HomeMy WebLinkAbout081991 PC AgendaAGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
August 19, 1991 6:00 PM
VAIL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
29915 Mira Loma Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Hoagland
ROLL CALL:
Blair, Chiniaeff, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the
commissioners on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited
to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners about
an item BQ1; listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be
filled out and filed with the Commissioner Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and
address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the
Planning Secretary before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3}
minute time limit for individual speakers.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Approval of Agenda
2. MinUteS
2.1 Approval of minutes of August 05, 1991 Planning Commission Meeting.
NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
3. Quimby Act Presentation - Gary King
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Plot Plan Administrative No. 184
Bedford Properties/Costco
Northwest corner of Margarita and Winchester Roads
Landscape Plans for Costco site and Winchester and
Margarita Road Frontage
Steve Jiannino
Approval
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Public Use Permit No. 664 (Revised)
St. Thomas Episcopal Church
Southwest corner of Ynez Road and Rancho Vista Road.
To construct church facilities with a special review for
parking reduction.
Richard Ayala
Approval
Case No.
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Variance No. 6
Superior Electrical Advertising, Inc.
Northwest Corner of Jefferson Avenue and Overland Drive
Variance in order to allow an additiona~l freestanding sign
display in lieu of the maximum allowed freestanding signs
per Ord. 348.
Richard Ayala
Continue Off Calendar
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Plot Plan No. 233
Bernard Karcher/BKL, Inc.
Rancho California Road and Margarita Road.
Construction of a new fast food restaurant.
Richard Ayala
Approve
m
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Plot Plan No. 230
Paragon Steak House Restaurants, Inc.
27590 Jefferson Avenue
Construction of a new "Hungry Hunter" Restaurant.
Richard Ayala
Approve
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Change of Zone 14 Tentative Parcel Map No. 26845,
James Meyler
Northeast corner of Ynez and Santiago Roads.
Change of Zone from R-A 2 1/2 to R-A 1/2 and subdivide
3.68 acres into 4 residential lots.
Mark Rhoades
Recommendation: Recommend Approval
10.
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Television/Radio Antenna Ordinance
City of Temecula
City Wide
An Ordinance establishing regulations for
Television/Radio Antennas
Oliver Mujica
Continue to 9/16/91
11.
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Parcel Map No. 25059 Minor Change No. 1
Preferred Equities
Ridge Park Drive, south west side approximately 70 feet
east of its intersection with Rancho California Road.
Modify or delete inappropriate engineering conditions.
Steve Jiannino
Continue to 9/16/91
12.
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
DIRECTIONAL SIGN ORDINANCE
City of Temecula
City Wide
Ordinance Establishing Regulations for Directional Signs.
Oliver Mujica
Continue to 9/16/91.
13.
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Change of Zone No. 17 and First Extension of Time Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 23125
Sterling Builders
Northeast Corner of DePortola and Butterfield Stage Road
Change the zoning on 88.4 acres from R-A-2-1/2 to R-1
and R-5; and subdivide 88.4 acres into 215 single family
residential lots.
Richard Ayala
Continue to 9/16/91
Planning Director Report
Planning Commission Discussion
Other Business
ADJOURNMENT
Next meeting: September 16, 1991, 6:00 p.m., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira
Loma Drive, Temecula, California
SJ/Ib
pc/AgnS/19
ITEM #2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 5, 1991
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order
Monday, August 5, 6:00 P.M., at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive,
Temecula. The meeting was called to order by Chairman John Hoagland.
PRESENT: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Hoagland, Chiniaeff
ABSENT:
0 COMMISSIONERS: None
Also present were Planning Director Gary Thornhill, Terry Kaufmann for Assistant City
Attorney John Cavanaugh, Deputy City Engineer Doug Stewart, Robert Righetti
Department of Public Works, Gary King, Park Development Coordinator, and
Linda Beaudoin, Administrative Secretary.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. ADDroyal of Agenda
Gary Thornhill advised that Items No. 's 5, 7, and 17 would be continued until
8/19/91 meeting. Item No. 6 continued off calendar.
Commissioner Hoagland informed Public that there was a request to continue
· Items 5,7, and 17 to 8/19/91 and Item No. 6 off calendar and asked if anyone
wanted to comment on these item. There was no response from audience.
It was moved by Commissioner Blair seconded by Commissioner Ford to
approve agenda and continue items 5, 7, 17, and 6.
Steve Jiannino brought up the fact the 2nd of September was a holiday and
asked the Commission on their feelings of rescheduling to another date.
Commissioner Fahey and Blair indicated they would be unable to attend.
Commissioner Blair asked Gary Thornhill how full he thought the schedule was
and he said he thought they could shift cases to allow one meeting in
September.
It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Fahey
to have one meeting September 16, 1991. The motion was unanimously
carried.
MinUtes
2.1
Approval of minutes of July 1, 1991 Planning Commission Meeting.
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey seconded by Commissioner
Chiniaeff to approve minutes. The motion was
unanimously carried.
2.3
Approval of minutes of July 15, 1991 Planning Commission Meeting.
It was moved by Commissioner Ford seconded by Commissioner Blair to
approve minutes as corrected. The motion was unanimously carried.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
3. PLOT PLAN NO. 226 (PP226)
Proposal to construct a commercial retail complex of 3 structures totaling
27,150 +/- square feet on 2.5 +/- Acre site.
Steve Jiannino provided the staff report. He commented that DRC committee
approved projects with a change to Condition #12, before next to last sentence
add "including slopes maintained to the satisfaction of Planning Director."
Chairman Hoagland opened the public hearing at 6:45 PM.
Bob Righetti, Engineering Department addressed grading issues, including I to
I slopes, drainage and slope stability. Engineering has met with project
engineer and they are satisfied stability and drainage issues have been solved.
Commissioner Chiniaeff discussed I to I slope stability concerns, and proper
landscaping. Would like more trees on around backside of project.
Bob Righetti said stones were for erosion control and said there was an
agreement between Mesa Homes and Sam McCann to work out issues before
rainy season and there would be no open pipe by October, 1991.
Commissioner Ford asked if any off site improvements were needed.
Bob Righetti said no, none.
Ib/PCMin1080591 2
Commissioner Fahey, Commissioner Chiniaeff and Commissioner Ford met
with applicant to discuss changes for increased stability and landscaping.
Keith L. McCann, Jr. 43121 Margarita, Temecula
representing applicant presented picture of a Mirafled slope (fabric)
to Commission and introduced his engineer to answer questions the Planning
Commissioners might have.
Tod Brenner 4685 McArthur Ct, Newport Beach, representing applicant gave
report on storm drains, stones etc.
Chairman Hoagland closed public comment at 6:55 PM.
Commissioner Chiniaeff still expressed concerns for more trees and the I to 1
slopes.
Commissioner Fahey asked Gary Thornhill if the project could be conditioned
for trees and shrubs.
Gary Thornhill said it could be conditioned prior to issuance of building permits.
Commissioner Ford would like trees at base of slope and applicant was directed
to work with staff on the landscaping concerns and modify Condition #11 to
add sentence "landscaping plans shall include enhancement along the base and
top of slopes for increased screening."
Commission Ford made a motion seconded by Commissioner Fahey to:
3.1 Close public hearing
3.2 Adopt a negative declaration for Plot Plan 226; and
· 3.3 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 91-71
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 MARGARITA AND
PAUBA ROADS AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NO. 945-110-003.
Ib/PCMin/O80591 3
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 15/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 26488
Zone change from R-A 2-1/2 (Residential-Agricultural 1-1/2 acre minimum parcel
size) to R-1-1 (Single Family Residential, I acre minimum parcel size) and
subdivisions of 4.5 +/- acres into 4 parcels. Project is located Southeasterly
corner of Walcott Lane and Calle Chapos.
Commission Chiniaeff indicated a conflict of interest and left the panel
6:59.
The staff report was presented by Steve Jiannino, recommended approval.
Commissioner Hoagland questioned changing to one acre parcels in a 2-1/2 acre
area. Steve Jiannino informed the Commission that the zoning is
consistent with SWAP.
Chairman Hoagland opened public hearing at 7:00.
Applicant Jay Vanderwal, Costa Mesa, said he will provide all weather access
said he would add homes only, as a condition if commission desired.
Nelson Bentoncourt,40835 Calla Medusa, Temecula spoke in favor of the
project because Calle Chapos was being paved.
Commissioner Ford asked if homes only, no mobiles could be added to
conditions. Gary Thornhill advised it could be in CC&R's only.
Terry Kaufmann, representative, Assistant City Attorney, confirmed it was a
private matter, the City could not condition it.
It was motioned by Commissioner Fahey to close the Public Hearing at 7:10
and;
4.1
4.2
Adopt a negative declaration;
Adopt a resolution entitled:
Ib/PCMin/080591 4
RESOLUTION NO. 91-72
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CHANGE
OF ZONE NO. 15 CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-A-2 1/2
TO R-1-1 ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF WALCOTT LANE AND CALLE CHAPOS AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 914-300-049
4.3 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 91-73
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
PARCEL MAP NO. 26488 TO SUBDIVIDE A 4.5+/- ACRE
PARCEL INTO 4 ONE GROSS ACRE (MINIMUM)
RESIDENTIAL PARCELS; GENERAL LOCATION OF SAID
MAP BEING THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WALCOTT
LANE AND CALLE CHAPOS.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 3
NOES: 1
ABSTAIN: 1
5.
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey, Ford
COMMISSIONER:
Hoagland
COMMISSIONER:
Chiniaeff
TELEVISION/RADIO ANTENNA ORDINANCE
The proposal is to establish an ordinance for regulations for Television/Radio
Antennas.
Oliver Mujica requested to continue item until 8/19/91.
5ol
Chairman Hoagland opened the public comment at 7:14. There were no
speakers in favor or opposition.
Chairman Hoagland closed public comment at 7:15.
It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner
Ford to continue the public hearing to the meeting of August 19, 1991.
The motion was unanimously carried.
Ib~CMin/080591 5
TEMPORARY OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES ORDINANCE
The proposal is to establish an ordinance for the regulations of Temporary
Outdoor Activities.
Oliver Mujica requested to continue item off calendar.
6.1 Chairman Hoagland opened the public comment at 7:17. There were no
speakers in favor or opposition.
Chairman Hoagland closed public comment at 7:18.
It was moved by Commissioner Ford, seconded by Commissioner Blair
to continue the item off calendar and renotice.
The motion was unanimously carried.
PARCEL MAP NO. 25059, MINOR CHANGE NO. 1
Proposal is to modify or delete inappropriate engineering conditions.
Project is located on Ridge Park Drive, south west side approximately 70 feet
east of its intersection with Rancho California road.
Steve Jiannino asked to continue item until 8/19/91.
7.1 Chairman Hoagland opened the public comment at 7:20. There were no
speakers in favor or opposition.
Chairman Hoagland closed public comment at 7:21.
It was moved by Commissioner Blair, seconded by Commissioner Fahey
to continue the public hearing to the meeting of August 19, 1991.
The motion was unanimously carried.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2846, REVISED
Proposal is to request renewal of a Conditional Use Permit to operate an auto
towing and wrecking service. The project is locate at 41910 "C" Street,
Temecula.
The staff report was given by Steve Jiannino.
Chairman Hoagland opened the public comment at 7:25.
Ib/PCMin1080591 6
Frank Slaughter, Temecula Auto Wrecking and Towing, applicant informed
Commission that he had been in business 31 years, was the second oldest
business in Temecula being the continuous owner. He stated he has screening
around his yard and is a very necessary business to the community.
Graham Krause, 32490 Holland, Winchester spoke in favor of project.
Chairman Hoagland asked for opposition there was none and he closed the
public hearing at 7:35.
Commissioner Chiniaeff made a motion seconded by Commissioner Fahey to:
8.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 91-74
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 2846 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.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES:
5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 3
Proposal to operate a church and related facilities on week nights and
weekends at an existing commercial complex. Project is located at 41743
Enterprise Circle North.
Staff report was given by Steve Jiannino.
Chairman Hoagland opened public comment at 7:45.
Sandra Finn, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester Road, Temecula,
representative expressed the applicant's concurrence with the staff report.
Commissioner Hoagland asked for opposition being none he closed the public
hearing at 7:50.
ib/PCMin/080591 7
It was move by Commissioner Blair, seconded by Commissioner Fahey to:
9.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 91-75
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OFTEMECULA APPROVING PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO.
3 TO PERMIT OPERATION OF A CHURCH AND RELATED
USES LOCATED AT 41743 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE NORTH,
SUITES A101 AND A102.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES
5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Fahey, Chiniaeff, Hoagland
NOES: 0 None
10.
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 18; AND SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219,
AMENDMENT NO. 2
Proposal is to amend the boundary of the Paloma Del Sol (formerly the
Meadows) Specific Plan to include planning area No. 36. The project is located
at the southeast corner of Margarita Road and DePortola Road.
Oliver Mujica provided staff report and reported it was consistent with the
Meadow Specific Plan and felt it would maintain the continuity of the specific
plan.
Chairman Hoagland opened the public comment at 8:00
Keith L. McCann, Jr., agent for owner gave a summary of reasons he felt that
this property should be zoned commercial, he stated that 35 acres around it
were commercial and this home backs up to that commercial. He stated that
the owner received 8 letter from Los Ranchitos Homeowner's Association
several years ago stating this property was not in the Association.
Mr. Donald Rohrobacker, 44281 Flowers Drive, President Los Ranchitos
Homeowner's Association. Mr. Rohrobacker stated that this property was in
the association and that they were very opposed to any zone change. He
stated that they do not want to set precedent. He also wanted the
Homeowner's Association notified of all hearings. He gave the address of the
Homeowner's Association as: P. O. Box 471, Temecula, California 92593.
Ib/PCMin/080591 8
Commissioner Chiniaeff was concerned about amount of Commercial in that
area.
Commissioner Blair was concerned about type of business that would be
allowed.
Chairman Hoagland asked if owner opposed Specific Plan 219, Mr. McCann
answered no.
Hermon Thorne, 30851 DePortola Rd., Temecula stated that this property is on
lot 25, he lives on lot 32 felt CC&R's governed and that they should be
followed as 2-1/2 acres single family residence. An approval of a
change would require by 51% of owners to approve. He felt that there was
enough commercial in neighborhood.
Rebecca Weersing, 41775 Yorba Avenue, Los Ranchitos, opposed to violation
of CC&R's, should be kept rural.
Gary Thornhill stated that the Specific Plan designation rules apply to any
development on that property and the City can extend boundaries.
Chairman Hoagland asked city attorney if CC&R's vehicle attach to the land?
Terry Kaufmann, representative, city attorney, stated that CC&R's are with
property owners. Any problem is not problem with the City, but between
homeowners and should not affect commission decisions,
Commissioner Fshey made a motion to continue item until homeowner's issue
is researched and documents produced if property is in association or not.
Commissioner Blair seconded the motion. Commissioner Ford wanted record
to reflect homeowner's conflict.
Commissioner Chiniaeff felt issue should be reviewed by land use designation
and if it was appropriate zoning, commission should not be concerned with civil
matters.
Commissioner Hoagland restated motion to continue item off calendar to
renotice item, notify Los Ranchitos Homeowner's Association and have staff
research if property was in Los Ranchitos Homeowner's association.
Ib/PCMin/Oa0591 9
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, Ford
NOES 1 COMMISSIONER: Chiniaeff
11.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 24172
Proposal is to subdivide 5 acres into 8 residential lots on the Eastside of Ynez
Road between Pauba Road and Santiago Road.
Oliver Mujica gave an overview of the project and recommended approval as
it was consistent with SWAP.
