HomeMy WebLinkAbout071591 PC AgendaAGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
July 15, 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
Hoacjland,
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 AcJenda. Speakers are
limited to three ( 3 ) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners
about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should
be filled out and filed with the Commissioner Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and
address.
For all other acjenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the
Planning Secretary before Commission cjets 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 July 1, 1991 Planning Commission Meetincj.
(to be delivered under separate cover. )
NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
3. Selection of Plannincj Commission Meeting Chairman and Vice-Chairman
u, . Case No: Quimby Act
Discussion of Act including Park Dedications and Fees.
Presenter: Gary King
ITEM
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Change of Zone No. 17 and First Extension of Time Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 23125
Sterling Builders
Northeast Corner of DePortola and Butterfield 5rage Road
Change the zoning on 88.z~ acres from R-A-2-1/2 to R-1
and R-5; and subdivide 88.q acres into 215 single family
residential lots.
Richard Ayala
Recommend Approval
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Appeal No. 15
Winston Tires
27425 Jefferson Ave. (Winchester Square)
Appeal of the Planning Director's denial of an application
for a wall sign proposed to be placed above an existing
roof.
Richard Ayala
Denial
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Change of Zone 16
Connie Hill
27628 Jefferson Avenue
Change of Zone from R-R (Rural Residential) to C-P-S
Scenic Highway commercial) on a 1 acre parcel.
Steve Jiannino
Recommend Approval
Case NO:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Plot Plan 225
Leonard Nagel
Westerly side of Enterprise Circle North approximately 380
feet West of Winchester Road
To construct an 18,000 sq. ft. furniture warehouse.
Scott Wright
Recommend Approval
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Parcel Map No. 25059 Minor Change No. 1
Preferred Equities
Ridge Park Drive, south west side approximately 70 feet
east of its intersection with Rancho California Road.
Modify or delete inappropriate engineering conditions.
Steve Jiannino
Denial
10.
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Directional Sign Ordinance
City of Temecula
City Wide
Ordinance establishing regulations for Directional Signs.
Oliver Mujica
Recommend Approval
11.
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Temporary Outdoor Activities Ordinance
City of Temecula
City Wide
Ordinance establishing Regulationsfor Temporary Outdoor
Activities.
Oliver Mujica
Continue to 8/5/91
Planninq Director Report
Planninq Commission Discussion
Other Business
ADJOURNMENT
Next meeting: August 5, 1991, 6:00 p.m., Vall Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma
Drive, Temecula, California
SJ/Ib
pc/TAgn7-15
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 1, 1991
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was
called to order Monday, July 1, 1991, 6:00 P.M., at Vail Elementary
School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula. The meeting was called to
order by Chairman Dennis Chiniaeff.
PRESENT: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Hoagland, Chiniaeff
ABSENT: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
Also present were Planning Director Gary Thornhill, Lois Bobak
for Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh, Deputy City Engineer
Doug Stewart and Minute Clerk Gail Zigler.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Approval of Agenda
GARY THORNHILL advised that Item No. 7 would be continued to
the meeting of August 5, 1991.
COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND moved to Continue Item No. 7, Variance
No. 6, to the meeting of August 5, 1991, seconded by
COMMISSIONER FAHEY.
5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Hoagland, Chiniaeff
0 COMMISSIONERS: None
AYES:
NOES:
Minutes
2.1
Approval of minutes of June 17, 1991 Planning Commission
meeting.
COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to approve the minutes of
June 17, 1991 as mailed, seconded by COMMISSIONER
HOAGLAND.
AYES:
NOES:
PCMIN7/01/91
5 COMMISSIONERS:
0 COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Hoagland, Chiniaeff
None
-1- July 5, 1991
PL1LNNING CO1OflESION MINUTES
NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
JULY 1, 1991
Memorandum of Understanding with Cal Trans regarding access
to Route 79.
3.1 Receive and file staff report.
DOUG STEWART provided the staff report.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
4. CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 9/SUBSTANTIAL CONFOrCE NO. 11
Proposal to amend zoning and issue substantial conformance
to allow one four plex unit to exist in Planning Area 37
of SP 199. Located north of Rancho California Road, East
of Margarita Road.
OLIVER MUJICA provided the staff report.
COMMISSIONER FORD questioned if the applicant was
proposing to build duplexs in this planning area also.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 6:15 P.M.
BARRY BURNELL, 3242 Halliday Street, Santa Ana,
representing the Buie Corporation, advised the Commission
that when the plan was originally approved it allowed
duplex and four-plex products in this planning area,
the County changed their designations in an amendment to
the plan and this area was overlooked. He added that
in this particular planning area, it will only be the
four-plex model that will be built.
JIM RESNEY, 16935 West Bernardo Drive, San Diego,
with the Buie Corporation, answered questions relating
to condominium maintenance and the Homeowner's
Association.
COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to close the public hearing at
6:25 P.M. and Direct staff to issue a Letter of
Substantial Conformance for Planning Area No. 37, Specific
Plan No. 199 and Adopt Resolution No. 91-(next)
recommending approval of Change of Zone No. 9, seconded by
COMMISSIONER BLAIR.
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Hoagland, Chiniaeff
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
PCMINT/01/91 -2- July 5, 1991
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 1, 1991
5. CHANGE OF ZONE NO.
Proposal to change from R-A 2 - 1/2 to R-l-1 and
subdivisions of 4.5 +/- acres into 4 parcels. Located
at the southeasterly corner of Walcott Lane and Calle
Chapos.
Chairman Chiniaeff indicated a conflict of interest and turned the
gavel over to Vice Chairman Ford.
CHARLES HAY provided the staff report.
VICE CHAIRMAN FORD opened the public hearing at 6:25 P.M.
JAY VANDERWAL, 992 Carnation Avenue, Costa Mesa,
applicant, expressed his concurrence with the staff report
and Conditions of Approval. Mr. Vanderwal also stated
that he concurred with the request by neighboring
residents, Mr. & Mrs. Gorham, that there be no mobile
homes allowed.
VICE CHAIRMANFORD questioned the requirement of Condition
of Approval No. 33.
DOUG STEWART stated that there are some items that all
residents participate in through the CSD.
Commissioner Hoagland and Fahey expressed a concern for
paved road access.
COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND stated that he could support the
Change of Zone if there were some sort of paved access
out to the site.
COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND moved to continue Change of Zone
No. 15 to August 5, 1991 and offer the applicant the
opportunity to work with staff for a suitable access
plan, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY.
AYES:
4 COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Hoagland
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN:i COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff
Chairman Chiniaeff returned to his seat.
PCMIN7/01/91 -3- JUly 5, 1991
PLi~NING
6. PLOT
COMMISSION MINUTES
JULY 1, 1991
PLAN NO. 226 (pp226)
Proposal to construct a commercial retail complex of
3 structures totaling 27,150 +/- square feet on a 2.5
+/- acre site. Located at the southwesterly corner of
Pauba and Margarita Road.
CHARLES HAY provided the staff report.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at
7:00 P.M.
KEITH MCCANN, 43121 Margarita Road, Temecula, applicant,
provided the Commission with a brief description of the
project and answered various questions by the Commission.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF suggested that the applicant move the
the trash enclosure adjacent to Building C to the left.
Mr. Chiniaeff also stated that he had concerns with the
elevations, and suggested that the applicant might work
with staff to get the back of Building C to look more
like the front.
The applicant indicated that he could address both these
issues with staff.
COMMISSIONER FORD asked if the applicant had any problem
moving the requirements for Conditions of Approval Nos.
66 and 67 to prior to the building permits be issued.
The applicant indicated that they intend to do the street
improvements first.
ART PELHA, 43185 Margarita Road, Temecula, stated that
when he purchased his property, he thought that it was
all zoned R-R and spoke in opposition to the project. He
stated that although the proposed tenants sounded good, he
expressed a concern for the control of future tenants.
KEITH MCCANN stated that when Mr. Pelka purchased his
property, the commercial zoning was already in place for
the proposed project.
GARY THORNHILL commented that the CPS zoning controls what
type of tenants can occupy the property.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned the City Attorney on the
Commission's options for controling the uses.
PCMIN7/01/91 -4- July 5, 1991
PLANNIN~
COMMISSION MINUTES
JULY 1, 1991
Lois Bobak indicated that the Commission could initiate
a process to change the zone or initiate a process to
change individual requirements within the zone.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF expressed a concern for the steepness
of the 1.1 slope, the architectural treatment to the rear
of the buildings and recommended that staff review the
landscape plans and upgrade from one to five gallon
plants.
COMMISSIONER FORD also expressed a concern for the 1.1
slope.
GARY THORNHILL questioned if there was any concern for the
site lay-out.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF indicated a concern for siting of
Building B and it's relationship to the adjacent
commercial property. COMMISSIONER FORD stated that staff
should look at the shared access between the two adjacent
commercial parcels referenced.
COMMISSIONER FORD moved to continue Plot Plan No. 226 to
August 5, 1991, to allow the applicant to work with staff
to address the Commission's concerns, seconded by
COMMISSIONER BLAIR.
AYES:
5 COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Hoagland, Chiniaeff
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
7. VARIANCE NO. 6
Proposal for a Variance in order to allow an additional
freestanding sign display in lieu of the maximum allowed
freestanding signs per Ordinance 348.
Continued to the meeting of August 5, 1991.
8. TENTATIVE TRACT 25277 AND ZONE CHANGE 5724
Proposal to change the zone from R-R to R-l, single
family residential and to create 102 residential lots
and seven open spaces. Located at the southwesterly
side of Pechanga Creek abutting the easterly side of
Temecula Creek Inn Golf Course.
PCMIN7/01/91 -5- July 5, 1991
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 1, 1991
SCOTT WRIGHT provided the staff report.
GARY THORNHILL advised the Commission that the
applicant has worked very hard with staff in trying
to configure the project to the land; however, there
are still issues that need to be resolved (i.e.
buffering of adjacent properties, the road system
and access).
CHAII~MAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 7:35 P.M.
LARRY MARKHAM, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester
Road, Temecula, representing the applicant, provided a
presentation of the proposed project.
RICK SNYDER, 1021 West Bastanchurry, Fullerton,
president of Acacia Construction, gave a brief history
of the project and answered questions by the Commission.
PEGGY QUERRY, 45161 Pala Road, Temecula, adjacent property
owner, spoke in support of the project and advised that
they would be willing to give Acacia access through their
property for the project.
The following individuals spoke in opposition to the
proposed project, expressing concern for increased
density, removal of oak trees, access, flood hazards,
increased traffic on Pala Road bridge, safety of school
children boarding buses on Via Gilberto:
BOB OBLACHINSKI, 30954 Shaba Circle, Temecula.
DON WHITE, 31109 Via Gilberto, Temecula.
BOB COTA, 30959 Shaba Circle, Temecula.
*Mr. Cota submitted a petition with approximately 200
signatures from area residents opposing this project.
TOM MONTALDO, 46037 Clubhouse Drive, Temecula.
JOE TERRAZAS, 31160 Lahontan, Temecula.
HANK SCHUDER, 31320 Via Eduardo, Temecula.
JIM FJ&LLON, 31424 Via Eduardo, Temecula.
MORY MIKIA, 45788 Creekside Way, Temecula.
JIM GARCIA, 45740 Palmetto Way, Temecula.
PETER WANN, 31061 Via Gilberto, Temecula.
KAREN LOCKLIN, 30861 Bardmoor, Temecula.
VICKI CRAWFORD, 45735 Clubhouse, Temecula.
JIM DITTMAN, 30875 Bardmoor, Temecula,
KAREN ORELLANA, 31182 Saho Court, Temecula.
STEVE CRAWFORD, 45735 Clubhouse, Temecula.
JONATHON SEAL, 45544 Kimo Street, Temecula.
PCMIN7/01/91 -6- July 5, 1991
PLANNING COMMIS8ION MINUTES
JULY 1, 1991
RICK BUSENKELL, 30946 Shaba Circle, Temecula, spoke in
opposition to the proposed development; however, spoke
in support of the City purchasing the Querry land for
park space.
LETTIE BOGG8, representing the Temecula Valley Unified
School District, stated that during the development
review, the school district had requested that the
applicant contact them regarding mitigation for the
increased density of this development; however, they have
not been contacted by the applicant to this date and
therefore the school district would oppose the zone
change.
RICK SNYDER, stated that the project would not be proposed
if they hadn't already been in contact with police, fire,
etc. Mr. Snyder added that they did have "Will Serve"
letters in place from sewer and water.
LARRY MARKHAM suggested that Conditions of Approval Nos.
4 and 74 be revised to read "Rainbow Canyon or Via
Eduardo". Mr. Markham added that the applicant has
retained an arborist on how to handle the transplanting
of the oak trees and the applicant has also been
conditioned for a follow-up traffic study. Mr. Markham
concluded that the environmental assessment states that
all the concerns can be mitigated to a level of
insignificance.
COMMISSIONER FAREY stated that although she was pleased
to see that the applicant had tried to protect the hills
and trees, based on the infrastructure of the area, she
could not support the request for change of zone.
COMMISSIONER FORD expressed a concern for the project
coming before the Planning Commission with so many
unresolved problems. He added that he also had a concern
with the higher density adjacent to the mountainous
region, the bus stops, the flood control, and secondary
access points.
COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND expressed a concern for secondary
access, buffering between this project and the property to
the south.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR stated her concerns were based on
supply and demand. She added that she strongly opposed
the grading and expressed a concern for the flood plain
in this area. Ms. Blair also expressed a concern for
the condition of the Pala Road bridge and the traffic
PCMIN7/01/91 -7- JUly 5, 1991
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 1, 1991
generated from this project.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF stated that he concurred with many of
the concerns expressed by the Commissioners and also could
not support a zone change at this time; however, he stated
that the developer had a right to develop his land and
felt that staff needs to to look at the overall
development plan for this area.
COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to close the public hearing at
9:10 P.M. and continue Tentative Tract 25277 and Zone
Change 5724 to the first meeting of September 1991, to
allow staff to work with the applicant and address the
concerns expressed by the Commission, seconded by
COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND.
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Hoagland, Chiniaeff
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF declared a recess at 9:10 P.M.
reconvened at 9:15 P.M.
The meeting
9. OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAYS ORDINANCE
9.1 Proposal for interim ordinance establishing regulations
for outdoor advertising displays city wide.
OLIVER MUJICA provided the staff report.
COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND suggested that exemptions should
come before the Planning Commission.
Attorney Lois Bobak suggested that Section 4 be amended
to read as follows, "Not withstanding the provisions of
this Ordinance, should any party believe that they would
suffer a hardship if not permitted to build an outdoor
advertising display, they may apply for an exemption to
to this Ordinance to the Planning Department. A public
hearing shall be scheduled before the Planning Commission
who shall make a recommendation to the City Council.
Such exemption may be granted by the City Council only
after due notice and public hearing thereon."
COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to Adopt Resolution No. P.C. 91
-(next) recommending adoption of the Amended Interim
Outdoor Advertising Displays Ordinance, with the change
PCMIN7/01/91 -8- July 5, 1991
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 1, 1991
to the wording of Section 4., seconded by COMMISSIONER
FORD.
AYES:
5 COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Hoagland, Chiniaeff
10. AMBIENT AIR BALLOON ORDINANCE
10.1 Proposal for ordinance establishing regulations for the
use of Ambient Air Balloons city wide.
OLIVER MUJICA provided the staff report.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF suggested that there be a reduction in
the number of days from fifteen to ten.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to Adopt Resolution No. P.C. 91-
{next) recommending adoption of the Ambient Air Balloon
Ordinance, amending the number of days allowed from
fifteen to ten days, seconded by COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND.
AYES:
5 COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Noagland, Chiniaeff
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT
GARY THORNHILL advised the Commission of the following:
, The consultant for the General Plan is currently working on
gathering information, will be contacting each Commissioner
to set up an interview appointment.
* Trying to arrange a joint Planning Commission/City Council
meeting for July 22 or July 24.
, Planning a General Plan kick-off meeting.
* Interviewing for two senior planners as well as clerical
positions.
* Invited the Commission to come down to the new City Hall
facility.
PCMIN7/01/91 -9- JUly 5, 1991
PLANNING COMMI8SION MINUTES JULY 1, 1991
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
* COMMISSIONER FAHEY requested a presentation from the Parks and
Recreation Department on the different designations.
OTHER BUSINESS
None
ADJOURNMENT
COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND moved to adjourn at 9:45
COMMISSIONER FORD.
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS:
P.M., seconded by
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Hoagland, Chiniaeff
None
The next regular meeting of the City of
Commission will be held Monday, July 15, 1991,
Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive,
Temecula Planning
6:00 P.M. at
Temecula.
Chairman Dennis Chiniaeff
Secretary
PCMIN7/01/91 -10- July 5, 1991
ITEM #5
Case No.:
Recommendation:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 15, 1991
Change of Zone No. 17
First Extension of Time
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125
Prepared By: Richard Ayala
Forward the following recommendations to the City
Council:
ACCEPT Environmental Impact Report No.
263 for Change of Zone No. 17 and First
Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 23125;
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending
approval of Change of Zone No. 17; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving First
Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 23125 based on the Analysis and
Findings contained in the Staff Report and
subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
Sterling Builders, Inc.
