,7u,2 square feet of gross leasable floor area. The southerly side of Single Oak Drive, approximately 300 feet east of Business Park Drive. M-SC, Manufacturing - Service Commercial North: M-SC South: Rancho California Road East: M-SC West: M-SC Not requested Vacant North: South: East: West: Vacant, Light Industrial Rancho California Road Office Office No. of acres (net): No. of stories: Building Height: Gross Leasable Floor Area: 2.2 acres 2 stories 35 feet 25,7~,2 sq.ft. STAFFRPT\PP10675 1 Parking Spaces: Landscaping: 102 Standard 27 Compact 4 Handicapped 133 Total 46,414 sq.ft. (46% of site area) BACKGROUND: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ANALYSIS: Plot Plan 10675 was approved and a Negative Declaration was adopted at the County Planning Director~s Hearing of November 7, 1988. On November 6, 1990, the applicant submitted an application for an extension of time. The project is to construct a two story office building with 25,7~,2 square feet of gross leasable floor area. Existinq Site Conditions The site has already been rough graded conjunction with the underlying parcel map. Buildinq Heiqht The proposed building will be 35 feet in height which is within the maximum 50 foot building height in the M-SC Zone stipulated in Ordinance 348. Buildinq Setbacks and Landscapinq The site plan meets or exceeds the requirements to provide 25 foot building setbacks, 10 foot landscape strips adjacent to streets, and landscaping equal to 10% of the total site area in the M-SC Zone. Parking Based on the total gross leasable floor area, the project is required to provide 129 parking spaces. 133 spaces are shown on the site plan. Access and Interior Traffic Circulation Adequate access is provided by a driveway 30 feet in width on Single Oak Drive. All drive aisles are 24 feet wide and satisfy the width requirement for two-way drive aisles as stipulated in Ordinance 348. Although it is currently the policy of the City Traffic Engineer to request 28 foot drive aisles, the Fire Department has stated that 24 foot aisles will be adequate for this project. STAFFRPT\PP10675 2 GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Traffic Siqnal Mitiqation Fee Pursuant to the County Road Department's Condition No. 2, the City Transportation Engineer has stipulated that the applicant may either agree to contribute, prior to issuance of a building permits, 15% of the cost of the traffic signal to be installed at Business Park Drive and Rancho California Road, or may submit a traffic analysis addressing trip generation, distribution, and percent impact at said intersection, and contribute a portion of the signal cost based on the percent impact as determined by the analysis. Subsidence Potential The site is located in an area potentially susceptible to soil subsidence. County Planning Condition No. 26 requires certification by a California licensed professional to certify that the proposed structure is safe and structurally integrated. Plot Plan Time Extensions Ordinance 348 Section 18.30 (f) stipulates a two year term for plot plan approvals during which substantial construction must occur. No provision is made for extending the term of the approval if substantial construction has not occurred. Section 18.28(f), however, permits time extensions for conditional use permits. There is no logical reason to allow extensions for conditional uses, which typically involve a greater degree of concern for public health and safety and/or land use compatibility, and not to allow extensions for plot plans. Staff therefore recommends applying Section 18.28(f) to Plot Plan 10675 in order to permit an extension of time and enable the City to issue building permits in view of the fact that the building plans are already approved. The proposed use is permitted in the M-SC zone. The site is located in an area designated for Light Industrial Uses. The Southwest Area Plan identifies the M-SC Zone as consistent with the Light Industrial designation. The County adopted a Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment 32967 at the Planning Director's Hearing of November 7, 1988. STAFFRPT\PP10675 3 FINDINGS: The proposed office building is consistent with the Area Plan land use designation and the zone in which it will be located. The project will not constitute an adverse impact on surrounding land uses in that it will be compatible with existing land uses in the area. The site is adequate for the proposed use in that parking, internal traffic circulation, and landscaping are adequate and meet all applicable requirements and development standards in the M-SC Zone. The site will have adequate access from the street on which it has frontage. Potential subsidence hazards can be adequately mitigated. The traffic generated by the project will not constitute a significant adverse impact on the level of service of the streets in the area and the developer is required to pay traffic signal mitigation and road improvement fees. There is a reasonable probability that the project will be consistent with the City's General Plan once adopted, in that the proposed office building is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan land use designation and the M-SC Zone and is compatible with surrounding zoning and existing land uses in the vicinity. It is unlikely that the proposed revised tentative map will constitute a substantial detriment to the future General Plan if the proposed office building is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The project is compatible with surrounding zoning and existing land uses. The lawful conditions stated in the project's Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. STAFFRPT\PP10675 4 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 10. These findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: APPROVE a one year extension of time for Plot Plan 10675 based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the Conditions of Approval contained in the attached County Staff Report and the following additional conditions: Pursuant to County Road Department Condition No. 2 requiring payment of traffic signal impact mitigation fees, prior to issuance of building permits the applicant shall contribute 15% of the cost of installing a traffic signal at the westerly intersection of Business Park and Rancho California Road, or the applicant shall submit a traffic analysis and contribute to signalizing the intersection in an amount based on the percent of the traffic impact on said intersection generated by the project in question. Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the El R/Negative Declaration for the project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility or mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for Payment of Public Facility Fee. a copy of which has been provided to Developer. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such increase. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance which is based on the gross acreage of the parcel proposed for development. Should Ordinance 663 be superseded by the STAFFRPT\PP10675 5 provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fees required by Ordinance 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required under the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. SW:mb Attachments: 2. 3. q.. Resolution County Staff Report Exhibits: Vicinity Map Plot Plan Elevations Fee checklist STAFFRPT\PP10675 6 RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PLOT PLAN NO.10675, A TWO STORY OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SINGLE OAK DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET EAST OF BUSINESS PARK DRIVE. No. 10675 in Subdivision WHEREAS, Bedford Properties filed an extension request for Plot Plan accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said plot plan extension application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said plot plan extension on May 20, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of said plot plan extension; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: {1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. 12) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: a) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. STAFFRPT\PP10675 7 b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, c) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances, B, The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, ( hereinafter "SWAP" ) was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City, At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan, C, The proposed plot plan is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan, {2 ) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant. to this title, each of the following: a) There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan No, 10675 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. c) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. D. (1) Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no Plot Plan may be approved unless the following findings can be made: a) The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. STAFFRPT\PP10675 8 b) The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. { 2 ) The Planning commission, in approving the proposed Plot Plan Extension, makes the following findings, to wit: a) The proposed office building is consistent with the Area Plan land use designation and the zone in which it will be located. b) The project will not constitute an adverse impact on surrounding land uses in that it will be compatible with existing land uses in the area. c) d) The site is adequate for the proposed use in that parking, internal traffic circulation, and landscaping are adequate and meet all applicable requirements and development standards in the M-SC Zone. The site will have adequate access from the street on which it has frontage. e) Potential subsidence hazards can be adequately mitigated. f) The traffic generated by the project will not constitute a significant adverse impact on the level of service of the streets in the area and the developer is required to pay traffic signal mitigation and road improvement fees. g) There is a reasonable probability that the project will be consistent with the City's Ceneral Plan once adopted, in that the proposed office building is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan land use designation and the M-SC Zone and is compatible with surrounding zoning and existing land uses in the vicinity. h) It is unlikely that the proposed revised tentative map will constitute a substantial detriment to the future General Plan if the proposed office building is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The project is compatible with surrounding zoning and existing land uses. STAFFRPT\PP10675 9 i) The lawful conditions stated in the project's Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. j) These findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with these applications and hereln incorporated by reference. E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Plot Plan proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicated that the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment, and a Negative Declaration was adopted by Riverside County on November 7, 1988 at the Planning Director's Hearing. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the city of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves a one year Extension of Time for Plot Plan No. 10675, a two story office building located on the south side of Single Oak Drive 300 feet east of Business Park Drive subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th 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 20th day of May, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS STAFFRPT\PP10675 10 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Department Engineering Department John Middleton, Senior Project Manager January 1L~, 1991 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR: Plot Plan 10675 Plot Plans, CUP Enqineerinq Department The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering Department. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further consideration. Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to Developer. Developer understands that said agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such increase. STAFFRPT\PP10675 11 MEMORANDUM FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Department Transportation Engineering Department January 14, 1991 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR: Plot Plan No. 10675 Transportation Enqineerinq PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: 1. This Development shall enter into an agreement with the City to contribute fifteen percent (15%) of the construction costs for the signal at Rancho California Road and Business Park Drive o__r provide a traffic impact report determining the exact percentage of impact to this intersection based on vehicular volumes and turning movements and contribute the specified percentage. STAFFRPT\PP10675 12 "' PINKS PtANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING CASE SUR.~RY DATE: NOVEffiBER 7, 1988 CASE NO. PLOT PLAN NO. 10675 E.A.: 32967 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION: A two-story office building on 2.66 acres of IIM. AREA: Rancho California SPHERE OF INFLUENCE: Not within a City Sphere GENERAL PLAN: a. LAND USE: Category II - Commercial b. OPEN SPACE/CONS.: ~reas Not Designated c. C~iffiU~ITY POLICIES: Houn~ Palomar Special Ltghttng Area ZONIN$: a. SITE: PPSC ~. ADJACEfiT: I4-SC, I-P and LAID USE/AREA DEVELOPHENT: e. ~TTE: Vacant b. ADJACENT: Office buildings RECO~IEII~ATION: ADOPTION of 8 Negattve Declaration for E.A. 32967 and APPROVAL of PLOT PLAN NO. 10675 based on the following: 1. The pro~ect ts consistent with the General Plan. 2. The project meets the requirements of Ordinance 348. 3. The pro~ect is consistent with the zoning on the parcel on which it is located and meets the development standards of the zone. AG:$c 11/02/B8 PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING DATE: NOVEMBER 7, 1988 IUVERSIDE COUMTY PLARNIRG DEPAItlIrdlT a)lE)ITlONS OF APPROVAL De Revere Partnership 4631 Teller Ave., Ste. 100 Newport Beach, Ca 92660 PLOT PLAN NO. 10675 ProJect Description: Two-Story Office Building. Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-020-041 Area: Rancho California The permittee shall defend, indemnify, end hold hamless the County of Riverside, its agents, officers, and employees frm any clatm, a:tton, or proceeding against the County of Riverside or its agents, officers, or enployees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the County of Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concer~tn Plot Plan No. 10675. The County of Riverside will pro,nptly nQti the any $~ch claim, action, or fy penaltree of proceeding agatnst the County of Riverside and will cooperate fully tn the defense. If the Count/fatls to p,~ptly nottry the pe. rmtttee of any such clatm, action or prOceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, lndemnlfy, or hold hamless the County of Riverside. ?. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of approval date; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this ap rOval within (2) year period which is thereafter dtltgent~; pursaed to the t~o completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The dmvelolznent of the prm~tses shall conform substantially wtt~ that as shown on plot plen mrked Exhibit A - Amended No. 1, or as amended by these conditions. 4. In the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period of one [1) year Or more, thts approval shall become null and void. Jay outside ltghttng shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon ed3otnlng property or public rights-of-way, and shall comply with Ordinance No. 655. 6. The applicant shall compl w~th the street improvement recenmendations outlinod in the County ~laad Department transmittel dated 10-4-88, a copy of which ts attached. PIG[ PI~I IlO. 10~75 ~mdJttons of Approval Page 2 e Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department transmittal dated 10-07-88, a copy of which is attached. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District transmittal dated 10-05-88, a copy of which is attached. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated 10-04-88, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Department of Building and Safety transmittal dated 10-04-)8 and lO-O6-Sg, copies of which are attached. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approvej landscape, irrigation and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy pernits. An automatic sprinkler system shall be instulle4 and all landscapeJ areas shall be maintained in a viable growth condition. ,1..ring .n I1ol or.it drtvew.y s al, not be permitted to grow higher than tinches. Prior to the issuance of grading or butltlng penqits, 6 copies of a .ndscaping .rid rrt.stion Pl.n sh.ll. sub.it. partment for approval. The location, nunbar, genus, 348, Section 18.12. A ninimun of 133 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.1~, Riverside County Ordinance rio. 348, as shown on Approved Exhibit A, Amended No. 1. The parking area shall be surfaced wtt~ aspbaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on 4 inches of Class ZZ fuse. 14. A minimum of four handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on Exhibit Am Amended No. 1. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sig~ constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility, The sign shall not be smalhr than 70 square inches tn area and shall be centered at the interior end of the perking space at a mtntmum height of 80 inches from the bottom of the stgq to the parkin space finished rude, or centered at a minimen height of 36 inches from ~e parking space )thishad grade, ground, or sidewalk. A st n shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to t~e off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches in size with lettering not less than 11rich in hetght, which clearly and conspicuous17 states the following: FLOT PLM II. 10675 Com!tttees of/4q,~al Page 3 "tMauthorized vehtcles not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for physically handicapped persons my be to~d amy at ~mer's expense. To~ed vehicles my be reclaimed at or by telephoning " ]n addttton 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 t o the tssuance of a butldtng permit, the applicant shall obtain clearance and/or permits fran the following agencies: Road Depart=ant Environmental Heaqth Riverside County Flood Cuntrol Fire Department gritten evidence of compliance shall be presented to the Land Use Divisi3q of the OeparUnent of Building and Safety. 9rtor to the tssuance of butqding permits the following additional and/or revised plans shall be s,bmltted for Planning Department approval: Stgnln] Program Landscaping, Irrigation and Shadtrig Plans BuilJiqg elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that sho~.m on Exhibit B. substantial conformance with that shown o xh ol ev ion an~l Exhibit C (!'4tertals hard). These are as follows: 14at.real Color Wtndmes l~[3[;FgTass [~'~ian Royal 81ue ~tndwS S$-14 Glass ~uardtan Green ~1~ ~ncrete Ford Blue Tinted ~nc~ ~se ~ncrete Gny R~of-mmmted equipment shall be shtelded from ground view. matertel shall be subject to Planntng Department approval. Screening One (1) trash enclosure which is adequate to enclose a total of one (1) bin shall be centrally located within the project, and shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy permtts. The enclosure shall be six feet tn het~l and shall be made with masonry block and a gate which screens the b from external vie. 21. lJndscaptng plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along streets and within the parking areas. PLOT PLAN leO. 10675 Conditions of Approval Page 4 2 · All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approve1 and shall cmply with the requirements of Riverside ~unty Ordinance No. 655 and the RhersIde County Comprehensive General Plan. Thts project stte ts vithln a significant groundshaking zone. Nttigatioq shell be the application of the proper Unifom Buildtng Code standards in the development of this project. 24. Six (6) Class II bicycle racks shall be provided in convenient locations to facilitate bicycle access to the project area. Prior to issuance of building penwits, performance securities, in a.~ounts to be determined by the DIrector of Butldtng and Safety to guarantee the installation of planrings, walls and fences in accordance with the approved plan, and adeqjate maintenance of the planting for one year shall b~ filed with the Director of Building and Safety. 7e Be This project ts located within a $ubstdence Report Zone. Prior to issuance of any building pemit by the Riverside County hpart~ent of Building and Safety, a, California Licenset Structural Engineer shall c;rtify that the intended structure or building is safe and struct,Jrally integrated. This certification shall be based upon, but not be limited tu, the site specific seismic, geologic and geotechnical conditions. · Where hazar~ of subsidence or fissure development is detemined to exist, appropriate mitigation measures must demonstrated. ortor to issuance of occupancy pemtts, all required landscape planting and irrigation shell 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. 29. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. AG:sc 11/02/88 OFFICE OF ROAD COs!.qlSSIO.'~ER ~. COt ~'TY $CRt'EYGR October 4, 1988 RIverside County Planning Commission 4080 Lemon Street RIverside, CA 92051 (Office Bldg.) Plot Plan 10675 - k~nd il Team 1 - SMD #9 Ladies end Gentlerent ~ith respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced the Road Departrent has the following recon~nendattons: Prior to applicant agency: issuance of a building permit or any use allowed by this pen3it, tqe shall complete the following conditions at no cost to any govern;jent No additional right of way shall be required on Rancho California Road or Single Oak Drive since adequate right of way exists. Prior to issuance of a building pemtt, or any use allowed by this pemit, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Road Department the sum of $8j50,00 towards mitigating traffic impaccs for signal requirerents, (3,26 acres x $2,500 · $8,~50,00) Prior to issuance of a building permit or any use allowed by tt~is permit, and prior to doing any work within the State highway right of veyt clearance and/or an encroacrmtent permit must be obtained by the applicant from the District 08 Office of the State Department of Transportation in San Bernardlno. Prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit, the applicant sna11 construct the following at no cost to e~y government agency: 4. Ii~ additional road improvements will be required at this time. S. grainage control shall be as per Ordinance 460, Section 11. I; Plot Plan 10675 - Amend October 4, 1988 Page 2 All ~ork done within County right of way shall have an encroach- ment permit. The single drive4ay shall confom to the applicable Riverside Country Standards and shall be sho~n on the street improvement plans. The applicant shall comply with the Caltrans recommendations as outlined in their letter dated August 9, 1988 (a copy of which is attached). Principal Eng. Technician L,1:lh 1988 .... TDD 1'714; 383-4,0e August Development Review 08-Riv-15-~,98 Your Reference: PP 10675 Planning Department Attention Mr. Alex Gann County of Riverside ~080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 Dear Mr. Gann: Thank you for the opp~rtuntty to review the proposed Plot Plan 10675 located westerly of 1-15 and Front Street, north of .Rancho California Road at Business Park Drive in Ran:no California. Please refer to the attached material on wh!:h our comments have been indicated by the items checked and/or by those items ncte~ under additional comments. If any work is necessary within the state highway right the developer must obtain an encroachment permit from District 8 Permit Office prior to beginning work. of way, If additional information is desired, please call Mr. Neville at (71q) Very truly yours, H. N. LEWANDOWSKI Dis%rict Permits Eniineer Art. co: Lee Johnson, Riverside County Road Department the Calftans Th:mas J. 08-Riv-15-4.98 (Co-Rte-PM) PP 10675 (Your Reference) ADDITIONAL COMMENTSt This appears to be Parcel 3 of Parcel Kap 19580-1. Individually, this development will have minimal traffic impact on our highway system. Collectively, when all of the parcels are developeS, there could be some traffic impacts to the Rancho California Rd/I-15 Interchange.. Traffic signals have already been warranted at the ramps. Therefore, this development and future developments in this ares should contribute to the funding of the signals. Consideration shou]8 also be 9iven to the cumulative effect of continued development in this sre~. Any measures necessary to mitieate the cumulative impact of traffic should be provided prior to or with development if the ares. County of Riverside RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNINC DEPT. October 7, 1988 DATE: STEVE HXNDE, SR. SA~NITARIA~X, EI~'IR0~XE,VrAL HEALTH SERVICES FROM: PLOT PIJ..