HomeMy WebLinkAbout080591 PC AgendaAGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
August 05, 1991 6:00 PM
VAIL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
29915 Mira Loma Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
Chairman Hoagland
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Chiniaeff
Hoa91and,
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the
commissioners on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are
limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners
about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink uRequest to Speaku form should
be filled out and filed with the Commissioner Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and
address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the
Planning Secretary before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3)
minute time limit for individual speakers.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Minutes
2.1 Approval of minutes of July 1, 1991 Planning Commission Meeting.
2.2 Approval of minutes of July 15, 1991 Planning Commission Meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Plot Plan No. 226 (PP226)
Mr. Sam McCann
Southwesterly corner of Pauba and Margarita Road
Construction of a commercial retail complex of 3 structures
totalin9 27,150 +/- square feet on a 2.5 +/-Acre site.
Charly Ray
Approval
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Case No:
Applicant:
Location
Proposal
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Change of Zone No. 15/Tentative Parcel Map No. 26q88
Mr. Jan Vanderwall
Southeasterly corner of Walcott Lane and Calle Chapos
Zone change from R-A 2-1/2 ( Residential-Agricultural 1 -
I/2 acre minimum parcel size) to R-1-1 (Single Family
Residential, 1 acre minimum parcel size) and subdivisions
of 4.5 +/- acres into L~ parcels.
Charly Ray
Approval
Television/Radio Antenna Ordinance
City of Temecula
City Wide
An Ordinance establishing regulations for
Television/Radio Antennas
Oliver Mujica
Continue to 8/19/91
Temporary Outdoor Activities Ordinance
City of Temecula
City Wide
Ordinance establishing Regulationsfor Temporary Outdoor
Activities.
Oliver Mujica
Continue Off Calendar
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
Continue to 8/19/91
Conditional Use Permit No. 28~6 - Revised
Temecula Auto Wrecking and Towing
u, 1910 "C" Street
The applicant requests renewal of a Conditional Use Permit
to operate an auto towing and wrecking service.
Scott Wright
Approval
Public Use Permit No. 3
Ed Dufresne Ministries
u, 17~3 Enterprise Circle North
To operate a church and related facilities on weeknights
and weekends at an existing commercial complex.
Mark Rhoades
Approval
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Change of Zone No. 18; and Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 2
Sam McCann/Bedford Properties
Southeast corner of Margarita Road and DePortola Road.
Amend the boundary of the Paloma Del Sol (formerly the
Meadows) Specific Plan to include planning area No. 36.
Oliver Mujica
Recommend Approval
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Tentative Tract Map No. 2~,172
Michael Lanni
Eastside of Ynez Road between Pauba Road and Santiago
Road
Subdivide 5 acres into 8 Residential Parcels
Richard Ayala
Approval
12o
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Tentative Parcel Map No. 27018
The Holt Group. Inc.
Southeasterly corner of Santiago and Ynez Roads.
Subdivision of 7.72 gross acres into 3 parcels of 2.5+/-
gross acres each in the R-A 2-1/2 acre zone.
Charly Ray
Approval
13.
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Plot Plan 235
Carol Dittmer
Northside of Las Haciendas Street Between Front Street
and Del Rio Road
Class II dog Kennel, Cattery and Groomin9 Shop
Richard Ayala
Approval
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Tentative Tract Map No. 25q17
Bedford Properties
Northeast of Highway 79, and Margarita Road.
Subdivide u,1.2 acres into 6 multi-family residential lots
and 2 open space parcels, within Planning Area No. 6 of
the Meadows Specific Plan.
Oliver Mujica
Recommend Approval
15.
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Tentative Tract Map No. 2q183
Bedford Properties
North of Highway 79, between Margarita and Butterfield
Stage Road.
Subdivide Ll8.8 acres into 155 single family residential lots;
3 open space parcels; and 1 park (1.6) acres), within
planning area No. 5 of the Meadows Specific Plan.
Oliver Mujica
Recommend Approval
16.
17.
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Case No.
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Tentative Parcel Map No. 25u,18
Bedford Properties
Northeast of Highway 79, and Margarita Road.
Subdivide 40.7 acres into 5 commercial lots and 9 open
space parcels, within Planning Area No. 1 of the Meadows
Specific Plan.
Oliver Mujica
Recommend Approval
Variance No. 6
Superior Electrical Advertising, Inc.
Northwest Corner of Jefferson Avenue and Overland Drive
Variance in order to allow an additional freestanding sign
display in lieu of the maximum allowed freestanding signs
per Ord. 348.
Richard Ayala
Continue to 8/19/91
Planninq Director Report
General Plan Update
Planninq Commission Discussion
Discussion of September Meetin9 Dates
Other Business
ADJOURNMENT
Next meeting: August 19, 1991, 6:00 p.m., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma
Drive, Temecula, California
SJ/Ib
pc/AgnB/5
ITEM #1
ITEM #2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING CO/OflSSION
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 COrOfENT
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.
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Hoagland, Chiniaeff
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
2. Minutes
2.1 ApprOval of minutes of June 17,
meeting
1991 Planning Commission
COMMISSIONER FAREY moved to approve the minutes of
June 17, 1991 as mailed, seconded by COMMISSIONER
HOAGLAND.
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Hoagland, Chiniaeff
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
PCMIN7/01/91 -1- July 5, 1991
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
JULY 1, 1991
Memorandum of Understanding with Ca1 Trans regarding access
to Route 79.
3.1 Receive and file staff report.
DOUG STEWART provided the staff report.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM8
4. CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 9/SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE 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
PCMIN7/01/91 -2- July 5, 1991
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 1, 1991
5. CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 15
el
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
PLied~ING
PLOT
COMMIS8ION 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 RAY 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 PELRA, 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
PLANNING
COMMIS8ION 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 CO],fi~ISSION 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).
CHAIRMAN 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 8NYDER, 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 wMITE, 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 TER~3&ZAS, 31160 Lahontan, Temecula.
HANK 8CHUDER, 31320 Via Eduardo, Temecula.
JIM MALLON, 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 COMMISSION 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 BOGGS, 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 MARKPj&M 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 FAHEY 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/O1/91 -7- July 5, 1991
PLANNING COIO~ISSION HINUTES 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. The meeting
reconvened at 9:15 P.M.
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 FANEY 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
tO the wording of Section 4.,
FORD.
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS:
JULY 1, 1991
seconded by COMMISSIONER
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Hoagland, Chiniaeff
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
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 HOAGLAMD.
AYES:
5 COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Hoagland, 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 COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 1, 1991
PLANNING COMMI88ION 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 P.M.,
COMMISSIONER FORD.
AYES:
NOES:
seconded
5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Hoagland, Chiniaeff
0 COMMISSIONERS: None
by
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
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD JULY 15, 1991
A regular meeting of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order at Vail Elementary
School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California at 6:06 PM, Chairman Dennis Chiniaeff
presiding.
PRESENT: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Chiniaeff, Fahey,
Ford, Hoagland
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS:
None
Also present were Planning Director Gary Thornhill, Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh,
Deputy City Engineer Doug Stewart and City Clerk June Greek.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Basil Tallent, 30680 Santiago Road addressed the commission regarding the need to resolve
a lot line adjustment for his property.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
ADDrOVal of AQenda
Planning Director Gary Thornhill advised that due to inability of the Parks and
Recreation staff to attend this meeting, he would recommend continuing item number
4, a discussion of the Quimby Act to the meeting of August 19, 1991. He also
recommended continuing item number 9 to the meeting of August 5, 1991.
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Ford to approve the
agenda as amended by the Planning Director. The motion was unanimously carried.
2
Minutes
It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Ford to table
consideration of the minutes because the comm=ssion did not have sufficient time to
properly review them. He asked that they be placed on the next agenda for approval.
The motion was unanimously carried.
2/PCMins/071591 1
3 Election of Chairman and Vice Chairman
It was moved by Commissioner Blair, seconded by Commissioner Fahey to nominate
Commissioner John Hoagland for the office of Chairperson.
Commissioner Ford placed the name of Commissioner Chiniaeff in nomination.
Commissioner Chiniaeff declined the nomination.
The motion was unanimously carried.
Chairman Hoagland entertained nominations for the office of Vice Chairperson. It was
moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Blair to nominate
Commissioner Linda Fahey to the office of Vice Chairperson. The motion was
unanimously carried.
4 Quimbv Act
Continued to the meeting of August 19, 1991.
5
Chanoe of Zone No. 17 and First Extension of Time Vesting Tentative Tract MaD NO.
23125
The staff report was presented by Steve Jiannino.
Commissioner Chiniaeff questioned the maximum height of the slopes proposed and
asked who would have maintenance responsibility for these slopes. Staff advised that
the slopes range from 30 to 60 feet and that ultimate maintenance responsibility has
not been determined.
Commissioner Ford expressed concern with the lack of information regarding the parks
dedications proposed.
Chairman Hoagland opened the public hearing at 6:22 PM.
Dave James, representing Ranpac Engineering, 24727 Enterprise Circle West,
representing the applicant stated that the applicant agrees with the conditions of
approval and advised that the map is conditioned to allow for the Quimby fees to be
negotiated at the time the design development guidelines are addressed prior to
recordation of the final map.
Commissioner Chiniaeff again outlined his concerns regarding the maintenance of the
slopes which are shown to be on private residential parcels. Planning Director Thornhill
suggested that a homeowners association be required for this purpose.
Mike Gray, Riverside County Fire Department, stated that the County's slope
maintenance program is very difficult to administer where individual private parcels are
involved. He advised that in some instances the problems have been unsolvable.
2/PCMins/071591 2
6
In response to a question from Commissioner Fahey, Assistant City Attorney John
Cavanaugh advised that if a homeowners association is in place and is given the
responsibility to properly maintain the slopes, the association should require that an
easement be granted which allows them access to the private property.
It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Blair to continue
the public hearing on this matter to the meeting of August 19, 1991, with direction
given to staff to 1 ) work with the developer on the design with the goal of reducing
the severe slopes, 2) to condition the project to require a homeowners association, and
3) to work with the Community Services Department on the matter of slopes
dedications and the acceptability of the proposed park site. The motion was
unanimously carried.
Aooeal No. 15
Steve Jiannino presented the staff report outlining the proposed sign location above
the roof of the adjoining suite.
Chairman Hoagland opened the public hearing at 6:45 PM.
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Ford to close the
Public Hearing at 6:45 PM and to adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 91-68
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.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
7
Chanae of Zone 16
The staff report was presented by Steve Jiannino.
Chairman Hoagland opened the public hearing at 6:51 PM.
2/PCMins/071591 3
Edward J. Nagee, representing the applicant spoke in favor of the approval and advised
that the proposed use is a family style restaurant.
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Blair to close the
public hearing at 6:53 PM and to:
7.1 Adopt a negative declaration for Change of Zone No. 16; and
7.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 91-69
A RESOLUTION OF THE TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 16
CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-R TO C-P-S ON PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 27628 JEFFERSON AVENUE AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'8
PARCEL NO. 910-130-026
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
8 Plot Plan No. 225
The staff report was presented by Steve Jiannino. He responded to a question from
Commissioner Blair stating the use proposed is warehousing of both furniture and
carpet.
Commissioner Chiniaeff express concern with the parking ratios allowed, particularly
if the use should change in the future.
Chairman Hoagland opened the public hearing at 7:03 PM.
Carl Los, 840 Columbia Avenue, Brae, the architect representing the owner, explained
that the use will be for a developer's showroom.
Commissioner Blair questioned if the existing parking ordinance could be amended.
Planning Director Thornhill advised that it is likely the existing ordinance will be
scrapped when the general plan is developed.
It was moved by Commissioner Ford, seconded by Commissioner Fahey to close the
Public Hearing at 7:04 PM and;
2/PCMins/071591 4
8.1
8.2
Adopt a negative declaration;
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 91-70
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING 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 ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL 909-281-
004.
9
Parcel MaD NO. 25059 Minor Chanae No. 1
Chairman Hoagland opened the public hearing at 7:08 PM. There were no speakers
in favor or in opposition.
Tt was moved by Commissioner Blair, seconded by Commissioner Fahey to continue
the Public Hearing to the meeting of August 5, 1991.
The motion was unanimously carried.
10
Directional SiQn Ordinance
The staff report was introduced by Steve Jiannino.
Planning Director Gary Thornhill advised the Commission that the staff recommends
this program to help alleviate the proliferation of paper directional signs which are
placed on all of the major city streets.
Chairman Hoagland opened the public hearing at 7:14 PM
.Mike Wilson, owner of Temeka Signs, spoke favor of the City's adopting this type of
program.
Frank Gootrad, 28765 single Oak Drive, president of Temecula Homebuilders
Association, spoke in favor of the program and outline several concerns the
homebuilders association has regarding the interpretation of the "immediate vicinity of
street intersection" and the suggested penalties for violations of the ordinance.
Commissioner Chiniaeff suggested that the maximum allowed signs be established for
each subdivision rather than limiting them to only two signs. He also stated he would
like to see some public directories included such as to libraries, City Hall, etc.
2/PCMins/071591 5
Commissioner Ford agreed that the number of locations should be dictated by the need
to direct traffic to the projects. He also stated the definition of intersection should be
clarified.
It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Ford to refer this
to staff to address the concerns addressed by the Commission and to continue the
Public Hearing to the meeting of August 19, 1991. The motion was unanimously
carried.
11 Temnorarv Outdoor Activities Ordinance
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Ford to continue
the Public Hearing to the meeting of August 5, 1991. The motion was unanimously
carried.
PLANNING DIRECTORS REPORT
Planning Director Gary Thornhill reported that a joint meeting of the City Council and
Planning Commission has been scheduled for Monday, July 22, 1991, at 7:00 PM to
be held in the Performing Arts Room at the Temecula Valley High School. The purpose
of this meeting will be to conduct a general plan workshop.
He also reported that it is staff's intention to begin working on an interim sign
ordinance and that the City is actively recruiting for permanent, full-time Planning staff.
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Commissioner Ford, seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff, to adjourn
the meeting at 7:44 PM, to a joint meeting to be held on Monday, July 22, 1991 at
7:00 PM at the Temecula Valley High School, 31555 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula,
CA 92390. The motion was unanimously carried.
John Hoagland, Chairman
ATTEST:
Gary Thornhill, Secretary
2/PCMins/071591 6
ITEM #3
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Planning Commissioners
Gary Thornhill, Planning Director
August 5, 1991
Plot Plan No. 226, Pauba and Margarita Commercial Center,
Amendment No. 1
On July 1, 1991, the City Planning Commission continued the public hearing for Plot
Plan No. 226 to their regularly scheduled hearing of August 5, 1991. In their
deliberation of the project prior to the motion for continuance, the Commission
expressed concern regarding four primary issues as listed below. Following each
issue identified by the Commission is a summary statement of the applicant's response
to that issue.
ISSUE 1:
Provide additional information clarifying proposed gradients/slope work
and adjacent off-site drainage improvements affecting the project site's
southerly slope. Specifically, indicate how the proposed 1:1 slope will
be constructed and landscaped. Demonstrate slope stability as well as
slope aesthetics. Also provide details on how this proposed slope will
interface with the planned 51~" R.C.P. drainage outlet to be sited
immediately adjacent and to the south.
RESPONSE 1:
a) The applicant, project architect and project engineer met
with City Staff on Wednesday, July 10, 1991, to discuss details
of proposed gradients and slope stabilization technologies. As
described by the applicant, the overall intent of the slope
construction methodology proposed is to allow development of the
property in an economically feasible manner, while eliminating
the need for large scale retaining wall structures along the
project slte's southerly property line. In the course of ensuing
discussions, the applicant has demonstrated the structural
feasibility of the slope proposed to the satisfaction of the Public
Works Department, and has clarified how the slope is to be
landscaped subsequent to construction. The slope stabilization
methodology proposed is as described graphically and narratively
in Exhibit M-1. Landscaping of this slope is to be achieved
utilizing a hydroseed technique employing drought tolerant
ground cover mix as described below:
The following information is provided to describe in greater
detail the intended landscape treatment of the 1: 1 slope behind
Building "C" of Plot Plan No. 226.
A:PP226.MEM
r:~ty Planning Commissioners
,~ugust 5, 1991
Page 2
The intended plant material used on the slope will be low growing
with characteristics of spreading and self-propagation. The
ultimate selection of plant material will depend upon lowest need
for irrigation and actual need for maintenance involving human
presence on the slope itself. The objectives of plant selection for
the 1:1 slope are: a) Erosion protection/control; b) drought
tolerance/low irrigation requirements; c) low
upkeep/maintenance requirements; d) aesthetic enhancement,
Three types of plants meeting these objectives are recommended:
Creeping Saltbush ( Atriplex semibaccata ) is a natural/zed
Iow-growlng, spreading perennial groundcover with small,
simple gray-green leaves which will form a dense mat.
Atriplex semibaccata will reach about six to eight inches in
height and spread two to five feet.
Atriplex semibaccata has proven to be an easy to establish
drought-tolerant and fire-resistant groundcover for both
coastal and inland environments. It adapts to most soil
types and has a deep root system that provides excellent
soil stabilization. It is easily established with minimal
irri9atlon or rainfall.
Creeping Saltbush is tolerant of a wide range of soil
conditions including alkalinity and salt. Atriplex
semibaccata grows without supplemental irrigation.
This plant is suggested for its prolific root structure.
Zorro Annual Fescue (Vulpia myuros). Zorro is a short,
aggressive, early-maturing, cool season, annual grass
with many fibrous roots. It has excellent seeding vigor,
and emerges in full very soon after the first rain. It
matures to seed earlier than most annual grasses, assuring
perpetuation. It can tolerate many soil problems includln9
acidity, serpentine, and low fertility.
Due to its exceptional seeding vigor and early growth,
Zorro is an excellent choice for obtaining fast cover with
minimal seedbed preparation and survives with as little as
ten inches of annual rainfall.
A:PP226.MEM
City Planning Commissioners
August 5, 1991
Page 3
Zorro has the best root-to-shoot growth ratios of all the
popular revegetation species. This means that a great
percentage of its total dry weight occurs in the form of
fibrous roots. These roots provide the optimum in soil
retention. At the same time, the wispy top growth of
Zorro allows sunlight to penetrate the soil - encouragin9
the re-establishment of surrounding native species.
This plant is suggested for its cover capability and
variety.
Plantain (Plantago isularis). Plantain is a spreading
annual plant with slender leaves emanating near the
9round level with flowers upon slender stems. This plant
will 9row six to ten inches and spread six to twelve
inches.
This native plant grown generally along the Southern
California coast and inland to desert slopes including
Death Valley, and is recommended for its quick growth and
low water requirements.
Plantain disappears after flowering but is recommended for
quick erosion control.
All of these plants may be seeded on the proposed 1:1 slope by
hydroseedln9 application. They are deep rooting, require less
water, and may be applied to the entire slope at one time.
Additional flowering plant seed may be added to the slope once
the suggested erosion control planting mix has become
established.
As regards to drainage improvements along the project site~s
southerly boundary, the proposed drainage outlet structurel s)
will be incorporated within the design of the planned slope
discussed above. Preliminary drainage improvement plans have
been reviewed by, and are conceptually acceptable to, the City
Public Works Department.
A: PP226. MEM
City Planning Commissioners
August 5, 1991
Page 4
ISSUE 2:
Rear facing architectural facades of proposed Buildings "B" and "C"
should incorporate design aspects exhibited on the project's street
frontage exposures, e.g., provide additional arch relief(s) and
continue tower element treatments to include southerly and westerly
tower faces.
RESPONSE2:
a) Additional facade relief features, i.e., shaded archways,
are incorporated in the rear elevations of proposed Buildings "B"
and "C". Fully articulated roof lines of tower elements for all
structures is also proposed. Reference Exhibit M-2.
ISSUE 3:
Realizing the significance of the project site's major street intersection
location, provide additional site enhancement features, e.g., further
berming of landscaped street frontages, widen frontage landscaping
and provide defined pedestrian walkway features accessing the site.
RESPONSE3:
a) The applicant proposes a meandering walkway along the
project site's Margarlta Road frontage, providing defined
pedestrian access, additional visual interest and opportunities
for landscape enhancement and variation as indicated in Exhibit
M-3. Widening of this landscaped area is also realized by 9 minor
westerly shift in proposed structural sitings. Areas of stamped
concrete paving provide further visual and textural
enhancement. Reference also Exhibit M-3.
ISSUE 4:
Additional, significant landscaping appears appropriate as buffering
and project site definition elementl s ) along the proposal's southerly and
westerly property lines.
RESPONSE4
a) Plant sizings have been increased along the project slte's
westerly property line. Hydroseeding of the southerly facing
slope is proposed as referenced in Item No. 1, above. See also
Exhibit M-3.
In summary, Staff finds the revisions proposed an acceptable response to the
Commlssion's concerns enumerated above, and recommends the City Planning
Commission approve the amendments proposed. Staff further recommends that the
City Planning Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Plot Plan No. 226, Amendment No.
1; and
ADOPT Resolution 91- approving Plot Plan No. 226, Amendment No.
1, based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
A: PP226. MEM
City Planning Commissioners
August 5, 1991
Page 5
Minutes of the July 1, 1991 Planning Commission hearin9 for this item as well as the
original Staff Report are included for clarification and reference.
CR:ks
A:PP226.MEM
City Planning Commissioners
August 5, 1991
Page 6
PLOT PLAN NO. 226:
EXHIBIT M-1
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED GRADING/SLOPE STABILIZATION
A significant portion of the subject site is depressed below the level of Margarlta and
Pauba Roads. In preparing plans to maximize potential building pad area{ s) at the
southerly portion of the site, it was noted that a standard 2:1 slope could be
employed, utilizing accepted engineering and grading slope stabilization technology,
and construction methods. However, if buildings were to be sited as planned, and
standard slope construction methods were utilized, a large retaining wall in excess
of 18 feet in height would necessarily result at the toe of the proposed slope. This
retaining wall would be a significant structure both visually and in its importance as
the only protection for the slope behind Building "C". An alternate solution was
sought to reduce the size of the wall and insure greater slope stability. A 1: 1 slope
was examined. {See the plate: "Comparison of 1:1 and 2:1 Slopes".
The proposed 1: 1 slope will significantly reduce the height of the required retaining
wall referenced previously. However, a slope steeper than 2:1 requires some
structural support to protect it from sliding failure. {See plate: "1:1 Slope
Unreinforced" ), the unreinforced 1:1 slope will place active earth pressure on the
back of a retaining wall and have a fairly small failure surface close to the slope
which may be unstable. The objective of current civil engineering planning is to
push the potential failure surface further into the soil behind the slope where it is
less likely to slide. This is represented by the dashed llne.
One method of reinforcing a 1: 1 slope is to employ a geogrid material within the soil
mass. This grid does for common soil what placing sand in bags does. The sand will
not stand alone, but when placed in bags it can be stacked. The geogrid will
provide the following benefits:
Push the potential failure surface back where it possesses a higher
factor of safety against sliding.
Remove active earth pressure from the wall at the base. In fact the wall
will act as nothing more than a facing; providing in this case, armor
against flowing water adjacent to the site.
Lessen the required wall height at the toe of slope and thus reduce its
visual impact.
Provide a slope which is not dependent upon the wall at its base,
thereby reducing the structural importance of a large wall which may
experience intermittent minor failures over the life of the project. ~ See
the last plate: "1:1 Slope Reinforced~. )
CR/C;T:ks
A: PP226. MEM
_J
//
t
r ~
pLANNING
6 · PLOT
COMMIS8ION 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 PELKA, 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.
PCMINT/01/91 -4- July 5, 1991
PLANNING
COMMISSION MINUTE8
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
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
6. PLOT
6.1
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 PELKA, 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 THORHILL 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.
PCMINT/01/91 -4- July 5, 1991
PLYING
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
7.1
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
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 1, 1991
Case No.: Plot Plan No, 226 (PP 226)
Prepared By: Charles Ray
Recommendation:
The Planning Department Staff
recommends that the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration
for Plot Plan No. 226; and
ADOPT Resolution 91-
approving Plot Plan No. 226;
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:
Mr. Sam McCann
Beck-Moffet Associates
Request to construct a commercial retail complex of
3 single-story structures totaling 27,150+/- square
feet on a 2.5+/- acre site.
Southeasterly corner of Pauba and Margarita Roads.
C-P-S
(Scenic Highway Commercial)
North: R - R
South: R- R
East: SP
West: C-P-S
( Rural Residential )
( Rural Residential )
( Specific Plan - Margarita
Village - Residential )
(Scenic Highway
Commercial )
C-P-S
(no change proposed in conjunction
with this project)
Vacant/scrubbed (evidence of previous land fill
activities )
A: PP226 1
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
BACKGROUND:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant, Natural Vegetation
Vacant, Natural Flood/Drainage Channel
Specific Plan Residential Uses/Under
Construction
Vacant/Disturbed Vegetation
Site Area:
Building Area:
3.45 acres (gross)(150,282 sq.ft. )
2.53 acres (net)(110,206.8 sq.ft. )
Building "A" 3,110+/- sq.ft.
Building "B" 12,410+/- sq.ft.
Building "C" 11,630+/- sq.ft.
Total 27,150+/- sq.ft.
Building Coverage/
Net Site Area:
Parking Provided:
24.6%
Automobile Spaces: 135
Loading Zones: 3
Bicycle Racks: 9
Plot Plan No. 226 was submitted to the City of
Temecula Planning Department on March 6, 1991.
The proposal was considered by the City
Development Review Committee ( DR C ) on a
preliminary basis on April 11, 1991. Primary
design/informational issues identified by the City
DRC at that time were as follows:
Additional landscaping adjacent to, and
architectural articulation of, southerly and
easterly facing building elevation was
requested in order to mitigate the visual
impacts of the initial design of these
structures.
Proposed landscaping and parking lot
shading, as originally submitted, was
insufficient in area coverage as specified by
City ordinance. Compliance with adopted
planting standards and schedules was
requested.
Minor architectural features such as utility
fixture/trash enclosure should incorporate
building materials similar to those proposed
for the project's primary structures.
Articulated landscape berming (minimum of 3
feet in height) was requested as a means of
street scene enhancement along the project's
Pauba and Margarita Road frontages.
A:PP226 2
Further identification and enhancement of
project entrances was suggested. Possible
design elements accomplishin9 this might
include textured pavers in, and placement of.
large boulders or landscape planters adjacent
to the project site entrances.
The City Engineer requested additional
information and detail regarding proposed
grading and drainage improvements.
Further, proposed building "C" as originally
designed did not provide adequate rear areas
for pedestrian ingress/egress to this
structure's rear doorways initially proposed.
This latter concern was reiterated by the
DRC's Riverside County Fire Department
representative.
A site specific traffic study was deemed
necessary in order to identify project traffic
impacts and appropriate mitigation.
Minor driveway and parking reconfiguration/
redesign was requested. The initially
proposed drive width improvements accessing
Pauba Road were considered inadequate and
were specified by the City Transportation
Engineer to be 30 feet minimum width with full
improvements.
Additionally, it was suggested that the
applicant reconsider proposed locations of
loading zones and handicap accessible
parking spaces, minimizing potential internal
site traffic circulation conflicts.
Riverside County Fire Department concerns
generally focused on proper site circulation
and access requirements for emergency
vehicles. Specifically, the drive accessing
Pauba Road was specified to be fully
improved as referenced in #8 above.
Further, the proposed openings at the rear
of Building "C" would require not only wider
pedestrian access, but full-width
improvements allowing for ingress/egress by
emergency vehicles as well. Alternatively, it
was suggested proposed rear door openings
be removed.
A:PP226 3
ANALYSIS:
Applicant responses, including proposed design
solutions to the above referenced issues are
contained in the following project analysis.
Land Use and Architectural Compatibility
The proposed use is identified as one of those
allowed under the subject site's current zoning
designation of Scenic Highway - Commercial ( C-P-S )
( Reference Exhibit B ). Further, as the
surroundin9 properties are currently vacant, the
City has the opportunity to ensure compatibility of
this project's architectural design with future
development through architectural review of
additional projects which may eventually be
constructed in the vicinity of Plot Plan No. 226.
Materials and design elements proposed by the
applicant are considered compatible with the design
guidelines currently observed by the City. As
such, the project is considered compatible with
current development standards and ordinances
affecting the proposal site and neighboring
properties.
Proposed landscaping as currently indicated
provides additional aesthetic enhancement to the
site and adjacent street. Planting and irrigation
schemes are in keeping with City policies regardin9
water conservation and use of drought-tolerant
vegetative species. Installation of proposed
landscaping will be secured by means of bonding
adequate to cover costs of landscape installation
plus one (1) year maintenance. Actual installation
time(s) of proposed landscaping is contingent upon
weather conditions and irrigation water availability.
Site Access
The site is currently accessible by Margarita and
Pauba Roads, both of which will be improved to
their designed half-width standards adjacent to this
proposal as a condition of project approval
( reference PP 226, Conditions of Approval
Attachment No. 3 }.
Project related traffic impacts as documented by the
traffic study submitted by the applicant, are
mitigated by signalization and public facilities fees,
also specified in the attached Conditions of
Approval. ( Reference also Attachment No. 5 - "Fee
Checklist". )
A:PP226 LI
Access into the site proper is provided by 2, two-
way drives, one each accessing adjacent road
frontages. As revised, the Pauba Road drive
access will be improved to its full design width of 30
feet. The location of this drive, which is bisected
by the project site's westerly property line, also
provides for shared access to anticipated commercial
development immediately to the west, thereby
reducing exit/entrance trips between sites utilizing
Pauba Road as their primary access.
Parkinq and On-Site Circulation
Current auto and bicycle parking ratios planned for
this proposal are considered adequate to support
parking demands based on the variety of allowable
occupancies. Significant change in proposed
occupancies will mandate site/user-specific park ing
demand analyses with corresponding modifications
to vehicle parking provisions if deemed necessary.
The applicant has also incorporated design
allowances facilitating future shared access between
the property in question and the westerly adjacent
parcel as discussed previously. Shared access is
graphically portrayed in Exhibit D. Proposed
easement documentation/agreements and drive
construction plans for this site access point have
been reviewed by the City Engineering Department
and are considered acceptable.
Alternative trash enclosure and loading zone
locations which might facilitate traffic circulation
within the project site were also investigated by the
applicant. The loading zone and enclosure locations
currently indicated by Exhibit D are considered
appropriate by the proposaPs prospective tenants
as well as the affected trash pick-up service and the
City Engineering Department.
Access to the rear of proposed Building "C". as
revised, allows for adequate emergency vehicle
response capabilities as required by the Riverside
County Fire Department. As a corollary,
pedestrian access at the rear of this building has
also been redesigned to eliminate potential conflicts
with rear door openings. Guard railings indicated
along the walkway at the rear of the structure
reduce the possibility of accidental falls down the
abutting slope to the north. Railings as designed
are in accordance with applicable City and Uniform
Building Code Standards.
A:PP226 5
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
Gradinq and Drainaqe
As redesigned and specified, proposed on-site
drainage improvements are considered adequate to
convey 100 year storm discharge volumes. Design
modifications initiated by the applicant also included
relocation and redesign of proposed off-site
drainage structures adjacent to the northerly
property boundary of the subject site.
Changes in the project's original grading plans, as
initiated by the applicant, included a significant
gradient ratio increase (2:1 originally proposed vs.
1:1 currently indicated) in the site's northerly
facing slope. The proposed change is realized
primarily through incorporation of recently
available slope stabilization technology commonly
known as "Mirafi". As a result of the increased
slope stabilization achieved through use of this
material, the retaining wall indicated at the toe of
the slope referenced has been reduced in scale from
a maximum height originally planned at
approximately 16'+/- to that currently indicated of
approximately 3'-6'. Scale reduction in the
proposed retaining wall lessens overall project
visual impacts, often associated with construction of
massive retaining walls. Specifications of materials
and construction methodologies proposed have been
reviewed by the City Engineering Department and
are considered appropriate for this project's design
requirements. Easements allowing for construction
and maintenance of all proposed off-site grading
and drainage improvements, acceptable in content
and format to the City Engineer, will be secured by
the applicant prior to issuance of grading/building
permits.
The project, as proposed, conforms with existing
zoning ordinances affecting the subject property.
and is compatible with Southwest Area Plan (SWAP)
land use recommendations for the site (Reference
Exhibit C) . As discussed previously, the proposal
is also compatible with existing and anticipated
development in its immediate vicinity. As such, it
is likely Plot Plan No. 226 will be consistent with the
City~s General Plan recommendations for the
property in question, upon the Plan's final
adoption.
A:PP226 6
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS:
Pursuant to applicable portions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEOA}, an Initial
Environmental Assessment was prepared for Plot
Plan No. 226. Based on findings contained in that
assessment, it was determined the project in
question will not have a significant impact on the
built or natural environment; a Negative Declaration
of potential environmental impacts is recommended
for adoption.
There is a reasonable probability that Plot
Plan No. 226 will be consistent with the City's
future General Plan, which will be completed
in a reasonable time and in accordance with
State law. The project, as proposed,
conforms with existing applicable city zoning
and development ordinances. Further, the
proposal is characteristic of similar
development approved by the City to date.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to, or interference with
the City~s future General Plan, if the
proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with
the plan. The project is of insignificant scale
in context of the broad goals and directives
anticipated in the City's General Plan.
The proposed use or action complies with
State planning and zoning laws. Reference
local Ordinances No. 3~,8, ~60; and California
Governmental Code Sections 65000-66009
(Planning and Zoning Law).
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation
patterns, access, and intensity of use.
Adequate site circulation, parking, and
landscaping are provided, as well as
sufficient area to appropriately construct the
proposed structures, Reference Exhibits D
and E.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare. Reference the proposal's Initial
Environmental Assessment, (Attachment No.
3), and project Conditions of Approval
( Attachment No. 2 ).
A:PP226 7
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area. The project
conforms with applicable land use and
development regulations and reflects design
elements currently existing within the City.
The project has acceptable access to a
dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic. The project
draws access from both Marcjarita and Pauba
Roads, dedicated City rights-of-way, which
will be improved to realize their respective
ultimate design conficjurations as a project
Condition of Approval. Project access, as
designed, conforms with applicable City
Engineering standards and ordinances.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the initial study
performed for this project. Reference the
attached Initial Environmental Study and
Conditions of Approval for Plot Plan No. 226.
The design of the project together with the
type of supporting improvements are such
that they are not in conflict with easements
for access through, or use of the property
within the proposed project. Reference the
proposed site design in the context of the
approved, underlying parcel map
configuration, Exhibits D and H respectively.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with this application and herein
incorporated by reference. Supportincj
documentation is attached.
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for
Plot Plan No. 226, and
ADOPT Resolution 91- approvincj
Plot Plan No. 226; based on the
analysis and findings contained in
the Staff Report and subject to
the attached Conditions of Approval.
A:PP226 8
CR:ks
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Resolution
Conditions of Approval
Environmental Assessment
Exhibits
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. SWAP Recommended Land Use
D. Site Plan
E. Landscape Plan
F. Elevations
G. Floor Plans
H. Parcel Map No. 8q55
I. 1. Color Exterior
2. Materials Samples
Fee Check List
A: PP226 9
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 226 TO
CONSTRUCT A COMMERCIAL RETAIL COMPLEX OF 3
STRUCTURES TOTALING 27,150+/- SQUARE FEET ON A
PARCEL CONTAINING 2.53 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED
AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF MARGAR ITA AND
PAUBA ROADS AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.
945-110-003.
WHEREAS, Mr. Sam McCann filed Plot Plan No. 226 in accordance with
the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
pertaining to said Plot Plan on August 5, 1991, at which time interested persons had
opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report
regarding the Plot Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty {30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
A:PP226 10
(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 Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and
meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government
Code, to wit:
(1) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The Planning Commission finds, in approving of
projects and taking other actions, including the issuance
of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the
following:
a)
There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan
No. 226 proposed will be consistent with the
general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
A:PP226 11
D. (1) Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan may be
approved unless the following findings can be made:
a)
The proposed use must conform to all the
General Plan requirements and with all
applicable requirements of state law and City
ordinances.
b)
The overall development of the land is
designed for the protection of the public
health, safety and general welfare; conforms
to the logical development of the land and is
compatible with the present and future logical
development of the surrounding property.
(2) The Planning Commission, in approving of the
proposed Plot Plan, makes the following findings, to wit:
a)
There is a reasonable probability that Plot
Plan No. 226 will be consistent with the City's
future General Plan, which will be completed
in a reasonable time and in accordance with
State law. The project, as proposed.
conforms with existing applicable city zoning
and development ordinances. Further, the
proposal is characteristic of similar
development approved by the City to date.
b)
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to, or interference with
the City~s future General Plan, if the
proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with
the plan, The project is of insignificant scale
in context of the broad goals and directives
anticipated in the City~s General Plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complies with
State planning and zoning laws. Reference
local Ordinances No. 3q8, L~60; and California
Governmental Code Sections 65000-66009
(Planning and Zoning Law).
d)
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation
patterns, access, and intensity of use.
Adequate site circulation, parking, and
landscaping are provided, as well as
sufficient area to appropriately construct the
proposed building, Reference Exhibits D and
E.
A:PP226 12
e)
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare. Reference the proposal's Initial
Environmental Assessment, (Attachment No.
3), and project Conditions of Approval
( Attachment No. 2 ).
f)
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area. The project
conforms with applicable land use and
development regulations and reflects design
aspects currently existing within the City.
The project has acceptable access to a
dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic. The project
draws access from both Margarita and Pauba
Roads, dedicated City rights-of-way, which
will be improved as necessary to realize their
respective ultimate design configurations.
Project access, as designed, conforms with
applicable City Engineering standards and
ordinances.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the initial study
performed for this project. Reference the
attached Initial Environmental Study and
Conditions of Approval for Plot Plan No. 226.
The design of the project together with the
type of supporting improvements are such
that they are not in conflict with easements
for access through, or use of the property
within the proposed project. Reference the
proposed site design in the context of the
approved, underlying parcel map
configuration.
j)
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with this application and herein
incorporated by reference. Supporting
documentation is attached.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Plot Plan
proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and
is compatible with the present and future development of the
surrounding property.
A:PP226 13
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. 226 to construct a commercial retail complex of three {3) structures totaling
27,150+/- square feet generally located at the southwesterly corner of Margarita and
Pauba Roads and known as Assessor~s Parcel No. 945-110-003 subject to the following
conditions:
A. Attachment No. 2, attached hereto.
SECTION 4.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of August, 1991.
JOHN HOAGLAND
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 5th day of August, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
A:PP226 14
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan No: 226
Project Description: Commercial retail
complex of 3 structures totallin.q 27,150+/-
square feet on a 2.53 acre site.
Assessor's Parcel No.: 945-110-003
Planninq Department
The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for construction of a commercial
retail complex of three (3) structures, totaling 27,150+/- square feet on a 2.53
acre site.
The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Temecula. its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or
proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees
to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its
advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Plot Plan
No. 226. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any such
claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate
fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any
such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the
permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold
harmless the City of Temecula.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of approval date; otherwise,
it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial
construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period
which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of
substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. This approval shall
expire on
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as
shown on Plot Plan No. 226 marked Exhibit D, or as amended by these
conditions.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-d-way.
The applicant shall comply with the Engineering Department's Conditions of
Approval which are included herein.
A:PP226 15
10.
11.
12,
13.
14.
The applicant shall comply with the street improvement recommendations
outlined in the Transportation Engineering Division's Conditions of Approval,
which are included herein.
Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the
provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's Conditions
of Approval which are included herein.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section
of Ordinance No. 5~,6 and the County Fire Warden~s Conditions of Approval
contained herein.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the City
Building and Safety Department's Conditions of Approval contained hereln.
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. 3~,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, or
within the time frame specified by the City Planning Director and City
Building Official as referenced in Condition No. 19, below. 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 137 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section
18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 3~,8. 137 parking spaces shall be
provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit D. The parking area shall be
surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on 4
inches of Class II base.
A minimum of four (~,) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown
on Exhibit D. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be
identified by a permanently affixed reflectori zed sign constructed of porcelain
on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of
Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and
shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height
if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade,
or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished
grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous
place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17
inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
A:PP226 16
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing
placards or license plates issued for physically
handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's
expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at
or by telephone "
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall
have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in
blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance
and/or permits from the following agencies:
Planning Department
Engineering Department
Environmental Health
Rancho Water District
School District
Riverside County Flood Control
Fire Department
Eastern Municipal Water District
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the following additional plans shall
be submitted for Planning Department approval:
Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans.
A Plot Plan application for a Sign Program shall be submitted and approved by
the Planning Director prior to occupancy.
Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on
Exhibits F.1, F.2, and F.3.
Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial
conformance with that shown on Exhibit H. 1 (Color Elevations) and Exhibit
H.2 (Materials Board).
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening
material shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
All trash enclosures shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy
permits. As a minimum, each enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall
be constructed with materials similar in appearance to that utilized for
structure exteriors and a steel gate which screens the bins from external
view.
Bermed landscape screening shall be provided along the project's Margarita
and Pauba Road frontages. Betruing shall be a minimum of three {3) feet in
height; street frontage landscaping shall substantially conform with the
concept illustrated in Exhibit E.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along
streets and within the parking areas.
A:PP226 17
All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans
submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval
and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No.
655.
25. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with
Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance which is
based on the gross acreage of the parcels proposed for development. Should
Ordinance No. 66:3 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.
26. Nine (9} Class II bicycle racks s'hall be provided in convenient locations as
approved by the Planning Director to facilitate bicycle access to the project
area.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
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.
Contingent upon availability of irrigation water, 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. Alternatively, installation of landscaping may be by means of bonding
as referenced in Condition No. 27 above, and installed at such times as
irrigation water is in adequate supply as determined by RCWD and the City
Planning Director.
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.
The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire all 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 for building permit, enter into an
agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section
66/462 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 project. Security for 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.
A:PP226 18
32.
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 compl lance with A B
3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4( d ) ( 2 ) plus the Twenty-
Five Dollar ($25.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the
Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152
and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight (48) hour
period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department
the check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall
be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section
711.4(c).
City of Temecula Enqineerinq Department
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADINC PERMITS:
33.
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.
34.
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.
35.
The developer shall submit two (2) copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
A:PP226 19
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41,
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and
submitted at the time of application for grading plan check.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to
commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of-
way.
No grading shall take place prior to the improvement plans being substantially
complete, appropriate clearance letters and approval by the City Engineer.
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.
Street improvement plans including parkway trees and street lights prepared
by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer shall be
required for all public streets prior to issuance of an Encroachment Permit.
Final plans and profiles shall show the location of existing utility facilities
within the right-of-way.
No fill slopes shall be steeper than 2: 1 unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer. An earthen berm shall be provided along the top of all slopes as
directed by the City Engineer or his representative.
Prior to any work being performed on the private streets or drives, fees shall
be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's
Office.
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: pavement, curb
and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights,
signing, striping, and other traffic control devices as appropriate.
b. Storm drain facilities.
A:PP226
Landscaping ( street and parks ).
Sewer and domestic water systems.
Undergrounding of existing and proposed utility distribution lines.
20
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The
charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits.
If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to
this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer.
All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.
A drainage easement shall be provided along the eastern property line for
construction and maintenance of the drainage structure outlet. A copy of the
recorded drainage easement shall be submitted to the City for review.
50.
Adequate protection shall be provided at the storm drain outlet structure to
prevent any damage to existing or proposed slopes or pertinent structures.
51.
Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface
drainage entering the property from adjacent areas.
52.
All concentrated drainage directed toward the public street shall be diverted
through the undersidewalk drains.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT:
53.
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.
54.
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.
55.
The developer shall obtain an easement for ingress and egress over the
adjacent property. Easement and access geometric shall be as approved by
the City Engineer.
56.
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.
57.
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
A:PP226 21
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:
58. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent.
59.
Improvement plans per City Standards for the private streets or drives shall
be required for review and approval by the City Engineer and included with
the precise grading plan.
60.
All driveways shall conform to the applicable County of Riverside standards
and shall be shown on the street improvement plans in accordance with County
Standard 400 and 401 (curb sidewalk).
61.
Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. ~,61 and as approved by the
City Engineer.
62.
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along all public street frontages in
accordance with Riverside County Standard Nos. 400 and 401.
63.
Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a
minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment
as approved by the City Engineer.
This minimum centerline radii shall be 300 feet or as approved by the City
Engineer.
65.
Construct full street improvements including but not limited to curb and
gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and
street lights on all interior public streets.