Ranpac Engineering Corporation
Chan.cje of Zone No. 17
Change of Zone No. 17 is a proposal to change the
zoning on 88.0, acres of land from R-A-2 1/2
{ Residential Agricultural - 2 1/2 Acres Minimum) to
R-1 (One-Family Dwellings) and R-5 (Open Area
Combining Zone - Residential Developments).
First Extension of Time for Vestin,q Tentative Tract
Map No. 23125
First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 23125 proposes a two hundred, fifteen
(215) lot residential subdivision of 88.4 acres.
A:TM23125-A 1
LOCAT ION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
BACKGROUND:
Northeast Corner of De Portola and Butterfield
Stage Road.
R-A-2 1/2 (Residential Agricultural - 2 1/2 Acre
Minimum)
North:
South:
East:
West:
R-1 (One-Family Dwelling)
R-R ( Rural Residential )
R-R (Rural Residential)
SP I Specific Plan )
R-1 (One-Family Dwellings) and
R-5 (Open Area Combinin9 Zone - Residential
Developments )
Vacant
North: Vacant
South: Vacant
East: Vacant
West: Vacant
Project Area:
Proposed No, of Lots:
Proposed Minimum Lot Size:
Proposed Density:
SWAP Density:
Acreage Designated
By Proposed Zones:
R-1 (One-Family Dwellings):
R-5 (Open Area Combination Zone-
Residential Development):
88.4 acres
212 residential,
3 open space
7,200 sq.ft.
2.3 DU/AC
2-4 DU/AC
61.61 acres
22 acres
The original application, Change of Zone No. 5122
was a request to change the zoning on 88.4 acres of
land from R-A-2 1/2 (Residential Agricultural - 2
1/2 Acres Minimum) to R-1 (One-Family Dwellings)
and R-5 (Open Area Combination Zone - Residential
Development) zones. This Zone Change was
approved by the County of Riverside Board of
Supervisors on October 20, 1988, along with
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 which
proposed a 212 Residential lot subdivision on 88.4
acres.
However, due to an oversight by the County, the
Zone Change was acted upon on May 29, 1990, after
the official incorporation date of the City of
Temecula ( December 1, 1989). Therefore, the Zone
Change was never officially adopted. The applicant
submitted a new application, Change of Zone No.
A:TM23125-A 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
17, to the City of Temecula Planning Department on
May 21, 1991.
First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 23125 was submitted to the City of Temecula
on July 6, 1990 and was processed through Pre-DRC
(Development Review Committee) at which time the
zone change issue was identified. The Extension
was then put on hold until the Zone Change could be
resolved. Therefore, both Change of Zone No. 17
and First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative
Tract Map No. 23125 are being processed
concurrently.
Chanqe of Zone No. 17
The applicant is proposing to change the zone on
88.4 acres of land situated at the northeast corner
of De Portola Road and Butterfield Stage Road,
which is identical to the original Zone Change No.
5122. The land use breakdown is as follows:
R-l, One-Family Dwellings ~ 61.61 acres.
This zoning permits single family dwellings.
R-5, Open Area Combining Zone Residential
Developments - 22 acres. This zone allows
for the development of parkland uses.
The proposed zoning will be consistent with projects
approved in the area such as the Crowne Hill project
(Change of Zone No. 4814, Vestin9 Tentative Tract
Map No. 23143) located immediately adjacent to the
north. This project was approved by the Board of
Supervisors on Au9ust 16, 1988, and will ultimately
create 1,092 R-1 residential lots, 26 R-A-2 1/2 lots
and 11 open space lots for parks, a school, and
open area. The Paloma Del Sol Plan (SP 219) is
located directly to the west of the project site,
across Butterfield Stage Road. This specific plan
covers 1,389 acres and will allow up to a maximum of
5,611 dwelling units. The area of this specific plan
nearest to the proposed project site calls for Medium
density residential, 2-5 dwelling units per acre.
First Extension of Time for
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 proposes to
subdivide the subject 88.4 acre site into a
residential development consisting of 212 residential
lots and 3 open space lots, with an overall density
A :TM23125-A 3
ANALYSIS:
of 2.3 units per acre. The proposed development
has been designed in accordance with the standards
of the R-1 zone {One-Family Dwellings).
The project site is located at the Northeast corner
of De Portola Road and Butterfield Stage Road. At
present, the site is vacant.
Chanqe of Zone No. 17
The subject site is currently zoned R-A-2 1/2
( Residential Agricultural, 2 1/2 Acres Minimum ) and
designated 2-4 DU/AC by the SWAP (Southwest
Area Community Plan ) Map. Surrounding
properties adjacent to the subject site are
designated by SWAP as being 2-4 DU/AC,
Commercial and Specific Plan uses. Currently,
there is an approved specific plan {Paloma Del Sol )
situated to the west, and a 1,092 residential
subdivision ~ VTM 23143 ) directly to the north of the
subject site, which consists of similar developments
and densities being proposed by the applicant.
The applicant is proposing to zone the areas
adjacent to Butterfleld Stage Road and De Portola
Road R-5 in order to provide for adequate open
space between the proposed roads and residential
development. The interior of the subject site is
entirely zoned R-1.
In addition, Staff has reviewed the proposed zoning
for the subject site and has found it to be
acceptable due to the proposed density being
consistent with the SWAP and approved projects
adjacent to the subject site.
First Extension of Time
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125
Desiqn Considerations
The proposed subdivision has been designed in
accordance with the standards of the R-1 (One-
Family Dwellings) zone and Ordinance Nos. 348 and
460. The main access to the project is provided by
De Portola Road.
A:TM23125-A 4
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS:
Density
The proposed subdivision (Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 23125) has a density of 2.3 DU/AC. The
Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP) calls for 2-
4 DU/AC, thus, meeting the SWAP residential
density requirement.
Quimby Act
Staff is recommending the addition of the standard
Quimby Act fees to be attached to the Conditions of
Approval.
The proposed Change of Zone and density of 2.3
units per acre is consistent with the Southwest Area
Community Plan designation of 2-~, units per acre,
In addition, Staff finds it probable that this project
will be consistent with the new General Plan when it
is adopted.
In accordance with the procedures of the California
Environmental Quality Act I CEQA), Environmental
Impact Report No. 263 was prepared in connection
with the proposed project. All significant effect of
the project on the environment and measures
necessary to avoid or substantially lessen such
effect was evaluated in accordance with the
Riverside County Rules to implement CEQA.
Certification of Environmental Impact Report No.
263, was approved by the Riverside Board of
Supervisors on October 25, 1988.
Chanqe of Zone No. 17
The proposed zone change will not have a
significant adverse effect on the
environment, as determined in the
Environmental Impact Report for this project.
There is a reasonable probability that the
zone change from R-A-2 1/2 to R-1 and R-5
will be consistent with the future General
Plan. Further, densities and uses proposed
are similar to existing densities and uses in
the vicinity of the project site.
A:TM23125-A 5
There is not a reasonable probability of
substantial detriment to, or interference
with, the future and adopted General Plan, if
the proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan due to the fact that
the proposal is consistent with surrounding
land uses.
The proposed change in district classification
is reasonable and beneficial at this time as it
is a logical expansion of residential uses
which exist adjacent to, and in the vicinity
of, the project site.
The proposed change in district classification
will likely be consistent with the goals,
policies and action programs which will be
contained in the General Plan when it is
ultimately adopted. The density and land use
proposed are consistent with the Southwest
Area Plan and approved and proposed
adjacent specific plans.
The site of the proposed change in district
classification is suitable to accommodate all
the land uses currently permitted in the
proposed zoning district as it is of adequate
size and shape for the proposed residential
use. Possible land use conflicts are not likely
to arise as the project proposes residential
uses similar to those existing in the general
vicinity of the subject site.
Adequate access exists for the proposed
residential land use from Butterfield Stage
Road and De Portola Road. Additional
internal access and required road
improvements to proposed lots will be
designed and constructed in conformance
with Riverside County standards.
That said findings are supported by analysis,
minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental
documents associated with this application
and herein incorporated by reference.
A:TM23125-A 6
First Extension of Time for
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125
There is a reasonable probability that this
project will be consistent with the City~s
future General Plan, which will be completed
in a reasonable time and in accordance with
State law, due to the fact that the project is
consistent with existing site development
standards in that it proposes articulated
design features and site amenities
commensurate with existing and anticipated
residential development standards.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future and adopted general plan, if the
proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact
that the project is in conformance with
existing and anticipated land use and design
guidelines standards.
The proposed use or action complies with
state planning and zoning laws, due to the
fact that the proposed use conforms with
those uses listed as "allowed" within the
project site's existing land use designation.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation
patterns, access, and density, due to the
fact that; adequate area is provided for all
proposed residential structures; adequate
landscaping is provided along the project's
public and private frontages; and the
internal circulation plan should not create
traffic conflicts as design provisions are in
conformance with adopted City standards.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare, due to the fact that the conditions
stated in the approval are based on mitigation
measures necessary to reduce or eliminate
potential adverse impacts of the project.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 is
compatible with surrounding land uses. The
harmony in scale, bulk, height, density and
coverage creates a compatible physical
A: TM23125-A 7
10.
11.
relationship with adjoining properties, due to
the fact that the proposal is similar in
compatibility with surrounding land uses;
and adequate area and design features
provide for siting of proposed development in
terms of landscaping and internal traffic
circulation.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area, due to the
fact that the proposed project is consistent
with the current zoning of the subject site,
and also consistent with the adopted
Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP)
designation.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the Negative
Declaration adopted by the County for the
project, due to the fact that impact mitigation
is realized by conformance with the project's
Conditions of Approval.
The project has acceptable access to a
dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact
that the project currently proposes two
independent access points from De Portola
Road which has been determined to be
adequate by the City Engineer.
The design of the subdivision, the type of
improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed projects, due to
the fact that this is clearly represented in the
site plan and the project analysis.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applicants and herein
incorporated by reference, due to the fact
that they are referenced in the attached Staff
Report, Exhibits, Environmental Assessment,
and Conditions of Approval.
A: TM23125-A 8
STAFF RECOMMENDAT ION:
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 forward
the following recommendations to the City Council:
ACCEPTION of Environmental Impact Report
No. 263 for Change of Zone No. 17 and First
Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 23125;
ADOPTION of Resolution No. 91-
recommending approval of Change of Zone
No. 17; and
ADOPTION of Resolution No. 91-
recommending approval of First Extension of
Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
23125.
RA:ks
Attachments: 1.
2.
Resolution ( Change of Zone No. 17)
Resolution { First Extension of Time for
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125)
Conditions of Approval { First Extension
of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 23125)
Exhibits
A. Change of Zone No. 17
B. First Extension of Time for
Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 23125
A:TM23125-A 9
ATTACHMENT I
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
CZ17
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
ZONE CHANCE NO. 17 TO CHANCE THE ZONING ON 88.4
ACRES OF LAND FROM R-A-2 1/2 {RESIDENTIAL
AGRICULTURAL - 2 1/2 ACRES MINIMUM) TO R-1 AND
R-5 ALONG THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF DE PORTOLA
ROAD AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 926-330-004 AND 926-070-020.
WHEREAS, Sterling Builders, Inc., filed Change of Zone No. 17 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
July 15, 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
recommend approval of said Change of Zone;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty {30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
(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:TM23125-A 10
CZ17
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 Change of Zone is consistent with the SWAP
and does meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the
Government Code, to wit:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects
and taking other actions, including the issuance of
building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the
following:
a)
There is reasonable probability that Change
of Zone No. 17 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: TM23125-A 11
CZ17
c)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
D. ( 1 ) Pursuant to Section 6.5, no Change of Zone 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 Zone change approved shall be subject to such
conditions as shall be necessary to protect the health, safety and
general welfare of the community.
(2) The Planning Commission in recommending approval
of the proposed Tentative Tract Map, makes the following findings to
wit:
a)
The proposed zone change will not have a
significant adverse effect on the
environment, as determined in the
Environmental Impact Report for this project.
b)
There is a reasonable probability that the
Zone Change from R~A-2 1/2 to R-1 and R-5
will be consistent with the future General
Plan. Further. densities and uses proposed
are similar to existing densities and uses in
the vicinity of the project site.
c)
There is not a reasonable probability of
substantial detriment to, or interference
with, the future and adopted General Plan, if
the proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan due to the fact that
the proposal is consistent with surrounding
land uses.
d)
The proposed change in district classification
is reasonable and beneficial at this time as it
is a logical expansion of residential uses
which exist adjacent to, and in the vicinity
of, the project site.
e)
The proposed change in district classification
will likely be consistent with the goals,
policies and action programs which will be
contained in the General Plan when it is
ultimately adopted. The density and land use
proposed are consistent with the Southwest
Area Plan and approved and proposed
adjacent specific plans.
A :TM23125-A 12
CZ17
f)
The site of the proposed change in district
classification is suitable to accommodate all
the land uses currently permitted in the
proposed zoning district as it is of adequate
size and shape for the proposed residential
use. Possible land use conflicts are not likely
to arise as the project proposes residential
uses similar to those existing in the general
vicinity of the subject site.
g)
Adequate access exists for the proposed
residential land use from De Portola Road and
Butterfield Stage Road. Additional internal
access and required road improvements to
proposed lots will be designed and
constructed in conformance with Riverside
County standards.
h)
That said findings are supported by analysis,
minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental
documents associated with this application
and herein incorporated by reference.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project indicates
that the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment.
SECTION 3.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends
approval of Zone Change No. 17 to change the zoning on 88.4 acres of land from
R-A-2 1/2 to R-1 and R-5 along the northeast corner of De Portola and Butterfield
Stage Roads and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 926-330-00L~ and 926-070-020.
SECTION 4,
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of July, 1991.
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
CHAIRMAN
A:TM23125-A 13
CZ17
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 15th day of July, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
A:TM23125-A 14
ATTACHMENT II
TE-VTH23125
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE
FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME FOR VESTING TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP 23125 A 215 RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ON
88.0, ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
DE PORTOLA ROAD AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 926-330-000,
AND 926-070-020.
WHEREAS, Sterling Builders, Inc., filed the Time Extension in
accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision
Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Time Extension application was processed in the time
and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Time Extension on
July 15, 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 Time Extension.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
|2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
A:TM23125-A 15
TE-VTM23125
a)
There is a reasonable probability that the
Time Extension 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 Time Extension 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 the Time
Extension 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:TM23125-A 16
TE-VTM23125
c)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
D, ~1} PursuanttoSection18.30Ic), no Time Extension 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 proposed subdivision does not affect the
general health, safety, and welfare of the
public.
(2) ThePlanningCommission, inapprovingtheproposed
Time Extension, makes the following findings, to wit:
a)
There is a reasonable probability that this
project will be consistent with the City's
future General Plan, which will be completed
in a reasonable time and in accordance with
State law, due to the fact that the project is
consistent with existing site development
standards in that it proposes articulated
design features and site amenities
commensurate with existing and anticipated
residential development standards.
b)
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future and adopted general plan, if the
proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact
that the project is in conformance with
existing and anticipated land use and design
guidelines standards.
c)
The proposed use or action complies with
state planning and zoning laws, due to the
fact that the proposed use conforms with
those uses listed as "allowed" within the
project site's existing land use designation.
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 density, due to the
A:TM23125-A 17
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
TE-VTM23125
fact that; adequate area is provided for all
proposed residential structures; adequate
landscaping is provided along the project~s
public and private frontages; and the
internal circulation plan should not create
traffic conflicts as design provisions are in
conformance with adopted City standards.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare, due to the fact that the conditions
stated in the approval are based on mitigation
measures necessary to reduce or eliminate
potential adverse impacts of the project.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 is
compatible with surrounding land uses. The
harmony in scale, bulk, height, density and
coverage creates a compatible physical
relationship with adjoining properties, due to
the fact that the proposal is similar in
compatibility with surrounding land uses;
and adequate area and design features
provide for siting of proposed development in
terms of landscaping and internal traffic
circulation.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area, due to the
fact that the proposed project is consistent
with the current zoning of the subject site,
and also consistent with the adopted
Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP)
designation.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the Negative
Declaration adopted by the County for the
project, due to the fact that impact mitigation
is realized by conformance with the project's
Conditions of Approval.
The project has acceptable access to a
dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact
that the project currently proposes two
independent access points from De Portola
A:TM23125-A 18
TE-VTM23125
Road which has been determined to be
adequate by the City Engineer.
j)
The design of the subdivision, the type of
improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed projects, due to
the fact that this is clearly represented in the
site plan and the project analysis.
k)
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applicants and herein
incorporated by reference, due to the fact
that they are referenced in the attached Staff
Report, Exhibits, Environmental Assessment,
and Conditions of Approval.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 2, the Time Extension
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.
That the 'City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby determines that
the previous environmental determination ( Adoption of Environmental Impact Report
No. 263) still applies to said Tract Map (Extension of Time).
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves The
First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 for a 215
residential subdivision on 88.4 acres located on the northeast corner of De Portola
Road and Butterfield Stage Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 926-330-004
and 926-070-020 subject to the following conditions:
A. Attachment I I I, attached hereto.
SECTION 4.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of July, 1991.
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
CHAIRMAN
A: TM23125 -A 19
TE-VTM23125
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 15th day of July, 1991 by the followin9 vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
A:TM23125-A 20
ATTACHMENT I I I
CITY OF TEMECULA
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125
Commission Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
Planning Department
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 provide for the dedication of park land and/or in-lieu,
fees to the satisfaction of the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD)
Board of Directors PRIOR TO RECORDATION of final map, as authorized by
City of Temecula Ordinance No. u,60.93.