~; 10675, Amended 1~o. 1 RE: Environmental H~alth Services has revieved Plon Plan 10675, Amended Ne. I dated Sap=ember 14, 1988. Our current commen=s w~11 remain as stared in our memo da=ed Augus= 23, 1988. SH:=ac County of RiversidLe FROM: RE: RIVE~SIDE COONTT PLXI4~IN6 DEPT. 08-23-88 DATE: Plo~ Plan 10675 The Environmental Health Services has reviewed PZot Plan 10675 and has no Ob3ect~ons. SanXtary sever and water services are avail&hie in th~s irma. Prior to any building plan submxttsis, viii-serve letters from the water and severzn9 agencies vail be required. SN:t.&c FOaM I, Gbv. I/1'~) KENNETH L, ;ARDI P, o. Iox 1933 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT Riverside County Planning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California Attention: Regional Team No. A~ ~ Area: "l~p~ V,l(ey We have reviewed this case end 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, ~ 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 Rood damage to new buildings. A note should be placed on an environmental constraint sheet stating, "All new buildings shall be floodproofed by elevating the finished floors a minimum of 18 inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosion protection shall be provided for mobile home supports." This project is in the drainage plan fees shall be paid in accordance with the applicable r~lesArea and regulations. The proposed zoning 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 is still current for this project. CO: The District does not object to the proposed minor change. The attached comments apply. Very truly yours, KENNETH L, EDWARDS o,f The County Board of Supervisors has adopted the ~r;~, [~/ ~ ~la Area. Drainage Plan for the purpose of f,,,. f,,, ,r, u,,d to con.truce colleo ng needed flood control facilities within the par~cicular area. The Area Drainage Plan fees apply to new land divisions and other types of new development. virtually all new development causes increased storm runoff. These increases are particularly troublesome An those watersheds where an Area Drainage Plan has been adopted. In order to miti- gate the doomstream impacts brought about by increased runoff, the District recommends that Conditional Use Cases, Plot Plans and Public Use Cases be required to pay a flood mitigation charge. Mitiqation charges, where appropriate, will be similar to the current Area Drainage Plan fee rate. Following is the District's recommendation:- A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by ~he area of new development. The new development in this case includes a total of ?-8~ acres. At the current fee rate of $ q~Z per acre, the mitigation charge equals $ ~eq~ The charge is payable to the Flood Control District prio~ to issuance of permits. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to taxis property, no new charge needs to be paid. Mitigation Charge (mitcharg) This project Is a part oZ P~r,¢/~'8 IfgBO-I The project will be free of ordinary storm flood hazard when improvements have been constructed in accordance with approvsd plans. Pbn~n5 & [m~netrms 04k~ 46-209 Ode r~re~, Sm~ 405 Ind~o. CA 9220~ (6Z9) ]~Zlgl6 RIVERSIDL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMEN1 IN COOPEF~AIlON WIIfi 1HE CALIFORNIA DEPArTMEN1 OF FOl~ESTr.h' AND FII~ PROIECT~ON RAY HEBRARD I IRE CItlLI 10-0~,-88 ATTN: RE: PLANNING DEPAR~ENT A!;X GANN PLOT PLAN 10675_ AHENDED #1 Vltb respect to time conditions uf approval reaardln5 the abuvu rulerented I, It~t plan. the Flre Department recommends Lhe followjn~ fire protection muuburu~ be provided in accordance'vttlm RIverside County Ordinances dtld/Ur rccuSnjz~d flre protection standards: The FIre Department is required to set a minimum fire floe for time r.mod~l or construction of ell commercial buildings using time procedure ~stabli~h~ in Ordinance 546. Provide or shoe there exists a eater system capable of delivering 3000 GPH for a 3 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, vhlclm must b= available before any combustible materlal Is placed on tile job site. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants will be located not less titan 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the buildinS as measured along approved vehicular travelsaye. The required fire flo~ shall be available from any adjacent hydrantis) in the system. The required fire flow may be adjusted'at · later point in rime permit proCell to reflect cbanSes in des/an, construction type, urea sepurutjt,~ or built-in fire protection measures. Applicant/developer shall fursJab one copy of time ~ater system pluns tu the Fire Department for review. Plans sisal| conform to the I'ir~ hydratat types. location and spacinit, and, the system uhui] meet tile I'ir~ flt,w requirements. Plane shall be siinud/approvud by u r~i~t~rud civil ~n~,inc~r ~ the local water c~pany v/th thu folioulna curtjilt,tits: "1 c~rt~Zy it ~m design of the ulcer system tl Xn accordance ~Xtla the ruquArum~nc~ ~rescrXbmd by the Riverside County Firm Department." Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings requiring a fire floe of 1500 GPH or Irestir- The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet ~f a hydrant, and a minimum of 2~ feet from the building(s). A statement that the building(l) viII be automatically fire sprinklered must be 2ncluded on the title pars of the bulldinl plans. Subject.: Ploc Plan 10675 7. Inltall a mupervlied eaterflue fire u]urtn sy~cm u~ required by ~hu Unifore Bulldlng Code. 8. Certain designated areas v111 be required to be maLn~ulned 9. Install purrable flre extinguishers with a minimum ra~tng of 2A-10~C. C~a~tact a carrifled ex~lngu~lher company for proper placemen~ of equipment. PYlor to clan issuance of bulldinS permtcs. cl:e developer shall dcpupic vlth the liverside County FIre Deparcmenc. a clieck or money order the mum of $~00.00 per unit as mlClgatlon for f2re procection ~ln amount muse be submitted separacely from C|te plan check r~vjc~ f~. 11. FInal conditions wtll be addressed when bulldlng plans ere revi~,~d in ~h~ Bu)ldtng and Safety Office. All questions regarding the meaning of conditions sitall be r~ferr~d Planning and En~in:cr~ng s~a~f. RAYNUND H. REGIS' ChteE FIre Department Planner W=~ Als~on, Depugy F/re October 4. 1988 Administrative Center · 1777 A',.l=,nta A','~'-~; Rive.'s.~e. CA 925,37 Riverside County Planning Department Attention= Alex Gann County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 9250l RE: Plot Plan 10675, Exhibit A, Amend #1 Ladies and Gentlemen= The Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety has the following comments and conditions= Where no specific uses for proposed structures are indicated, Building and Safety may require additional Planning Department approvals. An additional plot plan or an approved exhibit for on-site signage will be required. Prior to the issuance of building permits, is required from the following= · Temecula Unified School District · Elsinore Union High School District written clearance If approved elevations are required from the Planning Department the approved plans must be submitted to the Land Use Division concurrently with submittal of structural plans for review. Prior to acceptance of structural plans for Building and Safety review, one complete set of approved conditions from Planning Department must be attached. Administration (714) 682-8840 · (714) 787,2020 Planning Department Plot Plan 10675 Page 2 Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant must with any applicable conditions of Parcel Map 19580-1. Very truly yours. Thomas H. Ingram. Director DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY comply Bys ~.~, ~, ? _>v,,,, ~... . Norman A., Lostbom, Deputy Director Land Use Division TOm pI~ASE P~3VID~ A CC~C~I'dAL G'g~DING PLAN FOR THIS PROJECT. 1. Sh~d the existing contOurS and the proposed elevations for 2- Show the adjacent street grades and elevations 3, ~n~ any drainage facility intended as a part of this project. 4, Show adjacent existing offsite topograhy sufficient to illustrate projects compatibility with its neighbors. this project. thi~ COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE Department of Building and Safety TO: Planning - File FROM: Grading Section INITIAL~-/~ the owner of that property shall obtain a gradin9 permit from the Department of Building and Safety Prior to approval of this use/subdivision a grading permit and approval of the rough grading shall be obtained from the Building and Safety Department. ~__co Prior to issuance of any building permitm the prDperty- O~ner shall obtain a grading permit and approval construct from the Building and Safety Department. ___d. Constructing · rDad, where greater than 5~ cubic yards of material is placed or movedm requires a grading permit. __ ~ The 6fading Section has no comment Dn this site E8~-134 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE Dc'P/~RTHENT OF BUILDING AND S~;ETY TO: File FROM: Grading Section INITIAL: The following 'X ' marked comments pertain to this project. .... l, Refer to the sitached standard vesting tract comments. The information submitted is too vague for specifi.c comment, Please refer to departmental form· EB~-~b, 28~-21, 8b, & aB~,-laS when preparing s grading plan. In order to permit your grading plan, the following items will beheaded. d. Provide clearances from the following department. __;__Other ............................ e. Provide copy of Planning Department conditions of approve1 for the approved or tentative approved case. f. Provide an erosion control plan prepared by licensed landscape architect. Provide a conceptual grading plan. Mhen obtaining s plan review permit, eradire] plan to Building end Safety and plan review. submit S copies of for distribution Refer to form aBa-lal for additional comments. Refer to any specific plan relate to this project. This property it located in the Rancho California Potential Subsidence area. Per Board Resolution 8S-61, additional geotechnical information is required-. -284-119 (5/88) Zncludin9 the aspbaltic concrete, base earth m~ved this project will exceed 5~ Therefore, a grading perqit is required. material, and cubic yards Observe slope setbacks from permit areas and/or structures per section ?ale and figure ~9-1 of the Uniform Building Code as modified by Ordinance ~57. Driveway grades shall be 15~ or less- Show street and pad elevations. Insure that a IX grade can be maintained from back of pad to street. 14. Design V-ditches at top of slopes to handle the QI~ year storm flow. ,,_15. Provide (1) one copy of the hydralogic/hydraulic colo's ard drawings. Provide recorded drainage easements for the proposed lot to lot drainage. S3~ow the QII and Olee flows at the inlet and outlet to all properties and at all drainage structure inlets and outlets. ..... 18. Provide buildir~3 footprints on lots. 19. Design each lot to drain separately. De not use common ,wales. Project, having an imbalance between the cut and fill shall specify the location of their import or export. Shoe slopes, including terraces, to scale. Proposed off-site grading will require written mtarized permission from the affected property owner. No obstruction or diversion of natural water courses Jaball be permitted° Provide topography beyond permit area, especially where adjacent property is developed or being developed- Slope height may affect adjacent properties. On flag lots show the location, grade, cut scale that will be required to construct May/access. fills to the drive za4-1 DATE: August 1, 1988 T0: Assessor Butldlng and Safety Surveyor - Dave Dude Road Departnent Health - Ralph Luchs Fire Protection Flood Control District fish & Game LAFC0, S Patslay U.S. Postal Servtce- Ruth E. Davidson Conmisstoner Bresson C.j. Crottnger Rancho Water Southern Caltf. Edison Southern Callf. Gas General Telephone Dept. of Transportation ~8 Temecula Union School Elstnore Union High School Temecula Towns Assoc. Ht. Palomar Sierra Club RiVERbiDE COUn;,u PLAnninG DEPAREmEnC PLOT PLAN 10675 - (Tm-1) - E.A. 32967 - De Revere Partnership - Rancho California Area - First Supervisortel District - Single Oak Drive at Business Park Drive - t4-SC Zone - 2.66 acres - 1 lot - (REQUEST Approval for 2-Story Office Building) - Nod 119 o A.P. 921-020-041 San Bernardtrio Museum Please review the case describe above, along with the attached case map. A Land Division Comtt~ee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for August 25,1988. Zf it dears, tt will then go to pubHc hearing, Your con~ents and recom.~endatlons are requested prior to August 25, 1988 in order that we may include them in the staff report for this particular case. 5houqd you have any questions regarding this item, please do not hesitate to contact Alex Gann at 787-136~ Planner COHHENT$: ~AT[: ltlg'e Re SIGNATURE PLEASE pr$nt name and tttle PLEASE SEE ATTACHED Qr.'~o~rt J. ~r.j~to ~ssistant Director 3alomer ..O~serv.stOr',, 105-.h24 C,fifo.~.ia .nstit,.,tz- m Tic. nDIoly !~:..;.~:4::,, C:!L+e.'T..!S 9!125 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDF, CALIFORNIA 92501 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 ~R191342-8277_ CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY This proposed project is within 45 miles of Palomar Observatory and is therefore subject to the provisions of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655 regulating outdoor lighting. The [ull text of the ordinance is enclosed for your review. In general, you will note tha~ it requires: The use of low-pressure sodium lamps for roadways, walkways, equipment yards, parking lots, security and other similar applications; That other lights be turned off by 11:00 p.m.; That lights be oriented and shielded ~o prevent direct upward illumination. These practices will help preserve the conditions needed for the continuation of important astronomical research a= Palomar Observatory. Robert J. Brucato Assistant Director DATE: August 1, 1988 TO: Assessor Butldtng end Safety Surveyor - Dave Dude Red Department Health - Ralph Luchs F4re Protect4on Flood Control Dtstrtct FIsh & Game LAFCO, $ hl$1ey Uo$o Postal Service - Ruth E. Davidson C~mtsstoner aresson C.J. Cretinget Rancho Idater Southern Calff. Edison; Southern Caltf. Gas General Telephone Dept. of Transportation ~8 Temecula Union School Elstnore Unton High School Temecula Towns Asset'; ...... Ht. Pilemar Sierra Club San Bernardino Hoseum REVER)iDE COUrlE,u PLArI~irlG DEPAREITIEr,: PLOT PLAN 10675 - (Tm-1) - E.A. 3Z967 - De Revere Partnership - Ranthe California Area - First Supervisortel District - Single Oak Drive at Business Park Drive - I~-$C Zone - 2.66 acres - 1 lot - {F/QUEST Approval for 2-Story Office Building) - Hod 119 - A.P. 921-020-041 PleaSe review the case described above, along with the attached case map. A Land Division Comtt~ee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for August 25,1988. Zf it clears, it will then go to public hearing. Your c~.,,ent$ and recumendatton$ are requested prior to August 25, 1988 tn order t~at we sly tnclude thee tn the staff report for this particular case. Shouqdyou have any questions regarding thts item. please do not hesitate to contact Alex Gann at 787-1363 Planner ~e Elstnore Union High School District facilities are overcrowded and our education pro~riti seriously Impacted by Increasing student population caused by new residentlair cousertcel and industrial construction. 'Therefore, pursuant to California Government Code Section 53080 of AB 2926 and 5B 327, this district levies a fee against a11 new development projects within its boundaries. "' DAT AUG I 2 1988 SZGMTU PL~:JSE pr4nt film and title Dr. Supeft ntendent 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 4~209 OASIS STF4EET. ROOM 304 INDIO. CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-8277 1983 DI3UN'rY RIVERSIDE PLANNZNG DEPARTNENT Dove Dillon hrcel Pap 14933 end 1USa0 Z have rev4e~ed two 9eologlc reports by Hods11, Arqont Worsw(ck & Associates, ]no. dated HItCh 20, lg81, and December 20, 1981. These reports address geltechnical as cts of a pro Died ¢ndustr4aq park w~th~n Parcel Hip Nose 14933 s d 19580 end d~E;IJenf. storlge ~astns tO the northwest, n Pioneer Conlull,ants prey(Dully subm(tted to our off(ca s cmpos~te 9eolo 4c report qor Parcel Y~p No. 14933 dated Hatch 21, 1975; 0inuary 19, 1979; August 11, 1979; and $e~%t.~ber 12, 1919, end designated as County Geolog4c Report No, 202. Th(s report was reviewed and approved August 22, 1980, and contained m~t~ it4on reco~,endat tn regards to 11quefactton, se4smlc des~ n, and unc~pacted f,rench ~sckfi11. We rec~:4nded thaf, i note be placed on the i~nal parcel map 4dent4fy(n9 the report and potentJal hazards, The tvo reports by Nodal1, Arsgon, Worsw~ck & Assoc4etest :nc., ~nclude assentlilly 811 of the property covered by P(onler Conlultsnts report plus sme edd4t~onal area lthe ~est i~ nOrthweSt, Thlll reports found no hazardous fsulttng or 11quefact(on storife bss(ns ft~l du~ng In elrthquakl, Zn ~lrdl to flult~ng~ ~ldlll~l report doll not iltlr I~ of the rlcmndlt~ons made ~ P1~llr~l report, However, Nedl~l~l report his ¢ltlm~nH this the potential hazlrd tOf liquefaction Is vl~low ~ doll not rlqU(rl l~ m(t(glt~On, This conclus on dfffet~ fr~ ~fo~er~l who recmended this 49 o~er to mttlglte the emil1 probabJl(t~ o l(quefsct~on~ this thl building foot(hUe should be kept It least ten (10 feet a eve ~e 9r~ndwl~r tlbll or M l~er thin lilYSalOn 1~8, Thh type Of m~t~f&t~on ~s no lo~er considerdd to ~ effecthi Ind~ thlrlfore~ Z rec~end thst 4t be superseded by ~dall's ~Hrt which pliCll no reStriCtIOnS Or m~ttg~t4onl on the develo~ent due tc ASB/rk cc: Bldg. & Safety Alan= 8~11 Harvey racor 0ev. Co. Attn: Chrts D. Hopper Medal1, Ari on, ~ors~c & Attn: Lull }ernsndo Ara~on Ascot. P(oneer Consu~tente, ASia: Oivld Turner (6) CoutCnued, "' in sinecure de~. , Your rapeTa rec6~dod 9o I~OT then slavstage ~008, ' Structures Ihould be dealSnod not to ;alleges dur~nS a mcin~tuOe 7,~ quake, cccuTr~nB nearby, (3) The exploratory trench.as vote back£~lledv~thouT; campscreen control. Struct- ure1 WagginG v high are to be placed in the bacY. f~llad areas should ~al~cy Act rev~ev. ' Xg ~t out rtc~endag~on that the foll~B note be pla~od on the r~n~l trench bickEred.~ utlXlty lines shouXd not be placed over the trenches without Vez7 t~uly yours, Ranthe CaXi~c~nte , .. h '~ '-~ ANNING (:OldUlSSION I lkMIR M. KAI'"'ZENII'IIN, Cae.an. adaam RONALO W, IUt,I.,IVAN, Name RUIIIIJ,,, I CAMpis, U., Jill rk ill. I. IRIDGI, geese MARION V, ASHLEY, hmo KAY N. OLIIIN, ere, h~o,~ '. ' Aupmt 22, 1910 251 Tamessee Itraat Redlands, ~a 91373 AI""ZI= ,T~vtd V, tuner PATRICLA NEMETH · AJ.C.P. · PLANNING DIRECTOR IQeQ LIrMON ITRIrr, ltI,,I F',,~R, RIVTRIIO(.GN,9~RMAIIIOl # Cou~ty GaolelSe lapoct No. 202 1208 - 1A2 1208 - 095 Parcel Yap ~o. 1&933 baths California Ve hive rtvtr.;td the a.ub~ect Tapart prepared by yourself sad John Sticks1. The report ~eterntned theft C1) He evidence of recent feultinl yes found on the property. T~trefcre ~auZt rdptute is mac expected rlthin the bulldi~l ares. (2) years and structures should he dealpad eccordl~lly. DIfferential mettleBent over the lies may occur due to local fcultini end post- conaolSdatlon of the near surface deposits. However, foundation defile can be esccbliehed such that any du~le rill be u~Lniuleed. however, 1t Is a emZl probability. The adverse effects of l~quefeccSon can be ~ttZlated by keephi the hlldlnl rounderion at least 10 feet above the wet~ table. l~ndelSdinl ~ud earthquake - induced fXoodtnl ere not considered hazards. nodevet, the southeeoc,portion of the sloe lies within a 100 year flood pla~. Zt is probable thit local earthquakes of Y. tohter Halallude 6.0 u~y affect the pto~ect more then once duTieS the Xlfottmo el the proposed structures. Earth- quakes of this aButrude could be expected to lenarate bedrock accelerations at the site in excess of 0.57S ~ud · duration of sirens around elsakfn8 of 22 soc~d,- Zt is portable that e latex earthquake of etchcar Halelaud" 7.5 ~y affect the pro~ecc a~ lees~ once d~rhl =~e Ztfo~tua or the proposed e~rgctutes ~ earchq~ka of thS8 ~pt=uda Qo~d be expected to peaT&re bedtack acceZ, at~on8 It z~e site ~ excess of 0.718 and d~s~i~ of etr~8 I:o~d e~ekln~ of 37 ,cuds. ~e ab,e accehraclone are peak a~celeratione ud are mac VICINITY t~IAP "1 1 I- CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST CASE NO.: PP 10675 The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this project. Fee Habitat Conservation Plan (K-Rat) Parks and Recreation (Quimby) Public Facility ( Traffic Mitigation ) Public Facility (Traffic Signal Mitigation) Public Facility ( Library ) Fire Protection Flood Control (ADP) Condition of Approval City Condition No. 3 N/A City Condition No. 2 City Condition No. 1 N/A County Condition No. 9 County Condition No. 8 STAFFR PT\pp 10675 13 ITEM #9 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION May 20, 1991 Case No.: Conditional Use Permit No. 10 Prepared By: Mark Rhoades Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution 91- approving Conditional Use Permit No. 10 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Budget Car and Truck Rental Markham F, Associates Request to operate a car rental facility at an existing retail center. 27Ll72 Jefferson Avenue C-P-S (Scenic Highway - Commercial) North: South: East: West: C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial } C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial ) Freeway. 1-15 C- 1 / C-P ( General Commercial ) Not requested. Retail Center North: South: East: West: Retail Retail 1-15 Freeway Retail A:CUPIO 1 PROJECT STATISTICS: BACKGROUND: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ANALYSIS: Existing Spaces in Center: Spaces Required: Rental Car Spaces: 257 223 15 The proposed Conditional Use Permit was submitted to the City of Temecula Planning Department on April 5, 1991. The proposed use is for a rental car facility in an existing retail center. The conditional use permit is required because the use in question is proposed for the C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial ) zone. The proposed project is a request for a conditional use permit to allow a car rental facility at an existing retail center which is currently zoned C-P-S. The existing retail center is Winchester Plaza Business Park at 271~72 Jefferson Avenue. No rental trucks or vans are proposed or will be permitted under this application. Parkinq The existing center currently contains 257 parking spaces. The existing uses, combined with a full occupancy of retail uses will require 223 total parking spaces. The applicant proposes to occupy 15 additional spaces with rental vehicles, thus bringing the total number of spaces required to 238. A total of 19 spaces will still remain for uncommitted uses. The parking area for the rental use will be located and designated at the rear of the building area so as not to impact available spaces for customer Use. Zoning The proposed use conforms with the C-P-S zoning requirements, provided a conditional use permit is approved. The Southwest Area Plan designates this area as "C" (Commercial). The proposed use is commercial and therefore is consistent with SWAP. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project is a Class Exemption per the CEQA Cuidelines. 1 Categorical A:CUP10 2 FINDINGS AND SUPPORTING FACTS: 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. 10. 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 categorically exempt per the CEQA 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 proposaPs 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 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:CUP10 3 detrimental, the use is subject to termination under City ordinance provisions contained in Section 18.31 of City Ordinance No. 3L~8 These findings are supported by Staff analysis, minutes, maps and exhibits, associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution 91 - approvincj Conditional Use Permit No. 10 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report. MR:ks Attachments: Resolution Conditions of Approval Exhibits A:CUPIO RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 10 TO PERMIT OPERATION OF A CAR RENTAL FACILITY LOCATED AT 27LI.72 JEFFERSON AVENUE. WHEREAS, Budget Car and Truck Rental filed CUP No. 10 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 20, 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:CUP10 5 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 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. 