66.
Margarita Road shall be improved with 43 feet of asphalt concrete pavement
within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 100
( 110'/86' ).
67.
Pauba Road shall be improved with 32 feet of asphalt concrete pavement within
the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 103,
Section A (88~/6¥).
68.
In the event road or off-site right-of-way are required to comply with these
conditions, such easements shall be obtained by the developer; or, in the
event the City is required to condemn the easement or right-of-way, as
provided in the Subdivision Map Act, the developer shall enter into an
agreement with the City for the acquisition of such easement at the
A:PP226 22
developer~s cost pursuant to Government Code Section 66z~62.5, which shall
be at no cost to the City.
69.
Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard
No. 805.
City of Temecula Transportation Enqineerinq
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS:
70.
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer
and approved by the City Engineer for Margarita Road and Pauba Road and
shall be included in the street improvement plans.
Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD)
With respect to the Conditions of Approval regarding Plot Plan No. 226, the Fire
Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in
accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection
standards:
71.
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.
72.
Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2000 GPM
for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, which must be
available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
73.
A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants, on a looped system
(6"x4"2 1/2 x 2 1/2 ), will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet
from any portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular
travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent
hydrant(s) in the system.
74.
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.
75.
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:
"1 certify that the design of the water system is in
accordance with the requirements prescribed by the
Riverside County Fire Department."
A:PP226 23
76.
Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings requiring a fire flow
of 1500 CPM 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.
77.
Install a supervised waterflow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans must be
submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation, as per
UBC.
78.
A statement that the building will be automatically fire sprinklered must
appear on the title page of the building plans.
79. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes.
80.
Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC. Contact
a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment.
81.
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.
82.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall
deposit with the City of Temecula, a check or money order equaling the sum
of 25 cents per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts. This
amount must be submitted separately from the plan check review fee.
83.
Blue-dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets and driveways to
indicate location of fire hydrants. They shall be mounted in the middle of the
street directly in line with fire hydrants.
84.
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 RCFD Planning
and Engineering Staff.
Riverside County Department of Health
The Environmental Health Services has reviewed Plot Plan No. 226 and has no
objections. Sanitary sewer and water services should be available in this area.
Prior to any building plan submittals, the following items will be required:
85. "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies.
86.
Three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted,
including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule, and a plumbing schedule in
order to ensure compliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities
Law. For specific reference, please contact Food Facility Plan examiners at
(714) 358-5172).
A:PP226 24
87.
A clearance letter from the HaZardous Materials Management Branch Services
(Jon Mohoroski, 358-5055), will be required indicating that the project has
been cleared for:
a. Underground storage tanks.
b. Hazardous Waste Generator Services.
c, Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with AB 2185).
d. Waste reduction Management.
City of Temecula Department of Buildinq and Safety
88.
Request for street addressing must be made prior to submittal of Building Plan
Review.
89.
Comply with applicable provisions of the 1988 editions of the Uniform Building,
Plumbing and Mechanical codes, 1990 National Electrical Code, California State
Administrative Code, Title 20· Handicapped and Energy Regulations and the
Temecula City Code.
90.
Lighting on site and located on structures shall comply with Mount Palomar
Lighting Ordinance No. 655.
A:PP226 25
II
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
Backqround
1. Name of Proponent:
Mr. Sam McCann
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
43121 Margarita Road
Temecula, CA 92390
(71~,) 676-7u,8q
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
March 26, 1991
Agency Requiring
Assessment:
CITY OF TEMECULA
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Plot Plan No. 226 (PP 226)
6. Location of Proposal:
Southeasterly corner of Pauba and
Marqarita Roads
Environmental Impacts
( Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets. )
Yes Maybe No
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
X
Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil?
X
Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features?
X
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
X
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on
or off site?
X
A:PP226 26
Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
Exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards such as earth
quakes, landslides, mudslides,
ground failure, or similar hazards?
Air. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air
quality?
The creation of objectionable
odors?
Alteration of air movement,
moisture, or temperature, or any
change in climate, whether locally
or regionally?
Water. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial changes in currents, or
the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or
fresh waters?
Substantial changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
Discharge into surface waters, or
in any alteration of surface water
quality, including, but not limited
to, temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity?
Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow or ground waters?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A:PP226 27
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct addi-
tions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flood-
ing or tidal waves?
Plant Life, Will the proposal result in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or number of any native species of
plants (including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare, or endangered species
of plants? __
Introduction of new species of
plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
Substantial reduction in acreage
of any agricultural crop?
Animal Life. Will the proposal result
in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
(birds, land animals including rep-
tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms or insects)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals?
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A:PP226 28
10.
11.
12.
13.
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
Yes Maybe No
a. Increases in existing noise levels? __ X
Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
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, pesticldes,
chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
Possible interference with an emerg-
ency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan?
Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing or create a demand for
additional housing?
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A:PP226 29
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 goods7 __ __ 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 following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? __ __ X
A:PP226 30
17.
18.
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
A:PP226 31
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 N__o
X
X
X
X
A:PP226 32
III
Earth
1.a.
1.b.
1oC.
1.d.
1.f.
1.g.
Air
2.a,b,c.
Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
No, Construction is not proposed at depths sufficient to adversely
affect geologic substructures of the site. Unstable earth conditions
which might result from proposed cut/fill activities are mitigated by the
crib retaining wall extending along the sirens easterly property line.
Fill activities are subject to City material and compaction specifications.
Yes. Compaction and overcovering of soil is necessary to effect the
construction proposed. The limited scale of this proposal precludes any
significant impacts on regional topography or soil characteristics.
Maybe. Reference item 1 .b. Grading plans submitted propose a 20-25
gradient drop between the subject site and the property immediately
adjacent to the east. Gradient differentials are effected by a 2:1 slope
downward from the subject property, supported by a crib retaining wall
approximately 10 feet high. Partial mitigation of the visual impacts of
this slope/wall are realized through slope landscaping. Visual impacts
affecting properties immediately adjacent are further mitigated by
architectural articulation of the proposal's opposing building facades.
No. No unique geologic or topographic features are evident on the
subject site.
No. Insignificant change in regional surface erosion can be expected
if this project is eventually realized, i.e., additional on-site structures
and paving will undoubtedly reduce erosion at the project site.
Resultant environmental impacts of additional off-site drainage are
nominal as mitigated by properly designed and constructed drainage
conveyances. (Reference City of Temecula Engineering Department
Conditions of Approval. |
No. No construction is proposed that would logically affect beach
sands; nor should the project produce deposition/erosion which may
modify stream channels or lake beds.
No. The subject site is not affected by known earthquake, landslide,
mudslide or ground failure hazards. Further, all proposed
fill/compaction and substructures shall conform to applicable City and
Uniform Building Code standards.
No. Nominal addition of localized air pollutants may result from
increased auto traffic accessing the project site. Regional effects are
considered nominal. Nominal changes may result in the immediate
vicinity of the project site. Based on the scale of this proposal,
environmental effects are anticipated to be largely undetectable.
A: PP226 33
Water
3,a.
3.b.
3.f,g.
3.h.
3.i.
Plant Life
4.a-d.
Animal Life
5.a-c.
No. The proposed structure is not located within defined marine or
fresh water flows. No effect on these environmental assets is
anticipated.
No. Currently permeable ground will be rendered impervious as a
result of this proposal. Consequently, surface runoff and absorption
rates on the project site itself may change. Site drainage shall conform
with plans approved by the City of Temecula. Necessary improvements
to effect proper site drainage shall be as indicated in the project
conditions of approval. No significant impacts are anticipated.
No. Plans proposed at this time indicate no adverse on or off site
flooding impacts. Proposed drainage plans and all related necessary
improvements shall be as specified by the City Engineering Department.
No. Increased runoff from the project site may nominally increase
surface levels and turbidity of off-site bodies of water. However, due
to the limited project scale proposed, this possibility is unlikely.
No. Reduced permeation at the project site may eventually affect
underlying groundwater. Possible environmental alteration is unlikely,
as are negative impacts.
No. Water consumption rates typical of commercial projects is
proposed. All water consumption activities are subject to monitoring
and allowances specified by the applicable purveyor. Proposed
landscaping/irrigation shall respect current drought conditions
affectin9 the City as specified in the project Conditions of Approval.
No. Reference Item No. 3.c.
No. No quantities of native plants to speak of, are currently present
on, or in the vicinity of the subject site, including species identified as
"rare or endangered". Further, new species which may be introduced
as a result of required site landscaping cannot be considered invasive
because of the referenced lack of on-site native varieties. Similarly,
no impacts are anticipated on agricultural assets.
No. Minor losses of small common urban species, e.g., small lizards,
insects, rodents, and their habitats may result from this project.
Numerically and qualitatively, these losses should be environmentally
insignificant. Further, if not previously paid, the applicant is
required to submit Stephen's Kangaroo Rat habitat procuremerit fees in
an amount specified by City ordinance. Such monies are to be used for
purchase of suitable habitat for the Kangaroo Rat as it is gradually
displaced due to generalized development of the Temecula Valley. This
A: PP226 34
proposal contributes incrementally to regional displacement of the
Kangaroo Rat.
Noise
6.a. Maybe.
6,b. No.
Minor increases in ambient noise levels may occur
subsequent to project implementation and commercial
occupancy of the project site. Long term noise impacts will
be insignificant. Short term construction noise levels
generated may result in localized disturbance, self-
mitigated largely by normally conducting such activities
during daylight hours, Monday through Friday.
Liqht and Glare
No. While the project could potentially impact night skies, the proposal
is required to comply with applicable City/Palomar Observatory lighting
policies and ordinance(s). These policies and ordinances address
potential night-sky lighting impacts of development proposals that
might logically affect activities of the Mt. Palomar Astronomical
Observatory.
Land Use
No. The project is consistent with underlying land use ordinances and
Southwest Area Plan guidelines affecting the subject property. No
change in Land Use designations is proposed by the project; no
anticipated impacts.
Natural Resources
No. The proposal is of limited scale and would not logically deplete
substantial renewable or non-renewable natural resources.
Risk of Upset
10.a,b.
No. The proposal does not entail storage or use of
substances; nor is the subject site within a
emergency/evacuation plan movement corridor.
hazardous
designated
Population
11.
Housing
12.
No. The project does not contain population relocation elements.
No, No housing is proposed to be added nor deleted.
A: PP226 35
Transportation/Circulation
13.a,c.
No. Commercial retail construction of relatively limited scale (less than
30,000 square foot) is proposed, generating similarly limited amounts
of destination traffic. Further, the project is required to contribute
monies to area-wide, as well as localized public improvements (e.g.,
traffic impact mitigation) proportionate to the proposal's anticipated
impacts.
13.b.
Yes. In compliance with City ordinance, the project is required to. and
does provide a total of 138 additional off-street, improved parking
spaces as referenced in the proposal's Conditions of Approval
(attached) and indicated by Exhibit D.
13.d.
No. The project will attract additional traffic to the subject site upon
its implementation. Impacts are expected to be insignificant given the
proposal's limited scale. Reference also Item 13.a.
13.e.
No. The project is not in a location which would logically affect
waterborne, rail or air traffic, nor does it propose addition or deletion
of such facilities.
13.f.
Maybe. Any increase in traffic naturally increases the possibility of
traffic accidents. Impacts are likely to be unnoticeable in view of the
proposal's limited scope and proposed infrastructure improvements.
Public Services
Maybe. All new commercial development may generate at least nominal
increased demands for police and fire protection services, utility
provisions and, indirectly, schools. Mitigation is realized through
assessment districts, property taxes, and similar funding mechanisms.
14.d.
Maybe. Construction is not proposed which would directly impact
schools or parks. However, the applicant is required by state law to
contribute applicable school fees as partial mitigation for secondary
impacts on school systems resulting from commercial development.
14.e.
Yes. Increases in road maintenance activities in the immediate vicinity
of the proposal will be required due to proportionate increases in
localized traffic generated. Mitigation of such impacts are as specified
by the City Engineering Department in the project's Conditions of
Approval.
14.f.
No. Impacts on other governmental services have not been identified
at this time.
Energy
15.a,b. No. Reference Item Nos. 9.a. and b.
A:PP226 36
Utilities
16.a-f.
No. Nominal service line extensions/increased demands can be
expected for the utilities referenced. No significant impacts are
anticipated.
Human Health
17.a,b.
No. The project does not include introduction of potential health
hazards to the region; nor are there existing health hazards identified
at the project site. Flood hazards affecting the site previous to
improvements proposed are mitigated by those improvements, including
overall elevation of the project site realized by planned fill activities.
Aesthetics
18.
No. The application has been reviewed for architectural compatibility
and complies with the City~s applicable guidelines and standards in this
regard. Potential visual impacts of proposed grading and the
previously referenced crib retaining wall are mitigated primarily
through landscaping of the project site as indicated by Exhibit F.
Recreation
19o
No. Additional recreational assets are not proposed, nor are they to be
deleted in conjunction with this project; direct impacts on recreational
facilities are not anticipated.
Cultural Resources
20.a.
No. Construction is not proposed that will logically affect known
archaeological religious or cultural assets; no identified impacts.
20.b.
No. The proposal is not within an identified historic
preservation/conservation district. As such, impacts on the existing
character of historic assets in the region are unlikely.
21 .a,b,
c,d.
No. Reference Item Nos. 1-20.
A:PP226 37
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment. and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a signi-
ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi-
ficant effect on this case because the mitigation measures
described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval
have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required.
X
March 26, 1991
Date
For
CITY OF TEMECULA
A: PP226 38
ATTACHMENT NO.
EXHIBITS
A:PP226 39
~ CITY OF TEMECULA )
~c // ,~, ,,,/,,~
"
II
· 'T A '~
) e.G. DATE "'7' I'<~l
CITY OF TEMECULA
,-.""'
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
._.. ~"""'X,.... \'('''
cAs, NO. ~q~2.2(o
,.c. OAT, "7-I-~tl
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.pf""~"?-~
~p.C. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA )
r~Xhie~T -P_
CASE NO.f~Z~
p.c. OATE ~.l'~l
CITY OF TEMECULA )
CASE NO.
p.c. DAte
CITY OF TEMECULA ,~
CASE NO, ~f'2Z.~
~p.c. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
CASE
t~C. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA )
CITY OF TEMECULA )
PARCEL MAP 8455
PARCEL I
CASE NO. ta'zz,,
p.C. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
CASE NO.: Plot Plan No. 226
The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this
project.
Fee
Habitat Conservation Plan
(K-Rat)
Parks and Recreation
(Quimby)
Public Facility
( Traffic Mitigation )
Public Facility
( Traffic Signal Mitigation )
Public Facility
( Library )
Fire Protection
Flood Control
(ADP)
Condition of Approval
Condition No. 25
N/A
Condition No. 57
Condition No. 54
N/A
Condition No. 82
Condition No. 47
A:PP226 40
ITEM
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Planning Commissioners
Gary Thornhill, Planning Director
August 5, 1991
Tentative Parcel Map No. 26488/Change of Zone No. 15
On July 1, 1991, the City of Temecula Planning Commission continued the public
hearin9 addressing the above referenced project to the Commission's regularly
scheduled public hearin9 of August 5, 1991. In continuin9 this item, the
Commission's primary concern was that the project site be provided appropriate all-
weather access; and directed Staff and the applicant to jointly propose an
appropriate solution to this issue.
In response to this direction, City Staff met with Mr. Vanderwall on July 11, 1991
to discuss site access alternatives, necessary rights-of-way improvements, and
financing and timing of those improvements. As a result of that meeting,
additional/revised City Engineering Department Conditions of Approval were
developed.
The applicant has reviewed, and is in concurrence with these proposed conditions.
As such, Staff recommends the Planning Commission accept the additional project
conditions as stated above and as now contained in the Conditions of Approval for
Tentative Parcel Map No. 26/188 (reference Condition No. 29). Further, Staff
recommends the City Planning Commission:
RECOMMEND ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration for Tentative
Parcel Map No. 26/188 and Change of Zone No. 15;
ADOPT Resolution No. 91 o recommending approval of Change of Zone
No. 15 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff
Report; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending approval of Tentative
Parcel Map No. 26/188 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in
the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
Minutes of the July 1, 1991 Planning Commission hearing for this item, as well as the
original Staff Report and revised project Conditions of Approval are included for
clarification and reference.
A: PM26~88. MEM
City Planning Commissioners
August 5, 1991
Page 2
Staff has also revised Temecula Community Service District Conditions of Approval
to reflect appropriate requirements of this Tentative Map. ( Reference new Condition
No. 62; previous Condition No. 33 has been deleted. )
CR:ks
A:PM26488.MEM
Case No.:
Recommendation:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 1, 1991
Change of Zone No. 15 (CZ 15) and
Tentative Parcel Map No. 26488 (TPM 26488)
Prepared By: Charly Ray
Staff recommends that the City Planning
Commission:
RECOMMEND ADOPTION of the Negative
Declaration for Tentative Parcel Map No.
26488 and Change of Zone No. 15;
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending
approval of Change of Zone No. 15 based on
the Analysis and Findings contained in the
Staff Report; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending
approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 26488
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:
Mr. Jay Vanderwall
Mr. N. Scott Jewett/ANACAL Engineering
Residential subdivision of 4.5+/- gross acres into
four parcels with an accompanying zone change from
R-A-2 1/2 to R-1-1.
Southeast corner of Calle Chapos and Walcott Lane.
R-A-2 1/2
(Residential-Agricultural - 2 1/2 Acre
Minimum Parcel Size)
North: R-A-2 1/2
South: R-A-2 1/2
East: R-A-2 1/2
West: R-A-2 1/2
A:PM26488 1
PROPOSED ZONING: R-I-I
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
BACKGROUND:
(Single Family Residential, 1 Acre
Minimum Parcel Size)
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant
Vacant/Single Family Residence
Single Family Residence
Vacant
Total Area:
Average Parcel
Size Proposed:
Largest Proposed
Parcel Area:
Smallest Proposed
Parcel Area:
Existing Improvements:
Access:
Domestic Water:
Electricity:
Sewa9e Disposal:
Natural Gas:
Telephone:
CATV:
4.5+/- Gross Acres
1.125 Gross Acres
1.45 Gross Acres
1.0 Gross Acre
Calle Chapos (adjacent to the
north ) and Walcott Lane
(adjacent to the west); both of
which are currently unimproved
at the project site. Existing
rights-of-way dedications are
60' total width on Calle Chapos
66' in width on Walcott Lane.
Rancho California Water
District
Southern California
Edison
On-site Septic System
proposed
Southern California Gas
GTE California
Inland Valley Cablevision
Tentative Parcel Map No. 26488 (TPM 26488) was
initially submitted to the City of Temecula for
review and consideration on September 14, 1990.
Subsequent Development Review Committee
consideration followed on November 8, 1990 and
again on January 3, 1991.
As originally submitted, the map proposed
residential subdivision of the subject site into 4
each 1/2+/- acre parcels, with a remainder parcel of
approximately 13/4 acres. The initial proposal has
been redesigned and submitted with an appropriate
zone change request based on Staff concerns
regarding the disparity in land use between that
requested and that allowed by the underlying
R-A-2 1/2 land use zoning (1/2 acre parcels
A: PM26488 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
proposed vs. 2 1/2 acre minimum allowed by the
zone district), as well as concerns arising from the
initial lot configurations. As initially designed, the
map proposed steep access gradients,
disproportionate lot length/width ratios, limited
availability of buildable terrain, further complicated
by the land use difficulties inherent in maps
proposing small remainder parcels.
As indicated above, in response to Staff design and
land use consideration/concerns, the applicant has
submitted an appropriate Change of Zone request
(R-A-2 1/2 to R-1-1) allowing subdivision at the 1
gross acre parcel density proposed, which is
consistent with recent zone changes and land
divisions in the area. Further, the Tentative Map
has been redesigned eliminating the "remainder"
originally proposed, thereby providing greater
acreage for each residential lot, which in turn
allows the design currently proposed incorporating
internal, centralized access, and lots with more
tenable dimensions and building areas.
The applicant proposes a residential subdivision of
just over u, gross acres, realizing ~ residential lots
averaging approximately 1 gross acre each. The
project site is located in a rural but developing area
of the City, southeasterly of Nicolas and Butterfield
Stage Roads.
Utilities available to the project include:
Electric Power (So. Calif. Edison)
Natural Gas (So. Calif. Gas Co. )
Potable Water (Rancho Water District)
Sewage Disposal ( On-site septic system
designed per County Environmental
Health Standards)
Telephone ( GTE ); and
Cable Television | Inland Valley
Cablevision ).
Abutting rights-of-way are currently unimproved.
Paved access to the project vicinity ends on Walcott
Lane at a point approximately 1/4 to 1/2 mile south
of the proposed Parcel Map. Several unimproved
off-road trails traverse the site.
Terrain of the subject site consists primarily of a
large knoll, increasing in elevation from north to
south. On-site grade differential between highest
and lowest points is approximately 60 feet, with
slopes ranging from 1296-2096. Existing vegetation
A: PM26488 3
ANALYSIS:
on the project site is primarily native grasses with
evident disturbance by human activity; e.g., off-
road trails, litter, etc. Mature landscaping exists
on adjacent properties. No significant animal
habitat was detected though the site is likely
inhabitated by common species of rodents, small
reptiles and insects. Further consideration of this
proposal's specific merits is contained in the
following project analysis.
Land Use Compatibility
The requested Change of zone district from
R-A-2 I/2 to R-1-1 reflects on-9oin9 urbanization
of the general area surrounding the subject site.
Recent project approvals in the vicinity of Tentative
Parcel Map No. 26488 (e.g., CZ 56631, TPM 25212)
have allowed subdivision of land at densities similar
to that requested by this proposal. Further to the
south, land has been subdivided at even greater
densities in conjunction with larger scale tract home
developments. Additionally, the recommended
Southwest Area Plan density for the subject site is
1-2 dwelling units/acre. Densities at the lower end
of this range are considered appropriate at present
pending extension of necessary support services,
primarily roads and sewers, to the area in question.
As such, the proposed change in land use
designation allowing residential subdivision of
property at a density of one dwelling unit/acre is
considered compatible with land use(s) currently in
the vicinity of the subject site.
Access
Legal access to the site as a whole is provided by
dedicated City rights-of-way, e.g., Walcott Lane
and Calle Chapos, both of which are currently
recommended as 66' width right-of-way dedications
adjacent to the subject site (reference Exhibit D) .
Both road frontages as well as the cul-de-sac
indicated on Exhibit D will be improved to provide
all weather access prior to occupancy of residences
which may be eventually constructed on the
proposed parcels.
Improvement of affected rights-of-way per Schedule
H map standards will, as a minimum, be bonded for
prior to final map recordat(on.
A: PM26488 4
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
Map Desiqn
Applicant responses to the issues discussed above
are reflected primarily in the map design currently
proposed (Exhibit D). The map, as presently
configured, is included in the project staff report.
Specifically, the map was redesigned to eliminate
the remainder parcel initially proposed, and also
provide centralized common access to all proposed
parcels via a public cul-de-sac connecting to Walcott
Lane. The current design of the proposed map also
reflects Staff concerns regarding appropriate
residential land use densities currently applicable
to the subject site.
In summary, the proposed parcel map, together
with the requested change of zone from R-A-2 1/2
to R-1-1, and mitigation measures specified in the
project Conditions of Approval, provide for
development compatible with City land use and
subdivision standards, ordinances and policies.
Further, the Initial Environmental Assessment
conducted for the project has determined its
compliance with applicable sections of the California
Envitonmental Quality Act ( C. E. Q. A. ).
As discussed in the preceding portions of this Staff
Report, proposed Change of Zone No. 15 and
Tentative Parcel Map No. 26~,88 comply with
applicable State and City land use and subdivision
ordinances/policies currently in effect. Further,
the map together with the requested change in land
use designation are both compatible with the
Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) guidelines for the
subject property, which recommend residential
development at 1-2 dwelling units/acre (reference
exhibit C) . SWAP guidelines will likely comprise the
basis utilized in the currently developing City
General Plan.
Accordingly, it is likely that Change of Zone No. 15
and Tentative Parcel Map No. 26L~88 will both
substantially conform to the City~s General Plan
goals, objectives, and directives affecting the
subject property.
An Initial Environmental Assessment has been
prepared for Change of Zone No. 15 |CZ 15) which
has determined that the proposed zone change could
not have a significant effect on the environment.
A: PM26488 5
The environmental analysis prepared for Tentative
Parcel Map No. 26~,88 concludes with the finding
that "although the proposed use could have a
significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in the case under
consideration because the measures specified in the
project's Conditions of Approval mitigate significant
potential adverse impacts."
FINDINGS:
Chanqe of Zone No. 15
The proposed zone change will not have a
significant adverse effect on the
environment, as determined in the initial
study performed for this project. A Negative
Declaration is recommended for adoption.
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. The project is not
of significant scope in the context of city-
side and regional development patterns.
The proposed change in district classification
is reasonable and beneficial at this time as it
is a logical expansion of residential uses
which exist in the vicinity of the project site.
The proposed change in district classification
from R-A-2 1/2 to R-1-1 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
(SWAP) recommendations for the subject
property. Further, densities and uses
proposed are similar to existing densities and
uses in the vicinity of the project.
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.
A: PM26488 6
Adequate access exists for the proposed
residential land use from Walcott Lane and
Calle Chapos. Additional internal access and
required road improvements abutting
proposed lots will be designed and
constructed in conformance with City
standards.
That said findings are supported by analysis,
minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental
documents associated with this application
and herein incorporated by reference.
Tentative Parcel Map No. 26488
The proposed Parcel Map will not have
significant negative impact on the
environment, as determined in the Initial
Environmental Assessment prepared for
Tentative Parcel Map No. 26488. A Negative
Declaration is recommended for adoption.
There is a reasonable probability that this
proposal will be consistent with the General
Plan being prepared at this time. The map
together with the attendant zone change
request are consistent with applicable
subdivision and land use ordinances, and
conform with the City~s Southwest Area Plan
(SWAP) guidelines affecting the subject
property.
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 consistent with
surrounding development, and does not
logically have the potential to generate
significant adverse environmental impacts.
The proposed use or action complies with City
and State planning and zoning laws.
Reference local Ordinances No. 348, 460,
California Governmental Code Sections 65000-
66009 (Planning Zoning Law), and
Government Code Title 7, Division 2.
A: PM264.88 7
10.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of parcel configurations, access, and
density. The project has access to public
rights-of-way, and is designed with
sufficient parcel acreage allowing appropriate
building pad sitings.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the initial study
prepared for this project. Reference the
attached Initial Environmental Study and
Conditions of Approval for Tentative Parcel
Map No. 26488.
The design of the subdivision, the type of
improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed project as
conditioned. Easement dedications are not
evident in grant deeds describing the
property.
The site for the proposed use is provided
legal access via Walcott Lane and Calle
Chapos public rights-of-way. Development
of these roads shall comply with City
Engineering Conditions of Approval contained
herein.
The proposed project will not inhibit or
restrict future ability to use active or passive
solar energy systems. Adequate lot areas
and exposures are provided for these
alternatives.
The proposed use will not have a substantial
adverse affect on abutting properties or the
permitted use thereof. The proposed map
provides for residential development similar
in character and densities evident on vicinity
properties. Land use incongruities and
associated adverse affects arising from
implementation of this proposal are unlikely.
A: PM26488 8
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
1.
Staff recommends that the City Planning
Commission:
RECOMMEND ADOPTION of the
Declaration for Tentative Parcel
26488 and Change of Zone No. 15;
Negative
Map No.
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending
approval of Change of Zone No. 15 based on
the Analysis and Findings contained in the
Staff Report; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending
approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 26488
based on the Analysis and Findings contained
in the Staff Report and subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval.
CR:ks
Attachments:
1.A, 1.B.
2.
3.
4.
Resolutions
Conditions of Approval
Environmental Assessment
Exhibits
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. Southwest Area Plan
Recommended Land Use(s)
D. Tentative Parcel Map No. 26488
Fee Checklist
A: PM26488 9
ATTACHMENT NO. 1A
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CHANGE OF
ZONE NO, 15 CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-A-2 112 TO
R-1-1 ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF WALCOTT LANE AND CALLE CHAPOS AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSORIS PARCEL NO. 914-300-049
WHEREAS, Mr. Jay Vanderwall filed Change of Zone No. 15 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
August 5, 1991. at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either
in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearin9 , the Commission
recommended approval of said Change of Zone;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission
hereby makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
a)
There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
A:PM26488 10
b}
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of the
proposed Change of Zone, 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 initial
study performed for this project. A Negative
Declaration is recommended for adoption.
b}
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. The project is not
of significant scope in the context of city-
side and regional development patterns.
c)
The proposed change in district classification
is reasonable and beneficial at this time as it
is a logical expansion of residential uses
which exist in the vicinity of the project site.
d}
The proposed change in district classification
from R-A-2 1/2 to R-1-1 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 5outhwest Area Plan
(SWAP} recommendations for the subject
property. Further, densities and uses
proposed are similar to existing densities and
uses in the vicinity of the project.
A: PM26u,88 11
e)
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.
f)
Adequate access exists for the proposed
residential land use from Walcott Lane and
Calle Chapos. Additional internal access and
required road improvements abutting
proposed lots will be designed and
constructed in conformance with City
standards.
g)
That said findings are supported by analysis,
minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental
documents associated with this application
and herein incorporated by reference.
D. The Change of Zone is compatible with the health, safety
and welfare of the community.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance,
An Initial Study was performed for this project determined that Change
of Zone No. 15 could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a Negative
Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted.
SECTION 3. Recommendation.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends
approval of Zone Change No. 15 to change the zoning on 4.5 acres of land from R-A-
2 1/2 to R-1-1 on property generally located at the southeast corner of Walcott Lane
and Calle Chapos and known as Assessor~s Parcel No. 914-300-049.
SECTION 4.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of August, 1991.
JOHN HOAGLAND
CHAIRMAN
A: PM26488 12
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 5th day of August, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNINC COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
A: PM26488 13
ATTACHMENT NO, 1B
RESOLUTION NO. 91-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
PARCEL MAP NO. 26~88 TO SUBDIVIDE A ~.5+1- ACRE
PARCEL INTO ~ ONE GROSS ACRE (MINIMUM)
RESIDENTIAL PARCELS; GENERAL LOCATION OF SAID
MAP BEING THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WALCOTT
LANE AND CALLE CHAPOSo
WHEREAS, Mr. Jay Vanderwall filed Parcel Map No. 26~,88 in accordance
with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Parcel Map application was processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Parcel Map on
August 5, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportun ity to testify either
in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said Parcel Map;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1, Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The 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: PM26o,88
b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP" ) was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Parcel Map is consistent with the SWAP and
meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government
Code, to wit:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects
and taking other actions, including the issuance of
building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the
following:
a)
There is reasonable probability that Parcel
Map No. 26488 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.
cJ
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
D. (1) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No.
460, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are
made:
a)
That the proposed land division is consistent
with applicable general and specific plans.
A: PM26q.88 15
b)
That the design or improvement of the
proposed land division is consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.
c)
That the site of the proposed land division is
physically suitable for the type of
development.
d)
That the site of the proposed land division is
physically suitable for the proposed density
of the development.
e)
That the design of the proposed land division
or proposed improvements are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or
substantially and unavoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat.
f)
That the design of the proposed land division
or the type of improvements are not likely to
cause serious public health problems.
g)
That the design of the proposed land division
or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at
large, for access through, or use of,
property within the proposed land division.
A land division may be approved if it is found
that alternate easements for access or for use
will be provided and that they will be
substantially equivalent to ones previously
acquired by the public. This subsection
shall apply only to easements of record or to
easements established by judgment of a court
of competent jurisdiction.
(2) The Planning Commission in recommending approval
of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map, makes the following findings, to
wit:
a)
The proposed Parcel Map will not have
significant negative impact on the
environment, as determined in the initial
Environmental Assessment prepared for
Tentative Parcel Map No. 26~,88. A Negative
Declaration is recommended for adoption.
b)
There is a reasonable probability that this
proposal will be consistent with the General
Plan being prepared at this time. The map
together with the attendant zone change
request are consistent with applicable
A: PM26LI88 16
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
subdivision and land use ordinances, and
conform with the City's Southwest Area Plan
(SWAP) guidelines affecting the subject
property.
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 consistent with
surrounding development, and does not
logically have the potential to generate
significant adverse environmental impacts.
The proposed use or action complies with City
and 5rate planning and zoning laws.
Reference local Ordinances No. 348, 460,
California Governmental Code Sections 65000-
66009 (Planning Zoning Law), and
Government Code Title 7, Division 2.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of parcel configurations, access, and
density. The project has access to public
rights-of-way, and is designed with
sufficient parcel acreage allowing appropriate
building pad sitings.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the initial study
prepared for this project. Reference the
attached Initial Environmental Study and
Conditions of Approval for Tentative Parcel
Map No. 26488.
The design of the subdivision, the type of
improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed project as
conditioned. Easement dedications are not
evident in grant deeds describing the
property.
The site for the proposed use is provided
legal access via Walcott Lane and Calle
Chapos public rights-of-way. Development
of these roads shall comply with City
Engineering Conditions of Approval contained
herein.
A: PM26488 17
The proposed project will not inhibit or
restrict future ability to use active or passive
solar energy systems. Adequate lot areas
and exposures are provided for these
alternatives.
j)
The proposed use will not have a substantial
adverse affect on abutting properties or the
permitted use thereof. The proposed map
provides for residential development similar
in character and densities evident on vicinity
properties. Land use incongruities and
associated adverse affects arising from
implementation of this proposal are unlikely.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Parcel Map
proposed is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the
proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the
Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration,
therefore, is hereby granted.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends
approval of Parcel Map No. 26488 for the subdivision of a 4.5+/- acre parcel into 4
parcels, generally located at the southeast corner of Walcott Lane and Calle Chapos
subject to the following conditions:
A. Attachment 2, attached hereto.
SECTION
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of August, 1991.
JOHN HOACLAND
CHAIRMAN
A: PM26488 18
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 5th day of August, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
A: PM26488 19
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Parcel Map No:
Project Description:
Assessor*s Parcel No.:
26488
R-1-1 residential
subdivision of 4.5
qross acres into 4
parcels
914-300-049
Planninq Department
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision
Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule H, unless
modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in
accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request,
if made 30 days prior to the expiration date.
This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the
approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. The expiration
date is
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final
map.
Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract
map boundary to a City maintained road.
All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall
continue in force until the governing body accepts or abandons such offers.
All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the City
Engineer. Street names shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities,
etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land
division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be
submitted and recorded as directed by the City Engineer.
The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations
outlined in the Riverside County Health Department's Conditions of Approval,
contained herein.
The applicant shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined
in the Riverside County Fire Department's Conditions of Approval, contained
herein.
A: PM26488 20
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the City
Building and Safety Department's Conditions of Approval, contained herein.
10.
All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of
Technology, Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as outlined in the
Southwest Area Plan.
11.
Prior to final recordation of Tentative Parcel Map No. 26q88, Change of Zone
No. 15 shall be in effect.
12.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern
Municipal Water District's Conditions of Approval, contained herein.
13. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following:
Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the
development standards of the R-1-1 (Single Family Residential, 1 Acre
Minimum Parcel Size) 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
until such time as those operations are the responsibilities of other parties as
approved by the Planning Director.
15.
Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded natural terrain and
exceeding ten (10) feet in vertical height shall be contour-graded
incorporating the following grading techniques:
The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the
angle of the natural terrain.
Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall
reflect the natural rounded terrain.
The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves with
radii designed in proportion to the total height of the slopes
where drainage and stability permit such rounding.
Where cut or fill slopes exceed 300 feet in horizontal length, the
horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved in a continuous,
undulating fashion.
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
A: PM26488 21
16.
17.
18.
maintenance responsibilities have been assigned as approved by the
Director of Building and Safety.
Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential
lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer~s successor's-
in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility
financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($I00} per
Iot/unlt shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library
development.
All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required
elements from the subdivision~s approved fire protection plan as
approved by the County Fire Marshal.
All dwellings to be constructed within this subdivision shall be desi9ned
and constructed with fire retardant (Class A) roofs as approved by the
Fire Marshal.
Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the
subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving
devices shall be permitted with Planning Department approval.
Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall not
be less than ten (10) feet.
f. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the
provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in
that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions
of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by
Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat
Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Temecula, its agents, officer, and employees from any claim, action, or
proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officer, or employees
to attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Temecula, its
advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Tentative
Parcel Map No. 26~,88, which action is brought within the time period provided
for in California Government Code Section 66L~99.37. The City of Temecula will
promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding
against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the
City fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or
proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not,
thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of
Temecula.
A: PM26L~88 22
19.
All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable
TV shall be provided for underground, with easements provided as required,
and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility
provider. Telephone, cable TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired
in the residence.
2O.
Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the developer or his assignee must
conform to the park district Quimby Ordinance, unless waived to time of
issuance of a building permit.
21.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
22.
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 Came Code Section 711.4( d ) { 2 ) plus the Twenty-
Five Dollar ($25.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the
Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152
and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight (48) hour
period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department
the check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall
be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section
711.4(c).
Riverside County Department of Health - Environmental Health Services Division
23°
Prior to map recordation, "will serve" letters from Rancho California Water
District and Eastern Municipal Water District shall be provided to the
Environmental Health Services Division of the Riverside County Department
of Health.
City of Temecula En.qineerinq Department
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Covernment Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
PRIOR TO 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:
San Diego Regional Water Quality;
Rancho California Water District;
A: PM26488 23
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.
25.
All road easements and/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication to
the public and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such
offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the
City Engineer.
26.
Calle Chapos shall be improved with 32 feet of asphalt concrete pavement plus
one 12 foot lane, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within
the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 103,
Section A (66'/32').
27.
Walcott Lane shall be improved with 32 feet of asphalt concrete pavement plus
one 12 foot lane, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within
the dedicated right-d-way in accordance with County Standard No. 103,
Section A (66'/32').
28.
Street "A" shall be improved with 36 feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or
bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-
of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 105, Section A (60'/36') . A
cul-de-sac per County Standard No. 800 shall be constructed at the terminus.
29.
Calle Chapos shall be paved with 24 feet of A.C. paving from Walcott Lane to
Riverton Lane to provide all-weather access to the property, or bonds shall
be posted, within the dedicated right-d-way and as directed by the Public
Works Department.
30.
In the event road or off-site right-of-way are required to comply with these
conditions, such easements shall be obtained by the developer; or, in the
event the City is required to condemn the easement or right-of-way, as
provided in the Subdivision Map Act, the developer shall enter into an
agreement with the City for the acquisition of such easement at the
developer's cost pursuant to Government Code Section 66462.5, which shall
be at no cost to the City.
31.
Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard
No. 805.
32.
Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage, if required, shall be
delineated or noticed on the final map.
33.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage
facilities, utilities, etc. , shall be shown on the final map if they are located
within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances
shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the City Engineer.
A: PM26488 24
34.
The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be
executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements
in conformance with applicable City standards.
Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb
and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, signing, striping, and other
traffic control devices as appropriate.
b. Storm drain facilities.
c. Landscaping (street and parks).
d. Sewer and domestic water systems.
f. Undergrounding of existing and proposed utility distribution lines.
35.
The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated
with adjoining developments.
36.
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.
37.
All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the
City Engineer.
38.
Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a
minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment
as approved by the City Engineer.
39. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent.
40.
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 u,00 and q01 {curb sidewalk).
All driveways shall be located a minimum of two (2) feet from the property
line.
The subdivider shall submit two {2) prints of a comprehensive grading plan
to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform
Building Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these
Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2u," x 36" mylar by a
Registered Civil Engineer.
A: PM26488 25
A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and
submitted at the time of application for grading plan check.
The subdivider shall submit two ( 2 ) copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
Drainage calculations shall be submitted to and approved by the City
Engineer. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City
Engineer.
Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface
drainage entering the property from adjacent areas,
The subdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by
alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow.
Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities,
including enlarging existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement.
Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City~s CATV Franchises of
the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time
of street improvements.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid
and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office.
5O°
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,
51.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development, The
charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits.
If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to
this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT:
52.
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.
53.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public
facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the
project. 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
A: PM26q88 26
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:
Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and
gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, and drive approaches.
55.
Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all
times with adequate detours during construction.
56.
Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than 1~, days following
placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon
per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39, and
9q of the State Standard Specifications.
Transportation Enqineerinq
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
57.
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer
and approved by the City Engineer for Calle Chapos and Walcott Lane and
shall be included in the street improvement plans.
Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD)
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land division, the
Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in
accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection
standards:
FIRE PROTECTION:
58°
Schedule H fire protection. An approved standard fire hydrant (6"x~l"x2
1/2" ) shall be located so that no portion of the frontage of any lot is more than
500 feet from a fire hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 CPM for 2 hours
duration at 20 PSI.
59.
The applicant/developer shall provide written certification from the
appropriate water company that the required fire hydrants are either existing
or that financial arrangements have been made to provide them.
A: PM26488 27
60.
The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and
accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building
material being placed on an individual lot.
MITIGATION:
61.
Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the
City of Temecula, a cash sum of $u,00.00 per lot/unit as mitigation for fire
protection impacts.
All questions regarding the meaning of Conditions shall be referred to the RCFD
Planning and Engineer Staff.
Temecula Community Service District
62.
The Subdivider shall submit to the Planning Director an agreement with the
Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) which demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the TCSD Board of Directors, and the City that upon the
request of a BUILDING PERMIT for construction of RESIDENTIAL structures
on one or more of the parcels WITHIN FOUR YEARS following approval of a
tentative map, parcel map, or planned development, real estate development,
stock cooperative community apartment project and condominium for which a
tentative map or parcel map is filed, a predetermined Quimby Act fee in the
amount equal to the fair market vallue of required acreage ( Plus 20% for offsite
improvements) shall be paid by theowner of each such parcel (s) as a condition
to the issuance of such permit as authorized by City of Temecula Ordinance
No. u,60.93.
63.
The following chart has been prepared to assist staff in calculating
requirements of the existing Quimby Ordinance:
Dwellinqs Type
Persons Per Acres
Dwellinq Unit Required*
l(ea) Single Family (Detached Garage) 2.98 .01u,90
l(ea) Single Family (Attached Garage) 2.59 .01295
1 (ea) Mobile Home 2.6LI .01360
2 ( ea ) Dwelling Un its Per Structure 2. ~,8 .01320
3 or 4(ea) Dwelling Units Per Structure 2.34 .01240
5 or More Dwelling Units Per Structure 2.72 .01170
* Plus 20% for offsite improvements.
A: PM26488
28
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
II
Backqround
1. Name of Proponent:
Jay Vanderwall
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
992 Carnation Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
May 1, 1991
Agency Requiring
Assessment:
CITY OF TEMECULA
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Change of Zone No. 15 and
Tentative Parcel Map No. 26q88
6. Location of Proposal:
Southeast corner of Calle Chapos
Road and Walcott Lane
Environmental Impacts
(Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets. )
Yes Maybe No
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
X
Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil?
X
Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features?
X
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
X
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on
or off site?
X
A: PM26u,88 29
Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
Exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards such as earth
quakes, landslides, mudslides,
ground failure, or similar hazards?
Air. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air
quality?
The creation of objectionable
odors?
Alteration of air movement,
moisture, or temperature, or any
change in climate, whether locally
or regionally?
Water. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial changes in currents, or
the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or
fresh waters?
Substantial changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
Discharge into surface waters, or
in any alteration of surface water
quality, including, but not limited
to, temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity?
Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow or ground waters?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A: PM26q-88 30
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, Fare, or endangeFed 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
A: PM26488 31
10.
11.
12.
13.
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
Yes Maybe No
a. Increases in existing noise levels? __ X
Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
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?
X
X
X
X
Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource? X
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal
involve:
A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including,
but not limited to, oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
Possible interference with an emerg-
ency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan?
Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing or create a demand for
additional housing?
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
X
X
X
X
X
A: PM26488 32
14.
Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking?
Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic?
Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
Public Services. Will the proposal have
substantial effect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
Parks or other recreational
facilities?
Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
f. Other governmental services:
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
16.
Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy?
Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy?
Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A: PM26488 33
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: PM26488 34
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: PM26q88 35
I II Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
1.3.
1.C.
1.d.
1.e.
1.f.
1.g.
2.a-c.
3.b,c.
3.d.
No. The project does not propose excavation or invasion of significant
geologic substructures.