The park land dedication requirement shall be a predetermined amount based
on the use and number of units proposed. If the park land requirement
cannot be met, the applicant shall be required to pay a predetermined Quimby
Act Fee in the amount equal to the fair market value of the required park land
acreage (Plus 20% for offsite improvements).
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.
This conditionally approved Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 23125 will expire one {1 ) year after the original expiration date,
unless extended as provided by Ordinance u,60. The expiration date is
October 20, 1991.
The subdivider shall comply with the original Conditions of Approval for
Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 {see attached) except as amended herein.
6. Prior to recordatlon, Change of Zone No. 17 shall be effective.
A:TM23125-A 21
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. The developer shall comply with all previous Conditions of Approval
except as amended by the following conditions.
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 RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
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; and
Temecula Community Services District.
Any Notice of Intention to annex into the Temecula Community Service
District, Service Level "C" (Landscape Maintenance), shall be submitted to
the TCSD prior to recordation of the final map.. All costs involved in District
annexation shall be borne by the developer.
Notice of Intention to annex into the Temecula Community Service District,
Service Level "A" (Medians), shall be submitted to TCSD prior to recordation
of the final map. All costs involved in District annexation shall be borne by
the developer.
10.
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:
11.
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 Englneer~s Office.
12.
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.
A:TM23125-A 22
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT:
13.
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.
15.
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 SIR/Negative Declaration for the
project. The fee to be paid shall be 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. Concurrently, with executing
this Agreement, developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public
Facility fee. The amount of the bond shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to
exceed $10,000. 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). By execution of this Agreement,
developer will waive any right to protest the provisions of this Condition, of
this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the
process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for
this project; provided that developer is not waiving its right to protest the
reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
16.
If construction of improvements are phased and completed prior to
development occurring on adjacent properties, a 28~ wide secondary access
road shall be provided within a recorded private road easement as approved
by the City Engineer.
17.
Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all
times with adequate detours during construction.
Transportation Engineerinq
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
18.
A signing plan shall be designed by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved
by the City Engineer for all internal streets with 66' of right-of-way or less
and shall be shown on the street improvement plans.
19.
Condition No. 32 of the Riverside County Road letter dated June 28, 1988,
shall be deleted.
A:TM23125-A 23
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBDIVISION
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23125
DATE:
AMENDED NO, 2
EXPIRES:
STANDARD CONDITIONS
1. The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County of
· - Riverside, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or
~ >roceeding against the County of Riverside or its agents, officers, or
c employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the County
~ of Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body
~ ,:oncerning Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23125, which action is brought
lbout within the time period provided for in California Government Code
~ection 66499.37. The County of Riverside will pr~nptly notify the
;ubdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the County of
~iverside and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the County fails to
)romptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or
'ails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not,
:hereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the
County of Riverside.
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California
Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule
A, unless modified by the conditions listed below.
3. This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the
County of Riverside Board of Supervisors approval date, unless extended as
provided by Ordinance 460.
The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all
the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and
Ordinance 460.
The subdivider shall submit one copy of a soils report to the Riverside
County Surveyor's Office and two copies to the Department of Building and
Safety. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
If any grading is proposed, the subdivider shall submit one print of
comprehensive grading plan to the Department of Building and Safety. The
plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, as amended
by Ordinance 457 and as maybe additionally provided for in these
conditions of approval.
VESTZNG TI~TATZVE TRACT II0. 23125° ted. W2
Conditions af Approval
Page 2
7. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Department of Building and
Safety prior to c~,m,ence~nt of any grading outside of county maintained
road right of my.
8. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the
final rap.
The subdivider shall comply ~th the street improvement r~commendations
outlined in the Riverside County Road Department's letter dated 6-28-88, a
copy of which is attached.
10. Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract
map boundary to a County maintained road.
All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall
continue in force until the governing body accepts or abandons such
offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved
by the Road Cont~issioner. Street names shall be subject to approval of
the Road Commissioner.
Easements, when requi red for roadway slopes, drainage facilities,
utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final Np if they are located
within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and
conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the County
Surveyor.
13. Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance
with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's
letter dated 6-23-88, a copy of which is attached.
~ 14. The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommendations
~,.{'~ ~ out~ by the Riverside County Flood Control District's letter dated
· ~:~ .' ~ ,~6-2B-BB:. a copy of which is attached. If the land division lies within an
I'~ . ~,./~'itaa~'t~d flood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of Ordinance
~ / 460, appro riate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities
shall be collected by the Road Commissioner.
The subdivider shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations
outlined in the County Fire Marshal's letter dated 6-22-BB, a copy of
which is attached.
Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area
improvement phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning
Department approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate
vehicular access to all lots in each phase, and shall substantially
conform to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval.
17. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following:
VESTIIIG TENTAtiVE TRACT I10. 23125° 'Amid.
Conditions of A~proval
Page 3
a. All lots shall have a minimum size of 7200 square feet net.
b. All lot length to width ratios shall be in conformance with Section
3.BC of Ordinance 460.
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.
IB. Prior to RECORDATION of the final map the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
Prior to the recordation of the final map the applicant shall submit
written clearances to the Riverside County Road and Survey Department
that all pertinent requirements outlined in the attached approval
letters from the following agencies have been met:
County Fire Department County Health Department
County Flood Control County Planning Department
Prior to the recordation of the final map, Change of Zone No. 5122
shall be approved by the Board of Supervisors and shall be effective.
Lots created by this land division shall be in conformante with the
development standards of the zone ultimately applied to the property.
' !~0---recordation of the fina] map~ theKojeet site ~h~ll be
Prior to recordation of the final map, the subdivider shall convey to
the County fee simple title, to all common or common open space areas,
free and clear of all liens, taxes, assessment, leases (recorded and
unrecorded) and easements, except those easements which in the sole
discretion of the County are acceptable. As a conditions precedent to
the County accepting title to such areas, the subdivider shall submit
the following documents to the Planning Department for review, which
doc~nts shall be subject to the approval of that department and the
Office of the County Counsel:
1) A declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions; and
2)
A sample document conveying title to the purchaser of an
individual lot or unit which provides that the declaration of
covenants, conditions and restrictions is incorporated therein by
reference.
¥ESTIRG iLn'rATIVE TRACT II0,23125,/ed, #2
Conditions of Approval
Page 4
The declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions submitted
for review shall (a) provide for a term of 60 years, (b) provide for
the establis~mnent of a property owners' association comprised of the
owners of each individual lot or unit and {c} contain the following
provisions verbatim:
'Notwithstanding any provision in this Declaration to the
contrary, the following provision shall apply:
The property owners' association established herein shall, if
dormant, be activated, by incorporation or otherwise, at the
request of the County of Riverside, and the property owners'
association shall unconditionally accept from the County of
Riverside, upon the County's demand, title to all or any part of
the 'common area', more particularly described on Exhibit'A'
attached hereto. The decision to require activation of the
property owners' association and the decision to require that the
association unconditionally accept title to the 'connon area'
shall be at the sole discretion of the County of Riverside.
In the event that the common area, or any part thereof, is
conveyed to the roperty owners' association, the association,
thereafter shal~ own such 'common area', manage and
shall
continuously maintain such 'common area', or any part thereof,
absent the prior written consent of the Planning Director of the
County of Riverside or the County's successor-in-interest. The
property owners' association shall have the right to assess the
owners of each individual lot or unit for the reasonable cost of
maintaining such 'common area', and shall have the right to lien
the property of any such owner who defaults in the payment of a
maintenance assessment. An assessment lien, once created, shall
be prior to all other liens recorded subsequent to the notice of
assessment or other document creating the assessment lien.
This Declaration shall not be terminated, 'substantially' amended
or property deannexed therefrom absent the prior written consent
Of the Planning Director of the County of Riverside or the
County'$ successor-in-interest. A proposed amendment shall be
considered 'substantial' if it affects the extent, usage or
maintenance of the 'common aream.
In the event of any conflict between this Declaration and the
Articles of Incorporation, the Bylaws, or the property owners'
association Rules and Regulations, if any, this Declaration shall
control.m
Once approved, the declaration of covenants, conditions and
restrictions shall be recorded at the same time that the final map is
recorded.
VESTZra TERTATIVETRACTRO. 23125,
CondiUons of Approval
Page 5
The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all
slopes, landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as
those operations are the responsibilities of other parties as approved
by the Planning Director·
Prior to recordation of the final map, an Environmental Constraints
Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to
delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be *permanentl
filed with the office of the County Surveyor. A copy of the ECS shal~
be transnitted to the Planning Department for review and approval.
The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded final
map to the P1 anning Department and the Department of Building and
Safety.
The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints
Sheet: "County Environmental Impact Report No. 263 was prepared for
this property and is on file at the Riverside County Planning
Department.
Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
a. All mitigation for seismic and liquefaction hazard shall be that which
is found in Environmental Impact Report No. 263.
b. The following tree preservation guidelines shall be incorporated in
the projects approved grading, building and landscaping plans as
appropriate:
Every effort shall be made to prevent encroachment of structures,
grading or trenching within the dripline or twenty-five (25} feet
of the trunk of any trees, whichever is greater·
If encroachment within the dripline is unavoidable, no more than
one third of the root area shall be disturbed, grading or covered
with impervious materials. The root area is considered to extend
beyond the dripline a distance equal to one half the radius.
3. Building, grading or improvements shall not occur within ten (10)
feet of any tree trunk.
Retaining walls shall be constructed where necessary to preserve
nat, ralat least one-half the distance bet en the trunk and
the dri[Walls shall be designed with a post or caisson
footing rather than a continuous footing to minimize root damage·
V~'i illG TERTA11YE TRACT g0. 23125,/ed, ~2
Conditions of Approval -
Page 6
Alteration of natural drainage shall be avoided to the greatest
extent possible.
Runoff channelled near trees shall not substantially change normal
soil moisture characteristics on a seasonal basis·
Runoff shall not be directed towards the base of trees so that the
base of the trees remain in wet soil for an extended period.
Where natural topography has been altered, drainage away frun
trunks shall be provided where necessary to ensure that water will
not stand at the crown.
Sedimentation and siltation in the drainage ways shall be
controlled where necessary to avoid filling around the base of the
trees.
Land uses that would cause excessive soil compaction within the
dripline of trees shall be avoided. If the areas are planned for
recreation, provide trails to restrict compaction to a small area.
Heavy use under trees shall be avoided unless measures to minimize
compaction are undertaken.
10. Landscaping or irrigation shall not be installed within ten {10}
feet of any trees.
All existing native 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. Replacement trees shall be noted on approved
landscaping plans.
If any archaeological resources are uncovered during grading or
trenchin , all activities shall cease and an archaeologist shall be
consult·). Any recommendations of the archaeologist shall be adhered
to.
All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded
exceeding ten (10) feet in vertical height shall
incorporating the following grading techniques:
natural terrain and
be contour-graded
1) The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the
angle of the natural terrain.
2) Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall reflect
the natural rounded terrain.
3)
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.
VESTING TEITATIVETRACTI). 23125, Jid. ~2
Conditions of Approval
Page 7
4) Where cut or fill slopes exceed 300 feet in horizontal length, the
horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved in a continuous,
undulating fashion,
Prior t~ 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 PERHITS the following conditions shall
be satisfied:
No building permits shall be issued by the County of Riverside for any
residential lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer's
successor's-in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public
facility financin measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100}
per lot/unit shall deposited with the Riverside County Department
be
of Building and Safety as mitigation for public library development.
Pr,or to the submitt.1 of bui,ding p,.ns to th. Department o; o";:li ;V
and Safety an acoustical study shall be performed by an c
engineer to establish appropriate mitigation measures that shall be
ap lied to individual dwelling units within the subdivision to reduce
aPm~ient interior noise levels to 45 Ldn,
All street lights an other outdoor lighting shall be shown on
electrical plans submitted to t e Department of Building and Safety
h f
for plan check approval and shall comply with the requir~ents o
Riverside County Ordinance No. 655 and the Riverside County
Comprehensive General Plan·
Prior to issuance of building permits, detailed park site and riparian
area develop~_ent lane shall be submitted to the Planning Department
for approval, ll~ese plans shall conform with guidelines found in the
approved design manual (Exhibit H). The park shall include active
Vt~iZ!lG TE)TTATTV~ TRACT I10. 23125, ~md. f2
Conditions of Approval
Page 8
recreational features such as picnic tables, barbecue areas, tot lots,
etc.
For the security and safety of future residents, the
Varevention measures shall be considered during
your design:
following crime
site and building
a. Proper lighting in open areas;
b. Visibility of doors and windows from the street and between
buildings;
c. Fencing heights and mterials;
d. Adequate off-street parking; and
e. A clearly understood method of street numbering to facilitate
emergency response.
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, and shall conform to the standards set forth
in the tract's approved Design Manual (Exhibit M).
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, and shall incorporate drip
irrigation wherever possible.
· Parkways and landscaped building setbacks shall be landscaped to
provide visual screening or a transition into the primary use area
of the site. Landscape elements shall include earth benning,
ground cover, shrubs and specimen trees in conjunction with
meandering sidewalks, benches and other pedestrian amenities where
appropriate as approved by the Planning Oepartment.
3. 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
parkways ue to insufficient road
interior streets and project d
right-of-way, they shall be planted outside of the road
right-of-way.
VESTIIIG TE)ITATIVE TRACT IK). 23125, Amd. t2
Conditioas of Approval
Page 9
5. Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant
plants where appropriate.
6. All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow
growing trees shall be steel staked.
7. Front and rear yard landscaping shall incorporate the use of shade
trees.
Roof-mounted mechanical equiSxnent shall not be permitted within the
subdivision, however solar equirrnent or any other energy saving
devices shall be permitted with P1 anning Department approval.
h. All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and automatic
irrigation.
i. A plot plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department pursuant to
Section 1B.30 of Ordinance No. 348 accompanied by all applicable
filing fees, as a plot plan that is not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act and is not transmitted to any governmental
agency other than the Riverside County Planning Department. The plot
plan shall ensure the conformante of the final site development with
the tract's approved Design t4anual (Exhibit M), and shall contain the
following elements:
A final site plan showing the lots, building footprints, all
setbacks, fences and/or walls, and floor plan and elevation
assignments to individual lots.
One (1) color and materials sample board (maximum size of B X 13
inches by 3/B inch thick) containing precise color, texture and
material swatcheS or photographs (which may be from suppliers;
brochures). Indicate on the board the name, address and phone
numbers of both the sample board preparer and the project
e plicant, tract number, and the manufacturer and product numbers
w~ere possible (trade names also acceptable).
One (1) copy of the architectural elevations colored to represent
the selected color combinations, with symbols keyed to the color
and materials board. The written color and material descriptions
shall be located on the elevation.
Six (6) co ies of each of glossy photographic color prints (size 8
X 10 'nc~es) of beth color and materials board and colored
1
architectural elevations for permanent filing, hearing body review
and agency distribution. All writing must be legible·
VESTIRG TENTATIVE TRACT R0, 23125, AId. #2
Conditions of Approval
Page 10
Said plot plan shall require the approval of the Planing Director
of .ny buildin , its for lots includ .ithi.
submittal of p~ot plans prior to the issuance of
building permi~ may ~ phasH provided:
A separate ~ ot plan shall be submitted to the Planing Depari=ent
for each phase, which shall be accompanied by appropriate filing
fees.
2. Each individual plot ~an shall be approved by the Planning
Director prior to the issuance of building permits for lots
included within that plot plan.
21. Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERHITS the following conditions shall
be satisfied:
a. Wall and/or fence locations shall conform to approved site plan.
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.
c, Prior to occupancy, bike paths shall be installed along De Portola
Road and Butterfield Stage Road.
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with
qpproved plans and shall be verified by a Planning Department field
Inspection.
ee
Not withstanding the preceding conditions, wherever an acoustical
study is required for noise attenuation purposes, the heights of all
required mlls shall be determined by the acoustical study where
applicable.
f, Prior to occupancy, the park site and riparian enhancement area shall
be developed in accordance with approved plans·
GN:sc
9/02/88
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMOKANDUM
COUNTY OF Rlva~SIDE
Road and Survey Department
May 11, 1988
MAY 16 ]988
RIVEh~..,,. ,. 'UNTY
PLANNING DEPk~TMENT
TO: Lee Johnson, Principal Engineering Technician
FROM: Edwin Studor, Transportation Planner
RE: Tentative Tract 23125 (Sterling Ranch) - Traffic Study
We have reviewed the Traffic Study for Tentative Tract
23125, and generally agree with the analysis relative to tra[fic
and circulation.
Based upon our review of this proposal, it is recommended
that the following considerations be given in developing
conditions of approval for this project.
1. The project proponent shall participate in the Traffic
Signal Mitigation Program as approved by the Board of
Supervisors.
Butterfield Stage Road and De Portola Road, adjacent to the
project, should be improved to an arterial highway (110'
foot right-of-way).
A 150 foot left turn lane pocket should be provided for
traffic on Butterfield Stage Road and De Portola desiring to
turn left into each project entrance.