Commissioner Fahey raised concerns about drainage.
Commissioner Chiniaeff and Ford raised concern about an earthquake fault in
the area and if trenching was done.
Doug Stewart said Condition//41 could be changed to ask for a Geologist
report prior to recordation of map.
Bob Righetti answered questions of 10 ft. right of way on No. side of "A"
St. informing it would be maintained after original planting by developer by
TCSD.
Chairman Hoagland opened Public Comment at 8:25.
Mike Lanni, 1907 Yachttruant, Newport Beach, applicant stated that there had
been trenching for an earthquake fault previously and that it was cleared by the
County Geologist, Steve Kupferman, after he inspected the trenches and found
no fault.
Chairman Hoagland asked if anyone else wanted to apeak on this item and
seeing none the public comment was closed at 8:30.
'Commissioner Ford asked staff to address drainage and street lights.
Bob Righetti said that there was not drainage across property it was surface
drainage only and there was no substantial increase. Street lights would be in
compliance with Ord. 460.
Commissioner Chiniaeff would like staff to look at Geo. Report.
Gary Thornhill said a condition would be added to have a Geo. Report
before final map recordation.
IbmCMin1080591 10
Commissioner Blair made a motion seconded by Commissioner Ford to:
11.1 Close the public hearing.
11.2 Adopt a negative declaration for Tentative Parcel Map 27018
11.3 Adopt a resolution entitled:
With a change to Condition #41.
RESOLUTION NO. 91-76
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.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES
5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland
NOES 0 NONE
12. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 27018
Proposal: Subdivision of 7.7+/- acres into 3 parcels averaging 2.5+ acres.
Southeasterly of Santiago and Ynez.
Oliver Mujica provide the staff report and recommended approval being
consistent with SWAP guideline and zoning. It has been conditioned that prior
to recordation a Geotechnical report is required.
Chairman Hoagland opened public hearing at 8:45
Tim Holt, Architect for Applicant, 275 N. El Cielo, Palm Springs, Ca.
representative for Lutheran Extension Fund, stated he concurs with staff
report. Wanted clarification of some items.
Mr. Pike, architect, 275 N. El Cielo, Palm Springs, Ca. stated he sent letter July
23 to Robert Righetti, Engineer, City of Temecula. Expressing his concerns
over some conditions and said he worked with staff to resolve them.
Ib/PCMin/080591 11
Donald Rohrobacker, 44281 Flowers Drive, Los Ranchitos Homeowner's
representative approves subdivision because 2-1/2 acre lots would be continuity
if they use as residential lots.
Ken Molnar, Minister New Community Lutheran, 31505 Ave Del Reposo,
Temecula, supports project approximately 50 people in audience stood at his
request in support.
Janice Duncan, 30890 White Rock Circle, Temecula, supports project needs
youth and teen progams.
Against Project:
Rebecca Weersing 41774 Yorba Ave., Temecula, in favor of 2-1/1 acres. Not
in favor of church, sidewalks incompatible with rural, trees would have to be
taken down.
Lennie Pechner 30092 Santiago Rd, across from Parcel 3. Signal 3 months old,
would be opposed to assessment district. No objection to split parcel into three
not rezoning property.
Gary Thornhill gave clarification that request is to subdivide only.
Sue Nemeyer, 29962 Santiago Rd., directly Across road. Is opposed to church.
Tim Holt rebutted rezoning. Public use at later time. He understands that at
this time it is just parcel split.
Commissioner Fahey said that there aren't any good standards for rural areas.
We should require road improvements consistent with rural area.
Commissioner Chiniaeff feels that this project is consistent with zoning
that the parcels are appropriate for this zoning. At future use further conditions
would be added,
Chairman Hoagland asked if churches are a permitted use in RA 2-1/2
Gary Thornhill replied that all churches must come in for review, CUP, PUP etc.
Commissioner Blair made a motion to close the public hearing at 8:55 seconded
by Commissioner Chiniaeff to'.
Ib/PCMin/Oe0591 12
12.1 Adopt a negative declaration for TPM 27018; and
12.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
Commissioner Hoagland asked the standard language be added, that the
conditions attached also be added to the motion. Commissioner Blair,
seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff amended the motion for that addition.
The motion was unanimously carried to adopt:
RESOLUTION NO. 91-77
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.
AYES 5 Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland
NOES 0 None
13
PLOT PLAN 235
Proposal is for a class II Dog Kennel, Cattery and Grooming Shop
Northside of Las Haciendas Street Between Front Street and Del Rio Road.
Commissioner Chiniaeff announced conflict and left stage at 9:00 due to
conflict of interest.
Oliver Mujica gave staff report and recommended approval of project.
Chairman Hoagland questioned what classified this as Class II,
Oliver answered the number of animals, and type of use over night
boarding etc.
Chairman Hoagland opened public comments at 9:10.
Carol Dittmer, 41395 Calle Toledo, Temecula, applicant
Fully concur with recommendations.
Jim Kennington, 4099 Citrus Drive Fallbrook, Owner of property
spoke in favor. They are existing tenants as dog grooming and
Ib/PCMin1080591 13
14
are moving to larger space in complex. No complaints.
Chairman Hoagland closed public comment at 9:15.
Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Ford, to adopt:
RESOLUTION NO. 91-78
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. 921-050-010o6.
AYES
4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland
ABSENT I COMMISSIONER: Chiniaeff
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25417
Proposal is to subdivide 41.2 acres into 6 multi-family residential lots and 2
open space parcels, within Planning Area No. 6 of the Meadows Specific Plan.
Northeast of Highway 79, and Margarita Road.
Oliver Mujica gave staff report and stated that the project is consistent with
planning area. He has received standard letter, from Bedford in opposition to
public facilities conditions.
Doug Stewart stated there was a typo error, written correction was handed to
commissioners on condition #69.
Commissioner Fahey questioned if there was adequate parks in the specific
plan.
Gary King, Community Services District, representative stated after reviewing
this project as SP and as an individual tract tonight they don't feel that it is
adequate. In item 14, Quimby regulations for the 59
units there should be 7.79 acres parkland, there is none dedicated.
If you look at the overall SP there is 72,57 acres required for Quimby and there
is only 15.4 acres proposed. This is a shortage of 57.1 acres overall.
They would prefer parkland would be set aside. This matter has been
discussed with attorneys and Bedford regarding parkland.
Ib/PCMin/080591 14
Commissioner Hoagland asked if they have made their demands known to
applicant?
Gary King responded that to his knowledge as far back as last November the
park issue was raised.
Commissioner Chiniaeff discussed reasons why this matter had not been settled
and asked why it wasn't settled before coming before the planning commission.
Chairman Hoagland opened the public hearing at 9:25.
Robert Kemble, Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates applicant
representative, Bedford Properties, stated these particular maps are part of an
overall Specific Plan, the Specific Plan does have a comprehensive recreation
and open space plan. The maps are consistent with the Sp and all they have
done is move parcels around. The maps been in the City for over a year and
the City has not asked for dedication of parkland on this map or the next two
coming up.
Commissioner Chiniaeff responded that bottom line, the three maps have a
park problem. Two residential one commercial, needs to go back to staff
to solve problem. Chairman Hoagland agreed the project needs to be
continued.
Commissioner Fahey suggested that all the matters that were of concern
should be discussed now. Mr. Kimble said Traffic Signals fees were a problem.
Chairman Hoagland closed the public hearing at 9:45.
Commissioner Chiniaeff made a motion seconded by Commissioner Ford to
continue the project until September 16 meeting and to direct staff to work
with TCSD and applicant to come to an agreement regarding Signalization and
Parkland dedication.
The motion was approved unanimously the vote was:
AYES
5 COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Chiniaeff, Blair, Fahey, Hoagland
NOES 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
tb/PCMin/OSO591 15
15.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24183
Proposal is to subdivide 48.8 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, located North of Highway 79 between Margarita and
Butterfield Stage Road.
Oliver Mujia gave staff report.
Chairman Hoagland opened public hearing at 9:50 and made a motion to
continue the item until September 16 meeting. Commissioner Fahey so moved,
seconded by Commissioner Blair.
Commissioner Chiniaeff requested clarification that the same problems exist.
Gary King said they are dedicating 2.2 acre park they are dedicating a
1.6 acre park in this tract, we feel that we would accept this 1.6 acres the
addition shortfall .4 acres would be the in lieu fee. Tract is not a
problem.
Robert Kemble, representing applicant. Comments remain the same as previous
project. They are disappointed, but will accepts staff continuance. Traffic
signals are also a problem.
Commissioner Fahey withdrew motion, seconded person Commissioner Blair
withdrew motion.
Doug Stewart gave corrections to Condition #77.
Robert Kemble gave two oppositions:
1. Public facilities opposition letter.
2. Requires Traffic Signal in addition to mitigation fees. #77 and condition
#48. Feel they are burdened twice.
Doug Stewart informed commission that this is a long standing discussion
8 or 9 months, Condition #48 is standard condition of approval of traffic signal
mitigation, He gave the commissioners a definition of offsite regional impact
fees: Fee are put into a pot for entire region and mitigation fees are collected.
There happens to be adjacent to this tract a regional signal that Traffic
Mitigation fees may be used for, however, other off site regional impacts are
generated by this development. All these fees are put into a pot and
administered by the City for regional signals, defined primarily as intersections
of circulation element streets. All these monies collected are used for signals
that benefit everyone. In this case the signals in condition No.77 the demand
is only generated by the approval of this project and only benefits this
development.
Ib/PCMin/O80591 18
16.
Commissioners, Fahey, Blair, and Hoagland, and Chiniaeff still have concerns
over parklands. Better to error on conservatism, need to figure how to obtain
parkland dedication.
Doug Stewart announced this signal mitigation is the consistent way the fees
are currently being administered.
A motion was made to close public hearing at 10:00 and continue the item
No. 15 by Commissioner Chiniaeff seconded by Commissioner Ford to continue
item to September 16, with no renotice because Parks and Signal fees need to
be resolved in their point of view. Motion to continue was unanimous.
AYES
5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Hoagland, Chiniaeff, Fahey Ford
NOES 0 none
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 25418
Proposal to subdivide 36.4 acres into 5 commercial lots and 9 open space
parcels, within Planning Area No. 1 of the Meadows Specific Plan, No. 219
located Northeast of Highway 79, and Margarita Road.
Oliver Mujica gave staff report. He noted that items has been conditioned to
come back with plot plan application when each site is going to be developed.
Condition #24 deleted commercial cannot be conditioned with Quimby fees.
Chairman Hoagland opened public comment at 10:05.
Commissioner 'Fahey supports the applicant as far as parkland.
Oliver Mujica stated standard opposition letter for public facilities fee and
engineering made change to condition 75.
Gary Thornhill gave his opinion that you have to look at this as an integrated
development. If it is appropriate location? How large how may sites, this is
what to look at. There are negotiations ongoing in regard to a standstill
agreement (Quimby fees deferred to 50 Units). Need to discuss with Scott
Field as any decisions made could ultimately effect anything that comes
afterward or has the potential. We have to clarify that and bring back a report
next time.
Commissioner Chiniaeff felt this project should not be continued.
Robert Kemble, applicant representative, concurs with staff findings.
Ib/PCMin/080591 17
Commissioner Blair felt we could not decide until clarification of parklands.
Commissioner Chiniaeff made a motion seconded by Commissioner Ford to
close the public hearing at 10:10 and to recommend adoption of Negative
Declaration and recommend approval of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No.
25418 subject to conditions as modified and adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 91-79
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 25418 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.
AYES
4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff
NOES
1 COMMISSIONER: Blair
17.
Variance No. 6
Proposal is a variance in order to allow an additional freestanding sign display
in lieu of the maximum allowed freestanding signs per Ord. 348.
Chairman Hoagland opened the public comment at 10:13 and entertained a
motion to continue the item until August 19, 1991 meeting.
Commissioner Chiniaeff made a motion to close the public hearing at 10:15 and
continue the item until August 19, the motion was seconded by Commissioner
Blair.
The motion was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Hoagland asked for Planning Director's report.
PLANNING DIRECTORS REPORT
Gary Thornhill informed the commissioners of General Plan neighborhood
meeting dates, and informed them they advertised the workshop dates in the
local paper.
IbmCMin/O80591 18
He informed them that two Senior Planners had been offered employment and
would start on August 12, 1991. He also filled 2 clerical staff positions and
one planning technician position. He would be advertising for two assistant
planner positions and 1 assistant planner position in the near future.
Commission Hoagland asked if other members of City Commissions would be
included in the General Plan process.
Gary Thornhill informed him that there will be 5 technical subcommittees
comprised of at least one Commission member.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Fahey made a motion to adjourn meeting at 10:20 and the
motion was seconded by Commissioner Blair.
The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning commission will be held
Monday, August 19, 1991, 6:00 P.M. at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma
Drive, Temecula.
Chairman John Hoagland
Secretary Gary Thornhill
Ib/PCMin/080591 19
ITEM #3
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Planning Commission
Gary L. King, Development Administrator
Temecula Community Services District (TCSD)
August 19, 1991
QUIMBY ACT PRESENTATION
Enclosed I have prepared a summary of Ordinance No. 460 (Quimby) to assist in
presenting the TCSD Park and Recreation Fees and Dedication Process.
Also, I have included a copy of the existing Quimby Act Ordinance in its entirety.
The intent of the presentation is to familiarize this commission and the public with the
process followed when conditioning subdivisions for required park land and payment
of in lieu fees.
Upon completion of the presentation I will make myself available for questions.
Thank you.
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 460 ((:ZUIMBY)
PARK AND RECREATION FEES AND DEDICATIONS
As a condition of approval of a tentative map or parcel map proposed to be divided
for residential use, the dedication of land or the payment of fees in lieu of land for
park and recreation facilities shall be required.
Five acres of land for each 1,000 persons residing within the City of
Temecula shall be devoted to neighborhood and community park and
recreational facilities.
2, Commercial or Industrial subdivisions are exempt.
Applicant shall submit to the Planning Director in writing a statement
whether he intends to dedicate land, pay fees in lieu of land, or a
combination of both,
a.)
If the intent is to dedicate land, applicant shall first consult with
the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) as to the
appropriate area to be dedicated, and the area to be dedicated
shall be shown on the tentative tract map as submitted.
b.)
If the intent is to pay fees, the condition of approval shall require
that the fees are to be paid to the TCSD at such time as is agreed
upon by the subdivider and TCSD through the conditions of
approval.
Payment of fees shall be prior to recordation of the final map. However,
the payment of the fees may be deferred to the date of the issuance of
building permits, or the date of final inspection or the date the certificate
of occupancy is issued, whichever occurs last.
In determining the amount of land to be dedicated or fees paid the
number of dwelling units of the subdivision is multiplied by the number
of persons per unit by the ratio of the number of acres of park land
required for each 1,000 persons (i.e., .005).
Example:
77 units proposed
2.59 persons per dwelling unit
Five acres per 1,000 persons required
.005 x 2.59 = .01295 x 77 = I (.997) acre
6. Whenever land is dedicated, the subdivider shall, without credit, provide the
following for the benefit of the land dedicated:
Full street improvements and utility connections.
Fencing along the property lines of the subdivision which are
contiguous to the park.
Improve the drainage through the park site.
Provide minimal physical improvements.
Provide access from the park and recreational facilities to an
existing or proposed public street.
Grading and drainage improvements in addition to those grading,
drainage, irrigation and planting improvements required under
other City ordinances,
None of the above required improvements shall be eligible for a
credit against the land to be dedicated or fees paid under the
provisions of the ordinance.