Maybe. At full realization, the project may involve construction of up
to four (u,) new residences; with the necessary attendant grading and
compactlon. Due to the limited scale of this project, environmental
impacts of soil disruption should be insignificant.
No. Construction pad grading of the subject site is anticipated should
residential construction eventually occur. Given the project's limited
scale, impacts will be restricted to the immediate site. No significant
impact.
No. No unique geologic nor physical features exist on the subject site.
No. The project, if fully realized, will result in only minor
overcovering of natural terrain. Substantial increase in erosion of on
and off site soil is highly improbable.
No. The project does not propose elements or activities that will likely
modify existing erosion patterns affecting beach sands and river/stream
beds.
No. No construction is proposed in known earthquake, landslide, or
similar hazard zones.
No. The project is of insignificant scale in the context of City-wide and
regional development. Ambient air qualities should not be noticeably
affected.
No. No development activities are proposed that could foreseeably
impact rivers, streams, ocean beds, inlets or lakes.
No. Localized runoff patterns may change subsequent to eventual
construction of a new residence. However, due to the limited scale of
this proposal and relative distance from marine and fresh waters, these
ecologic features should not be impacted to any degree of significance.
No. There may be a nominal increase in off-site bodies of water volumes
due to increased runoff from the subject site should residential
construction eventually occur. No realizable impacts.
No. Assuming residential construction ensues approval of this project,
runoff characteristics of the subject site may be altered, including
minor fluctuations in runoff characteristics such as temperature,
dissolved oxygen, and turbidity. However, impacts of any significance
are unlikely.
A: PM26488 36
3.f,g.
3.h.
3.i.
Ll.a,b,
c,d.
5.a.
5.b.
5.c.
6°8.
7.8.
No. Percolation rates of the project site will likely decrease subsequent
to eventual residential construction, thereby decreasing ground water
recharge rates. As possible new construction will likely consist of four
(L~) or fewer residences, impacts of such limited development will likely
be insignificant.
No. Potential water consumption of the few single family residences
which may result from this proposal are insignificant in the context of
City-wide development.
No. The project site is not subject to identified flood hazard nor tidal
inundation.
No. Subsequent to subdivision of the property in question, and in
conjunction with eventual residential construction, native species on
the subject site may be replaced with new plant species, i.e. , turf,
non-indigenous shrubs, trees, etc. Significant impacts are unlikely.
Endangered/unique vegetative species are not currently present on the
subject property. The subject site supports no agricultural crops at
present.
No. Eventual residential construction may displace insignificant
numbers of typical native animals and insect species. Environmental
consequences will be negligible.
No. The subject property does not serve as identified habitat for any
endangered species of animals or fish. Such species do not currently
inhabit the project site.
No. Elimination of insignificant habitat may eventually occur should
residences be constructed. No noticeable impacts are anticipated.
Mitigation of regional destruction/displacement of Stephen~s Kangaroo
Rat and habitat is mitigated by appropriate fee payment as per
attachment No. 5 of this Staff Report.
Maybe.
No.
Ambient noise levels on the subject property may increase
should construction activities ensue approval of this parcel
map. Long term noise level increases are also a logical
consequence of eventual development of the project site.
Overall noise level increase are considered insignificant in
a City-wide context.
No. Residential construction subsequent to parcelization of the subject
site will contribute only nominally to ambient light levels.
No. Full project realization may result in construction of new
residences at a greater density than present zoning of the property
allows. Approval of the attendant Zone Change Request (CZ No. 15)
will provide for subdivision of the subject site as requested. Noticeable
impacts should be negligible given the trend toward increased densities
of residential development in the vicinity of this proposal.
A: PM26488 37
10,a.
10.b.
11.
12.
13.a,c.
13.b.
13.d.
13.e.
13.f.
14.a-e.
14.f.
15.a,b.
16.a-f.
No. Eventual construction and habitation of additional residences,
which may result subsequent to project approval, will not significantly
affect resource consumption rates.
No. Hazardous substances of any significant quantity are not, nor will
be located on the subject site.
No. The project site is not within an identified emergency
response/evacuation plan movement corridor.
Maybe. The proposal may eventually contribute a nominal quantity of
additional residences to the regional population with no discernable
impacts.
Maybe. The proposal at full realization, will result in the potential
addition of four (q) single family residences to the region's housing
stocks. Impacts are insignificant.
No. The addition of four (4) single family residences subsequent to full
project realization will not contribute significantly to average daily
traffic to and from the project site.
Maybe. The project could possibly contribute approximately 8-12
additional parking spaces subsequent to eventual construction
activities. Effects on parking availability are considered insignificant.
No. Traffic will eventually commute to and from a currently vacant lot
which may eventually accommodate single family residences. Existing
traffic volumes and circulation patterns should not be noticeably
affected.
No. Waterborne, rail, and air traffic routes of significance are non-
existent in the vicinity of the project site.
No. Slight increases in localized traffic volumes, may increase the
possibility of traffic hazards. Increases in hazards above existing
levels are considered insignificant.
Maybe. All subdivision proposals may eventually increase demands on
public services. Such demands are partially mitigated and financed by
property taxes, user fees, assessment districts, developer impact fees,
etc. Impacts of this individual proposal will not be significant.
No. Impacts on other governmental services have not been identified
at this time.
No. Eventual construction and habitation of single family residences
should only nominally affect consumption and stores of energy sources.
No. Nominal extensions of individual service lines may eventually be
required. Impacts are considered insignificant.
A: PM26488 38
17.a,b.
18.
19.
20.a,b.
2o.d.
21 .a-d.
No. The project may eventually result in construction and habitation
of single family residences; which is not normally associated with the
creation of health hazards. Further, no health hazards have been
identified on the project site.
No. Identified vistas of significance do not exist in the immediate
vicinity of the project site.
No. The project site is not an identified recreational amenity. Further,
use of existing recreational facilities should increase only nominally at
full project realization.
No. Due to the disturbed nature of the project site and surrounding
area, presence of historic or prehistoric archaeologic resources is
highly unlikely.
No. No religious or sacred facilities are present on or in the vicinity of
the project.
No. Reference items 1 - 20.
A: PM26488 39
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed Change of Zone (CZ No. 15)
COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed Tentative Parcel Map
(TPM No. 26488) could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect on
this case because the mitigation measures described
on attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval
have been added to the project.
A NECATIVE 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
X
May 1, 1991
Date
For
CITY OF TEMECULA
A:PM26488 40
ATTACHMENT NO. q.
EXHIBITS
A: PM26488 41
CITY OF TEMECULA )
r~X~iT; A
CASE NO.61~OAs/
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
F"/- ~
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
PARCEL MAP NO. 26488
c s
,.x~,rr ,o. '[::> '.
kp.C. OATE 1"1'<tl j
CASE NO.:
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
ChanqeofZone No. 15/Tentative ParceIMap No. 26488
The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this
project.
Fee
Habitat Conservation Plan
(K-Rat)
Parks and Recreation
( Qu imby )
Public Facility
( Traffic Mitigation )
Public Facility
( Traffic Signal Mitigation )
Public Facility
( Library )
Fire Protection
Flood Control
(ADP)
Condition of Approval
Condition No. 17
Condition Nos. 20, 62
Condition No. 53
Condition No. 36
Condition No. 16(a)
Condition No. 61
Condition No. 51
A: PM26488 42
June 20, 1991
City of Temecula Planning Comm4ssion
43180 Business Park Drive
Temecula, Ca 92390
Case No: Change of Zone No. 15/Tentative Parcel ~ap No. 26488
(CZ No. 15/TI~ 26488)
Gentlemen:
He own the 2t acres to the south, adjoining Mr. Vandervall's property
and 5 acres across the street from the southwest corner of the Vandervall
property.
Our major concern is whether the Planning Conmission plans to impose a
house only restriction. All of the properties south of ~r. Vandervall's
property have custom homes built on them. North and west of the property,.
the area is spattered with mobile homes, many of which are in serious
seed of upkeep. Host have illegal barns and sheds which are an eyesore
to the area.
Another concern is what does the Planning Cv--tssion plan to do with the
road? Mloving a property split will generate mare traffic on our dirt
road. As it stands nov, I personally (with no help from the neighbors
and certainly not from the city) grade one (1) nile of dirt road to make
this accessible during the rainy season. Note traffic will create more
work for me. This is not what I pay taxes for.
In s-~,,,~y, we would not oppose the property split providing the Planning
Commission paces an irrevocable "homes onlyn restriction on the property
and providing the city is committed to at least maintenance of the dirt
road if paving is not a consideration.
If the above concerns are not incorporated as conditions to the split,
we then adamantly oppose this subdivision.
Sincerely
Io rham
P. O. Box 1680
40095 Walcott Lane
Temecula, Ca 92390
Certified Hail No. P754 681 484
PLANNING COMMIS8ION MINUTES JULY 1, 1991
5. CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 15
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 RAY 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
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 1, 1991
5. CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 15
Proposal to change from R-A 2 - 1/2 to R-1-1 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. Gotham, 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/O1/91 -3- July 5, 1991
ITEM #5
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission r~//
Oliver Mujica, Senior Planne
August 5, 1991
Case No.: Television/Radio Antenna Ordinance
The Television/Radio Antenna Ordinance was scheduled for the Planning Commission
meeting of August 5, 1991; and a Public Hearing Notice was placed in The Californian
pursuant to the California Government Code.
On July 22, 1991, the City Attorney decided to continue this item to the Planning
Commission Public Hearing date of August 19, 1991, in order to allow the City
Attorney and Planning Staff the opportunity to refine the proposed Ordinance.
It should be noted that since this item is recommended to be continued to a date
specific, the readvertislng of the Public Hearing is not required,
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission CONTINUE the Television/Radio
Antenna Ordinance to their meeting of August 19, 1991.
OM:ks
A:TV/RADIO.ORD
ITEM #6
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission r~
Oliver Mujica, Senior Planne
August 5, 1991
Case No: Temporary Outdoor Activities Ordinance
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 17, 1991, the City Attorney decided to continue this item "off-calendar," in
order to allow the City Attorney, Police Department, 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 "off-
calendar," the readvertising of the Public Hearing is required.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission CONTINUE the Temporary Outdoor
Activities Ordinance "off-calendar."
OM:ts
A:0UTDOOR.ACT\MEM-1
ITEM #7
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Plannin9 Commission
Steve Jiannino, Senior Planner ,¢/~/~
August 5, 1991
Parcel Map No. 25059, Minor Change No. 1
The applicant is requesting a continuance of the above referenced project to the
August 19, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. The applicant is working with Staff
on the proposed change and Staff concurs with the applicant's request for a
continuance.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff Recommends that the Planning Commission:
Continue Parcel Map No. 25059, Minor Change
No. 1 to August 19, 1991.
SJ: ks
A: PM25059. MEM
ITEM #8
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 5, 1991
Case No.: Conditional Use Permit No. 2846. Revised
Prepared By: Scott Wright
Recommendation: ADOPT Resolution No. 91-
approvin9 a five year renewal
Conditional Use Permit No. 2846.
of
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Temecula Auto Wrecking and Towing
Same
To renew Conditional Use Permit No. 28~,6 for the
operation of an auto towing and wrecking service.
41910 "C" Street
R-R JRural Residential)
North:
South:
East:
West:
Specific Plan 180, Church Site
Specific Plan 180, 2 DU/AC
Specific Plan 180, 2 DU/AC
R-R ( Rural Residential)
Not requested.
Auto towin9 and wrecking service
North:
South:
East:
West:
Church north of Santiago Road
Private school
Church
Vacant parcel, 1-15
Total Site Area:
Area of Enclosed
Wrecking Yard:
Parking Spaces:
45,000 sq.ft.
27,000 sq.ft.
1~,. spaces
A: CUP2846 1
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The subject auto wrecking yard has been in
operation since 1960. In 1986, the County adopted
a Negative Declaration with Environmental
Assessment No. 30451 and approved Conditional Use
Permit for a five year term to expire in 1991. The
land north, south, and east of the site is part of
Specific Plan No. 180 which includes 137.8 acres
planned for residential development, 6 acres for a
church site, and 11.8 acres for professional offices.
The Specific Plan areas immediately adjacent to the
site are designated for low density residential
development but are occupied by a private school
south of the site and a church southeast of the site.
This application is designated as a Revised
Conditional Use Permit because it is a Permit
Renewal, not because there has been any change in
the operation of the permitted use.
The wrecking yard encompasses 27,000 of the
45,000 square feet of the site. The yard is entirely
enclosed by a fence made of painted corrugated
metal with wood trim. Additional screening is
provided by trees and shrubs planted along the
outside of the fence on all four sides of the yard.
The yard contains a small office and a storage
structure. Equipment used in the yard comprises a
small auto crusher operated by a six cylinder auto
engine and a small forklift. The operation also
utilizes four tow trucks.
Batteries are removed from the cars and sent to a
recycling service. The rest of the car is crushed
and sent to Mexico for shredding and resource
recovery. Anti-freeze, motor oil, and transmission
fluid remain in the cars. The small amount of refuse
generated at the site is removed by the owner
himself.
The 18,000 square feet of the site outside of the
enclosed yard is occupied by landscape screening
and a parking lot with 14 spaces. The lot is
surfaced with decomposed granite as stipulated in
the County Conditions of Approval.
A: CUP2846 2
ANALYSIS:
Conditional Use Permit Required
Pursuant to Ordinance 348, Section 5.1 ( d ) { 2 ), auto
wrecking yards are permitted in the R-R (Rural
Residential zone subject to approval of a Conditional
Use Permit. The site is located in the R-R zone.
Parkin9
Ordinance 348 requires one parking space per 5,000
square feet of lot area for auto wrecking yards.
The total site area is 45,000 square feet. The
parking requirement for the subject property is
nine ~9) spaces. Fourteen spaces are provided.
Compatibility with Adjacent Land Uses
The site is located on the southerly side of "C"
Street immediately southwest of Santiago Road and
is somewhat isolated from the closest residential
neighborhood northeast of the site and north of
Santiago Road. The land uses which are most
exposed to the subject property are the private
school south of the site and the church
southeasterly of the site. The yard is effectively
screened from view from those adjacent properties
by the surrounding wall and tall trees. The Rancho
Temecula Bible Church which operates the adjacent
church and school provided a letter in 1986
supporting approval of Conditional Use Permit No.
2846.
The machinery operated in the yard is typical for a
small auto wrecking operation rather than a larger
operation using heavy equipment which would
generate severe noise levels. The Conditions of
Approval prohibit operation of the auto crusher
during the instructional hours of the adjacent
school or during the hours of 6:00 PM to 8:00 AM.
In 1986, the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce
provided a )etter stating that the Chamber had
never received any specific cmnplaints concerning
the subject auto wrecking yard or its operations.
As indicated by the low required parking ratio (one
space per 5,000 square feet of lot area), the subject
use does not typically generate high volumes of
traffic. Project generated traffic does not
constitute a significant detrimental impact to the
neighborhood.
A: CUP2846 3
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
The site is designated Residential, 2-4 units per
acre on the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP). The use
in question is not consistent with the SWAP
designation. However, SWAP was adopted by the
City as a guideline rather than as a binding
document. The Planning Commission m-'/use the
Conditional Use Permit process to determ~ tie that the
use in question is appropriate to the subject
property and is compatible with adjacent land uses.
Staff does not oppose a renewal of Conditional Use
Permit No. 28u,6, but recommends that the permit be
reviewed again within two years of the adoption of
the City's General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
Pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 of the California
Environmental Quality Act I CEQA ), the operation of
an existing facility involving no expansion of the
existing use is categorically exempt from the
requirements of CEQA. The County adopted a
Negative Declaration when the Conditional Use
Permit was originally approved in 1986.
FINDINGS AND
SUPPORTING FACTS:
The subject use is in conformance with the
R-R (Rural Residential) zone subject to
approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
Therefore, the renewal of the Conditiona) Use
Permit is in compliance with the current
zoning for the site.
There is a reasonable probability that
Conditional Use Permit No. 28u,6 Revised will
be consistent with the general plan proposal
being considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time in that the
subject use is a business of long standing in
the Temecula Valley, and Staff is not
concerned that a renewal of the Use Permit
will be detrimental to neighboring land uses
in that the site is adequately screened from
adjacent properties.
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
in that site screening and the Condition of
Approval restricting the hours of use of
machinery on the site are adequate to prevent
A: CUP28~,6 4
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
detrimental visual or noise impacts to adjacent
properties.
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinance in that on-site parking meets
the requirement of Ordinance 348, and the
County adopted a Negative Declaration when
the Conditional Use Permit was originally
approved.
Project generated traffic is not a significant
detrimental impact to the streets in the
vicinity, and the site is of sufficient size to
provide adequate on-site parking.
Renewal of Conditional Use Permit No. 2846
will not be detrimental to the health, safety,
or welfare of the community in that car
batteries are removed and disposed through
a recycling service, lubricants, coolants, and
other fluids are not removed from cars or
stored on-site, and site screening and
operational restrictions are adequate to
prevent detrimental visual and noise impacts.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
ADOPT Resolution 91 - approving a
renewal of Conditional Use Permit No. 28u,6
for a term not to exceed five years from the
date of approval or two years from the
adoption of the City~s General Plan,
whichever comes first, based on the Findings
contained hereln and subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval.
SW: ks
Attachments:
R eso) uti on
Conditions of Approval
Exhibits
A. Vicinity Map
B. Site Plan
A: CUP2846 5
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 28~,5 REVISED TO PERMIT OPERATION OF
AN AUTO TOWING AND WRECKING SERVICE LOCATED
AT 41910 "C" STREET AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NUMBER 922-080-004.
WHEREAS, Frank Slaughter filed CUP No. 2846 Revised in accordance
with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said CUP application was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said CUP on August 5,
1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in
support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said CUP;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
a)
There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
A: CUP2846 6
b)
There is tittle or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan. (herelnafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed CUP is consistent with the SWAP and meets
the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to
wit:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects
and taking other actions, including the issuance of
building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the
following:
a)
There is reasonable probability that CUP No.
2846 Revised proposed will be consistent with
the general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
D. I1) Pursuant to Section 18.26(e), no CUP may be
approved unless the applicant demonstrates the proposed use will not
be detrimental to the health safety and welfare of the community, and
further, that any CUP approved shall be subject to such conditions as
shall be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare of
the community.
A: CUP2846 7
(2) The Planning commisslon, inapprovingtheproposed
CUP, makes the following findings, to wit:
a)
The subject use is in conformance with the
R-R (Rural Residential) zone subject to
approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
Therefore, the renewal of the Conditional Use
Permit is in compliance with the current
zoning for the site.
b)
There is a reasonable probability that
Conditional Use Permit No. 2846 Revised will
be consistent with the general plan proposal
being considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time in that the
subject use is a business of long standing in
the Temecula Valley, and Staff is not
concerned that a renewal of the Use Permit
will be detrimental to neighboring land uses
in that the site is adequately screened from
adjacent properties.
c)
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
in that site screening and the Condition of
Approval restricting the hours of use of
machinery on the site are adequate to prevent
detrimental visual or noise impacts to adjacent
properties.
d)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinance in that on-site parking meets
the requirement of Ordinance 3u,8, and the
County adopted a Negative Declaration when
the Conditional Use Permit was originally
approved.
e)
Project generated traffic is not a significant
detrimental impact to the streets in the
vicinity, and the site is of sufficient size to
provide adequate on-site parking.
f)
Renewal of Conditional Use Permit No. 28u,6
will not be detrimental to the health, safety,
or welfare of the community in that car
batteries are removed and disposed through
a recycling service, lubricants, coolants, and
other fluids are not removed from cars or
A: CUP2846 8
stored on-site, and site screenin9 and
operational restrictions are adequate to
prevent detrimental visual and noise impacts.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECT ION 2, the CUP proposed
is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
SECTION Z. Conditions.
That the city of Temecula Plannin9 Commission hereby approves CUP
No. 2846 Revised for the operation and construction of an auto towing and wreckin9
service located at 41910 "C" Street and known as Assessor~s Parcel No. 922-080-004
subject to the followin9 conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
SECTION 3.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of August, 1991.
JOHN HOA(;LAND
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 5th day of August, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
A:CUP2846 9
ATTACHMENT 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Conditional Use Permit No: 28u,6 Revised
Project Description: Renewal of a permit to
operate an auto towinq
and wreckinq service.
Assessor's Parcel No.: 922-080-00~,
Planninq Department
The use hereby permitted by this Conditional Use Permit is for an auto towing
and wrecking service.
The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or
proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees
to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its
advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Conditional
Use Permit No. 28~,6 Revised. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the
permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of
Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly
notify the permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to
cooperate fully in the defense, the permlttee shall not, thereafter, be
responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. All outdoor lighting shall
be from low pressure sodium lamps.
This permit renewal shall expire five years from the date of approval or two
years from the date of adoption of the City~s General Plan, whichever comes
first. Application for an additional renewal must be submitted prior to
expiration.
In the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for one year or more,
this renewal shall become null and void.
Site screening shall be maintained. The dead trees on the easterly perimeter
shall be replaced. The wood trim on the screening fence shall be repalnted to
match the existing color or in soft green or earth tones.
7. No dismantled automobiles or parts shall be stored outside the screening wall.
A: CUP2846 10
Operation of the car crusher or any other equipment which may generate
excessive noise shall be prohibited during the instructional hours of the
adjacent school and during the hours from 6:00 PM to 8:00 AM.
No battery acid, lubricant, coolant, or transmission fluids may be removed
from vehicles and stored on site.
The project shall conform to the existing County Conditions of Approval for
Conditional Use Permit No. 2846.
A: CUP2846 11
CITY OF T'E~,/IECULA ~
SITE
//1
VICINITY MAP
CASE NO.
P.C. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA )
,/
CASE NO.rcut~':z~~i~''
SITE PLAN ) .,,.,.,T.o.,
~P.C. DATE
ITEM #9
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 5, 1991
Case No.: Public Use Permit No, 3
Prepared By: Mark Rhoades
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT Resolution 91- approving
Public Use Permit No. 3 based
on the Analysis and Findings
contained in the Staff Report.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCAT ION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXIS'TINC LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
Ed Dufresne Ministries
Markham & Associates
To operate a church and related facilities from an
existing industrial office complex.
L~1743 Enterprise Circle North
M-SC
North:
South:
East:
West:
N/A
Manufacturing - Service Commercial )
Industrial Office
Industrial Office
Industrial Office
Vacant
Industrial Office
North: M-SC
South: M-SC
East: M-SC
West: M-SC
A: PUP3 1
PROJECT STATISTICS:
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Square Footage:
Existing Spaces in Center:
Spaces Required for Church:
Spaces Required for Adjacent Use:
2621 Assembly
952 Office
988 Warehouse
4561 Sq. Ft.
232
26
8
The proposed Public Use Permit was submitted to
the City of Temecula Planning Department on July
8, 1991. The proposed use is for a Church facility
in an existing industrial office complex. The Public
Use Permit is required because the use in question
is proposed for the M-SC (Manufacturing - Service
Commercial ) zone.
The proposed project is a request for a Public Use
Permit to allow Church related uses at an existing
Industrial office complex which is currently zoned
M-SC. The existing building is located at 41769
Enterprise Circle North.
The proposed church use will be conducted entirely
in Suite A101 during evenings and weekends. The
adjacent suite A102 is proposed for warehouse,
office, and retail sales space utilized in conjunction
with the adjacent church. Suite A102 proposes to
conduct normal business operations during standard
hours.
Parkin9
The existing center currently contains 232 parking
spaces. The existing uses in the complex, combined
with a full occupancy of office uses would require
231 total parking spaces.
The applicant has stated that church activities will
be conducted only on weekends and after 7:00 p.m.
on week nights. All required parking for the
church use would be reciprocal and have no impact
on uses which operate during what are considered
normal business hours. All of the existing
occupants operate during such time. The property
owner has provided the City with a letter stating
that no tenants will operate during times used by
the church.
A:PUP3 2
ANALYSIS:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS AND
SUPPORTING FACTS:
The adjacent suite will require 8 parking spaces for
office, warehouse, and retail uses conducted during
normal operating hours. The parking for Suite
A102 is adequately provided by the existing site
layout.
Zoninq
The proposed use conforms with the M-SC zoning
requirements, provided a public use permit is
approved.
The Southwest Area Plan designates this area as
"L)" ( Light Industrial ). The proposed use would be
consistent with Ordinance 3u,8 provided a public use
permit is approved and therefore would be
consistent with SWAP.
The proposed project is a Class 1 Categorical
Exemption per the CEQA Guidelines.
The site of the proposed use together with
the on-site parking required and provided is
suitable in size to accommodate the proposed
intensity of development.
The proposed use will not have a substantial
adverse effect on abutting property or the
permitted use thereof. All required church
parking is reciprocal and the approved hours
of operation will insure compliance. Parking
for the adjacent facility is adequately
provided for under the existing plot plan.
As conditioned, the proposed use is not on a
scale of intensity to impact adjacent uses.
The site for the proposed use has adequate
access to the fully improved Enterprise Circle
North as evidenced in the site plan for
P.U.P. 3.
The proposed project will not inhibit or
restrict future abillty to use active or passive
solar energy systems. Adequate building
exposure is provided for these alternatives.
As conditloned, the project will not have a
significant adverse effect on the environment
as the project is categorically exempt per the
CEQA Guidelines.
A:PUP3 3
There is a reasonable probability that the
project will be consistent with the City's
General Plan once it is adopted, based on
analysis in the staff report and the proposal's
conformance with existing applicable
ordinances and Conditions of Project
Approval.
The lawful conditions stated in the approval
are deemed necessary to protect the public
health, safety and general welfare. The
Conditions stated in the attached Staff
analysis are based on mitigative measures
necessary to reduce the severity of, or
entirely eliminate potential adverse impacts of
the project, including potential impacts on
adjacent parking facilities, human health and
safety, and fire protection services.
There is not a probability of detriment to, or
interference with the future adopted General
Plan Land Use if the proposed use is
ultimately inconsistent with the new General
Plan. The proposed use is of insignificant
scale in the context of regional development.
Further, if found to be ultimately
detrimental, the use is subject to termination
under City ordinance provisions contained in
Section 18.31 of City Ordinance No. 3u,8
These findings are supported by Staff
analysis, minutes, maps and exhibits,
associated with this application and herein
incorporated by reference.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
ADOPT Resolution 91- approving Public
Use Permit No. 3 based on the Analysis and
Findings contained in the Staff Report.
MR: ts
Attachments:
Resolution
Conditions of Approval
Exhibits
A:PUP3 u,
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PUBLIC USE PERMIT
NO. 3 TO PERMIT OPERATION OF A CHURCH AND
RELATED USES LOCATED AT 417~.3 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE
NORTH, SUITES A101 AND A102.
WHEREAS, Ed Dufresne Ministries filed PUP No. 3 in accordance with
the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said PUP application was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said PUP on August 5,
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 PUP;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECT ION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The planning agency finds, in approvin9 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:PUP3 5
b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP" ) was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed PUP is consistent with the SWAP and meets
the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to
wit:
{1 ) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
12) 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 PUP No.
3 proposed will be consistent with the general
plan proposal being considered or studied or
which will be studied within a reasonable
time.
b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
D. (1) Pursuant to Section 18.26(e), no PUP may be
approved unless the applicant demonstrates the proposed use will not
be detrimental to the health safety and welfare of the community, and
further, that any PUP approved shall be subject to such conditions as
shall be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare of
the community.
A:PUP3 6
( 2 ) The Planning commission, in approving the proposed
PUP, makes the following findings, to wit:
a)
The site of the proposed use together with
the on-site parking required and provided is
suitable in size to accommodate the proposed
intensity of development.
b)
The proposed use will not have a substantial
adverse effect on abutting property or the
permitted use thereof. All required church
parking is reciprocal and the approved hours
of operation will insure compliance. Parking
for the adjacent facility is adequately
provided for under the existing plot plan.
As conditioned, the proposed use is not on
scale of intensity to impact adjacent uses.
c)
The site for the proposed use has adequate
access to the fully improved Enterprise Circle
North as evidenced in the site plan for
P.U.P. 3.
d)
The proposed project will not inhibit or
restrict future ability to use active or passive
solar energy systems. Adequate building
exposure is provided for these alternatives.
e)
As conditioned, the project will not have a
significant adverse effect on the environment
as the project is categorically exempt per the
CEQA Guidelines.
f)
There is a reasonable probability that the
project will be consistent with the City's
General Plan once it is adopted, based on
analysis in the staff report and the proposal's
conformance with existing applicable
ordinances and Conditions of Project
Approval.
g)
The lawful conditions stated in the approval
are deemed necessary to protect the public
health, safety and general welfare. The
Conditions stated in the attached Staff
analysis are based on mitigative measures
necessary to reduce the severity of, or
entirely eliminate potential adverse impacts of
the project, including potential impacts on
adjacent parking facilities, human health and
safety, and fire protection services.
A:PUP3 7
h)
There is not a probability of detriment to, or
interference with the future adopted General
Plan Land Use if the proposed use is
ultimately inconsistent with the new General
Plan. The proposed use is of insignificant
scale in the context of regional development.
Further, if found to be ultimately
detrimental, the use is subject to termination
under City ordinance provisions contained in
Section 18.31 of City Ordinance No. 348
These findin9s are supported by Staff
analysis, minutes, maps and exhibits,
associated with this application and hereln
incorporated by reference.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the PUP proposed
is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
Public Use Permit No. 3 is a Class I Categorical Exemption per the CEQA
Guidelines.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the city of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves PUP
No. 3 for the operation of a church and related uses located at 417~,3 Enterprise
Circle North, Suites A101 and A102, subject to the following conditions:
A. Attachment 2, attached hereto.
SECTION 4.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of August, 1991.
JOHN HOAGLAND
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 5th day of August, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
A:PUP3
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
8
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Conditions of Approval
Public Use Permit No. 3
Commission Approval Date:
Planninq Department
1. All signage shall require approval by separate permit.
2. Reciprocal access easements shall remain unobstructed.
This public use permit shall be subject to Planning Commission review every
five (5) years. The permit shall remain active until such times as the
Commission determines that the use is not in conformance with the approved
conditions of approval.
Applicant shall maintain no less than 26 reciprocal spaces on weekends and
week nights. Hours of operation for the proposed use in Suite A101 will be
limited to after 7:00 pm on week nights, and all day on weekends.
The public use permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 18.30 of Ordinance
30,8.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or
any use allowed by this permit.
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 Public USE
PERMIT NO. 3. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any
such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will
cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the
permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in
the alefence, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend,
indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of approval date; otherwise
it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. By use is meant the
beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the
two ( 2 ) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion or the
beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval.
In the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period of one { 1 )
year or more, this approval shall become null and void.
A:PUP3 9
Engineering Department
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY:
10.
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.
11.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, includin9 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 buildin9 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 (assumin9 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 waivin9 its right to protest the
reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
A: PUP3 10
GLEN J. NEWMAN
FIRE CHIEF
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE * PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370
(714) 657-3183
July 16, 1991
TO: CITY OF TEMECULA
ATTN: PLANNING DEPT
RE: PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO:
The Riverside County Fire Department has no comments or conditions. All
Fire Protection measures will be addressed with the related Building Plans.
(Plan Check 426 & 427).
All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to
the Planning and Engineering staff.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
By
Micheal E. Gray, Fire Captain Specialist
MEG/tm
['1 INDIO OFFICE
79-733 Counn-y Club Drive, Suite F, lndlo, CA 92201
(619) 342~886 · FAX (619) 775-2072
PLANNING DIVISION
[Z] RIVERSIDE OFFICE
3760 12th Street. Ri-,enide' CA 92501
(714) 2754777 · FAX (714) 369-7451
C] TEMECULA OFFICE
41002 County Center Drive, Suite 225, Teraecuh, CA 92390
(714) 694-5070 * FAX (714) 694-5076
~ pr/nted on recycled paper
IUL 24 '91 1-4:13 rl~RF~HF~r.1 g ~SSOC P.2, 3
FROM:
RE:
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
DATE: 07-24-9!
He<h Specialist Ill
Permit 3 ~nd ha~ no objections- Sanitary
~J&~,P,l}/~aJ~, "w~l-eerva" letters from Lhe
sewerJn9 ~genc~es will be required.
SM:dr
CITY OF TEMECULA )
gN TaR-P i~ t.5 m
~,,IIV-,~F-- .I,,3o'K'TH
CITY OF TEMECULA )
SWAP MAP
C cITY OF TEMECULA )
A-I-IO
\\
,,,~Z4077
M-F"
3Z -'-'~.~' X
:
46C
x M-SC
x. 'czars9
xx~./ , '~'
ZONE MAP )
,.c. o,T.E~.5.q L,
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
,/
/
ITEM #10
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 5, 1991
Case No.:
Change of Zone No. 18; and
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 2
Prepared By: Oliver Mujica
Recommendation: 1.
RECOMMEND ADOPTION of
Negative Declaration for Change
of Zone No. 18 and Specific Plan
No. 219, Amendment No. 2;
ADOPT Resolution No. 91-
recommending approval of
Change of Zone No. 18 and
Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 2; and
RECOMMEND Adoption of
Ordinance No. 91- , entitled
"An Ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Temecula,
California, Amending Zoning
Ordinance No. 91-13 Pertaining
to Ordinance No. 348.2919
ISpecific Plan No. 219) as it
Relates to Zoning."
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LQCAT ION:
EXISTING ZONING:
Sam McCann
Turrini & Brink
Change the zoning designation of the subject
property from R-A-2 1/2 to Specific Plan; and,
Amend the boundary of Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 1 to include Planning Area No. 36.
Southeast corner of Margarita Road and De Portola
Road.
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1
A:SP219-A 1
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
BACKGROUND:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Planning Area No. 1
R-A-2 1/2
R-A~2 1/2 ( Residential Agricultural,
2 1/2 acre minimum lot size)
Planning Area No. 1 ( C o m m u n i t y /
Neighborhood
Commercial )
( Community/
Neighborhood
Commercial )
~ Residential Agricultural,
2 1/2 acre minimum lot size)
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 2
Vacant
On September 6, 1988, the Riverside County Board
of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 88-470
approving Specific Plan No. 219 IPaloma Del Sol,
formerly the Meadows). )n addition, the Board of
Supervisors certified Environmental Impact Report
No. 235, for Specific Plan No. 219, as an accurate
and objective statement that complies with the
California Environmental Quality Act ICEQA).
Furthermore, a statement of overriding findings was
made for the Air Quality Impacts.
On April 9, 1991, the City Council adopted
Resolution No. 91-36 approving Change of Zone No.
5621 and Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1
amending the boundaries and land use designations
of Planning Areas 1, 2, 5 and 6 of Specific Plan No.
219. Subsequently, on April 23, 1991, the City
Council adopted Ordinance No. 91-13 amending
Zoning Ordinance No. 90-04 pertaining to Ordinance
No. 348.2919 |Specific Plan No. 219) as it relates to
zoning.
On June 10, 1991, the applicant filed Change of
Zone No. 18 and Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment
No. 2.
On June 20, 1991, Change of Zone No. 18; and
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 2 was
reviewed by the Formal Development Review
Committee; and, it was determined that the Specific
Plan document was acceptable to proceed with the
Public Hearing process and that the project, as
designed, can be adequately condltioned to mitigate
the DRC's concerns. The DRC has forwarded a
recommendation of approval subject to conditions.
A:SP219-A 2 ,
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
As noted above, Change of Zone No. 18; and
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 2 proposes to
change the zoning designation of the subject 2.5
acre site from R-A-2 1/2 to Specific Plan; and amend
the boundary of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment
No. 1 to include the subject property as Planning
Area No. 36.
Land Use Modifications
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 2 proposes to
modify the Land Use Plan {see Figure 3 - Approved
and Amended - pages 17 and 18) by increasing the
total commercial acreage from 51 acres to 53.5 acres.
Circulation Plan Modifications
As illustrated on Figures 4 and 15kk Ipages 20-1
and 162-3 respectively), Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 2, proposes to provide access to
Planning Area No. 36 from both Margarita and De
Portola Roads. However, it should be noted that
these access points have been identified as
"potential" access points only; and that the exact
number and location of driveways for Planning Area
No. 36 will be determined during the review of a
plot plan application.
Road Improvements
Margarita Road will be constructed by the project
developer from east of the centerline to the curb,
between Pauba Road and Highway 79.
Traffic Impacts
The Transportation Engineering Staff has reviewed
this project; and has determined that the proposed
project is consistent with the traffic mitigation
measures of EIR 235 adopted for Specific Plan No.
219 and there will be no additional adverse
unmitigable significant traffic impacts resulting
from the development of this proposed project.
Development Standards
Pursuant tot he request of the Planning Department
Staff, the applicant has prepared detailed
Development Standards for Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 2, as opposed to referencing Zoning
Ordinance No. 348. These standards have been
tailored to specifically address development within
A:SP219-A 3
SPECIFIC PLAN,
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS:
the Meadows by taking into consideration the lot
sizes and adjacent land uses, within and
surrounding the Specific Plan Area.
The proposed project is consistent with the SWAP
Land Use Designation of Specific Plan; and is
consistent with the overall concept of Specific Plan
No. 219, Amendment No. 1, in that the total number
ol= commercial acreage has increased by only 2.5
acres and the adjacent Planning Area ~ No. 1 ) is also
Neighborhood Commercial. In addition, Staff finds
it probable that this project will be consistent with
the new General Plan when it is adopted.
An Initial Study was performed for this project
which determined that although the proposed
project could have a significant effect on the
environment, no significant impact would result to
the natural or built environment in the City because
the mitigation measures described in EIR 235 and in
the Conditions of Approval have been added to the
project, and a Negative Declaration has been
recommended for adoption.
There is a reasonable probability that Change
of Zone No. 18 and Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 2 will be consistent with the
City's future General Plan, which will be
completed in a reasonable time and in
accordance with State law, due to the fact
that the subject request is consistent with
the SWAP Designation of Specific Plan and is
consistent with SP 219, Amendment No. 1.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future General Plan, if Change of Zone
No. 18 and Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment
No. 2 are ultimately inconsistent with the
plan, due to the fact that an approval of such
a zone change and amendment may be
consistent with the goals and/or policies of
the City's future General Plan.
The project is compatible with surrounding
land uses. The harmony creates a compatible
physical relationship with adjoining
properties, due to the fact that the adjoining
properties were designed as an overall
concept for Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment
A:SP219-A ~
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
No. 1 and the proposed project is consistent
with Specific Plan No. 219.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the planned
land use of the area· due to the fact that the
proposed land use is consistent with the
overall concept of Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 1.
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
RECOMMEND ADOPTION of Negative
Declaration for Change of Zone No. 18 and
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 2; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending
approval of Change of Zone No. 18 and
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 2; and
RECOMMEND Adoption of Ordinance No. 91-
· entitled "An Ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Temecula, California,
Amending Zoning Ordinance No. 91-13
Pertaining to Ordinance No. 3b,8.2919
(Specific Plan No. 219) as it Relates to
Zoning."
OM: ks
Attachments:
Resolution
Draft Ordinance
Conditions of Approval
Environmental Assessment
Exhibits:
A. Vicinity Map
B. Specific Land Use Map
C. Planning Area No. 36 Map
D. Planning Area No. 36 Standards
Specific Plan Text
A:SP219-A 5
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 18 AND SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219,
AMENDMENT NO. 2 CHANGING THE ZONING
DESIGNATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM R-A-2
1/2 TO SPECIFIC PLAN AND AMEND THE BOUNDARY OF
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219, AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
INCLUDE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS PLANNING AREA
NO. 36 FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MARGARITA ROAD AND DE
PORTOLA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR~S PARCEL
NO. 926-012-006.
WHEREAS, Sam McCann filed Change of Zone No. 18 and Specific Plan
No. 219, Amendment No. 2 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 and Specific Plan Amendment
applications were processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local
law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Change of Zone and
Specific Plan Amendment on August 5, 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 and Specific Plan Amendment;
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 plannin9 a9ency finds, in approvin9 projects and
takin9 other actions, includin9 the issuance of buildin9
permits, each of the following:
A:SP219-A 6
a)
There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, ~hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of the
proposed Change of Zone and Specific Plan Amendment, makes the
following findings, to wit:
a)
There is a reasonable probability that Change
of Zone No. 18 and Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 2 will be consistent with the
City~s future General Plan, which will be
completed in a reasonable time and in
accordance with State law, due to the fact
that the subject request is consistent with
the SWAP Designation of Specific Plan and is
consistent with SP 219, Amendment No. 1.
b)
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future General Plan, if Change of Zone
No. 18 and Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment
No. 2 are ultimately inconsistent with the
plan, due to the fact that an approval of such
a zone change and amendment may be
consistent with the goals and/or policies of
the City's future General Plan.
c)
The project is compatible with surrounding
land uses. The harmony creates a compatible
physical relationship with adjoining
properties, due to the fact that the adjoining
A:SP219-A 7
properties were designed as an overall
concept for Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment
No. 1 and the proposed project is consistent
with Specific Plan No. 219. Amendment No. I.
d)
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the planned
land use of the area, due to the fact that the
proposed land use is consistent with the
overall concept of Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 1.
D. The Change of Zone and Specific Plan Amendment are
compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the
proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in El R
235 and in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a
Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby recommended for adoption.
SECTION 3.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends
approval of Change of Zone No. 18 and Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 2
changing the zoning designation of the subject property from R-A-2 1/2 to Specific
Plan and amending the boundary of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. I to
include the subject property as Planning Area No. 36 ( Neighborhood Commercial ) for
the subject property located on the southeast corner of Margarita Road and De
Portola Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 926-012-006.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of August, 1991.
JOHN HOAGLAND
CHAIRMAN
A:SP219-A 8
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held
on the 5th day of August, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
A:SP219-A 9
ORDINANCE NO. 91-13
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITYOF TEMECULAAMENDING ZONING
ORDINANCE NO. 91-13 PERTAINING TO
ORDINANCE NO. 3~8.2919 ISPECIFIC PLAN
NO. 219) AS IT RELATES TO ZONING.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. City Ordinance No. 90-00, adopted by reference certain
Non-Codified Riverside County Ordinances, including Ordinance No. 30,8,
Article X, Section 10.0,.b of Ordinance No. 30,8.
SECTION 2. Article XVl la of Ordinance No. 30,8 is amended by adding
thereto a new Section 17.36 to read as follows:
Section 17.36. SP ZONE REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS FOR
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219.
SEE EXHIBIT "C"
SECTION 3. 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 ~. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this
Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law.
SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and
effect thirty ~30) days after its passage; and within fifteen { 15) days after its
passage, together with the names of the City Council Members voting thereon,
it shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in said City.
A:SP219-A 10
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1991.
ATTEST:
Ronald J. Parks, Mayor
June S. Greek
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CiTY OF TEMECULA )
l, 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
readin9 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
meetin9 of the City Council on the __ day of , 1991, by the following
vote· to wit:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek· City Clerk
A:SP219-A 11
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
SPECIFIC PLAN NO, 219, AMENDMENT NO, 2
Plannlnq Department
1. Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 2 shall consist of the following:
a. Exhibit "A": Specific Plan Text
b. Exhibit '~B": Specific Plan Conditions of Approval
c. Exhibit "C" : Specific Plan Development Standards
If any of the following conditions of approval differ from the specific plan text
or exhibits, the conditions enumerated herein shall take precedence.
The development of the property shall be in accordance with the mandatory
requirements of all City of Temecula ordinances including Ordinance Nos. 31~8
and L~60 and state laws; and shall conform substantially with adopted Specific
Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 2 as filed in the office of the Planning
Department, unless otherwise amended.
No portion of the specific plan which purports or proposes to change, waive
or modify any ordinance or other legal requirement for the development shall
be considered to be part of the adopted specific plan.
The project shall comply with the conditions set forth in the following agency
letters and/or the requirements set forth by these agencies at the development
stage:
g-
h.
i.
Road Department
Flood Control
Fire Department
Parks
County Administrative Offices
Water Agency
Sewer Agency
Temecula School District
Department of Health
June 2. 1988
May 26, 1988
January 8, 1988 and
February 25, 1991
May 25, 1988
April 5, 1988
May 23, 1988
May 2~,, 1988
January 26, 1988
July 20, 1990
Impacts to the Temecula Valley Unified School District shall be mitigated at the
development application stage in accordance with the District policies in effect
at the time of tract submittal.
A:SP219-A 12
10.
11.