ES:AE=lg
Planning Department
Subdivision file
March 8, 1988
I!AR 09 1988
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
PLAfNNING DEPARTMENT
Office-s:
Stan T. Mills
Geaera~ Mana~r
Ph/lljp L. Forbe~
D/.recu}r c4 Franc{ -
Noraart L. Thomu
D~r of
~omu R. M~H~ter
D~r of ~ra~oas
& M~n~
B~bm J. ~
D~wr ~ Ad~s~ -
D~ ~
Ru~ ~d
Riverside County Planning Department
4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor
Riverside, California 92501-3657
Subject: Water Availability
Reference: Vesting Tract 23125
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.
Sites for additional water production facilities may
be required within the proposed development depending
upon the level of increased demand created by the
proposal.
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
P011/dpt84
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
28061 DIAZ ROAD · POST OFFICE BOX 174 · TEMECULA, CA 92390-0174 · (7141 676-4101 · FAX (714) 676-0615
CITY OF TEMECULA )
/
/
/
/
CITY OF TEMECULA )
ZONE
SP ZONE
SP ZONE
/ SP ZGN
r._.~,R-A-Z
C, 3~'~9
SP ZONE
CZ 506;3
ZONE MAP
CITY OF TEMECULA )
DV!~AC'
THE MEADOWS
SP 219,' '
VAI~,JqANCH
SWAP
MAP
r
CASE NO.
P,C. DATE
/ ,~7. ~x7.
STERLING RANCH
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. /:7
VIC{NITY MAP
NO SCALE
~ DE PORTOLA RD
DETAIL"A"
R-5
PARCEL "A"
,\
'R-5
PARC E L" B"
O04AC 6ROSS
R-I
PARCEL=E"
~E DETA4L
R-5
R-5
PARCEL"D"
~F"' DE ,___R~_,T_OLA RD
c~TAk"e"
CA~EI c
0 200
RANPAC
MAY 1991
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 15, 1991
Case No.: Appeal No. 15
Prepared By: Richard Ayala
Recommendation: That Planning Staff recommends that
the Planning Commission:
ADOPT Resolution No, 91- denying
Appeal No, 15, Administrative Plot
Plan No, 91, based on the Findings
contained in the Staff Report.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
Winston Tires
Local Neon Co., Inc.
An Appeal of the Planning Director's denial of an
application for a wall sign proposed to be situated
above an existing roof.
27825 Jefferson, Northwest corner of Overland
Drive (Winchester Square).
C-1/C-P (General Commercial)
North: C- 1 / C-P
South: C-1/C-P
East: C - P- S
West: M-SC
( General Commercial )
( General Commercial )
(Scenic Highway
Commercial )
(Manufacturing - Service
Commercial )
Not requested.
Shopping Center
North:
South:
East:
West:
Shopping Center
Shopping Center
Commercial
Industrial
A:APPL15 1
PROJECT STATISTICS:
BACKGROUND:
ANALYSIS:
Number of Proposed Signs:
Height of Signs:
Square Footage of Sign:
Total Square Footage
of Proposed Signage:
1 wall sign
2' each
37 sq.ft. and
7~, sq.ft.
111 sq.ft.
On February 22, 1991, Local Neon Company, Inc.,
filed Administrative Plot Plan No. 91 for Winston
Tire Co. The proposed signage included two wall
advertising signs located at the main entrance and
the east elevation of the subject business. Planning
Staff reviewed the application and approved the
signage for the main entrance, but denied the
proposed signage for the east elevation. Appeal
No. 15 was filed on April 29, 1991. The applicant is
appealing the Planning Department's denial of
Administrative Plot Plan No. 91 for the signage on
the east elevation of the subject business, based on
the fact that the applicant feels it is necessary and
reasonable to have signage facing Jefferson
Avenue.
The Planning Department has reviewed the proposed
signage for the east elevation of the subject
business and has found an inconsistency with
Section 19.1L the standards for on-site advertising
structures and signs, of Ordinance No. 3u,8.
Section 19.~(b) stipulates that "No on-site
advertising sign shall be affixed on, above or over
the roof of any building, and no on-site advertising
sign shall be affixed to the wall of a building so that
it projects above the parapet of the building."
The Appellant is proposing signage contrary to
Section 19.~,(b) of Ordinance 348, in that the
signage in question is proposed above the roof of
the remainder building which fronts Jefferson
Drive. In addition, the location of the proposed
signage is not stipulated in the center's sign
criteria.
The subject business is located within a single
linear building structure which has been designed
with the middle portion of the building protruding
above the roof adjacent to Jefferson Avenue. The
subject business is located within the protruding
section of the building and therefore, the
applicant's intent to install a sign on the protruding
wall is inconsistent with Section 19.~(b) of
Ordinance 31~8 as previously mentioned.
A:APPL15 2
FINDINGS:
There is a reasonable probability that
Administrative Plot Plan No, 91 lAppeal No.
15) will be inconsistent with the City future
General Plan, which will be completed in a
reasonable time and in accordance with state
law. The project, as proposed, is
inconsistent with current City policy
regarding the placement of wall signage per
Section 19.4(b), Ordinance No. 348. The
project would therefore be inconsistent with
new development standards adopted with the
new General Plan.
There is 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 would set a precedence which would
hinder development of new standards within
the development code regarding wall signage.
The project is inconsistent in signage location
with other wall signs for similar uses within
the area. Other commercial centers, which
are not freeway oriented, do not allow any
form of signage above the roof or parapet of
buildings as stipulated in Section 19.4(b) of
Ordinance No. 348.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT Resolution 91 - denying Appeal No.
15, Administrative Plot Plan No. 91, based on
the Findings contained in the Staff Report.
RA:ks
Attachments:
1. Resolution 91-
A:APPL15 3
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING APPEAL NO. 15,
ADMINISTRATIVE PLOT PLAN NO. 91, TO INSTALL AN
APPROXIMATELY 111 SQUARE FOOT SIGN ABOVE AN
EXISTING ROOF LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER
OF JEFFERSON AVENUE AND OVERLAND DRIVE AND
KNOWN AS 27425 JEFFERSON AVENUE.
WHEREAS, Local Neon Co., Inc. , filed Appeal No. 15 in accordance with
the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Appea) application was processed in thetime and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
pertaining to said Appeal on July 15, 1991, at which time interested persons had
opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Appeal; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report
regarding the Appeal;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECT ION 1. Findinqs. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
(a)
There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
A:APPL15 4
{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 inconsistent 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 denying projects
pursuant to this title, each of the following:
a}
There is reasonable probability that Appeal
No. 15 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.
D. (1) Pursuant to Section 18.30{c), a plot plan may be
denied if any of the following findings can be made:
a)
The proposed use does not conform to all the
General Plan requirements and with all
applicable requirements of state law and City
ordinances.
A:APPL15 5
b)
The overall development of the land is not
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 denying the Appeal,
makes the following findings, to wit:
a)
There is a reasonable probability that
Administrative Plot Plan No. 91 {Appeal No.
15) will be inconsistent with the City future
General Plan, which will be completed in a
reasonable time and in accordance with state
law. The project, as proposed, is
inconsistent with current City policy
regarding the placement of wall signage per
Section 19.4(b), Ordinance No. 348. The
project would therefore be inconsistent with
new development standards adopted with the
new General Plan.
b)
There is 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 would set a precedence which would
hinder development of new standards within
the development code regarding wall signage.
c)
The project is inconsistent in signage location
with other wall signs for similar uses within
the area. Other commercial centers, which
are not freeway oriented, do not allow any
form of signage above the roof or parapet of
buildings as stipulated in Section 19.4(b) of
Ordinance No. 348.
SECTION 2. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby denies Appeal
No. 15, Administrative Plot Plan No. 91, to install an approximately 111 square foot
sign above an existing roof located on the northwest corner of Jefferson Avenue and
Overland Drive and known as 27425 Jefferson Avenue.
A:APPL15 6
SECTION 3.
PASSED, DENIED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of July, 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 15th day of July, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANN I NG COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
A:APPL15 7
CITY OF TEMECULA )
LOCATION 'MAP
CASE NO..//~
P.C. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA
ZONE MAP )
r
CASE NO.
P.C. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA )
SWAP
MAP
r
CASE NO.
P.C. DATE
EXHIBIT
CASE # .,4,'/=r,~'z-/~-
ITEM #7
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 15, 1991
Case No.: Change of Zone No. 16
Prepared By: Steve Jiannino
Recommendation: RECOMMEND to the City Council:
1.
ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration for
Change of Zone No. 16; and
ADOPT Resolution 91 -
recommending approval of
Change of Zone No. 16 based on
the Findings contained in the
Staff Report.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
Connie Hill
Change of Zone from R-R (Rural Residential ) to C-
P-S {Scenic Highway Commercial) on 1 acre.
27628 Jefferson Avenue
R-R ( Rural Residential )
North: R - R
South: C- P-S
East: 1-15
West: C-P-S
( Rural Residential )
(Scenic Highway
Commercial )
( Freeway )
(Scenic Highway
Commercial )
C-P-S
(Scenic Highway Commercial )
Vacant ( Corral )
North:
South:
East:
West:
Veterinary Office
Vacant
1-15 Freeway
Commercial Center
A:CZ16 1
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
This project was submitted May 15, 1991. At that
time the applicant indicated that they did not have
a finalized development plan for the property.
They did have interest in the property from several
restaurant companies, but the companies did not
want to process a project until Commercial zoning
existed on the property.
Staff informed the applicant that zone changes were
processed on a case by case basis with the majority
of these cases being processed with a concurrent
Plot Plan application. In addition, Staff indicated
that they would support the request without a
development application because of the location,
surrounding development, and infrastructure
availability. The applicant was also cautioned that
the Change of Zone application was a discretionary
application and that the Planning Commission or
City Council could require a development permit
prior to approval of the Zone Change.
The application is for a Change of Zone from R-R
(Rural Residential) to C-P-S (Scenic Highway
Commercial) on a 1 acre parcel at 27625 Jefferson
Avenue.
The project proposes a Change of Zone on a 1 acre
parcel to make the zoning consistent with the
current Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) designation.
The Southwest Area Plan, which has been adopted
as a General Plan guideline by the City, designates
this site as Commercial. The Planning Commission
has adopted the policy of processing Change of Zone
requests on a case-by-case basis, but generally
preferring that plot plans be submitted in
conjunction with the Zone Change application.
Upon review of the area, with the existing
improvements and development, Staff recommended
to the applicant processing of the case without a
development proposal. The proposed zoning, in
staff's opinion, appears to be a logical land use with
the development of compatible commercial uses in
the vicinity.
The major staff concern raised during review of the
project relates to the ultimate alignment of the
Overland overpass. It appears that the overpass
will impact that the a portion of this site and that
the ultimate overpass design and construction will
impact any development proposal for the site. The
effect of the overpass on the zone change request,
A:CZ16 2
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS:
since no development is proposed, can not be
precisely determined at this time. The overpass
~ssue is a concern, but the issue can be more
appropriately addressed at the plot plan stage.
Although the issue may be one the Commission and
Council wants addressed prior to changing the
zoning on the property, staff is recommending
action on the zoning issue without a concurrent
development application.
The surrounding area is zoned C-P-S and is
currently being developed as commercial property.
Infrastructure currently exists within the area to
support commercial activity on the site, such as:
major street and drainage facilities are constructed;
and water and sewer improvements exist which will
support commercial development.
In addition, the site also fronts 1-15 which will
provide high visibility for the site and any future
development. Jefferson Avenue and the freeway
corridor are designated as C ~ Commercial ) with the
current zoning being C-P-S on most of the
surrounding parcels.
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 R-R to C-P-S will not
have any significant impacts on the environment.
The proposed Change of Zone will not have a
significant negative impact on the
environment, as determined in the Initial
Study performed for the project. A Negative
Declaration is recommended for adoption.
There is a reasonable probability that this
project will be consistent with the General
Plan being prepared at this time, due to the
fact that the project is compatible with the
surroundingcommercialdevelopment, zoning,
and SWAP.
A:CZ16 3
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to, or interference
with, the future adopted General Plan, if the
proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with
the plan. The project is compatible with
surrounding development and improvements.
The site is physically suited for the proposed
Change of Zone in that required
infrastructure exists in the area include
commercial roadways, drainage facilities, 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,
RECOMMEND to the City Council:
ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration for
Change of Zone No. 16; and
ADOPT Resolution 91 - recommending
approval of Change of Zone No. 16 based on
the Findings contained in the Staff Report.
SJ: ks
Attachments:
1. Resolution
2. Initial Study
3. Exhibits
A:CZ16 4
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL ZONE NO. 5755
CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-R TO C-P-S ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 27628 JEFFERSON AVENUE AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910-130-026.
WHEREAS, Connie Hill filed Change of Zone No. 16 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
July 15, 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.
b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
A:CZ16 5
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances,
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP" ) was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of the
proposed Change of Zone, makes the following findings, to wit:
a)
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
surroundingcommercialdevelopment, 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. 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, drainage facilities, and
main sewer and water lines.
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.
A:CZ16 6
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. 16 to change the zoning on 1 acre of land from R-R (Rural Residential)
to C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) on property located at 27628 Jefferson
Avenue and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 910-130-026.
SECTION 4.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of July, 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 15th day of July, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
A:CZ16 7
II
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
Backqround
1. Name of Proponent:
2. Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
4.
5.
6.
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
Agency Requiring
Assessment:
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Location of Proposal:
7. Project Description:
Environmental Impacts
Connie Hill
27627 Jefferson Avenue
Temecula, CA 92387
(714) 676-3531
June 18, 1991
CITY OF TEMECULA
Chanqe of Zone No. 16
27628 Jefferson Avenue
Temecula, California
Chanqe of Zone from R-R ( Rural
Residential) to C-P-S (Scenic Hiqhway
Commercial) on 1 acre.
( 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?
Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcoverin9 of the soil?
Substantial change in topo9raphy
or ground surface relief features?
The destruction, coverin9 or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
No
X
X
X
X
A:CZ16 8
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on
or off site?
Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
Exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards such as earth
quakes, landslides, mudslides,
ground failure, or similar hazards?
Air. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air
quality?
The creation of objectionable
odors?
Alteration of air movement.
moisture, or temperature, or any
change in climate, whether locally
or regionally?
Water. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial changes in currents, or
the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or
fresh waters?
Substantial changes in absorption
Fates, 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?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A:CZ16 9
Yes Maybe N._9
Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow or ground waters?
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct addi-
tions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flood-
ing or tidal waves?
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?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A:CZ16 10
Yes Maybe No
10.
11.
12o
13.
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and Glare. Will the proposal
produce substantial new light or glare?
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
Substantial increase in the rate of
use of any natural resources?
Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource?
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal
involve:
A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including,
but not limited to, oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
Possible interference with an emerg-
ency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan?
Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density. or
growth rate of the human population of
8rl 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:CZ16 11
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
faci l iti es? X
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads? __ __ X
f. Other governmental services: __ __ X
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy? __ __ X
b. Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy? __ __ X
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural 9as? __ __ X
A:CZ16 12
17.
19.
2O.
b. Communications systems?
c, Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
Human Health. Will the proposal
result in:
Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health ) ?
Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result
in the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to
public view?
Recreation. Will the proposal result in
an impact upon the quality or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities?
Cultural Resources.
Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object?
Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A:CZ16 13
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environ-
mental goals? (A short-term
impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief,
definitive period of time while long-
term impacts will endure well into
the future. )
Does the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but cumu-
latively considerable? ( A project's
impact on two or more separate
resources may be relatively small,
but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment
is significant. )
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substan-
tial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? __
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
A:CZ16 lq.
I I I. Discussion of Evaluation
for Initial Environmental Study Item
Change of Zone No. 16
1. through 21.
No.
The current proposal only involves a Change of Zonin9
classification from R-R to C-P-S. The proposed C-P-5
zoning is consistent with the SWAP designation of C
(Commercial). The fact that no project is proposed, only
a consistent zoning reduces potential impacts. The uses
allowed within the C-P-S zone are consistent with uses
allowed within the R-R with a Conditional Use Permit.
Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated at this time.
A:CZ16 15
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
June 18, 1991
Date
For CITY OF TEMECIJLA
A:CZ16 16
CITY OF TEMECULA )
/
./
./
LOCATION MAP
CASE .0. CZ/6
p.C. DATE 7-1~"'~'1
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
C/
SWAP MAP
CASE NO.C'Z/(~
p.C. DATE "'~.,.T,/~"""'f( J
CITY OF TEMECULA )
077
/
/
/
f
C-P-S
M -SC
CZ :~173
P'S
I CZ413:~
CZ 1954
C-P-S
CZ 4070
ZONE MAP
CZ 915
r
CASE NO.
p.C. DATE "/-I,~-?l
ITEM #6
ITEM #8
Recommendation:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 15, 1991
Case No.: Plot Plan No. 225
Prepared By: Scott Wright
1. ADOPT the Negative Declaration; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving Plot
Plan No. 225 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:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
Leonard Nagel
Carl J. Loza, Architect
To construct an 18,000 square foot furniture
warehouse with 3,000 square feet of sales/display
area on a 1.05 acre site.
Westerly side of Enterprise Circle North
approximately 380 feet west of Winchester Road.
M-SC { Manufacturing-Service Commercial )
North: M-SC
South: M-SC
East: M-SC
West: M- S C
(Manufacturing-Service
Commercial )
(Manufacturing-Service
Commercial )
{Manufacturing-Service
Commercial )
( Manufacturi n9 -Serv ice
Commercial )
Not requested.