Whenever a fee is to be paid in lieu of the dedication of land, the
following provisions shall apply:
The fee shall be based either on the fair market value of the land
which would otherwise be required or on a fixed in-lieu fee rate.
The fair market value shall be based on the zoning of the property
at the time the final map is recorded and the value of the land as
an improved and developed subdivision, not as raw acreage.
If an agreement on the fair market value cannot be reached, the
subdivider may, at his own expense, obtain an appraisal of the
property.
If the City does not except the subdivider's appraisal, the fair
market value shall be determined by a current appraisal of the
improved value of the subdivision by the Office of the County of
Riverside Assessor.
The Assessor's appraisal shall be final.
All fees paid may be used only for the purpose of developing new
or rehabilitating existing park or recreational facilities. This in
includes the acquisition of land for neighborhood or community
parks.
8. The subdivider may receive a credit against fees as follows:
A credit may be given where private areas for park and
recreational purposes are provided in a subdivision and such area
is for active recreational uses.
Such areas may be credited against up to 50 percent of the
requirement of land dedication or fees if it is determined that it is
in the public interest to do so,
10.
Active recreational uses do not include natural open space, natural
study areas, open space for buffer areas, steep slopes, riding and
hiking trails, scenic overlooks, water courses, drainage areas or
water bodies.
A private open space credit up to 100 percent of the requirement
of land dedication or fees payment may be granted if the
subdivider, the TCSD, and the City agree,
Land which has been dedicated and accepted may be sold by the TCSD
if the subdivider has not begun substantial construction on the
subdivision and the City and the TCSD both determine that another site
would be more suitable for local park or recreational facilities.
An annual report shall be maintained by the TCSD of land that has been
dedicated or payment of fees have been received.
ORDINANCE NO. 460
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR DEDICATION OF LAND,
PAYMENT OF FEES, OR BOTH, FOR PARK AND RECREATIONAL LAND
IN SUBDIVISIONS, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66477.
SECTION 10.35. PARK AND RECREATION FEES AND DEDICATIONS.
Thts"sectton ts adopted pursuant to Sectton 66477 of the Goverment Code
whtch provtdes for the dedication of land or the pa)~ent of fees tn lieu
thereof for park and recreational facilities as a condition of approval of
a tentatlve map or parcel map.
lihenever land that ts proposed to be dtvtded for residential use 11as
wlthtn the boundaries of a publlc agency designated to ~ecetve dedications
and fees pursuant to thts sectton, a fee and/or the dedication of land
shall be requtred as a contrition of approve1 of the dtvtston of land.
85
Zt ts hereby found and determined by the Board of Supervisors that the
public interest, convenience, health, welfare. and safety requires that
three acres of land for each %.000 persons restdtng ~thin the County of
Riverside sha}l be devoted to neighborhood and c~mnunity park and
recreational facilities unless a C~,.,untty Parks and Recreation Plan, as
approved by the Board of ~pervtsors. determines that the mount of
exlsttng neighborhood and cenmuntty park a~ea exceeds that ltmtt, In which
case the Board datemines that the publlc interest, convenience, health,
welfare and safety requtres that a htgher standard, not to exceed five
acres of land per 1,000 persons restdtng ~thln the County, shall be
devoted to neighborhood and C~.,.,,dntt,y park and residential purposes.
D. Definitions.
· Community Area" shall wean the bounder1
provides park and recreational services,
the public agency.
of the public agency which
~less othervrlse deftned by
"Community Parks and Recreation Plan" shall wean a general plan for
park and recreational facilities prepared by a publlc agency for a
C~,m,Unity area, which describes current and planned facilities and
servl ces.
"D~elltng Unit" shall wean a building or mobilehome designed for
residential occupancy. For the purposes of this section, the rimbar of
dwelltng untts created by a land dtvtston shall be as follows: one
dwelling unit per lot created tn a stngle-fmtly residential zone, one
dwelling per untt approved In a multt-fmtly residential zone; and
where the nmber of units to be butlt In a multl-fmtly restdentlal
zone Is unknown, the maxlmum nanbar of d~elltng untts allowed under
that zone. For a condantni~n project, the nomber of dwelltrig units
created shall be the rimbar of cond~mtnlum untts approved.
"Park" shall mean a parcel or parcels of land, excluslve of natural
open space, which ts open and available for use by the general publlc
and whtch serves the recreational needs of the publlc.
· Public Agency" shall mean a publlc entity whtch provtdes neighborhood
or community park, or recreational facl'ltttes and services wtthtn a
camnuntty area, including but not 11mtted to park and recreathn
districts, county service areas, and the County of Riverside,
E. Exeptions. This section shall not apply to the folioring land ~vtsions:
1. Cooinertial or Industrial,
Condomtntum projects or stock cooperatives ~htch consists of the
subdivision atrspace tn an extsttng apar~nent butldlng whtch Is more
than five years old and no new dwelltng untts area added.
86
Subdivisions containing less than five parcels and not used for
residential purposes: provided, however, that a condition of approval
shall be placed on those maps that if a building permit is requested
for the construction of a residential structure or structures on one or
more of the parcels within four years the fee may be required to be
paid by the owner of each parcel as a condition to issuance of such
permit.
F. Dedication Requirenents of Subdividers.
Whenever a tentative tract map which is subject to the provisions of
this section is submitted to the Planning Director, it shall be
accompanied by a written statement from the applicant stating whether
he intends to dedicate land, pay fees in lieu thereof, or a combination
of both for park and recreational purposes. If the developer desires
to dedicate land for this purpose, he shall first consult with the
County and public agency as to the appropriate area to be dedicated,
and such area shall be shown on the tentative tract map as submitted.
The conditions of approval of a tentative tract map subject to the
provisions of this section shall require the dedication of land, the
payment of fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of beth for park and
recreational purposes. If the land is to be dedicated, the proposed
dedication shall be shown on the approved tentative map. If fees are
to be paid, the condition of approval shall require that the fees be
paid to the public agency which provides the park and recreational
services for the community area.
3. The mount and location of property to be dedicated and the anount of
any fees to be paid shall be as approved by the County. If the park
and recreational services are provided by a public agency other than
the County, the appropriate dedication of land and payment of fees
shall be as determined by the County and the other public agency. If
the County and the public agency are unable to agree on the appropriate
dedication, the final decision shall be made by the Board of
Su pervi so rs.
(
4. Whenever subsequent development occurs on property for wh'ich fees have
been paid or land dedicated, no additional fees or dedications shall be
required except as to any additional lots or dwelling units which were
not subject to a prior fee or dedication requirement.
All dedications of land shall be in accordance with the Subdivision Map
Act. Land shall be conveyed in fee simple to the public agency free
and clear of all encmnbrances except those which will not interfere
with the use of the property for its intended purposes and which the
public agency agrees to accept. All deeds shall be delivered to the
public agency before the approval of the final map. If the final map
is disapproved, or if it is withdrawn by the subdivider, the deeds
shall be returned to the subdivider. If the final map is approved, the
deeds shall be recorded by the public agency at the time the final map
is recorded. No deed for dedication of land shall be accepted unless
87
It Is accempanted by a poltcy of tttle Insurance, secured by the
subdivider, tn an amount equal to the value of the land dedicated.
Whenever fees are to be paid, the fees shall be paid at such time as Is
agreed upon by the subdivider and the publtc agency through the
conditions of approval. Pa3ment may be required prior to recorderion
of the ftnal map tf the fees are to reimburse the INbltc agency for
expenditures prerlously made, or tf the publlc agency datemines that
the fees wtq. 1 be collected for park and recreation facilities for whtch
an account has been established and funds appropriated and for which
the INbllC agency has adopted a proposed construction schedule or plan.
Pa3~ent may be deferred to the date of the issuance of building
pemtts, or the date of final Inspection or the date the certificate of
occupancy Is tssued, whichever occurs last. Zf the paj~ent of fees is
deferred, the publlc agency may datemine whether the fees shall be
patd on a pro rata basis for each dvelltng unit when It receives tts
final Inspection or certificate of occupancy, on a pro rata basis when
certatn percentages of the o~velltng units have received their ftnal
inspections or certificates of occupancy, or on a limp-sum basis when
the last dwelltrig in the development recetves its final Inspection or
certificate of occupancy.
Whenever land has been conveyed or fees patd to the public agency and a
ftnal map Is never recorded or, If recorded, ts reverted to acreage,
the publlc agency shall, at tts option, etther reconvey all land
dedicated to it, repay all fees paid ~tthout Interest, allow the
developer a credtt for any land dedicated or fees patd to be applied
only to a new subdivision on the same property, or make other
arrangements ~ th the subdt vtder.
G. Adoptton of a C~.,.,,untty Parks and Recreation Plan.
The Board of Supervisors shell by resolution designate those publlc
agencies whtch may racelye dedications and fees pursuant to thts
section.
Each publlc agency whtch provtdes park and recreational servtces on a
c~mmunity-wtde level and which ts authorized to receive land
dedications and the pa)qnent of fees pursuant to this section, must
prepare and adopt a Cenmuntty Parks and Recreation Plan. The Plan
shall be used to plan and direct park and recreation servtces ~tthln
the c~ahunity area served by the publlc agency.
3. Whenever a publlc a ency has adopted a Ceamunfty Parks and Recreation
Plan, the Plan shal~ be submitted to the Board of Supervisors for
revtev and approval. Wlthtn 30 days of recetpt of the Plan the Board
shall set the matter for heartrig and shall thereafter approve,
disapprove or modtfy the Plan by resolution.
88
A previously approved Plan may be mended by the public agency at any
time to reflect the needs of the C~,m,,unity area. A proposed ~nendment
to an approved Plan shall be processed in the same manner as the
adoption of the original Plan, and the amendment shall not become
effective until approved by the Board by resolution.
If a public agency fails to adopt a C4~muntty Parks and Recreation Plan
within one year of the date that the public agency is designated by the
Board of Supervisors to receive dedications and fees pursuant to this
section, all lands which have been dedicated and all fees which have
been paid to the public agency end accepted by it pursuant
to this section for that c~,m,,untty area shall be reconveyed to the
subdivlder, and no further dedications of land or paJenent of fees shall
be required as a condition of approval for land divisions within that
cormunity area until e Cemnunity Parks and Recreation Plan is adopted
by the Board of Supervisors. In addition, any requirements for the
dedication of land or the payment of fees which come due prior to the
approval of the Plan by the Board of Supervisors shall be waived and
may not be accepted by the public agency·
H. Contents of a Community Parks and Recreation Plan·
A community Parks and Recreation Plan shall contain the following
provisions:
A statement of the goals, poltctes, programs and proposed location and
development of recreation facilities and services such as natural
reservations, parks, parkways, beaches, playgrounds, recreational
coffm~unity gardens, and other recreational areas.
A statement of the average nmber of persons per household in the
c~,~,unity area· Unless a different nmber is set forth in the
Community Parks and Recreation Plan, the average rimbar of persons per
unit shall be as follows:
a. Single Family Dwelling Unit (Detached Garage): 2.98 persons per
dwelling unit.
b. Single Family I)welltng Unit (Attached Garage): 2.59 persons per
dwelling unit.
c. Two dwelling untts per structure: 2.64 persons per dwelling unit.
d. Three or four dwelling units per structure: 2.48 persons per
dwelling unit.
e. Five or more dwelling units per structure: 2.34 persons per
dwelling unit·
B9
f. Hobllehomes: 2.72 persons per dwelling unit.
A statement of the standards to be used to determine the proportion of
a subdivision to be dedicated for park and recreation purposes or the
mount of fees to be paid in lieu thereof·
4. Specific policies and standards for the development, maintenance and
operation of the parks and recreation facilities·
5. Spectftc policies, standards end tnfomatton for the establls)ent, use
and credit for in-lieu fees.
Determination of Land Dedication and Payment of Fees. Whether the
condittons of approval for a land di vision shall require the dedication of
land, the payment of fees, or beth, shall be based on the following:
The natural features of the area, avail able access, the location, size
and shape of the subdivision, the land available for dedication, the
feasibility of dedication, the location of existing and proposed park
sites and trailways. and the compatibility of dedication with the
County Comprehensive General Plan.
For subdivisions containing 50 parcels or less only the pa)ment of fees
may be required: provided, however, that when a condominium project,
stock cooperative or careunity apar)ent project exceeds 50 dwelling
units, the dedication of land may be required even though the n~nber of
parcels may be less than 50. Nothing herein shall prevent a public
agency fr~n accepting the voluntary dedication of land by a subdivider
for a subdivision containing less than SO parcels if the dedication
meets the other requirements of this section.
Whenever the actual amount of land to be dedicated is less than the
amount of land required to he dedicated, the subdivider shall pay fees
for the value of any additional land that othenvtse weul d have been
required to be dedicated.
Whenever a park or recreational facility is to be located in whole or
in part within the proposed subdivision, the land dedicated shall bear
a reasonable relationship to the use of the park and recreational
facilities by the future inhabitants of the subdivision.
The mount of land to be dedicated or fees paid shall be based on the
residanttal density of the subdivision, The residential density shall
be determined by multiplying the nomber of dwelling units of the
subdivision by the nmber of persons per unit by the ratio of the
nmber of acres of park land required for each 1,000 persons (t,e,,
,003 to.,O05),
6. Whenever land is dedicated, the subdivider shall, without credit,
provide the following for the benefit of the land dedicated:
a. Full street improvements and utility connections including, but not
limited to, curbs, gutters, reIDcat·on of existing public utility
9O
factlttfes, street paving, traffic control devices, street trees,
and sidewalks to the dedicated land,
b. Fenctng along the property 1tries of the subdtvtslon which are
contiguous to the park.
Improve the drainage through the park stte.
Provide mtntmal physical Improvements, not Including recreattona]
facilities, building, or equipment, ~htch the County and the public
agency detemtne are necessary for acceptance of the land for park
and recreational purposes.
Provtde access from the park and recreational facilities to an
exlsttng or proposed publtc street, unless the County and the
public agency both detemtne that such access ts unnecessary for
maintenance of the park area or use of the park by the resldents of
the area,
Grad1 ng and drainage Improvements in add1 tton to those gradtng,
drainage, irrigation and planttng improvements required under other
County ordtnances. All land to be dedicated and tmprovenents to be
made should he approved by the public agency providing the park and
recreation servtces for the community area prior to the approval or
disapproval of a subdtHslon by the Land Development Committee.
All gradtng plans for land to be dedicated shall de revte~ed and
approved by the publlc agency for conromance wrath the C~mmunity
Parks and Recreation Plan and the needs of the publlc agency,
No grading, drainage, irrigation, planting, street or uttltty
improvements requtred under this section shall he eltgible for a
credit against the land to he dedicated or fees paid under the
provisions of this ordinance.
Whenever a fee is to be paid tn lteu of the dedication of land, the
following provisions shall apply:
The fee shall be based either on the fair market value of the land
which would otherwise be required or on a fixed tn-11eu fee rate
set forth tn the approved Plan, Zf no fixed tn-ltou fee rate has
been established, the fee shall be datemined by multiplying the
nmber of acres of land requtred to be dedicated pursuant to thts
sectton by the per acre fatr market value of the Improved value of
the subdivision,
The fatr market value of an acre of land vlthtn the subdivision
shall be based on the zontng of the property at the time the ftnal
map ts recorded and the value of the land as an improved and
developed subdivision, not as raw acreage. The fatr market value
91
shall be as datemined and agreed to by the County, the publlc
agency, and the subdlvlder. However, if In agreenent on the fair
market value cannot be reached, the subdivider may, at thts own
expense, obtain an appraisal of the property. Zf the County and
public agency do not accept the subdfvtder's appraisal, the fair
market value shall be datemined by a current appraisal of the
improved value of the subdtdston by the Office of the County
Assessor. The Assessor's apprahal shall be final, unless modified
by the Board of Superrlsors.