Common areas identified in the specific plan shall be owned and maintained as
follows:
A permanent master maintenance organization shall be established for
the specific plan area, to assume ownership and maintenance
responsibility for all common recreation, open space, circulation
systems and landscaped areas. The organization may be public or
private. Merger with an area-wide or regional organization shall sat)sly
this condition provided that such organization is legally and financially
capable of assuming the responsibilities for ownership and maintenance.
If the organization is a private association then neighborhood
associations shall be established for each residential development,
where required, and such associations may assume ownership and
maintenance responsibility for neighborhood common areas.
Unless otherwise provided for in these conditions of approval, common
areas shall be conveyed to the maintenance organization as implementing
development is approved or any subdivision is recorded.
The maintenance organization shall be established prior to or
concurrent with the recordatlon of the first land division, or issuance
of any building permits for any approved development permit (use
permit, plot plan, etc. )
Development applications which incorporate common areas shall be accompanied
by design plans for the common area. Such plans shall specify the location
and extent of landscaping, irrigation systems, structures, and circulation
(vehicular, pedestrian and/or equestrian).
The following special studies/reports shall accompany implementing
development applications in the planning areas listed below:
Study/Report
Planninq Areas
Archeological Report
Mitigation for Stepbends
Kangaroo Rat (See
Condition No. 16)
As per the County Historian~s requirements
1- and 25
A land division filed for the purposes of phasing or financing shall not be
considered an implementing development application; provided that if the
maintenance organization is a property owners association, the legal
documentation necessary to establish the association shall be recorded
concurrently with the recordat/on of the final map.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of any use
contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain clearance from
the Planning Department that all pertinent conditions of approval have been
satisfied with the specific plan for the phase of development in questions.
A:SP219-A 13
12.
An environmental assessment shall be conducted for each tract, change of
zone, plot plan, specific plan amendment, or any other discretionary permit
required to implement the specific plan. At a minimum, the environmental
assessment shall utilize the evaluation of impacts addressed in the
prepared for Specific Plan No. 219.
13.
Prior to the recordation of a final map, the land divider shall submit to the
Planning Department an agreement with the appropriate parks and recreation
district which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City that the land
divider has provided for the payment of fees and/or offer of dedication of
lands in accordance with Section 10.35 (Parks and Recreation Fees and
Dedications) of Land Division Ordinance No. ~,60.
Prior to the recordat/on of any final subdivision map or issuance of building
permits in the case of use permits and plot plans, the applicant shall submit
to the Planning Department the following documents which shall demonstrate
to the satisfaction of the City that individual appropriate owners associations
will be established and will operate in accordance with the intent and purpose
of the specific plan.
a. The document to convey title.
b. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions to be recorded.
Management and maintenance agreements to be entered into with the
unit/lot owner of the project.
The master property owners association, commercial property owners
association, and the business park owners association shall be charged with
the unqualified right to assess their own individual owners who own individual
units for reasonable maintenance and management costs which shall be
established and continually maintained. The individual owners association
shall have the right to lien the property of any owner who defaults in payment
of their assessment fees. Such lien shall not be subordinate to any
encumbrance other than a deed of trust, provided such deed of trust is made
in good faith and for good value, and is of record prior to the lien of the
individual owners association.
15.
The applicant or its successor 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
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 2, which action is brought within the
time period provided for in California Government Code Section 66L~99.37. The
City of Temecula will promptly notify the applicant or its successor 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
applicant or its successor of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to
cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant or its successor shall not,
thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of
Temecula.
A:SP219-A 1 ~
16.
17.
18.
Trapping studies have indicated the presence of existing habitat ( occupied by
Stephen's Kangaroo Rat) for Planning Areas 10 and 25. Prior to issuance of
grading permits for this planning area, the applicant shall provide mitigation
for removal of the SKR habitat as follows:
Memorandum of Understanding between the developer and the California
Department of Fish and Game, o_Zr
Compliance with an adopted County Program for the mitigation of
removal of Stephen's Kangaroo Rat habitat.
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 .~,( d ){2 ) plus the Twenty-
Five Dollar 1525.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the
Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152
and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight {48) hour
period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department
the check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall
be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section
711.~,~c).
Prior to the issuance of grading permits and/or building permit, the developer
or his successor's interest shall submit a mitigation monitoring program to the
Planning Department for approval, which shall describe how compliance with
required mitigation measures will be met and the appropriate monitoring timing
of the mitigation.
A:SPZ19-A 15
Backqround
1.
2.
q.
5,
6.
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
Name of Proponent:
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
Agency Requiring
Assessment:
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Location of Proposal:
Sam McCann
43121Margarita Road
Temecula, CA 92390
1714) 676-7484
July 1, 1991
CITY OF TEMECULA
Change of Zone No, 18 and
Specific Plan No,219, Amendment No.2
Southeast corner of Marqarita Road and
De Portola Road,
II.
Project Description
Change of Zone No. 18; and Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 2 proposes
to change the zoning designation of the subject 2.5 acre property from R-A-2
1/2 to Specific Plan and Amend the boundary of Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 1 to include the subject property as Planning Area No. 36.
A:SP219-A 16
III. Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
The followin9 environmental impacts associated with Specific Plan No. 219 are
insignificant in that the design of the project includes the necessary mitigatlon
measures which have been adopted within EIR 235:
Water and Sewer:
The project will have an average daily consumption
of domestic water of 1,683,300 gallons at 300
gallons/d.u./day. The project will generation
between 1.81 and 3.08 million gallons per day of
sewage flow. Onsite wastewater collection facilities
will be constructed to tie into Eastern Municipal
Water District's master planned facilities being
constructed through the Rancho Villages
Assessment District. Construction of all structures
within the project will conform to state laws
requiring water efficient plumbing fixtures.
Utilities:
Gas, electricity, and telephone service will be
provided by respective purveyors of the service.
Lines for electrical and telephone services, and
mains for natural gas are located along the project
boundaries.
Enerqy Resources:
The project will increase consumption of energy for
motor vehicle movement, space and water heating,
air conditioning, use of home appliances, and
operation of construction equipment. The project
will adhere to State Code Title 2~, energy
conservation standards and will employ site design,
when possible, for additional energy conservation.
Non vehicular pathways are included within, and
adjacent to, the project site. Commercial and
employment centers are in proximity to the project
site.
D e
Parks and Recreation:
Project residents will create a demand for parks and
recreation facilities, and for open space. The
project design provides 2~,2+/- acres of recreation
areas, parkway greenbelts, and paseo open space.
The following environmental impacts associated with Specific Plan No. 219 are
potentially significant, but will be avoided or substantially lessened by the identified
mitigation measures which have been adopted within EI R 235:
A. Seismic Safety
1. Impact:
Although faults have been previously mapped on-
site, they have been determined to be inactive and
the risk of ground rupture due to faulting on the
project is considered nil. Liquefaction potential
exists along the entire flat alluviated area of
Temecula Creek within the southern site boundary.
A:SP219-A 17
2. Mitigation:
Slopes and Erosion
1. Impact:
2. Mitiqation:
C. Flooding
1. Impact:
2. Mitigation:
During site development, additional geologic
evaluation shall be continued in order to verify the
extent and relative age of fault activity. Mitigation
of the liquefaction potential within the southern
portion of the site will occur as a result of project
development, which will lower artificially high
groundwater levels by removal of recharge ponds,
as well as increase overburden as a result of site
grading.
The Meadows Specific Plan will unavoidably alter
some of the existing landforms. Owing to the
general granular nature of graded slopes, a
moderate to severe erosion potential exists if slopes
are unprotected. Removal and recompaction of
portions of alluvial/colluvial soils within fill areas
and shallow cut areas will be necessary.
Temporary groundcover shall be provided to
prevent erosion during the construction phase.
Permanent vegetation shall be planted as soon as
possible after grading. Specific requirements for
alluvial/colluvial soils removal shall be developed
during tentative map studies and incorporated into
project grading. The three small possible landslide
areas shall be investigated during design level
studies and all mitigation measures identified as a
result of that investigation will be incorporated into
future development approvals. Remedial grading
recommendations to provide for the long term
stability will be provided based upon a finalized
grading design.
Development of the Meadows Specific Plan will alter
the existing drainage patterns and will increase
runoff to Temecula Creek and, to a lesser extent,
Murrieta Creek.
A master drainage plan has been developed to
respond to the hydrologlcal constraints of the site.
A more in-depth assessment of the Temecula
floodplain shall be conducted during the final
design and preparation of the tentative tract maps.
and all mitigation measures identified as a result of
that assessment will be incorporated into future
development approvals. Erosion control devices
shall be utilized in hillside development areas to
mitigate the effect of increased runoff at points of
discharge. If required, the project applicant will
contribute Drainage Improvement Fees as
appropriate.
A:SP219-A 18
Noise
1. Impact:
2. Mitigation:
Noise generated from the project will derive from
two sources, construction and vehicular traffic, but
is not anticipated to result in unacceptable noise
levels to existin9 or proposed off-site uses. Onsite
areas adjacent to high volume roadways may be
subject to noise impacts.
A noise analysis shall be required in planning areas
adjacent to high volume perimeter roads. If
indicated, noise attenuation will be incorporated
into project design.
Water Quality
1. Impact:
2. Mitigation:
Implementation of the project will alter the
composition of surface runoff by grading the site
surfaces; by construction of impervious streets,
rods and parking facilities; and by the irrigation of
landscaped areas. Runoff conveyed to Temecula
and Murrieta Creeks will contain minor amounts of
poll utants.
The project will employ erosion control devices
during grading, such as temporary betins,
culverts, sand bagging or desiltlng basins. Urban
runoff will be mitigated through implementation of a
street cleaning program.
Wild life/V eqetati on
1. Impact:
2. Mitiqation:
As a consequence of grassland and coastal sage
scrub vegetation removal, existing wildlife will
either be destroyed or displaced. Impacts upon
habitat containing a population of the Stephen's
Kangaroo Rat will result.
The project applicant will participate in any in-place
County program which provides for off-site
mitigation of impacts to the Stepbends Kangaroo Rat,
or enter into a Memorandum of Understandln9 wit
the California Department of Fish and Game.
Historic and Prehistoric
1. Impact:
Sites
Without proper mitigation, implementation of the
Meadows Specific Plan could potentially destroy
archaeological/historical sites on the property.
A:SP219-A 19
2. Mitiqation:
Circulation
1. Impact:
2. Mitlqation:
Fire Protection
1. Impact:
2. Mitiqation:
Sheriff
1. Impact:
2. Mitigation:
Schools
1. I rapact:
2. Mitiqation:
Prior to the approval of any additional implementin9
processes, the applicant/developer will meet with
the County Historical Commission to determine
appropriate measures to mitigate potential impacts
to archaeological/historical sites; all mitigation
measures identified as a result of the meetingl s) will
be incorporated into future development approvals.
The Meadows Specific Plan is anticipated to generate
~,7,600 vehicle trips per day at project completion.
Approximately I~0,000 of these trips would be
external to the site.
Construction of the proposed circulation network
will adequately service future on-site traffic
volumes. Off-site improvements will be constructed
as required by the County Road Department and
CalTrans.
The project site would be subject to Category II
urban development requirements with regard to fire
protection services.
The project site will be served by a proposed fire
station, to be constructed near Highway 79. The
developer will pay mitigation fees as required by the
Board of Supervisors.
Project residents will impose increased demands on
law enforcement and sheriff services.
Project design will incorporate appropriate lighting,
site design, security hardware and such design
features as will promote optimal security. The
developer will pay mitigation fees as required by the
Board of Supervisors.
The project will generate an estimated 3,109
students in grades K-8 and 1,187 students in
grades 9-12, impacting the Temecula Valley Unified
School District.
The project has designated four elementary school
sites and one junior high school site. The developer
will pay school mitigation fees as required.
A:SP219-A 20
Solid Waste
1. Impact:
2. Mitiqation:
Project residents, estimated at 14,587, will generate
approximately 58 tons per day of solid waste,
incrementally shortening the life of County landfill
sites.
The County Solid Waste Management Plan includes
programs for reducing the quantity of wastes being
landfilled, including source reduction and business
and residential separation of recoverables. These
programs may be implemented by project residents
and businesses.
Libraries
1. Impact:
2. Mitiqation:
The project's population will increase demand for
library facilities and services.
The developer will pay library mitigation fees as
required by the Board of Supervisors.
The following environmental impact associated with Specific Plan No. 219 cannot be
fully mitigated and a statement of overridin9 findings has been adopted within EIR
235:
Air Quality
1. Impact:
At project build-out, daily motor vehicle emissions
for the project will total approximately 7,754
Ibs/day. Power plant emissions for electrical
energy consumed on-site will total 175 Ibs/day.
Natural gas emissions for project consumption will
total 163.6 Ibs per day. Approximately 100 Ibs of
dust per acre will be generated each day of
construction in addition to an undetermined amount
of motor emissions during site preparation an
construction.
2. Mitiqation:
Because most of the project-related air pollution
emissions are generated by automobiles, effective
mitigation is limited. On-site provisions for
schools, shopping, and recreation has been
incorporated into project design. Sufficient acreage
has been zoned for industrial use in the Rancho
California/Temecula area to provide employment
opportunities. project design includes a circulation
plan designed for efficient and direct traffic flows
and alternative transit modes including pedestrian,
bicycle, and equestrian trails. The Rancho Villages
Policy Plan, to which this project is subject,
requires pedestrian and bus stop facilities for
A:SP219-A 2 1
commercial areas. These requirements will be
implemented at the development application stage.
Particulate matter and other pollutants generated
during grading and construction will be reduced
through compliance with County Ordinance No. 457
which specifies watering during construction, and
planting of ground cover.
IV. Conclusion
The Riverside County Board of Supervisors certified Environmental Impact Report
I EI R ) No. 235 in conjunction with the approval of Specific Plan No. 219 and Change
of Zone No. 51u,0. The EIR included mitigation measures to reduce environmental
impacts to levels of insignificance. The Board of Supervisors also adopted
statements of overriding considerations for the air quality impacts. Specific Plan
No. 219, Amendment No. 2 has increased the neighborhood commercial acreage by
only 2.5 acres and proposes to modify the boundaries of Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 1 to include Planning Area No. :36; and will not result in additional
impacts to the environment. The Conditions of Approval are adequate to mitigate
any potential significant impacts to levels of insignificance.
Pursuant to Section 1516u, of the California Environmental Quality Act and Condition
of Approval No. 12 of Specific Plan No. 219, this Initial Study has been prepared to
demonstrate that the changes resulting from the proposed Specific Plan Amendment
will not result in new or substantially increased significant impacts, that there have
been no changes in the circumstances surrounding the project that would require
important revisions to the EIR due to new significant impacts, and that no new
information has arisen which would indicate that the project will have significant
effects not previously discussed or underestimated, or that alternatives or mitigation
measures not previously considered would substantially reduce any significant
impacts.
A:SP219-A 22
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial eva)uation:
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, which were adopted for EIR 235,
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
July 1, 1991
Date
Oliver Mujica, Senior Planner
For CITY OF TEMECULA
A:SP219-A 23
.t°'
..,; ../:,'
.J
UJ
::)
Z
..J
ii
O,
(/')
!t
:36. Planning Xrea 36
a. DescriPtive Summary
Planning Area 36, as depicted on Figure lSKK, provides for
development of 2.5 acres with Neighborhood Commercial use.
A typical site plan is depicted in the Design Guidelines,
Sac. IV.
b. Land Use and Development Standards
Please refer to Zone Ordinance No.
Ordinance Tab.)
c. Planning Standards
(See S.P. Zone
,a *
Access to the Planning Area will be provided from
Margarita Road and a major roadway (DePortola Road)
to the north. Access points, as depicted, are
conceptual. Access to the individual planning areas
shall be determined when tract maps or plot plans are
submitted.
,1
A Minor project entry statement will be provided at
the intersection of Margarita Road and DePortola Road
at the northwest boundary of the Planning Area. (See
Figures 35 and 36.)
Roadway landscape treatments, such as those depicted
on Figure 23, shall be provided along Margarita Road
and DePortola Road.
A bicycle trail will be located in DePortola Road to
h of the Planning Area as shown on Figure 6.
t e north
Please refer to Section III.A.1. through III.A.8. for
the following Development Plans and Standards that
apply site-wide:
III.A.1.
III.A.2
III.A.3
III.A.4
III.A.5
III.A.6
III.A.7
III.A.8
Specific Land Use Plan
Circulation Plan
Drainage Plan
Water and Sewer Plans
Public Facility Sites Phasing Plan
Grading Plan
Open Space and Recreation Plan
Landscaping Plan
Please see Design Guidelines, Section IV., for related
criteria.
The commercial land uses permitted within this Plan-
ning Area are designated in the Specific Plan Zoning
Ordinance.
162-1
1
1
A Plot Plan will be required for definition form and
uses of each commercial area.
Waste disposal containers will be limited to desig-
nated, confined areas set aside for solid waste col-
lection.
A minimum of one Neighborhood entry statements will be
provided along DePortola Road (See Figure 37).
162-2
Commercial/Neighborhood Commercial
Planning Areas 1, 27 and 36
Commercial/Neighborhood Commercial Zone
The following regulations shall apply in all Commercial/Neighborhoo~ Commercial Zones:
SECTION 9. L USES PERMITrED.
The following uses are permitted, only in enclosed buildings with not more than 200
square feet of outside storage or crisplay of materials appurtenant to such use, provided
a plot plan shall have been approved pursuant to provisions of Section 18.30 of Riverside
County Ordinance No. 348 (1991).
(1) Ambulance services.
(2) Antique Shops.
(3) Appliance stores, household.
(4) Art supply shops and studios.
(5) Auction houses.
(6) Auditoriums and conference rooms.
(7) Automobile repair garages, not including body and fender shops or spray painting.
(8) Automobile parts and supply stores.
(9) Bakery goods diswibutors.
(10) Bakery shops, including baking only when incidental to reta~ sales on the
premises.
(11) Banks and Financial institutions.
(12) Barber and beauty shops.
(13) Bars and cocktail lounges.
(14) Billlard and pool halls.
(15) Blueprint and duplicating services.
(16) Book stores and binders.
(17) Bowling alleys.
(18) Catering services.
(19) Cleaning and dyeLug shops.
(20) Clothing stores.
(21) Confectionery or candy stores.
(22) Costume design studios.
(23) Dance halls.
(24) Delicatessens.
(25) Department stores.
(26) Drug stores.
(27) Dry goods stores.
-9-
(28) Employment agencies.
(29) Escort bureaus.
(30) Feed and grain sales.
(31) Florists shops.
(32) Food markets and ~'ozen food lockers
(33) Gasoline servic~ stations, not including the concurrent sale of beer and wine for
off-premises consumption.
(34) Gift shops.
(35) Hotels, resort hotels and motels.
(36) Household goods sales, including but not limited to, new and used appliances,
furniture, carpets, draperies, lamps, radios and television sets, including repair
thereof.
(37) Hobby shops.
(38) Ice cream shops.
(39) Ice sales, not including ice plants.
(~0) Interior de~orating shops.
(41) Jewelry stores, including incidental repairs.
(42) Labor temples.
(43) Laboratories, film, dental, medical, research or testing.
(44) Laundries and laundromats,
(45) Leather goods stores.
(46) Liquor stores.
(47) Locksmith shops.
(48) Mail order businesses.
(49) Manufacturer's agent
(50) M~ket, food, wholesale or jobber.
(51) Massage parlors, turkish baths, health centers and similar personal service
establishments.
(52) Meat markets, not including slaughtering.
(53) Mimeographing and ~dclressograph services.
(54) Mortuaries.
(55) Music stores.
(56) News stores.
(57) Notions or novelty stores.
(58) Offices, including business, law, mcdical, dental chiropractic, architectural,
engineering, commttnity planning and real estate.
(59) One on-site operator' s residence, which may be located in a commercial building.
(60) Paint and wallpaper stores, not including paint contractors.
(61) Pawn shops.
(62) Pet shops and pet supply shops.
(63) Photography shops and studios and photo engraving.
(64) Plumbing shops, not including plumbing contractors.
(65) Poullxy markets, not including slaughtering or live sales.
(66) Printers or publishers.
(67) Produce markets.
-10-
(68) Radio and television broadcasting studios.
(69) Recording studios.
(70) Refreshment stands.
(71) Restaurants and other eating establishments.
(72) Schools, business and professional, including art, barber, beauty, dance, drama,
music and swimming.
(73) Shoe stores and rapair shops.
(74) Shoesnine stands.
(75) Signs, on-site advertising.
(76) Sporting goods stores.
(77) Stained glass assembly.
(78) Stationer stores.
(79) Stations, bus, railroad and taxi.
(80) Taxidermist.
(81) Tailor shops.
(82) Telephone exchanges.
(83) Theaters, not including drive-ins.
(84) Tire sales and service, not including recapping.
(85) Tobacco shops.
(86) Tourist information centers.
(87) Toy shops.
(88) Travel agencies.
(89) Typewriter sales and rental, including incidental repairs.
(90) Watch repair shops.
(91) Wholesale businesses with samples on the premises but not including storage.
(92) Car washes.
(93) Fortune telling, spiritualism, or similar activity.
(94) Recycling collection facilities.
(95) Convenience stores, not including the sale of motor vehicle fuel.
(96) Day care centers.
The following uses are permitted provided a conditional use permit has been granted
pursuant to City Ordinance.
(1) Convenience stores, including the sale of motor vehicle fuel.
(2) Gasoline service stations with the concurrent sale of beer and wine for off-
premises consumption.
(3) Liquid petroleum service stations with the concurrent sale of beer and wine for
off-premises consumption, provided the total capacity of all tanks shall not exceed
10,1300 gallons.
Any use that is not specifically listed in Subsections a. and b. may be considered a
permitted or conditionally permitted use provided that the Planning Director f'mds that the
proposed use is substantially the same in character and intensity as those listed in the
designated subsections. Such a use is subject to the permit process which governs the
category in which it falls.
-11-
SECTION 9.2. PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS. Planned Commercial
Developments are permitted provided a land division is approved pursuant to the provision of
Riverside County Ordinance No. 460 (1991).
SECTION 9.3. (DELETED.)
SECTION9.4. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The following stapdards of
development are required in the Commercial/Neighborhood Commercial Zones:
Them is no minimum lot area requirement, unless specifically required by zone
classification for a particular area.
There are no yard requirements for buildings which do not exceed 35 feet in height
except as required for specific plans. Any portion of a building which exceeds 35 feet
in height shall be setback from the front, rear and side lot lines not less than 2 feet for
each foot by which the height exceeds 35 feet. The front setback shall be measured from
the existing public right-of-way slxeet line unless a specific plan has been adopted in
which case it will be measured from the specific plan slreet line. The rear setback shall
be measured from the existing rear lot line or from any recorded alley or easement; if the
rear line adjoins a sa'eet, the rear setback requirement shall be the same as required for
a front setback. Each side setback shall be measured from the side lot line, or from an
existing adjacent public right-of-way street line unless a specific plan has been adopted,
in which case it will be measured from the specific plan s~'eet line.
c. All buildings and structu~s shall not exceed 50 feet in height.
Automobile storage space shall be provided as required by Section 18.12 of Riverside
County Ordinance No. 348 (1991).
All roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from the ground elevation view
to a minimum sight distance of 1,320 feet.
-12-
ITEM #11
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 5, 1991
Case No.: Tentative Tract Map No. 24172
Prepared By: Richard Ayala
Recommendation: 1.
ADOPT the Negative Declaration
for Tentative Tract Map No.
24172; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 91-
approvin9 Tentative Tract Map
No. 24172, 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:
Michael Lanni
NBS/Lowry
Subdivide 5 acres into 8 residential parcels.
East side of Ynez Road between Pauba Road and
Santiago Road.
R-A-20,000 ( Residential Agricultural,
Sq. Ft. Minimum Lot Size)
North:
South:
East:
West: SP
Not requested.
Vacant
20,000
R-1-14,000
R-A-2 1/2
R-A-2 1/2
(One Family Dwellings,
14,000 Sq. Ft. Min. Lot
Size)
( ResidentialAgricultural,
2 1/2 Acre Min. Lot Size)
( ResidentialAgricultural,
2 1/2 Acre Min. Lot Size)
(Specific Plan No. 180)
A: TM24172 1
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
No. of Acres:
No. of Lots:
Proposed Lot Sizes:
5
8
20,000sq .ft.
The application for Tentative Tract Map No. 2u, 172
was originally submitted to the Riverside County
Planning Department on April 5, 1989. It has been
through the LDC (Land Development Committee)
process in the County and, upon transfer to the
City, has gone through a Pre-Development Review
and a Formal Review process. A biological and
Geotechnlcal Fault study was requested by the
Riverside County Planning Department and
indicated that the proposed development will have
no significant effect upon the subject site.
However, the site is located within the Stephen's
Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan and will be
subject to mitigation fees.
The applicant is proposing to subdivide the 5 acre
parcel into 8 residential lots. All lots will be 20,000
square feet in size. The proposed lots will have
access from a new cul-de-sac which is proposed to
be off Ynez Road.
The subject site is located on the east side of Ynez
Road between Pauba Road and Santiago Road.
Land Use and Zoninq
The proposed Tentative Tract Map is currently
surrounded by low density residential developments
zoned R-1-14,000 square feet to the north, R-A-2
1/2 acres to the south and east, and specific Plan
No. 180 (Rancho Highlands) with a density of 3-5
DU/AC directly to the west of the subject site.
This area has been developed with the exception of
the subject site which is currently vacant. The
applicant is proposing to create eight 18) 20,000
square foot (0.46 acres} lots with a density of 1.6
DU/AC, which is consistent with the Southwest
Area Community Plan {SWAP) which calls for 1-2
DU/AC for the subject site.
Planning Staff has reviewed the proposed project
and has determined that the proposed 20,000 square
foot lots will not have a significant impact on the
A:TM24172 2
existin9 character of the immediate surroundin9
area.
Access and Circulation
Access to the new lots will be provided from a new
cul-de-sac off Ynez Road (see site plan). Ynez
Road will be improved with 32 feet of asphalt
concrete pavement and Street "A" will be improved
with L~0 feet of asphalt concrete.
Gradinq
The proposed project will alter the existin9 natural
terrain with the construction of manufactured slopes
at 2:1. Approximately 20,000 cubic yards of cut
and fill will occur on the subject site in order to
create useable building pads at 20,000 square feet.
However, this impact is not considered to be
significant since appropriate mitigation measures
have been implemented with the project, and similar
types of grading have been conducted in the past
adjacent to the subject site.
Erosion Control
All slopes over three feet in height will be
landscaped and irrigated accordin9 to the City
Development Code. Furthermore, graded but
undeveloped land will be maintained in a weed-free
condition and be planted with interim landscapin9 or
provided with other erosion control measures as
approved by the Director of Buildin9 and Safety.
Traffic
The Transportation Engineerin9 Staff has reviewed
this project; and has determined that the proposed
project will have a minimal impact to the existin9
road system and there will be no adverse
unmitigable significant traffic impacts resultin9
from the development of this proposed project.
Geotechnica) Fault Study
A fault investigation was conducted for the subject
site, because approximately two-thirds of the
property is within the Alquist Priolo Special Studies
zone. The report indicated that no evidence of
active faultin9 or other adverse geologic structures
were encountered in all of the exploratory trenches
excavated onsite. In addition, secondary seismic
A:TM24172 3
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWaP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS:
hazards of liquefaction, seismic settlement,
landslides, earthquake induced flooding, seiches,
ground lurching and amplification are considered to
be low at this site.
According to the Riverside County Engineering
Geologist, the fault investigation was prepared in a
competent manner consistent with the present
"state-d-the-art" and satisfies the requirements of
the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act, and
the associated Riverside County Ordinance No. 547.
The proposed density of the project is consistent
with the Southwest Area Community Plan of 1-2
DU/ac. In addition, Staff finds it probable that this
project will be consistent with the New General Plan
when it is adopted.
An Initial Study was performed for this project
which determined that although the proposed
project could have a significant effect on the
environment, no significant impact would result to
the natural or built environment in the City because
the mitigation measures described in the Conditions
of Approval have been added to the project, and a
Negative Declaration has been recommended for
adoption.
The proposed Tract Map will not have
significant negative impact on the
environment, as determined in the Initial
Study performed for the project. A Negative
Declaration is recommended for adoption.
There is a reasonable probability that this
project will be consistent with the General
Plan being prepared at this time, due to the
fact that the project is consistent with the
surrounding current residential develop-
ment, the Southwest Area Plan and existing
zoning.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to, or interference
with, the future adopted General Plan, if the
proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with
the plan, due to the fact that the project is
consistent with surrounding development.
A: TM24172 4
10.
11.
The proposed use complies with State
planning and zoning law due to the fact that
the project conforms to the current zoning
for the site and to Ordinance No. ~,60,
Schedule B improvement standards.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configurations, access, and
density due to the fact that the project has
access to public roads and appropriate
building area.
The design of the subdivision or the
proposed improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or
substantially and avoidable injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat as determined in the
initial study.
The design of the subdivision is consistent
with the State Map Act in regard to future
passive energy control opportunities due to
the fact that the lots are large enough to
provide sufficient southern exposure.
All lots have acceptable access to existing
and proposed dedicated rights-of-way which
are open to, and are useable by, vehicular
traffic, access is provided from a proposed
cul-de-sac and Ynez Road.
The design of the subdivision, the type of
improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed project as
conditioned. The project will not interfere
with any easements.
The lawful conditions stated in the project's
Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary
to protect the public health, safety and
general welfare.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
A:TM2~,172 5
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
RA:ks
Attachments: 1.
2.
3.
4.
ADOPT a Negative Declaration for Tentative
Tract Map No. 24172;
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approvin9
Tentative Tract Map No. 24172 based on the
Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff
Report and subject to the attached Conditions
of Approval.
Resolution
Conditions of Approval
Environmental Assessment
Exhibits
A: TM24172 6
ATTACHMENT I
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP NO. 24172 TO SUBDIVIDE A 5 ACRE PARCEL INTO
EIGHT PARCELS SITUATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YNEZ
ROAD BETWEEN PAUBA ROAD AND SANTIAGO ROAD
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 945-060-002.
WHEREAS. Michael Lanni filed Tract Map No. 24172 in accordance with
the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Tract Map application was processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Tract Map on
August 5, 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 Tract Map;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findinqs. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty {30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
I1 ) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
~2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
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:TM24172 7
b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, I hereinafter "SWAP" ) was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Parcel Map is consistent with the SWAP and
meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government
Code, to wit:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
12 ) 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 Tract
Map No. 2~,172 proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
A: TM24172 8
D. (1) Pursuant to Section 6.5, no tract map 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 Tract Map approved shall be subject to such
conditions as shall be necessary to protect the health, safety and
general welfare of the community.
{2) ThePlanningCommission, inapprovingtheproposed
tract map, makes the following findings, to wit:
a)
The proposed Tract Map will not have
significant negative impact on the
environment. as determined in the )nltla)
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 consistent with the
surrounding current residential develop-
ment, the Southwest Area Plan and existing
zoning.
c)
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to, or interference
with, the future adopted General Plan, if the
proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with
the plan, due to the fact that the project is
consistent with surrounding development.
d)
The proposed use complies with State
planning and zoning law due to the fact that
the project conforms to the current zoning
for the site and to Ordinance No. 460,
Schedule B.
e)
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configurations, access, and
density due to the fact that the project has
access to public roads and appropriate
building area.
f)
The design of the subdivision or the
proposed improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or
substantially and avoidable injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat as determined in the
initial study.
A: TM24172 9
g)
The design o1: the subdivision is consistent
with the State Map Act in regard to future
passive energy control opportunities due to
the fact that the lots are large enough to
provide sufficient southern exposure.
h)
All lots have acceptable access to existing
and proposed dedicated rights-of-way which
are open to, and are useable by, vehicular
traffic, access is provided from a proposed
cul-de-sac and Ynez Road.
i)
The design of the subdivision, the type of
improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed project as
conditioned. The project will not interfere
with any easements.
j)
The lawful conditions stated in the project's
Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary
to protect the public health, safety and
general welfare.
k)
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
E. As condltioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Tract Map
proposed is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study was performed for this project when determined that
although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
no significant impact would result to the natural or built environment in the City
because impacts will be mitigated by adherence to the attached Conditions of
Approval which have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration,
therefore, is hereby granted.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Tract
Map No. 2u, 172 for the subdivision of a 5 acre parcel into three parcels located on the
east side of Ynez Road between Pauba Road and Santiago Road and known as
Assessor's Parcel No. 9u,5-060-002 subject to the following conditions:
A. Attachment 2, attached hereto.
A:TM24172 10
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of August, 1991.
JOHN HOAGLAND
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 5th day of August, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
A:TM2~,172 11
ATTACHMENT I I
CITY OF TEMECULA
COND)TIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Tract Map No:
Project Description:
Assessor's Parcel No,:
24172
Subdivide 5 Acres
into eiqht
residential parcels.
945-060-002
Planninq Department
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision
Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule B, unless
modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in
accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request,
if made 30 days prior to the expiration date.
This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the
approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. The expiration
date is
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final
map.
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.
Be contour-graded to blend with existing natural contours.
c. Be a part of the downhill lot when within or between individual lots.
All slopes over three (:3) feet in height shall be landscaped and irrigated
according to the City Development Code. A detailed landscaping and
irrigation plan, prepared by a qualified professional, shall be submitted to the
City Planning Department for review and approval prior to issuance of grading
permits.
The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations
outlined in the County Health Department's transmittal dated May 20. 1991, a
copy of which is attached.
A: TM24172 12
10.
12.
13.
The applicant shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined
in the County Fire Department~s letter dated June 6, 1991, a copy of which is
attached.
All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of
Technology, Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as outlined in the
Southwest Area Plan.
Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the followlng:
Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the
development standards of the R-A {Residential Agricultural ) zone.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free
condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or
provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the
Director of Building and Safety.
The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes,
landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations
are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director.
Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential
lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer~s successor~s-
in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility
financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) per
lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library
development.
All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required
elements from the subdivision's approved fire protection plan as
approved by the County Fire Marshal.
All dwellings to be constructed within this subdivision shall be designed
and constructed with fire retardant (Class A ) roofs as approved by the
Fire Marshal.
Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the
subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving
devices shall be permitted with Planning Department approval.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the
provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in
that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions
of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by
Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat
Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
A: TM24172 13
The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Temecula, its agents, officer, and employees from any claim, action, or
proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officer, or employees
to attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Temecula, its
advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Tentative
Parcel Map No. 2~,172, which action is brought within the time period provided
for in California Government Code Section 661~99.37. The City of Temecula will
promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding
against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. if the
City fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or
proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not,
thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of
Temecula.
15.
All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable
TV shall be provided for underground, with easements provided as required,
and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility
provider. Telephone, cable TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired
m the residence.
16.
The subdivlder 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. L~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 the fair market value of the
required park land acreage | Plus 2096 for offsite improvements).
17.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit written
verification to the Building and Safety Department that all pertinent
Conditions of Approval and applicable regulations have been met for the
following agencies:
Planning Department
Temecula Valley School District
Fire District
Engineering Department
County Health Department
Water District
Temecula Community Services District
Flood Control District
Eastern Municipal Water District.
18.
Within forty-eight (u,8) hours of the approval of the project, the
applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check
or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand,
Two Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars ~$1,275.00), which includes the One
Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars {$1,250.00) fee, in compliance with AB
3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711. ~,( d )(2 ) plus the Twenty-
Five Dollar ($25.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the
A:TM24172 1~
Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152
and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight (48) hour
period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department
the check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall
be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code, Section
711.4(c).
19. Prior to final map recordation, the following Conditions shall be satisfied:
The followin9 note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints
Sheet: "County Geologic Report No, 603 was prepared for this
property by Leighton and Associates on August 23, 1988 and March 12,
1990 and is on file at the Plannln9 Department. The specific items of
interest are potentially active faults, seismic design of structures, and
uncompacted trench backfill,"
The final grading report for this site shall be submitted to the Planning
Department Engineerin9 Geologist for review and approval prior to
issuance of further permits. This report shall address the status of the
potentially active faults encountered durin9 grading and strengthenin9
of foundations on Lots 1, 2, and 3, in addition to the standard
requirements for a final grading report.
The recommendations made in the Addendure Geotechnical Fault
Investigation Report dated March 12, 1990 for mitigation of
seismic/geologic hazards shall be adhered to in the design and
construction of this project.
The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints
Sheet: "This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount
Palomar Observatory, All proposed outdoor lightin9 systems shall
comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar
Observatory recommendations.
Enqineerinq Department
The followin9 are the Engineerin9 Department Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
20.
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;
A:TM24172 15
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
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.
All road easements and/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication to
the public and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such
offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the
City Engineer.
Ynez Road shall be improved with 32 feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or
bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-
of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 102, (32'/44').
Street "A" shall be improved with u,0 feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or
bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-
of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 104, Section A (40'/60').
A cul-de-sac shall be constructed at the terminus of Street "A" per Riverside
County Standard No. 800A.
Vehicular access shall be restricted on Ynez Road and so noted on the final
map with the exception of public street intersections as approved by the City
Engineer.
Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard
No. 805.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage
facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located
within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances
shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the City Engineer.
A Notice of Intention to form and/or join the Landscape and Lighting District
shall be filed with the City Council. The engineering costs involved in
District information shall be borne by the developer.
The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be
executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements
in conformance with applicable City standards.
Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb
and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing,
striping, and other traffic control devices as appropriate.
b. Drainage facilities.
c. Landscaping (street and parks).
A:TM24172 16
d. Sewer and domestic water systems.
e. Undergrounding of existing and proposed utility distribution lines.
30.
The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated
with adjoining developments.
31,
Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. 461 and as approved by the
City Engineer.
32.
Prior to recordat(on 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.
33.
Street names shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineering
Department.
34.
The minimum centerline radii shall be 300 feet or as approved by the City
Engineer.
35.
All street centerllne intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the
City Engineer.
36.
Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a
minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment
as approved by the City Engineer.
37. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent.
38.
All driveways shall conform to the applicable County of Riverside standards
and shall be shown on the street improvement plans in accordance with County
Standard 400 and 401 (curb sidewalk).
39.
All driveways shall be located a minimum of two {2) feet from the property
line.
The subdivider shall submit two prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the
Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building
Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions
of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 24" x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil
Engineer.
A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and
submitted at the time of application for grading plan check.
42.
The subdivider shall submit two copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
A:TM24172 17
A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer.
All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.
The subdivider shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage
flowing onto or through the site. In the event the City Engineer permits the
use of streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Article XI of
Ordinance No. u,60 will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street
capacity, or use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the
subdivider shall provide adequate facilities as approved by the Engineering
Department.
A drainage channel and/or flood protection wall will be required to protect the
structures by diverting sheet runoff to streets, or to a storm drain.
The subdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by
alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow.
Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities,
including enlarging existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement.
Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CATV Franchises of
the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time
of street improvements.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid
and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer~s Office.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to
commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of-
way.
50. All lot drainage shall be to the street by side yard drainage swales
independent of any other lot.
51o
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The
charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits.
If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to
this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT:
52.
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.
53.
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.
A:TM24172 18
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 CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
55.
Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and
gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and
street lights on all interior public streets.
56.
Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all
times with adequate detours during construction.
57.
Asphaltic emulsion lfog seal) shall be applied not less than 14 days following
placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon
per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39, and
94 of the State Standard Specifications.
Transportation Enqineerinq
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
58.
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer
and approved by the City Engineer for Ynez Road and shall be included in the
street improvement plans.
A: TM24172 19
DRC H'EM NO. /-~ TRACT/PARCEL MAP NO.
CH'Y OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA COMI~IUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
QUIMBY ORDINANCE
" residential density shall be determined by multiplying the number of dwelling units by tile number of
persons per unit by the ratio of the number of aeres of park land required for each 1,000 persons (i.e., .005).
Credits given for proposed parks will be under the discretion of the Temecula Community Services District
(TCSD) Director.
Whenever the actual amount of land to be dedicated is less than the amount of land required to be dedicated,
the subdivider shall pay fees for the fair market value of any additional land that otherwise would have been
required to be dedicated plus 20% for oFfsite improvements.
[5~For subdivisious containing 50 parcels or less only the payment of fees may be required; provided however,
that when coudomiuium project, stock cooperative or community apartmeut project exceeds 50 dwelling units,
the dedication of land ~nay be required even though the number of parcels may be less than 50.
{'~Less than 5 Parcels
Subdivisions containing less than five (5) parcds w#?! be subject to the following condi~ons: Upon the request of a
building permit for construcb~n of resldenb~l structures on One or more Of the parcels within four years following
approval of a tentab've map, parcel map, or planned devdopmenC real estate devdopmenC stock cooperative,
community apatfment project and condomlnium for which a tentative map or parcel map is h'led, a predetermine-'
Quimby Act fee in the amount equal to the fair market value of required acreage (Plus 20% for offsite improvemecl
shall be paid by the owner of each such parcel(sl as a condibi~n to the issuance of such permit as authorized by
Riverside C6unty Ordinance No. 460 as amended through Ordinance No. 460.93.
TIle following chart has been prepared to assist staff in calculating requirements of the existlug Quimby
Ordinance:
Persons Per
Dwellings Type Dwelling Unit Acres Required*
[] l(ea) Single Family (Detached Garage) 2.98 .01490
[] l(ea) Single Family (Attached Garage) 2.59 ('i 2( .01295=~
V'~ l(ea) Mobile home 2.64 .01360
["] 2(ca)
~ 3 or 4(ca)
~] 5 or More
Dwellings Units Per Structure 2.48
Dwelling Units Per Structure 2.34
Dwelling Units Per Structure 2.72
20% for of f site improvements.
Gary L. King,
Park Deve preen o rdinator (I'CSD)
Date:
.01320
.01240
.01170
ATTACHMENT III
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:
Michael Lanni
PO Box 7284
Newport Beach, CA 92660
July 8, 1991
CITY OF TEMECULA
Tentative Tract Map No. 24172
East side of Ynez Road between Pauba
Road and Santiaqo Road.
II
Environmental Impacts
( Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets. )
Yes Maybe No
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
X
Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil?
X
X
Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features?
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
X
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on
or off site?
X
A: TM2u, 172 20
Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
Exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards such as earth
quakes, landslides, mudslides,
ground failure, or similar hazards?
Air, Will the proposal result in:
Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air
quality?
The creation of objectionable
odors?
Alteration of air movement,
moisture, or temperature, or any
change in climate, whether locally
or regionally?
Water. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial changes in currents, or
the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or
fresh waters?
Substantial changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
Discharge into surface waters, or
in any alteration of surface water
quality, including, but not limited
to, temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity?
Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow or ground waters?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A:TM24172 21
Change in the quantity of 9round
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?
Yes
__ Maybe
No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A: TM24172 22
Yes Maybe No
10.
11.
12.
13.
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and Clare. Will the proposal
produce substantial new light or 91are?
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
Substantial increase in the rate of
use of any natural resources?
Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource?
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal
involve:
A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances | including,
but not limited to, oil, pestlcldes,
chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
Possible interference with an emerg-
ency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan?
Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing or create a demand for
additional housing?
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A :TM24172 23
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
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 following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? __ __ X
A: TM24172 24
17.
18.
19.
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
Human Health. Will the proposal
result in:
Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excludin9
mental health)?
Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result
in the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to
public view?
Recreation. Will the proposal result in
an impact upon the quality or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities?
20. Cultural Resources.
Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object?
Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A:TM24172 25
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: TM2L~172 26
Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
EARTH
1.a.
1.b.
1.C.
1 .d,f,g.
AIR
2.a-c.
No. A conceptual grading plan for the project was reviewed by the City
Engineer and was found to be designed in accordance with Temecula's
standards and the conditions of approval include mitigation measures
in regards to grading. In addition, a fault investigation was conducted
on the subject site and concluded with no evidence of active faulting or
other adverse geologic features. Therefore, the proposed project will
not create an unstable earth condition or change the geologic
substructure.
Yes. All development disrupts the soil profile to some degree and
results in soil displacement, compaction, and over-covering.
Adherence to required City grading and building permits will mitigate
potential impacts.
Yes. The subject sirens existing topography will be changed due to the
20,000 cubic yards of cut and fill that will take place in order to develop
adequate building pads. However, the grading and recontouring of the
subject site is not substantial and therefore, this impact is not
considered significant.