10 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 18.261e), 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. A:CUP10 6 ( 2 ) The Planning commission, in approving the proposed CUP. makes the following findings, to wit: a) 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. b) 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. c) 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. 10 { Rev. ) d) 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. e) As conditioned, the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment as the project is categorically exempt per the C.E.Q.A. Guidelines. f) 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 proposaPs conformance with existing applicable ordinances and Conditions of Project Approval. g) 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 fire protection services. A:CUP10 7 h) 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 i) These findings are supported by Staff analysis, minutes, maps and exhibits, associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. E. As conditioned pursuant to SECT ION 3, the CUP proposed is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. Conditional Use Permit No. 10 is a Class I Categorical Exemption per the CEQA Guidelines. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the city of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves CUP No. 10 for the operation of a car rental facility located at 27472 Jefferson Avenue subject to the following conditions: A. Attachment 2, attached hereto. SECTION PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th 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 20th day of May, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: A:CUP10 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS 8 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT Conditions of Approval Conditional Use Permit No. 1 Commission Approval Date: Expiration Date: Planninq Department 1. All signage shall require approval by separate permit. 3. Reciprocal access easements shall remain unobstructed. This conditional use permit shall be subject to Planning Commission review every five (5) years. The permit shall remain active until such times as the Commission determines that the use is not in conformance with the approved conditions of approval. Applicant shall maintain a maximum of 15 parking spaces for use as shown on Exhibit A. 6. No repair or mechanical maintenance will be permitted on site. The conditional use permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 18.30 of Ordinance 3~,8. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. The primary use of the property shall be restricted to the rental of automobiles. No other uses shall be allowed by this permit. A. No trucks or vans shall be stored or rented as a part of this use. 10. The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 10. 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 alefence, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. A:CUP10 9 11. 12. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of approval date; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion or the beginnin9 of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. In the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period of one ( 1 ) year or more, this approval shall become null and void. 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 OCCUPANCY PERMITS: 13. 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; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; Planning Department; Engineering Department; Riverside County Health Department; CATV Franchise; and Parks and Recreation Department. 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. A:CUPIO 10 T0: County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CiFY OF TEMECfILA DATE: ATTN: Hark Rhoades FROM: RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 10 .] fled Indl lat ill:iT rh_%t + he cc !on MohoFoskl. Hazecd!l,u: ~a. te[teis 9.~an:::h CITY OF TEMECULA ) C SWAP MAP r CASE NO.C,U.~, P.C. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA -t-IO -P-S CZ 456S M-SC 5~TE ZONE MAP r ~ CASE NO.(_,L~,?: P.C. DATE ,~:~'.,-'~)-q~ CITY OF TEMECULA ) / ,;;2' VICINITY MAP r ~ CASE NO.r-.tj'~, tO P.C. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA ) -I r CASE EXHIBIT NO. 1~ ~P.C. OATE~,~--'~I~ ITEM #10 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING PL I COMMISSION May 20, 1991 Case No.: Public Use Permit No. 625 ( Rev. ) Prepared By: Mark Rhoades Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution 91- approvincJ Public Use Permit No. 625 ( Rev. ) APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: Rancho Baptist Church David Christian Request to allow three (3) temporary trailers as Sunday classroom facilities. 29775 Santiago Road R-R ( Rural Residential ) North: SP (Specific Plan 180, Medium Density Residential ) South: SP (Specific Plan 180, Medium Density Residential ) East: R-R ( Rural Residential ) West: R-R ( Rural Residential ) Not requested. Church North: Residential South: Residential East: Church/School West: School No. of Temporary Units: Size of Proposed Units: Lot Area: 12~x60~ acres A:PUP625 I BACKGROUND: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ANALYSIS: GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Public Use Permit No. 625 and Variance 1512 were t roved on August 16, 1988 by the Riverside Ca~e nty Board of Supervisors. The approved Public Us~ Permit is for a church and related structures totaling 19,250 square feet. The approved variance relieves the project from the requirement of constructing a block wall along the property lines adjacent to the residential uses. Chain link fencing was subsequently approved. Phase I of Public Use Permit No. 625 has been constructed. This phase includes some parking and a multi-purpose room which will be used as a temporary auditorium. Phase 2 of the approved plan consists of the construction of four classroom buildings which will be used as Sunday school classrooms. The proposed Revised Public Use Permit is an application to place three mobile units on site to facilitate classroom use. The mobile units will be kept on site until Phase 2 construction is completed. The proposed units will be placed adjacent to the existing school site to the north and west. Staff has conditioned the project for landscaping to be placed at the base of the proposed units. The proposed temporary units are consistent with units already existing in the immediate vicinity. The units will be placed approximately 230 feet from any existing residential uses. The units, if approved will be removed prior to Phase 2 occupancy. The existing zoning is R-R (Rural Residential). A church use is permitted provided a Public Use Permit is approved. The proposed Revised Public Use Permit is consistent with the R-R zone provided it is approved by the Planning Commission. The proposed project is in conformance with Ordinance 30,8 which is consistent with the Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP). The proposed Revised Public Use Permit is a Class 3 Categorical Exemption per the CEQA Guidelines. A: PUP625 2 FINDINGS: 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 or the permitted use there of. The proposed use is not on a scale of intensity to impact adjacent uses. The site for the proposed use has adequate access to the fully improved Santiago Road as evidenced in the site plan for P.U.P. 625 ( 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 categorically exempt per the C. E. 0. 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 proposaPs 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:PUP625 3 detrimental, the use is subject to termination under City ordinance provisions contained in Section 18.31 of City Ordinance No. 3u,8 These findings are supported by Staff analysis, minutes, maps and exhibits, associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution 91- approving Public Use Permit No. 625 ( Rev. ) MR:ks Attachments: Resolution Conditions/Letters Exhibits Fee Checklist A:PUP625 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 625 J REV, ) TO PERMIT OPERATION OF 3 TEMPORARY UNITS AS SUNDAY SCHOOL ROOMS LOCATED AT 29775 SANTIAGO ROAD. WHEREAS, Rancho Baptist Church filed PUP No. 625 (Rev.) in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said PUP application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said PUP 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 recommended approval of said PUP; 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:PUP625 5 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 PUP is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: {1 ) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. (2) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the fol Iowing: a) There is reasonable probability that PUP No. 625 (Rev.) 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 18.26(e), No PUP 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 PUP approved shall be subject to such conditions as shall be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the community. A: PUP625 6 (2) The Planning commission, inapprovingtheproposed PUP, makes the follo.,~ng findings, to wit: a)\ 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. b) 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 · c) The site for the proposed use has adequate access to the fully improved Santiago Road as evidenced in the site plan for P.U.P. 625 | Rev. ) d) 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. e) As conditioned, the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment as the project is categorically exempt per the C.E.Q.A. Guidelines. f) 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. g} 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 mitlgative 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. A:PUP625 7 h) 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. E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the PUP proposed is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION 2__. Environmental Compliance. The proposed Revised Public Use Permit is a Class 3 Categorical Exemption per the CEQA Guidelines. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the city of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves PUP No. 625 ( Rev. ) for the operation of 3 temporary units located at 29775 Santiago Road subject to the following conditions: A. Attachment 2, attached hereto. SECTION 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th 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 20th day of May, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: A:PUP625 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS 8 CITY OF TEMECULA coN , o.s oF APPROVAL Public Use Permit No: Project Description: 625 ( Rev. ) 3 Temporary Trailers as Sunday Classroom Facilities Planninq Department Not withstanding the use of this revised permit, all Conditions of Approval for Public Use Permit No. 625 still apply. Shrubs shall be planted or placed (where applicable) at the perimeter of each unit, a minimum of five (5) gallon size, spaced at 36" on center, prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for any portion of Phase II, all temporary structures shall be removed from the site. Placement of the units shall be subject to the issuance of permits from the City of Temecula Building and Safety Department. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide proof of clearance from the following: City Planning Department City Engineering Department County Fire Department County Flood Control District 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: 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; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; A: PUP625 9 Planning Department; . , CATV Franchise; and Parks and Recreation Department. The developer shall submit two (2) prints of a comprehensive grading plan for the area surrounding the trailer pads to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code and Chapter 70 as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2~"x36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of- way. No grading shall take place prior to the improvement plans being substantially complete, appropriate clearance letters and approval by the City Engineer. 10. 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. 11. All site plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency with approved plans. 12. The subdivider shall post security for grading and an agreement shall be executed guaranteeing the construction of the improvements in conformance with applicable City standards. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY: 13. Construct all improvements per the approved plans and permit. 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. A:PUP625 10 CITY ,~F TEMECULA ~ \ SWAP MAP r ~ CASE No.~.U.?.(O~(~'~ p.c. OATE~-P~D-~{i~ CITY O~,F TEMECULA ) R-A-2 CZ 22 ONE ( Rm Am CASE .o. ZONE MAP ) P.C. DATE.~'-ZC~:~I CITY OxF TEMECULA ) VICINITY MAP r ~ CASE NO.R~I.~G~5(:e~'~ P.C. DATES-~O-cli (~ CITY',~F TEMECULA ) ITEM #11 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING P I COMMISSION May 20, 1991 Case No.: Plot Plan No. 69, Revised Prepared By: Mark Rhoades Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. ADOPT Resolution 91- recommendin9 that the City Council approve Plot Plan No. 69 (Revised). APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: PacTel FastFax Developer Services Request to add cellular telephone antenna equipment to an existing radio transmission tower. West of 1-15 and south of Front Street. R- R ( Rural Residential ) North: R-R (Rural Residential) South: R-R (Rural Residential) East: R-R ( Rural Residential ) West: R-R ( Rural Residential ) Not requested. Radio Transmission Tower North: South: East: West: Vacant, Hillside Vacant, Hillside Vacant, Hillside Vacant, Hillside A: PP69- R EV I BACKGROUND: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ANALYSIS: GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed antenna modification application was 1prg~sent location on August 20, 1990 by the Planning commission. The City Council approved the request on August 28, 1990. The tower was approved at a height of 120 feet, and was conditioned to be painted green to blend with the surrounding hillside vegetation. The current revised application is a request to place three ~3) microdish antennas and a six foot whip antenna onto the existing tower. The proposed antennas are for cellular telephone reception and transmission. The proposed microdishes have a diameter of six feet. The whip antenna is proposed with a horizontal length of 12 feet, with vertical tips six feet high. None of the proposed additions will extend the height of the tower. All appurtenant equipment will be contained within the existing tower framework. The applicant has agreed with the conditions from the original project. Those conditions include among others, painting all new equipment green and no beacon. The proposed project is located within the R-R { Rural Residential ) zone. The use is permitted with an approved plot plan, however the City currently has an ordinance prohibiting construction of new antennas. That ordinance does have an exemption clause where projects may be approved by the City Council. It is the opinion of the Planning Staff that this project is not a substantial alteration to the existing site. Therefore, Staff recommends that an exemption be granted. The proposed project is in conformance with Ordinance 3~,8 which is consistent with SWAP Guidelines. The proposed Revised Plot Plan is a Class I Categorical Exemption per the CEQA Guidelines. A: PP69- R EV 2 FINDINGS: There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 69 ( Rev. ) will be consistent with the City~s future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law. The project, as proposed, conforms with existing applicable city zoning and development ordinances. Further, the proposal is characteristic of similar development approved by the City to date. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with the City's future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The project is of insignificant scale in context of the broad goals and directives anticipated in the City~s General Plan. The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws. Reference local Ordinance No. 3~,8 and California Governmental Code Sections 65000-66009 (Planning and Zoning Law). The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use. The proposed use will be placed on an existing structure. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare. The project is categorically exempt per the CEQA Guidelines. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area. The project conforms with applicable land use and development regulations and reflects design aspects currently existing in the proposaPs existing site. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-d-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. A:PP69-REV 3 8. The design of the project together with the  type of suppoFtincj improvements are such " that they are not in conflict with easements for access through, or use of the property within the proposed project. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. Supporting documentation is attached. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution 91- recommending that the City Council approve Plot Plan No. 69 ( Revised ). MR:ks Attachments: Resolution Conditions of Approval Exhibits A: PP69- R EV ~ RES~,,I~UTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF T~E PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLOT PLAN NO. 69 (REV.) TO CONSTRUCT CELLULAR TELEPHONE ANTENNA EQUIPMENT ON AN EXISTING TOWER ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 53.4 ACRES LOCATED WEST OF THE 1-15 AND APPROXIMATELY 2,600 FEET SOUTH OF THE TERMINUS OF FRONT STREET AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 922-220-013. WHEREAS, Pacific Telephone filed Plot Plan No. 69 ( Rev. ) 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 20, 1991, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report regarding the Plot Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: (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: PP69- R EV 5 (b) There is little or no probability of substantial .. ~ detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or \ action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (c) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: (1) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. (2) The Planning Commission finds, in recommending approval of projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: a) There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 69 (Rev.) proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. c) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. D. (1) Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan may be approved unless the following findings can be made: A:PP69-REV 6 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. 69 ( Rev. ) will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law. The project, as proposed, conforms with existing applicable city zoning and development ordinances. Further, the proposal is characteristic of similar development approved by the City to date. b) There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with the City's future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The project is of insignificant scale in context of the broad goals and directives anticipated in the City's General Plan. c) The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws. Reference local Ordinance No. 3L~8 and California Governmental Code Sections 65000-66009 (Planning and Zoning Law). d) The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use. The proposed use will be placed on an existing structure. e) The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare. The project is categorically exempt per the CEO A Guidelines. A:PP69-REV 7 f! The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area. The project conforms with applicable land use and development regulations and reflects design aspects currently existing in the proposal's existing site. g) The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. h) The design of the project together with the type of supporting improvements are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through, or use of the property within the proposed project. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. Supporting documentation is attached. 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. The project is categorically exempt per CEQA Guidelines, Class I. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Plot Plan No. 69 | Rev. ) to add cellular telephone antenna equipment on an existing tower located west of 1-15 and at 2,600 feet south of the terminus of Front Street and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 922-220-013 subject to the following conditions: A. Attachment 2, attached hereto. SECTION 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of May, 1991. A: PP69-R EV 8 DENNIS CHINIAEFF CHAIRMAN I HEREBY CERTIFY t~t the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 20th day of May, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS A: PP69-REV 9 CI. TY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDI~FiONS OF APPROVAL Plot Plan 69, Revised Council Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. No Oak Trees shall be removed from the subject parcel. The antenna shall be painted green, and no beacon shall be allowed on the structure. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the City Council approval date; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. By this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on Plot Plan No. 69 Revised, 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, and shall comply with Ordinance No. 655. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain clearance and/or permits from the following agencies: Engineering Department Environmental Health Riverside County Flood Control Fire Department Written evidence of compliance shall be presented to the Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety. A:PP69-REV 10 CITY ,,~F TEMECULA ) SWAP MAP CASE NO P.C. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA ) \\ \ CZq441 R-I '~,CZ4'04 ~ //cz4995 CITY QF TEMECULA ) PROPOSED ELEVATION r .--q~,~ CASE No.7-F-~ ( ) EXHIBIT NO.I~ ~P.C. DATE ITEM #12 STAFF~,~PORT - PLANNING CIT~Y OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION Recommendation: May 20, 1991 Case No.: Parcel Map 21769, Amended No. 3 Prepared By: Scott Wright Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution No. 91- Recommend approval of an Extension of Time for Parcel Map 21769 APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Industrial Commercial Properties Industrial Commercial Properties To create four parcels 19.3 acres, 1~,.3 acres, 19.2 acres, and L~2.1 acres on a 9~. 