14henever fees are patd pursuant to thls sectton, the public agency
shall deposit the tnto a separate subdivision park t~ust fund·
All fees patd may be used only for the purpose of doveloping new or
rehabilitating existing park and recreational facilities. The
development of new perk end recreational facilities tncludos, ~t
Is not 11mtted to, the acquisition of land for neighborhood or
community parks for recreational purposes. Fees shall be expended
for the use only vdthln the boundaries of the County of Riverside
unless the Board of Supervisors approves othervrlse and the publlc
agency me1 ntal ns appropr( ate records to refl act such expendi tu res.
d. The subdivider may recetvea credit agatnst fees as follows:
A credlt may be given agatnst the requtranent for the paj~nent
of fees or the dodtcatton of land required by this sectton for
the reasonable value of park and recreation tmprovenents
provided by the subdivider. The mount of the credit shall be
datemined prtor to the approval or conditional approval of the
tentart ve map. The granting of s credtt shall be vrl thin the
discretion of the County and shall be based on an approved set
of tmprovenent plans. Hotever, the public agency reserves the
right to require tn-lleu fees tnstead of granttrig a credit if
the improvements are found to be unacceptable.
A credtt may be gtven ~here prl vate areas for park and recreatlonal
purposes are provtded in a subdivision and such area ts for acttve
recreational uses, to be privately owned and maintained tn cmb~on by
the future owner(s) of the develolxnent. Such area, upon recenmendatlon
by the public agency, may be credited against up to 50 percent of the
requirement of land dodtcatlon or fees tf the County datemines that it
ts tn the public triterest to do so and that all of the following
standards either have been or ~tll be met prtor to approval of the
ftnal map or development pemtt:
(a)
That yards, court areas, setbacks, and other open space areas,
required to be maintained by Orcrlnance No. 348, the Butldlng Code
and other regulations, shall not be tncluded tn the computation of
such prtvate areas;
92
(b)
Evidence is provided that the private ownership and maintenance of
the area will be adequately provided for by recorded written
agreenent, covenants or restrictions; and
(c)
That the use of the prlvate area Is restricted for park and
recreational purposes by an open space easenent or other
instrument; and
(d)
That the proposed private are is reasonably adaptable for use of
park or recreational purposes, taking into consideration such
factors as size, shape, topography, geology, access, and location.
Active recreatlonal uses shall mean, for the purposes of thts section,
recreation facilities occurring on level or gently sloptrig land (ZO
percent maxtmum slope) tn a planned development which are designed to
provide individual or group activities of an acttve nature Including,
but not 1tatted to, open lawn, sports ftelds, court ganes, swimmtng
pools, chil dren's play areas, picnic areas, go1 f courses, and
recreational canmuntty gardenlng. Acttve recreatlonal uses do not
Include natural open space, nature study areas, open space for buffer
areas, steep slopes, rtdtng and htktng trails, scenic overlooks, water
courses, drainage areas or water bodt~s.
Notwithstanding the 50 percent limit. }n as set for9 above, a private
open space credit up to 100 percent or the requirene.:; of land
dedication or fees payment may be granted if the subdivider, the public
agency, and the County agree.
Land which has been dedicated and accepted may be sold by the public
agency if the subdlvider has not begun substantial construction on the
subdivision and the Board and the public agency both datemine that
another site would be more suitable for local park or recreational
facilities· The proceeds from the sale of the land must be used for
the purchase of the more suitable site.
g$
All fees collected pursuant to this section shall be committed by the
public agency for a specific project to serve residents of the
subdivision in a budgetary year either within five years of receipt of
the fees or five years after the issuance of building peaits on
one-half of the lots created by the subdivision, whichever occurs
later. If the fees are not so c~,,,,itted, the fees received shall be
distributed to the then record owners of the subdivision in the sane
proportion that the size of their lot bears to the total area of all
lots in the subdivision.
Annual Reports. Each public agency which has received dedications of land
or the payment of fees pursuant to this section shall maintain a separate
account thereof and shall file an annual report, as well as any additional
reports required by the Board, with the Board of Supervisors. The annual
93
report shall be filed no later than the end of each fiscal year. The
report shall disclose the dedications of land and the payment of fees
received, the balance of the account, and the facilities purchased, leased
or constructed during that fiscal year. The report shall also set forth a
schedule of how, when and where it intends to use the land dedicated and
the fees paid, including the anticipated starting dates for the development
of the park and recreation facilities. The starting dates shall be
reasonable with respect to the need for such parks and facilities, weather
constraints, the need to minimize the disruption of the neighborhood, the
amount of land and fees received, and the anticipated availability of funds
for the operation and maintenance of the parks and facilities which are
cons tructed.
The annual reports shall be reviewed by the County A~tntstrattve Office
for conromance with the standards and policies of the appropriate adopted
Community Parks and Recreation Plan. The A~inistrattve Office shall
thereafter file a status report with the Board of Supervisors.
ITEM
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Steve Jiannino ,~/z~,/
August 19, 1991
PPA 184, Landscape Plans for Winchester and Margarita Road
Frontage and Costco
The applicant has submitted the landscape plans for the Costco site and the
Winchester and Margarita Road frontage for review. The Planning Commission
required the plans be submitted for their review prior to approval when they approved
Plot Plan No. 224 June 17, 1991.
Staff has reviewed the plans and are recommending approval of the plans as
proposed. The street frontage landscaping along Winchester Road conforms to Cal
Trans requirements of having small diameter trees within 30 feet of the travel way.
The Costco landscaping includes sufficient canopy tree landscaping to provide parking
lot shading and to help soften the building appearance.
Recommendations:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
Approve PPA No. 184.
WIMBERVG\PLAN\PPA184
ITEM #5
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 19, 1991
Case No.:
Public Use Permit No. 664
Revision No. 1 and Extension of Time
Public Use Permit No, 664
Prepared By:
Richard Ayala
Recommendation: 1.
ADOPT Resolution No. 91-
approving Public Use Permit No.
664, Revision No. 1, based on
the Analysis and Findings
contained in the Staff Report and
subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval.
ADOPT Resolution No. 91 -
approving an Extension of Time for
Public Use Permit No. 664, Revision
No. 1, based on the Analysis and
Findings contained in the Staff report
and subject to the attached Conditions
of Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
St. Thomas Espicopal Church
REPRESENTATIVE:
James E. Calkin, AIA
PROPOSAL:
Revised Public Use Permit to construct a Church
Facility and an Extension of Time of one year for the
proposed use.
LOCATION:
Southeast corner of Ynez and Rancho Vista Road
EXISTING ZONING:
Rol (One-Family Dwellings)
STAFFRPT\PUP664\REV1 I
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
BACKGROUND:
North:
South:
East:
West:
R-1 (One-Family Dwellings)
SP (Specific Plan)
R-1 (One-Family Dwellings)
SP (Specific Plan)
Not Requested
Vacant
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant
Single Family
Single Family
Vacant Graded Residential Pads
Total Acres:
Total Landscaping
Pilrking
Standard Parking
Compact Parking
Handicap Parking
Total Parking
3.42
54,5834 (37%)
100
26
4
130
Lot Coverage
Parish Hall
ClassRooms
Church
Total Building
Coverage
4,979 sq.ft.
2,580 sq.ft.
6,814 scl.ft.
14,373 sq.ft. (10%)
Public Use Permit No. 664 amended No. I and
Environmental Assessment No. 33235, was
originally reviewed and approved by the Riverside
County Board of Supervisors on June 13, 1989.
The Original Public Use Permit submittal requested to
construct an 11,706 sq.ft. church, which included a
chapel, sanctuary, and offices.
On November 17, 1990, St. Thomas Episcopal
Church submitted Public Use Permit No. 664,
Revision No. I to the City of Temecula.
Subsequently, the subject revised Public Use Permit
was reviewed by the Pre-Development Review
Committee (Pre-DRC) on January 3, 1991, at which
time was determined by Staff that the subject Public
STAFFRPT\PUP664\REV1 2
Use Permit had to resolve interior circulation,
grading, and access issues prior to the formal
Development Review Committee. Thus, the case
was deemed incomplete. On April 8, 1991, the
subject case was once again reviewed by the pre-
Development Review Committee and forwarded to
the formal Development Review Committee on July
18, 1991, at which time the applicant received the
conditions of approval proposed for the project by
City Staff. The applicant has not protested any of
the conditions of approval at this time.
During the DRC review of Public Use Permit No.
664, Revision No.l, it was brought to Staff's
attention that the original Public Use Permit approved
by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors would
expire on June 13th, 1991, and the revised permit
would not extend the life of the project.
Therefore, the applicant subsequently filed for an
Extension of Time. Hence, both Public Use Permit
No. 664, Revision No. 1 and the Extension of Time
for Public Use Permit, Revision No. 1 are being
processed concurrently.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
After due consideration, it was determined by the
applicant that Public Use Permit No. 664 be revised
in order to provide for a better design and image
from Ynez Road and Rancho Vista Road.
The revised project proposes to construct a 6296
sq.ft. parish hall along with a 2550 sq.ft. classroom
building and a 7515 sq.ft. church on approximately
3,42 acres. The site is located on the southeast
corner of Ynez and Rancho Vista Road.
The proposed parish hall is composed of a kitchen,
restrooms, office and classrooms. The classroom
building proposes 8 classrooms with an office. A
restroom facility is also being proposed adjacent to
STAFFRPT\PUP664\REV1 3
the classroom building. The applicant ultimately
plans to add a second story to the classroom
building in the future, which is not being considered
at the time by Planning Staff. The proposed church
will accommodate 389 worshipers.
ANALYSIS:
Design Consideration
The revised site plan has incorporated the parish hall,
classrooms and church within the interior of the
subject site and are easily accessible by concrete
walk ways from one another. The applicant has also
designed a court yard between the parish hall and
the church. The applicant has incorporated a large
play area adjacent to the proposed classroom
building in order to provide for the best supervision
and safety of the children. The perimeter of the
subject site provides for adequate landscape buffers
ranging from 18 feet to 26 feet along Rancho Vista
Road and Ynez Road. Planning Staff has reviewed
the site plan and has found it to be designed in
accordance with ordinance 348 and 460.
Circulation
Unlike the original Public Use Permit No. 664 which
was approved by the Riverside County Board of
Supervisors with two points of access, one from
Rancho Vista Road and the other from Ynez Road,
the revised Public Use Permit is proposing two
access points from Ynez Road and one from Rancho
Vista Road. Thus, providing adequate ingress and
egress for the subject site and its intended use.
The interior drive isles are proposed at 24 feet in
width and have been found to be acceptable to both
Engineering and Fire Departments. (see site plan)
STAFFRPT\PUP664\REV1 4
Parkin_o
A literal interpretation of ordinance 348 section
18.12 would require the proposed project to provide
262 parking space. However, due to the fact that
not all buildings will be occupied to their full capacity
at the same time, Planning Staff has reviewed the
applicant's proposal with only 130 parking spaces
based on the church building's maximum seating
capacity of 389 worshipers. In addition, Staff has
received letters from the applicant and representative
describing the parking requirements, with regard to
the time and proposed uses for the subject project.
(see attachments III and IV).
Planning Staff concurs with the applicants
determination that the proposed 130 parking spaces
are adequate for the subject development, based on
the applicant's description regarding the time and
proposed uses for the subject site.
Landscaping
The revised Public Use Permit is proposing 68,151
sq,ft, of landscape and open space area which
constitutes approximately 46% of the subject site.
The entire perimeter of the subject site has been
buffered and is proposed to be landscaped with
various tree species in order to obscure the view
from adjacent existing residents and passerbys.
The interior site, including parking lot areas will be
composed of various ground covers along with trees.
Architecture
Both the parish hall and church buildings are modern
in design and are composed of artificial stone veneer
and stucco. Both buildings have been designed with
breeze ways supported by concrete pillars. The
church building has been designed with steeples and
STAFFRPT\PUP664\REV1 5
has incorporated sky lights in order to provide for
natural lighting within the church.
The classroom building and restroom facility are also
modern in design and are composed of stucco. All
proposed buildings will have concrete tile roofing
with a slate appearance.
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
The site is zoned R-l, One Single Family Dwellings.
Public Use Permits allow churches in any zone
provided ordinance requirements can be met and the
project is compatible with existing land uses.
Surrounding zoning includes R-1 to the east and
north and S-P to the south and west.
The southwest area plan designates the subject site
at 2-5 DU\AC. In addition, Staff finds it probable
that the subject project will be consistent with the
new general plan when it is adopted.
On June 13, 1989, the Riverside County Board of
Supervisors adopted a negative declaration for
environmental assessment No. 33235.
Environmental Assessment No. 33475 indicated the
following concern; fault hazard, wildlife resources,
and paleontological resources. County Geologic
Report No. 600 was prepared to address the
potential fault hazard on site. The report was
reviewed and cleared by the County Geologist on
June 6, 1989. The biological survey conducted by
Principe and Associates in May of 1989 determined
that since the site has been graded and the
vegetation was composed of non-native grasses that
STAFFRPT\PU P664\REV 1 6
FINDINGS:
the proposed project would have no impact on any
valuable biological resources. However, these
impacts will be mitigated through the conditions of
approval for Public Use Permit No. 664. Therefore,
Staff is not requesting any further environmental
determination.
There is a reasonable probability that this
project will be consistent with the City's
future General Plan, which will be completed
in a reasonable time and in accordance with
State law, due to the fact that the project is
consistent with existing site development
standards in that it proposes articulated
design features and site amenities.
There is not a likely probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
and adopted general plan, if the proposed use
or action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan, due to the fact that the project is in
conformance with existing and anticipated
land use and design guidelines standards.
The proposed use or action complies with
state planning and zoning laws, due to the
fact that the proposed use conforms with
those uses listed as "allowed" within the
project site's existing land use designation.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation
patterns, access, and density, due to the fact
that; adequate area is provided for all
proposed building structures; adequate
landscaping is provided along the project's
public and private frontages; and the internal
circulation plan should not create traffic
conflicts as design provisions are in
conformance with adopted City standards.
STAFFRPT\PUP664\REV1 7
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare, due to the fact that the conditions
stated in the approval are based on mitigation
measures necessary to reduce or eliminate
potential adverse impacts of the project.
Public Use Permit No. 664, Revision No. 1 is
compatible with surrounding land uses. The
harmony in scale, bulk, height, density and
coverage creates a compatible physical
relationship with adjoining properties, due to
the fact that the proposal is similar in
compatibility with surrounding land uses; and
adequate area and design features provide for
siting of proposed development in terms of
landscaping and internal traffic circulation.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area, due to the
fact that the proposed project is consistent
with the current zoning of the subject site,
and also consistent with the adopted
Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP}
designation.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the Negative
Declaration adopted by the County for the
project, due to the fact that impact mitigation
is realized by conformance with the project's
Conditions of Approval.
The project has acceptable access to a
dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact
that the project currently proposes two
independent access points from Ynez Road
STAFFRPT~PUP664\REV1 8
10.
11.
and another from Rancho Vista Road which
have been determined to be adequate by the
City Engineer.
The design of the site plan, the type of
improvements and the resulting layout are
such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed projects, due to
the fact that this is clearly represented in the
site plan and the project analysis.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
RA:vgw
associated with these applicants and herein
incorporated by reference, due to the fact that
they are referenced in the attached Staff
Report, Exhibits, Environmental Assessment,
and Conditions of Approval.
Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
ADOPT Resolution 91- approving Public
Use Permit No. 664, Revision No. 1; based on
the Analysis and Findings contained in the
Staff Report and subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval.