Vacant
North:
South:
East:
Office/Light Industrial
Vacant
Office
A:PP225 1
PROJECT STATISTICS:
BACKGROUND':
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
West:
Santa Gertrudis Creek
Site Area:
Building Area:
Storage:
Sales/Display:
Office:
Total
Building Height:
Parking:
Interior Planting:
1.05 acres
14,400 sq.ft.
3,000 sq.ft.
600 sq. ft.
18,000 sq.ft.
26 feet
23 spaces
5,700 sq.ft. (approx)
The site's underlying Parcel Map No. 19582 was
approved by the County. Flood hazards and
liquefaction potential were addressed in conjunction
with approval of the underlying Parcel Map No.
19582 and the grading done in conjunction with the
Parcel Map.
The project is to construct a two story carpet
warehouse with a building height of 26 feet and a
total floor area of 18,000 square feet. lu,,u,00 square
feet of floor area will be used for storage, 3,000
square feet for sales and display, and 600 square
feet for office space.
Liquefaction and Fault Hazards
The site is located in an area designated as
susceptible to liquefaction. The liquefaction report
prepared in conjunction with the underlying parcel
map concluded that there is liquefaction potential
which would have an effect on development on Lots
5 through 12 and 21 through 26. The property in
question is Lot No. q, which is located outside of
the area of liquefaction potential.
An Alquist-Priolo (seismic) report was also
prepared which states that Lots 12 through 16 and
Lot 26 are affected by earthquake faulting. The
Report recommends a building setback zone.
Again, the property in question is not among those
affected.
The County Geologist reviewed the reports and
found that they meet the requirements of the
California Environment Quality Act and the Alquist-
Priolo Act.
Flood Hazards and Drainaqe
The site is located within the Flood Zone A
A:PP225 2
designation. However, the Santa Gertrudis Creek
is an improved flood control channel where it abuts
the site. Gradin9 plans and hydraulic and
hydrologic calculations prepared in conjunction with
the underlying parcel map were reviewed by the
County Flood Control District and found to be
adequate with respect to flood control. The
developer will be required to comply with Ordinance
91-12 which may require obtaining clearance from
the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
The site is located within the Murrieta Creek/Santa
Gertrudis Valley Area Drainage Plan and is subject
to Area Drainage Plan fees payable prior to issuance
of permits. The site will be graded to drain toward
Enterprise Circle North
Access and Internal Traffic Circulation
A driveway 26 feet in width provides access to the
site. All interior drive aisles are at least 25 feet in
width and can accommodate two-way traffic
circulation. There is adequate turn-around and
back-up space behind the building for ingress and
egress of delivery trucks.
Parkinq
The applicable parkin9 requirements are I space
per 750 square feet of display area, 1 space per
employee, 1 space per 2,000 square feet of
warehouse area, and 1 space per 250 square feet of
office area. For 3,000 square feet of display area,
14,400 square feet of warehouse space with 6
employees, and 600 square feet of office, 20 parking
spaces are required. The site plan shows 23
spaces.
Loadinq Zones
Ordinance 348 requires two loading spaces for
commercial or industrial developments with 7,500 to
14,999 square feet of gross floor areas. The
required dimensions of a loading space are 10 feet in
width by 35 feet in length. The site plan shows one
loading space 10 feet wide and 35 feet long.
Section 11.5 of the M-SC Chapter of the zoning code
allows modifications of or waivers to a development
standard when the standard is inappropriate for the
proposed use and the exception will not be contrary
to public health and safety. In staff's opinion, one
A:PP225 3
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS:
loading zone will be adequate for the proposed
carpet warehouse in that deliveries will not be
frequent enough to require two loading zones.
Architecture
The design of the building contains sufficient
articulation and variation of form and contrast in
color, texture, and building material to present an
attractive appearance.
Landscaping
M-SC development standards require a landscape
strip at least 10 feet deep adjacent to street right-
of-way lines. A landscape strip 12 to 20 feet deep
is shown on the site plan. Interior planting exceeds
5,700 square feet and is more than adequate to
satisfy the requirement to landscape 10% of the site.
The site is zoned Manufacturing Service
Commercial and is designated for commercial uses by
the Southwest Area Plan. The proposed
warehouse/retail building is consistent with the
existing zoning and land use designation.
An Initial Study was prepared for Plot Plan No. 225
and is attached to this Staff Report. Staff
recommends adoption of a Negative Declaration for
Plot Plan No. 225.
The proposed warehouse/retail bui'lding is
consistent with the Area Plan land use
designation and the zone in which it is located
due to the fact that the site is designated C
and zoned M-SC.
There is a reasonable probability that the
proposed land use will be consistent with the
general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time in that the proposed use is
consistent with the existing uses, zoning,
and SWAP designation of the area.
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
because the project is compatible with
surrounding development.
A:PP225 4
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances in that the project is
consistent with existing zoning and
compatible with adjacent land uses.
The project will not constitute an adverse
impact on surrounding land uses in that
runoff from the site will not drain toward
adjacent properties and the project is of
similar use to surrounding development,
The site is adequate for the proposed use in
that parkin9, internal traffic circulation, and
landscapin9 are adequate and meet all
applicable requirements.
The site has adequate access from a public
street, Enterprise Circle North.
The site is free from ordinary storm flood
hazards, and the potential for liquefaction as
concluded in the liquefaction report done for
the area.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1. ADOPT the Negative Declaration; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approvin9 Plot
Plan No. 225 based on the Analysis and
Findings contained in the Staff Report and
subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
SW: ks
Attachments:
2.
3.
Resolution
Conditions of Approval
Environmental Assessment
Exhibits
A. Vicinity Map
B. Site Plan
C. Elevations
A:PP225 5
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVED PLOT PLAN NO. 225 TO
PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO STORY WAREHOUSE
WITH SALES/DISPLAY AREA LOCATED ON THE
WESTERLY SIDE OF ENTERPRISE CIRCLE NORTH
APPROXIMATELY 380 FEET WEST OF THE SOUTHERLY
INTERSECTION OF ENTERPRISE CIRCLE NORTH AND
WINCHESTER ROADAND KNOWN ASASSESSOR~SPARCEL
909-281-00~.
WHEREAS, Leonard Nagel filed Plot Plan No. 225 in accordance with the
Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which
the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Plot Plan on July
15, 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 Plot Plan;
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:
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:PP225 6
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
~C)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed 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. 225 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) PursuanttoSection18.30(c), noplotplanmay
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.
A:PP225 7
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,
The Planning Commission, in recommending
approval of the proposed Plot Plan, makes the
following findings, to wit:
a) (LIST STAFF REPORT FINDINGS)
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECT ION 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. 225 for the operation and construction of a warehouse/display building
located on the westerly side of Enterprise Circle North approximately 380 feet west
of the southerly intersection of Enterprise Circle North and Winchester Road subject
to the attached Conditions of Approval.
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of July, 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 15th day of July, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
A:PP225 8
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
A:PP225 9
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan No: 225
Project Description: To construct an 18,000
square foot furn{ture warehouse
Assessor's Parcel No.: 909-281-004
Plannin.q Department
The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for an 18,000 square foot
furniture warehouse.
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
225. 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 July 15, 1993.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as
shown on Plot Plan No. 225 marked Exhibit B, 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.
Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the
provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittal
dated June 19, 1991, a copy of which is attached.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section
of Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated June 19,
1991, a copy of which is attached.
A:PP225 10
10.
11.
12.
13.
A:PP225
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, three (3) copies of a
Parking, Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans shall be submitted to the
Planning Department of approval. The location, number, genus, species, and
container size of the plants shall be shown. Plans shall meet all requirements
of Ordinance No. 3u,8, Section 18.12, and shall be accompanied by the
appropriate filing fee.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape,
irrigation. and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. An
automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be
maintained in a viable growth condition. Planting within ten (10) feet of an
entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty (30)
inches.
A minimum of 23 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section
18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 3~,8. 23 parking spaces shall be
provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit B. The parking area shall be
surfaced with aspbaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on ~
inches of Class II base.
A minimum of 1 handicapped parking space shall be provided as shown on
Exhibit B. 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:
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing
placards or license plates issued for physically
handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's
expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at
or by telephone "
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall
have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in
blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance
and/or permits from the following agencies:
Planning Department
Engineering Department
Environmental Health
Rancho Water District
School District
Riverside County Flood Control
Fire Department
Eastern Municipal Water District
A Plot Plan application for a Sign Program shall be submitted and approved by
the Planning Director prior to occupancy.
11
15.
16.
17.
18.
19o
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
A:PP225
Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on
Exhibit C.
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening
material shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
All trash enclosures shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy
permits. Each enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall be made with
masonry block and a steel gate which screens the bins from external view.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along
streets and within the parking areas.
All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans
submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval
and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No.
655.
This project is located within a subsidence or 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 subsidence. Where hazard of
subsidence is determined to exist, appropriate mitigation measures must be
demonstrated.
Unless previously complied with, prior to the issuance of grading permits, the
applicant shall comply with Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by
that ordinance which is based on {the gross acreage of the parcels proposed
for development) {the number of single family residential units on lots which
are a minimum of one-half ( 1/2 ) gross acre in size). Should Ordinance No. 663
be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the
payment of the fees required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay
the fee required under the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by
County ordinance or resolution.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts
to be determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the
installation of planrings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved
plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed
with the Department of Building and Safety.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, all required landscape planting
and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the
Director of Building and Safety. The plants shall be healthy and free of
weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed
and in good working order.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or
any use allowed by this permit.
12
25.
Within forty-eight (48) hours of the approval of the project, the
applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check
or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand,
Two Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars ($1,275.00), which includes the One
Thousand, Two Hundred, Fifty Dollars ( $1,250.00) fee, in compliance with AB
3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4( d ) ( 2 ) plus the Twenty-
Five Dollar ($25.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the
Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152
and 1LI Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight ~48) hour
period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department
the check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall
be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section
711.4~c).
Enqineerinq Department
The followin9 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 Engineerin9
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existin9 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:
26.
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.
27.
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 24"x36" mylar by a Registered Civil
Engineer.
28.
The developer shall submit two (2) copies of a soils report to the Engineerin9
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
29.
A Geolo9ical Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and
submitted at the time of application for grading plan check.
A:PP225 13
30.
31.
32.
33.
3~.
35.
36.
37.
38.
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.
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.
All site plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and street
improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency with approved plans.
Prior to any work being performed on the private streets or drives, fees shall
be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Englneer~s
Office.
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.
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 guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements
in conformance with applicable City standards.
Street improvements, including, but not limited to: sidewalks, drive
approaches, signing, striping, and other traffic control devices as
appropriate.
b. Landscaping {street and parks).
c. Sewer and domestic water systems.
d. Undergrounding of existing and proposed utility distribution lines.
A permit from the Riverside County Flood Control District is required for
work within its right-of-way.
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.
4O.
All concentrated drainage directed toward the public street shall be diverted
through the undersidewalk drains.
A:PP225 14
41.
The site is in an area identified on the Flood Hazard Maps as Flood Zone A
subject to flooding of undetermined depths. Prior to the approval of any
plans, this project shall comply with Ordinance 91-12 of the City of Temecula
and with the rules and regulations of FEMA for development within a Flood
Zone "A" which may include obtaining a letter of map revision from FEMA.
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.
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. The fee to be paid shall be 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. Concurrently, with executing
this Agreement, developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public
Facility fee. The amount of the bond shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to
exceed $10,000. 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). By execution of this Agreement,
developer will waive any right to protest the provisions of this Condition, of
this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the
process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for
this project; provided that developer is not waiving its right to protest the
reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY:
Improvement plans per applicable City Standards for the private streets or
drives shall be required for review and approval by the City Engineer.
All driveways shall conform to the applicable County of Riverside standards
and shall be shown on the street improvement plans in accordance with County
Standard L~00 and 401 (curb sidewalk).
A:PP225 15
Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. ~I61 and as approved by the
City Engineer.
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along all public street frontages in
accordance with Riverside County Standard Nos. 400 and 401.
A:PP225 16
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
SID ,~r ,
_ 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE · PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370
~ (714) 657-3183
GLEN J. NEWMAN
FIRE CHIEF
June 19, 1991
TO: CITY OF TEMECULA
ATTN: PLANNING DEPT
RE: PLOT PLAN 225 AMENDED #1
With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced
plot plan, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection
measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or
recognized fire protection standards:
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for
the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings using the
procedure established in Ordinance 546.
Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 3000
GPM for a 3 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure,
which must be available before any combustible material is placed
on the job site.
A combination of on-site and offsite super fire hydrants (6"x4"x2~x2~),
will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from
any portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular
travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any
adjacent hydrant(s) in the system.
The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in the permit
process to reflect changes in design, construction type, area separation
or built-in fire protection measures.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to
the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant
types, location and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow
requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil
engineer and the local water company with the following certification:
"I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with
the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department."
~1 tNDIO OFFICE
79-733 Country Club Drive. Suite F, lndio, CA 92201
(619) 342~886 · FAX (619) 775-2072
PLANNING DIVISION
?1 TEMECULA OFFICE
41002 County Center Drive, Suite 225, Teme~ula. CA 92390
~714) 694-5070 * FAX (714) 694-5076
[] RIVERSIDE OFFICE
3760 12tb Street, Riverside, CA 92501
(714) 275-4777 · FAX (714) 369-7451 ~ prl~tedonrecFcledpa~er
PLOT PLAN 225 PAGE 2
Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings requiring a
fire flow of 1500 GPM or greater. The post indicator valve and fire
department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of
a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement
that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be
included on the title page of the building plans.
Install a supervised waterfow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans
must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to
installation, as per UBC.
8. A statement that the building will be automatically fire sprinklered
must appear on the title page of the building plans.
9. Install panic hardware and exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform
Building Code.
10. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes.
11. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-iOBC.
Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment.
12.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall
be responsible to submit a check or money order in the amount of $558.00
to the Riverside County Fire Department for plan check fees.
13.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall deposit,
with the City of Temecula, a check or money order equaling the sum of
25C per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts. This
amount must be submitted separately from the plan check review fees.
14. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in
the Building and Safety Office.
All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to
the Planning and Engineering staff.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
Laura Cabral, Fire Safety Specialist
LC/tm
County Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
TO: CITY OF TEMECULA RATE:
ATTN: Scott Wright
FROM: SAM M , Environmental Health Specialist IV
RE:
PLOT PLAN NO. 225
06-19-91
The Environmental Health Services has reviewed Plot Plan No.
225 and has no ob.jections, Sanitary sewer and water
services should be available in this area. Prior to any
buildino plan review for Health clearance, the following
items are required:
"W~ll-serve' letters from the appropriate
water and sewering agenczes.
A ;l~[ADtq_.,,19~_ta.n from the Hazardous Services
Materials Management Branch (Jon Mohoroski,
358-5055). will be requzred indicating that the
proaect has been cleared for:
a. Underground storage tanks
b. Hazardous Waste Generator Servlces
c, Hazardous Waste Disclosure (ln accordance
with AB 2185)
d. Waste reduction management
4. Waste ReOulation Branch (Waste Collection/LEA)
SM:dr
co: Jon MohoroskZ. Hazardous Materials Branch
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
II
Backqround
1. Name of Proponent:
Carl J. Loza
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
840 "B" Columbia Street
Brea, CA 92621
(714) 671-0801
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
Agency Requiring
Assessment:
CITY OF TEMECULA
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Plot Plan No. 225
6. Location of Proposal:
Westerly side of Enterprise Circle
North approximately 380 feet west of
Winchester Road.
Environmental Impacts
(Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets. )
Yes Maybe No
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
X
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
PLANN I NG\Z2 5PP. C0A 18
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 chan9es in currents, or
the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or
fresh waters?
Substantial changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
Discharge into surface waters, or
in any alteration of surface water
quality, including, but not limited
to, temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity?
Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow or 9round waters?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PLANNING\225PP.COA 19
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct addi-
tions or withc~awals, 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, Fare 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
PLANNING\225PP.COA 20
10.
11.
12.
13.
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and Glare. Will the proposal
produce substantial new light or glare?
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
Substantial increase in the rate of
use of any natural resources?
Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource?
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal
involve:
A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances ( including,
but not limited to, oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
Possible interference with an emerg-
ency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan?
Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing or create a demand for
additional housing?
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PLANNING\225PP.COA 2 1
Yes Maybe N_._9
b. Effects on existing parkin9 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
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have
substantial effect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection? X
b. Police protection? X
c. Schools? X
d. Parks or other recreational
facilities? X
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads? X
f. Other governmental services: X
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy? __ __ X
b. Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy? __ __ X
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the followin9 utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? __ __ X
PLANNING\225PP.COA 22
17.
18.
19.
20.
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
Human Health. Will the proposal
result in:
Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health ) ?
Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result
in the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to
public view?
Recreation. Will the proposal result in
an impact upon the quality or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities?
Cultural Resources.
Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object?
Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PLANNING\225PP.COA 23
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environ-
mental goals? (A short-term
impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief,
definitive period of time while long-
term impacts will endure well into
the future. )
Does the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but cumu-
latively considerable? (A project's
impact on two or more separate
resources may be relatively small,
but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment
is significant. )
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substan-
tial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? __
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
PLANNING\225PP.COA 24
III Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
Earth
1 .a,c,d.
1.b.
1.e.
1.f.
1.g.
Air
2.a,b,c.
Water
3.a,c,d.
No. The site is relatively flat, contains no unique geologic features,
and will not require any major excavation which would result in soil
instability, changes in geologic substructures, or substantial changes
in topography.