9 acre site. Rainbow Canyon Road immediately South of the Temecula Inn Golf Course. R-R Rural Residential, and R-2, multiple family dwellings. North: South: East: West: R-R, Rural Residential 2-8 Dwelling units/acre iSWAP) R-R, Rural Residential R-R, Rural Residential Not requested Vacant North: Golf Course South: Vacant East: Vacant West: Vacant A: PM21769 1 PROJECT STATISTICS: BACKGROUND: Size of Site: 94.9 acres E/ Parcel No. 1: 19.3 acres Parcel No. 2: 14.3 acres Parcel No. 3: 19.2 acres Parcel No. 4: 42.1 acres Tentative Parcel Map 21769 was filed in May 1986 concurrently with Plot Plan 9198, a proposal for 320 apartments on a 30 acre portion of Parcel Map 21769, and change of Zone 4704, a request to change the zone from R-R, Rural Residential to R-2 Multiple Family Residential on the same 30 acre portion. Change of Zone 4704 was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on February 9, 1988, and Plot Plan 9198 was approved at the County Planning Director~s hearing on July 10, 1987. A Substantial Conformance to Plot Plan 9198 was filed on November u,, 1988 and approved on January 31, 1989. Plot Plan 9198 expired on July 10, 1989 without the commencement of substantial work, and the project is now defunct. Parcel Map 21769 as originally submitted was never approved. An amended Tentative Parcel Map 21769 was submitted on February 6, 1987 in conjunction with Tentative Tract 22294, a 117 lot R-2 Subdivision on Parcel No. 4 of the amended Tentative Parcel Map. On August 21, 1987, Parcel Map 21769 amended No. 3 was approved at the Planning Directors hearing. Tentative Tract 22294 was not pursued, and a letter to City Staff, dated October 31, 1990, confirms the withdrawal of the application. The County Board of Supervisors approved a first extension of time for Parcel Map 21769 Amended No. 3 on October 12, 1989. Revised Parcel Map 21769 was filed on February 5, 1988 and approved by the County Planning Commission on March 12, 1990. The application was subsequently forwarded to the City of Temecula for council action as a Receive and File item. On April 20, 1990 J. C. Resorts, owner of the Temecula Creek Inn Golf Course, filed Appeal No. 2 in protest of the Countyis Tentative approval of Revised Parcel Map 21769. Issues raised by the appellant include inconsistency with area development, potential erosion and significant impacts to landform, major rock outcroppings, and oak trees due to the design of an interior street, and lack of A: PM21769 2 evidence to support the findings that there is a r~' sonable probability that the project will be consistent with the future General Plan and that th~;'e is little probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan. Revised Tentative Parcel Map 21769 and Appeal No. 2 were continued off calendar at the City Council hearing of June 26, 1990 to allow staff additional time to review the project and analyze the appeal. On August 10, 1990 a second extension of time request was filed in order to prevent the expiration of the Tentative Parcel Map. Subsequently another issue arose regarding the excavation of soil on a portion of the site which was formerly used as a landfill. RanPac Engineering Corporation, the former owner of the property, had obtained landfill soil excavation permits from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and the South Coast Air Quality Management District in 1989. In a letter dated June 12, 1990, the lead agency, the County Department of Health Solid Waste Management Local Enforcement Agency (LEA), concurred with RanPac's intent to remove soil from the site pending submittal of an excavation plan. Excavation began prior to approval of an excavation plan and was halted. A letter dated October 26, 1990 from the LEA indicated that an excavation and disposal plan and a permit from The State Department of Health Services to treat soils with a high lead content were still needed. On November 29, 1990 The State Department of Health Services classified the 4,000 to 6,000 tons of lead contaminated soil on the site as non-hazardous to health due to mitigating chemical characteristics pursuant to Section 66305 {e), Title 22, California Code of Regulations. On January 7, 1991 an excavation plan was submitted. The LEA letter of January 16, 1991 stated that the work plan could not be accepted until the County Environmental Health Services Hazardous Material Branch approved a removal, transport and disposal plan. On January 2~,, 1991 the LEA approved a revised work plan. On February 25, 1991 the new owner, Industrial Commercial Properties (ICP) indicated that a complete development package would be submitted to be processed concurrently with the Parcel Map, and that a new street alignment for the sirens internal circulation would be provided. ICP later decided to proceed with the Parcel Map prior to the development plans. ICP agreed that the Parcel Map A:PM21769 3 would be strictly a land division for conveyance p rposes only, that the proposed interior street t~c~pproval of development plans. The deletion of the proposed street resulted in a reduction in the number of proposed parcels from four to three. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ANALYSIS: GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY: The applicant requests a second extension of time for Parcel Map 21769 Amended No. 3 to create four parcels on a 94.9 acre site. The parcel sizes are 19.3 acres, 14.3 acres, 19.2 and 42.1 acres. The extension of time is requested in order to enable the City to process Revised Tentative Parcel Map 21769. Reason for the Extension Request Parcel Map 21769 Amended No. 3 was designed to accommodate Tentative Tract 22294 on a portion of the Parcel Map site. Although the Parcel Map was approved on August 21, 1987 and extended by the Board of Supervisors on October 12, 1989, Tentative Tract 22294 was withdrawn. Revised Parcel Map 21769 was tentatively approved by the County on March 12, 1990 and forwarded to the City as a Receive and File item. Appeal No. 2 protesting the approval was filed by an adjacent property owner for reasons delineated in the background section of this report. On June 26, 1990 the City Council continued Revised Parcel Map 21769 and Appeal No. 2 off calendar to allow staff additional time to review and analyze the issues. The Second Extension of Time request for Parcel Map 21769 Amended No. 3 was submitted in order to prevent the expiration of the original approval which would also render the Revised Parcel Map defunct. The extension of time for Parcel Map 21769 Amended No. 3 will be scheduled for Public Hearings concurrently with Revised Parcel Map 21769. Revised Parcel Map 21769, if approved, will supersede Parcel Map 21769 Amended No. 3. The proposed parcels, ranging in size from 14.3 acres to 42.1 acres, are consistent with the applicable minimum lot sizes in the Residential 8-16 dwelling units per acre designation and the Rural Residential Zone. A portion of the site is designated for Commercial Office uses. Ordinance 348 stipulates no minimum lot size in the Commercial Office Zone. A: PM21769 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: FINDINGS AND SUPPORTING FACTS: t~r~'approval of Parcel Map 21769 Amended No. 3. The County adopted a Negative Declaration in conjunction with the original approval of Parcel Map 21769. There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time in that the lots are of sufficient size to conform to the standards of any zone. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with, the future adopted General Plan, if the proposed Parcel Map is ultimately inconsistent with the plan due to the size of the parcels and current surrounding development. The proposed use complies with State planning and zoning laws. The project conforms to the current zoning for the site and to Ordinance No. 460, Schedule H. That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type of development due to the fact that the proposal is for the creation of 4 lots with the minimum lot size being 14.2 acres. The size of the lots will allow appropriate size for future development per the current zoning designations. The project does not conflict with any known easements of recorded. 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:PM21769 5 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: SW/Ib Planning Department Staff recommends that the I~r~nning Commission: 1.\ ADOPT Resolution 91- recommending that the City Council approve a Second Extension of Time for Parcel Map 21769 Amended No. 3 based on the findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Attachments: Resolution Conditions of Approval Exhibits A. Vicinity Map B. Parcel Map 21769 Amended No. 3 C. Revised Parcel Map 21769 A: PM21769 6 RESOLUTION NO. 91- x '\ A RESOLUTION OF T~,~E PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PARCEL MAP NO. 21769 AMENDED NO. 3 TO SUBDIVIDE A 94.9 ACRE PARCEL INTO ~ PARCELS AT RAINBOW CANYON ROAD IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF TEMECULA CREEK INN GOLF COURSE WHEREAS, RANPAC ENGINEERING filed an extension of time request for Parcel Map No. 21769 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 20, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of said Parcel Map; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNINC 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:PM21769 7 b) There is little or no probability of substantial · ~\ detriment to or interference with the future ~ adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. c) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The proposed 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. 21769 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. c) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. D. (1) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. ~60, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are made: a) That the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. A: PM21769 8 b) That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. 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 County adopted a Negative Declaration in conjunction with the original approval of Parcel Map 21769. b) There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time in that the lots are of sufficient size to conform to the standards of any zone. A: PM21769 9 \/L c) There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with, the future adopted General Plan, if the proposed Parcel Map is ultimately inconsistent with the plan due to the size of the parcels and current surrounding development. d) The proposed use complies with State planning and zoning laws. The project conforms to the currently zoning for the site and to Ordinance No. 460, Schedule E. e) That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type of development due to the fact that the proposal is for the creation of I~ lots with the minimum lot size being 1~,.2 acres. The size of the lots will allow appropriate size for future development per the current zoning designations. f) The project does not conflict with any known easements of recorded. g) The lawful conditions stated in the project~s Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. g) 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. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicated that the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment, and a Negative Declaration, was adopted by the County on August 21, 1987. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of a Second Extension of time for Parcel Map No.21769, Amended 3, for the subdivision of a 9LL9 acre parcel into L~ parcels located at Rainbow Canyon Road immediately South of Temecula Creek Inn Golf Course subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. A:PM21769 10 SECTION 4. PASSED, APPROVE~ND ADOPTED thls 20th day of May, 1991. DENNIS CH1NIAEFF 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 20th day of May, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS A:PM21769 11 CITY OF TEMECULA COND/r~ONS OF APPROVAL Parcel Map No: 21769 Amended No. 3 Project Description: To create ~, parcels on a 9~. 9 acre site. Assessor's Parcel No.: 922-230-005, 006 Planninq Department The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance Ll60, Schedule _H, 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. The Second Extension of Time will expire four years after the original approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance ~,60. The expiration date is August 21, 1991. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordatlon of the final map. 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. 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. A:PM21769 12 10. 11. 12. 13. Prior to the ssuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance N 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officer, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officer, or employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Tentative Parcel Map No. 21769, which action is brought within the time period provided for in California Government Code Section 660,99.37. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter. be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility 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. All existing specimen trees on the subject property shall be preserved wherever feasible. Where they cannot be preserved they shall be relocated or replaced with specimen trees as approved by the Planning Director. Any oak trees removed with four (L~) inch or larger trunk diameters shall be replaced on a ten 110) to one { 1 ) basis as approved by the Planning Director. Prior to issuance of permits for grading, construction, or improvements on the site, a work plan for the disposal of contaminated soils resulting from previous waste disposal operations conducted on the site shall be approved by the County solid Waste Management Local Enforcement Agency | LEA ) and shall be implemented to completion and all required post-excavation clearance shall be obtained from LEA and the regional air and water quality agencies. No grading, construction or site improvements shall occur prior to approval of specific development plans for the site. A:PM21769 13 Enqineerinq Department The following are the Engineer~n~J Department Conditions of Approval for this project, and shall be completed at ~ cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering Department. These conditions shall either supplement or replace as noted all conditions of the original Tentative Map approval and subsequent amendments. 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. ~,60. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: 17. 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; and Parks and Recreation Department. 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. A development agreement shall be executed for construction of the internal loop road as directed by the City Engineer. 21. 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. A:PM21769 any parcel, a formal development plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for formal development review processing. 23. 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: Prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for any parcel, 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. A: PM21769 15 \ LAIItlZlI~ D R'S APPROVAL DATE: 8-21-87 RZVERSZDE COUNTf PLANNZfiG D~ARTHENT COND/TZONS OF APPROVAL *' TENTATZVE PARCEL ~Lu I~0, 21769 Amd. No. 3 1, The subdivider shall d~fend, tnd~-nify, and ~.old hsml~ss the County of RIverside, its agerts, offic3rs, and e~pjoyees fro**q any c'lairn, at,tons or proceeding ageIns1 t~.e County of RIverside or tts e.3.,nts, offtc2rs, or employees to at,at|, set =si~e, void, or annul nn a~roval of t."..~ COunty of Riverside, its ~dvisory eg.~ncto5, a~p.~al .%c3rds or legislative body concerning P.H. 71769 ;-~.."-3 , ~htoh action is ~rou~ht ,tthtn the time ~oertod provldctt ~r in t:di~rnia C~v~.rn.--,~nt C~".o ~.-ction 65;39.37. ~e unty of Rtversid~ ~ll p~)tly ~3tify ~2 su;~ivi~3r of cny such claim, action, or p~c3eding cgatnst the Ccunty of ~twrsid3 and will cocperate fully tn the d~fcnse. If ~he ~unty fails to pror~tly notify the Subdivider of any such cl3i~, action, or p~coedin9 or fails to coopera~ fully tn ~e defense, the s;~dtvid2r sh3ll ~ot, ~e~after, be ~sponstble ~ defend, tndmntfym or hold hamloss ~e ~unty of Riverside. 2, ~e ~n~tive <)arcel map shall confore to the ~qui~en~ of Ordinance 460, ~h~ule H unless mdtftH by the conditions lierod below. This app~v~ ten,aura parcel r~p ~111 expire ~ }~ars after the approval --- da~ of 8-21-87 unless extended as p~vtd~ by ~dinance 460. The final map shell be prepared by e registered ctvtl engineer or licensed land surveyor subject to all the re~ire~nts of the State of California Subdivision Hap Act, Riverside County Subdivision Ordinance 460. All road easerents shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall continue in fc(rce until the governing body accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free fr~ all encumbrances as approved by the County Road Conntsstoner. Street names shall be subject to approval of the Road Cocbtsstoner. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be $hom on the final rap if within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication shall provide for nonexclushe public road and utility access. All easenan,s, offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the Riverside County Surveyor. 6. Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided frm the : paroel ,ap boundary to eCOunty rainrained road. ; 7, A11 deiinquenc proper~y taxes shall be paid prior to records,ton of the final map. TENTATIVE PARCEL HAP NO. Conditions of Approval Page -2- 21769 Amd. #3 Prior to any grading, a Grading Plan in c~pliance with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, as amended by Ordinance 457, shall be submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety. The subdivider shall comply with the street improvement recomendattons outlined in the County Road Department's letter dated 7-31-87, a copy of which is attached. The subdivider shall comply with the environmental health recommendations outlined in the County Health Department's transmittal dated 7-24-87 & 7-3-85 a copy of which is attached. The subdivider shall ccmply with the flood control recon~nendations outlined in the Riverside County Flood Control District's letter dated 7-30-87 & 7-26-G6 a copy of which is attached. If the land division lies within an adopted f~ooi control drainage area pursuant to Section 1D.25 of Riverside County Land Division Ordinance 460, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities shall be collected by the Road Con~issioner prior to recordation of the final map or waiver of parcel map. The subdivider shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations out- lined in the County Fire Department's letter dated 8-3-87 , a copy of which is attached. 13.The applicant shall comply with the Department of Building.and Safety letter dated 10-2-86, a copy of which is attached. GRAD I NG 14. Grading plans shall conform to the Hillside Development Standards as presented in the Comprehensive General Plan. All cut and/or fill slopes, or individual combinations thereof, which exceed ten feet in vertical height shall be modified by an appropriate combination of a special terracing (benching) plan, increased slope ratio (e,g. 3:1), retaining walls, and/or slope planting combined with irrigation. All driveways shall not exeed a 15~ grade. * - AGENCIES All proposed construction shall comply with the California institute of Technology, Pal~nar Observatory recommendations dated 7-18-86, a copy of which is attached, and in compliance with the Lamp Type and Shielding Guidelines. TENTATIVE PARCEL HAP NO. 21769 Conditions of Approval Page -3- DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS NO butldtng permits shall be issued by the County of Riverside for any residential lot/unit within the project boundary until the deve)oper, or the developer's successors-in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures, A cash Sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) per lot/untt shall be deposited with the Riverside County Department of Building and Safety as mitigation for public library development. Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the develop- ment standards of the R-R/R-2 zone. Prior to the recordation of the final map, Change of Zone No. 4704 shall be adopted by the Board of Supervisors. ENVIROnmENTAL CONSTRAINT SHEET CC:;DITIONS 6/25/87 An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared with the final map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed with the office of the County Surveyor. Prior to the recordation of the final map, a copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning .epar entforreview,ndapprova,. Theapproved with copies of the recorded final map to the Planning n Oeparl~nent 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 Palornar Ob- servatory. Light and glare may adversely impact operation at the Observatory. Outdoor lighting shall be from low pressure sodium lamps that are oriented and shielded to prevent direct illumination above the horizontal plane passing through the luminare." I OFFIC~ OF ROAD COMNISSlONER 6 COUNTYSURVEYOR ,.luly 31, 1987 RIverside County Planntng Commission 4080 Lemon Street RIverside, CA 92501 Re: Parcel Hap 21769 - i~mend #3 SChedule H - Team I Ladies and Gentlemen: · With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced tentative landdivision rap, the ROad Department recurrends that the landdivider provide the following road dedications in accordance with Crdtnance No. 460. It is understood that the Tentative Pap correctly shows all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses with appropriate O's, and that their omission may require the map to be resubmttted for further consideration. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the ROad C~mmtssioner's Office. ~ufftctent right of way along Rainbow Canyon ROad shall be dedicated for public use to provide for a 50 foot half width right of way and a 100 foot full width right of way at a grade and alignment as approved by the Road Department. e Streets "A" thru 'E' shall be improved with 24 feet of C1ass 3, Aggregate Base (0.33' thick) on a 32 foot graded section within a 60 foot full wtdt~ dedicated right of way at a grade and altgr,,~ent as approved by the ROad Department, Comer cutbacks in conformance with County Standard No. 805 shall be Shown on the final ~ap. Prior to the recordation of the final map, or the granting of a waiver of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Road Depart- merit, a cash sum of $150.00 per lot as mitigation for traffic signal impacts. The traffic signal mitigation for parcel 3 -~"' k.~.+.~,~ until the time of development, ~ ' hrcel Nap 21769 * Amend : , auly 31, 1987 5. The maxfmumcenterllne gradtent shall not exceed 15Z. 6. The ~ntmum centerline radtS shall be as approved by the t~oad Department. 7, All centerline Intersecttons shall be at 90e or as appro?ed by the Road Depar~nent, e Zmprov?mnt plans shall be based upon a centerline proftle extending a mtnl=um of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and a11gr~an~ as approvet by the RIverside County Road Cc~r~lsstoner, Completion of road Improvements does not ~mply acceptance for maintenance by County. Landdivisions creattng cut or ftll slopes adjacent to the streets shall provtde erosion control, sight distance control and slope easements as approved by the Road Department. 14467 (P,H. 77/71-75). This parcel map shall be coordinated with Parcel ~p Very truly yours, Plmmir~ Del~ ~_-~n_t DATaso .~,ly X, lq~6 Atim: lJavid Ja~es Smu ~zninez, R,S., Senior Ssnitarian - Fmvi~tal I~eslth ~ervices Division Parcel ~p No; ~1769 The Envirox~ent,31 H2alth Services Divisian hns reviewed the information in regards to the ~ent~ive parcel ~.ap and k-ould require prior ~o recorda~i~ of ~h.~- finn1 ~-~, a '~,:~ll-serve" le~r £iL-:~, ~r..° ..~ci~,~say c~r.c~rni~, se~er and ~a~er avail. ability/. CONTROL t~ ~ ............ WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT ,. ·., ~ RIverside Count~ Planning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California Attention: Regional Team ltD. I Re: JUL 30 1986 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Pl~ Me have reviewed this case and have the following comments: Except for nuisance nature local runoff which may traverse portions of the property the projet'; is considered free from ordinary storm flood hazard. However, e storm of ;jnusual 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 38 inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosion protection shall be provided for mobfie home supports." : This project is in the Area drainage plan fees shall be paid in accordance with the applicable rGles 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 ts still current for this project. The District does not object to the proposed minor change. The attached comehis apply. Very truly yours, KENNETH L. EDt4ARDS L 21'769 With respect to the conditions of a~roval for the above referenced land division, the Fire Department recouuaends the folioring fire protection measures be provided in accordance vtth Riverside County Ordinances and/or reco~nized fire pz~tection standardsz fire protection requirements. L'ZI~ P~:r~ECTZCna - ~ #4 Lot. 14 (tentative tract no. 22294), fire protection requirements rill be addressed vhen the tract map is reviewed. ill questions regarding the meaning'Of the conditions shall be referred to the rite Department Planning and gngineezing s~aff. NICHA~ g. GRAY, Planning Officer .. CALIFO! IA IN i'ITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY I~ cue in vith4e 30miles of the Palsmar Qbaervatory s~d is therefore vithin the zone requlrin~ the use of lo~-pressure sodium vapor larva for street ltght~u8, -= stipulated by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. ~e request that the design for other types of outdoor lithtin; that may be esployed on this pro~ert~ be ~e consistent with the spirit of the decision of the hard o~ S~pe~sors vhich is ~n=ended CorrUgate the Mvetse effects ,u~ facilities b~e ~a uC~o~ reseat~ at P~r, ~ne~lcid steps ~o that ~d ~ude: Use the ~4~4e~ amount of ll&hC needed for the task. 2. Orient ~nd shield light to prevent direct u~Nard lll,~4uation. 