ADOPT Resolution 91 approving Extension
of Time for Public Use Permit No. 664, based
on the findings contained in the Staff report
and subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval
STAFFRPT~PUP664\REV1 9
Attachments: 1.
2.
Resolution (Public Use Permit No. 664, Revision No. 1
Conditions of Approval (Public Use Permit No. 664,
Revision No. 1
Resolution (Extension of Time for Public Use Permit No.
664, Revision No. 1)
Conditions of Approval Extension of Time Public Use Permit
No. 664
Letter From Applicant
Letter From Representative
Exhibits
STAFFRPT~PUP664\REV1 10
ATTACHMENT I
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OFTEMECULA APPROVING PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO.
664, REVISION NO.1 TO PERMIT FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A CHURCH FACILITY LOCATED ON
THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF YNEZ ROAD AND RANCHO
VISTA ROAD AND ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 923-072-022.
WHEREAS, St. Thomas Espicopal Church filed an application for Public
Use Permit No. 664, Revision No. I in accordance with the Riverside County Land
Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by
reference.
WHEREAS, said Public Use Permit No. 664, Revision No. 1 was processed
in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Public Use Permit
No. 664, Revision No.1 on August 19, 1991, at time interested persons had an
opportunity to testify either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
approval said Public Use Permit.
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:
STAFFRPT\PUP664\REV1 11
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
a) There is a reasonable probability that the land
use or action proposed will be consistent with
the general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
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 Public Use Permit is consistent with the
SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the
Government Code, to wit:
(1) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects
and taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following:
a)
There is reasonable probability that the Public
Use Permit No. 664, Revision No. I proposed
will be consistent with the general plan
STAFFRPT~PUP664\REV1 12
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 18.29(d), no Public Use Permit
may be approved unless applicant demonstrates the proposed use will
not be detrimental to the health safety and welfare of the community,
and further, that any Public Use Permit approved shall be subject to such
conditions as shall be necessary to protect the health, safety and general
welfare of the community.
(2)
The Planning Commission, in approving the proposed
Public Use Permit, makes the following findings, to
wit:
a) There is a reasonable probability that this
project will be consistent with the City's
future General Plan, which will be completed
in a reasonable time and in accordance with
State law, due to the fact that the project is
consistent with existing site development
standards in that it proposes articulated
design features and site amenities.
There is not a likely probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
and adopted general plan, if the proposed use
or action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan, due to the fact that the project is in
conformance with existing and anticipated
land use and design guidelines standards.
The proposed use or action complies with
state planning and zoning laws, due to the
fact that the proposed use conforms with
those uses listed as "allowed" within the
project site's existing land use designation.
STAFFRPT\PUP664\REV1 13
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation
patterns, access, and density, due to the fact
that; adequate area is provided for all
proposed building structures; adequate
landscaping is provided along the project's
public and private frontages; and the internal
circulation plan should not create traffic
conflicts as design provisions are in
conformance with adopted City standards.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare, due to the fact that the conditions
stated in the approval are based on mitigation
measures necessary to reduce or eliminate
potential adverse impacts of the project.
Public Use Permit No. 664, Revision No. I is
compatible with surrounding land uses. The
harmony in scale, bulk, height, density and
coverage creates a compatible physical
relationship with adjoining properties, due to
the fact that the proposal is similar in
compatibility with surrounding land uses; and
adequate area and design features provide for
siting of proposed development in terms of
landscaping and internal traffic circulation.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area, due to the
fact that the proposed project is consistent
with the current zoning of the subject site,
and also consistent with the adopted
Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP)
designation.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the Negative
Declaration adopted by the County for the
STAFFRPT~PUP664\REV1 14
FIRE DEPARTMENT
_ 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE · PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370
~ (714) 657-3183
GLEN J. NEWMAN
FIRE CHIEF
April 17, 199i
TO:
ATTN:
RE:
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPT
PLOT PLAN 664 REV #1
With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced
plot plan, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection
measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or
recognized fire protection standards:
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for
the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings using the
procedure established in Ordinance 546.
Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1750
GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure,
which must be available before any combustible material is placed
on the job site.
A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants, on a
looped system (6"x4"2½x2~), will be located not less than 25 feet
or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as measured
along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall
be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system.
The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in the permit
process to reflect changes in design, construction type, area separation
or built-in fire protection measures.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to
the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant
types, location and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow
requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil
engineer and the local water company with the following certification:
"I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with
the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department."
PLANNING DIVISION
~1 I~D|O OFFICE ~1 TEMECULA OFFICE
79-733 Country Club Drive, Suite F, lndio, CA 92201 41002 Count* Cente~ Drive, Suite 225, Tcav~u~a, CA 92390
(6T9) 342~8~. * FAX (619) 775-2072 (714) 694`5070 · FAX (714) 694-5076
PLOT PLAN 664 REV #1
PAGE 2
Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings. The post
indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the
front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the
building(s). A statement that the building(s) will be automatically
fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building
plans.
Install a supervised waterfow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans
must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to
installation, as per UBC.
In lieu of fire sprinkler requirements, building(s) must be area separated
into square foot compartments, approved by the Fire Department, as per
Section 505 (e) of the Uniform Building Code.
9. A statement that the building will be automatically fire sprinklered
must appear on the title page of the building plans.
10. Install panic hardware and exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform
Building Code.
11. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes.
12.
13.
Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-iOBC.
Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall
be responsible to submit a check or money order in the amount of $558.00
to the Riverside County Fire Department for plan check fees.
14.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall.deposit,
with the City of Temecula, a check or money order equaling the sum of
25¢ per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts. This
amount must be submitted separately from the plan check review fees.
15.
Applicant/developer shall be responsible to install a fire alarm system.
Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior
to installation.
16. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in
the Building and Safety Office.
All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to
the Planning and EngineeriHg staff.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
Laura Cabral, Fire Safety Specialist
LC/tm
GLEN J. NEWMAN
FIRE CHIEF
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE * PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370
(714) 657-3183
May 28, 1991
TO:
ATTN:
RE:
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPT
PUBLIC USE PERMIT 664 REVISED #I
The Fire Department Staff has reviewed the proposed change of the driveway
shovrn for phase I. The Department has no objection to the elimination of
approximately 80 feet of paving, including the turn-around with termination
of the driveway Just east of parking space #80.
All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to
the Planning and Engineering staff.
MG/tm
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
By
Micheal Gray, Fire Captain Specialist
cc: James Calkins, Architect
(619) 342-8886 · FAX (619) 775-2072
PLANNING DIVISION
[Z] RIVERSIDE OFFICE
3760 12th Street, Riverside. CA 92SOI
County of Riversi e,vso
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
TO: CITY OF TEMECULA RATE:
FROM. ~ NMENTAL HEALTH SPEC I ALI ST X V
BE: PUBLIC USE PERMIT N0, 664, REVISED PERMIT
07-12-91
The Environmental Health Services has
Fermit 664. Revised Permit and has no
b/j~_i.~__~_~an aDproy~, the following
reviewed Public Use
objections. ~ra_~LL_~_q
are required:
1. "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate
water and sewsring districts.
If there are to be any food establishments,
three complete sets of plans for each food
establishment will be submitted including
a flxture schedule. a finish schedule and a
plumbin~ schedule in order to ensure
compliance with the California Uniform
Retail Food Facilities Law.
$M:dr
project, due to the fact that impact mitigation
is realized by conformance with the project's
Conditions of Approval.
The project has acceptable access to a
dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact
that the project currently proposes two
independent access points from Ynez Road
and another from Rancho Vista Road which
have been determined to be adequate by the
City Engineer.
The design of the site plan, the type of
improvements and the resulting layout are
such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed projects, due to
the fact that this is clearly represented in the
site plan and the project analysis.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applicants and herein
incorporated by reference, due to the fact that
they are referenced in the attached Staff
Report, Exhibits, Environmental Assessment,
and Conditions of Approval.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Public Use
Permit proposed is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
SECTION 2. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Public
Use Permit No. 664, Revision No. I to permit for the construction of a church facility
located on the southeast corner of Ynez Road and Rancho Vista Road and known as
assessor's parcel map no. 923-072-022 subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit II, attached hereto.
STAFFRPT\PUP664\REV1 15
SECTION 3.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th 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 th day of , 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFFRPT~ PUP664\REV1 16
ATTACHMENT II
CITY OF APPROVAL
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Public Use Permit No:
664. Revision No. I
Project Description:
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Construction of a
Church Facility
923-072-022
Planning Department
The use hereby permitted by this Revised Public Use Permit is for the
construction of a church facility located on the southeast corner of Ynez Road
and Rancho Vista Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 923-072-022.
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.
664, Revision No. 1. 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.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as
shown on Revised Public Use Permit No. 664 marked Exhibit C, or as amended
by these conditions.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
The applicant shall comply with the Engineering Department's Conditions of
Approval which are included herein.
STAFFRPT\PUP664\REV1 17
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of
Ordinance No. 546 and the Riverside County Fire Department's transmittal
dated April 17, 1991 and May 28, 1991, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the county
of Riverside Department of Health transmittal dated July 12, 1991, a copy of
which is attached.
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. 348, Section 18.12, and shall be accompanied by the
appropriate filing fee.
10.
11.
12.
Prior to issuance of building permits, open space areas fronting Rancho Vista
Road and Ynez Road shall be bermed at least three (3) feet in height, except
within 10 feet of driveway intersections.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape,
irrigation, and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. An
automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be
maintained in a viable growth condition. Planting within ten (10) feet of an
entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty (30)
inches.
A minimum of 130 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section
18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. 130 parking spaces shall be
provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit(s) C. 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 (4) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown
on Exhibit C. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be
identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain
on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of
Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and
shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height
if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade,
or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished
grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place,
at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by
22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
STAFFRPT\PUP664\REV1 18
"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.
13.
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
14. An Administrative Plot Plan application for the proposed signage shall be
submitted and approved by the Planning Department prior to occupancy.
15.
Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on
Exhibit F, G, and I.
16.
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening
material shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
17.
All trash enclosures shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy
permits. Each enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall be made with
masonry block and a steel gate which screens the bins from external view.
18.
Landscape screening shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height
of six (6) feet at maturity along the northeastern and southern property line of
the subject site.
19. Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees within
the parking areas.
20.
All 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.
21. Prior to the issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts to
be determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the
STAFFRP~PUP664\REV1 19
installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved
plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed with
the Department of Building and Safety.
22. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
23. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any
use allowed by this permit.
24.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with
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 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.
25.
Prior to the final building inspection approval by the Building and Safety
department, a six foot high capped wood fence or combination landscaped
earthen berm and capped wood fence shall be constructed in accordance with
the approved fencing plan. The required wall and/or berm shall be subject to
the approval of the Director of the Department of Building and Safety and the
Planning Director.
26.
This conditionally approved Public Use Permit No. 664, Revision No. 1 will
expire on June 13, 1991, unless extended as provided by ordinance 460.
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 GRADING PERMITS:
27.
As deemed necessary by the City Engineer or his representative, the developer
shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
STAFFRPT~PUP664\REV1 20
28.
29.
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department;
CATV Franchise; and
Parks and Recreation Department.
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"x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil
Engineer.
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.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
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.
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.
STAFFRPT\PU P664\ REV 1 21
37.
The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be
executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements
in conformance with applicable City standards.
Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and
gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, and
other traffic control devices as appropriate.
b. Storm drain facilities.
c. Landscaping (street and parks).
d. Sewer and domestic water systems.
e. Undergrounding of existing and proposed utility distribution lines.
38~
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.
39.
Drainage calculations shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer.
All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.
40.
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.
41.
Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface
drainage entering the property from adjacent areas.
42.
All concentrated drainage directed toward the public street shall be diverted
through the undersidewalk drains.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT:
43.
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.
44.
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.
STAFFRPT\PUP664\REV1 22
45.
All easements traversing the property shall be delineated on the precise grading
plan and appropriate clearances and realignments shall be provided.
46.
Easements required for drainage, utilities, landscaping or slopes shall be
obtained, and a copy of the recorded easement shall be provided to the City
Engineer. Drainage easements shall bear the note that they "shall be kept free
of buildings or obstructions."
47.
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.
48.
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 underthe EIR/Negative Declaration for the project.
The fee to be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of
the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not
been finally established by the date on which developer requests its building
permits for the project or any phase thereof, the developer shall execute the
Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of which has been
provided to developer. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, developer
shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of
the bond shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000. Developer
understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of
those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such
fees). By execution of this Agreement, developer will waive any right to
protest the provisions of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of
any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic
mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project; provided that developer is not
waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the
amount thereof.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY:
49. A minimum flowline grade shall be 0.50 percent.
50.
Onsite improvement plans per City Standards and requirements shall be
required for review and approval by the City Engineer. If construction of onsite
improvements are to be phased, such phasing plans shall be reviewed and
approved for circulation and access prior to design.
51.
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).
STAFFRPT~PUP664\REV1 23
52.
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.
53.
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along all public street frontages in
accordance with Riverside County Standard Nos. 400 and 401.
54.
Construct all 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.
55.
Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No.
805.
Transoortation Engineering
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS:
56.
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the City Engineer for Ynez Road and Rancho Vista Road and shall
be included in the street improvement plans.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY:
57. All signing and striping shall be installed and operational per the approved plans.
STAFFRPT\PU P664\REV 1 24
ATTACHMENT III
RESOLUTION NO. 91-25
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF TIME
FOR PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 664, REVISION NO. I TO
PERMIT A CHURCH FACILITY LOCATED ON THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF YNEZ ROAD AND RANCHO VISTA ROAD
AND ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 923-072-022.
WHEREAS, St. Thomas Espicopal Church filed an application for an
extension of time for PUP No. 664, Revision No. I in accordance with the Riverside
County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has
adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said PUP extension was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said PUP extension on
August 19, 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 extension:
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findinos. 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.
STAFFRPT%PUP664\REV1 25
(2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
a)
There is a reasonable probability that the land
use or action proposed will be consistent with
the general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the
boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its
General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion
with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed PUP is consistent with the SWAP and meets
the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code,
to wit:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects
and taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following:
a)
There is reasonable probability that PUP No.
664, Revision No. I proposed will be
consistent with the general plan proposal
being considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
STAFFRPT~PUP664\REV1 26
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 18.29(d), 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.
(2) The Planning Commission, in appr0ving the proposed
PUP extension, makes the following findings, to wit:
FINDINGS:
There is a reasonable probability that this
project will be consistent with the City's
future General Plan, which will be completed
in a reasonable time and in accordance with
State law, due to the fact that the project is
consistent with existing site development
standards in that it proposes articulated
design features and site amenities.
There is not a likely probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
and adopted general plan, if the proposed use
or action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan, due to the fact that the project is in
conformance with existing and anticipated
land use and design guidelines standards.
The proposed use or action complies with
state planning and zoning laws, due to the
fact that the proposed use conforms with
those uses listed as "allowed" within the
project site's existing land use designation.
STAFFRPT\PUP664\REV1 27
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation
patterns, access, and density, due to the fact
that; adequate area is provided for all
proposed building structures; adequate
landscaping is provided along the project's
public and private frontages; and the internal
circulation plan should not create traffic
conflicts as design provisions are in
conformance with adopted City standards.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare, due to the fact that the conditions
stated in the approval are based on mitigation
measures necessary to reduce or eliminate
potential adverse impacts of the project.