No. The proposed project will not create any significant impacts
regarding geologic features or conditions. No evidence of faulting was
found in the fault investigation and indications of mass movement or
major landsliding have not been observed or reported on the site, nor
will the proposed project expose people to any geologic hazards.
Maybe. Wind and water erosion potentials will increase during the
construction phase and remain high until disturbed areas are replanted
and the proposed drainage facilities are constructed. The wind erosion
impact is considered significant but will be mitigated through the use
of watering trucks and erosion control planting of disturbed areas after
grading. After the project is completed, water will be channeled to
drainage easements and streets. Appropriate drainage control devices
will have to be approved by the City Engineer and designed in
accordance with Temecula's standards and the Conditions of Approval.
Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant, due to the
fact that appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented with the
project.
No. The proposed project will not result in any substantial changes in
air quality or movement.
A:TM2~172 27
WATER
3.a,c-i.
No. The proposed project will not have a substantial impact on any
water courses or supplies and the project lies outside of all 100 year
flood zones. Furthermore, the project will be free of ordinary storm
flood hazard when improvements have been constructed in accordance
with the approved plans. The project will not substantially effect
ground water basins.
3.b.
Maybe. The proposed project will slightly increase the impermeable
surface area. Thus, possibly allowin9 for changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff on the
subject site. However, the amount of runoff water will not be
significant and will receive subsequent review.
PLANT LIFE
No. The proposed project will not have a substantial impact regardin9
plant llfe.
ANIMAL LIFE
No. Presently, the proposed project site is occupied and native animal
species have been displaced. Thus, no substantial impacts will be
imposed on any animal life. However, the subject site is in an area
shown as Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat, thus, the project will be
subject to the appropriate mitigation fees to be used toward
implementing Riverside County's Habitat Conservation Plan.
NOISE
No. The proposed project will not have significant impact on noise nor
expose people to severe noise levels.
LIGHT AND GLARE
No. Only eight additional residential homes will be proposed on the
subject site.
LAND USE
No. The proposed project will not result in a substantial alteration of
the present or planned land use of the area.
NATURAL RESOURCES
9.a,b.
No. The proposal will not increase the consumption rate of any natural
or non-renewable natural resource.
A: TM24172 28
RISK OF UPSET
10.a,b.
No. The proposed project will not promote a risk of explosion or release
hazardous substances nor will it interfere with emergency response
plan or an emergency evaluation plan due to the fact that only eight
additional residential units are proposed.
POPULATION
11.
No. The proposal will not alter the location, distribution, density or
growth rate of the human population in the area, only eight residential
units are proposed.
HOUSING
12.
No. The proposal will not affect existing housing or create additional
demand. Due to the fact that only eight additional residential homes are
being proposed.
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATiON
13.a-f. No. Proper transportation facilities are provided for, to the site.
PUBLIC SERVICES
Yes. The project adds to the cumulative impacts on City Facilities and
Resources. Mitigation will be achieved by payment of appropriate fees.
l~,.f. Maybe. See l~,.a-e.
ENERGY
15.a,b.
No. The proposal will not result in the use of substantial amounts of
fuel or energy or increase demand of existing sources of energy.
UTILITIES
16.a-f. No. No major utility extensions will be required.
HUMAN HEALTH
17.a,b.
No. No health hazards were apparent or hazardous uses proposed on
site.
AESTHETICS
18.
No. The proposal will not result in the obstruction of any scenic view
open to the public.
A:TM24172 29
RECREATION
19.
No. The subject site is not used for recreational purposes or planned
as a recreational site. The area is designated as residential on SWAP.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
20.a-d.
No. The proposal will not result in adverse effects to historic
structures, cultural values, or restrict religious or sacred uses in the
area. However, if any cultural resources are encountered as a result
of grading, a qualified paleontologist or archaeologist will provide the
proper mitigation for further development of this site as required in the
Conditions of Approval.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
21 .a.
No. This project will not substantially degrade the quality of the
environment or reduce the habitat for a plant or animal species due to
the fact that the project is in an existing urbanized area. However, the
project is located within an area designated by the Riverside County as
habitat for the endangered Stephen's Kangaroo Rat. The project will
be subject to mitigation fees for the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat
Conservation Plan.
21 .b.
No. The proposed project will not have the potential to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals.
21 .c.
No. The project does have individually limited impacts, however, if
these impacts are cumulatively considered, they do not have a
significant impact on the overall environment.
21 .d.
No. This project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings either directly or indirectly. All regulations and standards will
be imposed and maintained on the project so that adverse effects are
minimized or eliminated.
A: TM24172 30
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a signi-
ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi-
ficant effect on this case because the mitigation measures
described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval
have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required.
X
April 12, 1991
Date
For
CITY OF TEMECULA
A:TM24172 31
CITY OF TEMECULA )
_//~
r "~
CASE NO.
LOCATION 'MAP ) P.C. DATE A~. ~n~/
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLAN 180)
R- I-14,000
CZ 3082
;Z 4837
R-A-2 I/2
CZ 2200
\\:..y
pAUBA
N,,.~.~_HALCO!
I
CZ ~
CITY OF TEMECULA )
SP 180
SWAP
CASE NO. 'T
P.C. DATE -~'~. ~///~/
! I
ITEM #12
Case No.:
Recommendation:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 5, 1991
Tentative Parcel Map No. 27018 (TPM 27018)
Prepared By: Charly Ray
Planning Department Staff recommends that the City
Planning Commission:
1. ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Tentative
Parcel Map No. 27018; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving Tentative
Parcel Map No. 27018 based on the Analysis and
Findings contained in the Staff Report and
associated Initial Environmental Study, and subject
to the attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
The Holt Group, Inc.
The Holt Group, Inc.
Subdivision of 7.7+/- acres into 3 parcels averaging
2.5+ acres.
Southeasterly corner of Santiago and Ynez Roads.
R-A-2 1/2 (Residential Agricultural - 2 1/2 Acre
Minimum Parcel Size)
North:
South:
East:
West:
R-A-2 1/2
R-A-2 1/2
R-A-2 1/2
R-A-2 1/2, SP 180 (Specific Plan No.
180, Residential
Uses to Northwest)
As existing - no change proposed in conjunction
with this project.
Vacant, Disturbed and Re-vegetated Property
A:PM27018 I
SURROUNDING LAND USES: North:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
BACKGROUND:
South:
East:
West:
Single Family Residences ( across
Santiago Road )
Single Family Residences
Single Family Residences
Single Family Residences ~across Ynez
Road )
Domestic Water:
Electricity:
Sewage Disposal:
Natural Gas:
Telephone:
CATV:
Total Area: 7.72 acres
Average Parcel Size Proposed: 2.57 acres
Largest Proposed Parcel Area: 2,72 acres
Smallest Proposed Parcel Area: 2.50 acres
Existing improvements:
Access: Santiago and Ynez Roads, abutting the
project site to the north and west
respectively; both of which are
dedicated, paved and maintained City
rights-of-way, ( Necessary additional
rights-of-way dedications and related
improvements associated with this
proposal are as specified in the
attached Engineering Department
Conditions of Approval. )
Rancho California Water
District
Southern California
Edison
On-site Septic Disposal
Proposed
Southern California Gas
Company
GTE California
Inland Valley Cablevision
Tentative Parcel Map No. 27018 was initially
submitted to the City of Temecula for review on May
14, 1991. The proposal was initially considered by
the City's Development Review Committee (DRC) on
June 6, 1991.
The primary concern expressed by the DRC was the
necessity for securing necessary road dedications
and related improvements for rights-of-way
abutting the project site, The project is compatible
with existing parcel sizes in the area. The map is
proposed at this time largely for purposes of land
conveyance and financing. The applicant has
further indicated that proposed Parcel No. 2 is the
intended site for eventual construction of church
facilities; specific plans for which have not yet been
developed.
A: PM27018 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant proposes subdivision of 7.7+ acres in
accordance with existing zoning and subdivision
ordinances affecting the subject property.
Eventual construction on the northeasterly portion
of the project site (proposed Parcel No. 2) will
likely consist of church facilities. Disposition of
proposed Parcel Nos. 1 and 3 is undetermlned at
this time. The project site is surrounded by large
lot residential development in the southeasterly
portion of the City.
Utilities currently available to the project include:
Electric Power {So. Callf. Edison);
Natural Gas {So. Calif. Gas Co.);
Potable Water ( Rancho Water District );
Sewage Disposal { On-site septic system
designed per County Environmental
Health Standards);
Telephone ( GTE ); and
Cable Television ( Inland Valley
Cablevlsion).
Abutting rights-of-way are currently improved with
A.C. pavement accommodating two-way traffic.
Curb, gutter, and sidewalks have not yet been
constructed abutting the project site, but do exist
within the Ynez and Santiago Road rights-of-way
immediately to the northwest. The intersection of
Santiago and Ynez Roads northwest of the tentative
map site has recently been signalized with a u,-way
traffic light.
Site terrain consists of a gentle slope upwards from
the southeast to the northwest. Grade differential
between the site's lowest and highest elevations is
25+/- feet over a distance of approximately 1/4 mile.
Automobiles crossing the northwest corner of the
project site has removed the previously underlying
vegetation. Remaining vegetation on the property
consists primarily of native and non-native grasses,
with a mature stand of Eucalyptus on the site's
southeasterly corner. Mature trees on adjacent
property also form a natural boundary definition of
the proposal's easternmost property line.
Significant environmental constraints, e.g., steep
slopes, geologic hazards, flood hazards, or
endangered species and habitat are not evident.
Further discussion of the proposed subdivision's
design merits is contained in the Analysis below.
A: PM27018 3
ANALYSIS:
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
Land Use Compatibility
The map configuration and lot sizes proposed are
similar to existin9 parcelization in the project
vicinity as evidenced in Exhibit A. Proposed lot
sizes also conform with existing zoning ordinances
and Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) recommendations
affecting the project site, reference Exhibits B and
C. As such, the Tentative Map is considered
compatible with existing and anticipated
development patterns in its vicinity.
Access
Access to the project site is provided by Santiago
and Ynez Roads, both of which are dedicated City
rights-of-way improved to two-lane paved status
adjacent to the proposal. Eventual improvement of
these roads will upgrade them to "major arterial"
and "collector" capacities, respectively. Necessary
road dedications, and attendant improvements for
the referenced rights-d-way are as specified in the
attached Engineering Department project Conditions
of Approval.
Map Desiqn
The Tentative Map, as presently configured,
provides lot acreages suitable for rural residential
estate and/or potential development of church
facilities as may be eventually constructed on
proposed Lot No. 2. The proposed parcel map,
together with the mitigation measures specified in
the project Conditions of Approval, provide for
development compatible with relevant City land use
and subdivision standards, ordinancesand policies.
Further, the Initial Environmental Assessment
conducted for the project has determined its
compliance with applicable sections of the California
Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA ).
As discussed in the preceding portions of this Staff
Report, Tentative Parcel Map No. 27018 complies
with applicable State and City land use and
subdivision ordinances/policies currently in effect.
Further, the map design is compatible with the
Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) guidelines for the
subject property, which recommend all proposed
subdivisions in the vicinity provide 2 1/2 acre
minimum parcels.
A:PM27018 4
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS:
As SWAP guidelines will likely form the core of the
City's developing General Plan, it is probable that
Tentative Parcel Map No. 27018 will substantially
conform to the City's ultimate General Plan goals,
objectives, and directives affecting the subject
property.
An Initial Environmental Assessment has been
prepared for Tentative Parcel Map No. 27018 (TPM
27018); the analysis of which concludes with the
finding that "although the proposed use could have
a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in the case under
consideration because the measures specified in the
project's Conditions of Approval mitigate significant
potential adverse impacts".
The proposed Parcel Map will not have
significant negative impact on the
environment, as determined in the Initial
Environmental Assessment prepared for
Tentative Parcel Map No. 27018. A Negative
Declaration is recommended for adoption.
There is a reasonable probability that this
proposal will be consistent with the General
Plan being prepared at this time. The map is
consistent with applicable subdivision and
land use ordinances, and conforms with the
City's Southwest Area Plan (SWAP)
guidelines affecting the subject property.
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 consistent with
surrounding development, and does not
logically have the potential to generate
significant adverse environmental impacts.
The proposed use or action complies with City
and State planning and zoning laws.
Reference local Ordinances No. 348, 460,
California Governmental Code Sections 65000-
66009 (Planning Zoning Law), and
Government Code Title 7, Division 2.
A:PM27018 5
10.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of parcel configurations, access, and
density. The project has access to public
rights-of-way, and is designed with
sufficient parcel acreage al Iowing appropriate
building pad sitings.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the initial study
prepared for this project. Reference the
attached Initial Environmental Study and
Conditions of Approval for Tentative Parcel
Map No. 27018.
The design of the subdivision, the type of
improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed project as
conditloned. Easement dedications are not
evident in grant deeds describing the subject
property.
The site for the proposed use is provided
legal access via Santiago and Ynez Roads
public rights-of-way. Development of these
roads shall comply with City Engineering
Conditions of Approval contained herein.
The proposed project will not inhibit or
restrict future ability to use active or passive
solar energy systems. Adequate lot areas
and exposures are provided for these
alternatives.
The proposed use will not have a substantial
adverse affect on abuttin9 properties or the
permitted use thereof. The proposed map
provides for parcelization of land similar in
character to that evident on neighboring
properties. Land use incongruities and
associated adverse affects arising from
implementation of this proposal are unlikely.
A: PM27018 6
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the
Staff Report and attached Initial Environmental
Study, and subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval, Planning Department Staff recommends
that the City Planning Commission:
1. ADOPT the Negative Declaration for
Tentative Parcel Map No. 27018; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving
Tentative Parcel Map No. 27018.
CR:ks
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
Resolution No. 91-
Conditions of Approval
Environmental Assessment
Exhibits
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. Southwest Area Plan {SWAP)
Recommended Land Uses
D. Tentative Parcel Map No. 27018
Fee Checklist
Correspondence
A: PM27018 7
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PARCEL MAP NO. 27018
TO SUBDIVIDE A 7.7+/- ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 PARCELS
AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF YNEZ AND
SANTIAGO ROADS.
WHEREAS, The Holt Group, Inc., representing the Lutheran Church
Extension Fund, filed Parcel Map No. 27018 in accordance with the Riverside County
Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted
by reference;
WHEREAS, said Parcel Map application was processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Parcel Map on
August 5, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either
in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
approval of said Parcel Map;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECT ION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
{1 ) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
a)
There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
A: PM27018 8
b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, includin9 the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Parcel Map is consistent with the SWAP and
meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government
Code, to wit:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects
and taking other actions, including the issuance of
building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the
fol Iowing:
a)
There is reasonable probability that Parcel
Map No. 27018 proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
D. (1) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No.
~,60, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are
made:
a)
That the proposed land division is consistent
with applicable general and specific plans.
A:PM27018 9
b)
That the design or improvement of the
proposed land division is consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.
c)
That the site of the proposed land division is
physically suitable for the type of
development.
d)
That the site of the proposed land division is
physically suitable for the proposed density
of the development.
e)
That the design of the proposed land division
or proposed improvements are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or
substantially and unavoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat.
f)
That the design of the proposed land division
or the type of improvements are not likely to
cause serious public health problems.
g)
That the design of the proposed land division
or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at
large, for access through, or use of,
property within the proposed land division.
A land division may be approved if it is found
that alternate easements for access or for use
will be provided and that they will be
substantially equivalent to ones previously
acquired by the public. This subsection
shall apply only to easements of record or to
easements established by judgment of a court
of competent jurisdiction.
| 2 ) The Plannin9 Commission in approvin9 the proposed
Tentative Parcel Map, makes the followin9 findings, to wit:
a)
The proposed Parcel Map will not have
significant negative impact on the
environment, as determined in the Initial
Environmental Assessment prepared for
Tentative Parcel Map No. 27018. A Negative
Declaration is recommended for adoption.
b)
There is a reasonable probability that this
proposal will be consistent with the General
Plan being prepared at this time. The map is
consistent with applicable subdivision and
land use ordinances, and conforms with the
City's Southwest Area Plan ( SWAP )
A:PM27018 10
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
guidelines affecting the subject property.
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 consistent with
surrounding development, and does not
logically have the potential to generate
significant adverse environmental impacts.
The proposed use or action complies with City
and State planning and zoning laws.
Reference local Ordinances No. 3b,8,
California Governmental Code Sections 65000-
66009 (Planning Zoning Law), and
Government Code Title 7, Division 2.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of parcel configurations, access, and
density. The project has access to public
rights-of-way, and is designed with
sufficient parcel acreage al Iowi ng appropriate
building pad sitings.
The project as designed and condltioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the initial study
prepared for this project. Reference the
attached Initial Environmental Study and
Conditions of Approval for Tentative Parcel
Map No. 27018.
The design of the subdivision, the type of
improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed project as
conditioned. Easement dedications are not
evident in grant deeds describing the subject
property.
The site for the proposed use is provided
legal access via 5antiago and Ynez Roads
public rights-d-way. Development of these
roads shall comply with City Engineering
Conditions of Approval contained hereln.
The proposed project will not inhibit or
restrict future ability to use active or passive
solar energy systems. Adequate lot areas
A: PM27018 11
and exposures are provided for these
alternatives,
j)
The proposed use will not have a substantial
adverse affect on abuttin9 properties or the
permitted use thereof, The proposed map
provides for parcelization of land similar in
character to that evident on neighborin9
properties. Land use incongruities and
associated adverse affects arisin9 from
implementation of this proposal are unlikely.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Parcel Map
proposed is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the
proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be asignificant effect on this case because the mitigation measures described on
attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project,
and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Parcel
Map No. 27018 for the subdivision of a 7.7+/- acre parcel into 3 parcels located at the
southeasterly corner of Ynez and Santiago Roads subject to the fol lowin9 conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
SECTION
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of August, 1991.
JOHN HOAGLAND
CHAIRMAN
A: PM27018 12
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 5th day of August, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
A:PM27018 13
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Parcel Map No: 27018
Project Description:
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Subdivision of 7.72+/- qross
acres into 3 parcels averaqlnq
2.5+/- qross acres each
922-140-010
Planninq Department
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision
Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance Lt60, Schedule H, unless
modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in
accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request,
if made 30 days prior to the expiration date.
This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the
approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. The expiration
date is
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final
map.
Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract
map boundary to a City maintained road.
All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall
continue in force until the governing body accepts or abandons such offers.
All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the City
Engineer. Street names shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities,
etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land
division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be
submitted and recorded as directed by the City Engineer.
The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations
outlined in the Riverside County Health Department's Conditions of Approval,
contained herein.
The applicant shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined
in the Riverside County Fire Department's Conditions of Approval, contained
herein.
A: PM27018 14
11.
12.
13.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the City
Building and Safety Department's Conditions of Approval, contained herein.
All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of
Technology, Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as outlined in the
Southwest Area Plan.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Temecula
Community Services District~s Conditions of Approval contained herein.
Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following:
Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the
development standards of the R-A-2 1/2 (Residential Agricultural, 2
1/2 Acre Minimum Parcel Size) zone.
Craded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free
condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or
provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the
Director of Building and Safety.
Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall provide
evidence to the Director of Building and Safety that any adjacent off-
site manufactured slopes which may be proposed 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 a grading permit, the applicant shall comply
with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee
set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded
by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment
of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the
fee required by the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by
County ordinance or resolution.
Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential
lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer~s successor's-
in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility
financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) per
Iot/unlt shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library
development.
All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required
elements from the subdivision's approved fire protection plan as
approved by the County Fire Marshal.
A: PM27018 15
All dwellings to be constructed within this subdivision shall be designed
and constructed with fire retardant (Class A ) roofs as approved by the
Fire Marshal.
Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the
subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving
devices shall be permitted with Planning Department approval.
Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall not
be less than ten 110) feet.
f. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet.
15.
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. 27018, which action is brought within the time period provided
for in California Government Code Section 66~99.37. The City of Temecula will
promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding
against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the
City fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or
proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not,
thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of
Temecula.
16.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
17.
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 .~,(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 1~, Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight (~,8) hour
period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department
the check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall
be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section
711.~,(c).
Riverside County Department of Health - Environmental Health Services Division
The Department of Health Division of Environmental Health Services, Land Use
Branch, has reviewed the map described above. If there are any questions
concerning this submittal, contact (714) 275-8980. Our recommendations are as
fol lows:
A:PM27018 16
18o
The Environmental Health Services Division (EHSD) has reviewed the above
Parcel Map and while we are not privileged to receive any preliminary
information relative to subsurface sewage disposal or connection to sewers or
domestic water supply, it is our considered opinion that the soils that might
be encountered in this area are not conducive to effective subsurface sewage
disposal systems and because of soll characteristics in the area, there may be
a requirement for extensive grading, compaction, cutting, etc. PRIOR TO
RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP, an acceptable soils feasibility report
shall be submitted for review and approval by the Environmental Health
Services Division. IA PERCOLATION FEASIBILITY REPORT iS REQUIRED. )
19.
Prior to any grading, the following information shall be addressed and
depicted by a Registered Civil Engineer (RCE), Geologist with soils
percolation expertise on all grading plans for parcel maps, where
SUBSURFACE SEPTIC SEWAGE DISPOSAL is intended:
a. The proposed cuts and/or fills in the areas of sewage disposal systems.
b. The primary sewage disposal system and its 100% expansion area.
The elevation of the individual building pads in reference to the
elevation of the sewage disposal system.
The original tile line to be installed and all required expansion area
shall be located in a natural undisturbed soil at the depth of the
percolation tests performed.
On those grading plans prepared by other than the person preparing
the feasibility percolation report, a statement must be placed on the
grading plan, signed and with seal, as to the appropriateness of the
grading plan with regard to the soils percolation engineer's report and
particularly specific to items "a" through "d" above.
Riverside County Fire Department
With respect to the Conditions of Approval for the above referenced land division,
the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided
in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection
standards:
20.
Schedule 'ill" fire protection. An approved standard fire hydrant (6"xu,"x2
1/2" ) shall be located so that no portion of the frontage of any lot is more than
330 feet from a fire hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for 2 hours
duration at 20 PSI.
21.
The applicant/developer shall provide written certification from the
appropriate water company that the required fire hydrants are either existing
or that financial arrangements have been made to provide them, prior to
recordation of the final map.
A:PM27018 17
MITIGATION:
22.
Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the
City of Temecula, a cash sum of $400.00 per lot/unit as mitigation for fire
protection impacts.
All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to the Planning
and Engineering Staff.
City of Temecula Department of Buildinq & Safety
23.
The Department of Building and Safety has no conditions of map approval at
this time.
The recorded map shall be submitted to the Department of Building and Safety
for addressing prior to review of structural plans which may be proposed for
the subject property.
Temecula Community Services District
25.
The Subdivider shall submit to the Planning Director an agreement with the
Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) which demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the TCSD Board of Directors, and the City that upon the
request of a BUILDING PERMIT for construction of RESIDENTIAL structures
on one or more of the parcels WITHIN FOUR YEARS following approval of a
tentative map, parcel map, or planned development, real estate development,
stock cooperative community apartment project and condominium for which a
tentative map or parcel map is filed, a predetermined Quimby Act fee in the
amount equal to the fair market value of required acreage ( Plus 20% for offsite
improvements) shall be paid by the owner of each such parcel{s) as a
condition to the issuance of such permit as authorized by City of Temecula
Ordinance No. 460.93.
26.
The following chart has been prepared to assist staff in calculatin9
requirements of the existin9 Quimby Ordinance:
Dwellinqs Type
Persons Per Acres
Dwellinq Unit Required*
lJea) Single Family {Detached Garage) 2.98
1 {ea) Single Family JAttached Garage) 2.59
1Jea) Mobile Home 2.64
2Jea) Dwelling Units Per Structure 2.48
3 or 4Jea) Dwelling Units Per Structure 2.34
5 or More Dwelling Units Per Structure 2.72
.01490
.01295
.01360
.01320
.01240
.01170
* Plus 20% for offsite improvements.
A:PM27018 18
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.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
27.
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 rv~unicipal Water District;
Riverside County Flood Control District;
Riverside County Fire Department;
Planning Department;
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department;
CATV Franchise; and
Temecula Community Services District.
28.
All road easements and/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication to
the public and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such
offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the
City Engineer.
29.
Ynez Road and Vallejo Road shall be improved with 32 feet of asphalt concrete
pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the
dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 102 (88'/611').
Santiago Road shall be improved with 1~3 feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or
bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-
d-way in accordance with County Standard No. 100 {110~/86~).
31.
Vehicular access shall be restricted on Ynez Road and so noted on the final
map.
Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard
No. 805.
33.
Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall
be delineated or noticed on the final map.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage
facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located
within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances
shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the City Engineer.
A: PM27018 19
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
q.O.
q.1.
42.
~3.
The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be
executed 9uaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements
in conformance with applicable City standards,
Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb
and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing,
striping, and other traffic control devices as appropriate.
b. Drainage facilities.
c. Landscaping (street and parks).
d. Sewer and domestic water systems.
e. Undergrounding of existing and proposed utility distribution lines.
The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated
with adjoining developments.
Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. 461 and as approved by the
City Engineer.
Prior to recordation of the final map, the deve)oper shall deposit with the
Engineering Department a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation
towards traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time
of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written
agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a
building permit.
Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a
minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment
as approved by the City Engineer.
A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent.
All driveways shall conform to the applicable County of Riverside standards
and shall be shown on the street improvement plans in accordance with County
Standard 400 and 401 (curb sidewalk ).
All driveways shall be located a minimum of two (2) feet from the property
line.
The subdivider shall submit two prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the
Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building
Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions
of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2~," x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil
Engineer,
A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and
submitted at the time of application for grading plan check.
A: PM27018 20
The subdivider shall submit two copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
Drainage calculations shall be submitted to and approved by the City
Engineer. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City
Engineer.
On-site drainage facilities, located outside of road right-d-way, shall be
contained within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note shall be
added to the final map stating "Drainage easements shall be kept free of
buildings and obstructions."
The subdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by
alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e. , concentration or diversion of flow.
Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities,
including enlarging existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement.
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:
50.
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.
51.
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.
52.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The
charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits.
If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to
this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT:
53.
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.
A :PM27018 21
55.
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 mltigation 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 millgallon 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:
56.
Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and
gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and
street lights on all public streets.
57.
Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all
times with adequate detours during construction.
58.
Asphaltic emulsion lfo9 seal) shall be applied not less than 14 days following
placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 9allon
per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39, and
94 of the State Standard Specifications.
59. Existing traffic signal shall remain fully operational at all times.
Transportation En.c]ineering
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
60.
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer
and approved by the City Engineer for Ynez Road, Santiago Road, and Vallejo
Road, and shall be included in the street improvement plans.
61.
If deemed necessary by the City Engineer, plans for traffic signal pole
relocation shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by
the City Engineer for the intersection of Santiago Road and Ynez Road and
shall be included in the street improvement plans with the second plan check
submittal. Additional detector loops and signal heads shall be provided to
conform to new lane configuration.
A: PM27018 22
PRIOR TO CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY:
62.
All signing and striping shall be installed and operational per the approved
plans.
63.
If necessary, existing traffic signal facilities, along with added improvements,
shall be located and installed at their ultimate location and shall be operational
per the approved plans.
A: PM27018 23
ATTACHMENT NO, 3
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
Backqround
1. Name of Proponent:
The Holt Group, Inc., for the
Lutheran Church Extension Fund
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
The Holt Group. Inc. (619) 320-0045
275 N. Cielo, D-3, Palm Sprinqs,CA 92262
Lutheran Church Extension Fund
1333 Kickwood Rd., St. Louis, MO 83122
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
May 17, 1991
Agency Requiring
Assessment:
CITY OF TEMECULA
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Tentative Parcel Map No. 27018 ( TPM 27018)
( Lutheran Church Parcel Map at Santiaqoand
Ynez Roads)
6. Location of Proposal: Southeasterly corner of Santia.qo and Ynez
Roads, Temecula, CA
Environmental impacts
( Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets. )
Yes Maybe No
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
A: PM27018 2u,
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 recJionally?
Water. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial changes in currents, or
the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or
fresh waters?
Substantial changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
Discharge into surface waters, or
in any alteration of surface water
quality, including, but not limited
to, temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A: PM27018 25
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?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
×
X
A:PM27018 26
10.
11.
12.
13.
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and Glare. Will the proposal
produce substantial new light or glare?
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
Substantial increase in the rate of
use of any natural resources?
Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource?
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal
involve:
A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including,
but not limited to, oil, pesticicles,
chemicals or radiation ) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
Possible interference with an emerg-
ency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan?
Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing or create a demand for
additional housing?
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A: PM27018 27
Yes Maybe No
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 following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? __ __ X
A:PM27018 28
17.
18.
19.
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
Human Health. Will the proposal
result in:
Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard l excluding
mental health)?
Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result
in the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to
public view?
Recreation. Will the proposal result in
an impact upon the quality or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities?
20. Cultural Resources.
Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object?
Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A: PM27018 29
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: PM27018 30
Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
1.a.
1.d.
1.e.
1.f.
1.9.
2.a-c.
3.b,c.
3.d,
3.e,
No, The project in itself does not propose excavation or invasion of
significant geologic substructures,
No. At full realization, the project may involve constructing church-
related facilities with any necessary attendant grading and compaction.
Due to the limited scale of this potential project, environmental impacts
of soil disruption should be insignificant.
No. Construction pad grading of the subject site is anticipated should
construction activities eventually occur on the property in question.
Given the project's limited scale, impacts will be restricted to the
immediate site. No significant impact.
No. No unique geologic nor physical features exist on the subject site.
No. The project. if fully realized, will result in minor overcovering of
natural terrain. Substantial increase in erosion of on and off site soil
is not likely.
No. The project does not propose elements or activities that will likely
modify existing erosion patterns affecting beach sands and river/stream
beds.
No. No construction is proposed in known earthquake, landslide, or
similar hazard zones.
No. The project is of insignificant scale in the context of City-wide and
regional development. Ambient air qualities should not be noticeably
affected if construction activities eventually occur on the proposal site.
No. No development activities are proposed that could foreseeably
impact rivers, streams, ocean beds, inlets or lakes.
No. Localized runoff patterns may change subsequent to eventual
construction activities. However, due to the limited scale of this
proposal and relative distance from marine and fresh waters, these
ecologlc features should not be impacted to any degree of significance.
No. There is likely to be a nominal increase in off-site bodies of water
volumes due to increased runoff from the subject site should
construction of church facilities eventually occur. No realizable
impacts.
No. Assuming church construction ensues approval of this project,
runoff characteristics of the subject site may be altered, including
minor fluctuations in runoff characteristics such as temperature,
dissolved oxygen, and turbidity. However, impacts of any significance
are unlikely.
A: PM27018 31
3.f,g.
3.h.
3.i.
4.a,c.
4.b.
4.d.
5.a.
5.b.
5.c.
6.a.
6.b.
7.a.
No. Percolation rates of the project site will likely decrease subsequent
to eventual construction, thereby decreasin9 localized 9round water
recharge rates. However, impacts of such limited potential development
will likely be insi9nificant.
No. Water consumption anticipated which may result from this proposal
are insignificant in the context of City-wide development.
No. The project site is not subject to identified flood hazard nor tidal
inundation.
No. Subsequent to subdivision of the property in question, and in
conjunction with eventual potential construction, native species on the
subject site may be replaced with new plant species, i.e., turf, non-
indigenous shrubs, trees, etc. Significant impacts are unlikely.
No. Endangered/unique vegetative species are not currently present
on the subject property. The existin9 stand of mature trees on the
southeasterly corner of the project site will be preserved/relocated in
accordance with City ordinance.
No. The subject site supports no agricultural crops at present.
No. Eventual construction may displace insignificant numbers of
typical native animals and insect species. Environmental consequences
will be negligible.
No. The subject property does not serve as identified habitat for any
endangered species of animals or fish. Such species do not currently
inhabit the project site.
No. Elimination of insignificant habitat may eventually occur should
construction eventually occur. No noticeable impacts are anticipated.
Maybe.
No.
Ambient noise levels on the subject property may increase should
construction activities ensue approval of this parcel map. Lon9
term noise level increases are also a logical consequence of
eventual development of the project site. Overall noise level
increase are considered insignificant in a City-wide context.
No. Eventual construction subsequent to parcelization of the subject
site will contribute only nominally to ambient light levels.
No. Full project realization may result in construction of new church
facilities which is an allowed use of the property in question when
approved via the City's Public Use Permit process. Potential impacts
are mitigated at time of project review through development of
appropriate Conditions of Approval.
A: PM27018 32
9.a,b.
lO.a.
10.b.
11.
12.
1:3.a,c.
13.b.
13.d.
13.e.
13.f.
14.a-e.
No. Eyentual construction and occupancy of the church facilities,
which may result subsequent to project approval, will not significantly
affect resource consumption rates,
No. Hazardous substances of any significant quantity are not currently
or anticipated, nor are they to be located on the subject site.
No. The project site is not within an identified emergency
response/evacuation plan movement corridor.
No. The proposal does not entail addition or deletion of elements
associated with regional population growth,
No. The proposal at full realization, may result in the potential
addition of church facilities to serve the region with no direct impact on
housin9. Impacts are insignificant.
Maybe. The addition of potential church facilities subsequent to full
project realization may contribute significant peak volumes to daily
traffic to and from the project site. Potential area-wide traffic impacts
are mitigated as per the City Engineering Conditions of Approval.
No. The project could possibly contribute additional site specific
parking spaces subsequent to eventual construction activities. Effects
on regional parking availability are considered insignificant.
Maybe. Traffic will eventually commute to and from a currently vacant
lot which may eventually accommodate church related structures.
Existing traffic volumes and circulation patterns should not be
noticeably affected. Traffic impacts ass assessed at time of building
permit will be mitigated by appropriate Conditions of Approval. Road
improvements required of this specific tentative parcel map are
contained in the attached Conditions of Approval for Tentative Parcel
Map No. 27018.
No. Waterborne, rail, and air traffic routes of significance are non-
existent in the vicinity of the project site.
Maybe. Potential increases in traffic volumes accessing the project site
may eventually increase the possibility of localized traffic hazards.
increases in regional hazards above existing levels are considered
insignificant. Localized potential impacts are mitigated through
required road and signalization improvements as per the attached City
Engineering Conditions of Approval.
No. All new development proposals eventually increase demands on
public services. Such demands are partially mitigated and financed by
property taxes, user fees, assessment districts, developer impact fees,
etc. Impacts of this individual proposal will not be significant as
mitigated by the project Conditions of Approval.
A:PM27018 33
14.f.
15.a,b.
16.a-f.
17.a,b.
18.
19.
20.a,b.
20.d.
21 .a-d.
No. Impacts on other governmental services have not been identified
at this time.
No. Eventual construction and occupancy of church facilities should
only nominally affect consumption and stores of energy sources.
No. Nominal extensions of individual service lines may eventually be
required. Impacts are considered insignificant.
No. The project may eventually result in limited construction activities
and occupancy of church facilities; which is not normally associated
with the creation of health hazards. Further, no health hazards have
been identified on the project site.
No. identified vistas of significance do not exist in the immediate
vicinity of the project site.
No. The project site is not an identified recreational amenity.
Further, use of existing area-wide recreational facilities should
increase only nominally at full project realization. Additional
recreational assets may also be constructed with any proposed church
use( s ).
No. Due to the disturbed nature of the project site and surrounding
area, presence of historic or prehistoric archaeologic resources is
highly unlikely.
No. No religious or sacred facilities are present on or in the vicinity of
the project.
No. Reference items 1 - 20.
A: PM27018 34
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
X
A: PM27018 35
ATTACHMENT
NO.~
EXHIBITS
A: PM27018 36
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
CASE NO.T~FI~lC~e
P.c. oATE, el~l~
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
:<
/>F t~bo '- t~c Pv,-n/%, [~ L~ct-,~,~t
CiTY OF TEMECULA ~
CASE NO. Tfi~I
'7,'/,z.~,..,"tn,,: ?-'/,- Ar, r~ :,'4., .,'.i ma, n ~,:w.-t
CITY OF TEMECULA )
T£NTATIVE PARCEL MAP N0.2_7018
L__'_'__J F
CASE NO.T~f4.?,,lOtq~
p.c..ATE, el~'l~
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
CASE NO.: Tentative Parcel Map No. 27018
The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this
project.
Fee
Habitat Conservation Plan
(K-Rat)
Parks and Recreation
( Quimby )
Public Facility
( Traffic Mitigation )
Public Facility
( Traffic Signal Mitigation )
Public Facility
( Library )
Fire Protection
Flood Control
{ADP)
Condition of Approval
Condition No. 13(b)
Condition Nos. 25 and 26
Condition No. 55
Condition No. 38
Condition No.
Condition No. 22
Condition No. 52
A: PM27018 37
ITEM #13
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 5, 1991
Case No.: Plot Plan No. 235
( Class I I Kennel Application )
Prepared By: Richard Ayala
Recommendation
ADOPT Resolution No. 91-
approving Plot Plan No. 235
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:
Carol Dittmer
Carol Dittmer
Class II dog kennel, cattery and grooming shop in
an existing industrial structure.
North side of Las Haciendas Street between Front
Street and Del Rio Road.
M-M {Manufacturing - Medium)
North: M-M
South: M-M
East: M-M
West: M-M
Not requested.
Commercial Building
North: ) ndustrlal
South: Vacant
East: I ndustrial
West: I ndustrial
( Manufacturing - Medium)
(Manufacturing - Medium)
(Manufacturing - Medium)
(Manufacturing - Medium)
A:PP235 1
PROJECT STATISTICS:
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
Square Footage of
Proposed Business: 2,970 sq.ft.
No. of Proposed Do9 Runs: 30
No. of Proposed Cat Cages: 10
Plot Plan No. 235 was submitted to the City of
Temecula on May 30, 1991.
On June 20, 1991, this project was reviewed by the
Preliminary Development Review Committee (Pre-
DRC ) in order to informally evaluate the project and
address any possible concerns. At the conclusion
of the Pre-DRC meeting, it was determined that the
subject case had no significant issues and that the
project as proposed could be adequately
conditioned.
Plot Plan No. 235 proposes to establish a Class II
dog kennel, cattery and grooming shop in an
existing industrial commercial building which
currently is occupied by five other businesses.
The suite which the applicant is seekin9 to occupy
is approximately 2,970 square feet. The applicant
is proposing to house a maximum total of 40
dogs/cats which is allowed with a Class II kennel
permit. The site is located on the north side of Las
Haciendas Street between Front Street and Del Rio
Road.
The proposed development has been designed in
accordance with the standards of the M-M
{Manufacturing - Medium) zone.
The applicant is seeking approval of a Class II
kennel which allows 26 to 40 dogs or cats or
combination of both. The intended use is permitted
in a M-M zone provided that a Plot Plan is approved
under the provisions of Section 18.30 of Ordinance
348.
Parking
The existing development has a total of 45 standard
parking spaces and 2 handicap spaces. The
intended use requires 9 parking spaces per Section
18.12 of Ordinance 348. Currently, the industrial
commercial building is occupied by five independent
businesses which are industrial in nature and
A: PP235 2
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
require minimal parking. Planning Staff has
reviewed the site and existing businesses and has
determined that ample parking exists in order to
support the intended use.
Floor Plan Desiqn
The proposed dog kennel has been designed
according to the provisions of Ordinance 630
regarding kennels and carteties.
The proposed project is consistent with the swap
land use designation of commercial, which includes
distribution warehouses and similar industrial uses
in addition to commercial uses. Planning Staff finds
the proposed project to ultimately be consistent with
the new General Plan when it is adopted.
The proposed project is Categorically Exempt
pursuant to Article 19, Section 15301, of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
FINDINGS:
There is a reasonable probability that Plot
Plan No. 235 will be consistent with the City's
future General Plan, which will be completed
in a reasonable time and in accordance with
state law due to the fact that the proposed
gasoline service station is consistent with the
existing zoning and the SWAP land use
designation of Commercial.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future General Plan, if the proposed use
is ultimately inconsistent with the plan due to
the fact that the proposed dog kennel is
consistent with the existing zoning, the SWAP
land use designation of Commercial, and the
existing developments of the surrounding
area ·
The proposed use or action complies with
state planning and zoning laws due to the fact
that the proposed use complies with
Ordinance 3q8 and the action complies with
state planning laws.
A: PP235 3
10.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed use in terms of the size and shape
of the lot configuration, circulation patterns,
access, and intensity of use due to the fact
that the proposed development complies with
the standards of Ordinance 348.
The project, as proposed and conditioned,
will not adversely affect the public health or
welfare due to the fact that the Conditions of
Approval include mitigation measures which
will ensure that public health and welfare will
be maintained.
The project is compatible with surrounding
land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk,
height, intensity, and coverage creates a
compatible physical relationship with
adjoining properties due to the fact that the
existin9 development is consistent with
current surrounding development and
Ordinance 3z~8.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area due to the
fact that the surrounding properties are also
zoned M-M (Manufacturing - Medium).
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 interior circulation is suitable and
connects with Las Haciendas Street.
The project, as proposed and conditioned,
will not adversely affect the built or natural
environment due to the fact that the
Conditions of Approval provide for the
necessary mitigations for the project.
The design of the project and the type of
improvements are such that they are not in
conflict with easements for access through or
use of the property within the proposed
project as shown on the plot plan for the site.
A: PP235 4
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Plannin9 Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving Plot
Plan No. 235 based on the Analysis and
Findings contained in the Staff Report and
subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
RA:ks
Attachments:
Resolution
Conditions of Approval
Exhibits
A:PP235 5
ATTACHMENT I
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 235 TO
PERMIT A CLASS II DOG KENNEL AND CATTERY ON THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTH SIDE OF
LAS HACIENDAS STREET BETWEEN FRONT STREET AND
DEL RIO ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.
921-050-010-6.
WHEREAS, Carol Dittmer filed Plot Plan No. 235 in accordance with the
Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which
the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
pertaining to said Plot Plan on August 5, 1991, at which time interested persons had
opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report
regarding the Plot Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findin,qs. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty i30) 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 approvlng 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:PP235 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
meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government
Code, to wit:
I1 ) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
12) The Planning Commission finds, in approving of
projects and taking other actions, including the issuance
of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the
foilowl ng:
a)
There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan
No. 235 proposed will be consistent with the
general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
D. (1) Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan may be
approved unless the following findings can be made:
a)
The proposed use must conform to all the
General Plan requirements and with all
applicable requirements of state law and City
A: PP235 7
ordinances.
b)
The overall development of the land is
designed for the protection of the public
health, safety and general welfare; conforms
to the logical development of the land and is
compatible with the present and future logical
development of the surrounding property.
(2) The Planning Commission, in approving of the
proposed Plot Plan, makes the following findings, to wit:
a)
There is a reasonable probability that Plot
Plan No. 235 will be consistent with the City~s
future General Plan, which will be completed
in a reasonable time and in accordance with
state law due to the fact that the proposed
gasoline service station is consistent with the
existing zoning and the SWAP land use
designation of Commercial.
b)
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future General Plan, if the proposed use
is ultimately inconsistent with the plan due to
the fact that the proposed dog kennel is
consistent with the existing zoning, the SWAP
land use designation of Commercial, and the
existing developments of the surrounding
area ·
c)
The proposed use or action complies with
state planning and zoning laws due to the fact
that the proposed use complies with
Ordinance 3L~8 and the action complies with
state planning laws.
d)
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed use in terms of the size and shape
of the lot configuration, circulation patterns,
access, and intensity of use due to the fact
that the proposed development complies with
the standards of Ordinance 3~8.
e)
The project, as proposed and conditioned,
will not adversely affect the public health or
welfare due to the fact that the Conditions of
Approval include mitigation measures which
will ensure that public health and welfare will
be maintained.
A:PP235 8
f)
The project is compatible with surrounding
land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk,
height, intensity, and coverage creates a
compatible physical relationship with
adjoining properties due to the fact that the
existing development is consistent with
current surrounding development and
Ordinance 31~8.
g)
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surroundin9 property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area due to the
fact that the surrounding properties are also
zoned M-M (Manufacturing - Medium).
h)
The project has acceptable access to a
dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic due to the fact
that the interior circulation is suitable and
connects with Las Haciendas Street.
i)
The project, as proposed and conditioned,
will not adversely affect the built or natural
environment due to the fact that the
Conditions of Approval provide for the
necessary mitigations for the project.
j)
The design of the project and the type of
improvements are such that they are not in
conflict with easements for access through or
use of the property within the proposed
project as shown on the plot plan for the site.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Plot Plan
proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and
is compatible with the present and future development of the
surrounding property.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
The proposed project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Article 19,
Section 15301, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Plot
Plan No. 235 to permit a Class II dog kennel and cattery on the subject property
located at the north side of Las Haciendas Street between Front Street and Del Rio
Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 921-050-010-6 subject to the following
conditions:
A: PP235 9
A. Attachment II, attached hereto.
SECTION 4.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of August, 1991.