3. Turn off lightz at ll:C0 p.m. (or earlier) Lmlesa, in cc~nercial a~pltcattons, the usoctated b~ness is o~en past that ttne, in ~t~ ~e the lights sho~d be tuned off a~ closing. Use lov-preszure sodtua l~ps for roserays, vslkvays, equipment yards, parking lots, security and other st,Alar applications. These lights need not be turned off at 11:00 p,m. For further Information, call (818) 356-&035. JUL 21 1986 RIVEH~',~' ~uwTY PLANNIk~ DEPARTMENT Robert J. Brucato issistent Director B~eddD~ Vice fi'esiden~ T, C. Eove ~ D. S~fky July 22, 1986 Riverside County Planning Department 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor Riverside, California 92501-3657 Subject: Water Availability Reference: Parcel Map 21769 Rainbow Canyon Road Gentlemen: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water Oistrict. Water service therefore would be available upon financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which precludes the drilling of private wells. 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 FO12 J.UL 23 1986 1~tVe~.S:.,r u~uNTY ~L ~' ~i~-,.~ DEPA~ a A N C H O C :, ~. X r O a N Z A w~ T r. 'Ft' 'o'z s" i"R "' . 28061 DIA/- ROAD · POST Orr]cE BOX 3'74 · TEMECULA. CA 92390-26'74 · 114 676-4t0I CITY ~F T'!~ECULA ) ",--SITE CASE NO. Pr4 }.,~-lr,,q - VICINITY MAP ._) P.C. DATE 5'/:z,:>/°ll _,) I ITEM #13 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION May 20, 1991 Case No.: Revised Parcel Map No. 21769 Prepared By: Scott Wright Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council RECEIVE AND FILE Revised Parcel Map No. 21769 based on the Findings contained in this report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCAT ION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Industrial Commercial Properties Industrial Commercial Properties To create 3 parcels 17.7 acres, b,3.7 acres, and 30 acres in size on a 91 .u, acre site. Rainbow Canyon Road immediately south of the Temecula Inn Golf Course. R-R (Rural Residential) and R-2 (Multiple Family Dwellings) North: South: East: West: R-R (Rural Residential) 2 to 8 Dwelling Units/Acre (SWAP) R - R ( Rural Residential ) R-R (Rural Residential) Not requested. Vacant North: South: East: West: Golf Course Vacant Vacant Vacant A: PM21769~A 1 PROJECT STATISTICS: BACKGROUND: Size of Site: No. of Parcels: Size of Parcels: 91.4 acres 3 17.7 acres, 30 acres, and ~7.7 acres Tentative Parcel Map No. 21769 was filed in May, 1986 concurrently with Plot Plan No. 9198, a proposal for 320 apartments on a 30 acre portion of Parcel Map No. 21769, and Change of Zone No. 4704, a request to change the zone from R-R, Rural Residential, to R-2, Multiple Family Residential, on the same 30 acre portion. Change of Zone No ~,704 was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on February 9, 1988, and Plot Plan No. 9198 was approved at the County Planning Director's hearing on July 10, 1987. A Substantial Conformance to Plot Plan No. 9198 was filed on November ~, 1988 and approved on January 31, 1989. Plot Plan No. 9198 expired on July 10, 1989 without the commencement of substantial work, and the project is now defunct. Parcel Map No. 21769, as originally submitted, was never approved. An amended Tentative Parcel Map No. 21769 was submitted on February 6, 1987 in conjunction with Tentative Tract No. 22294, a 117 lot R-2 subdivision on Parcel No. 4 of the amended Tentative Parcel Map. On August 21, 1987, Parcel Map No. 21769 Amended No. 3 was approved at the Planning Director's hearing. Tentative Tract Map No. 2229~ was not pursued, and a letter to City Staff dated October 31, 1990 confirms the withdrawal of the application. The County Board of Supervisors approved a First Extension of Time for Parcel Map No. 21769 Amended No. 3 on October 12, 1989. Revised Parcel Map No. 21769 was filed on February 5; 1988 and approved by the County Planning Commission on March 12, 1990. The application was subsequently forwarded to the City of Temecula for Council action as a Receive and File item. On April 20, 1990, J. C. Resorts, owner of the Temecula Creek Inn Golf Course, filed Appeal No. 2 in protest of the County~s tentative approval of Revised Parcel Map No. 21769. Issues raised by the appellant include inconsistency with area development, potential erosion and significant impacts to landform, major rock outcroppings and oak trees due to the design of an interior street, and lack of evidence to support the findings that there is a reasonable probability that the project will be A:PM21769-A 2 consistent with the future General Plan and that there is little probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan. Revised Tentative Parcel Map No. 21769 and Appeal No. 2 were continued off calendar at the City Council hearing of June 26, 1990 to allow Staff additional time to review the project and analyze the appeal. On August 10, 1990, a Second Extension of Time request was filed in order to prevent the expiration of the Tentative Parcel Map. Subsequently, another issue arose regarding the excavation of soil on a portion of the site which was formerly used as a landfill. Ranpac Engineering Corporation, the former owner the property, had obtained landfill soil excavation permits from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and the South Coast Air Quality Management District in 1989. In a letter dated June 12, 1990, the lead agency, the County Department of Health, and Solid Waste Management Local Enforcement Agency (LEA), concurred with Ranpac's intent to remove soil from the site pending submittal of an excavation plan. Excavation began prior to approval of an excavation plan and was halted. A letter dated October 26, 1990 from the LEA indicated that an excavation and disposal plan and a permit from the State Department of Health Services to treat soils with a high lead content were still needed. On November 29, 1990, the State Department of Health Services classified the ~,,000 to 6,000 tons of lead contaminated soil on the site as non-hazardous to health due to mitigating chemical characteristics pursuant to Section 66305{e), Title 22, California Code of Regulations. On January 7, 1991 an excavation plan was submitted. The LEA letter of January 16, 1991, stated that the work plan could not be accepted until the County Environmental Health Services Hazardous Material Branch approved a removal, transport, and disposal plan. On January 2u,, 1991, the LEA approved a revised work plan. On February 25, 1991, the new owner, industrial Commercial Properties (ICP) indicated that a complete development package would be submitted to be processed concurrently with the Parcel Map, and that a new street alignment for the site~s internal circulation would be provided. ICP later decided to proceed with the Parcel Map prior to the development plans. ICP agreed that the Parcel Map would be strictly a land division for conveyance A: PM21769-A 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ANALYSIS: purposes only, that the proposed interior street would be deleted from the Tentative Map, and that no grading or site improvements would occur prior to approval of development plans. The deletion of the proposed street resulted in a reduction in the number of proposed parcels from four to three. The proposal is to create three parcels on a 91.4 acre site. The parcel sizes are 17.7 acres, 43.7 acres, and 30 acres, respectively. The proposed Parcel Map is a land division for conveyance purposes only and does not involve any grading or construction of improvements. Relationship Between Parcel Map 21769, Extension of Time and Revised Parcel Map 21769 Revised Parcel Map No. 21769 was continued off calendar by the City Council and has been on hold for various reasons delineated in the Background Section of this report. The request for a Second Extension of Time for Parcel Map No. 21769 Amended No. 3 was filed in order to prevent the expiration of the original approval which would also render the Revised Parcel Map defunct. The Extension request and the Revised Parcel Map will go to hearing concurrently. Revised Parcel Map No. 21769, if approved, will supersede Parcel Map No. 27169 Amended No. 3. Appeal No. 2 J. C. Resorts, the owner of the Temecula Creek Inn Golf Course filed Appeal No. 2 in protest of the County's tentative approval of Revised Parcel Map No. 21769. The stated grounds of the Appeal are summarized below: The proposed Parcel Map is inconsistent with area development, especially regarding the design of Street "A" |Street "A" has been deleted from the Revised Parcel Map). The project, especially the design of Street "A", will have a significant effect on the environment. No evidence is provided to support the findings of probable consistency with the future Ceneral Plan. A: PM21769-A 4 Drainage and erosion control measures will alter the design and increase the grading impacts of Street "A" . Increased grading impacts are not conducive to the preservation of an oak tree cited in the biological assessment, or to the preservation of major rock outcroppings or natural drainage courses, and will result in significant visual impacts and possible changes in parcel boundaries. The Tentative Map should show the elevation of existing streets {Rainbow Canyon Road). The Parcel Map does not show the extent of work being conditioned to realign Rainbow Canyon Road. Because of steep slopes and riparian habitat, Parcel 1 should be represented as an open space easement. Land Division For Conveyance Purposes Only Revised Parcel Map No. 21769 is being processed as a land division for conveyance purposes only. Street "A" , which was shown on Revised Parcel Map No. 21769 as tentatively approved by the County, has been deleted, resulting in the consolidation of the two parcels formerly separated by Street "A" . It shall be a Condition of Approval of the Revised Parcel Map that no permits for grading, improvements, or any other disturbance of the site will be issued prior to approval of development plans for the site, i.e., approval of a Plot Plan or a Conditional Use Permit. Issues To Be Addressed In Conjunction With Site Development Proposals In processing the proposed Parcel Map purely as a land division for conveyance purposes, Staff is not denying that there are significant potential issues which will arise in connection with site development. These issues can be clarified and addressed more thoroughly in the context of site development proposals which will include greater detail regarding street alignments, grading, drainage, etc. Staff will address the following concerns when site development proposals are submitted: A:PM21769-A 5 2. 3. Suitability of site terrain for the proposed use. Grading impacts on natural drainage courses, large rock outcroppings, and oak trees. Adequacy of proposed drainage facilities and erosion control measures. Proposed street alignments, including intersections with Rainbow Canyon Road and sight line distances. Traffic impacts. Stability of man-made slopes. Compatibility of the proposed use with adjacent uses. Landfill Excavation and Closure The northerly portion of the site has been used as a domestic solid waste dump site. The dump site is no longer active and is subject to the closure requirements of the State, the County Local Enforcement Agency, and regional air and water quality agencies. Permits for excavation of the landfill site have been obtained, and the excavation has been conducted. Excavation procedures were monitored by the County Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency and the Environmental Health Services Hazardous Materials Team. Excavated soil has been stockpiled on site in accordance with the approved work plan and soil samples have been taken. Soll test results will indicate whether the excavation is complete and whether the excavated soils may remain on the site or should be disposed in a Class I Landfill. The major concern is the lead content of the soil. It shall be a Condition of Approval for Revised Parcel Map No. 21769 that no permits for grading, site improvements, or construction shall be issued until the landfill excavation and closure procedures are complete and the County Environmental Health Services, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District have issued clearances indicating that the work has been completed in a satisfactory manner A:PM21769-A 6 GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: and the site no longer poses a threat to public health or the environment. The proposed parcels, ranging in size from 17.7 acres to 43.7 acres, are consistent with the applicable minimum lot sizes in the Residential 8-16 dwelling units per acre designation and the Rural Residential zone. A portion of the site is designated for commercial office uses. Ordinance 348 stipulates no minimum lot size in the Commercial Office zone. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: FINDINGS AND SUPPORTING FACTS: The County adopted a Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment 32434 in conjunction with the approval of Revised Parcel Map No. 21769. The County adopted a Negative Declaration in conjunction with the original approval of Parcel Map No. 21769. There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time in that the lots are of sufficient size to conform to the standards of any zone. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with, the future adopted General Plan, if the proposed Parcel Map is ultimately inconsistent with the Plan. The proposed use complies with State planning and zoning law. The project conforms to the current zoning for the site and to Ordinance No. 460, Schedule H. The proposed Parcel Map will not have a significant detrimental impact on the environment in that the map is a land division for conveyance purposes only and no permits for grading, improvements, or any development related disturbance to the site will be issued prior to the completion of landfill closure requirements and approval of site development plans. A: PM21769-A 7 10. 11. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidable injure fish or wildllfe or their habitat. The design of the subdivision is consistent with the State Map Act in regard to future passive energy control opportunities. All lots have acceptable access to existing dedicated rights-d-way which are open to, and are useable by, vehicular traffic. The design of the subdivision is such that it is not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project. The lawful conditions stated in the project's Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council RECEIVE AND FiLE Revised Parcel Map No. 21769 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in this report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. SW: ks Attachments: Resolution Conditions of Approval Exhibits A. Vicinity Map B. Revised parcel Map No. 21769 A: PM21769-A 8 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF REVISED PARCEL MAP NO. 21769 TO SUBDIVIDE A 91.4 ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 PARCELS AT RAINBOW CANYON ROAD IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF TEMECULA CREEK INN GOLF COURSE. WHEREAS, Ranpac Engineering filed Revised Parcel Map No. 21769 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 20, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission approval of said Parcel Map; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findin.qs. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: ~1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. (2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: a) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. A:PM21769-A 9 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 Revised Parcel Map No. 21769 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. u,60, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are made: a) That the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. A: PM21769-A 10 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 County adopted a Negative Declaration in conjunction with the original approval of Parcel Map No. 21769. b) There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time in that the lots are of sufficient size to conform to the standards of any zone. A: PM21769-A 11 c) There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with, the future adopted General Plan, if the proposed Parcel Map is ultimately inconsistent with the Plan. d) The proposed use complies with State planning and zoning law. The project conforms to the current zoning for the site and to Ordinance No. L~60, Schedule E. e) The proposed Parcel Map will not have a significant detrimental impact on the environment in that the map is a land division for conveyance purposes only and no permits for grading, improvements, or any development related disturbance to the site will be issued prior to the completion of landfill closure requirements and approval of site development plans. f) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidable injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. g) The design of the subdivision is consistent with the State Map Act in regard to future passive energy control opportunities. h) All lots have acceptable access to existing dedicated rights-of-way which are open to, and are useable by, vehicular traffic. i) The design of the subdivision is such that it is not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project. The lawful conditions stated in the project~s Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. 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. A:PM21769-A 12 SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicated that the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment, and a Negative Declaration was adopted by the County. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Revised Parcel Map No. 21769 for the subdivision of a 91 .u, acre parcel into 3 parcels located at Rainbow Canyon Road immediately south of Temecula Creek Inn Golf Course subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. SECTION 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th 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 20th day of May, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS A:PM21769-A 13 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Revised Parcel Map No: 21769 Project Description: To create 3 parcels on a 91.4 acre site. Assessor's Parcel No.: 922-230-005, 006 Planninq Department The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule H, 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. Revised Parcel Map No. 21769 will expire four years after the original approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. The expiration date is August 21, 1991. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. 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. 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. A:PM21769-A 1~ 10. 11. 12. 13. 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 subdivlder shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officer, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officer, or employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Tentative Parcel Map No. 21769, 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. 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. All existing specimen trees on the subject property shall be preserved wherever feasible. Where they cannot be preserved they shall be relocated or replaced with specimen trees as approved by the Planning Director. Any oak trees removed with four {~) inch or larger trunk diameters shall be replaced on a ten 110) to one ( 1 ) basis as approved by the Planning Director. Prior to issuance of permits for grading, construction, or improvements on the site, a work plan for the disposal of contaminated soils resulting from previous waste disposal operations conducted on the site shall be approved by the County solid Waste Management Local Enforcement Agency { LEA ) and shall be implemented to completion and all required post-excavation clearance shall be obtained from LEA and the regional air and water quality agencies. No grading, construction or site improvements shall occur prior to approval of specific development plans for the site. A:PM21769-A 15 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. These conditions shall either supplement or replace as noted all conditions of the original Tentative Map approval and subsequent amendments. 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. 15o The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act, and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions. 16o The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered Civil Engineer, subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No. u,60. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: 17. 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; Parks and Recreation Department. 18. 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. 19. Prior to recordatlon 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. 20. A development agreement shall be executed for construction of the internal loop road as directed by the City Engineer. 21. 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. A: PM21769-A 16 22. Prior to issuance of a 9fading permit on any parcel, a formal development plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for formal development review processing. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS: 23. 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: 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. A: PM21769-A 17 PLANNZNG DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL DATE: 3-12-90 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNZNG DEPARTHEN1' C'0NDZTZONS OF APFqc~0VAL TENTATZVE PARCEL NAP NO 21769, Rev. I1, AIKI. 12 Road Correction No. I The following conditions of approval are for Tentative Parcel Map No. 21769, Revised No. 1, Amended No. 2, Road Correction No. 1. The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County of Riverside, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside or tts agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the County of Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning TENTATZVE PARCEL HAP NO. 21769, Rev. #1, Amd. #2, Road Correction #1, which action ts brought within the ttme period provided for tn California Government Code Section 66499.37. The County of Riverside will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding agatnst the County of Riverside end will cooperate fully In the defense. If the County falls to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the County of Riverside. The tentative parcel map shall conform to the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedul~ H unless modified by the conditions listed below. This approved tentative parcell will expire two years after the Board of Supervisors approval date unless extended a~ pr?vided by Ordinance 460. The final map shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act, Riverside County Subdivision Ordinance 460. 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 County Road Commissioner. Street names shall be subject to approval of the Road Commissioner. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication shall provide for nonexclusive public road and utility access. All easements, offers of dedication and conveyances shall be subrnitted and recorded as directed by the Riverside County Surveyor. Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the parcel map boundary to a County maintained road. All delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. TENTATZVE PARCEL NAP NO. 21769, Rev. I1 Amd. 12, Road Correction tl Conditions of Approval Page 2 Prior to any grading, a Grading Plan in compliance with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, as amended by Ordinance 457, shall be submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety. 10. The subdivider shall comply with the street improvement recommendations outlined in the County Road Department's letter dated 4-96-9e, 3-12-89. a copy of which is attached. (Amended at Oirector's Hearing on 3-12-90). 11. The subdivider shall comply with the environmental health recommendations outlined in the County Health Oepartment's transmittal dated 6-27-89, a copy of which is attached. 