Public Use Permit No. 664, Revision No. I is
compatible with surrounding land uses. The
harmony in scale, bulk, height, density and
coverage creates a compatible physical
relationship with adjoining properties, due to
the fact that the proposal is similar in
compatibility with surrounding land uses; and
adequate area and design features provide for
siting of proposed development in terms of
landscaping and internal traffic circulation.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area, due to the
fact that the proposed project is consistent
with the current zoning of the subject site,
and also consistent with the adopted
Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP)
designation.
STAFFRPT'PUP664\REV1 28
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the Negative
Declaration adopted by the County for the
project, due to the fact that impact mitigation
is realized by conformance with the project's
Conditions of Approval.
The project has acceptable access to a
dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact
that the project currently proposes two
independent access points from Ynez Road
and another from Rancho Vista Road which
have been determined to be adequate by the
City Engineer.
10.
The design of the site plan, the type of
improvements and the resulting layout are
such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed projects, due to
the fact that this is clearly represented in the
site plan and the project analysis.
11,
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applicants and herein
incorporated by reference, due to the fact that
they are referenced in the attached Staff
Report, Exhibits, Environmental Assessment,
and Conditions of Approval.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the PUP proposed
is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
SECTION 2. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves an
extension of time for PUP No. 664 construction of a church facility located on the
southeast corner of Ynez Road and Rancho Vista Road and known as assessor's
parcel No. 923-072-022 subject to the following conditions:
STAFFRPT\PUP664\REV1 29
A. Exhibit IV, attached hereto.
SECTION 4_.~,
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th 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 day of , 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFFRPT\PU P664\REV 1 30
ATTACHMENT IV
CITY OF APPROVAL
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Public Use Permit No:
Project Description:
Assessor's Parcel No.
664, Revision No, 1
First Extension of Time
Construction of a
Church Facility
923-072-022
Planning Department
The use hereby permitted by this Revised Public Use Permit is for the
construction of a church facility located on the southeast corner of Ynez Road
and Rancho Vista Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 923-072-022.
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.
664, Revision No. 1. 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.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as
shown on Revised Public Use Permit No. 664 marked Exhibit C, or as amended
by these conditions.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
The applicant shall comply with the Engineering Department's Conditions of
Approval which are included herein.
STAFFRPT~PUP664\REV1 31
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of
Ordinance No. 546 and the Riverside County Fire Department's transmittal
dated April 17, 1991 and May 28, 1991, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the county
of Riverside Department of Health transmittal dated July 12, 1991, a copy of
which is attached.
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. 348, Section 18.12, and shall be accompanied by the
appropriate filing fee.
Prior to issuance of building permits, open space areas fronting Rancho Vista
Road and Ynez Road shall be bermed at least three (3) feet in height, except
within 10 feet of driveway intersections.
10.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape,
irrigation, and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. An
automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be
maintained in a viable growth condition. Planting within ten (10) feet of an
entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty (30)
inches.
11.
A minimum of 130 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section
18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. 130 parking spaces shall be
provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit(s) C. The parking area shall be
surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on 4
inches of Class II base.
12.
A minimum of four (4) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown
on Exhibit C. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be
identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain
on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of
Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and
shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height
if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade,
or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished
grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place,
at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by
22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
STAFFRPT~PUP664\REV1 32
"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.
13.
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
14.
An Administrative Plot Plan application for proposed signage shall be submitted
and approved by the Planning Department prior to occupancy.
15.
Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on
Exhibit F, G, I, and J.
16.
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening
material shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
17.
All trash enclosures shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy
permits. Each enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall be made with
masonry block and a steel gate which screens the bins from external view.
18.
Landscape screening shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height
of six (6) feet at maturity along the northeastern and southern property line of
the subject site.
19. Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees within
the parking areas.
20.
All 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.
21. Prior to the issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts to
be determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the
STAFFRPT~PUP664\REV1 33
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.
22.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
23.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any
use allowed by this permit.
24.
Unless previously paid, prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant
shall comply with 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 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.
25.
Prior to the final building inspection approval by the Building and Safety
department, a six foot high capped wood fence or combination landscaped
earthen berm and capped wood fence shall be constructed in accordance with
the approved fencing plan. The required wall and/or berm shall be subject to
the approval of the Director of the Department of Building and Safety and the
Planning Director.
26.
This conditionally approved Extension of Time for Public Use Permit No. 664,
Revision No. 1, will expire one (1) year after the original expiration date, unless
extended as provided by Ordinance 490. The expiration date is June 13, 1992.
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 GRADING PERMITS:
27.
As deemed necessary by the City Engineer or his representative, the developer
shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
STAFFRPT~PUP664\REV1 34
28.
29.
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department;
CATV Franchise; and
Parks and Recreation Department.
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"x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil
Engineer.
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.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
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.
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.
STAFFRPT%PUP664\REV1 35
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be
executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements
in conformance with applicable City standards.
Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and
gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, and
other traffic control devices as appropriate.
b. Storm drain facilities.
c. Landscaping (street and parks).
d. Sewer and domestic water systems.
e. Undergrounding of existing and proposed utility distribution lines.
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.
Drainage calculations shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer.
All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.
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.
Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface
drainage entering the property from adjacent areas.
All concentrated drainage directed toward the public street shall be diverted
through the undersidewalk drains.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT:
43.
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.
44.
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.
STAFFRPT~PU P664\R EV 1 36
45.
All easements traversing the property shall be delineated on the precise grading
plan and appropriate clearances and realignments shall be provided.
46.
Easements required for drainage, utilities, landscaping or slopes shall be
obtained, and a copy of the recorded easement shall be provided to the City
Engineer. Drainage easements shall bear the note that they "shall be kept free
of buildings or obstructions."
47.
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.
48.
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; orovided 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:
49. A minimum flowline grade shall be 0.50 percent.
50.
Onsite improvement plans per City Standards and requirements shall be
required for review and approval by the City Engineer. If construction of onsite
improvements are to be phased, such phasing plans shall be reviewed and
approved for circulation and access prior to design,
51.
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).
STAFFRPT\PUP664\REV1 37
52.
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.
53. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along all public street frontages in
accordance with Riverside County Standard Nos, 400 and 401.
54.
Construct all 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.
55.
Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No.
805.
Transportation Engineering
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS:
56.
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the City Engineer for Ynez Road and Rancho Vista Road and shall
be included in the street improvement plans.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY:
57. All signing and striping shall be installed and operational per the approved plans.
STAFFRPT~PUP664\REV1 38
GLEN J. NEWMAN
FIRE CHIEF
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE · PERPdS, CALIFORNIA 92370
(714) 657-3183
April 17, 1991
TO:
ATTN:
RE:
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPT
PLOT PLAN 664 REV ~1
With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced
plot plan, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection
measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or
recognized fire protection standards:
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for
the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings using the
procedure established in Ordinance 546.
Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1750
GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure,
which must be available before any combustible material is placed
on the job site.
A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants, on a
looped system (6"x4"2~x2~), will be located not less than 25 feet
or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as measured
along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall
be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system.
The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in the permit
process to reflect changes in design, construction type, area separation
or built-in fire protection measures.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to
the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant
types, location and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow
requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil
engineer and the local water company with the following certification:
"I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with
the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department."
I'l INDIO OFFICE
79-7J3 Country CJ~h Drive, Suile F. I~d[o~ CA 92201
PLANNING DIV'iS1ON
PLOT PLAN 664 REV ~1
PAGE 2
Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings. The post
indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the
front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the
building(s). A statement that the building(s) will be automatically
fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building
plans.
Install a supervised waterfow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans
must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to
installation, as per UBC.
In lieu of fire sprinkler requirements, building(s) must be area separated
into square foot compartments, approved by the Fire Department, as per
Section 505 (e) of the Uniform Building Code.
9. A statement that the building will be automatically fire sprinklered
must appear on the title page of the building plans.
10. Install panic hardware and exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform
Building Code.
11. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes.
12. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC.
Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment.
13.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall
be responsible to submit a check or money order in the amount of $558.00
to the Riverside County Fire Department for plan check fees.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall.deposit,
with the City of Temecula, a check or money order equaling the sum of
25¢ per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts. This
amount must be submitted separately from the plan check review fees.
15.
Applicant/developer shall be responsible to install a fire alarm system.
Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior
to installation.
16. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in
the Building and Safety Office.
All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to
the Planning and Engineerin'g staff.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
Laura Cabral, Fire Safety Specialist
LC/tm
.~~~ RIVERSIDE COUNTY
' ~u,,, ~ FIRE DEPARTMENT
210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE · PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370
~ ' (714) 657-3183
GLEN J. NEWMAN
FIRE CHIEF
May 28, 1991
T0: CITY OF TEMECULA
ATTN: PLANNING DEPT
RE: PUBLIC USE PERMIT 664 REVISED
The Fire Department Staff has reviewed the proposed change of the driveway
shown for phase I. The Department has no objection to the elimination of
approximately 80 feet of paving, including the turn-around with termination
of the driveway just east of parking space #80.
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 Gray, Fire Captain Specialist
MG/tm
cc: James Calkins, Architect
PLANNING DIVISION
~ RIVERSIDE OFFICE
County of Riversi fi.:,w
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
TO: C I TY OF TEMECULA DATE: 07 -
FI{0K. ~ NMENTAL HEALTH SPECIALIST IV
PUBLIC USE PERMIT N0. 664, REVISED P~MIT
7'he Environmental Health Services has reviewed Public Use
Permit 664, Revised Permit and has no objections.
b3~ll~_irkgj_~an approval, the followin~ are required:
"Will-serve" letters from the appropriate
water and sewering districts,
If there are to be any food establishments,
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.
SM:dr
5t mmas' Ept eopal church
P.O. Box 331
Temecula. CA 9Z390
the Rev. Edward J. lienher. Jr.
Vicar
Office - 41975 Sixth St. (714)57b-0515
Thrift Shop - 41965 5rd SL (714)676-4777
Vicarage - 31 ii~0 $. C~n~ral Kgarnw/. s92
Temecula. CA 92590-20~)4 (714)695-0'166
April 26, A.D. 1991
Mr. Richard Ayala
City Planning Department
City of Temecula
Temecula, CA 92390
Dear Mr. Ayala:
This is in response to your request that we give you ~on~e idea of the
projected use of our facilities at the Southeast corner of Rancho Vista and
Ynez.
Our major use would be on Sunday mornings for our worship services.
We will most. likely begin with a worship service at 8 a.m., Church School
at 9 a.m., and another worship service at 10 a.m. On son~e Sunday
afternoons/evenings there could be a n~eeting or two, but the attendance
would probably not- be nlore than 40 or
During the week, there would probably be a small worship service each
day, with the possibility of a Bible Study or other Study Class and
meetings, from time to time.
There would be an occasional wedding or funeral, neither of which can be
predicted as to frequency.
In any event, the three buildings w~l never be full at the san~e tinge.
The maximum number I can envision would be the seating capacity of the
church, 389. On balance, we don't Ioresee our use of our facilities as
being signilicantly different than any other church's use of their facilities.
I trust this will resolve any questions you may have had; if not, please
do not hesitate to call me for further infortnation.
Yours very truly,
,~
Vicar
CALZ{Z I
architect
May 6, 1991
City of Temecula Planning Department
~3180 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
Attention: Mr. Richard Ayala
Dear Richard:
This letter is to describe the parking requirements, with regard
to the time and proposed uses for the St. Thomas Episcopal
Church.
During the first two phases, services will be held in the
assembly area of the Parish Hall. This is 2800 square feet
in area; and requires 80 parking spaces by ordinance. After-
noon or evening services, or weekday meetings, will generate
an attendance of about 40, which can easily be accommodated by
the 80 parking spaces.
During the third phase, the church building will be the primary
assembly area for services. The 130 parking spaces will
accommodate the 389 fixed seats.
The Parish Hall will be used for meetings, dinners, receptions,
and other similar gatherings, but will not be used concurrently
with the church building. In such cases the 130 parking spaces
will be more than adequate for the Parish Hall's assembly area.
As with the first two phases, services and meetings for smaller
groups would be held, but not at times in conflict with activ-
ities scheduled for the church or parish hall.
In all phases of development, the classroom building would be
used for Church School and occasional meetings or Bible Study
classes. The Church School is held between Sunday morning
worship services, and, therefore, will not generate additional
parking.
If you need additional information, or if I can provide fur-
ther assistance, please call.
Sincerely
Andy ~
545 East Florida Avenue Hemet California 92343 Telephone 714 658-4423
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
~/h,
LOCATION 'MAP
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
2875
C 7 4420
~ /
CZ 911
R-I LA
5
:'IC PLAN
180)
ZONE MAP
r
CASE NO. ~t.
P.C. DATE Av~.
CITY OF TEMECULA
'~C/
14
COMMUNITY
SWAP
MAP
P.C. DAT~.
EXHIBIT
CASE # ~,~,a. a; ~ x~c~,~,va. /
r~I [
ii
EXHIBIT F
CASE # ,~p,,w,. r~ ,~,,,~,,~.4~,. ~
EXHIBIT
CASE #
ITEM #6
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Steve Jiannino, Senior Planner
August 14, 1991
Variance No. 6 (Winchester Square)
Planning Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission continue Variance No.
6 off calendar to allow the applicant and Staff to complete discussions on the design
of the proposed signs. When the applicant and Staff are in agreement with what is
to be brought forward, the item will be advertised and set for the first available
meeting. Variance No. 6 has been continued several times due to outstanding design
issues.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
Continue Variance No. 6 off calendar
STAFFRPT\VAR6-C.MEM
ITEM #7
Case No.:
Prepared By:
Recommendation:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 19, 1991
Plot Plan No. 233
Richard Ayala
1.
ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 91-
APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO.
233, BASED ON THE ANALYSIS
AND FINDINGS CONTAINED IN
THE STAFF REPORT AND
SUBJECT TO THE AT'I'ACHED
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Bernard Karcher/BKL, Inc~
REPRESENTATIVE: Carl Karcher Ent. Inc.
PROPOSAL: Construction of a new Carl's Jr. Restaurant
LOCATION: Northwest corner of Rancho California Road and Margarita
Road
C~1/C-P (General Commercial)
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North: R-2
South: R-2
East: SP
West: R-2
NOT REQUESTED
Shopping Center
North:
South:
(Multiple Family Dwellings)
(Multiple Family Dwellings)
(Specific Plan)
(Multiple Family Dwellings)
Single Family Residential
Multiple Family Residential
STAFFRPT~233 ,PP I
PROJECT STATISTICS:
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
East:
West:
Vacant
Single Family Residential
Total Acres:
Building Area:
Landscape Area:
Total Seating:
.97
3,558 sq,ft.
1,709 sq.ft.
95 Seats
The project was submitted to the City of Temecula
on May 15, 1991. On July 3, 1991, Plot Plan No.
233 was reviewed by the formal Development
Review Committee (DRC). At the meeting it was
determined that the project as designed, could be
adequately conditioned to mitigate the DRC's
concerns. The applicant received the conditions of
approval proposed for the project by City Staff. The
applicant has not protested any of the Conditions of
Approval at this time.
The subject project is located on the northwest
corner of Rancho California Road and Margarita
Road. Plot Plan No. 233 proposes to construct a
3,558 sq.ft. restaurant (Carl's Jr.) within Palomar
Village represented as building pad "K" of Plot Plan
No. 10739, exhibit A. The proposed restaurant
proposes a total of 95 seats.
The proposed development has been designed in
accordance with the standards of the C-1/C-P
(General Commercial) zone.
Project Design
The proposed project is "contemporary" in design
and is consistent with previously approved Carl's Jr.
found in the City, The restaurant proposes a drive-
thru which has been reviewed by the Engineering
Department and has been found to be acceptable.