JOHN HOAGLAND
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 5th day of August, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
A: PP235 10
ATTACHMENT I I
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan No:
Project Description:
Assessor~s Parcel No:
235
Permit for a Class II Doq
Kennel and Cattery alonq
with a qroominq shop in
an existing industrial
structure.
921-050-010-6
Planninq Department
All kennels and catteries shall comply with all statutes, ordinances, rules and
regulations applicable thereto.
All kennels and carteties shall be constructed, maintained and operated in
such a manner as to preserve and protect the general health, safety and
welfare of the public and of the animals maintained in such kennels and
catteries. In furtherance of this purpose, the Health Officer may, in his
discretion, impose such reasonable standards in addition to those contained
herein, upon any kennel or cattery located in the unincorporated area of the
County of Riverside.
All housing facilities for animals must be constructed, equipped and
maintained so as to continuously provide a healthful, safe and sanitary
environment for the animals which are kept therein. Interior walls of indoor
housing areas shall be constructed of an impervious material that can be
washed and sanitlzed.
All kennels and carteties shall provide adequate shelter from the elements and
sufficient exercise space for all of the animals maintained therein.
5. Water for drinking shall be available to the animals at all times.
A suitable and sufficient supply of appropriate food for the animals shall be
maintained on hand and provided at appropriate intervals.
Animal food shall be stored under sanitary conditions and food and water
receptacles shall be of a material which can be easily cleaned and disinfected.
Each kennel and cattery facility shall contain a water basin for the cleaning
of food and water receptacles.
Kennel and cattery facilities shall have ample and well distributed light. Such
lighting may be by natural or artificial means and shall be adequate to permit
observation of the animals and to allow for proper cleaning.
A:PP235 11
9. The applicant shall obtain and continuously maintain all necessary licenses
from the Riverside County Health Department.
10.
Kennel and cattery facilities shall be adequately ventilated at all times to
provide for the health and comfort of the animals.
11.
Fresh air shall be provided by means of windows, doors, vents, or air
conditioning and kennels and catterles shall be so ventilated as to minimize
drafts, odors and condensation of moisture.
12.
Auxiliary ventilation such as fans or air conditioning or similar coolin9 devices
shall be provided when deemed necessary by the Health Officer.
13. Heating shall be provided when deemed necessary by the Health Officer.
Each kennel and cattery facility shall have available spray equipment and
chemicals to control flies and other insects, and rodents.
15.
Each kennel and cattery shall provide for the daily disposal of animal wastes.
If disposal is by other than a sanitary sewerage system, animal wastes shall
be picked up not less than once each day, or more often as needed. Once
picked up, animal wastes shall be placed in fly-tight containers until removed
from the kennel premises. Said containers shall be transported to an
appropriate disposal site not less than once each week.
16.
Water hoses shall be positioned so as to provide ready capability for washin9
down all animal wastes. This shall be done often enough each day so as to
prevent the build-up of noxious odors, and in no event shall be done less than
once each day. All runoff which contains animal wastes must be maintained
within the confines of the kennel or cattery premises. All areas wherein water
is utilized as a method for the cleaning of animal wastes shall be connected to
an appropriate disposal system.
17.
The overall kennel and cattery premises shall be kept free of trash, waste and
debris of any kind.
18o
If a kennel and a cattery are operated or maintained on the same premises,
they shall be separated from one another by a solid partition wall which has
no doors or windows that communicate from one side of the wall to the other.
Such premises shall comply with such other requirements as the Health Officer
may reasonably impose under the circumstances.
19.
All dogs shall be maintained and confined in a house-type enclosure between
the hours of 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM, except that up to four (~,) dogs may be
unconfined on the kennel premises during such hours.
20.
Dogs shall not be housed or maintained in any area which is less than twenty
(20) feet from any property line and no closer than five (5) feet from any
structure located on the kennel premises which is used for human habitation,
except that where a dwelling house is located on the kennel premises any
number of dogs may be taken into said house for temporary periods. As used
in this subsection, the term "dwelling house" shall also include a barn, garage
A: PP235 12
21.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
or similar appurtenant structure or outbuilding.
Dogs may be exercised on any portion of the kennel premises.
The kennel shall be enclosed by a perimeter fence erected for the purpose of
containment; such fencing shall be of such height and material as are
approved by the Health Officer, and shall comply with all applicable building
laws, ordinances, codes and regulations.
A caretaker shall be required to be on the kennel premises on a daily basis.
A live-in caretaker is required who shall be on the kennel premises daily.
All kennels shall be constructed so that there is an indoor housing area and
an outdoor run. Runs shall be constructed and located not closer than five
{5) feet to any structure used for human habitation located on the kennel
premises and not closer than twenty (20) feet to any property line. Indoor
housing areas shall be constructed so as to be capable of being enclosed
during inclement weather, to provide for noise control and shall be of a size
sufficient to accommodate the number of dos housed therein and said number
shall be subject to the discretion of the Health Officer.
Flooring of runs shall be constructed so as to protect the dogs' feet and legs
from injury and appropriate methods of drainage shall be employed to rapidly
eliminate excess liquid from such flooring.
The cattery shall be located in a buildin9 wherein the walls and floor are
constructed of an impervious material which can be washed and sanitized, at
least once per day. Said building shall be located at least twenty (20) feet
from any property line and not less than five (5) feet from any structure on
the kennel premises which is used for human habitation, except that where a
dwelling house is located on the cattery premises any number of cats may be
taken into the house for temporary periods. As used in this subsection, the
term "dwelling house" shall also include a barn, garage or similar appurtenant
structure or outbuilding. Notwithstanding any provision of these Standards
for Kennels and Carteties, no cattery shall be operated or maintained in a
structure used for human habitation or in a 9ara9e.
A:PP235 13
CITY OF TEMECULA )
LOCATION 'MAP
CASE NO.
P.C. DATE --'~.
CITY OF TEMECULA )
CZ 9
CZ
CZ 915
M-M
\\\\ CZ
Cm p
CZ 1706
r
CASE NO./~'
ZONE MAP ) P.C. DATE ,-~.
CITY OF TEMECULA )
LI
SP
SWAP MAP
r ~
CASE NO.
P.C. DATE//~. ~//~/
ITEM #1q
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 5, 1991
Case No.: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25417
Prepared By: Oliver Mujica
Recommendation: 1.
RECOMMEND ADOPTION of
Declaration for Vesting Tentative
Tract Map No. 25417; and
Negative
ADOPT Resolution No. 91-
recommending approval of Vesting
Tentative tract Map No. 25417.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Bedford Properties
REPRESENTATIVE:
Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates
PROPOSAL:
Subdivide 37.8 acres into 6 multi-family residential
lots and 2 open space lots within Planning Area No.
6 of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1.
LOCATION:
Southwest corner of DePortola road and Meadows
Parkway.
EXISTING ZONING:
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North: Planning Area No. 8 (Medium density
residential )
South: Planning Area No. 1 (Community/
Neighborhood Commercial )
East: Planning Area No. 5 (Medium high
density residential)
West: Planning Areas Nos. 1 and 8
PROPOSED ZONING:
Not Applicable
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Total Land Area:
No. of Proposed Lots:
Proposed Density:
Specific Plan Density:
37.8 Acres
6 multi-family and 2
open space
15.61 DU/ac
15.61 DU/ac
A: TM25417 1
BACKGROUND:
On September 6, 1988, the Riverside County Board
of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 88-u,70
approving Specific Plan No. 219 (Meadows). The
Meadows provided a total of 5,611 dwelling units on
1,036 acres. In addition, the Board of Supervisors
certified Environmental Impact Report No. 235 for
Specific Plan No. 219 as an accurate and objective
statement that complies with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Furthermore,
a statement of overriding findings was made for the
air quality impacts.
On November 15, 1989, the applicant filed Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 25~,17 to the Riverside
County Planning Department, which proposed to
subdivide the subject 37.8 acre site into 6 multi-
family residential lots and 2 open space lots.
The project was reviewed by the Riverside County
Land Division Committee (LDC) on April 2, 1990.
During these meetings the LDC indicated that
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1 must be
adopted prior to the approval of the Tentative Map.
Subsequently, this project was transferred to the
City of Temecula on April 23, 1990.
On November 15, 1990, this project was reviewed by
the Preliminary Development Review Committee
(Pre-DRC) in order to informally evaluate the
project and address any possible concerns, as well
as suggesting possible modifications. The comments
by the Pre-DRC included the following:
1. Circulation/Access.
Subsequent to the Pre-DRC meeting, Staff met with
the applicant to discuss the required supplemental
material in order to address the Pre-DRC's
Concerns.
On February 27, 1991, Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 25417 was reviewed by the Formal Development
Review Committee; and, it was determined that the
project, as designed, can be adequately conditioned
to mitigate the DRC's concerns. The DRC has
forwarded a recommendation of approval subject to
the conditions.
A: TM25417 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
On April 9, 1991, the City Council Adopted
Resolution No. 91-36 approving Change of Zone No.
5621 and Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1
amending the boundaries and land use designations
of Planning Areas 1, 2, 5 and 6 of Specific Plan No.
219. Subsequently, on April 23, 1991, the City
Council adopted Ordinance No. 91-13 amending
Zoning Ordinance No. 90-04 pertaining to Ordinance
No. 348.2919 ISpecific Plan No. 219) as it relates to
zoning.
The Planning Commission May recall that Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 25417 was originally
scheduled for their public hearing meeting of March
18, 1991. However, at the request of the applicant,
this item was continued prior to the meeting "off-
calendar" in order to allow the applicant the
opportunity to further discuss the Conditions of
Approval, relative to traffic mitigation, with the
Engineering Department Staff.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25417 proposes to
subdivide the subject 37.8 acre parcel into 6 multi-
family residential lots; and 2 open space lots; as
follows:
Lot No. 1 - 5.9 Acres
Lot No. 2 - 5.9 Acres
Lot No. 3 - 6.2 Acres
Lot No. 4 - 6.1 Acres
Lot No. 5 - 5.5 Acres
Lot No. 6 - 8.2 Acres
The proposed subdivision has been designed in
accordance with the standards of Specific Plan No.
219, Amendment No. 1. Thus, the project has been
conditioned accordingly.
Traffic Impacts
The Transportation Engineering Staff has reviewed
this project; and has determined that the proposed
project is consistent with the Traffic Mitigation
Measures of EIR 235 adopted for Specific Plan No.
219.
A:TM25417 3
Access and Circulation
Access is provided to lots 1-3 from proposed street
"H"; to lot 4 from Meadows Parkway; and lots 1,5
and 6 from DePortola Road. The access points are
consistent with the Circulation Plan of Specific Plan
No. 219, Amendment No. 1. (See Figure 4, Page
22; and Figure 15E, Page 91 of Specific Plan Text).
General Landscape Requirements
Pursuant to Specific Plan No 219, Amendment No. 1,
(see Landscape Design Guidelines and Community
Elements, page 223-295) all areas required to be
landscaped shall be planted with turf, ground
cover, shrub or tree materials selected from the
plant palette contained in the guidelines.
Planting shall commence as soon as slopes are
completed on any portion of the site and shall
provide for rapid short-term coverage of the slopes
as well as long-term establishment cover per City
standards, The developer shall provide a landscape
bond to the City at the time that the landscape plan
is approved. The bond is to guarantee the
installation of interim erosion control planting in the
event that the grading operation is performed and
building construction does not commence within
ninety (90) days,
The owners of parcels which require landscape
development shall assess any existing common
landscape areas adjoining their property. Where
feasible, landscape development shall reinforce or
be compatible with such existing common area
settl ng.
Cut slopes equal to or greater than five feet (5') in
vertical height and fill slopes equal to or greater
than three feet {3') in vertical height shall be
planted with a ground cover to protect the slope
from erosion and instability. Slopes exceeding
fifteen feet {15' ) in vertical height shall be planted
with shrubs, spaced not more than ten feet {10' ) on
center or trees spaced not to exceed twenty feet
{ 20' ) on center or a combination of shrubs and trees
at equivalent spacings, in addition to the ground
COVer,
A: TM25417 4
SPECIFIC PLAN AND
GENERAL PLAN
CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
· DETERMINATION:
The plants selected and planting methods shall be
suitable for the soil and climactic conditions. Refer
to the plant materials palette for the list of
community wide slope stabilization plants.
The Planning Department Staff has included a
Condition of Approval requiring that a final
landscaping plan must be submitted for approval by
the Planning Department, prior to the issuance of
building permits.
Gradinq and Landform Alteration
Grading and recontouring of this site, which
includes 12,000 c.y. of excavation and 850,000 c.y.
of fill will occur in the immediate area.
Land Use
The project site is located within Planning Area 6 of
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1 which is
designated as very high density residential.
Vesting Tentative Tract map No. 25LH7 is a 6 lot
subdivision only, therefore, the Planning
Department Staff has included a Condition of
Approval requiring that a Plot Plan Application for
the development of lots 1-6 must be submitted for
approval, prior to the issuance of buiIdlng permits.
The proposed project is consistent with the Land
Use Designation of Specific Plan and Specific Plan
No. 219, Amendment No. 1 {Planning Area 6 - Very
High Density Residential). In addition, Staff finds
it probable that this project will be consistent with
the new General Plan when it is adopted.
Pursuant to Condition of Approval No. 12 of Specific
Plan No. 219, an Initial Study was performed for
this project which determined that although the
proposed project could have a significant effect on
the environment, no significant impact would result
to the natural or built environment in the City
because the mitigation measures described in EIR
235 and in the Conditions of Approval have been
added to the project, and a Negative Declaration has
been recommended for adoption.
A:TM25417 5
FINDINGS:
The proposed Tract Map will not have a
significant negative impact on the
environment. as determined in the Initial
Study performed for the project. A Negative
Declaration is recommended for adoption.
There is reasonable probability that this
project will be consistent with the General
Plan being prepared at this time, due to the
fact that the project is consistent with
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to, or interference
with,the future adopted General Plan, if the
proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with
the plan, due to the fact that the project is
consistent with the Specific Plan.
The proposed use complies with State
planning and zoning law, due to the fact that
the project conforms to the current zoning
for the site and to Ordinance No. 460.
Schedule A.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configurations, access, and
density, due to the fact that the project has
access to public roads and a Specific Plan will
be implemented with this project.
The design of the subdivision or the
proposed improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or
substantially and avoidable injury to fish or
wildlife or their habitat as determined in the
Initial Study.
All lots have acceptable access to existing
and proposed dedicated rights-d-way which
are open to, and are useable by, vehicular
traffic, access is provided from DePortola
Road, Meadows Parkway, and Street "A" of
the Specific Plan.
The design of the subdivision, the type of
improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed project as
condltioned. The project will not interfere
A: TM25417 6
10.
with any easements.
The lawful conditions stated in the project's
Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary
to protect the public health, safety and
general welfare.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
RECOMMEND ADOPTION of the Negative
Declaration for Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 25u, 17; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending
approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
25u..17.
OM:mb
Attachments:
2.
3.
u...
Resolution ~ Change of Zone No. 5631 )
Conditions of Approval
Environmental Assessment
Exhibits:
A. Vicinity Map
B. Specific Land Use Map
C. Planning Area No. 6 Map
D. Planning Area No. 6 Standards
E. Tentative Tract Map
Large Scale Plan
A: TM25417 7
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 25417 TO
SUBDIVIDE A 37.8 ACRE PARCEL INTO 6 MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 2 OPEN SPACE LOTS LOCATED
ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DEPORTOLA ROAD AND
MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 926-1330-012-014
WHEREAS, Bedford Properties filed Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
25417 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and
Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map application was processed in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Tentative Tract
Map on August 5, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to
testify either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said Tentative Tract Map;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findin.qs. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty ~30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
{1 ) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
I2 ) 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:TM25417 8
!b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, {hereinafter "SWAP" ) was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the
SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the
Government Code, to wit:
{1 ) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The Planning Commission finds, in recommending
approval of projects and taking other actions, including
the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title,
each of the following:
There is reasonable probability that Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 250,17 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.
~C)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
D. {1) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No.
0,60, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are
made:
a)
That the proposed land division is consistent
with applicable general and specific plans.
A: TM25417 9
That the design or improvement of the
proposed land division is consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.
c)
That the site of the proposed land division is
physically suitable for the type of
development.
d)
That the site of the proposed land division is
physically suitable for the proposed density
of the development.
e)
That the design of the proposed land division
or proposed improvements are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or
substantially and unavoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat.
f)
That the design of the proposed land division
or the type of improvements are not likely to
cause serious public health problems.
g)
That the design of the proposed land division
or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at
large, for access through, or use of,
property within the proposed land division.
A land division may be approved if it is found
that alternate easements for access or for use
will be provided and that they will be
substantially equivalent to ones previously
acquired by the public. This subsection
shall apply only to easements of record or to
easements established by judgment of a court
of competent jurisdiction.
|2 ) The Planning Commission in recommending approval
of the proposed Tentative Tract Map, makes the following findings, to
wit:
a) The proposed Tract Map will not have a
significant negative impact on the
environment, as determined in the Initial
Study performed for the project. A Negative
Declaration is recommended for adoption.
b)
There is reasonable probability that this
project will be consistent with the General
Plan being prepared at this time, due to the
fact that the project is consistent with
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1.
A:TM25417 10
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to, or interference
with,the future adopted General Plan, if the
proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with
the plan, due to the fact that the project is
consistent with the Specific Plan.
The proposed use complies with State
planning and zoning law, due to the fact that
the project conforms to the current zoning
for the site and to Ordinance No. 460,
Schedule A.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configurations, access, and
density, due to the fact that the project has
access to public roads and a specific plan will
be implemented with this project.
The design of the subdivision or the
proposed improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or
substantially and avoidable injury to fish or
wildlife or their habitat as determined in the
Initial Study.
All lots have acceptable access to existing
and proposed dedicated rights-d-way which
are open to, and are useable by, vehicular
traffic, access is provided from DePortola
Road, Meadows Parkway and Street ~A" of
the Specific Plan.
The design of the subdivision, the type of
improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed project as
conditloned. The project will not interfere
with any easements.
The lawful conditions stated in the project's
Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary
to protect the public health, safety and
general welfare.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with these applications and hereln
incorporated by reference.
A:TM25417 11
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Tentative
Tract Map is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the
proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment. there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in EIR
235 and in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a
Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby recommended for adoption.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends
approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25417 for the subdivision of a 37.8 acre
parcel into 6 multi-family residential lots and 2 open space lots located on the
southwest corner of DePortola and Meadows Road and known as Assessor~s Parcel No.
926-130-012-014 subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of August, 1991.
JOHN HOAGLAND
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 5th day of August, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONER5
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
A:TM25417 12
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No: 25417
Project Description: 6 Multi-Family
Residential and 2 Open Space
Assessor's Parcel No.: 926-013-012
Planning Department
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision
Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule B, 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 by the City Council, unless extended as provided by Ordinance
460.
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordatlon of the final
map.
Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract
map boundary to a City maintained road.
Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area
improvement phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning Department
approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access
to all lots in each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and
purpose of the subdivision approval.
A copy of the final grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department
for review and approval. All on-site cut and fill slopes shall:
a. Be limited to a maximum slope ratio of 2 to 1.
b. Be contour-graded to blend with existing natural contours.
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. An erosion control landscaping plan
demonstrating methods of erosion protection for these slopes shall be prepared
by a qualified professional; and shall be submitted to the City Planning
Department for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits.
A:TM25417 13
10.
tl.
12.
13.
14.
The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations
outlined in the County Health Department's transmittal dated November 13,
1990, a copy of which is attached.
All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of
Technology, Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as outlined in the
Southwest Area Plan.
This subdivision shall comply with Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1.
Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following:
Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the
development standards of Planning Area 6 as provided in Specific Plan
No. 219, Amendment No. 1.
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.
The subdivider and all successors in interest shall comply with the provisions
of Development Agreement No. 4 and Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1.
Prior to recordatlon of the final map, an Environmental Constraints Sheet
~ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to delineate
identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed with the
office of the City Engineer. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the
Planning Department for review and approval. The approved ECS shall be
forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to the Planning Department
and the Department of Building and Safety.
15. The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet:
This property is located within thirty {30) miles of Mount Palomar
Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with
the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory
recommendations.
County Slope Stability Report No. 122 was prepared for this property
and is on file at the Planning Department. Specific items of concern in
the report are as follows: Slope Stability.
A: TM25417 1
16.
17.
The developer shall comply with the following parkway landscaping
conditions:
Prior to the issuance of buildin9 permits, the developer shall secure
approval of proposed landscaping and irrigation plans from the City
Engineering and Planning Department. All landscaping and irrigation
plans and specifications shall be prepared in a reproducible format
suitable for permanent filin9 with the City Engineering Department.
The developer shall post a landscape performance bond which shall be
released concurrently with the release of subdivision performance
bonds, guaranteein9 the viability of all landscaping which will be
installed prior to the assumption of the maintenance responsibility by
the district.
The developer, the developer's successors-in-interest or assignees,
shall be responsible for all parkway landscapin9 maintenance until such
time as maintenance as taken over by the district.
The developer shall comply with the standards and exhibits in Specific
Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1.
Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMIT5 the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
If the project is to be phased, prior to the issuance 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
sedimentatlon 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 {10) feet in vertical height shall be contour-graded
incorporating the following grading techniques:
The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the
angle of the natural terrain.
Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall
reflect the natural rounded terrain.
A: TM25417 15
18.
19.
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.
Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
The project shall comply with the requirements of Development
Agreement No. ~,.
Prior to the issuance of building permits detailed common open space
area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning
Department approval for the phase of development in process. The
plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for
the following:
Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all
landscaped areas requiring irrigation.
Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be
opaque up to a minimum height of six {6) feet at maturity.
All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from
view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle
treatments, as approved by the Planning Director. Utilities shall
be placed underground.
Parkways shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a
transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscape
elements shall include earth betruing, ground cover, shrubs and
specimen trees. Front yards shall be landscaped and street trees
planted.
A: TM25417 16
20.
21.
Wall plans shall be submitted for the project perimeter. Wooden
fencing shall not be allowed on the perimeter of the project. All
lots with slopes leading down from the lot shall be provided with
9ares in the wall for maintenance access.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent
trees at key visual focal points within the project.
Where street trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of
interior streets and project parkways due to insufficient road
right-of-way, they shall be planted outside of the road right-of-
way.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant
plants where appropriate.
All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow
growing trees shall be steel staked.
Prior to the issuance of buildin9 permits for Lots 1-6, a plot plan shall
be submitted to the Planning Department pursuant to Section 18.30 of
Ordinance No. 3~,8 accompanied by all applicable filing fees, as a plot
plan that is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act and is
transmitted to governmental agencies other than the City Planning
Department. The plot plan shall ensure the conformance of the final
site development with the Design Cuidelines of Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 1.
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 Vestln9
Tentative Tract Map No. 25u,17, which action is brought within the time period
provided for in California Government Code Section 66~,99.37. The City of
Temecula will promptly notify the subdlvlder of any such claim, action, or
proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the
defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim,
action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider
shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless
the City of Temecula.
A: TM25~,17 17
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 66L~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.
Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the developer or his assignee must
conform to the park district Quimby Ordinance, unless waived to time of
issuance of a building permit.
25.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
26.
The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions {CCF, R's) shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Department and the Public Works Department prior
to final approval of the tract maps. The CCF, R's shall include liability
insurance and methods of maintaining the open space and private drainage
systems.
27.
No lot in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association,
property owner's group, or similar entity has been formed with the right to
assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any
rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the
development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of
such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of
said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate
under recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsory membership of all
owners of lots and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of
maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&R's shall permit
enforcement by the City of Provisions required by the City as Conditions of
Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this
requirement to, and receive approval of, the City prior to making any such
sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public
purposes.
28.
Every owner of a lot shall own as an appurtenance to such 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.
A: TM25417 18
29.
Maintenance for all landscaped and open areas, including parkways, shall be
provided for in the CC&R's.
30.
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) 1 2) plus the Twenty-
Five Dollar ($25.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the
Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152
and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight (48) hour
period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department
the check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall
be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section
711.41c).
Department of Public Works
The following are the Department of Public Works 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 Department of
Public Works.
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:
31.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works 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;
Department of Public Works;
Riverside County Health Department;
CATV Franchise; and
Parks and Recreation Department.
32.
All road easements and/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication to
the public and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such
offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
A: TM25417 19
33.
34.
35.
36.
37,
38.
39.
40.
I n the event that full improvements for Meadows Parkway, DePortola Road and
Street "A" are not constructed by Assessment District 159 prior to the final
map recordation, the developer shall construct or bond for the improvements
to provide for one-half street improvements plus one 12 foot lane per
Riverside County Standard No. 101 {100'/76). The improvements shall be
constructed prior to occupancy.
Vehicular access shall be restricted on Meadows Parkway, DePortola Road and
Street "A" and so noted on the final map with the exception of private street
and driveway openings as approved by the Department of Public Works.
Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard
No. 805.
Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage, when deemed necessary,
shall be delineated or noticed on the final map.
Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be dedicated to the City where
sidewalks meander through private property.
Easements for joint use driveways shall be provided prior to approval of the
Final Map or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage
facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located
within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances
shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the Department of Public
Works.
The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be
executed guaranteelng the construction of the following public improvements
in conformance with applicable City standards.
Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb
and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights,
signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control
devices as appropriate.
b. Storm drain facilities.
c. Landscaping {street and parks).
d. Sewer and domestic water systems.
e. All trails, as required by the City's Master Plans.
f. Undergrounding of existing and proposed utility distribution lines.
The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated
with adjoining developments.
A:TM25417 20
Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. ~,61 and as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the
Department of Public Works 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.
44.
Street names shall be subject to the approval of the Department of Public
Works.
45.
The minimum centerline radii shall be 300 feet or as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
46.
All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
47.
Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a
minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment
as approved by the Department of Public Works.
L~8. A minimum centerllne street grade shall be 0.50 percent.
49.
The subdivider shall submit two (2) prints of a comprehensive grading plan
to the Department of Public Works. The plan shall comply with the Uniform
Building Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these
Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2u," x 36" mylar by a
Registered Civil Engineer.
50.
A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and
submitted at the time of application for grading plan check.
51.
The subdivider shall submit two ( 2 ) copies of a soils report to the Department
of Public Works. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
52.
A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of
Public Works. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the
Department of Public Works.
53.
On-site drainage facilities, located outside of road right-of-way, shall be
contained within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note shall be
added to the final map stating "Drainage easements shall be kept free of
buildings and obstructions."
54.
A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final map, along with
supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations should be submitted to the
Riverside County Flood Control District and the City of Temecula Department
of Public Works for review.
A: TM25417 21
55.
Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface
drainage entering the property from adjacent areas.
56.
Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City~s CATV Franchises of
the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time
of street improvements.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
57.
Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid
and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public
Works.
58.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior
to commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of-
way.
59.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The
charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits.
If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to
this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT:
60.
A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works
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.
61.
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.
62.
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
A: TM25u,17 22
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:
63.
Construct full street improvements includin9 but not limited to, curb and
9utter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and
street lights on all interior public streets.
Existin9 city roads requirin9 construction shall remain open to traffic at all
times with adequate detours during construction.
65.
Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than lu, days following
placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon
per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39, and
9u, of the State Standard Specifications.
Transportation Enqlneerinq
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
66.
A signln9 and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer
and approved by the Department of Public Works for DePortola Road, Street
"A" and Meadows Parkway. These shall be included in the street improvement
plans. Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact the Depatment of
Public Works for the design requirements.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
67.
A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Civil
Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works for any street
closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the
Department of Public Works.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
68.
All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signin9 and
striping plan.
69.
Plans for a traffic signal shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the Department of Public Works for the intersection of Meadows
Parkway with DePortola Road and Meadows Parkway with Street "A". All
traffic signals shall be installed and operational per the special provisions and
the approved traffic signal plan when warranted. Prior to designing any of
the above plans, contact the Department of Public Works for the design
requirements,
A: TM25417 23
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:
Bedford Properties
28765 Single Oak Drive, Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92390
(714) 676-7290
February 13, 1991
CITY OF TEMECULA
Tentative Tract Map No. 25417
Southwest corner of DePortola Road
Meadows Parkway.
I I. Project Description
Tentative Tract Map No. 25417 proposes to subdivide the subject 37.8 acre site,
which is within Planning Area 6 of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1, into 6
multi-family residential lots and 2 open space lots.
Project Summary:
SP 219 TM 25417
Planning Area 5
590 D.U. 6 Lots
Ill. Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
The following environmental impacts associated with Specific Plan No. 219 are
insignificant in that the design of the project as proposed includes the necessary
mitigation measures which have been adopted within EIR 235:
Water and Sewer:
The project will have an average daily consumption
of domestic water of 1,683,300 gallons at 300
gallons/d.u./day. The project will generation
between 1.81 and 3.08 million gallons per day of
sewage flow. Onsite wastewater collection facilities
will be constructed to tie into Eastern Municipal
Water District's master planned facilities being
constructed through the Rancho Villages
A: TM25417 24
B. Utilities:
Enerqy Resources:
Parks and Recreation:
Assessment District. Construction of all structures
within the project will conform to state laws
requirin9 water efficient plumbin9 fixtures.
Gas, electricity, and telephone service will be
provided by respective purveyors of the service.
Lines for electrical and telephone services, and
mains for natural gas are located along the project
boundaries.
The project will increase consumption of energy for
motor vehicle movement, space and water heatin9,
air conditioning, use of home appliances, and
operation of construction equipment. The project
will adhere to State Code Title 2L~ energy
conservation standards and will employ site design,
when possible, for additional energy conservation.
Non vehicular pathways are included within, and
adjacent to, the project site. Commercial and
employment centers are in proximity to the project
site.
Project residents will create a demand for parks and
recreation facilities, and for open space. The
project design provides 242+/- acres of recreation
areas, parkway greenbelts, and paseo open space.
The following environmental impacts associated with Specific Plan No. 219 are
potentially significant, but will be avoided or substantially lessened by the identified
mitigation measures which have been adopted within EIR 235:
A. Seismic Safety
1. Impact:
Although faults have been previously mapped on-
site, they have been determined to be inactive and
the risk of ground rupture due to faulting on the
project is considered nil. Liquefaction potential
exists along the entire flat alluviated area of
Temecula Creek within the southern site boundary.
2. Mitiqation:
During site development, additional geologic
evaluation shall be continued in order to verify the
extent and relative age of fault activity. Mitigation
of the liquefaction potential within the southern
portion of the site will occur as a result of project
development, which will lower artificially high
groundwater levels by removal of recharge ponds,
as well as increase overburden as a result of site
grading.
A: TM25417 25
Slopes and Erosion
1. Impact:
2. Mitiqation:
C. Flooding
1. Impact:
2. Mitiqation:
D, Noise
1. Impact:
The Meadows Specific Plan will unavoidably alter
some of the existing landforms. Owing to the
general granular nature of graded slopes, a
moderate to severe erosion potential exists if slopes
are unprotected. Removal and recompaction of
portions of alluvial/colluvial soils within fill areas
and shallow cut areas will be necessary.
Temporary groundcover shall be provided to
prevent erosion during the construction phase.
Permanent vegetation shall be planted as soon as
possible after grading. Specific requirements for
alluvial/colluvial soils removal shall be developed
during tentative map studies and incorporated into
project grading. The three small possible landslide
areas shall be investigated during design level
studies and all mitigation measures identified as a
result of that investigation will be incorporated into
future development approvals. Remedial grading
recommendations to provide for the Ion9 term
stability will be provided based upon a finalized
grading design.
Development of the Vail Meadows Specific Plan will
alter the existing drainage patterns and will
increase runoff to Temecula Creek and, to a lesser
extent, Murrieta Creek.
A master drainage plan has been developed to
respond to the hydrological constraints of the site.
A more in-depth assessment of the Temecula
floodplaln shall be conducted during the final
design and preparation of the tentative tract maps,
and all mitigation measures identified as a result of
that assessment will be incorporated into future
development approvals. Erosion control devices
shall be utilized in hillside development areas to
mitigate the effect of increased runoff at points of
discharge. If required, the project applicant will
contribute Drainage Improvement Fees as
appropriate.
Noise generated from the project will derive from
two sources, construction and vehicular traffic, but
is not anticipated to result in unacceptable noise
levels to existing or proposed off-site uses. Onsite
areas adjacent to high volume roadways may be
subject to noise impacts.
A: TM25~,17 26
Mitiqation:
E. Water Quality
1. Impact:
2. Mitiqation:
Wildlife/Veqetation
1. Impact:
2. Mitiqation:
Historic and Prehistoric
1. impact:
2. Mitiqation:
H. Circulation
1. Impact:
A noise analysis shall be required in planning areas
adjacent to high volume perimeter roads. If
indicated, noise attenuation will be incorporated
into project design.
Implementation of the project will alter the
composition of surface runoff by grading the site
surfaces; by construction of impervious streets,
roofs and parking facilities; and by the irrigation of
landscaped areas. Runoff conveyed to Temecula
and Murrieta Creeks will contain minor amounts of
pollutants.
The project will employ erosion control devices
during grading, such as temporary herins,
culverts, sand bagging or desiltlng basins. Urban
runoff will be mitigated through implementation of a
street cleaning program.
As a consequence of grassland and coastal sage
scrub vegetation removal, existing wildlife will
either be destroyed or displaced. Impacts upon
habitat containing a population of the Stephens
Kangaroo Rat will result.
The project applicant will participate in any in-place
County program which provides for off-site
mitigation of impacts to the Stephens Kangaroo Rat,
or enter into a Memorandum of Understanding wit
the California Department of Fish and Came.
Sites
Without proper mitigation, implementation of the Vail
Meadows Specific Plan could potentially destroy
archaeological/historical sites on the property.
Prior to the approval of any additional implementing
processes, the applicant/developer will meet with
the County Historical Commission to determine
appropriate measures to mitigate potential impacts
to archaeological/historical sites; all mitigation
measures identified as a result of the meetlngJ s) will
be incorporated into future development approvals.
The Vail Meadows Specific Plan is anticipated to
generate u,7,600 vehicle trips per day at project
completion. Approximately 1,0,000 of these trips
would be external to the site.
A:TM25LJ17 27
2. Mitigation:
Fire Protection
1. I rapact:
2. Mitlqation:
Sheriff
1. Impact:
2. Mitlqation:
Schools
1. Impact:
2. Mitiqation:
Solid Waste
1. Impact:
2. Mitiqatlon:
Construction of the proposed circulation network
will adequately service future on-site traffic
volumes. Off-site improvements will be constructed
as required by the County Road Department and
CalTrans.
The project site would be subject to Category II
urban development requirements with regard to fire
protection services.
The project site will be served by a proposed fire
station, to be constructed near Highway 79. The
developer will pay mitigation fees as required by the
Board of Supervisors.
Project residents will impose increased demands on
law enforcement and sheriff services.
Project design will incorporate appropriate lighting,
site design, security hardware and such design
features as will promote optimal security. The
developer will pay mitigation fees as required by the
Board of Supervisors.
The project will generate an estimated 3,109
students in grades K-8 and 1,187 students in
grades 9-12, impacting the Temecula Union School
District.
The project has designated four elementary school
sites and one junior high school site. The developer
will pay school mitigation fees as required.
Project residents, estimated at 1~,,587, will generate
approximately 58 tons per day of solid waste,
incrementally shortening the life of County landfill
sites.
The County Solid Waste Management Plan includes
programs for reducing the quantity of wastes being
landfilled, including source reduction and business
and residential separation of recoverables. These
programs may be implemented by project residents
and businesses.
A: TM25417 28
Libraries
1. Impact:
2. Mitigation:
The project's population will increase demand for
library facilities and services.
The developer will pay library mitigation fees as
required by the Board of Supervisors.
The following environmental impact associated with Specific Plan No. 219 cannot be
fully mitigated and a statement of overriding findings has been adopted within
235:
Air Quality
1. Impact:
At project build-out, daily motor vehicle emissions
for the project will total approximately 7,754
Ibs/day. Power plant emissions for electrical
energy consumed on-site will total 175 Ibs/day.
Natural gas emissions for project consumption will
total 163.6 Ibs per day. Approximately 100 Ibs of
dust per acre will be generated each day of
construction in addition to an undetermined amount
of motor emissions during site preparation an
construction.
2. Mitiqation:
Because most of the project-related air pollution
emissions are generated by automobiles, effective
mitigation is limited. On-site provisions for
schools, shoppln9, and recreation has been
incorporated into project design. Sufficient acreage
has been zoned for industrial use in the Rancho
California/Temecula area to provide employment
opportunities. project design includes a circulation
plan designed for efficient and direct traffic flows
and alternative transit modes including pedestrian,
bicycle, and equestrian trails. The Rancho Villages
Policy Plan, to which this project is subject,
requires pedestrian and bus stop facilities for
commercial areas. These requirements will be
implemented at the development application stage.
Particulate matter and other pollutants generated
during grading and construction will be reduced
through compliance with County Ordinance No. u,57
which specifies wateri:'-9 during construction, and
planting of ground cover.
A: TM25q-17 29
IV. Conclusion
The Riverside County Board of Supervisors certified Environmental Impact Report
I EIR ) No. 235 in conjunction with the approval of Specific Plan No. 219 and Change
of Zone No. 51u,0. The EIR included mitigation measures to reduce environmental
impacts to levels of insignificance. The Board of Supervisors also adopted
statements of overriding considerations for the air quality impacts. Tentative Tract
Map No. 25417 proposes a residential development that is consistent with the
guidelines and requirements of Planning Area 6 of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment
No. 1; and will not result in impacts to the environment. The Conditions of Approval
are adequate to mitigate any potential significant impacts to levels of insignificance.
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ~CEQA) and Condition of
Approval No. 12 of Specific Plan No. 219, this Initial Study has been prepared to
demonstrate that the changes resulting from the proposed Tentative Tract Map will
not result in new or substantially increased significant impacts, that there have been
no changes in the circumstances surrounding the project that would require
important revisions to the EIR due to new significant impacts, and that no new
information has arisen which would indicate that the project will have significant
effects not previously discussed or underestimated, or that alternatives or mitigation
measures not previously considered would substantially reduce any significant
impacts.
A: TM25417 30
- ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a signi-
ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi-
ticant effect on this case because the mltigation measures
described on attached sheets, which were adopted for EIR 235
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.
DaFteebruary 13, 1991 Oilvet Mujic'ca~a Senior P~nner
For CiTY OF TEMECULA
X
A: TM25417 31
Z
Z
..J
J(
6. Planning Area 6
a. Descriptive SummaD;
Planning Area 6, as depicted on Figure 15F, provides for
development of 37.8 acres with Very High density residen-
tial use. A maximum total of 590 dwelling units are
planned at a target density of 15.6 du/ac (Density Range
14-20 du/ac). A conceptual site plan is depicted in the
Design Guidelines, Sec. IV.
b. Land Use and Development Standards
Please refer to Zone Ordinance No. 91-13
Ordinance Tab.)
(See S.P. Zone
c. Plannin~ Standards
Access to the Planning Area will be provided from
a collector roadway ("H" Street) to the south, De
Portola Road to the north, and Meadows Parkway to the
east. Access points, as depicted, are conceptual.
Access to individual planning areas shall be deter-
mined when tract maps or plot plans are submitted.
A Project Intersection entry statement will be pro-
vided at the intersection of De Portola Road and "H"
Street at the northwestern boundary of the Planning
Area. (See Figure 38.)
A Community Intersection entry statement will be pro-
vided at the intersection of Meadows Parkway and De
Portola Road, and Meadows Parkway and "H" Street at
the northeastern and southeastern boundaries of the
Planning Area. (See Figure 34.)
A minimum of one neighborhood entry statements will be
provided at egress points onto "H" Street at the
southern boundary of the Planning Area. (See Figure
37.)
Roadway landscape treatments, such as those depicted
on Figures 23, 23, and 27 respectively shall be
provided along De Portola Road, Meadows Parkway, and
"H" Street.
Private recreation facilities are planned which may
include facilities such as pools, spas, cabanas,
meeting rooms, barbecues, wet bars, and kitchen
facilities.
Bicycle trails will be located in De Portola Road,
Meadows Parkway, and "H" Street surrounding the Plan-
ning Area as shown on Figure 6.
74
,
Balconies may encroach into building setback lines.
A site of archaeological/historical significance is
located within this planning area. Prior to issuance
of Development or Grading Permits, an appropriate
detailed mitigation program shall be identified and,
if necessary, completed. This program shall be
approved by the History Division of the Riverside
County Parks and Recreation Department.
Please refer to Section III.A.1. through III.A.8.
for the following Development Plans and Standards
that apply site-wide:
III.A.1.
III.A.2.
III.A.3.
III.A.4.
III.A.5.
III.A.6.
III.A.7.
III.A.8.
Specific Land Use Plan
Circulation Plan
Drainage Plan
Water and Sewer Plans
Public Facility Sites Phasing Plan
Grading Plan
Open Space and Recreation Plan
Landscaping Plan
Please see Design Guidelines, Section IV., for related
criteria.
75
Very High Density Residential
Planning Areas 2 and 6
Very High Density Residential Zone
The following regulations shall apply in all Very High Density Residential Zones:
SECTION 8.1. USES PERMITTED.
The following uses shall be permitted provided approval of a plot plan shall first have
been obtained pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.30 of Riverside County Ordinance
No. 348 (1991):
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Any use permitted in the Medium High Density Residential Zone.
Apa,'hnent houses.
Nursery schools for preschool day care.
Institutions for the aged licensed by the California State Dep~utment of Social
Welfare or the County Depa:tment of Public WeLfare.
Congogate care residential facilities.
Accessory buildings, to a specific permitted use, provided that the accessory building is
established as an incident to a principal use and does not change die character of that use.
On-site signs, affixed to building walls, stating die name of die slructure, use or
institution, not to exceed five percent (5%) of the surface a~a of the exterior face of the
wall upon which the sign is located.
The following uses shall be permitted provided a conditional use permit is obtained
pursuant to this ordinance:
(1) Evening nursery school, child care and babysitting facilities, where 13 or more
unrelated children are kept under supervision by a penon licensed by the State
Department of Social Weftare or Riverside County Depax tment of public Weftare
during any hours between 5 p.m. and 8 a.m.
(2) Congregate care residential facilities, developed pursuant to City Ordinance,
County and State Codes and Ordinances.
PIned residential developments, provided a land division is approved pursuant to the
provisions of Riverside County Ordinance No. 460 (1991) and the development standards
in Section 18.5 or 18.6 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991).
-7-
SECTION 8.2. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The following standards of
development shall apply in the Very High Density Residential Zone, except that planned
residential developments shall comply with the development standards contained in Section 18.5
of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991).
The minimnm lot area shall be 7,200 square feet with a minimum average width of 60
feet and a minimum average depth of 100 feet, unless different minimums are specifically
required in a particular area.
The minimum front and rear yanls shall be 10 feet for buildings that do not exceed 35
feet in height. Any portion of a building which exceeds 35 feet in height Shall be set
back from the front and rear lot lines no less than 10 feet plus 2 feet for each foot by
which the height exceeds 35 feet. The front setback shall be measured from any existing
or funae public fight-of-way street line as shown on any specific street plan of the City.
The rear setback shall be measured from the existing rear lot line or from any recorded
alley or easement; if the rear line adjoins a street, the rear setback requirement shall be
the same as required for a front setback.
The minimum side yard shall be 5 feet for buildings that do not exceed 35 feet in height.
Any portion of a building which exceeds 35 feet in height shall be set back from each
side lot line 5 feet plus 2 feet for each foot by which the height exceeds 35 feet; if the
side yard adjoins a slreet, the side setback requirement shall be the same as required for
a front setback. No s~xuctural encroachments shall be poxmined in the front, side or rear
yard without approval of a setback adjusunent pursuant to City Ordinance.
High density multi-family dwelling units shall be setback a minimum of 18 feet from any
existing or future public right-of-way street line as shown on any specific sweet plan of
the City. Said setback shall be applicable for front, rear and side yards should they adjoin
a SireeL
No lot shall have more than 50 percent of its net area covered with buildings or
slructuxes.
f. The maximum density shall be twenty (20) units per acre.
g. All buildings and structures shall not exceed 50 feet in height.