Yes. The project will involve compaction of soil as a mitigation for
liquefaction. This is not considered a significant impact.
Maybe. Wind and water erosion potentials will increase during the
construction phase and remain high until disturbed areas are
replanted. The wind erosion impact is considered high and significant
but will be mitigated through minimal grading, retention of natural
vegetation whenever feasible, and use of watering trucks and hydro-
seeding disturbed areas after grading. After construction of the
project, water runoff is likely to increase due to the addition of
impermeable surfaces. Appropriate drainage control devices will have
to be approved through the Engineering Department and will have to be
designed in accordance with Temecula's standards and the conditions
of approval.
No. The Santa Certrudis Creek is a fully improved channel adjacent to
the site. Any drainage into the channel is subject to review and
approval by the Flood Control District.
Yes. The site is located in an area of susceptibility to liquefaction and
near an earthquake fault. The geology reports prepared for the
underlying parcel map show that the property in question is not
affected by liquefaction potential and is not within the proposed
building setback from the earthquake fault. No mitigations are
necessary other than compliance with Standard Uniform Building
requirements to address potential groundshaking.
No. The proposed structure will be used for storage and sale of
carpets and will not result in substantial air emissions, the creation of
objectionable odors, or climatic alterations.
No. The santa Gertrudis Creek adjacent to the site is a fully improved
channel and the project will not result in any alteration of the course or
direction of waters in the channel.
P LANN I NG\225PP. COA 2 5
3,b,
Yes, The addition of impermeable surfaces to the site will alter
absorption rates and alter the rate and amount of surface runoff, All
runoff will be directed toward drainage facilities as approved by the
City Engineer, This impact is not considered significant,
Maybe, During construction, the proposed project could increase
turbidity in local surface water, Watering of the site during grading
and construction will minimize increases in turbidity,
3,f,g,h,
No, Excavation of the site will not be extensive enough to alter the flow
of groundwater, The project will be served by Rancho Water District
and will not result in direct additions or withdrawals of groundwater or
reduce the public water supply,
3.i.
No, The site is located in Flood Zone A, The sirens underlying
subdivision, Parcel Map No, 19582-2 has been cleared by the County
Flood Control District and the County Road Department in preparation
for recordation, Improvement plans have incorporated interim flood
proofing measures that will protect the tract from the 100 year storm
event, The developer will be required to satisfy the requirements of
City Ordinance 91-12 prior to issuance of any permits,
Plant Life
4.a,b,d.
No, The site has already been disturbed and is not in use as
agricultural land,
Maybe, Non-native vegetation may be introduced to the site as part of
the landscape vegetation, This is not considered a significant impact,
Animal Life
5,a,b,c,
No, The site has already been disturbed by rough grading, The
project will not result in any additional impacts to animal life or habitat,
Noise
6,a,b,
No, The proposed retail/warehouse structure will not result in any
significant increases in noise levels or expose people to unusual or
severe noise levels, Noise generated during construction will be
temporary and is not considered a significant impact,
Li.qht and Clare
No, All outdoor lighting on the site will be required to utilize low
pressure sodium vapor lights pursuant to the Mr, Palomar Outdoor
Lighting Policy,
Land Use
No, The proposed warehouse/retail structure is consistent with the
manufacturing-Service Commercial zone in which the site is located,
PLANNING\225PP.COA 26
Natural Resources
9.a,b.
No. The project will not result in any unusual or significant increase
in the usage or depletion of any natural resources.
Risk of Upset
lO.a.
No. The proposed building will be used for storage and sale of carpets
and will not involve the use of any hazardous substances.
lO.b.
Maybe. Any street or lane closures during construction shall be
coordinated with the Police and Fire Departments in order to prevent
interference with emergency vehicle response.
Population and Housing
11,12.
No. The project will provide additional jobs and could attract more
population to the area. However, the number of new jobs created will
be insignificant, and at least some of the jobs will be taken by current
residents of the area. The increase in population and the demand for
housing in the area due to this project are unlikely to be significant
impacts.
Transportation/Circulation
13.a,f.
No. The proposed structure will be used for storage and sale of
carpets, a land use which typically does not generate high volumes of
traffic. The developer shall be required to pay a fee to contribute to
the installation of a traffic signal at the westerly intersection of
Enterprise Circle North and Winchester Road when State traffic signal
criteria are met and to pay an area-wide road improvements and public
facilities fee.
13.b,c,
d,e.
No. The project will be required to provide adequate on-site parking.
The project will not result in any alterations to present patterns of
circulation or any impacts on existing transportation systems or to
water, rail, or air traffic.
Public Services
14.a,b,
e,f.
Yes. The proposed project will require public services in the areas of
police, fire, road maintenance, and public facilities. Fir impact
mitigation fees and property taxes will provide adequate mitigation for
the additional need for public services generated by the project.
14.c,d.
Maybe. Any impact on schools or recreational facilities resulting from
an increase in population due to new employment opportunities will be
mitigated by Conditions of Approval upon new housing.
PLANNING\225PP. COA 2 7
Enerqy
15.a,b.
No. The proposed project will not result in a substantial use or
increase in demand for fuel or other energy sources.
Utilities
16.a-f.
No. The proposed project will not result in a need for substantial
alterations of existing utility systems.
Human Health
17.a,b.
No. The proposed building will be constructed in accordance with the
Uniform Building and Fire Codes and will not result in exposure of
human beings to potential health hazards.
Aesthetics
18.
No. Development of the site will not obstruct any scenic view that is
currently available to the public. The landscaping of the site and the
architecture of the building will be adequate to prevent a visually
offensive appearance.
Recreation
19.
No. The site is not currently used for recreational purposes.
Cultural Resources
20.a-d.
No. The site is not located in a designated area of archaeological or
paleontological sensitivity. If any cultural or paleontological resources
are found during excavation and grading, an archaeologist or
paleontologist shall be brought on-site to determine whether the
artifacts are significant and to supervise their preservation if
appropriate.
Mandatory Findinqs of Siqnificance
21 .a.
No. No rare or endangered plant species have been identified in the
area in which the project is located. The project will be subject to
mitigation fees for the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation
Plan. The site has already been disturbed by rough grading done in
conjunction with the underlying parcel map.
21 .b,c.
No. The project will not result in any significant long term or
cumulative impacts in that Santa Gertrudis Flood Channel improvements
are required as a Condition of the siteis underlying parcel map, and the
developer is required to contribute fees toward installing a traffic
signal at Enterprise Circle North and Winchester Road when traffic
conditions meet State warrants for signalization.
PLANNING\225PP.COA 28
No. The project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings in that flood control and traffic signalization improvements are
required and construction must conform to Uniform Building and Fire
Code requirements.
PLANNiNG\225PP.COA 29
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.
Date
For CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING\225PP.COA 30
CITY OF T'E~ECULA ~
// \
// \
.//
SITE
-
:
VICINITY MAP
CASE NO.
P.C. DATE ~1/15/~11
ENTERPRISE
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 15, 1991
Case No.: Appeal No. 15
Prepared By: Richard Ayala
Recommendation: That Planning Staff recommends that
the Planning Commission:
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- denying
Appeal No. 15, Administrative Plot
Plan No. 91, based on the Findings
contained in the Staff Report.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
Winston Tires
Local Neon Co., Inc.
An Appeal of the Planning Director's denial of an
application for a wall sign proposed to be situated
above an existing roof.
27425 Jefferson, Northwest corner of Overland
Drive (Winchester Square).
C-1/C-P (General Commercial)
North: C- 1 / C -P
South: C- 1 / C -P
East: C-P-S
West: M-SC
( General Commercial )
( General Commercial )
(Scenic Highway
Commercial )
(Manufacturing - Service
Commercial )
Not requested.
Shopping Center
North:
South:
East:
West:
Shopping Center
Shopping Center
Commercial
Industrial
A:APPL15 1
PROJECT STATISTICS:
BACKGROUND:
ANALYSIS:
Number of Proposed Signs:
Height of Signs:
Square Footage of Sign:
Total Square Footage
of Proposed Signage:
1 wall sign
2' each
37 sq.ft. and
74 sq.ft.
111 sq.ft.
On February 22, 1991, Local Neon Company, Inc.,
filed Administrative Plot Plan No. 91 for Winston
Tire Co. The proposed signage included two wall
advertising signs located at the main entrance and
the east elevation of the subject business. Planning
Staff reviewed the application and approved the
signage for the main entrance, but denied the
proposed signage for the east elevation. Appeal
No. 15 was filed on April 29, 1991. The applicant is
appealing the Planning Department's denial of
Administrative Plot Plan No. 91 for the slgnage on
the east elevation of the subject business, based on
the fact that the applicant feels it is necessary and
reasonable to have signage facing Jefferson
Avenue.
The Planning Department has reviewed the proposed
signage for the east elevation of the subject
business and has found an inconsistency with
Section 19.LL the standards for on-site advertising
structures and signs, of Ordinance No. 3u,8.
Section 19.u,(b) stipulates that "No on-site
advertising sign shall be affixed on, above or over
the roof of any building, and no on-site advertising
sign shall be affixed to the wall of a building so that
it projects above the parapet of the building."
The Appellant is proposing si9na9e contrary to
Section 19.~(b) of Ordinance 3u,8, in that the
signage in question is proposed above the roof of
the remainder building which fronts Jefferson
Drive. In addition, the location of the proposed
signage is not stipulated in the center~s sign
criteria.
The subject business is located within a single
linear building structure which has been designed
with the middle portion of the building protruding
above the roof adjacent to Jefferson Avenue. The
subject business is located within the protruding
section of the building and therefore, the
applicant's intent to install a sign on the protruding
wall is inconsistent with Section 19.~,(b) of
Ordinance 3u,8 as previously mentioned.
A:APPL15 2
FINDINGS:
There is a reasonable probability that
Administrative Plot Plan No. 91 {Appeal No.
15) will be inconsistent with the City future
General Plan, which will be completed in a
reasonable time and in accordance with state
law. The project, as proposed, is
inconsistent with current City policy
regarding the placement of wall signage per
Section 19.4(b), Ordinance No. 348. The
project would therefore be inconsistent with
new development standards adopted with the
new General Plan.
There is 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 would set a precedence which would
hinder development of new standards within
the development code regarding wall signage.
The project is inconsistent in signage location
with other wall signs for similar uses within
the area. Other commercial centers, which
are not freeway oriented, do not allow any
form of signage above the roof or parapet of
buildings as stipulated in Section 19.4|b) of
Ordinance No. 348.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT Resolution 91 - denying Appeal No.
15, Administrative Plot Plan No. 91, based on
the Findings contained in the Staff Report.
RA:ks
Attachments:
Resolution 91-
A:APPL15 3
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING APPEAL NO. 15,
ADMINISTRATIVE PLOT PLAN NO. 91, TO INSTALL AN
APPROXIMATELY 111 SQUARE FOOT SIGN ABOVE AN
EXISTING ROOF LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER
OF JEFFERSON AVENUE AND OVERLAND DRIVE AND
KNOWN AS 27425 JEFFERSON AVENUE.
WHEREAS, Local Neon Co., Inc., filed Appeal No. 15 in accordance with
the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Appeal application was processed in thetime and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
pertaining to said Appeal on July 15, 1991, at which time interested persons had
opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Appeal; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report
regarding the Appeal;
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.
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.
A:APPL15 4
|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 inconsistent 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 denying projects
pursuant to this title, each of the following:
a)
There is reasonable probability that Appeal
No. 15 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.
D. (1) Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), a plot plan may be
denied if any of the following findings can be made:
a)
The proposed use does not conform to all the
General Plan requirements and with all
applicable requirements of state law and City
ordinances.
A:APPL15 5
b)
The overall development of the land is not
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 denying the Appeal,
makes the following findings, to wit:
a)
There is a reasonable probability that
Administrative Plot Plan No. 91 (Appeal No.
15) will be inconsistent with the City future
General Plan, which will be completed in a
reasonable time and in accordance with state
law. The project, as proposed, is
inconsistent with current City policy
regarding the placement of wall signage per
Section 19.u,(b), Ordinance No. 3~,8. The
project would therefore be inconsistent with
new development standards adopted with the
new General Plan.
b)
There is 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 would set a precedence which would
hinder development of new standards within
the development code regarding wall signage.
c)
The project is inconsistent in signage location
with other wall signs for similar uses within
the area. Other commercial centers, which
are not freeway oriented, do not allow any
form of signage above the roof or parapet of
buildings as stipulated in Section 19.z)(b) of
Ordinance No. 3u,8.
SECTION 2. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby denies Appeal
No. 15, Administrative Plot Plan No. 91, to install an approximately 111 square foot
sign above an existing roof located on the northwest corner of Jefferson Avenue and
Overland Drive and known as 27~,25 Jefferson Avenue.
A:APPL15 6
SECTION 3.
PASSED, DENIED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of July, 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 15th day of July, 1991 by the followin9 vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
A:APPL15 7
CITY OF TEMECULA )
LOCATION .MAP
CASE NO.,~
P.C. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA )
ZONE MAP
CASE NO. ,-'~='~"f~'/~'
P,C. DATE ~-/5"-'~ )
CITY OF TEMECULA )
SWAP MAP
r
CASE NO.
P.C. DATE
EXHIBIT .~
CASE # ~-,~.,'~/~-
ITEM #7
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 15, 1991
Case No.: Change of Zone No, 16
Prepared By: Steve Jiannino
Recommendation:
RECOMMEND to the City Council:
1. ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration
Change of Zone No. 16; and
ADOPT Resolution 91 -
recommending approval of
Change of Zone No. 16 based on
the Findings contained in the
Staff Report,
for
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
Connie Hill
Change of Zone from R-R (Rural Residential) to C-
P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) on 1 acre.
27628 Jefferson Avenue
R-R ( Rural Residential )
North: R-R ( Rural Residential )
South: C-P-S (Scenic Highway
Commercial )
East: I - 15 ( Freeway )
West: C-P-5 (Scenic Highway
Commercial )
C-P-S
( Scenic Highway Commercial )
Vacant ( Corral )
North:
South:
East:
West:
Veterinary Office
Vacant
1-15 Freeway
Commercial Center
A:CZ16 1
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
This project was submitted May 15, 1991. At that
time the applicant indicated that they did not have
a finalized development plan for the property.
They did have interest in the property from several
restaurant companies, but the companies did not
want to process a project until Commercial zoning
existed on the property,
Staff informed the applicant that zone changes were
processed on a case by case basis with the majority
of these cases being processed with a concurrent
Plot Plan application, In addition, Staff indicated
that they would support the request without a
development application because of the location,
surrounding development, and infrastructure
availability. The applicant was also cautioned that
the Change of Zone application was a discretionary
application and that the Planning Commission or
City Council could require a development permit
prior to approval of the Zone Change.
The application is for a Change of Zone from R-R
(Rural Residential) to C-P-S (Scenic Highway
Commercial ) on a 1 acre parcel at 27625 Jefferson
Avenue.
The project proposes a Change of Zone on a 1 acre
parcel to make the zoning consistent with the
current Southwest Area Plan ISWAP) designation.
The Southwest Area Plan, which has been adopted
as a General Plan guideline by the City, designates
this site as Commercial, The Planning Commission
has adopted the policy of processing Change of Zone
requests on a case-by-case basis, but generally
preferring that plot plans be submitted in
conjunction with the Zone Change application.
Upon review of the area, with the existing
improvements and development, Staff recommended
to the applicant processing of the case without a
development proposal. The proposed zoning, in
staff's opinion, appears to be a logical land use with
the development of compatible commercial uses in
the vicinity.
The major staff concern raised during review of the
project relates to the ultimate alignment of the
Overland overpass. It appears that the overpass
will impact that the a portion of this site and that
the ultimate overpass design and construction will
impact any development proposal for the site. The
effect of the overpass on the zone change request,
A:CZ16 2
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS:
since no development is proposed, can not be
precisely determined at this time. The overpass
issue is a concern, but the issue can be more
appropriately addressed at the plot plan stage.
Although the issue may be one the Commission and
Council wants addressed prior to changing the
zoning on the property, staff is recommending
action on the zoning issue without a concurrent
development application.
The surrounding area is zoned C-P-S and is
currently being developed as commercial property.
Infrastructure currently exists within the area to
support commercial activity on the site, such as:
major street and drainage facilities are constructed;
and water and sewer improvements exist which will
support commercial development.
In addition, the site also fronts 1-15 which will
provide high visibility for the site and any future
development. Jefferson Avenue and the freeway
corridor are designated as C | Commercial ) with the
current zoning being C-P-S on most of the
surrounding parcels.
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 R-R to C-P-S will not
have any significant impacts on the environment.
The proposed Change of Zone will not have a
significant negative impact on the
environment, as determined in the Initial
Study performed for the project. A Negative
Declaration is recommended for adoption.
There is a reasonable probability that this
project will be consistent with the General
Plan being prepared at this time, due to the
fact that the project is compatible with the
surroundingcommercialdevelopment, zoning,
and SWAP.
A:CZ16 3
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to, or interference
with, the future adopted General Plan, if the
proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with
the plan. The project is compatible with
surrounding development and improvements.
The site is physically suited for the proposed
Change of Zone in that required
infrastructure exists in the area include
commercial roadways, drainage facilities, 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.