The proposed building utilizes the following colors
and materials:
Roof
Walls
Teal metal roofing and coping
White/beige cement plaster stucco
STAFFRPT~233 .PP 2
Awnings Gold with red stripes
Trellis Light olympic stain wood finish
GENERAL PLAN
CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
Landscaoing
Landscaping is provided along the perimeter of the
proposed building, in which the proposed
landscaping is consistent with the planting pallet of
the overall commercial center.
P6rkina
Palomar Village (Plot Plan No. 10739) was designed
pursuant to ordinance No. 348, section 18.12 (off-
street vehicle parking) regarding community,
neighborhood and regional shopping centers,
including restaurants. Parking development
standards for Plot Plan No. 10739 required 5.5
spaces for every 1,000 sq.ft. of gross leasable floor
area. The overall commercial center provides 8 total
of 871 recipical parking spaces, including the
proposed project. Therefore, the proposed
restaurant complies with the parking requirements.
The proposed project is consistent with the SWAP
Land Use Designation of Commercial, which includes
restaurant uses. In addition, Staff finds it probable
that this project will be consistent with the new
General Plan when it is adopted.
An Environmental Assessment (No. 33126) was
performed for Plot Plan No. 10739 AMD and No. 1
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 Negative
Declaration was adopted by the Riverside Board of
STAFFRPT\233.PP 3
FINDINGS:
Supervisors. Since Plot Plan No 233 will not result
in additional impacts to the environment, the
Planning Department Staff has determined that the
project is exempt from CEQA under Section 15061
(b) (3).
There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan
No. 233 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
restaurant 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 restaurant is consistent
with the existing zoning, the SWAP Land
Use Designation of Commercial , and the
permitted uses 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 No. 348.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation
patterns, access, and intensity of use, due to
the fact that the proposed restaurant complies
with the standards of Ordinance No. 348.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare, due to the fact that the Conditions of
Approval include mitigation measures.
The project is compatible with surrounding
land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk, height,
intensity, and coverage creates a compatible
STAFFRPT~233.PP 4
physical relationship with adjoining properties,
due to the fact that the proposed restaurant is
consistent with Ordinance No. 348.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area, due to the
fact that the proposed use is compatible with
the surrounding land uses.
10.
11.
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 Conditions of Approval include
appropriate mitigation measures.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the expanded
Environmental Assessment No. 33126
performed for Plot Plan No. 10739 and No. I
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.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving Plot
Plan No. 233, based on the analysis and
findings contained in the Staff report and
subject to the attach Conditions of Approval.
STAFFRPT\233 .PP 5
RA:vgw
Attachments:
Resolution
Conditions of Approval
Exhibits
A. Site Plan
STAFFRPT~233,PP 6
RESOLUTION NO. 91
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 233 TO
CONSTRUCT A 3558 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT
(BUILDING PAD "K") ON A PAD CONTAINING .97 ACRES
LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF RANCHO
CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-250-018.
accordance
Ordinances,
WHEREAS, Bernard Karcher/BKL, Inc,, filed Plot Plan No. 233 in
with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision
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 19, 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;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission Hearing, the
Commission approved said Plot Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findinos. 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.
STAFFRPT~233 ,PP 7
(2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
(a)
There is a reasonable probability that the land
use or action proposed will be consistent with
the general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
(b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
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 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. 233 proposed will be consistent with the
general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
STAFFRPT~233 .PP 8
b)
There ~ little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances,
D. (1) Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan may be
approved unless the following findings can be made:
a)
The proposed use must conform to all the
General Plan requirements and with all
applicable requirements of state law and City
ordinances.
b)
The overall development of the land is
designed for the protection of the public
health, safety and general welfare; conforms
to the logical development of the land and is
compatible with the present and future logical
development of the surrounding property.
(2) The Planning Commission, in approving the proposed
Plot Plan, makes the following findings, to wit:
a)
There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan
No. 233 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
restaurant 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 restaurant is consistent
with the existing zoning, the SWAP Land
Use Designation of Commercial , and the
permitted uses of the surrounding area.
STAFFRPT\233,PP 9
c)
The proposed use or action complies with
State planning and zoning laws, due to the
fact that the proposed use complies with
Ordinance No. 348.
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, due to
the fact that the proposed restaurant complies
with the standards of Ordinance No. 348.
e)
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare, due to the fact that the Conditions of
Approval include mitigation measures.
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 proposed restaurant is
consistent with Ordinance No. 348.
g)
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area, due to the
fact that the proposed use is compatible with
the surrounding land uses.
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 Conditions of Approval include
appropriate mitigation measures.
i)
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the expanded
Environmental Assessment No. 33126
performed for Plot Plan No. 10739 and No. 1.
STAFFRPT~233.PP 10
j)
k)
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.
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 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 Comoliance.
An Environmental Assessment (No. 33126) prepared for Plot Plan No. 18
10739 AMD No. I indicated 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 was adopted by the Riverside Board
of Supervisors. Plot Plan No. 233 will not result in additional impacts to the
environment, therefore, the project is exempt from CEQA under Section 15061 (b)(3).
~ECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Plot
Plan No. 233 to construct a 3558 square foot restaurant(Building Pad "K") located
on the northwest corner of Rancho California Road and Margarita Road and known as
Assessor's Parcel No. 921-250-018 subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit II, attached hereto.
STAFFRPT~233.PP 1 I
SECTION 4_~.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th 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 19th day of August, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFFRPT~233.PP I 2
ATTACHMENT II
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan No:
Project Description:
Assessor's Parcel No.:
233
Construction of a fast
food restaurant on
aooroximatelv .97 acres,
921-250-018
Planning Department
The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for the construction of a fast food
restaurant on approximately .97 acres located in the Palomar Village situated
on the northwest corner of Rancho California Road and Margarita Road.
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. 233. 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, 233 marked Exhibit A, or as amended by these
conditions,
STAFFRPT~233.PP 13
5. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
10.
11.
The applicant shall comply with the Engineering Department's Conditions of
Approval which are included herein.
Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the
provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittal
dated June 13, 1991, a copy of which is attached.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of
Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Department's transmittal dated June
5, 1991, a copy of which is attached.
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. 348, Section 18.12, and shall be accompanied by the
appropriate filing fee.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape,
irrigation, and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. An
automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be
maintained in a viable growth condition. Planting within ten (10) feet of an
entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty (30)
inches.
A minimum of one (1) handicapped parking space shall be provided as shown
on Exhibit A. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be
identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain
on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of
Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and
shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height
if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade,
or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished
grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place,
at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by
22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
STAFFRPT~233.PP 14
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
"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
Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on
Exhibit E and F.
An Administrative Plot Plan application for signage shall be submitted
separately to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to
occupancy.
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening
material shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
All trash enclosures shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy
permits. Each enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall be made with
masonry block and a steel gate which screens the bins from external view.
All 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.
Unless previously paid, prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant
shall comply with 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 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.
6 Class III bicycle racks shall be provided in convenient locations as approved
by the Planning Director to facilitate bicycle access to the project area.
STAFFRPT~233A.PP 15
20.
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.
21.
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.
22.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
23. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any
use allowed by this permit.
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 GRADING PERMITS:
24. 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; and
Parks and Recreation Department.
25, All site plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and street
STAFFRPT%233,PP 16
26.
27.
improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency with approved plans.
Prior to any work being performed on the private drives, fees shall be paid and
a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office.
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.
28.
Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface
drainage entering the property from adjacent areas.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT:
29.
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.
30.
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.
31.
The developer shall provide evidence that an easement for ingress and egress
over the adjacent property does exist.
32.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public
facility mitigation as required under the EIR/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
STAFFRPT~233.PP I 7
any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic
mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project; orovided 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:
33. A minimum flowline on all paved areas shall be 0.50 percent.
STAFFF~>T~233.PP 18
County of Riverside
M: ronmental Health Specialist
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
CITY OF TD'IE:CULA RECEi~'~ J(;i~ I ~ ~E!Si BATE:
ATTN: Richard Ayala
IV
RE:
PLOT PLAN NO. 233
06-13-91
7~e Environmental Health Services has reviewed Plot Plan No.
233 and has no objectiohs. Sanitary sewer and water
services should be available in this area. Prior to any
building plan review for Health clearance. the following
items are required:
1. "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate
water and sewering agencies.
Three complete sets of plans for each food
establishment will be submitted, includin9 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.
SM:dr
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
_ 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE * PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370
~ (714) 657-3183
GLEN J, NEWMAN
FIRE CHIEF
~une 5, 1991
TO:
ATTN:
RE:
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPT
PLOT PLAN 233
With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced
plot plan, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection
measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or
recognized fire protection standards:
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for
the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings using the
procedure established in Ordinance 546.
2. The existing on-site water system, with appropriately spaced fire
hydrants, will provide adequate fire flow for the proposed building.
3. Install panic hardware, high and floor level, exit signs as per
Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code.
4. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC.
Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment.
Install a hood duct fire extinguishing system. Contact a certified fire
protection company for proper placement. Plans must be approved by the
Fire Department prior to installation.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall deposit,
with the City of Temecula, a check or money order equaling the sum of
25¢ per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts. This
amount must be submitted separately from the plan check review fees.
7. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in
the Building and Safety Office.
PLANNING DIVISION
PLOT PLAN 233 PAGE 2
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
CITY OF TEMECULA )
LOCATION 'MAP
CASE .o..,~-
P.C. DATE/,~/~.
ZONE MAP
CASE NO.
/Y~. 2~
P.C. DATE A~.B//"?~/
CITY OF TEMECULA )
.).-4
DU/AC
SP 180
\
SWAP MAP
CASE NO,
P.C. DATE .,./,~../~//~/ I
EXHIBIT
CASE #
ITEM #8
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 19, 1991
Case No.:
Prepared By:
Recommendation: 1.
Plot Plan No. 230
Richard Ayala
ADOPT the Negative
Declaration for Plot Plan
No. 230; and
ADOPT Resolution No.
91- approving Plot
Plan No. 230, based on
the analysis and findings
contained in the Staff
Report and subject to the
attach Conditions of
Approval
Paragon Steakhouse Restaurants, Inc.
Esbensen & Associates Architects
Construction of a new "Hungry Hunter" restaurant
27590 Jefferson Avenue
C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial)
North: C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial)
South: C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial)
East: I-15 Freeway
West: C-1/C-P (General Commercial)
NOT REQUESTED
Vacant
STAFFRPT\230.PP
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Commercial
Commercial
1-15
Shopping Center
Lot Size:
Building
Coverage:
Landscaping:
Parking:
1.65 Acres
7,855 sq.ff.
10,139 sq.ft.
On Site (with
adjustments): 83
Reciprocal
Parking: 18
boundary
Total: 101
The project was submitted to the City of Temecula
on April 29, 1991. The project was reviewed by the
Pre-Development Review Committee (PRE-DRC) on
May 23, 1991 at which time was deemed
incomplete, due to the fact, that the subject site plan
lacked sufficient information to adequately process.
Subsequently, after the applicant responded to
Staff's PRE-DRC comments; the project was
scheduled for a Formal Development Review
Committee meeting at which time the applicant
received the Conditions of Approval proposed for the
project by City Staff. The applicant has not
protested any of the Conditions of Approval at this
time.
The subject project is located along the east side of
Jefferson Avenue between Winchester Road and
Overland Drive. The project proposes the
construction of a 7,855 sq.ft. restaurant (Hungry
Hunter).
The subject site plan proposes an eight foot buffer
along Jefferson Avenue and the southerly property
line. The project proposes a new 36' driveway from
Jefferson Avenue and will also take access from an
STAFFRPT~230.PP
2
ANALYSIS:
existing 36' driveway to the north of the new
proposed driveway. Thus, the project will be served
by two independent driveways from Jefferson
Avenue. In addition, the project proposes 24' drive
isles which have been found to be acceptable by
both Engineering and Fire Departments. A trash
enclosure and loading space are provided along the
northeast corner of the building.
PROJECT DESIGN
The applicant is proposing a "country" architectural
style. The structure incorporates wood siding along
with stone tile for building walls and pillars. The
windows consist of wood trim and frame paint. In
addition, the proposed structure has incorporated
wood railing along the west and north elevations.
The structure has also incorporated typical dormers
for character and will be composed of wood shake
roof.
LANDSCAPING
Landscaping is provided along the west and
southeastern perimeter of the subject site. In
addition, the applicant meets the required 50%
minimum of shaded parking spaces per Ordinance
No.348, section 18.12.
PARKING
The proposed use per Ordinance No. 348, section
18.12 requires 101 parking spaces. The applicant is
proposing 83 standard parking spaces with a
boundary adjustment (see site plan) which the
applicant has been conditioned to submit to the
Planning Department prior to building occupancy. In
addition, the applicant is proposes 18 reciprocal
parking spaces which has also been conditioned by
Staff for the applicant to submit a share parking
agreement prior to building occupancy. Therefore,
the applicant meets the required 101 parking spaces
per ordinance No. 348, section 18.12.
STAFFRPT~230.PP
3
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS:
The proposed project is consistent with the SWAP
Land Use Designation of Commercial, which includes
restaurant uses. 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
which have been added to the project, and a
Negative Declaration has been recommended for
adoption.
There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan
No. 230 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
restaurant 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 restaurant is consistent
with the existing zoning, the SWAP Land
Use Designation of Commercial , and the
permitted uses 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 No. 348,
4. The site is suitable to accommodate the
STAFFRPT~230.PP
4
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation
patterns, access, and intensity of use, due to
the fact that the proposed restaurant complies
with the standards of Ordinance No. 348.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare, due to the fact that the Conditions of
Approval include mitigation measures.
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 proposed restaurant is
consistent with Ordinance No. 348.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area, due to the
fact that the proposed use is compatible with
the surrounding land uses.
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 Conditions of Approval include
appropriate mitigation measures.
10.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the expanded
initial study performed for Plot Plan No. 230.
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.
STAFFRPT~230.PP
5
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:
AI~QPT the negative declaration for Plot Plan
No. 230 and
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving Plot
Plan No. 230, based on the analysis and
findings contained in the Staff Report and
subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
RA:vgw
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
Resolution
Conditions of Approval
Environmental Assessment
Exhibits
STAFFFU>T~230.PP
6
ATTACHMENT I
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 230 TO
CONSTRUCT A 7,855 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT ON
A PARCEL CONTAINING 1.65 ACRES LOCATED AT 27590
JEFFERSON A AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.
910-130-024-6.
WHEREAS, Paragon Steakhouse Restaurants Inc., filed Plot Plan No. 230
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 19, 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;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission Hearing, the
Commission approved said Plot Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findines. 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:
STAFFRPT\230.PP
7
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
(a)
There is a reasonable probability that the land
use or action proposed will be consistent with
the general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
(b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
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 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. 230 proposed will be consistent with the
general plan proposal being considered or
STAFFRPT~230.PP
8
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
D. (1) Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan may be
approved unless the following findings can be made:
a)
The proposed use must conform to all the
General Plan requirements and with all
applicable requirements of state law and City
ordinances.
b)
The overall development of the land is
designed for the protection of the public
health, safety and general welfare; conforms
to the logical development of the land and is
compatible with the present and future logical
development of the surrounding property.
(2) The Planning Commission, in approving the proposed
Plot Plan, makes the following findings, to wit:
a)
There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan
No. 230 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
restaurant 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
STAFFRPT%230,PP
9
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
that the proposed restaurant is consistent
with the existing zoning, the SWAP Land
Use Designation of Commercial , and the
permitted uses 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 No. 348.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation
patterns, access, and intensity of use, due to
the fact that the proposed restaurant complies
with the standards of Ordinance No. 348.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare, due to the fact that the Conditions of
Approval include mitigation measures.