Automobile storage space shall be provided as required by Section 18.12 of Riverside
County Ordinance No. 348 (1991).
-8-
ITEM #15
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 5, 1991
Case No.: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24183
Prepared By: Oliver Mujica
Recommendation: 1.
RECOMMEND ADOPTION of Negative
Declaration for Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 24183; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 91-
recommending approval of Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 24183.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Bedford Properties
REPRESENTATIVE:
Robert Be{n, William Frost and Associates
PROPOSAL:
Subdivide 48.8 acres into 155 single family
residential lots; 3 open space lots; and 1 park site
within Planning Area No. 5 of Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 1.
LOCATION:
Southeast corner of De Portola Road and Meadows
Parkway.
EXISTING ZONING:
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North: Planning Area No. 9
South: Planning Areas 2 {Very High Density
Residential) and 3 {Medium High
Density Residential).
East: Planning Area No. 3 {Medium High
Density Residential)
West: Planning Area No. 61 Very High Density
Residential)
PROPOSED ZONING:
Not Applicable
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
A: VTM24183 1
PROJECT STATISTICS:
BACKGROUND:
Total Land Area:
48.8 acres
No. of Proposed Lots:
Proposed Density:
Specific Plan Density:
Min, Residential Lot Size:
Useable Open Space Area:
(Lot 156)
155 single family, 3
open space, 1 park
4.37 DU/ac
4.37 DU/ac
5,095 sq.ft.
1.60 acres
On September 6, 1988, the Riverside County Board
of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 88-L~70
apprOving Specific Plan No. 219 (Meadows). The
Meadows provided a total of 5,611 dweilin9 units on
1,036 acres. )n addition, the Board of Supervisors
certified Environmental Impact Report No. 235 for
Specific Pian No. 219 as an accurate and objective
statement that complies with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Furthermore,
a statement of overriding findings was made for the
Air Quality Impacts.
On November 15, 1989, the applicant filed Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 2b,183 to the Riverside
County Planning Department, which proposed to
subdivide the subject L~8.8 acre site into 155 single
family residential lots; 3 open space lets; and 1 park
site.
The project was reviewed by the Riverside County
Land Division Committee (LDC) on December 11,
1989; February 26, 1990; and April 2, 1990. During
these meetings the LDC indicated that Specific Plan
No.219, Amendment No. 1 must be adopted prior to
the approval of the tentative map.
Subsequently, this project was transferred to the
City of Temecula on April 23, 1990.
On November 15, 1990, this project was reviewed by
the Preliminary Development Review Committee
(Pre-DRC) in order to informally evaluate the
project and address any possible concerns, as well
as suggesting possible modifications. The comments
by the Pre-DRC included the following:
2.
3.
Park Site Considerations
Public improvements
Storm Drain System
Drainage
A: VTM2u,183 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
Subsequent to the Pre-DRC meeting, Staff met with
the appllcant to discuss the required supplemental
material in order to address the Pre-DRC's
COFICeFnS ·
On February 27, 1991, Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 24183 was reviewed by the Formal Development
Review Committee; and, it was determined that the
project, as designed, can be adequately conditioned
to mitigate the DRC's concerns. The DRC has
forwarded a recommendation of approval subject to
conditions.
On April 9, 1991, the City Council Adopted
Resolution No. 91-36 approving Change of Zone No.
5621 and Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1,
amending the boundaries and land use designations
of Planning Areas 1, 2, 5 and 6 of Specific Plan No.
219. Subsequentty, on April 23, 1991, the City
Council adopted Ordinance No. 91-13 amending
Zoning Ordinance No. 90-04 pertaining to Ordinance
No. 3L~8.2919 ISpecific Plan No. 219) as it relates to
zoning.
The Plannin9 Commission May recall that Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 24183 was originally
scheduled for their public hearln9 meeting of March
18, 1991. However, at the request of the applicant,
this item was continued prior to the meeting "off-
calendar" in order to allow the applicant the
opportunity to further discuss the Conditions of
Approval, relative to traffic mitigation, with the
Engineering Department Staff.
As noted above, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
24183 proposes to subdivide the subject 48.8 acre
parcel into 155 single famiiy residential lots; 3 open
space lots; and 1 park site.
The proposed subdivision has been designed in
accordance with the standards of Specific Plan No.
219, Amendment No. 1.
Traffic Impacts
The Transportation Engineering Staff has reviewed
this project; and determined that the proposed
project is consistent with the traffic mitigation
measures of EIR 235 adopted for Specific Plan No.
219. Thus, the project has been conditioned
A:VTM2~183 3
accordingly.
Access and Circulation
Access to the proposed subdivision is provided
from proposed Street "A" and Meadows Parkway.
The proposed access points are consistent with the
circulation plan of Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 1 Jsee Figure 4, Page 22; and
Figure 15E, Page 91 of Specific Plan Text).
Cradlnq and Landform Alteration
While substantial grading and recontourlng of this
site, which includes 635,000 c.y. of excavation and
L~50,000 c.y. of fill will occur in the immediate area,
the overall plan is intended to promote preservation
of site topography. The terraced landform creates
view lots within the proposed subdivision, in which
the slopes range from 5 to 30 feet in height. It
should be noted that a recommended Condition of
Approval has been included to require that all
slopes over five (5') feet in height shall be
landscaped immediately upon the completion of
grading and shall be maintained by the homeowners
association.
General Landscape Requirements
Pursuant to Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No.
1 ( see Landscape Design Guidelines and Community
Elements, Pages 223-295), all areas required to be
landscaped shall be planted with turf, ground
cover, shrub or tree materials selected from the
plant palette contained in the guidelines.
Planting shall commence as soon as slopes are
completed on any portion of the site and shall
provide for rapid short-term coverage of the slope
as welt as long-term establishment cover per City
standards. The developer shall provide a landscape
bond to the City at the time that the landscape plan
is approved, The bond is to guarantee the
installation of interim erosion control planting in the
event that the grading operation is performed and
building construction does not commence within
ninety ~90) days.
A: VTM24183 k~
The owners of parcels which require landscape
development shall assess any existing common
landscape areas adjoining their property. Where
feasible, landscape development shall reinforce or
be compatible with such existing common area
setting.
Cut slopes equal to or greater than five (5') feet in
vertical height and fill slopes equal to or greater
than three (3') feet in vertical height shall be
planted with a ground cover to protect the slope
from erosion and instability. Slopes exceeding
fifteen 115' ) in vertical height shall be planted with
shrubs, spaced not more than ten (10') feet on
center or trees spaced not to exceed twenty (20')
feet on center or a combination of shrubs and trees
at equivalent spacings, in addition to the ground
Cover.
The plants selected and planting methods shall be
suitable for the soil and climatic conditions. Refer
to the plant materials palette for the llst of
community wide slope stabilization plants.
The Planning Department Staff has included a
Condition of Approval requiring that a final
landscaping plan for lots 157-159 (open space) must
be submitted for approval by the Planning
Department prior to the issuance of building
permits.
Land Use
The project site is located within Planning Area 5 of
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1, which is
designated as Medium High Density Residential and
allows a maximum of 155 dwelling units. Therefore,
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2L1183 is consistent
with the specific plan, due to the fact that 155
residential lots are proposed. in addition,
according to the development standards, as outlined
in Specific Plan No. 219, in Amendment No. 1,
Planning Area 5 permits a minimum tot size of
square feet, in which the proposal provides a
minimum lot size of 5.095 square feet. Thus, this
project is consistent with the Specific Plan.
A :VTM24183 5
SPECIFIC PLAN AND
GENERAL PLAN
CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS:
Useable Open Space
A 1.60 acre private park site (Lot 156) is proposed
and is centrally located to provide recreational open
space for the residents within the subject tract.
The Planning Department Staff has included a
Condition of Approval requiring that a plot plan
appilcation must be submitted for Planning
Department approval prior to the issuance of
building permits.
The proposed project is consistent with the Land
Use Designation of Specific Plan and Specific Plan
No. 219, Amendment No. 1 (Planning Area 5 -
Medium High Density Residential). In addition,
Staff has determined it probable that this project
will be consistent with the new General Plan when it
is adopted.
Pursuant to Condition Of Approval No. 12 of
Specific Plan No. 219,an Initial Study was
performed for this project which determined that
although the proposed project could have a
significant effect on the environment, no significant
impact would result to the natural or built
environment in the City because the mitigation
measures described in EIR 235 and in the Conditions
of Approval have been added to the project, and a
Negative Declaration has been recommended for
adoption,
The proposed Tract Map will not have a
significant negative impact on the
environment, as determined in the Initial
Study performed for the project. A Negatlve
Declaration is recommended for adoption.
There is a reasonable probability that this
project will be consistent with the General
Plan being prepared at this time, due to the
fact that the project is consistent with
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1.
A :VTM2u, 183 6
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to, or interference
with, the future adopted General Plan, if the
proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with
the plan, due to the fact that the project is
consistent with surrounding land uses.
The proposed use complies with State
planning and Zoning law, due to the fact that
the project conforms to the current zoning
for the site and to Ordinance No. ~,60,
Schedule A.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configurations, access, and
density due to the fact that the project has
access to public roads and a specific plan will
be implemented with this project.
The design of the subdivision or the
proposed improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or
substantially avoidable injury to fish or
wildlife or their habitat as determined in the
Initial Study.
The design of the subdivision is consistent
with the State Map Act in regard to future
passive energy control opportunities due to
the fact that the lots provide sufficient
southern exposure.
All lots have access to existing and proposed
dedicated rights-of-way which are open to,
and are useable by, vehicular traffic, access
is provide from Street "A" of the specific
plan.
The design of the subdivision, the type of
improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed project as
conditioned. The project will not interfere
with any easements.
A: VTM24183 7
10.
The lawful conditions stated in the project's
Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary
to protect the public health, safety and
general welfare.
11.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps,exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
RECOMMEND ADOPTION of the Negative
Declaration for Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 24183; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending
approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
24183.
OM:mb
Attachments:
1. Resolution
2. Conditions of Approval
3. Environmental Assessment
4. Exhibits:
A. Vicinity Map
B. Specific Land Use Map
C. Planning Area No. 5 Map
D. Planning Area No. 5 Standards
E. Tentative Tract Map
5. Large Scale Plan
A:VTM24183 8
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2~183 TO
SUBDIVIDE A ~8.8 ACRE PARCEL INTO 155 SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, 3 OPEN SPACE LOTS, AND
1 PARK SITE LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
DE PORTOLA ROAD AND MEADOWS PARKWAY AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 923-230-002
(PORTION)
WHEREAS, Bedford Properties filed Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
2LH83 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and
Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map application was processed in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Tentative Tract
Map on August 5, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to
testify either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said Tentative Tract Map;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
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:
J l ) 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 :VTM24183 9
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.
Ib)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, J hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, includlng the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the
SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the
Government Code, to wit:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
|2) The Planning Commission finds, in recommending
approval of projects and taking other actions, including
the issuance of buildin9 permits, pursuant to this title,
each of the following:
There is reasonable probability that Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 24183 proposed will
be consistent with the general plan proposal
being considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
A: VTM24183 10
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
D. {1 ) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No.
u,60, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are
made:
a)
That the proposed land division is consistent
with applicable general and specific plans.
b)
That the design or improvement of the
proposed land division is consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.
That the site of the proposed land division is
physically suitable for the type of
development.
d)
That the site of the proposed land division is
physically suitable for the proposed density
of the development.
e)
That the design of the proposed land division
or proposed improvements are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or
substantially and unavoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat.
f)
That the design of the proposed land division
or the type of improvements are not likely to
cause serious public health problems.
g)
That the design of the proposed land division
or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at
large, for access through, or use of,
property within the proposed land division.
A land division may be approved if it is found
that alternate easements for access or for use
will be provided and that they will be
substantially equivalent to ones previousiy
acquired by the public. This subsection
shall apply only to easements of record or to
easements established by judgment of a court
of competent jurisdiction.
A: VTM24183 11
J2) The Planning Commission in recommending approval
of the proposed Tentative Tract Map, makes the following findings, to
wit:
The proposed Tract Map will not have a
significant negative impact on the
environment, as determined in the Initial
Study performed for the project. A Negative
Declaration is recommended for adoption.
b)
There is a reasonable probability that this
project will be consistent with the General
Plan being prepared at this time, due to the
fact that the project is consistent with
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1.
c)
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to, or interference
with, the future adopted General Ran, if the
proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with
the plan, due to the fact that the project is
consistent with surrounding land uses.
d)
The proposed use complies with State
planning and Zoning law, due to the fact that
the project conforms to the current zoning
for the site and to Ordinance No. 460,
Schedule A.
e)
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configurations, access, and
density due to the fact that the project has
access to public roads and a specific plan will
be implemented with this project.
f)
The design of the subdivision or the
proposed improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or
substantially avoidable injury to fish or
wildlife or their habitat as determined in the
Initial Study.
The design of the subdivision is consistent
with the State Map Act in regard to future
passive energy control opportunities due to
the fact that the lots provide sufficient
southern exposure.
A: VTM24183 12
h)
All lots have access to existing and proposed
dedicated rights-of-way which are open to,
and are useable by, vehicular traffic, access
is provide from Street "A" of the specific
plan.
The design of the subdivision, the type of
improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed project as
conditioned. The project will not interfere
with any easements.
j)
The lawful conditions stated in the project's
Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary
to protect the public health, safety and
general welfare.
k)
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Tenta~'xe
Tract Map is compatlbte with the health, safety and welfare of L~e
community.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the
proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in El R
235 and in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a
Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby recommended for adoption.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends
approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2u,183 for the subdivision of a 48.8 acre
parcel into 155 single family residential lots; 3 open space lots; and 1 park site
located on the southeast corner of De Portola Road and Meadows Parkway and known
as Assessor's Parcel No. 923-230-002 (portion) subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
A :VTM24183 ~3
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of August, 1991.
JOHN HOAGLAND
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 5th day of August, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
A:VTM24183 14
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Vestin9 Tentative Tract Map No: 24183
Project Description: 155 Sinqle Family
Residential; 3 Open Space; and I Park
Assessor's Parcel No.: 923-023-002
Planninq Department
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision
Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance ~,60, Schedule A, unless
modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in
accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request,
if made 30 days prior to the expiration date.
This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the
approval date by the City Council, unless extended as provided by Ordinance
460.
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final
map.
Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract
map boundary to a City maintained road.
Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area
improvement phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning Department
approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access
to all lots in each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and
purpose of the subdivision approval.
A copy of the final grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department
for review and approval. All on-site cut and fill slopes shall:
a. Be limited to a maximum slope ratio of 2 to 1.
b. Be contour-graded to blend with existing natural contours.
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
accordln9 to the City Development Code. An erosion control landscapln9 plan
demonstrating methods of erosion protection for these slopes shall be prepared
by a qualified professional; and shall be submitted to the City Plannin9
Department for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits.
A: VTM24183 15
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations
outlined in the County Health Department's transmittal dated November 13,
1990, a copy of which is attached,
All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of
Technology, Palomar Observatory Outdoor Li9htln9 Policy, as outlined in the
Southwest Area Plan,
This subdivision shall comply with Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1.
Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following:
Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the
development standards of Planning Area 5 as provided Specific Plan No.
219, Amendment No. 1.
b. Lots 1-155 shall be a minimum size of 4,000 square feet,
Corner lots and through lots, if any, shall be provided with additional
area pursuant to Section 3.8B of Ordinance 460 and so as not to contain
less net area than the least amount of net area in non-corner and non-
through lots.
Trash bins, loading areas and incidental storage areas, located in
recreation areas, shall be located away and visually screened from
surrounding areas with the use of block walls and landscaping.
Bike racks and bike lockers in sufficient quantity shall be provided in
convenient locations to facilitate bike access to recreation areas.
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.
The subdivider and all successors in interest shall comply with the provisions
of Development Agreement No. ~, and Specific Plan No, 219, Amendment No. 1,
Prior to recordatlon of the final map, an Environmental Constraints Sheet
{ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to delineate
identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed with the
office of the City Engineer. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the
Planning Department for review and approval. The approved ECS shall be
forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to the Planning Department
and the Department of Building and Safety.
A:VTM24183 16
15.
16,
17.
The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet:
This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar
Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with
the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory
recommendations.
County Slope Stability Report No. 122 was prepared for this property
and is on file at the Planning Department. Specific items of concern in
the report are as follows: Slope Stability.
The developer shall comply with the following parkway landscaping
conditions:
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall secure
approval of proposed landscaping and irrigation plans from the City
Engineering and Planning Department. All landscaping and irrigation
plans and specifications shall be prepared in a reproducible format
suitable for permanent filing with the City Engineering Department.
The developer shall post a landscape performance bond which shall be
released concurrently with the release of subdivision performance
bonds, guaranteeing the viability of all landscaping which will be
installed prior to the assumption of the maintenance responsibility by
the district.
The developer, the developer's successors-in-interest or assignees,
shall be responsible for all parkway landscaping maintenance until such
time as maintenance as taken over by the Community Services District.
The developer shall comply with the standards and exhibits in Specific
Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1.
Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
If the project is to be phased, prior to the issuance of grading permits,
an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning
Director for approval. The plan shall be used as a guideline for
subsequent detailed grading plans for individual phases of development
and shall include the following:
Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and
sedimentation during and after the grading process.
Approximate time frames for grading and identification of areas
which may be graded during the higher probability rain months
of January through March.
Preliminary pad and roadway elevations.
A :VTM24183 17
18.
19.
Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase.
All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded natural terrain and
exceeding ten (10) feet in vertical height shall be contour-graded
incorporating the following grading techniques:
The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the
angle of the natural terrain.
Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall
reflect the natural rounded terrain.
The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves with
radii designed in proportion to the total height of the slopes
where drainage and stability permit such rounding.
Where cut or fill slopes exceed 300 feet in horizontal length, the
horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved in a continuous,
undulating fashion.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall provide
evidence to the Director of Building and Safety that all adjacent off-site
manufactured slopes have recorded slope easements and that slope
maintenance responsibilities have been assigned as approved by the
Director of Building and Safety.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be
retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed
grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. Should the
paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a
pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading
contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or
representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt
grading activity to allow recovery of fossils.
Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
The project shall comply with the requirements of Development
Agreement No. u,.
Prior to the issuance of building permits detailed common open space
area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning
Department approval for the phase of development in process. The
plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for
the following:
Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all
landscaped areas requiring irrigation.
A: VTM24183 18
Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be
opaque up to a minimum height of six {6) feet at maturity.
All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from
view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle
treatments, as approved by the Planning Director. Utilities shall
be placed underground.
Parkways shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a
transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscape
elements shall include earth betruing, ground cover, shrubs and
specimen trees. Front yards shall be landscaped and street trees
planted.
Wall plans shall be submitted for the project perimeter. Wooden
fencing shall not be allowed on the perimeter of the project. All
lots with slopes leading down from the lot shall be provided with
gates in the wall for maintenance access.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent
trees at key visual focal points within the project.
Where street trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of
interior streets and project parkways due to insufficient road
right-d-way, they shall be planted outside of the road right-of-
way.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant
plants where appropriate.
All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow
growing trees shall be steel staked.
No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential
Iot/unlt within the project boundary until the developer's successor's-
in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility
financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) per
lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library
development.
Prior to the submittal of buildin9 plans to the Department of Building
and Safety an acoustical study shall be performed by an acoustical
engineer to establish appropriate mitigation measures that shall be
applied to individual dwelling units within the subdivision to reduce
ambient interior noise levels to L~5 Ldn.
All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required
elements from the subdivision's approved fire protection plan as
approved by the County Fire Marshal.
A: VTM24183 19
Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and
irrigation plans shall be submitted for Plannin9 Department approval.
The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requirin9
landscapin9 and irrigatlon to be installed includin9, but not limited to,
parkway planting, street trees, slope plantin9, and individual front
yard landscaping.
Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the
subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving
devices shall be permitted with Planning Department approval.
Building separation between all buildin9s includin9 fireplaces shall
comply with the design guidelines of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment
No. 1.
All street side yard setbacks shall comply with the design guidelines of
Specific Plan No. 219. Amendment No. 1.
All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and a manually
operated permanent underground irrigation system.
Prior to the issuance of building permits for Lots 1-155, a plot plan
shall be submitted to the Planning Department pursuant to Section 18.30
of Ordinance No. 3~,8 accompanied by all applicable filing fees, as a plot
plan that is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act and
is not transmitted to any governmental agency other than the City
Planning Department. The plot plan shall ensure the conformance of
the final site development with the Design Guidelines of Specific Plan
No. 219, Amendment No. 1, and shall contain the following elements:
A final site plan showing the lots, building footprints, all
setback, and floor plan and elevation assignments to individual
lots.
One 11 ) color and materials sample board (maximum size of 8 x 13
inches by 3/8 inch thick) containing precise color, texture and
material swatches or photographs (which may be from suppliers'
brochures). Indicate on the board the name, address and phone
numbers of both the sample board preparer and the project
applicant, tract number, and the manufacturer and product
numbers where possible (trade names also acceptable).
One ( 1 ) copy of the architectural elevations colored to represent
the selected color combinations, with symbols keyed to the color
and materials board. The written color and material descriptions
shall be located on the elevation.
A: VTM24183 20
20.
21.
Said plot plan shall require the approval of the Planning Director prior
to the issuance of any building permits for lots included within the plot
plan. The submittal of plot plans prior to the issuance of building
permits may be phased provided:
A separate plot plan shall
Department for each phase,
appropriate filing fees.
be submitted to the Planning
which shall be accompanied by
Each individual plot plan shall be approved by the Planning
Director prior to the issuance of building permits for lots
included within that plot plan.
Prior to the issuance of building permits for Lot 156, a plot plan shall
be submitted to the Planning Department pursuant to Section 18.30 of
Ordinance No. 3~,8 accompanied by all applicable filing fees, as a plot
plan that is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act and is
transmitted to any governmental agencies other than the City Planning
Department. The plot plan shall ensure the conformance of the final
site development with the Design Guidelines of Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 1.
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.
A: VTM24183 21
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.'
The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Temecula, its agents, officer, and employees from any claim, action, or
proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officer, or employees
to attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Temecula, its
advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 24183, which action is brought within the time period
provided for in California Government Code Section 66499.37. The City of
Temecula will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or
proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the
defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim,
action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider
shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless
the City of Temecula.
The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site
property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the developer shall
at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into
an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code
Section 66462 at such time as the City acquires the property interests
required for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by
the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property
interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion
of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an
appraisal report obtained by the developer, at the developer's cost. The
appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the
appraisal.
All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable
TV shall be provided for underground, with easements provided as required,
and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility
provided. Telephone, cable TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired
in the residence.
Prior to recordatlon of the Final Map, the developer or his assignee must
conform to the park district Quimby Ordinance, unless waived to time of
issuance of a building permit.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions I CC&R's) shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works
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, drainage facilities, private roads, and exterior of all
buildings.
A:VTM24183 22
28.
No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation,
association, property owner's group, or similar entity has been formed with
the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which
have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common
facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet
the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to
maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such
entity shall operate under recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsory
membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of
assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services.
Recorded CC&R's shall permit enforcement by the City of Provisions required
by the City as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence
of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the City prior
to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to
the City for public purposes.
29.
Every owner of a dwellin9 unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such
dwelling unit or lot, either ( 1 ) an undivided interest in the common areas and
facilities, or ~2) as share in the corporation, or voting membership in an
association, owning the common areas and facilities.
30.
Maintenance for all landscaped and open areas, including parkways, shall be
provided for in the CC&R's.
31.
Within forty-eight {48) hours of the approval of the project, the
applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check
or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand,
Two Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars {$1,275.00), which includes the One
Thousand, Two Hundred, Fifty Dollars 151 ,250.00) fee in compliance with AB
3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711 .~{d){2) plus the Twenty-
Five Dollar {$25.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the
Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152
and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight {48) hour
period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department
the check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall
be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section
711.41c).
Riverside County Fire Department
32.
'Schedule a fire protection approved standard fire hydrants, 16"x4"x2 1/2" )
located one at each street intersection and spaced no more than 330 feet apart
in any direction, with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from
a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for 2 hours duration at 20
PSI.
A: VTM24183 23
33.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the
Fire Department for review. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil
engineer, containing a Fire Department approval signature block, and shall
conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow. Once plans
are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the
Fire Department for signature.
The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and
accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building
material being placed on an individual lot.
35.
Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the
City of Temecula, a cash sum of $~00.00 per lot/unit as mitigation for fire
protection impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment,
he/she may enter into a written agreement with the County deferring said
payment to the time of issuance of the first building permit.
Department of Public Works
The following are the Department of Public Works 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 Department of
Public Works.
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:
36.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, 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;
Department of Public Works;
Riverside County Health Department;
CATV Franchise; and
Parks and Recreation Department.
37.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, all road easements
and/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public and
shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All
dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
A :VTM24183
38.
39.
u,2.
u,3.
Streets B,C,D,E,and F shall be improved with 40 feet of asphalt concrete
pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the
dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 10~,, Section
A (60'/40').
Streets G,H, and I shall be improved with a ten foot (10') median strip
bounded by 20 feet of asphalt concrete pavement on each side, or bonds for
the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-of-way in
accordance with County Standard No. 104, Section A (70'/50').
In the event that full improvements for Meadows Parkway, De Portola Road
and Street A are not constructed by Assessment District 159 prior to the final
map recordation, the developer shall construct or bond for the improvements
to provide for one-half street improvements plus one 12 foot lane per
Riverside County Standard No. 109 {100'/76'). The improvements shall be
constructed prior to occupancy.
Vehicular access shall be restricted on Meadows Parkway, De Portola Road and
Street "A" and so noted on the final map with the exception of Public street
intersections as approved by the Department of Public Works or shown on the
tentative map.
Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard
No. 805.
Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be dedicated to the City where
sidewalks meander through private property.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage
facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located
within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances
shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the Department of Public
Works.
The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be
executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements
in conformance with applicable City standards.
Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb
and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights,
signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control
devices as appropriate.
b. Storm drain facilities.
c. Landscaping {street and parks).
d. Sewer and domestic water systems.
e. All trails, as required by the City's Master Plans.
A: VTM24183 25
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
f. Undergrounding of existing and proposed utility distribution lines.
The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated
with adjoining developments.
Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. 461 and as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the
Department of Public Works a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation
towards traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time
of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written
agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a
building permit.
Street names shall be subject to the approval of the Department of Public
Works.
The minimum centerline radii shall be 300 feet or as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a
minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment
as approved by the Department of Public Works.
A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent.
All driveways shall conform to the applicable County of Riverside standards
and shall be shown on the street improvement plans in accordance with County
Standard 400 and 401 Icurb sidewalk).
All driveways shall be located a minimum of two ~2) feet from the property
line.
The subdivider shall submit two {2) prints of a comprehensive grading plan
to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform
Building Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these
Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 24" x 36" mylar by a
Registered Civil Engineer.
A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and
submitted at the time of application for grading plan check.
The subdivider shall submit two {2 ) copies of a soils report to the Department
of Public Works. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
A: VTM24183 26
A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer.
All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Department of
Public Works.
60.
On-site drainage facilities, located outside of road ri9ht-of-way, shall be
contained within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note shall be
added to the final map stating "Drainage easements shall be kept free of
buildings and obstructions."
61.
A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final map, along with
supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations should be submitted to the
Riverside County Flood Control District and to the City of Temecula
Department of Public Works for review.
62.
The subdivider shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage
flowing onto or through the site. In the event the Department of Public Works
permits the use of streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Article XI
of Ordinance No. 460 will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street
capacity, or use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the
subdivider shall provide adequate facilities as approved by the Department of
Public Works.
63.
Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CATV Franchises of
the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time
of street improvements.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADINC PERMITS:
Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid
and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public
Works.
65.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior
to commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of-
way.
66. All lot dralnage shall be to the street by side yard drainage swales
independent of any other lot.
67.
A flood mltigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailin9
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 Dralnage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to
this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
A:VTM24183 27
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT:
68.
A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works
for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered
Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a
Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
69.
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform
Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The
final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough
grading plan.
70.
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 CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
71.
Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and
gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and
street lights on all interior public streets. Secondary Access shall be
provided for any phasing as specified and approved by the Department of
Public Works.
72.
Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all
times with adequate detours during construction.
73.
Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than 14 days following
placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon
per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39, and
94 of the State Standard Specifications.
A:VTM24183 28
Transportation Enqineerinq
PRIOR TO RECORDATION Of THE FINAL MAP:
74.
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer
and approved by the City Engineer for Meadows Parkway, De Portola Road
and Streets "A" through "1" and shall be included in the street improvement
plans.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
75.
A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Civil
Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works for any street
closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the
City Engineer.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
76.
All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and
striping plan.
Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact the Department of Public
Works for the design requirements.
77.
Plans for a traffic signal shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the Department of Public Works for the intersections of Meadows
Parkway and De Portola Road, De Portola Road and Street "A" and Street "A"
and Meadows Parkway. All traffic signals shall be installed and operational
per the special provisions and the approved traffic signal plan when
warranted.
A:VTM24183 29
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
Background
1, Name of Proponent:
2. Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
4.
5.
6.
Date of Environmenta)
Assessment:
Agency Requiring
Assessment:
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Location of Proposal:
Bedford Properties
28765 Single Oak Drive, Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92390
~714) 676-7290
February 13, 1991
CITY OF TEMECULA
Tentative Tract Map No. 24183
Southeast corner of De Portola Road
and Meadows Parkway.
I I. Project Description
Tentative Tract Map No. 24183 proposes to subdivide the subject 48.8 acre site,
which is within Planning Area 5 of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1, into 155
single family residential lots; 3 open space lots; and 1 park.
Project Summary:
SP 219 TM24183
Planning Area 5
155 D.U. 155 Lots
A :VTM24183 30
Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
The following environmental impacts associated with Specific Plan No. 219 are
insignificant in that the design of the project as proposed includes the necessary
mitigation measures which have been adopted within EIR 235:
Water and Sewer:
The project will have an average daily consumption
of domestic water of 1,683,300 gallons at 300
gallons/d.u./day. The project will generation
between 1.81 and 3.08 million gallons per day of
sewage flow. Onsite wastewater collection facilities
will be constructed to tie into Eastern Municlpa)
Water District~s master planned facilities being
constructed through the Rancho Villages
Assessment District. Construction of all structures
within the project will conform to state laws
requiring water efficient plumbing fixtures.
B. Utilities:
Gas, electricity, and telephone service will be
provided by respective purveyors of the service.
Lines for electrical and telephone services, and
mains for natural 9as are located alon9 the project
boundaries.
Energy Resources:
The project will increase consumption of energy for
motor vehicle movement, space and water heating,
air conditioning, use of home appliances, and
operation of construction equipment. The project
will adhere to State Code Title 2~ energy
conservation standards and will employ site design,
when possible, for additional energy conservation.
Non vehicular pathways are included within, and
adjacent to, the project site. Commercial and
employment centers are in proximity to the project
site.
Parks and Recreation:
Project residents will create a demand for parks and
recreation facilities, and for open space. The
project design provides 2~2+/- acres of recreation
areas, parkway greenbelts, and paseo open space.
The following environmental impacts associated with Specific Plan No. 219 are
potentially significant, but will be avoided or substantially lessened by the identified
mitigation measures which have been adopted within EIR 235:
A. Seismic Safety
1. Impact:
Although faults have been previously mapped on-
site, they have been determined to be inactive and
the risk of ground rupture due to faulting on the
project is considered nil. Liquefaction potential
exists along the entire flat alluviated area of
Temecula Creek within the southern site boundary.
A: VTM24183 31
?, Mitiqation:
Slopes and Erosion
1. I rapact:
2. Mitiqation:
Flooding
1. Impact:
2. Mitiqation:
During site development, additional geologic
evaluation shall be continued in order to verify the
extent and relative age of fault activity. Mitigation
of the liquefaction potential within the southern
portion of the site will occur as a result of project
development, which will lower artificially high
groundwater levels by removal of recharge ponds,
as well as increase overburden as a result of site
grading.
The Meadows Specific Plan will unavoidably alter
some of the existing landforms. Owing to the
general granular nature of graded slopes, a
moderate to severe erosion potential exists if slopes
are unprotected. Removal and recompaction of
portions of alluvial/colluvial soils within fill areas
and shallow cut areas will be necessary.
Temporary groundcover shall be provided to
prevent erosion during the construction phase.
Permanent vegetation shall be planted as soon as
possible after grading. Specific requirements for
alluvial/colluvial soils removal shall be developed
during tentative map studies and incorporated into
project grading. The three small possible landslide
areas shall be investigated during design level
studies and all mitigation measures identified as a
result of that investigation will be incorporated into
future development approvals. Remedial grading
recommendations to provide for the long term
stability will be provided based upon a finalized
grading design.
Development of the Vail Meadows Specific Plan will
alter the existing drainage patterns and will
increase runoff to Temecula Creek and, to a lesser
extent, Murrieta Creek.
A master drainage plan has been developed to
respond to the hydrological constraints of the site.
A more in-depth assessment of the Temecula
floodplain shall be conducted during the final
design and preparation of the tentative tract maps,
and all mitigation measures identified as a result of
that assessment will be incorporated into future
development approvals. Erosion control devices
shall be utilized in hillside development areas to
mitigate the effect of increased runoff at points of
discharge. If required, the project applicant will
A: VTM2D, 183 32
Noise
1. Impact:
2. Mitiqation:
Water Quality
1. Impact:
2. Mitigation:
Wildlife/Veqetation
1. Impact:
2. Mitigation:
Historic and Prehistoric
1. I rapact:
contribute Drainage Improvement Fees as
appropriate.
Noise generated from the project will derive from
two sources, construction and vehicular traffic, but
is not anticipated to result in unacceptable noise
levels to existing or proposed off-site uses. Onsite
areas adjacent to high volume roadways may be
subject to noise impacts.
A noise analysis shall be required in planning areas
adjacent to high volume perimeter roads.
indicated, noise attenuation will be incorporated
into project design.
Implementation of the project will alter the
composition of surface runoff by grading the site
surfaces; by construction of impervious streets,
roofs and parking facilities; and by the irrigation of
landscaped areas. Runoff conveyed to Temecula
and Murrieta Creeks will contain minor amounts of
pollutants.
The project will employ erosion control devices
during grading, such as temporary berms,
culverts, sand bagging or desilting basins. Urban
runoff will be mitigated through implementation of a
street cleaning program.
As a consequence of grassland and coastal sage
scrub vegetation removal, existing wildllfe will
either be destroyed or displaced. Impacts upon
habitat containing a population of the Stephen's
Kangaroo Rat will result.
The project applicant will participate in any in-place
County program which provides for off-site
mitigation of impacts to the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat,
or enter into a Memorandum of Understanding wit
the California Department of Fish and Came.
Sites
Without proper mitigation, implementation of the Vail
Meadows Specific Plan could potentially destroy
archaeological/historical sites on the property.
A: VTM2~.183 33
2. Mitlqation:
Circulation
1. Impact:
2. Mitiqation:
Fire Protection
1. Impact:
2. Mitiqation:
Sheriff
1. Impact:
2. Mitiqatlon:
Schools
1. Impact:
2. Mitiqatlon:
Prior to the approval of any additional implementing
processes, the applicant/developer will meet with
the County Historical Commission to determine
appropriate measures to mitigate potential impacts
to archaeological/historical sites; all mitigation
measures identified as a result of the meetingl s) will
be incorporated into future development approvals.
The Vail Meadows Specific Plan is anticipated to
generate 1~7,600 vehicle trips per day at project
completion. Approximately L~0,000 of these trips
would be external to the site.
Construction of the proposed circulation network
will adequately service future on-site traffic
volumes. Off-site improvements will be constructed
as required by the County Road Department and
CalTrans.
The project site would be subject to Category I I
urban development requirements with regard to fire
protection services.
The project site will be served by a proposed fire
station, to be constructed near Highway 79. The
developer will pay mitigation fees as required by the
Board of Supervisors.
Project residents will impose increased demands on
law enforcement and sheriff services.
Project design will incorporate appropriate lighting,
site design, security hardware and such design
features as will promote optimal security. The
developer will pay mitigation fees as required by the
Board of Supervisors.
The project will generate an estimated 3,109
students in grades K-8 and 1,187 students in
grades 9-12, impacting the Temecula Union School
District.
The project has designated four elementary school
sites and one junior high school site. The developer
will pay school mitigation fees as required.
A: VTM24183 34
Solid Waste
1. Impact:
2. Mitiqation:
Libraries
1. Impact:
2. Mitiqation:
Project residents, estimated at 14,587, will generate
approximately 58 tons per day of solid waste,
incrementally shortening the life of County landfill
sites.
The County Solid Waste Management Plan includes
programs for reducing the quantity of wastes being
landfilled, including source reduction and business
and residential separation of recoverables. These
programs may be implemented by project residents
and businesses.
The project's population will increase demand for
library facilities and services.
The developer will pay library mitigation fees as
required by the Board of Supervisors.
The following environmental impact associated with Specific Plan No. 219 cannot be
fully mitigation and a statement of overriding findings has been adopted within EIR
235:
Air Quality
1. Impact:
At project build-out, daily motor vehicle emissions
for the project will total approximately 7,754
Ibs/day. Power plant emissions for electrical
energy consumed on-site will total 175 Ibs/day.
Natural gas emissions for project consumption will
total 163.6 Ibs per day. Approximately 100 Ibs of
dust per acre will be generated each day of
construction in addition to an undetermined amount
of motor emissions during site preparation an
construction.
2. Mitigation:
Because most of the project-related air pollution
emissions are generated by automobiles, effective
mitigation is limited. On-site provisions for
schools, shopping, and recreation has been
incorporatedlntoprojectdesign. Sufflcientacreage
has been zoned for industrial use in the Rancho
Callfornia/Temecula area to provide employment
opportunities. project design includes a circulation
plan designed for efficient and direct traffic flows
and alternative transit modes including pedestrian,
bicycle, and equestrian trails. The Rancho Villages
Policy Plan, to which this project is subject,
requires pedestrian and bus stop facilities for
A: VTM24183 35
commercial areas. These requirements will be
implemented at the development application stage.
Particulate matter and other pollutants generated
during grading and construction will be reduced
through compliance with County Ordinance No. ~,57
which specifies watering during construction, and
planting of ground cover.
IV. Conclusion
The Riverside County Board of Supervisors certified Environmental Impact Report
{EIR ) No. 230 in conjunction with the approval of Specific Plan No. 219 and Change
of Zone No. 51~0. The EIR included mitigation measures to reduce environmental
impacts to levels of insignificance. The Board of Supervisors also adopted
statements of overriding considerations for the air quality impacts. Tentative Tract
Map No. 2~,183 proposes a residential development that is consistent with the
guidelines and requirements of Planning Area 5 of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment
No. 1; and will not result in impacts to the environment. The Conditions of Approval
are adequate to mitigate any potential significant impacts to levels of insignificance.
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and Condition of Approval No.
12 of Specific Plan No 219, this Initial Study has been prepared to demonstrate that
the proposed Tentative Tract Map will not result in new or substantially increased
significant impacts, that there have been no changes in the circumstances
surrounding the project that would require important revisions to the El R due to new
significant impacts, and that no new information has arisen which would indicate that
the project will have significant effects not previously discussed or underestimated,
or that alternatives or mitigation measures not previously considered would
substantially reduce any significant impacts.
A: VTM24183 36
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, which were adopted for EIR 235
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. (~/~ ~/I
February 13, 1991 ca,~ PI~
Date Oliver Mujl enior net
For CITY OF TEMECULA
X
A: VTM24183 37
m
~ UL_J8~'
5. Planning Area 5
a. Descriptive SummarV
Planning Area 5, as depicted on Figure 15E, provides for
development of 35.5 acres with Medium High density residen-
tial use. A maximum total of 155 dwelling units are
planned at a target density of 5.5 du/ac (Density Range 5-8
du/ac). A conceptual site plan is depicted in the Design
Guidelines, Sec. IV.
b. Land Use and Development Standards
Please refer to Zone Ordinance No. 91-13 (See S.P. Zone
Ordinance Tab.)
c. Planning Standards
Access to the Planning Area will be provided from
a collector roadway ("G" Street) to the south, De
Portola Road on the north or Meadows Parkway on the
west. Access points, as depicted, are conceptual.
Access to the individual planning areas shall be
determined when tract maps or plot plans are submit-
ted.
A Major Project entry statement will be provided at
the intersection of De Portola Road and "G" Street at
the northeastern boundary of the Planning Area.
(See Figure 35.)
Community Intersection entry statements will be
provided at the intersections of Meadows Parkway and
De Portola Road, and Meadows Parkway and "G" Street
and at the northwestern and southwestern boundaries of
the Planning Area. (See Figure 34.)
A minimum of one neighborhood entry statements will
be provided at egress points onto "G" Street at the
southern boundary of the Planning Area. (See Figure
Roadway landscape treatments, such as those depicted
on Figures 23, 23, and 27 respectively shall be pro-
vided along De Portols Road, Meadows Parkway, and "G"
Street.
Private recreation facilities are planned which may
include facilities such as pools, spas, cabanas,
meeting rooms, barbecues, wet bars, and kitchen
facilities.
71
Bicycle trails will be located in De Portola Road,
Meadows Parkway, and "G" Street surrounding the Plan-
ning Area as shown on Figure 6.
A site of archaeological/historical significance is
located within this planning area. Prior to issuance
of Development or Grading Permits, an appropriate
detailed mitigation program shall be identified and,
if necessary, completed. This program shall be
approved by the History Division of the Riverside
County Parks and Recreation Department.
Balconies may encroach into building setback lines.
Please refer to Section III.A.1. through III.A.8. for
the following Development Plans and Standards that
apply site-wide:
III.A.1.
III.A.2.
III.A.3.
III.A.4.
III.A.5.
III.A.6.
III.A.7.
III.A.8.
Specific Land Use Plan
Circulation Plan
Drainage Plan
Water and Sewer Plans
Public Facility Sites Phasing Plan
Grading Plan
Open Space and Recreation Plan
Landscaping Plan
Please see Design Guidelines, Section IV., for related
criteria.
72
Medium High Density Residential
Planning Areas 3, 5, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22 & 23
Medium High Density Residential Zone
The following regulations shall apply in all Medium High Density Residential Zones:
SECTION 6.1, USES PERIVLt'i-tED,
The following uses shall be permitted in the Medium High Density Residential Zone:
(1) One family dwellings,
(2) Two-family dwellings.
(3) Public parks and public playgrounds, golf courses with standard length fairways
and counlxy clubs.
(4) Home occupations.
(5) Planned residential developments, provided a land division is approved pursuant
to the provisions of Riverside County Ordinance No. 460 (1991) and the
development standards in Section 18.5 or 18.6 of Riverside County Ordinance No.
348 (1991).
The following uses arc permitted provided a plot plan has been approved pursuant to the
provisions of Section 18.30 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991):
(1) Beauty shops operated from a home by its inhabitants where no assistants arc
employed and the on-site sign is unlighted and does not exceed two square feet
(2) Temporary real estate wact offices located within a subdivision, to be used only
for and during the original sale of the subdivision, but not to exceed a period of
2 years in any event.
(3) Nuncries, horticultural.
SECTION6.2. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, The following standards of
development shall apply in the Medium High Density Residential Zone, except that planned
residential developments shall comply with the development standards contained in Section 18.5
of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991).
a. Building height shall not exceed 3 stories, with a maximum height of 40 feel
Lot area shall be not less than 4,000 sq. fL However, the lot area for two-family
dwellings shall be not less than 3,500 sq. fL per dwelling unit. The minimum lot area
-5-
cL
shall be determined by excluding that portion of a lot that is used solely for agcess to the
pordon of a lot used as a building site.
The mlnim~lRl avenge width of that portion of the lot to be used as a building site shall
be 40 feet with a mlnjmum avenge depth of 80 feel However, for two-family dwelling
lots, the minimum avenge width shall be 40 feet with the same minknum avenge depth
of 75 feel That portion of a lot used for access on "flag" lots shall have a mlninluxll
width of 20 feel
The minimum frontage of a lot shall be 40 feet, except that lots fron~ng on knuckles or
cul-de-sacs may have a minimum frontage of 35 feel Lot frontage along curvilinea~
stzcets may be measured at the building setback in accordance with zone development
standards.