RECOMMEND to the City Council:
1. ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration for
Change of Zone No. 16; and
ADOPT Resolution 91 - recommending
approval of Change of Zone No. 16 based on
the Findings contained in the Staff Report.
SJ:ks
Attachments:
Resolution
initial Study
Exhibits
A:CZ16 4
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL ZONE NO. 5755
CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-R TO C-P-S ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 27628 JEFFERSON AVENUE AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910-130-026.
WHEREAS, Connie Hill filed Change of Zone No. 16 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
July 15, 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.
b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
A:CZ16 5
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, {hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of the
proposed Change of Zone, makes the following findings, to wit:
a)
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
surroundingcommercialdevelopment, 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. 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, drainage facilities, and
main sewer and water lines.
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.
A:CZ16 6
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. 16 to change the zoning on 1 acre of land from R-R (Rural Residential)
to C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) on property located at 27628 Jefferson
Avenue and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 910-130-026.
SECTION 4.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of July, 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 15th day of July, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
A:CZ16 7
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
Backqround
1. Name of Proponent:
2. Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
5.
6.
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
Agency Requiring
Assessment:
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Location of Proposal:
7. Project Description:
Environmental Impacts
Connie Hill
27627 Jefferson Avenue
Temecula, CA 92387
(71a,) 676-3531
June 18, 1991
CITY OF TEMECULA
Chanqe of Zone No. 16
27628 Jefferson Avenue
Temecula, California
Chanqe of Zone from R-R (Rural
Residential) to C-P-S (Scenic Hiqhway
Commercial ) on 1 acre.
( 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?
Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil?
Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features?
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
No
X
X
X
X
A:CZ16 8
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on
or off site?
Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
Exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards such as earth
quakes, landslides, mudslides,
ground failure, or similar hazards?
Air. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air
quality?
The creation of objectionable
odors?
Alteration of air movement,
moisture, or temperature, or any
change in climate, whether locally
or regionally?
Water. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial changes in currents, or
the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or
fresh waters?
Substantial changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
Discharge into surface waters, or
in any alteration of surface water
quality, includin9, but not limited
to, temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A:CZ16 9
Yes Maybe No
Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow or ground waters?
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct addi-
tions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flood-
ing or tidal waves?
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
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?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A:CZ16 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 glare?
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
Substantial increase in the rate of
use of any natural resources?
Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource?
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal
involve:
A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances ( including,
but not limited to, oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
Possible interference with an emerg-
ency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan?
Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing or create a demand for
additional housing?
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A:CZ16 11
Yes Maybe No
b. Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking? __ __ X
c. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems? __ __ X
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? __ __ X
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic? X
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? __ __ X
1~,. Public Services. Will the proposal have
substantial effect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection? __ __ X
b. Police protection? __ __ X
c. Schools? X
d. Parks or other recreational
facilities? X
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads? __ __ X
f. Other governmental services: __ __ X
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy? __ __ X
b. Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy? __ __ X
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? __ __ X
A:CZ16 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:CZ16 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:CZ16 14
I II. Discussion of Evaluation
for Initial Environmental Study Item
Change of Zone No. 16
1. through 21.
No.
The current proposal only involves a Change of Zonin9
classification from R-R to C-P-S. The proposed C-P-S
zoning is consistent with the SWAP designation of C
( Commercial ). The fact that no project is proposed, only
a consistent zonin9 reduces potential impacts. The uses
allowed within the C-P-S zone are consistent with uses
allowed within the R-R with a Conditional Use Permit.
Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated at this time.
A:CZ16 15
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
June 18, 1991
Date
For CITY OF TEMECULA
A:CZ16 16
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
//
./
,/
*~,
LOCATION MAP
CASE NO. ~'Z/(:~
p.c. DATE 7-1,,c.4'/
CITY OF TEMECULA
~, 1/2 AC M|I~
C/
SWAP MAP
CASE NO.CZ
p.C. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA )
077
C-P-S
M -SC
CZ 317~
R
CZ 1954
CZ 4 133
C-P-S
CZ 4070
ZONE MAP
Mm
CZ 915
r ~
CASE NO. C'Z/(=,
p.C. DATE
ITEM ~9
Case No.:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 15, 1991
Parcel Map No. 25059 Minor Change No. 1
Prepared By: Steve Jiannino
Recommendation: Denial
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCAT ION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
BACKGROUND:
Preferred Equities Development Group
Anthony Polo
Deletion of Conditions of Approval regarding traffic
signal.
South side of Ridge Park Drive east of Rancho
California Road
I-P ( Industrial Park)
North:
South:
East:
West:
I-P ( Industrial Park)
R-A-20 ( ResidentialAgricultural,
20 Acre Minimum Size Lot)
R-A-20 ( ResidentialAgricultural,
20 Acre Minimum Size Lot)
I-P, ( Industrial Park)
Not requested.
Vacant
North: Office
South: Vacant
East: Vacant
West: Vacant
On January 15. 1991, the City Council approved
Parcel Map No. 25059 and the associated Plot Plan
No. 34. Both projects were conditloned for a traffic
signal at the intersection of Rancho California Road
and Ridge Park Drive. The applicant contends that
the signal requirement is inappropriate for the
Parcel Map due to the fact that the map does not
cause a traffic impact. The development of the
A: PM25059-MC 1
ANALYSIS:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
office building, Plot Plan No. 3LL is what will cause
the traffic impact and result in the necessity for a
traffic signal.
The applicant is requesting deletion of Engineering
Condition Numbers 37 through Li:3 for Parcel Map No.
25059 regarding a traffic signal at the intersection
of Rancho California Road and Ridge Park Drive,
including street striping
According to Engineering Staff, it is a standard
practice to require bonding and improvement plans
when map recordation occurs. Since improvements
are required with the parcel map, design and
bonding for the improvements would be appropriate
upon recordation of the map. With the
establishment of three small parcels and one large
parcel, the need for a bond is increased to
guarantee that the required street and traffic
improvements are constructed and installed in a
timely manner.
Staff is therefore recommending that the Planning
Commission DENY Parcel Map No. 25059 Minor
Change No. 1 in that the approved Conditions are
appropriate and necessary for the Parcel Map along
with the Plot Plan.
SJ: ks
Attachments:
Conditions of Approval
A: PM25059-MC 2
Mayor
Ron Parks
Mayor Pro Tern
Karel F. Lindemans
January 21. 1991
CITY OF TEMECULA
P.O. Box 3000
Temecula, Califomia 92390
(714) 694-1989
FAX (714) 694-1999
RECEIVED
FEB 0 1 1991
Aii'd ............
Councilmembers
Patricia H. Birdsall
Peg Moore
J. Sal Mu~ioz
Mr. John Head
Preferred Equities
285q5 Felix Valdez, B-3
Temecula. AC 92390
SUBJECT: Final Conditions of Approval
For Tentative Tract Map No. 25059
Dear John:
On January 15, 1991, the City of Temecula City Council approved Tentative Tract
Map No. 25059 subject to the enclosed Conditions of Approval. Tentative Tract Map
No. 25059 is a proposed four Io,) lot subdivision of 5.51 acres located on Ridge Park
Drive and known as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 9tI0-310-033, 03tl and 037.
This approval is effective until January 15, 1993 unless extended in accordance with
Ordinance 460, Section 8.4. Written request for a time extension must be submitted
to the City of Temecula a minimum of 30 days prior to the expiration date.
If you have any further questions regarding this subject, please contact the
Planning Department at {714) 694-6400.
Gary Thornhill
Planning Director
OM/GT: ks
CC:
Engineering Department
Fire Department
Anthony Polo, Markham & Associates
Case File
PLANNING\L18q
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Parcel Map No: 25059
Project Description: Four (0,) Lot Industrial
Subdivision
Assessor~s Parcel No.: 90,0-310-033, 030,
and 037
Plannin.q Department
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision
Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 0,60, Schedule E, unless
modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in
accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request,
if made 30 days prior to the expiration date.
This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the
approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance 0,60. The expiration
date is January 15, 1993.
The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all the
requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance
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.
STAFFRPT\PP30,
PM25059 1
10.
11.
12.
13.
15.
An Association shall be established for maintenance of Lot q. Open
5pace/Common Area and the developer/applicant shall pay for all costs
relating to establishment of the Property Owners Association.
A copy of the final grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department
for review and approval. All on-site cut and fill slopes shall:
Be limited to a maximum slope ratio of 2 to 1 and a maximum vertical
height of thirty 130 ) feet. Setbacks from top and bottom of slopes shall
be a minimum of one-half the slope height.
b. Be contour-graded to blend with existing natural contours.
c. Be a part of the downhill lot when within or between individual lots.
All slopes over three (3) feet in height shall be landscaped and irrigated
according to the City Development Code. A detailed landscaping and
irrigation plan, prepared by a qualified professional, shall be submitted to the
City Planning Department for review and approval prior to issuance of grading
permits.
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 I-P I Industrial Park) zone.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free
condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or
provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the
Director of Building and Safety.
The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes,
landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations
are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director.
Prior to recordation of the final map, an Environmental Constraints Sheet
lEGS) 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.
STAFFRPT\PP3q
PM25059 2
16.
Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
(1)
Prior to the issuance of grading permits detailed common open space
area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning
Department approval for the phase of development in process. The
plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for
the following:
Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all
landscaped areas requiring irrigation.
Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be
opaque up to a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity.
All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from
view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle
treatments, as approved by the Planning Director. Utilities shall
be placed underground.
Parkways shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a
transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscape
elements shall include earth berming, ground cover, shrubs and
specimen trees. Front yards shall be landscaped and street trees
planted.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent
trees at key visual focal points within the project.
Where street trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of
interior streets and project parkways due to insufficient road
right-of-way, they shall be planted outside of the road right-of-
way.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant
plants where appropriate.
All existing specimen trees and significant rock outcroppings on
the subject property shall be shown on the project's grading
plans and shall note those to be removed, relocated and/or
retained.
All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow
growing trees shall be steel staked.
STAFFR PT\PP3~I
PM25059 3
17.
If the project is to be phased. prior to the approval of grading
permits, an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to
the Planning Director for approval. The plan shall be used as a
guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual
phases of development and shall include the following:
Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and
sedimentation during and after the grading process.
Approximate time frames for grading and identification of
areas which may be graded during the higher probability
rain months of January through March.
3. Preliminary pad and roadway elevations.
Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase.
All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded natural terrain and
exceeding ten I10) feet in vertical height shall be contour-
graded incorporating the following grading techniques:
The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted
to the angle of the natural terrain.
Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form
shall reflect the natural rounded terrain.
The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves
with radii designed in proportion to the total height of the
slopes where drainage and stability permit such rounding.
Where cut or fill slopes exceed 300 feet in horizontal
length, the horizontal contours of the slope shall be
curved in a continuous, undulating fashion.
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.
STAFFRPT\PP3~
PM25059 ~
18.
19.
20.
21.
Prior to the issuance of BUILDINC PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
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 q5 Ldn.
All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required
elements from the subdivision~s approved fire protection plan as
approved by the County Fire Marshal.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and
irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval.
The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requiring
landscaping and irrigation to be installed including, but not limited to,
parkway planting, street trees, slope planting, and individual front
yard landscaping.
Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall
be satisfied:
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with
approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal
conditions do not permit planting, interim landscaping and erosion
control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning Director
and the Director of Building and Safety.
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with
approved plans and shall be verified by City field inspection.
Not withstanding the preceding conditions, wherever an acoustical
study is required for noise attenuation purposes, the heights of all
required walls shall be determined by the acoustical study where
applicable.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the
provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in
that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions
of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by
Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat
Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Temecula, its agents, officer, and employees from any claim, action, or
proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officer, or employees
to attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Temecula, its
advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Tentative
Parcel Map No. 25059, which action is brought within the time period provided
STAFFRPT\PP3q
PM25059 5
for in California Government Code Section 66q99.37. 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.
22.
The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site
property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the developer shall
at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into
an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code
Section 66~62 at such time as the City acquires the property interests
required for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by
the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property
interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion
of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an
appraisal report obtained by the developer, at the developer~s cost. The
appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the
appraisal.
23.
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.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions/Reciprocal Access Easements:
25.
The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions I CCF, R's) shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Department prior to final approval of the tract
maps. The CC~,R~s shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining
the open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, and exterior
of all buildings.
26.
No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation,
association, property owner~s group, or similar entity has been formed with
the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which
have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common
facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet
the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to
maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such
entity shall operate under recorded CC~,R~s which shall include compulsory
membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of
assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services.
Recorded CCF, R's shall permit enforcement by the City of Provisions required
by the City as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence
STAFFRPT\PP3~
PM25059 6
27.
28.
29.
of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the City prior
to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to
the City for public purposes.
Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such
dwelling unit or lot, either ( 1 ) an undivided interest in the common areas and
facilities, or 12) as share in the corporation, or voting membership in an
association, owning the common areas and facilities.
Maintenance for all landscaped and open areas, including parkways, shall be
provided for in the CCF, R~s.
Within forty-eight (118) hours of the approval of the project, the
applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check
or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand,
Two Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars 151,275.00), which includes the One
Thousand, Two Hundred, Fifty Dollars I $1,250.00) fee, in compliance with AB
3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 71 i. 111 d ) 12 ) 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 111 Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight (48) hour
period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department
the check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall
be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section
711.111c).
Engineerinq 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.
30.
The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act,
and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions.
31.
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. 1160.
STAFFRPT\PP3q
PM25059 7
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
32. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Flood Control district;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department:
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department; and
CATV Franchise.
CalTrans
33.
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 CCE, 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 CC~,R~s shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded. The
CCE, R's shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. The CCE, R's shall be prepared at the developer's sole cost and expense.
The CCF, R~s shall be in the form and content approved by the Director
of Planning, City Engineer and the City Attorney, and shall include
such provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials
deem necessary to protect the interest of the City and its residents.
The CCE, R~s and Articles of incorporation of the Property Owner~s
Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering
Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent
with the final map. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City.
The CCF, R~s shall provide for the effective establishment, operation,
management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas and
facilities.
The CCSR's shall provide that the property shall be developed,
operated and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance.
The CCgR's shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the
condition required by the CCE, 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.
STAFFRPT\PP34
PM25059 8
Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. q61 and as approved by the
City Engineer.
35.
Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the
Engineering Department a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation
towards traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time
of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written
agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a
building permit.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
36.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public
facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the
project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim
or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally
established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for
the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement
for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to
Developer. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the
payment of fees in excess of those now estimated lassuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest
such increase.
Transportation Enqineerinq
PRIOR TO RECORDATION:
37.
Plans for a traffic signal shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the City Engineer for the intersection of Rancho California Road
and Ridge Park Drive.
38.
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer
and approved by the City Engineer for the intersection of Rancho California
Road and Ridge Park Drive. Based on the Traffic Study, these plans shall be
designed to provide for 300' of left turn storage capacity on westbound
Rancho California Road to southbound Ridge Park Drive.
39.
Credit shall be given toward the developers signal mitigation fees for the
design and construction of the signal at Ridge Park Drive and Rancho
California Road.
qO.
The developer shall contribute q6 percentage for the construction costs of the
signal at Rancho California Road and Ridge Park Drive.
ql.
The developer may enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City for the
remaining percentage of the construction costs, above his pro rata share, for
the signal at Rancho California Road and Ridge Park Drive.
STAFFRPT\PP3~I
PM25059 9
Plans for traffic signal interconnect shall be designed by a registered Civil
Engineer and approved by the City Engineer along Rancho California Road
from Diaz Road to Ridge Park Drive.
Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering
for the design requirements.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and
striping plan.
The traffic signal at Rancho California Road and Ridge Park Drive shall be
installed and operational per the special provisions and the approved traffic
signal plan.
46. All traffic signal interconnects shall be installed per the approved plan.
STAFFRPT\PP34
PM25059 10
ITEM #10
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNINC COMMISSION
July 15, 1991
Case No.: Directional Sign Ordinance
Prepared By: Oliver Mujica
Recommendation: 1. ADOPT Resolution No. P.C.
91 - recommending adoption of
the Directional Sign Ordinance.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
BACKGROUND:
City of Temecula
An Ordinance establishing regulations for the use of
dlrectional signs.
City Wide
The purpose for preparing the proposed Directlonal
Sign Ordinance is due to the inadequacy of the
County Ordinance No. 348 as it relates to
Directional Signs in which Section 19.6
Subdivision Signs { attached ) provides the following
standards and requirements:
No sign shall exceed 100 square feet in
area.
No sign shall be within 100 feet of any
existing residence.
No more than two such signs shall be
permitted for each subdivision.
The maximum period of time a sign may
remain in place shall be two years.
5. No sign shall be artificially lighted.
A:DIRECTIONAL SIGN
D-5 1GN-A 1
DISCUSSION:
An agreement, secured by a $100 cash
bond, shall be executed with the City
for each sign, assuring the removal of
the sign within the allowed time
period. The bond and agreement shall
be filed with the Department of
Building and Safety.
in order to provide the City of Temecula with
specific and complete standards for regulating
directional signs, Staff has prepared the attached
Ordinance which includes, in summary, the
following main components:
Signs shall be limited to not more than
three (3) structures between street
intersections.
Sign structures shall be ladder type
with individual sign panels of uniform
design and color throughout the City
limits.
Sign structures shall not exceed 12
feet in height.
The width of the sign structures and
sign panels shall not exceed five (5')
feet.