12. The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined in the Riverside County Flood Control District's letter dated 6-29-89, e copy of which is attached. If the land division lies within an adopted flood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of Riverside County Land Division Ordinance 460, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities shall be collected by the Road Commissioner prior to recordation of the final map or waiver of parcel map. 13. The subdivider shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined in the County Fire Department's letter dated 6-22-89, a copy of which is attached. 14. The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building and Safety Department: Land Use Section's transmittel dated 8-4-89, a copy of which is attached. 15. The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building and Safety Department: Grading Section's transmittel dated 6-~-$9, a copy of which is attached. 16. The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the County Geologist's transmittel dated 11-15-88, a copy of which is attached. GRADING: 17. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superceded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fees required under the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County Ordinance or resolution. 18. Grading plans shall conform to the Hillside Development Standards as presented in the Comprehensive General Plan. All cut and/or fill slopes, or individual combinations thereof, which exceed ten feet in vertical height shall be modified by an appropriate combination of a special terracing {benching} plan, increased slope ratio {e.g. 3:1}, retaining walls, and/or slope planting combined with irrigation. All driveways shall not exceed a 15% grade. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 21769, Rev. I1 Amd. 12, Road Correction I1 Conditions of Approval Page 3 19. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, conceptual landscaping plans shall be submitted to the Riverside County Planning Department for approval. There landscaping plans shall provide large native trees, suitable for raptors use, along the perimeter of areas of land to be graded. These landscaping plans shall be approved by the Riverside County Planning Department prior to the issuance of grading permits. (Amended at Director's Hearing on 3-12-90). 20. Prior to the issuance of a grading permits the location of the large live oak trees, identified in Biological Report No. 266, shall be accurately mapped, and a copy of.the map submitted to the Riverside County Planning Department for review and filing. 21. The live oak tree, identified in Biological Report No. 266 shall be preserved. The grading plans for developing the project site shall be done with the consultation of a qualified BIologist and shall tnclude the location of the live oak. These grading plans shall provtde for the preservation of the live oak as identified in Biological Report No. 266, and, these grading plans shall be submitted to the Riverside County Planning Department for review and approval. DEVELOPHENT STANDARDS: 22. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance and/or pehmits from the following agencies: Road Department Environmental Health Riverside County Flood Control Fire Department Written evidence of compliance shall be presented to the Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety. 23. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a report done by a qualified Biologist shall be submitted and approved by the Riverside County Planning Department. This report shall address the status of the oak tree which has been required to be preserved. 24. Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development standards of the R-R and R-2 zone. 25. All lot length to width ratios shall be in conformance with Section 3.8C of Ordinance 460. 26. Corner lots shall be provided with additional area pursuant to Section 3.8B of Ordinance 460. 27. Prior to recordation of the final map the land divider shall execute a certificate of noncontiguous ownership. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 21769, Rev. I1 Amd. 11, Road Correction I1 Conditions of Approval Page 4 28. All major rock outcroppings on the subject property should be preserved. Removal ts permissible only upon the approval of the Plannlng Director. PRIOR TO THE RECOROATION OF THE FINAL MAP: 29. Prior to the recordatlon of the Final Nap, the following conditions(s) shall be complied with: The subdivider shall submit to the Planning Director an agreement with CSA 143 which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the County that the land divider has provided for the payment of parks and recreation fees in accordance wlth Section 10.35 of Ordinance No. 460. The agreement shall be approved by the Board of Supervisors prior to the recordation of the final map. A copy of the Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINT SHEET CONDITIONS: 29. An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shell be prepared with the final map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be peFmanently filed with the office of the County Surveyor. Prior to the recordation of the final map, a copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to the Planning Department and the Department of Building and Safety. The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet. "County Archaeological Report No. 1201 was prepared for this property in September 1986 by Hichael K. Lerch & Associates, and is on file at the Riverside County Planntn9 Department. " "County Geological Report No. 508 was prepared for this property on August 28, 1986 and September 20, 1988 by Highland Geotechnical Consultants, and is on file at the Riverside County Planning Department. Specific items of interest are potentially active faults and seismic design structures." c. '"County Biological Report No. 266 was prepared for this property in May 1988 by David C, Hawks N.A. end ts on file at the Riverside County Planning Department. TENTATZVE PARCEL MAP NO. 21769, Rev. 11 Amd. 12, Road Correction I1 Conditions of Approval Page 5 Indicate the availability of domestic water services to the subject property as of the date of recordation of the final map. 30. The location of the oak tree, identified in County Biological report No. 266 shell be shown on the Environmental Constraints Sheet. The following note shall be placed on the final map: "Constraints affecting this property are shown on the accompanying Environmental Constraints Sheet, the original of which is on file at the office of the Riverside County Surveyor. These constraints affect all parcels." RW:bc 3/9/90 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE Department of Building and Safety _~'__Piease make the following a condition of approval: . Prior to commencing any grading exceeding 5~ cubic o ner of t at property s all o.tain. grading from the Department of Building and Safety yards? permit ___b. Prior to approval of this use/subdivision a grading permit and approval of the rough grading shall be obtained from the Building and Safety Department, ~_c. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the property owner shall obtain a grading permit and approval to construct from the Building and Safety Department. ___d. Constructing a road, where greater than 5~ cubic yards material is placed or moved, requires a grading permit. Prior ~o occupancy and/or beginning actual use of this permit, a grading permit and approval of the grading shall be obtained from the Suilding and Safety Department. ___f. Provide verification that the existing gra~ing permitted and approval to construct' Has obtained from the Building and Safety. The Grading Section has no comment on this site. NOTE: For the final Qrading plan - Please provide the applicable information from County Grading Forms 284-86 28~-13A ~ev. 3/89 e8~-1e0 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE Department TO: 5 of Building _~/__Please make the following a condition of approval: ~_a. Prio~ to commencing any grading exceeding 56 cubic the owner of that property shall obtain a grading from the Department of Building and Safety yards~ permit Prior to approval of this use/subdivision a grading permit and approval of the rough grading shall be obtained from the Building and Safety Department. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the property owner shall obtain a grading permit and approval to construct from the Building and Safety Department. Constructing a road, where greater than 56 cubic yards of material is placed or moved, requires a grading permit. Prior to occupancy and/or beginning actual use of this permit, a grading permit and approval of the grading shall be obtained from the Building and Safety Department. ___f. Provide verification that the existing grading was permitted and approval to construct was obtained from the Building and Safety. ___g. The Grading Section has no comment on this site. NOTE: For the final grading plan - Please provide the applicable information from County Grading Forms ~8~-86 ~84-12~ 284-134 Rev. 3/89 County of Riarerside DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Planning Department PATS, .T~ly ~ 1QR6 Atrn: David J~es S~ ~rtinez, R.S., Senior S~itarian - ~viro~ental Heal~ ~ices Divis ion Parcel Map No. 21769 The Enviromnental Health Services Division has reviewed the information in regards to the tentative parcel map and would require ~or to recordation of the final map, a "will-serve" letter from ap ropria e districts concerning sewer and water availability. g GEN. FORM August 4, 1989 Administrative Center · 1777 Atlanta Avenue Riverside, CA 92507 Riverside County Planning Department Attention: Patti Nahill County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 RE: Parcel Map 21769, Revision #1, Amendment #2 Ladies and Gentlemen: The Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety has the following comments and conditions: The developer shall obtain Planning Department approval for .all on-site and off-site signage advertising the sale of the parcel map pursuant to S ction 19.5 of Ordinance 348. Very truly yours, . ~~~ /sn RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY GLEN J. NEWMAN FIRE CHIEF 6-22-89 TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT ATTN: TEAM I PM 21769 - REVISED MAP #1 - AMENDED #2 Planning & Engineering Office 4080 Lemon Street, Suite 11 Riverside, CA 9250~ (714) 787-6606 With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land division, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: FIRE PROTECTION - LOTS 1, 2 & 3 No fire protection requirements. FIRE PROTECTION - LOT #4 Lot #4 (tentative tract no. 22294), when the tract map is reviewed. fire protection requirements will be addressed All questions regarding the meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Fire Department Planning and Engineering staff. MICHAEL E. GRAY, Planning Officer amb KENNETH L. EDWARDS lees MARKET ITR[ET RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT Riverside County Planning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California Attention: Regional Team No. ,lan,er We have reviewed this case and have the following comments: ,/ Except for nuisance nature local runoff which may traverse portions of the property the project is considered free from ordinary storm flood hazard. However, a storm of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New construc- tion should comply with all applicable ordinances. The topography of the area consists of well defined ridges and natural water- courses which traverse the property. There is adequate area outside of the natural watercourses for building sites. The natural watercourses should be kept free of buildings and obstructions in order to maintain the natural drainage patterns of the area and to prevent flood damage to new buildings. A note should be placed on an environmental constraint sheet stating, "All new buildings shall be floodproofed by elevating the finished floors a minimum of 18 inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosion protection shall be provided for mobile home supports." This project is in the drainage plan fees shall be paid regulations. Area in accordance with the applicable rules and The proposed zoning is consistent with existing flood hazards. Some flood control facilities or floodproofing may be required to fully develop to the implied density. The District's report dated is still current for this project. The District does not object to the proposed minor change. This project is a part of . 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: RAPPAc-- er~tru~, ~.~ASHUBA · r Civil Engineer DATE: J~ Zi, (qS OFFICE OF ROAD COMMISSIONER & COUNTY SURVEYOR ROAD AND ~y March 12, 1990 Riverside County Planning Commission 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 RE: Ladies and Gentlemen: Tentative PM 21769-Revised #1-Amend #2 Road Correction #1 Schedule H - Team 1 - SMD #9 AP #111-111-111-9 With respect to the conditions of approval for the referenced tentative land division map, the Road Department recommends that the landdivider provide the following street improvements, street improvement plans and/or road dedications in accordance with Ordinance 460 and Riverside County Road Improvement Standards (Ordinance 461). It is understood that the tentative map correctly shows acceptable centerline elevations, a~l existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses with appropriate Q's, and that their omission or unacceptability may require the map to be resubmitted for further consideration. These Ordinances and the following conditions are essential parts and a requirement occurring in ONE is as binding as though occurring in all. They are intended to be complementary and to describe the conditions for a complete design of the improvement. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Road Commissioner's Office. The landdivider shall accept and properly dispose of all offsite drainage flowing onto or through the site. In the event the Road Commissioner 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 subdivider shall provide adequate drainage facilities as approved by the Road Department. Sufficient right of way along Rainbow Canyon Road shall be dedicated for public use to provide for a 100 foot full width right Of way. Sufficient right of way along "A" Street shall be dedicated for public use to provide for a 66 foot full width right of way. Tentative PM 21769 - Revised #1 - Amend #2 Road Correction #1 March 12, 1990 Page 2 4a. 10. 11. 12. Rainbow Canyon Road shall be offered for dedication to provide for a 100 foot full width right of way and shall be engineered to a 24 foot graded section centered on the ultimate centerline or as approved by the Road Commissioner. Those portions of existing Rainbow Canyon Road which fall outside the proposed 100 foot dedicated right of way shall be offered for dedication to encompass the existing paved travelled way, plus a 12 foot parkway or as approved by the Road Commissioner. "A" Street shall be offered for dedication to provide for a 66 foot full width right of way and shall be engineered to a 24 foot graded section centered on the ultimate centerline or as approved by the Road Commissioner. Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the Riverside County Road CommiSsioner. Corner cutbacks in conformance with County Standard No. 805 shall be shown on the final map and offered for dedication. All centerline intersections shall be at 90° or as approved by the Road Department. The maximum centerline gradient and the minimum centerline radii shall be in conformance with County Standard ~114 of Ordinance 461 or as approved by the Road Commissioner. Prior to the recordation 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. The landdivider shall install street name sign(s) in accordance with County Standard No. 816 prior to recordation of the final map as directed by the Road Commissioner. Any landscaping within public road rights of way shall comply with Road Department standards and require approval by the Road Commissioner and assurance of continuing maintenance through the establishment of a landscape maintenance district/maintenance agreement or similar mechanism as approved by the Road Commissioner. Landscape plans shall be submitted on standard County Plan sheet Tentative PM 21769 - Revised #1 - Amend #2 Road Correction #1 March 12, 1990 Page 3 format (24" x 36"). Landscape plans shall be submitted with the street improvement plans and shall depict only such landscaping, irrigation and related facilities as are to be placed within the public road rights-of-way. 13. Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act any subdivision which is part of an existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said Section. Sincerely, Lawrence A. Toerper 77 Road Division Engineer LT:jw April 18, 1988 Board of Directors: Richard D. Steffey President James A. Darby Sr. Vice President Ralph Daily Doug Kulberg Jon A. Lundin Jeffrey L, Minklet T. C. Rawe Officers: Stan T. Mills General Manager Phillip IL. Forbes Director of Finance - Norman L. Thomas Director of Engineering Thomas R. MeAljester Director of Operations & Maintenance Barbara J. Reed Director of Administration District Secretary Rutan and Tucker Legal Counsel Riverside County Planning Department 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor Riverside, California 92501-3657 subject: Water Availability Reference: Parcel Map 21769 (Revised) 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 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 FO12/jkm132 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT :IEV::-I EDE COUrlC.u iq.A!lrlirlG DEPA:ICfilErlC November 15, 1988 Highland Soils Engineering 1832 S. Commercenter Circle, Suite A San Bernardino, California 92408 Attention: Mr. William R. Altmeyer Mr. Warren L. Sherling SUBJECT: Geotechnical Report Review Job No. 40084-00 Parcel Map No. 21769 (Revised) County Geologic Report No. 508 Rainbow Canyon Area Gentlemen: We have reviewed the geologic, seismic and slope stability aspects of your report entitled 'Preliminary Geotechntcal Investigation, Rainbow Canyon Heights, Rainbow Canyon Road, Riverside County, CA," dated August 28, 1986, and your 'Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Rainbow Canyon Heights, Tentative Parcel Map No. 217Gg, Riverside County, Ca," dated September 20, Ig88. Your report determined that: · No evidence of racehey of faulting was observed along the Wlllard fault which passes through the site. A fault shear zone, representing the main trace of the Wtllard fault, trends northwest and is exposed in the borrow site on the property. A Magnitude 7.0 earthquake occurring on the Elstnore Fault Zone in close proximity to the site could produce a peak ground acceleration on the order of 0.71g at the site, with the duration of strong ground motion exceeding 30 seconds. 3. The settlement potential under seismic loading conditions for the on-site motertals is low. 4. The potential for liquefaction at the site is considered low. Cracking of ground at the site due to shaking from seismic events is not con t significant hazard and would have a minor tmpact on s dered a the proposed development. 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787'6181 46'209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-8277 Htghland Soils Engineering November %5, Z988 Page 2 The natural slopes on the site are considered relatively stable. The predominant JoinSing pattern strikes northwest across the site. and dtps to the northeast at moderate to high angles wtth no out-of-slope components noted. But cut and fill slopes were found to have factors of safety tn excess of 1.5 static and 1.1 seismic and should be grossly stable in the planned configurations. 8. Erosion of the on-site sandy sotls and bedrock should be a significant concern. 9. DIfficult ripping and some blasttrig w111 be required for cuts In excess of 20 feet. Your report recommended that: Butldtng lots astride the Wtllard Fault Zone must be over-excavated a minimum distance of S feet beyond the outer edge of exterior footings and to a depth of at least 3 feet when lots are cut, or f111 of less than 2 feet. For proposed structures lytng In the Willard Fault Zone. 811 continuous footlngs should be tied together wtth a ~4 reinforcement bar placed both top and bott~n. All cut slopes should have drainage benches at approximately 60 foot verttcal Intervals. Slopes over gO feet tn height should have a 12 foot wtde bench at approximately mid-height. All exposed cut slopes should be observed by the project Engineering Geologist durtng gradtrig. 4. All slopes should be planted wtth eroston resistant vegetation or other, lse protected as soon as practical after gradtrig. 8utldtng located adjacent to the top or toe of a slope should be set back one half the betght of the slope wtth a mtntmum setback of 5 feet to a mxlmum of 1S feet. 6. There should be a complete overcavatton of loose/low strength natural sotls, extsttng ftll soils, and trash. 7. Subdrainage beneath any canyon fills ts recommended, subject to vertffcatfo, during gradtrig by an engineering geologist. It ts our optnton that the report was prepared tn a competent mnner and satisfies the additional tnformtton requested under the California Environmental Quality Act revlew and the RIverside County Comprehensive General Plan. Highland Sotls Engineering November 15, 1988 Page 3 Me recoamend that the following note be placed on the ftnal map prior to its recordatton: "County Geologtc Report No. 508 was prepared for this property on August 28, 1986 and September 20, 1988 by Htghland Geotechntcal Consultants, and is on ftle at the Riverside County Planntng Department. Specific Items of interest are potentially active faults and seismic design of structures". The reco.eendattons made in your report concerning seismic/geologic hazards shall be adhered to in the destgn and construction of this project. Ver~ truly yours, RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNIN OEPARTN NT Roger.,S. Streeter - Plan ing Dire tot "/ SAK:rd c.c. Ranpat Engineering - Dave Jamas Butldlng & Safety - Norm Lostbom (2) Team 1 - Greg Neal CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY This case is within 30 miles of the Palomar Observatory and is therefore within the zone requiring the use of low-pressure sodium vapor lamps fqr street lighting, as stipulated by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. We request that the design for other types of outdoor lighting that may be employed on this property be made consistent with the spirit of the decision of the Board of Supervisors which is intended to mitigate the adverse effects such facilities have on £he astronomical research at Palomar. Beneficial steps to that end include: 1. Use the minimum amount of light needed for the task. Orient and shield light to prevent direct upward illumination. Turn off lights at 11:00 p.m. (or earlier) unless, in commercial applications, the associated business is open past that time, in which case the lights should be turned off at closing. Use low-pressure sodium lamps for roadways, walkways, equipment yards, parking lots, security and other similar applications. These lights need not be turned off ~t 11:00 p.m. For further information, call (818) 356-4035. Robert J. Brucato Assistant Director ~20/B/eg April 14, 1988 Riverside County Planning Department 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor Riverside, California SUBJECT: TENTATIVE P.N. 21769 The District is responding to your request for comments on the subject project(s} relative to the provision of water and sewer service. The items checked below apply to this project review. The subject project: X Is not within EMWD's: water service area sewer service area Must be annexed to this District's Improvement District No. in order to be eligible to receive domestic water/sanitary sewer service. Will be required to construct the following facilities: a.) Water Service b.) Sewer Service Onsite/offsite regionally sized gravity sewers and participate in regional sewer facilities. No sewers allowed now or future along lot lines. Sewer (existing) within 1320' CITY OF T'!;-~ECULA ) ~ \ II VICINITY MAP D ITE CASE NO. P.C. DATE ITEM #111. STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION May 20, 1991 Case No.: Variance No. 6 Prepared By: Richard Ayala Recommendation: 1. ADOPT Resolution No.91- denying Variance No. 6 based on the analysis and findings contained in the staff report. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCAT ION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Superior Electrical Advertising, Inc. Stan Janocha Variance in order to allow an additional free- standing sign display in addition to the two maximum allowed free-standing signs per Ordinance 30,8. Northwest corner of Jefferson Avenue and Overland Drive. C-1/C-P (General Commercial) North: South: East: West: C-1/C-P ( General Commercial ) C-1/C/P (General Commercial) C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial ) M-SC ( Manufacturing Service Commercial ) Not Requested. Shopping Center North: South: East: West: Shopping Center Shopping Center Commercial Industrial A:VAR6 PROJECT STATISTICS: Number of acres: 12.12 Number of proposed free-standing signs: 3 BACKGROUND: Administrative Plot Plan No. 57, the proposed monument signage for the Winchester Square Center was submitted on January u,, 1991. The Planning Department notified the applicant in a letter dated January 15, 1991, that the proposed signage did not comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 3~,8 and the southwest area community plan standards for outdoor advertising. The proposed signs did not comply with the permitted number and height of free-standing signs allowed per code and therefore, the applicant filed a Variance on February 26, 1991, in order to obtain approval of the proposed signage. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking approval through the variance process, to erect three (3) free-standing monument signs for the Winchester Square Center located on the northwest corner of Jefferson Avenue and Overland Drive. Two of the proposed monument signs are 20 feet high and 9 feet wide with a depth of 2 feet, the other is a freeway oriented sign and is proposed at 35 feet in height. They are proposed to be situated along Jefferson Avenue at the entrances of the subject site. ANALYSIS: Maximum Number of Free-Standinq Siqns Allowed Section 19.a, (a.~,) permits a shopping center with more than one street frontage to have two free- standing signs provided that they are not located on the same street, are at least 100 feet apart, and the second sign does not exceed 100 square feet in surface area and 20 feet in height. Section 19.2(m) of Ordinance 3L~8 defines a shopping center as a parcel of land not less than three acres in size on which there are four or more separate businesses that have mutual parking facilities. The definition does not include a maximum area or number of separate businesses. Therefore, according to the ordinance the proposed signage is not in compliance with section 19.~(a.~,) in that it proposes a total of three free-standing signs. A:VAR6 2 Heiqht of Free-Standinq Siqns Section 19.~, (a.1,2) of Ordinance 3~,8 stipulates a maximum height of ~,5 feet for signs within 660 feet of the freeway right-of-way and 20 feet for other locations. The proposed signs comply with the height restrictions. As stipulated in Ordinance No. 3~,8, Current City Policy is to encourage smaller free-standing monument signs with a maximum height of 6 feet. Size and Location of Site The Winchester Square Center encompasses approximately 12.12 acres and abuts two streets, Jefferson Avenue and Overland Drive. The site has approximately 957 feet of frontage along Jefferson Avenue and approximately 516 feet of frontage along Overland Drive. The center provides access through three driveways, two off Jefferson Avenue and one off Overland Drive. Visual Impact of Proposed Siqns All three proposed signs are monolith shaped monument signs with the name, logo and major tenants of the center at the top and articulate sections which will contain the names of the other tenants of the center. Planning staff has reviewed the proposed signs and has determined that the signs do not comply with the current ordinance requirements and Staff cannot support the request due to the amount of advertisement being proposed and the possibility of setting a precedent for future and existing shopping centers. Face Area of Free-Standinq Siqns According to section 19.L~ |a.3.a) of Ordinance regarding shopping centers the maximum surface area of a sign can not exceed 50 square feet or .25% of the total existing building floor area in a shopping center, but in no case can exceed 200 square feet in surface area. The applicant is proposing three signs each approximately with 180 square feet of surface area, therefore, exceeding the allowable face area per Ordinance A:VAR6 3 Conclusion Planning staff has reviewed the proposed signs for the Winchester Square Center and has determined that the proposal is inconsistent with the City adopted ordinance in that the proposed signs exceed the allowable limit, surface area, and finds no special circumstances for a variance due to centers adequate visibility from Jefferson Avenue and Overland Drive. GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: A portion of the subject site is within the 660 feet of the nearest edge of Interstate 15 which is an eligible state scenic highway. General Land Use Policy 8(f) in the Southwest Area Community Plan states that the size, height, and type of on-site outdoor advertising displays within scenic corridors shall be the minimum necessary for identification. The Planning Commission may wish to consider more specific size and design guidelines for scenic highway corridor signage. Pursuant to Section 15311 of the California Environmental Act, the proposed signs are categorically exempt from the requirement for environmental review. FINDINGS: There are no exceptional circumstances applicable to the subject property in that the site is entirely flat, rectangular and has adequate visibility from both Jefferson Avenue and Overland Drive. The variance is not necessary for preservation of the applicant~s ability to adequately identify the subject shopping center. The subject site location provides for ultimate visibility from both adjoining streets. The granting of the variance may be detrimental to the public welfare in that the signs might obstruct the line of sight of motorist passers-by. I n addition, the variance if granted would set a precedent for future and existing shopping centers. A:VAR6 4 The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the Southwest Area Plan Scenic Highway Policy in that the freeway oriented sign is substantially shorter than the maximum height permitted by the ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: RA:bg Attachments: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution 91- denying variance No. 6 based on the analysis and findings contained in the staff report. 1. Resolution 2. Exhibits A. Site Plan B. Signage A:VAR6 5 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING VARIANCE NO. 6 TO PERMIT THREE FREESTANDING SIGNS AT THE WINCHESTER SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF JEFFERSON AVENUE AND OVERLAND DRIVE. WHEREAS, Superior Electrical Advertising, Inc. filed Variance No. 6 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Variance application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Variance on May 20, 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 denied said Variance; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. (2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: (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:VAR6 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 Variance is consistent with the SWAP. However, the SWAP designation for the property that is the subject of this proposed variance ( hereafter the "Property" ) is inconsistent with the future General Plan, to wit: {1) The Planning Commission finds, in denying the application that: (a) There is reasonable probability that Variance No. 6 proposed will not be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (b) There is a probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (C) The proposed use or action does not comply with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. D. (1) Pursuant to Section 18.26(e), no Variance may be approved unless the applicant demonstrates the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health safety and welfare of the community, and further, that any Variance approved shall be subject to such conditions as shall be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the community. A:VAR6 7 (2) The Commission in recommending denial of the proposed variance, makes the following findings: a) There are no exceptional circumstances applicable to the subject property in that the site is entirely flat, rectangular and has adequate visibility from both Jefferson Avenue and Overland Drive. b) The variance is not necessary for preservation of the applicant's ability to adequately identify the subject shoppin9 center. The subject site location provides for ultimate visibility from both adjoinin9 streets, c) The granting of the variance may be detrimental to the public welfare in that the signs might obstruct the line of sight of motorist passers-by. In addition, the variance if granted would set a precedent for future and existing shopping centers. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the Southwest Area Plan Scenic Highway Policy in that the freeway oriented sign is substantially shorter than the maximum height permitted by the ordinance. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. Pursuant to Section 15311 of the California Environmental Quality Act, on-site advertising signs are categorically exempt from environmental review. SECTION 3. That the city of Temecula Planning Commission hereby denies Variance No. 6 for three free-standing signs located on the northeast corner of Jefferson Avenue and Overland Drive, based on the above findings. SECTION 4. PASSED, DENIED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of May, 1991. DENNIS CHINIAEFF CHAIRMAN A:VAR6 8 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 20th day of May, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNINC COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS A:VAR6 9 ITEM #15 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION May 20, 1991 Case No.: Substantial Conformance No. 17 Prepared By: Oliver Mujica Recommendation: ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving Substantial Conformance No. 17 APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Bedford Properties Robert Bein, William Frost $ Associates Allow the exchange of one (1) dwelling unit of density from Planning Area 14to Planning Unit 13 of Specific Plan No. 199. Southwest corner of Rancho California Road and Vintage Hills Drive. Specific Plan No. 199 North: SP 199 South: SP 199 East: SP 199 West: SP 199 Not applicable. Open Space North: South: East: West: ( Margarita Village) (Margarita Village) (Margarita Village) (Margarita Village) (Margarita Village) Single Family Residential Single Family Residential Single Family Residential Single Family Residential BACKGROUND: On January 26, 1988, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors approved Tentative Tract Map Nos. 22715 and 22716, within the boundaries of Specific Plan No. 199 (Margarita Village). Tentative Tract Map No. 22715 created 109 residential lots, with a minimum lot size of 7,200 A:SC17 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: square feet, and 3 open space lots totaling 14.3 acres. Tentative Tract Map No. 22716 created 175 residential lots, with a minimum lot size of 4,900 square feet, and 2 open space lots totaling 1.6 aCreS. On April 17, 1991, the applicant filed Substantial Conformance No. 17 along with Tentative Parcel Map No. 26766, in order to process the requests concurrently. On May 9, 1991, Substantial Conformance No. 17 was reviewed by the Formal Development Review Committee; and it was determined that the applicant's request, combined with Tentative Parcel Map No. 26766, is in substantial conformance with Specific Plan No. 199. As mentioned above, the intent of this Substantial Conformance application is to allow the exchange of one ( 1 ) dwelling unit of density from Planning Area 14 to Planning Area 13 of Specific Plan No. 199 as described below. Planning Area 14 encompasses Tract 22716 which is comprised of five phases all of which are recorded maps. The Specific Plan allows for 175 dwelling units within Planning Area 14. Planning Area 13 encompasses Tract 22715 in which all phases have also been recorded. The Specific Plan allows for 109 dwelling units within Planning Area 13. The dwelling unit count for these two planning areas totals 284. As a part of the Comprehensive Landscape Plan for Vintage Hills, Lot No. 1 (an approved buildable lot) was extensively landscaped and dedicated to the Homeowners Association as a community entry area and is now designated as an unbuildable lot. This lot will remain as an open space/landscape feature of the Vintage Hills community. The applicant desires to transfer this unit from Planning Area 14 over to Planning Area 13 via Tentative Parcel Map No. 26766 which is submitted concurrently with this application. The new dwelling unit total for Planning Area 13 will be 110 units, and 174 units for Planning Area 14. The combined total for the two areas has not changed. Therefore, Staff has determined that the request exchange of one lot between Planning Areas 13 and 14 is in substantial conformance with Specific Plan No. 199. A:SC17 2 SPECIFIC PLAN/ GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: The proposed project is consistent with the overall density and Land Use designations of Planning Areas 13 and 1~, of Specific Plan No. 199. In addition, Staff finds it probable that this project will be consistent with the new General Plan when it is adopted. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: This project is exempt from environmental review under Section 15061{b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act. FINDINGS: There is a reasonable probability that Substantial Conformance No. 17 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 overall density and land use designations of Planning Areas 13 and 1LI of Specific Plan No. 199. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan, if Substantial Conformance No. 17 is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that an approval to allow an exchange in density from one planning area to another may be consistent with the goals and/or policies of the City's future General Plan. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony creates a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties, due to the fact that the adjoining developments are also single family in nature and the proposed project is consistent with the zoning ordinance. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area, due to the fact that the proposed density is consistent with the zoning ordinance. A:SC17 3 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving Substantial Conformance No. 17 OM:ks Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. Exhibits A:SC17 4 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE NO. 17 TO ALLOW THE EXCHANGE OF ONE (1) DWELLING UNIT OF DENSITY FROM PLANNING AREA 14 TO PLANNING AREA 13 OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199 FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND VINTAGE HILLS DRIVE. WHEREAS, Tayco filed Substantial Conformance No. 17 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Substantial Conformance application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Substantial Conformance on May 20, 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 approved said Substantial Conformance; 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:SC17 5 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 approving the proposed substantial conformance, makes the following findings, to wit: a) There is a reasonable probability that Substantial Conformance No. 17 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 overall density and land use designations of Planning Areas 13 and 1~, os Specific Plan No. 199. b) There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan, if Substantial Conformance No. 17 is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that an approval to allow an exchange in density from one planning area to another may be consistent with the goals and/or policies of the City's future General Plan. c) The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony creates a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties, due to the fact that the adjoining developments are also single family in nature and the proposed project is consistent with the zoning ordinance. A:SC17 6 d) The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area, due to the fact that the proposed density is consistent with the zoning ordinance. D. The Substantial Conformance is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby finds that Substantial Conformance No. 17 is exempt from environmental review under Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act. SECTION 3. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Substantial Conformance No. 17 to allow an exchange of one (1) dwelling unit of density from Planning Area 1~, to Planning Area 13 of Specific Plan No. 199 for the subject property located on the southwest corner of Rancho California Road and Vintage Hills Drive. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th 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 20th day of May, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS A:SC17 7 \\ Z jl [.liI ' I !i:i, ::: l ITEM #16 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION May 20, 1991 Case No.: Tentative Parcel Map No. 26766 Prepared By: Oliver Mujica Recommendation: ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 26766. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SWAP DESIGNATION: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: BACKGROUND: A: PM26766 Bedford Properties Robert Bein, William Frost 8 Associates Subdivide 10.81 acres into one {1) single family residential parcel and one (1) open space parcel. South side of Rancho California Road, between Butterfield Stage Road and Vintage Hills Drive. Specific Plan No. 199 (Margarita Village) Specific Plan North: SP 199 South: SP 199 East: SP 199 West: SP 199 Not applicable. Model Home Parking Lot/Open Space North: Single Family Residential South: Single Family Residential East: Single Family Residential West: Single Family Residential On January 26, 1988, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors approved Tentative Tract Map Nos. 22715 and 22716, within the boundaries of Specific Plan No. 199 (Margarita Village). Tentative Tract Map No. 22715 created 109 residential lots, with a minimum lot size of 7,200 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ANALYSIS: square feet, and 3 open space lots totaling 14.3 acres. Tentative Tract Map No. 22716 created 175 residential lots, with a minimum lot size of 4,900 square feet, and 2 open space lots totaling 1.6 acres. On April 17, 1991, the applicant filed Tentative Parcel Map No. 26766 along with Substantial Conformance No. 17, in order to process the requests concurrently. On May 9, 1991, Tentative Parcel Map No. 26766 was reviewed by the Formal Development Review Committee; and, it was determined that the project, as designed, can be adequately conditioned to mitigate the DRC's Concerns. In addition, the DRC determined that, combined with Substantial Conformance No. 17, the project is consistent with Specific Plan No. 199. The DRC has forwarded a recommendation of approval subject to conditions. Tentative Parcel Map No. 26766 proposes to subdivide the subject 10.81 acre site into one (1) single family residential parcel containing approximately 8,276 square feet ( 0.19 acres ) and one {1 ) open space parcel containing 10.62 acres. The proposed subdivision has been designed in accordance with the standards of the proposed R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) zone, as well as Ordinance Nos. 348 and 460. The subject 10.81 acre site has been previously designated as an open space lot for Tract No. 22715, within Planning Area 13 of Specific Plan No. 199. As mentioned in the Staff Report for Substantial Conformance No. 17, the applicant is proposing to exchange one (1) dwelling unit of density from Planning Area 14 to Planning Area 13 of Specific Plan No. 199. Consequently, the applicant has submitted Tentative Parcel Map No. 26766. Planning Area 14 encompasses Tract 22716 which is comprised of five phases all of which are recorded maps. The Specific Plan allows for 175 dwelling units within Planning Area 14. Planning Area 13 encompasses Tract 22715 in which all phases have also been recorded. The Specific Plan allows for 109 dwelling units within Planning Area 1;3. The dwelling unit count for these two planning areas totals 284. A: PM26766 2 SPECIFIC PLAN/ GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: FINDINGS: As a part of the Comprehensive Landscape Plan for Vintage Hills, Lot No. 1 (an approved buildable lot) was extensively landscaped and dedicated to the Homeowners Association as a community entry area and is now designated as an unbuildable lot. This lot will remain as an open space/ landscape feature of the Vintage Hills community. The new dwelling unit total for Planning Area 13 will be 110 units, and 174 units for Planning Area 14. The combined total for the two areas has not changed. Therefore, Staff has determined that the request exchange of one lot between Planning Areas 13 and 1~ is in substantial conformance with Specific Plan No. 199. Combined with an approval of Substantial Conformance No. 17, the proposed project is consistent with the density and Land Use designations of Planning Areas 13 and 14 of Specific Plan No, 199. In addition, Staff finds it probable that this project will be consistent with the new General Plan when it is adopted. This project is categorically exempt from environmental review under Section 15315 of the California Environmental Quality Act, which includes minor land divisions. The proposed Parcel Map will not have a significant negative impact on the environment, due to the fact that the project involves only a minor division of land and is Class 15 Categorically Exempt, 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 surroundingcurrentresidentialdevelopment. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with, the future adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that the project is consistent with surrounding development. A: PM26766 3 10. 11. The proposed use complies with State planning and zoning law, due to the fact that the project conforms to the current zoning for the site and to Ordinance No. Schedule A. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configurations, access, and density, due to the fact that the project has access to public roads and a specific plan will be implemented with this project. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The design of the subdivision is consistent with the State Map Act in regard to future passive energy control opportunities due to the fact that the lot is large enough to provide sufficient southern exposure. All lots have acceptable access to existing and proposed dedicated rights-of-way which are open to, and are useable by, vehicular traffic, access is provided from Calle Reseca. The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project as conditioned. The project will not interfere with any easements. The lawful conditions stated in the project's Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. A: PM26766 ~ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 26766. OM: ks Attachments: 2. 3. ~4. Resolution Conditions of Approval Exhibits Large Scale Plan A: PM26766 5 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 26766 TO SUBDIVIDE A 10.81 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO (2) PARCEL5 LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROADS AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 946-170-017 AND 020. WHEREAS, Tayco filed Tentative Parcel Map No. 26766 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 20, 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 approved said Parcel Map; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTIO__N 1_:.. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: 11 ) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. J2 ) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: a) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. A:PM26766 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 Tentative Parcel Map No. 26766 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. c) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. D. (1) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. L~60, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are made: a) That the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. A: PM26766 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 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, due to the fact that the project involves only a minor division of land and is Class 15 Categorically Exempt. b) 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 surroundingcurrentresidential development. A: PM26766 8 c) d) e) f) g) h) j) There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with, the future adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that the project is consistent with surrounding development. The proposed use complies with State planning and zoning law, due to the fact that the project conforms to the current zoning for the site and to Ordinance No. ~,60, Schedule A. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configurations, access, and density, due to the fact that the project has access to public roads and a specific plan will be implemented with this project. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The design of the subdivision is consistent with the State Map Act in regard to future passive energy control opportunities due to the fact that the lot is large enough to provide sufficient southern exposure. All lots have acceptable access to existin9 and proposed dedicated rights-of-way which are open to, and are useable by, vehicular traffic, access is provided from Calle Reseca. The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project as conditioned. The project will not interfere with any easements. The lawful conditions stated in the project's Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. A: PM26766 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 finds that Tentative Parcel Map No. 26766 is categorically exempt from environmental review under Section 15315 of the California Environmental Quality Act. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Tentative Parcel Map No. 26766 for the subdivision of a 10. 81 acre parcel into two ( 2 ) parcels located on the Southwest corner of Rancho California and Butterfield Stage Roads subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. SECTION 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th 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 20th day of May, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANN I NG COMMISS lONERS A: PM26766 10 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Tentative Parcel Map No: Project Description: Assessor's Parcel No.: 26766 Subdivide 10.81 acres into two (2) parcels. 9~6-170-017,020 Planninq Department The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance ~,60, 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 q60. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. Legal access as required by Ordinance L~60 shall be provided from the tract map boundary to a City maintained road. 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. All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as outlined in the Southwest Area Plan. 7. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following: Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development standards of the R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) zone. Craded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes, landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director. A:PM26766 11 10. 11. 12. 13o 15. 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. Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: Unless previously paid, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officer, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officer, or employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Tentative Parcel Map No. 26766, which action is brought within the time period provided for in California Covernment 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 subdlvider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provided. Telephone, cable TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in the residence. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the developer or his assignee must conform to the park district Quimby Ordinance, unless waived to time of issuance of a building permit. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. A: PM26766 12 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions {CCBR's) shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to final approval of the tract maps. The CCSR~s shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining the open space. No lot 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 flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CCBR's shall permit enforcement by the City of Provisions required by the City as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the City prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes. Every owner of a lot shall own as an appurtenance to such 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. Maintenance for all landscaped and open areas, includin9 parkways, shall be provided for in the CCSR's. Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS, the following conditions shall be satisfied: No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer's successor's- in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library development. All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required elements from the subdivision~s approved fire protection plan as approved by the County Fire Marshal. 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. A:PM26766 13 e. Building separation between all buildings excluding fireplaces shall not be less than ten (10) feet. f. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet. Front yard shall be provided with landscaping and manually operated underground irrigation system. 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. 22. 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 and shall be verified by City field inspection. 23. The applicant shall comply with all Conditions of Approval as set forth in Specific Plan 199 and Tract Map No. 22715 as they relate to Tentative Parcel Map No. 26766 and the development of Planning Area 13. 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. 25. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered Civil Engineer, subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No. 460. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: 26. As deemed necessary by the City Engineer of 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; A:PM26766 14 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 3q.. 35. 36. 37. CATV Franchise; and Parks and Recreation Department. 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. The developer, or the developeris 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. The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with adjoining developments. 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 driveways shall conform to the applicable County of Riverside standards and shall be shown on the street improvement plans in accordance with County Standard 400 and 401 (curb sidewalk). All driveways shall be located a minimum of two (2) feet from the property line. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. The subdivider shall submit two ( 2 ) copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. Adequate provisions shall 'be made for acceptance and disposal of sur"Face drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. The subdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement. Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City~s CATV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time of street improvements. A:PM26766 15 PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS: 38. 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. 39. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of- way. All lot drainage shall be to the street by side yard drainage swales independent of any other lot. A 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: 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. 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: Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. 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. A:PM26766 16 il :l ITEM #17 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION May 20, 1991 Case No.: Western Ridgeline Policies Prepared By: Oliver Mujica Recommendation: ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending approval of Interim Western Ridgeline Policies. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: City of Temecula PROPOSAL: LOCATION: BACKGROUND: Develop Hillside and Open Space Policies to be used as the City of Temecula's Interim Western Ridgeline Policies until the General Plan is adopted. Western Ridgeline On April 23, 1991, the City Council directed Staff to develop Hillside and Open Space Policies to be used as the City of Temecula's Interim Western Ridgeline Policies until the General Plan is adopted. This direction was in response to a development proposal on the Western Ridgellne currently under review by the County of Riverside. On February 11, 1991, the City Planning Department received a letter of transmittal from the Riverside County Planning Department regarding their processing of Change of Zone No. 57L~8 and Tentative Tract Map No. 25980, which is located in the Santa Rosa DeLuz area, on the Western Ridgeline. Change of Zone No. 5748 proposes to change the zoning designation of the subject 71 .~,8 acre site from R-A-Z0 (Residential Agricultural - 20 Acre Minimum Lot Size) to R-A-5 (Residential Agricultural - 5 Acre Minimum Lot Size). A:WESTRIDC.A 1 Tentative Tract Map No. 25980 proposes to subdivide the subject 71.q8 acre site into eleven (11) residential lots. The proposed density is 1 DU/6.50 acre, with a minimum lot size of 5 acres. On February 27, 1991, the City Plannin9 Department received a copy of the Final Staff Report, from the Riverside County Plannln9 Department, for Change of Zone No. 57~,8 and Tentative Tract Map No. 25980 which was scheduled for the Riverside County Plannin9 Commission Public Hearin9 of March 6, 1991. The recommendation of the Riverside County Plannin9 Department is for denial (see attached report) based on the followlng: The proposed project is not consistent with the Southwest Area Community Plan and the Comprehensive General Plan. The proposed project is not consistent with Ordinance No. ~,60. The proposed project's visual impact is currently unmitigated. On March 1, 1991, the City of Temecula Planning Department Staff presented a letter to the Riverside County Plannin9 Department (attached) requestin9 that the item be continued to a County Plannin9 Commission Public Hearin9 date after March 12, 1991, in order to allow the City of Temecula City Council the opportunity to: submit a formal response regardin9 Change of Zone No. 57L18 and Tentative Tract Map No. 25980: and forward formal policies of the City of Temecula regardin9 development on and adjacent to the Western Ridgeline. On April 10, 1991, the Riverside County Planning Commission continued Change of Zone No. 57q8 and Tentative Tract Map No. 25980 to their meeting of June 12, 1991. On April 23, 1991, the City Council directed the Planning Department Staff to forward a recommendation of denial,for Change of Zone No. 57q8 and Tentative Tract Map No. 25980, based on the following findings: Inconsistency with the Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP) hillside and open space policies, 2. Potential aesthetic impacts. A:WESTRIDG.A 2 ANALYSIS: 3. Potential inconsistency with the City's future General Plan. Potential inconsistency with the City's future Western Ridgeline Policies. The Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP) has the following policies: 1. Hillside Policies The "Hillside" designation is applied to relatively small isolated topographic features with slopes in areas of 25% or greater. Development within the Hillside area shall follow design Policy I (a). These features should be incorporated, when possible, into the design of development proposals as open space, and/or larger lot sizes. The Hillside designation shall have a five {5) acre minimum lot size or .2 DU/AC for density transfer purposes. 2. Open Space Policies a. Mountainous (1) The minimum lot size permitted within the Mountainous designation shall be 10 acres, permitting a 5 acre minimum lot size in the Santa Rosa/DeLuz Area, in accordance with policy (10), (11) and (13). Post and beam construction and special foundations designed to resist earthquake shaking shall be encouraged in areas with slopes in excess of 25% to reduce excessive grading. Development in Mountainous areas shall blend into the natural features of the site and shall attempt to avoid an unvaried, unnatural or manufactured appearance. A:WESTRIDG.'A 3 (6) (7} (8) (9) (lo) (11) Narrow canyons which might create a significant fire hazard shall be left undeveloped. Structures must be setback a minimum of 30 feet from any slopes greater than 25% and 30 feet in height and, excepting lawns and some ornamentals and groundcovers, natural vegetation shall be cleared for a distance of not less than 30 feet from any structure. Roads and driveways should attempt to try to avoid alignment through areas of natural slopes in excess of 25%. Roads crossing drainage channels shall provide for proper drainage, and placement of drainage channels which might undermine or erode the roadbed shall be avoided. All driveways shall be constructed with a finished grade of no more than 15%. Erosion and sedimentation control shall be encouraged with retention of existing trees, vegetation, planting of cut and fill slopes, construction of retaining walls, dikes, proper cover and an irrigation system calibrated to soil permeability. Within the Santa Rosa/DeLuz Area, land divisions creating parcels less than 10 acres in size shall provide paved roads that are connected to a maintained road system, or shall be required to form an assessment district to provide such paved access. Each proposed lot less than 10 acres in size, within the Santa Rosa/DeLuz area shall be able to provide a minimum 10,000 square foot building pad, unless post and beam construction is to be utilized. A:WESTRIDG.A 4 DISCUSSION: The boundaries of the Hillside and Mountainous designations are based on general topographical data. Therefore, the lines should not be considered final for the purposes of determining how much of a given parcel is inside or outside the Mountainous or Hillside designation. Development applications located on the edge of the Mountainous or Hillside designations may be accompanied by more detailed topographic data to further define slope characteristics of the parcels in relation to the parcel. (13) Building sites shall not be permitted on the Western Ridgeline as identified on the land use allocation map. Projects proposed within the area of the Western Ridgeline shall be evaluated on a case by case basis to ensure that building pad sites are located so that buildings and roof tops do not project above the ridgellne as viewed from the Temecula Basin. All projects within a 1/2 mile of the western ridgeline shall also be evaluated on a case by case basis to determining if the building site will have an adverse impact to the ridge line as viewed from the basin. The Planning Staff has the following concerns regarding development on the Western Ridgeline: Potential aesthetic impacts as viewed from the City of Temecula basin. Potential inconsistency with the City's future General Plan, if said plan includes Western Ridgeline Policies. Based on the above mentioned proposal that is currently under review by the County of Riverside; due to the fact that the City of Temecula does not have an adopted General Plan; and since the City utilizes the Southwest Area Community Plan as a guideline document only, Staff suggests that the Hillside and Open Space Policies of the Southwest Area Community Plan should be incorporated into interim City policies regarding development on the Western Ridgeline until the General Plan is adopted. A:WESTRIDG.A 5 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: This project does not have a potential for causing a significant affect on the environment. Therefore, the project is exempt from CEQA under Section 15061 ( b ) ( 3 ). FINDINGS: That the City Staff has indicated to this Commission that aesthetic and land use problems have arisen with respect to the construction on the Western Ridgeline due to the fact that there is a potential aesthetic impact as viewed from the Temecula Basin and a potential inconsistency with the City's future General Plan. That it is necessary to examine all of the land use regulations of the Southwest Area Community Plan, as they apply to Hillside and Open Space Policies, due to the fact that development on the Western Ridgeline may directly affect the City of Temecula. There is reasonable probability that the Interim Western Ridgeline Policies will be consistent with the City~s future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with the goals and/or policies of the City's future General Plan, due to the fact that the future General Plan may include Western Ridgeline Policies. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan, if the proposed policies are ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that policies will be adopted for the new General Plan. Therefore, it is likely that the City will consider these policies during their preparation of the General Plan. The project is exempt from CEQA review under Section 15061 (b) (3) due to the fact that the project does not have the potential for causing a significant affect on the environment. GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: The proposed interim Western Ridgeline Policies are consistent with the SWAP Hillside and Open Space Policies. In addition, Staff finds it probable that these interim Western Ridgeline Policies will be consistent with the new General Plan when it is adopted. A:WESTRIDG.A 6 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending approval of Interim Western Ridgeline Policies. OM:ks Attachments: Riverside County Planning Commission Staff Report (dated March 6, 1991 ) Letter to Riverside County Planning Department (dated March 1, 1991 ) A:WESTRIDC.A 7 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE INTERIM WESTERN RIDGELINE POLICIES PERTAINING TO HILLSIDE AND OPEN SPACE DEVELOPMENT, WHEREAS, The City filed the Interim Western Ridgeline Policies in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Interim Western Ridgeline Policies were processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Interim Western Ridgeline Policies on May 20, 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 Interim Western Ridgeline Policies; 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:WESTRIDG.A 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 Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the proposed Interim Western Ridgeline Policies, makes the following findings, to wit: There is reasonable probability that the Interim Western Ridgeline Policies will be consistent with the City~s future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with the goals and/or policies of the City~s future General Plan, due to the fact that the future General Plan may includeWestern Ridgeline Policies. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan, if the proposed policies are ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that policies will be adopted for the new General Plan. Therefore, it is likely that the City will consider these policies during their preparation of the General Plan. That the City Staff has indicated to this Commission that aesthetic and land use problems have arisen with respect to the construction on the Western Ridgeline, due to the fact that there is a potential aesthetic impact as viewed from the Temecula Basin and a potential inconsistency with the City's future General Plan. A:WESTRIDG.A 9 That it is necessary to examine all of the land use regulations of the Southwest Area Community Plan, as they apply to Hillside and Open Space Policies, due to the fact that development on the Western Ridgeline may directly affect the City of Temecula. The project is exempt from CEQA review under Section 15061 ( b ) ( 3 ) due to the fact the project does not have a potential for causing a significant affect on the environment. D. The Interim Western Ridgeline Policies are compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION2RECOMMENDATION. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of the Interim Western Ridgeline Policies pertaining to hillside and open space development, as follows: A. Hillside Policies The "Hillside" designation is applied to relatively small isolated topographic features with slopes in areas of 25% or greater. Development within the Hillside area shall follow design Policy "B". These features should be incorporated, when possible, into the design of development proposals as open space, and/or larger lot sizes. The Hillside designation shall have a five (5) acre minimum lot size or .2 DU/AC for density transfer purposes. B. Open Space Policies (Mountainous) The minimum lot size permitted within the Mountainous designation shall be 10 acres, permitting a 5 acre minimum lot size in the Santa Rosa/DeLuz Area, in accordance with policy {10), (11) and (13). Post and beam construction and special foundations designed to resist earthquake shaking shall be encouraged in areas with slopes in excess of 25% to reduce excessive grading. A:WESTRIDG.A 10 10. 11. Development in Mountainous areas shall blend into the natural features of the site and shall attempt to avoid an unvaFied, unnatural or manufactured appearance. Narrow canyons which might create a significant fire hazard shall be left undeveloped. Structures must be setback a minimum of 30 feet from any slopes greater than 25% and 30 feet in height and, excepting lawns and some ornamentals and groundcovers, natural vegetation shall be cleared for a distance of not less than 30 feet from any structure. Roads and driveways should attempt to try to avoid alignment through areas of natural slopes in excess of 25%. Roads crossing drainage channels shall provide for proper drainage, and placement of drainage channels which might undermine or erode the roadbed shall be avoided. All driveways shall be constructed with a finished grade of no more than 15%. Erosion and sedimentation control shall be encouraged with retention of existing trees, vegetation, planting of cut and fill slopes, construction of retaining walls, dikes, proper cover and an irrigation system calibrated to soil permeability. Within the Santa Rosa/DeLuz Area, land divisions creating parcels less than 10 acres in size shall provide paved roads that are connected to a maintained road system, or shall be required to form an assessment district to provide such paved access, Each proposed lot less than 10 acres in size, within the Santa Rosa/DeLuz area shall be able to provide a minimum 10,000 square foot building pad, unless post and beam construction is to be utilized. A :WESTRIDG. A 11 12. The boundaries of the Hillside and Mountainous designations are based on general topographical data. Therefore, the lines should not be considered final for the purposes of determining how much of a given parcel is inside or outside the Mountainous or Hillside designation. Development applications located on the edge of the Mountainous or Hillside designations may be accompanied by more detailed topographic data to further define slope characteristics of the parcels in relation to the parcel. Building sites shall not be permitted on the Western Ridgeline as identified on the land use allocation map. Projects proposed within the area of the Western Ridgeline shall be evaluated on a case by case basis to ensure that building pad sites are located so that buildings and roof tops do not project above the ridgeline as viewed from the Temecula Basin. All projects within a 1/2 mile of the western ridgeline shall also be evaluated on a case by case basis to determining if the building site will have an adverse impact to the ridge line as viewed from the basin. SECTION 3 ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE The City of Temecula Planning Commission finds that this project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under Section 15061 (b) (3). SECTION L~ ACTION PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th 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 20th day of May, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS A:WESTRIDG.A 12