Minimum yard requirements arc as follows:
(1) The front yard shall be not less than 10 feet, measured from the existing public
right-of-way street line or from any future public fight-of-way succt line as shown
on any Specific Plan of Highways, whichever is nearer the proposed su'ucture.
(2) Side yards on interior and through lots shall be not less than 5 feet. Side yards
on comer and reversed coroer lots shall be not less than 10 feet from the existing
street line or from any future sleet line as shown on any Specific Plan of
Highways, whichever is nearer the proposed structure, upon which the main
building sides, except that where the lot is less than 50 feet wide, the yard need
not exceed 20% of the width of the lot.
(3) The rear yard shall be not less than 15 feel In addition, the following standard
shall also apply:
(a) No lot shall have more than 55% of its net area covered with buildings or
SlrdCtUrCS.
(4) NO su'uctural cncroaclunents shall be permkted in the front, side or rear yard
without approval of a sethack adjustment pm'suant to City Ordinance.
Automobile storage space shall be provided as required by Section 18.12 of Riverside
County Ordinance No. ~48 (1991).
~ ............. IIII
;,
ITEM #16
Case No.:
Prepared By:
Recommendation: 1.
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
/~ugust 5, 1991
Vesting Ten~.ative Parcel Map No. 25418
Oliver Mujica
RECOMMEND ADOPTION of
Negative Declaration for
Vesting Tentative Parcel
Map No. 25418; and
2. ADOPT Resolution No. 91-
recommending approval of
Vesting Tentative Parcel
Map No. 25418.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Bedford Properties
Robert Be{n, William Frost & Associates
Subdivide 36.4 acres into 5 commercial parcels and
9 open space parcels within Planning Area 1 of
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1.
Northeast corner of Highway 79 and Margarita
Road.
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1
North:
South:
East:
West:
Planning Areas 6 (Very High Density
Residential) and 8 (Medium Density
Residential )
Specific Plan No. 223 (Vail Ranch)
Planning Area 2 lVery High Density
Residential )
C-P-S
Not applicable.
Vacant
Total Land Area:
36.4 acres
STAFFRPT\PM25418 1
BACKGROUND:
On September 6, 1988, the Riverside County Board
of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 88-D,70
approving Specific Plan No. 219 (Meadows). The
Meadows provided a total of 5,611 dwelling units on
1,036 acres. In addition, the Board of Supervisors
certified Environmental Impact Report No. 235 for
Specific Plan No, 219 as an accurate and objective
statement that complies with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Furthermore,
a statement of overriding findings was made for the
air quality impacts.
On November 15, 1989, the applicant filed Vesting
Tentative Parcel Map No. 25~,18 to the Riverside
County Planning Department, which proposed to
subdivide the subject 36.~, acre site into 5
commercial lots and 9 open space lots.
The project was reviewed by the Riverside County
Land Division Committee {LDC) on December 11,
1989; January 2;2, 1990; February 2, 1990; and
April 2, 1990. During these meetings the LDC
indicated that Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment
No. 1 must be adopted prior to the approval of the
tentative map.
Subsequently, this project was transferred to the
City of Temecula on April 23, 1990.
On November 15, 1990, this project was reviewed by
the Preliminary Development Review Committee
IPreoDRC) in order to informally evaluate the
project and address any possible concerns, as well
as suggesting possible modifications. The comments
by the Pre-DRC included the following:
1, Circulation/Access
Subsequent to the Pre-DRC meeting, Staff met with
the applicant to discuss the required supplemental
material in order to address the Pre-DRC's
concerns.
On February 27, 1991, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map
No. 25418 was reviewed by the Formal Development
Review Committee; and, it was determined that the
project, as designed, can be adequately conditioned
to mitigate the DRC's concerns. The DRC has
forwarded a recommendation of approval subject to
conditions.
STAFFRPT\PM25LH8 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
On April 9, 1991, the City Council Adopted
Resolution No. 91-36 approving Change of Zone No.
5621 and Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1
amending the boundaries and land use designations
of Planning Areas 1, 2, 5 and 6 of Specific Plan No.
219. Subsequently, on April 23, 1991, the City
Council adopted Ordinance No. 91-13 amending
Zoning Ordinance No. 90-04 pertaining to Ordinance
No. 348.2919 ISpecific Plan No. 219) as it relates to
zoning.
The Planning Commission May recall that Vesting
Tentative Parcel Map No. 25418 was originally
scheduled for their public hearing meeting of March
18, 1991. However, at the request of the applicant,
this item was continued, prior to the meeting, off-
calendar in order to allow the applicant the
opportunity to further discuss the Conditions of
Approval, relative to traffic mitigation, with the
Engineering Department Staff.
As noted above, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No.
25418 proposes to subdivide the subject 36.b, acre
parcel into 5 commercial lots and 9 open space lots,
as follows:
Lot 1 - 2.7 acres
Lot 2 - 11.9 acres
Lot 3 - 8.9 acres
Lot 4 - 6.0 acres
Lot 5 - 6.9 acres
The proposed subdivision has been designed in
accordance with the standards of Specific Plan No.
219, Amendment No. 1.
Traffic Impacts
The Transportation Engineering Staff has reviewed
this project; and has determined that the proposed
project is consistent with the traffic mitigation
measures of EIR 235 adopted for Specific Plan No.
219, and there will be no adverse unmitigable
significant traffic impacts resulting from the
development of this proposed project. Thus, the
project has been conditioned accordingly.
STAFFRPT\PM25418 3
Access and Circulation
Access to Lots 1-5 will be provided from proposed
Street "H". The access points are consistent with
the Circulation Plan of Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 1.
General Landscape Requirements
Pursuant to Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No.
1 (see Landscape Design Guidelines and Community
Elements, Pages 223-295), all areas required to be
landscaped shall be planted with turf, ground
cover, shrub or tree materials selected from the
plant palette contained in the guidelines.
Planting shall commence as soon as slopes are
completed on any portion of the site and shall
provide for rapid short-term coverage of the slope
as well as long-term establishment cover per City
standards. The developer shall provide a landscape
bond to the City at the time that the landscape plan
is approved. The bond is to guarantee the
installation of interim erosion control planting in the
event that the grading operation is performed and
building construction does not commence within
ninety (90) days.
The owners of parcels which require landscape
development shall assess any existing common
landscape areas adjoining their property. Where
feasible, landscape development shall reinforce or
be compatible with such existing common area
setting.
Cut slopes equal to or greater than five (5') feet in
vertical height and fill slopes equal to or greater
than three {3') feet in vertical height shall be
planted with a ground cover to protect the slope
from erosion and instability. Slopes exceeding
fifteen (15') in vertical height shall be planted with
shrubs, spaced not more than ten {10') feet on
center or trees spaced not to exceed twenty (20')
feet on center or a combination of shrubs and trees
at equivalent spacings, in addition to the ground
COVer,
STAFFRPT\PM25418 4
SPECIFIC PLAN AND
GENERAL PLAN
CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
The plants selected and planting methods shall be
suitable for the soil and climatic conditions. Refer
to the plant materials palette for the list of
community wide slope stabilization plants.
The Plannin9 Department Staff has included a
Condition of Approval requlrln9 that a final
landscaping plan for Lots 6-14 ( open space) must be
submitted for approval by the Plannin9 Department
prior to the issuance of buildin9 permits.
Grading and Landform Alteration
Substantial grading and recontouring of this site,
which includes 100 c.y. of excavation and 660,000
c.y. of fill will occur in the immediate area.
Land Use
The project site is located within Planning Area 1 of
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1, which is
designatedasCommunity/NeighborhoodCommercia).
Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 25418 is a 5 lot
subdivision only. Therefore, the Planning
Department Staff has included a Condition of
Approval requiring that a plot plan application for
the development of Lots 1-5 must be submitted for
approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
The proposed project is consistent with the SWAP
Land Use Designation of Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 1 (Specific Plan and Planning Area
No. 1 - Community/Neighborhood Commercial). In
addition, Staff finds it probable that this project
will be consistent with the new General Plan when it
is adopted.
Pursuant to Condition of Approval No. 12 of Specific
Plan No. 219, an Initial Study was performed for
this project which determined that although the
proposed project could have a significant effect on
the environment, no significant impact would result
to the natural or built environment in the City
because the mitigation measures described in EIR
235 and in the Conditions of Approval have been
added to the project, and a Negative Declaration has
been recommended for adoption.
STAFFRPT\PM25418 5
FINDINGS:
The proposed Tract Map will not have a
si9nificant negative impact on the
environment, as determined in the Initial
Study performed for the project. A Negative
Declaration is recommended for adoption.
There is a reasonable probability that this
project will be consistent with the General
Plan being prepared at this time, due to the
fact that the project is consistent and
compatible with Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 1.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to, or interference
with, the future adopted General Plan, if the
proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with
the plan, due to the fact that the project is
consistent with surrounding land uses.
The proposed use complies with State
planning and zonin9 law, due to the fact that
the project conforms to the current zoning
for the site and to Ordinance No. u,60,
Schedule A.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configurations, access, and
density, due to the fact that the project has
access to public roads and a specific plan will
be implemented with this project.
The design of the subdivision or the
proposed improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or
substantially and avoidable injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat as determined in the
initial study.
All lots have acceptable access to existing
and proposed dedicated rights-of-way which
are open to, and are useable by, vehicular
traffic, access is provided from Street "A" of
the specific plan.
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
STAFFRPT\PM25418
property within the proposed project as
conditioned. The project will not interfere
with any easements.
The lawful conditions stated in the project's
Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary
to protect the public health, safety and
general welfare.
10.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
RECOMMEND ADOPTION of the Negative
Declaration for Vesting Tentative Parcel Map
No. 25418; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending
approval of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No.
25u, 18.
OM:ks
Attachments:
Resolution
Conditions of Approval
Environmental Assessment
Exhibits:
A, Vicinity Map
B. Specific Land Use Map
C. Planning Area No. 1 Map
D. Planning Area No. 1 Standards
E. Tentative Parcel Map
Large Scale Plan
STAFFRPT\PM25418 7
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 25~,18 TO
SUBDIVIDE A 36.4 ACRE PARCEL INTO 5 COMMERCIAL
PARCELS AND 9 OPEN SPACE PARCELS LOCATED ON
THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF MARGARITA ROAD AND
HIGHWAY 79 AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.
926-013-012.
WHEREAS, Bedford Properties filed Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No.
25418 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and
Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Tentative Parcel Map application was processed in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Tentative Parcel
Map on August 5, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to
testify either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said Tentative Parcel Map;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findin.cJso 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
followln9 incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
(a) There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
STAFFRPT\PM25418 8
Ib)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, I hereinafter "SWAP" ) was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map is consistent with the
SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the
Government Code, to wit:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The Planning Commission finds, in recommending
approval of projects and taking other actions, including
the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title,
each of the following:
(a)
There is reasonable probability that Vesting
Tentative Parcel Map No. 25~,18 proposed will
be consistent with the general plan proposal
being considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
(C)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
D. I1 ) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No.
L~60, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are
made:
STAFFRPT\PM25~18 9
a)
That the proposed land division is consistent
with applicable general and specific plans.
b)
That the design or improvement of the
proposed land division is consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.
c)
That the site of the proposed land division is
physically suitable for the type of
development.
d)
That the site of the proposed land division is
physically suitable for the proposed density
of the development.
e)
That the design of the proposed land division
or proposed improvements are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or
substantially and unavoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat.
f)
That the design of the proposed land division
or the type of improvements are not likely to
cause serious public health problems.
g)
That the design of the proposed land division
or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at
large, for access through, or use of,
property within the proposed land division.
A land division may be approved if it is found
that alternate easements for access or for use
will be provided and that they will be
substantially equivalent to ones previously
acquired by the public. This subsectlon
shall apply only to easements of record or to
easements established by judgment of a court
of competent jurisdiction.
(2) The Planning Commission in recommending approval
of the proposed Tentative Tract Map, makes the following findings, to
wit:
a)
The proposed Tract Map will not have a
significant negative impact on the
environment, as determined in the Initial
Study performed for the project. A Negative
Declaration is recommended for adoption.
STAFFRPT\PM25~,18
10
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
There is a reasonable probability that this
project will be consistent with the General
Plan being prepared at this time, due to the
fact that the project is consistent and
compatible with Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 3.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to, or interference
with, the future adopted Ceneral Plan, if the
proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with
the plan, due to the fact that the project is
consistent with surrounding land uses.
The proposed use complies with State
planning and zoning law, due to the fact that
the project conforms to the current zoning
for the site and to Ordinance No. 460,
5chedule A.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configurations, access, and
density, due to the fact that the project has
access to public roads and a specific plan will
be implemented with this project.
The design of the subdivision or the
proposed improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or
substantially and avoidable injure fish or
wildllfe or their habitat as determined in the
initial study.
All lots have acceptable access to existing
and proposed dedicated rights-of-way which
are open to, and are useable by, vehicular
traffic, access is provided from Street "A" of
the specific plan.
The design of the subdivision, the type of
improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed project as
conditioned. The project will not interfere
with any easements.
The lawful conditions stated in the project's
Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary
STAFFRPT\PM25~18
to protect the public health, safety and
general welfare.
j)
That said findings are supported by minutes.
maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Tentative
Parcel Map is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the
proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in EIR
235 and in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a
Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby recommended for adoption.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends
approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 25418 for the subdivision of a 36.4 acre parcel
into 5 commercial parcels and 9 open space parcels located on the northeast side of
Margarita Road and Highway 79 and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 926-013-012
subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
SECTION 4.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of August, 1991.
JOHN HOAGLAND
CHAIRMAN
STAFFRPT\PM25418 12
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 5th day of August, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFFRPT\PM25418 13
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No: 25418
Project Description: 5 Commercial and 9
Open Space
Assessor's Parcel No.: 926-013-012
Planninq Department
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision
Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule E, unless
modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in
accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request.
if made 30 days prior to the expiration date.
This condltionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the
approval date by the City Council, unless extended as provided by Ordinance
460.
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final
map.
Legal access as required by Ordinance ~,60 shall be provided from the parcel
map boundary to a City maintained road.
Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area
improvement phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning Department
approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access
to all lots in each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and
purpose of the subdivision approval.
A copy of the final grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department
for review and approval. All on-site cut and fill slopes shall:
a. Be limited to a maximum slope ratio of 2 to 1.
b. Be contour-graded to blend with existing natural contours.
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. An erosion control landscaping plan
demonstrating methods of erosion protection for these slopes shall be prepared
by a qualified professional; and shall be submitted to the City Planning
ST A FF R PT\PM25418 14
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Department for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits.
The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations
outlined in the County Health Department's transmittal dated November 13,
1990, a copy of which is attached.
All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of
Technology, PaiDmar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as outlined in the
Southwest Area Plan.
This subdivision shall comply with Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1.
Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following:
Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the
development standards of Planning Area 1 as provided in Specific Plan
No. 219, Amendment No. 1.
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.
The subdivider and all successors in interest shall comply with the provisions
of Development Agreement No. 4 and Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No.
1.
Prior to recordation of the final map, an Environmental Constraints Sheet
[ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to delineate
identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed with the
office of the City Engineer. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the
Planning Department for review and approval. The approved ECS shall be
forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to the Planning Department
and the Department of Building and Safety.
The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet:
This property is located within thirty {30) miles of Mount PaiDmar
Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with
the California I nstltute of Technology, PaiDmar Observatory
recommendations.
County Slope Stability Report No. 122 was prepared for this property
and is on file at the Planning Department. Specific items of concern in
the report are as follows: Slope Stability.
STAFFRPT\PM25418 15
16.
17.
The developer shall comply with the following parkway landscaping
conditions:
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall secure
approval of proposed landscaping and irrigation plans from the City
Engineering and Planning Department. All landscaping and irrigation
plans and specifications shall be prepared in a reproducible format
suitable for permanent filing with the City Engineering Department.
The developer shall post a landscape performance bond which shall be
released concurrently with the release of subdivision performance
bonds, guaranteeing the viability of all landscaping which will be
installed prior to the assumption of the maintenance responsibility by
the district.
The developer, the developer*s successors-in-interest or assignees,
shall be responsible for all parkway landscaping maintenance until such
time as maintenance as taken over by the district.
The developer shall comply with the standards and exhibits in Specific
Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1.
Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
If the project is to be phased, prior to the issuance 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
sedimentatlon 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.
4. Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase.
All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded natural terrain ant4
~_xceeding ten {10) feet in vertical height shall be contour-graded
incorporating the following grading techniques:
The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the
angle of the natural terrain.
STAFFRPT\PM25418 16
18.
19.
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.
Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
The project shall comply with the requirements of Development
Agreement No.
Prior to the issuance of building permits detailed common open space
area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning
Department approval for the phase of development in process. The
plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for
the following:
Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all
landscaped areas requiring irrigation.
Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be
opaque up to a minimum height of six ~6) feet at maturity.
All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from
view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle
treatments, as approved by the Planning Director. Utilities shall
be placed underground.
STAFFRPT\PM25418 17
20.
21.
Parkways shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a
transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscape
elements shall include earth betruing, ground cover, shrubs and
specimen trees. Front yards shall be landscaped and street trees
planted.
Wall plans shall be submitted for the project perimeter. Wooden
fencing shall not be allowed on the perimeter of the project. All
lots with slopes leading down from the lot shall be provided with
gates in the wall for maintenance access.
Landscapin9 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 trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow
growing trees shall be steel staked.
Prior to the issuance of building permits for Lots 1-5, a piot plan shall
be submitted to the Planning Department pursuant to Section 18.30 of
Ordinance No. 348 accompanied by all applicable filing fees, as a plot
plan that is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act and is
transmitted to 9overnmentai agencies other than the City Planning
Department. The plot plan shall ensure the conformance of the final
site development with the Design Guidelines of Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 1.
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 empioyees from any claim, action, or
proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officer, or employees
to attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Temecula, its
advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Vesting
Tentative Parcel Map No. 25~,18, which action is brought within the time period
provided for in California Government Code Section 66u,99.37. The City of
Temecula will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or
proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the
STAFFRPT\PM25418 18
22.
23.
25.
26.
27,
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 subdlvlder
shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless
the City of Temecula.
The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site
property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the developer shall
at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into
an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code
Section 66~,62 at such time as the City acquires the property interests
required for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by
the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property
interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion
of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an
appraisal report obtained by the developer, at the developer's cost. The
appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the
appraisal.
All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable
TV shall be provided for underground, with easements provided as required,
and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility
provided. Telephone, cable TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired
in the residence.
Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the developer or his assignee must
conform to the park district Qulmby Ordinance, unless waived to time of
issuance of a building permit.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions {CC&R's) shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Department and the Public Works Department prior
to final approval of the tract maps. The CCSR's shall include liability
insurance and methods of maintaining the open space and private drainage
system.
No lot in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association,
property owner's group, or similar entity has been formed with the right to
assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any
rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the
development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of
such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of
said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate
under recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsory membership of all
owners of lots and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of
maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC~,R's shall permit
enforcement by the City of Provisions required by the City as Conditions of
Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this
STAFFRPT\PM25418 19
requirement to, and receive approval of, the City prior to making any such
sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public
purposes.
28.
Every owner of a lot shall own as an appurtenance to such lot, either ~ 1 ) an
undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or {2) as share in the
corporation, or voting membership in an association, owning the common areas
and facilities.
29.
Maintenance for all landscaped and open areas, including parkways, shall be
provided for in the CCF, R's.
30.
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 151,275.00), 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 1525.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the
Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152
and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight (48) hour
period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department
the check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall
be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section
711 .~,{c).
Department of Public Works
The following are the Department of Public Works 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 Department of
Public Works.
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:
31.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, 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;
Department of Public Works;
Riverside County Health Department;
CATV Franchise;
STAFFRPT\PM25L~18 20
32.
33.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
CalTrans; and
Parks and Recreation Department.
All road easements and/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication to
the public and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such
offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
Margarita Road shall be improved with ~,3 feet of half street improvement plus
one 18' lane within a 55' dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County
Standard No. 100 (110'/86').
In the event that full improvements of De Portola Road and Street "A" are not
constructed by Assessment District 159 prior to the final map recordat/on, the
developer shall construct or bond for the improvements to provide for one-half
street improvements plus one 12 foot lane per Riverside County Standard No.
101 (100'/76'). The improvements shall be constructed prior to occupancy.
In the event that full improvements for Meadows Parkway are not constructed
by Assessment District 159 prior to the final map recordat/on, the developer
shall construct or bond for the improvements to provide for one-half street
improvements plus one 18 foot lane per Riverside County Standard No. 100
{110'/86' ). The improvements shall be constructed prior to occupancy.
In the event that full improvements for Highway 79 are not constructed by
Assessment District 159 prior tothe final map recordat/on, the developer shall
construct or bond for the improvements to provide for one-half street
improvements per CalTrans Standard 1142'/110' ). The improvements shall be
constructed prior to occupancy. Curb and Gutter shall also be constructed
per CalTrans standard for 8-inch curb face.
Vehicular access shall be restricted on Highway 79, Meadows Parkway, Street
"A", De Portola Road, and Margarita Road, and so noted on the final map with
the exception of public street and driveway intersections as approved by the
Department of Public Works and as is shown on the tentative map. One access
shall be allowed on Highway 79 subject to CalTrans approval. One access shall
be allowed on Margarlta Road subject to the approval of the Department of
Public Works.
Corner property llne cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard
No. 805.
Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage, when deemed necessary,
shall be delineated or noticed on the final map.
Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be dedicated to the City where
sidewalks meander through private property.
Easements for joint use driveways shall be provided prior to approval of the
Final Map or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first.
STAFFRPT\PM25418 21
~7.
~8.
q.9.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage
facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located
within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances
shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the Department of Public
Works.
The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be
executed 9uaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements
in conformance with applicable City standards.
Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb
and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights,
signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control
devices as appropriate.
b. Storm drain facilities.
c. Landscapin9 (street and parks).
d. Sewer and domestic water systems.
e. All trails, as required by the City's Master Plans.
f. Undergrounding of existing and proposed utility distribution lines.
The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated
with adjoining developments.
Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. ~,61 and as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
Prior to recordatlon of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the
Department of Public Works a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation
towards traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time
of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written
agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a
building permit.
Street names shall be subject to the approval of the Department of Public
Works.
The minimum centerline radii shall be 300 feet or as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
STAFFRPT\PM25~,18 22
50.
Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a
minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment
as approved by the Department of Public Works.
51. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent.
52.
The subdivider shall submit two prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the
Department of Public Works. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building
Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions
of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2~," x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil
Engineer.
53.
A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and
submitted at the time of application for grading plan check.
The subdivider shall submit two copies of a soils report to the Department of
Public Works. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
55.
A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of
Public Works. All drainage facilities shall be installed as directed by the
Department of Public Works.
56.
On-site drainage facilities, located outside of road right-of-way, shall be
contained within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note shall be
added to the final map stating "Drainage easements shall be kept free of
buildings and obstructions."
57.
A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final map, along with
supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations should be submitted to the
Riverside County Flood Control District and the City of Temecula Department
of Public Works for review.
58.
Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface
drainage entering the property from adjacent areas.
59.
The subdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by
alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e. , concentration or diversion of flow.
Protection shall be provided by constructin9 adequate drainage facilities,
including enlarging existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement.
60.
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:
61.
Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid
and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public
Works.
STAFFRPT\PM25418 23
62.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Department prior to
commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of-
way.
63.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The
charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits.
If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to
this property. no new charge needs to be paid.
A permit shall be required from CalTrans for any work within the following
right-of-way:
Hiqhway 79
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT:
65.
A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Public Works 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.
66.
Gradln9 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.
67.
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 mitigatlon 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 executin9
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 lassumin9 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.
STAFF RPT\PM25418 2~
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
68.
Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and
gutter, A.C. pavement. sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and
street lights on all interior public streets. Secondary access shall be
provided for any phasing as specified and approved by the Department of
Public Works.
69.
Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all
times with adequate detours during construction.
70°
Asphaltic emulsion {fo9 seal) shall be applied not less than 14 days following
placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon
per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39, and
9u, of the State Standard Specifications.
Transportation Enqineerinq
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
71.
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer
and approved by the Department of Public Works for Street "A", De Portola
Road, Meadows Parkway, State Route 79, and Margarita Road. These and
shall be included in the street improvement plans.
72.
Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact the Department of Public
Works for the design requirements.
PRIOR TO THE iSSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
73.
A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Civil
Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works for any street
closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the
Department of Public Works.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and
striping plan.
75.
Plans for a traffic signal shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the Department of Public Works for the intersection of Margarita
Road with De Portola Road and Meadows Parkway with Street "A". All traffic
signals shall be installed and operational per the special provisions and the
approved traffic signal plan. Prior to designing any traffic signal plans,
contact the Department of Public Works for the design requirements.
STAFFRPT\PM25418 25
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:
Bedford Properties
28765 Single Oak Drive, Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92390
(714) 676-7290
February 13, 1991
CITY OF TEMECULA
Tentative Parcel Map No. 25418
Northeast of Nighway 79 and
Marqarlta Road.
I I. Project Description
Tentative Parcel Map No. 25418 proposes to subdivide the subject 36.4 acre site,
which is within Planning Area 1 of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1, into 5
commercial lots and 9 open space lots.
Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
The following environmental impacts associated with Specific Plan No. 219 are
insignificant in that the design of the project as proposed includes the necessary
mltigation measures which have been adopted within EIR 235:
Water and Sewer:
The project will have an average daily consumption
of domestic water of 1,683,300 gallons at 300
9allons/d.u./day. The project will generation
between 1.81 and 3.08 million gallons per day of
sewage flow. Onsite wastewater collection facilities
will be constructed to tie into Eastern Municipal
Water District's master planned facilities being
constructed through the Rancho Villages
Assessment District. Construction of all structures
within the project will conform to state laws
requiring water efficient plumbing fixtures.
STAFFRPT\PM25~,18 26
B. Utilities:
Enerqy Resources:
Parks and Recreation:
Gas, electricity, and telephone service will be
provided by respective purveyors of the service.
Lines for electrical and telephone services, and
mains for natural 9as are located alon9 the project
boundaries.
The project will increase consumption of energy for
motor vehicle movement, space and water heating,
air conditionin9, use of home appliances, and
operation of construction equipment. The project
will adhere to State Code Title 24 energy
conservation standards and will employ site design,
when possible, for additional ener9y conservation.
Non vehicular pathways are included within, and
adjacent to, the project site. Commercial and
employment centers are in proximity to the project
site.
Project residents will create a demand for parks and
recreation facilities, and for open space. The
project design provides 242+/- acres of recreation
areas, parkway greenbelts, and paseo open space.
The followin9 environmental impacts associated with Specific Plan No. 219 are
potentially significant, but will be avoided or substantially lessened by the identified
mitigation measures which have been adopted within EIR 235:
A. Seismic Safety
1. Impact:
Although faults have been previously mapped on-
site, they have been determined to be inactive and
the risk of ground rupture due to faulting on the
project is considered nil. Liquefaction potential
exists along the entire flat alluviated area of
Temecula Creek within the southern site boundary.
2. Mitiqation:
Durin9 site development, additional geologic
evaluation shall be continued in order to verify the
extent and relative age of fault activity. Mitigation
of the liquefaction potential within the southern
portion of the site will occur as a result of project
development, which will lower artificially high
9roundwater levels by removal of recharge ponds.
as well as increase overburden as a result of site
9fading.
B. Slopes and Erosion
1. Impact:
The Meadows Specific Plan will unavoidably alter
some of the existin9 landforms. Owing to the
general granular nature of graded slopes, a
moderate to severe erosion potential exists if slopes
STAFFRPT\PM25418 27
2. Mitiqation:
Flooding
1. Impact:
2. Mitiqation:
Noise
1. Impact:
2. Mitiqation:
are unprotected. Removal and recompaction of
portions of alluvial/colluvial soils within fill areas
and shallow cut areas will be necessary.
Temporary groundcover shall be provided to
prevent erosion during the construction phase.
Permanent vegetation shall be planted as soon as
possible after grading. Specific requirements for
alluvial/colluvial soils removal shall be developed
during tentative map studies and incorporated into
project grading. The three small possible landslide
areas shall be investigated during design level
studies and all mitigation measures identified as a
result of that investigation will be incorporated into
future development approvals. Remedial grading
recommendations to provide for the long term
stability will be provided based upon a finalized
grading design.
Development of the Vall Meadows Specific Plan will
alter the existing drainage patterns and will
increase runoff to Temecula Creek and, to a lesser
extent, Murrleta Creek.
A master drainage plan has been developed to
respond to the hydrologica) constraints of the site.
A more in-depth assessment of the Temecula
floodplaln shall be conducted during the final
design and preparation of the tentative tract maps,
and all mitigation measures identified as a result of
that assessment will be incorporated into future
development approvals. Erosion control devices
shall be utilized in hillside development areas to
mitigate the effect of increased runoff at points of
discharge. If required, the project applicant will
contribute Drainage Improvement Fees as
appropriate.
Noise generated from the project will derive from
two sources, construction and vehicular traffic, but
is not anticipated to result in unacceptable noise
levels to existing or proposed off-site uses. Onsite
areas adjacent to high volume roadways may be
subject to noise impacts.
A noise analysis shall be required in planning areas
adjacent to high volume perimeter roads. If
indicated, noise attenuation will be incorporated
into project design.
STAFFRPT\PM25~,18 28
Water Quality
1. ) rapact:
2. Mitiqation:
Wildlife/Veqetation
1. Impact:
2. Mitlqation:
Historic and Prehistoric
1. Impact:
2. Mitiqation:
Circulation
1. Impact:
2. Mitiqation:
Implementation of the project will alter the
composition of surface runoff by grading the site
surfaces; by construction of impervious streets,
roofs and parking facilities; and by the irrigation of
landscaped areas. Runoff conveyed to Temecula
and Mutt/eta Creeks will contain minor amounts of
pollutants.
The project will employ erosion control devices
during grading, such as temporary betins,
culverts, sand bagging or desilting basins. Urban
runoff will be mitigated through implementation of a
street cleaning program.
As a consequence of grassland and coastal sage
scrub vegetation removal, existing wildllfe will
either be destroyed or displaced. impacts upon
habitat containing a population of the Stephens
Kangaroo Rat will result.
The project applicant will participate in any in-place
County program which provides for off-site
mitigation of impacts to the Stephens Kangaroo Rat,
or enter into a Memorandum of Understanding wit
the California Department of Fish and Game.
Sites
Without proper mitigation, implementation of the Vail
Meadows Specific Plan could potentially destroy
archaeological/historical sites on the property.
Prior to the approval of any additional implementing
processes, the applicant/developer will meet with
the County Historical Commission to determine
appropriate measures to mitigate potential impacts
to archaeological/historical sites; all mitigation
measures identified as a result of the meeting( s ) will
be incorporated into future development approvals.
The Vail Meadows Specific Plan is anticipated to
generate u,7,600 vehicle trips per day at project
completion. Approximately L~0,000 of these trips
would be external to the site.
Construction of the proposed circulation network
will adequately service future on-site traffic
STAFFRPT\PM25418 29
Fire Protection
1. Impact:
2. Mitigation:
Sheriff
1. Impact:
2. Mitigation:
Schools
1. Impact:
2. Mitigation:
Solid Waste
1. Impact:
~. Mitlqation:
volumes. Off-site improvements will be constructed
as required by the County Road Department and
CalTrans.
The project site would be subject to Category II
urban development requirements with regard to fire
protection services.
The project site will be served by a proposed fire
station, to be constructed near Highway 79. The
developer will pay mitigation fees as required by the
Board of Supervisors.
Project residents will impose increased demands on
law enforcement and sheriff services.
Project design will incorporate appropriate lighting,
site design, security hardware and such design
features as will promote optimal security. The
developer will pay mitigation fees as required by the
Board of Supervisors.
The project will generate an estimated 3,109
students in grades K-8 and 1,187 students in
grades 9-12, impactin9 the Temecula Union School
District.
The project has designated four elementary school
sites and one junior high school site. The developer
will pay school mitigation fees as required.
Project residents, estimated at 14,587, will generate
approximately 58 tons per day of solid waste,
incrementally shortening the llfe of County landfill
sites.
The County Solid Waste Management Plan includes
programs for reducing the quantity of wastes being
landfilled, including source reduction and business
and residential separation of recoverables. These
programs may be implemented by project residents
and businesses.
STAFFRPT\PM25418 30
Libraries
1. Impact:
2. Mitiqation:
The project's population will increase demand for
library facilities and services.
The developer will pay library mitigation fees as
required by the Board of Supervisors.
The followin9 environmental impact associated with Specific Plan No. 219 cannot be
fully mitigated and a statement of overridin9 findings has been adopted within EIR
235:
Air Quality
1. Impact:
At project build-out, daily motor vehicle emissions
for the project will total approximately 7,75u,
Ibs/day. Power plant emissions for electrical
energy consumed on-site will total 175 Ibs/day.
Natural gas emissions for project consumption will
total 163.6 Ibs per day. Approximately 100 Ibs of
dust per acre will be generated each day of
construction in addition to an undetermined amount
of motor emissions during site preparation an
construction.
2. Mitiqation:
Because most of the project-related air pollution
emissions are generated by automobiles, effective
mitigation is limited. On-site provisions for
schools, shopping, and recreation has been
incorporatedintoprojectdesign. Sufficientacreage
has been zoned for industrial use in the Rancho
California/Temecula area to provide employment
opportunities. project design includes a circulation
plan designed for efficient and direct traffic flows
and alternative transit modes including pedestrian,
bicycle, and equestrian trails. The Rancho Villages
Policy Plan, to which this project is subject,
requires pedestrian and bus stop facilities for
commercial areas. These requirements will be
implemented at the development application stage.
Particulate matter and other pollutants generated
during grading and construction will be reduced
through compliance with County Ordinance No. b,57
which specifies watering durin9 construction, and
plantin9 of ground cover.
IV. Conclusion
The Riverside County Board of Supervisors certified Environmental Impact Report
I EIR ) No. 230 in conjunction with the approval of Specific Plan No. 219 and Change
of Zone No. 51~,0. The EIR included mitigation measures to reduce environmental
STAFFRPT\PM25418 31
impacts to levels of insignificance. The Board of Supervisors also adopted
statements of overriding considerations for theair quality impacts. Tentative Parcel
Map No. 25418 proposes a commercial subdivision that is consistent with the
guidelines and requirements of Planning Area 1 of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment
No. 1; and will not result in impacts to the environment. The Conditions of Approval
are adequate to mitigate any potential significant impacts to levels of insignificance.
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and Condition of Approval No.
12 of Specific Plan No. 219, this Initial Study has been prepared to demonstrate that
the proposed Tentative Parcel Map will not result in new or substantially increased
significant impacts, that there have been no changes in the circumstances
surrounding the project that would require important revisions to the El R due to new
significant impacts, and that no new information has arisen which would indicate that
the project will have significant effects not previously discussed or underestimated,
or that alternatives or mitigation measures not previously considered would
substantially reduce any significant impacts.
STAFFRPT\PM25418 32
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a signi-
ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi-
ficant effect on this case because the mitigation measures
described on attached sheets, which were adopted for EIR 235
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
February 13, 1991
Date
Oliver Mujica, Senior Planner
For CITY OF TEMECULA
STAFF R PT\ PM25418 33
U
a. rT1 ~< ~
JL
z
~,~ < ~Z~, 0
)<
F- <~
1. Planning Area i
a. Descriptive Summary
Planning Area 1, as depicted on Figure 15A, provides for
development of 36.4 acres with Community/Neighborhood
Commercial use. A typical site plan is depicted in the
Design Guidelines, Sec. IV.
b. Land Use and Development Standards
Please refer to Zone Ordinance No. 91-13
Ordinance Tab.)
(See S.P. Zone
c. Planninq Standards
Access to the Planning Area will be provided from
Margarita Road, State Route 79 and a secondary roadway
("H" Street) to the northeast. Access points, as
depicted, are conceptual. Access to the individual
planning areas shall be determined when tract maps or
plot plans are submitted.
A Minor Community entry statement will be provided at
the intersection of Highway 79 and Margarita Road at
the southwest boundary of the Planning Area. (See
Figure 32.)
A Community Intersection statement will be provided at
the intersection of "H" Street and Meadows Parkway at
the northeastern boundary of the Planning Area.
(See Figure 34.)
A Major Community entry statement will be provided at
the intersection of Highway 79 and Meadows Parkway
at the southeastern boundary of the Planning Area.
(See Figure 32 and 33).
Roadway landscape treatments, such as those depicted
on Figures 25, 23, 23 and 27 respectively shall be
provided along Highway 79, Margarita Road, Meadows
· Parkway, De Portola Road, and "H" Street.
A bicycle trail will be located in Meadows Parkway,
De Portola Road and "H" Street to the north and east
of the Planning Area as shown on Figure 6.
A Project
Figure 38,
Street.
Intersection statement, as depicted on
will be provided at De Portola Road and "H"
Please refer to Section III.A.1. through III.A.8.
for the following Development Plans and Standards
that apply site-wide:
59
,
III. A. 1 .
III.A.2.
III.A.3.
III.A.4.
III. A. 5 .
III. A. 6.
III.A.7.
III.A.8.
Specific Land Use Plan
Circulation Plan
Drainage Plan
Water and Sewer Plans
Public Facility Sites Phasing Plan
Grading Plan
Open Space and Recreation Plan
Landscaping Plan
Please see Design Guidelines, Section IV., for related
criteria.
The commercial land uses permitted within this Plan-
ning Area are designated in the Specific Plan Zoning
Ordinance.
A Plot Plan will be required for definition form and
uses of each commercial area.
Waste disposal containers will be limited to desig-
nated, confined areas set aside for solid waste col-
lection.
A minimum of one Neighborhood entry statements will be
provided along "H" Street (See Figure 37).
60
Commercial/Neighborhood Commercial
Planning Areas 1 and 27
Commercial/Neighborhood Commercial Zone
The following regulations shall apply in all Commercial/Neighborhood Commercial Zones:
SECTION 9. L USES PERMITTED.
The following uses arc permitted, only in enclosed buildings with not more than 200
square feet of outside storage or display of materials appurten~nt to such use, provided
a plot plan shall have been approved pursuant to provisions of Section 18.30 of Riverside
County Ordinance No. 348 (1991).
(1) Ambulance services.
(2) Antique Shops.
(3) Appliance stores, household-
(4) Art supply shops and studios.
(5) Auction houses.
(6) Auditoriums and conference rooms.
(7) Automobile repair garages, not including body and fender shops or spray painting.
(8) Automobile pans and supply stores.
(9) Bakery goods distributors.
(10) Bakenj shops, including baking only when incidental to ~tail sales on the
pr~mises.
(11) Banks and financial institutions.
(12) Barber and beauty shops.
(13) Bars and cocktail lounges.
(14) Billlard and pool halls.
(15) Blueprint and duplicating services.
(16) Book stuns and binders.
(17) Bowling alleys.
(18) Catering services.
(19) Cleaning and dyeing shops.
(20) Clothing ston:s.
(21) Confectionery or candy stores.
(22) Costume design studios.
(23) Dance halls.
(24) Delicatessens.
(25) Department stores.
(26) Drug stores.
(27) D~ goods stores.
~9-
(28) Employment agencies,
(29) Escort bureaus.
(30) Feed and grain sales.
(31) Florists shops.
(32) Food markets and frozen food lockers
(33) Gasoline service stations, not including the concurrent sale of beer and wine for
off-premises consumption.
(34) Gift shops.
(35) Hotels, resort hotels and motels.
(36) Household goods sales, including but not limited to, new and used appliances,
furniture, carpets, draperies, lamps, radios and television sets, including repair
thereof.
(37) Hobby shops.
(38) Ice cream shops.
(39) Ice sales, not including ice plants.
(40) Interior decorating shops.
(41) Jewelry stores, including incidental repairs.
(42) Labor temples.
(43) Laboratories, film, dental, medical, research or testing.
(4~) Laundries and laundromats.
(45) Leather goods stores.
(46) Liquor stores.
(47) Locksmith shops.
(48) Mail order businesses.
(49) Manufacturer's agent
(50) Market, food, wholesale or jobber.
(51) Massage parlors, turkish baths, health centers and similar pesonal service
establishments.
(52) Meat markets, not including slaughtering.
(53) Mimeographing and addressograph services.
(54) Mortuaries.
(55) Music stores.
(56) News stores.
(57) Notions or novelty stores.
(58) Offices, including business, law, medical, dental chimpractic, architectural,
engineering, community planning and teal estate.
(59) One on-site operator' s residence, which may be located in a commercial building.
(60) Paint and wallpaper stores, not including paint conwactors.
(61) Pawn shops.
(62) Pet shops and pet supply shops.
(63) Photography shops and studios and photo engraving.
{64) Plumbing shops, not including plumbing contractors.
(65) Poultry markets, not including slaughtering or live sales.
(66) Printers or publishers.
(67) Produce markets.
(68) Radio and rolevision bmadt-asting studios.
(69) Recording studios.
(70) Refreshment stands.
(71) Restaurants and other eating establishments.
(72) Schools, business and professional, including art, barber, beauty, ctance, drama,
music and switnming.
(73) Shoe stores and repair shops.
(74) Shoeshine stands.
(75) Signs, on-site advertising.
(76) Sporting goods stores.
(77) Stained glass assembly.
(78) Stationer stores.
(79) Stations, bus, railroad and taxi.
(80) Taxidermist.
(81) Tailor shops.
(82) Telephone exchanges.
(83) Theaters, not including drive-ins.
(84) Tire sales and service, not including recapping.
(85) Tobacco shops.
(86) Tourist information centers.
(87) Toy shops.
(88) Travel agencies.
(89) Typewriter sales and rental, including incidental repairs.
(90) Watch repair shops.
(91) Wholesale businesses with samples on the premises but not including storage.
(92) Car washes.
(93) Fortune telling, spiritualism, or similar activity.
(94) Recycling collection facilities.
(95) Convenience stores, not including the sale of motor vehicle fuel.
(96) Day care centers.
The following uses a~ permitted provided a conditional use permit has been granted
pursuant to City Ordinance.
(1) Convenience stores, including the sale of motor vehicle fuel.
(2) Gasoline service stations with the concurrent sale of beer and wine for off-
premises consumption.
(3) Liquid petroleum service stations with the concurrent sale of beer and wine for
off-premises consumption, pmvid~cl the total capacity of all tanks shall not exceed
10,000 gallons.
Any use that is not specifically listed in Subsections a, and b. may be considered a
pertained or conditionally permitted use pmvicled that the Planning Director finds that the
proposed use is substantially the same in character and intensity as those listed in the
c~signated subsections. Such a use is subject to the permit process which governs the
category in which it falls.
-11-
SECTION 9.2. PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS. Planned Commercial
Developments axe petmiued provided a land division is appmved pursuant to the provision of
Riverside County Ordinance No, 460 .(1991),
SECTION 9.3, (DELETED,)
SECTION 9.4. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, The following standaxds of
development are required in the Commercial/Neighborhood Commercial Zones:
There is no mlrdmum lot area requ'trement, unless specifically required by zone
classification for a particular area.
Them axe no yard requirements for buildings which do not exceed 35 feet in height
except as required for specific plans. Any portion of a building which exceeds 35 feet
in height shall be setback from the front, rear and side lot lines not less than 2 feet for
each foot by which the height exceeds 35 feet. The front setback shall be measured from
the existing public fight-of-way su'ect line unless a specific plan has been adopted in
which case it will be measu~l from the specific plan street line. The rear setback shall
be measured from the existing rear lot line or from any recorded alley or easement; if the
rear line adjoins a sucet, the rear setback requirement shall be the same as required for
a front setback. Each side setback shall be measured from the side lot line, or from an
existing adjacent public fight-of-way sucet line unless a specific plan has been adopted,
in which case it will be measured from the specific plan street line.
c. All buildings and slructttres shall not exceed 50 feet in height.
d.
Automobile storage space shall be provided as required by Section 18.12 of Riverside
County Ordinance No. 348 (1991).
All roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from the Found elevation view
to a minimum sight distance of 1,320 feet.
-12-
ITEM #17
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Steve Jiannino, Senior Planner
August 5, 1991
Variance No. 6
The applicant is requesting a continuance of the above referenced project to the
August 19, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. The applicant is working with Staff
on the proposed variance and Staff concurs with the applicant's request for a
continuance.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff Recommends that the Planning Commission:
Continue Variance No. 6 to August 19, 1991.
SJ: ks
A:VAR6-B.MEM