5. Sign panels shall not be illuminated.
6. The sign panel lettering for tract
identification shall be uniform.
The City Council may, by duly
executed license agreement, grant to a
qualified person the exclusive right to
design, erect and maintain directional
signs and kiosk signs within the entire
City, or any designated portion
thereof.
Staff has also included the following provision for
exemptions within Section 4 of the proposed
Ordinance:
"Not withstanding the provisions of this
Ordinance, should any party believe that
they would suffer a hardship if not permitted
to install a directional sign, they may apply
A:DIRECTIONAL SIGN
D-S}GN-A 2
CONCLUSION:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS:
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
to the Planning Director for an exemption to
this Ordinance. Such application for an
exemption shall be reviewed by the Planning
Commission for a recommendation to the City
Council. Such exemption may be granted by
the City Council only after due notice and
public hearing thereon."
As noted above, the proposed Directional Sign
Ordinance provides the City with the standards to
thoroughly review an applicant's proposal as well as
providing the necessary control measures needed to
ensure the public safety; to provide organization;
and control the overall quality and number of such
signs.
This Ordinance does not have a potential for
causing a significant affect on the environment.
Therefore, Staff has determined that the project is
exempt from CEQA under Section 15061 (b)(3).
The proposed Directional Sign Ordinance is
necessary to bring about eventual conformity
with the City's future Land Use Plan.
There is reasonable probability that the
proposed Directional Sign Ordinance 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.
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 proposed Directional Sign Ordinance is
consistent with SWAP.. In addition, Staff finds it
probable that this Ordinance will be consistent with
the new General Plan when it is adopted.
A:D}RECTIONAL SIGN
D-SIGN-A 3
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
ADOPT Resolution No. P.C. 91-
recommending adoption of the Directional
Sign Ordinance.
OM: ks
Attachments:
Resolution
"Draft" Ordinance
Section 19.6 (Subdivision Signs)
A:DJRECTIONAL SIGN
D-S3GN-A LI.
RESOLUTION NO. P.C. 91-
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL
ADOPT THE DIRECTIONAL SIGN ORDINANCE.
WHEREAS, City Ordinance No. 90-04 adopted by reference certain
portions of the non-codified Riverside County Ordinances, including Ordinance No.
348 ("Land Use Code"); and
WHEREAS, such regulations do not contain provisions for the use of
directional si9ns for off-site advertlsin9; and
WHEREAS, the City of Temecula desires to regulate the use of
dlrectional signs for off-site advertisin9 and to protect the health, quality of life,
and the environment of the residents of Temecula; and
WHEREAS, public hearin9 was conducted on July 15, 1991, at which time
interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; and
WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall,
County Library, Rancho California Branch, the U.S. Post Office and the Temecula
Valley Chamber of Commerce;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECT ION 1. That the Planni n9 Commission of the City of Temecu la
hereby finds that the proposed Directional Sign Ordinance will provide for the
establishment of regulations for the off-site directional signs in a fair and eCluitable
manner,
SECT ION 2. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula
further finds that the proposed Directional Sign Ordinance is necessary to bring
about eventual conformity with its land use plans.
SECT ION 3. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula
hereby recommends to the City Council adoption of the proposed Directionat Sign
Ordinance. The Ordinance is incorporated into this Resolution by this reference and
marked Exhibit "A" and dated July 15, 1991 for identification.
A:DIRECTIONAL SIGN
D-S I GN-A 5
PASSED APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of July, 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 15th day of July, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS
A:DIRECTIONAL SIGN D-SIGN-A
ORDINANCE NO. 91-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA REPEALING PORTIONS OF ORDINANCE
NO. 90-04 PERTAINING TO ADVERTISING
REGULATIONS AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR
THE USE OF DIRECTIONAL SIGNS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS. That the Temecula City Council
hereby makes the following findings:
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:
(a) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
(b) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, each of the following:
(1) 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.
(2) 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.
(3) The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
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.
A:SIGNORD 1
The proposed land use regulations are consistent with the
SWAP and meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the
Government Code, to wit:
(a) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
(b) The City Council finds, in adopting land use
regulations pursuant to this title, each of the
following:
(1) There is reasonable probability that Ordinance
No. 91- will be consistent with the general plan
proposal being considered or studied or which will
be studied within a reasonable time.
(2) 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.
(3) The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
There is an unsightly and confusing proliferation of off-
site directional signs, relating to new residential development
projects, including new rental projects (hereinafter referred to as
"development projects"), and other business. Development projects
by their very nature are most frequently located in areas where
streets and highways are newly constructed. Such thoroughfares are
seldom shown on maps available to persons seeking to purchase new
homes; and, consequently, developers use signs, to aid such persons
in locating their subdivisions. The result is a proliferation of
signs which are: (1) unsightly and damaging to the appearance of
areas such as that which is the subject of this ordinance; (2)
confusing to individuals; and, (3) unsafe in that drivers of motor
vehicles while searching for subdivisions or signs giving direction
thereto, are distracted from the operation of their vehicles.
Directional signs are needed by developers to a greater
degree than other businesses because development project sales are
ordinarily conducted for a relatively limited period of time for
any particular location, that is, only until all units in the
subdivision are sold. Thus, listings in such conventional media as
telephone yellow pages are impractical. While other media such as
broadcast media and newspapers are available, and maps could be
disseminated in only some of such media, the most efficient method
of directing prospective purchasers to development projects is the
use of directional signs posted at intersections and other critical
locations. Businesses with more permanent sales locations do not
share these problems and, thus, have less need of directional
signs.
A:SIGNORD 2
SECTION 2. This ordinance shall repeal Section 19.6
(Subdivision Signs) of Ordinance No. 90-04.
SECTION 3. PURPOSE. The purpose of this ordinance is to
provide a uniform, coordinated method of offering developers a
means of providing directional signs to their projects, while
minimizing confusion among prospective purchasers who wish to
inspect development projects, while promoting traffic safety and
reducing the visual blight of the present proliferation of signs.
SECTION 4o AUTHORITY. This ordinance is adopted
pursuant to the State Planning and Zoning law, Business and
Professions Code, Section 52301 and Streets and Highways Code,
Section 1460.
SECTION 5. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Ordinance,
the following words, terms, phrases, and their derivations, shall
have the meanings given herein. When consistent with the context,
words used in the present tense singular include the plural.
(1) "City" shall mean the City of Temecula.
(2)
"Contractor" shall mean a person, persons, firm or
corporation authorized by a license agreement to
design, erect and maintain directional and kiosk
signs within the City.
(3)
"Directional Sign" shall mean any off-site free
standing, non-flashing sign which is designed,
erected, and maintained to serve as a public
convenience in directing pedestrian and vehicular
traffic, but not used for the purpose of
advertising uses and activities on site.
(4)
"Kiosk" shall mean a free standing, multiple sided,
structure whose main purpose is to display signs or
information.
(5)
"Off-Site Sign" shall mean any sign which is not
located on the business or activity site it
identifies.
(6)
"Person" shall mean an individual, firm,
partnership, joint venture, association,
corporation, estate, trust, syndicate, district or
other political subdivision, or any other group
acting as an independent unit.
SECTION 6. REQUIREMENTS FOR DIRECTIONAL SIGNS AND KIOSK
STRUCTURES. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Section,
directional signs shall be permitted in all zone classifications
subject to the following limitations:
(1) Directional signs shall not obstruct the use
of sidewalks, walkways, bike or hiking trails;
A:SIGNORD 3
shall not obstruct the visibility of vehicles,
pedestrians or traffic control signs; shall, where
feasible, be combined with advance street name
signs; shall not be installed in the immediate
vicinity of street intersection; and, shall be
limited to not more than three (3) structures
between street intersections.
(2) Sign structures shall be ladder type with
individual sign panels of uniform design and color
throughout the City limits.
(3) Sign structures shall not exceed 12 feet in
height.
(4) The width of sign structures and sign panels
shall not exceed 5 feet.
(5) Sign panels shall not be illuminated.
(6) Sign structure installations shall include
"break away" design features where required in
right-of-way areas.
(7) No signs, pennants, flags, other devices for
visual attention or other appurtenances shall be
placed on the directional signs.
(8) The sign panel lettering
identification shall be uniform.
for tract
(9) All signs erected on private property must
have written consent from the property owner with
the City to have a right to enter property to
remove any signs not in conformance.
(10) The City, and its officers and employees,
shall be held free and harmless of all costs,
claims, and damages levied against them.
(11) All signs must have applicable Building and
Safety and Planning Department permits.
(12) Placement of signs must be in accordance with
permit specifications.
(13) All signs within a public right-of-way must
have an encroachment permit.
SECTION 7. DIRECTIONAL SIGNS PROHIBITED. Directional
and kiosk signs, including travel direction signs, other than those
on-site, are prohibited except as provided in this ordinance.
A:SIGNORD 4
SECTION 8. AUTHORITYTO GRANT LICENSE. The City Council
may, by duly executed license agreement, grant to a qualified
person the exclusive right to design, erect and maintain
directional and kiosk signs within the entire City, or any
designated portion thereof. Licensees shall be selected by
soliciting request for proposals. Notwithstanding the foregoing,
any person erecting or placing directional signs or kiosk signs on-
site shall not be required to obtain a license.
SECTION 9. TERM. The term of each license shall be set
forth in the license agreement.
SECTION 10. DIRECTIONAL SIGNS STRUCTURES: OPERATION.
Licensee(s) shall make directional sign panels available to all
persons or entities selling subdivisions (hereinafter referred to
as "Subdividers") on a first-come, first-service basis. No sign
panels shall be granted to any subdivider for a period of excess of
two years. However, a subdivider who is soliciting sales of more
than two subdivisions within a single planned community or a
specific plan area shall not be subject to the two-year limitation
during such solicitation. Licensee(s) shall maintain a separate
waiting list for each sign structure. Alternatively, a subdivider
may apply to licensee for a sign panel program consisting of a
single sign panel on each of a series of sign structures as needed
to guide prospective purchasers to his subdivision. A subdivider
whose time of use for a sign panel or sign space program has
expired, may reapply and shall be placed on the waiting list in the
same manner as a new applicant.
SECTION 11. EXISTING SIGN PERMITS. No sign permit, use
permit, or other permit authorizing placement of a directional sign
issued on or before the date of adoption of this Ordinance by the
City Council shall be invalidated hereby, but shall remain valid
for the period for which it was issued. Any such permit issued
after the date of adoption of this Ordinance by the City Council,
which would not be permitted under this Ordinance shall be of no
further force or effect after the effective date of this Ordinance.
SECTION 12. SEVERABILITY. The City Council hereby
declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if
for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any
sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid,
such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts
of this Ordinance.
SECTION 13. PENALTIES. It shall be unlawful for any
person to violate any provision of this Ordinance. Any person
violating any provision of this Ordinance shall be deemed guilty of
an infraction or misdemeanor as hereinafter specified. Such person
shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day
or portion thereof during which any violation of any of the
provisions of this Ordinance is committed, continued, or permitted.
Any person so convicted shall be, (1) guilty of an
infraction offense and punished bya fine not exceeding one hundred
A:SIGNORD 5
dollars ($100) for a first violation; and, (2) guilty of an
infraction offense and punished by a fine not exceeding two hundred
dollars ($200) for a second infraction. The third and any
additional violations shall constitute a misdemeanor offense and
shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars
($1,000) or six (6) months in jail, or both. Notwithstanding the
above, a first offense may be charged and prosecuted as a
misdemeanor. Payment of any penalty herein shall not relieve a
person from the responsibility for correcting the violation.
SECTION 14. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption
of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required
by law.
SECTION 15. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE. The City Council
hereby finds that this project does not have a potential for
causing a significant affect on the environment. Therefore, the
project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
under Section 15061(b)(3).
SECTION 16. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in
full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City
Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause
copies of this Ordinance to be posted in three designated posting
places.
PASSED, APPROVEDANDADOPTED this 15th day of July, 1991.
ATTEST:
RONALD J. PARKS
MAYOR
JUNE S. GREEK
CITY CLERK
A:SIGNORD 6
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 91- was duly
introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting
of the City Council on the day of
, 1991, and that thereafter, said
Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the
City Council on the day of ,
1991, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
JUNE S. GREEK
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Scott F. Field
City Attorney
A:SIGNORD 8
Directional Signs - Directional Signs to advise patrons of location,
distance or purpose shall be permitted on a parcel of land as follows:
1. The maxim~ height of such signs shall not exceed 3 feet.
2. The maximum surface area of such signs shall not exceed 6 square
feet.
On-site Identification Signs - On-site identification signs affixed to
the surface of walls, windows, and doors of perFaanent structures,
which do not exceed 4 inches in letter height and do not exceed 4
square feet in area are permitted in addition to any other sign
permitted in this ordinance.
SECTION 19.5. FOR SALE, LEASE OR RENT SIGNS. For sale, lease or rent
signs shall be permitted to be placed in all zone classifications subject to
the following regulations.
1. For one and two family residential uses - one sign not exceeoin~ 4
square feet in surface area and not more than 4 feet in height.
2. For multiple family residential uses - one sign for each separate
frontage on a street, each sign not to exceed 16 square feet in
surface area and not more than 8 feet in height.
3. For conmercial uses - one sign for each separate frontage on a
street, each sign not to exceed 24 square feet in surface area and
not more than 8 feet in height.
4. For industrial uses - one sign for each separate frontage on a
street, each sign not to exceed 32 square feet in s~rface area an~
not more than 10 feet in height.
5. For agriculture uses - One sign for each separate frontage on a
street, each sign not to exceed 16 square feet in surface area and
not more than 8 feet in height.
SECTION 19.6 SUBDIVISION SIGNS.
On-site subdivision signs, advertising the original sale of a
subdivision are permitted within the boundaries of a subdivision, upon
approval of
and subject
1. No sign
2. NO sign
outside
3.
a plot plan pursuant to Section 18.30 of this ordinance
to the following minimum standards:
shall exceed 100 square feet in area.
shall be within IOD feet of any existing residence that is
of the subdivision boundaries.
No more than two such signs shall be permitted for each
subdi vision.
No sign shall be artificially lighted.
Off-site subdivision signs advertising the original sale of a
subdivision, shall be permitted in all zone classifications, except
the C-P-S, N-A, and W-1 Zones, provided a conditional use permit is
granted pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.28 of this ordinance,
and subject to the following minim~ Standards:
1. No sign shall exceed 1DO square feet in area.
2. No sign shall be within IOD feet of any existing residence.
3. No more than two such signs shall be permitted for each
su bali vi s i on.
4. lhe maximum period of time a sign may remain in place shall be tw~
yea rs.
5. No sign shall be artificially lighted.
6. An agreement, secured by a $10D cash bond, shall be executed with
the County for each sign, assuring the removal of the sign within
the allowed time period. The bond and agreement shall be filed
with the Depar~ent of Building and Safety.
Added:
09-13-73 (Ord. 348.1201)
Amended Effective:
01-20-77 {Ord. 348.1540)
06-27-78 (Ord. 348.1658}
0g-25-80 (Ord. 348.1855)
07-16-85 {Ord. 348.2496)
SECTION 19.7. IEMPDRARY POLITICAL SIGNS.
For the purpose of this ordinance, a temporary political sign shall
mean a sign, not other~ se permitted by this ordinance, which
enCOurages a particular vote in a Scheduled election.
Notwithstanding any Other provision Of this ordinance, temporary
-political signs are permitted in all zoning classifications sjbject to
the following limitations:
1. No such sign shall exceed 16 square feet in surface area.
2. No free-standing temporary political sign shall exceed 6 feet in
height.
3. No lot shall contain temporary political signs having an aggregate
surface area in excess of BO square feet.
4. No such sign shall be artificially lighted.
5. No such Sign shall be erected or placed more than 9~ days prior to
the scheduled election to which it pertains.
6. All such signs shall be removed within 10 days after the scheduled
election to w~ich they pertain. except that a Sign erected Or
placed for a candidate who prevails in a primary election may be
maintained until 10 days after the final election.
7. No such sign shall be erected, placed or maintained upon any
private property without the consent of the owner, lessee, or
person in lawful possession of such property.
8. No temporary political sign shall be erected, placed, or maintained
On any publicly owned tree or shrub or upon the improved portion of
any street or highway right of way which is used for traffic or
parking.
9. NO temporary political sign shall be erected, placed or maintained
so that it does any of the following:
(a} Mars, ~efaces, disfigures or damages any public building,
structure or other property.
(b)Endangers the safety of persons or property.
255
ITEM 111
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission ~
Oliver Mujica, Senior Planne
July 15, 1991
Case No: Temporary Outdoor Activities
On June 17, 1991, the Planning Commission considered the "Draft" Temporary
Outdoor Activities Ordinance. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the
Commission continued the item in order to allow Staff the opportunity to address the
following issues: 1 ) fee levels; 2) activities the ordinance covers and does not
cover; and 3) minimum criteria.
On July 8, 1991, the City Attorney decided to continue this item to the Planning
Commission Public Hearing date of August 5, 1991, in order to allow the City
Attorney and Planning Staff the opportunity to refine the proposed Temporary
Outdoor Activities Ordinance.
It should be noted that since this item is recommended to be continued to a date
specific, the readvertising of the Public Hearing is not required.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission CONTINUE the Temporary Outdoor
Activities Ordinance to their meeting of August 5, 1991.
OM:ks
A: OUTDOOR. ACT\MEM - 1