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 proposed restaurant is
consistent with Ordinance No. 348.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area, due to the
fact that the proposed use is compatible with
the surrounding land uses.
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 Conditions of Approval include
appropriate mitigation measures.
STAFFRPT~230.PP
10
i)
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the expanded
initial study performed for Plot Plan No. 18.
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.
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 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 Comoliance.
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 which have been added to the project, and a
Negative Declaration has been recommended for adoption.
~ECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Plot
Plan No. 230 to construct a 7,855 square foot restaurant located at 27590 Jefferson
Avenue and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 910-130-024-6 subject to the following
conditions:
A. Exhibit II, attached hereto.
STAFFRPT~230.PP
11
SECTION 4_,.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th 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 19th day of August, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
FINDINGS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFFRPT~230.PP
12
ATTACHMENT II
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan No:
230
Project Description:
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Construction of a 7855
so.ft. restaurant on
approximately 1.34 acres.
910-130-024-6
Planning Department
The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for the construction of a Hungry
Hunter restaurant on approximately 1.34 acres located on the east side of
Jefferson Avenue between Winchester Road and Overland Drive and known as
Assessor's Parcel No. 910-130-024-6.
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. 230. 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
4. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as
STAFFRPT~230.PP
13
10.
11.
12.
shown on Plot Plan No. 230 marked Exhibit A, or as amended by these
conditions.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
The applicant shall comply with the Engineering Department's Conditions of
Approval which are included herein.
Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the
provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittal
dated May 21, 1991, a copy of which is attached.
Prior to building occupancy, the applicant shall submit to the Planning
Department a Share Parking Agreement.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of
Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Department's transmittal dated July
16, 1991, a copy of which is attached.
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. 348, Section 18.12, and shall be accompanied by the
appropriate filing fee.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape,
irrigation, and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. An
automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be
maintained in a viable growth condition. Planting within ten (10) feet of an
entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty (30)
inches.
A minimum of three (3) handicapped parking space shall be provided as shown
on Exhibit A. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be
identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain
on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of
Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and
shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height
if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade,
or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished
grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place,
STAFFRPT~230.PP
14
13.
at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by
22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing
placards or license plates issued for physically handicapped
persons may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed
vehicles may be reclaimed at __ or
by telephone
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall
have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue
paint of at least 3 square feet in size.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance
and/or permits from the following agencies:
Planning Department
Engineering Department
Environmental Health
Rancho Water District
School District
Riverside County Flood Control
Fire Department
Eastern Municipal Water District
14.
15.
16.
17.
Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on
Exhibits C and D.
Prior to building occupancy, the applicant shall submit to the Planning
Department a request for a Lot Line Adjustment for the northeast property line
of the subject site.
An Administrative Plot Plan application for signage shall be submitted
separately to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to
occupancy.
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening
material shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
18.
All trash enclosures shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy
permits. Each enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall be made with
masonry block and a steel gate which screens the bins from external view.
19. All outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the
STAFFRPT~230.PP
15
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply
with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with
Ordinance No. 663 by paying the 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 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.
Three (3) Class III bicycle racks shall be provided in convenient locations as
approved by the Planning Director to facilitate bicycle access to the project
8FEB.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts to
be determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the
installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved
plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed with
the Department of Building and Safety.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, all required landscape planting and
irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the
Director of Building and Safety. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds,
disease, or pests, The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in
good working order.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any
use allowed by this permit.
Within forty-eight (48) hours of the approval of the project, the
applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check
or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand,
Two Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars ($1,275.00), which includes the One
Thousand, Two Hundred, Fifty Dollars ($1,250.00) fee, in compliance with AB
3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 (d)(2) plus the Twenty
Five Dollar ($25.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the
STAFFI~T~230.PP
16
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).
Engineerina Deeartment
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this project,
and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
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 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.
28.
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"x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil
Engineer.
29.
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.
STAFFRPT~230.PP
17
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
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.
A lot line adjustment shall be processed and recorded and a copy provided to
the City Engineer.
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, sidewalks, drive approaches, signing, and other traffic control
devices as appropriate.
b. Drainage facilities.
c. Landscaping (street and parks).
d. Sewer and domestic water systems.
Undergrounding of existing and proposed utility distribution lines if
necessary.
STAFFRPT~230.PP
18
39.
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,
40.
Drainage calculations shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer.
All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.
41.
Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface
drainage entering the property from adjacent areas.
42.
All concentrated drainage directed toward the public street shall be diverted
through the undersidewalk drains.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT:
43.
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.
44.
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.
45.
Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be
recorded.
46.
Both access driveways at Jefferson Avenue shall be a minimum of 36' in
width.
47.
The developer shall provide an easement for ingress and egress over the
property for shared access with adjacent properties.
48.
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.
49.
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
STAFFRPT~230.PP
19
the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not
been finally established by the date on which developer requests its building
permits for the project or any phase thereof, the developer shall execute the
Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of which has been
provided to developer. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, developer
shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of
the bond shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000. Developer
understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of
those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such
fees). By execution of this Agreement, developer will waive any right to
protest the provisions of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of
any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic
mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project; provided that developer is not
waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the
amount thereof.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY:
A minimum flowline grade shall be 0,50 percent.
50.
Improvement plans per City Standards for the private parking areas and drives
shall be required for review and approval by the City Engineer.
51.
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).
52.
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.
53.
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along all public street frontages in
accordance with Riverside County Standard Nos. 400 and 401.
54.
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.
55. Parking space overhang shall not be over paved walkway areas.
STAFFRPT~230.PP
20
56.
Construct all street improvements including but not limited to curb and gutter,
A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights per
the approved plans.
STAFFRPT~230.PP
21
TO:
FROM:
RE:
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF HE
!lily 0F iEHELULA
NENEE DAEi%'iLEP. Env~rc. nmenta!
OATE:
maimst
[i!5-81-!3!
The Envlronms_nt_-,i HeRihh Service_= has revmewed P!ct Plsn l.le.
230 a:n,i bias no oblec% ions . Sanitary sewer and wate~
sGr-;Ices :hc~II:i be available in this ares , Prlcr to any
~.ul!~zng Dlsn s::om~ttals. the fillowing Items will be
reqvIred:
lhsee complete sets of Nilaxis for each feed
est_Rbl. zshr:zent will be submitted. Inciudznq a
f~xtuze ~cb.e~uie . a fln~sh schedule . amd a
wzth tlme Ca!~forn~a Uniform ~etazl Feed
~L <714} 358-5!72
PD: d r
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
_ 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE · PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370
~ (714) 657-3183
GLEN J. NEWMAN
FIRE CHIEF
July 16, 1991
TO: CITY OF TEMECULA
ATTN: PLANNING DEPT
RE: PLOT PLAN 230 AMENDED #1
With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced
plot plan, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection
measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or
recognized fire protection standards:
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for
the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings using the
procedure established in Ordinance 546.
The existing water system, with fire hydrants as shown on the Plot
Plan, will be capable of providing the 2500 GPM fire flow necessary
for the proposed project.
Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings. The post
indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the
front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the
building(s). A statement that the building(s) will be automatically
fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building
plans.
Install a supervised waterfow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans
must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to
installation, as per UBC.
5. A statement that the building will be automatically fire sprinklered
must appear on the title page of the building plans.
Install panic hardware and exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform
Building Code. Low level Exit Signs, where exit signs are required by
Section 3314(a).
7. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC.
Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment.
~1 ~NDIO OFFICE
79-733 Counery Club Ehlve, Suite F, lndio, CA 92201
(619) 342~886 · FAX (619) 775-2072
PLANNING DIVISION
~'1 RIVERSIDE OFFICE
3760 12th Sm:t~, Riverside. CA 9250!
(714) 275-4777 ® FAX (714) ~69-7451
~1 TEMECULA OFFICE
41002 County Center Drive, Suite 225, Temecuh, CA 92390
(714) 694-5070 · FAX (714) 694-5076
~ pdnted on recycled paper
Plot Plan 230AMENDED #1
Page 2
Install a hood duct fire extinguishing system. Contact a certified fire
protection company for proper placement. Plans must be approved by the
Fire Department prior to installation.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall deposit,
with the City of Temecula, a check or money order equaling the sum of
25¢ per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts. This
amount must be submitted separately from the plan check review fees.
10.
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.
11. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in
the Building and Safety Office.
All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to
the Planning and Engineering staff.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
By
Micheal E. Gray, Fire Captain Specialist
MEG/tm
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
Background
1. Name of Proponent:
2. Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
4. Agency Requiring
Assessment:
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Location of Proposal:
Paragon Steak House Restaurants, Inc.
6620 Convov Court
San Diego, CA 92111
August 7. 1991
CITY OF TEMECULA
Hungry Hunter
Plot Plan No. 230
27590 Jefferson Avenue
Environmental ImPacts
(Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets.)
Ye~ Maybe No
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures? __ X
b. Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil? X _
c. Substantial change in topography
STAFFRPT~230.PP
22
or ground surface relief features?
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on
or off site?
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?
Yes Maybe NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT~230.PP
23
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?
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?
YeS Maybe NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT~230 .PP
24
Yes Maybe NO
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?
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT~230.PP
25
Yes Maybe NO
10.
11.
Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and Glare. Will the proposal
produce substantial new light or glare?
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
Substantial increase in the rate of
use of any natural resources?
Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource?
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal
involve:
A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including,
but not limited to, oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
Possible interference with an emerg-
ency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan?
Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT~230 .PP
26
12.
13.
14.
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?
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?
Yes Maybe
X
X
X
X
NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT~230 .PP
27
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
f. Other governmental services:
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy?
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
17. Human Health. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health)?
Ye~ Maybe NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT~230.PP
28
18.
19.
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
STAFFF~T\230,PP
29
Yqi 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
X
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
STAFFRPT%230,PP
30
III Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
Earth
1.a.
1.b.
1 .c,d,f.
1.8.
1.g.
Air
2.a-c.
Water
3.a,d-I.
Maybe. This project site was determined by a geotechnical investigation
that the site does have some potential for liquefaction. However, proper
mitigation measures will be enforced in order to bring liquefaction to a
level of insignificance.
Yes. All development disrupts the soil profile to some degree and results
in soil displacement, compaction and over-covering. Further analysis will
determine if additional mitigations are required.
No. The proposed project will not create any significant impacts
regarding geologic features or conditions. No evidence of faulting was
found and indications of mass movement or major landsliding have not
been observed or reported on the site.
Yes. Wind and water erosion potentials will increase during the
construction phase and remain high until disturbed areas are replanted.
The wind erosion impact is considered high and significant, but will be
mitigated through minimal grading, retention of natural vegetation
whenever feasible, and use of watering trucks and hydroseeding
disturbed areas after grading.
Yes. The project site has some potential for liquefaction. However,
recommendations concerning liquefaction mitigations will be adhered
through the design and construction of this project.
No. The proposed project will not result in any substantial changes in air
quality or movement.
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 approval plans.
STAFFRPT\230.PP
31
3.b.
Maybe. The proposed project will be composed of approximately 63%
of impermeable surface area. Thus, possibly allowing 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.
3.c.
Maybe. The proposed project will increase the amount of impermeable
surfaces on the site which will reduce the amount of water absorption.
However, the introduction of irrigation to the site will offset the water
absorption rate. Drainage patterns will continue to flow to the streets
and channels.
Plant Life
4.a-d.
No. The proposed project will not have a substantial impact regarding
plant life.
Animal Life
No. Presently, the proposed project site is vacant and native animal
species have been displaced. Thus, no substantial impacts will be
imposed on any animal life.
N0iSq
6.a,b.
No. The proposed project will not have significant impact on noise nor
expose people to severe noise levels.
Liaht and Glare
Yes. The proposed project is located within the Mr. Palomar
Observatory Street Lighting Policy Area which recommends the use of
low pressure sodium vapor (LPSV) lights to help avoid interference with
the Mr. Palomar telescope known as "Skyglow". The use of LPSV lights
will reduce the light and glare produced by the proposed project.
Land Use
No. The proposed project will not result in a substantial alteration of the
present or planned land use of the area,
STAFFRPT\230.PP
32
Natural Resources
9.a,b.
No. The proposal will not increase the consumption rate of any natural
or non-renewable natural resource.
Risk of Uoset
lO.a.
Maybe. If the operating tenant uses any hazardous materials in their
operation, a list of hazardous substances and disposal plan would be
submitted to the City.
10.b.
Maybe. During construction, it should not be necessary to close any
streets which would interfere with emergency vehicles. However, in any
event, if street or land closure is necessary, it shall be coordinated with
the City and Police Department.
Population
11.
No. The proposal will not alter the location, distribution, density or
growth rate of the human population in the area.
Housino
12.
No. The proposal will not affect existing housing or create additional
demand.
Transoortation/Circulation
13,a,c-e.
No. The proposed project will not result in a substantial impact on
vehicular movement, parking, or existing transportation systems.
13.b.
Maybe. The proposed use will require new parking facilities which will
be provided on-site.
13.f.
Maybe. Increased traffic hazards may result due to the proposed
development. Mitigation measures will be utilized to reduce this hazard.
Public Services
14.a,b,e.
Yes. The proposed restaurant use will require public services in the
areas of police, fire, maintenance of roads, and public facilities. This
impact is not considered significant. The incremental impact should be
evaluated and the appropriate fees assessed. Property taxes should
STAFFRPT~230.PP
33
14.c,d,f,
Enerc~v
15.8,b.
Utilities
16,a-f.
mitigate the impact and continuing need for services over the long term.
No. The proposed project will not have a substantial effect upon, or
result in a need for new or altered governmental services.
No. The proposal will not result in the use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy or increase demand of existing sources of energy.
No. The proposed project will not result in a need for new systems or
substantial alteration to utility services.
Human Health
17.a,b. Ok. hazardous substances are used on site, then that may create a
potential health hazard. If hazardous materials will be used at the site,
a plan for their use and disposal will be submitted to the City.
Aesthetics
18.
No. The proposal will not result in the obstruction of any scenic view
open to the public, However, emphasis should be placed on the
building's relationship to the surrounding area.
Recreation
19.
No. The subject site is not currently used for recreational uses.
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.
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, if a
project is located within an area designated by the Riverside County as
STAFFRPT\230.PP
34
21 .b.
21 .c.
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.
No. The proposed restaurant will not have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals.
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.
STAFFF~T~230,PP
35
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
LOCATION .MAP
CITY OF TEMECULA )
~' M-M
/ ~
/
/
M -SC
CZ ~17~
S
CZ 8'
ZONE MAP
CASE NO.
/./~,..
P.C. DATE,.~,,,~./,~/
CITY OF TEMECULA )
RLI
SWAP MAP
CASE NO. ,.~7'~A/d
P.C. DATE//,.~./~//~;c~/
CASE
EXHIBIT
CASEI
ili
EXHIBIT
CASE tl
Z
!i
II
IIII
I
/
/
/
EXHIBIT
CASE I
ITEM # 9
Case No.:
Recommendation:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 19, 1991
Change of Zone No. 14 (CZ 14) and
Tentative Parcel Map No. 26845 (TPM 26845)
Prepared By: Mark Rhoades
Staff recommends that the City Planning
Commission:
RECOMMEND ADOPTION of the Negative
Declaration for Tentative Parcel Map No.
26845 and Change of Zone No. 14;
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending
approval of Change of Zone No. 14 based on
the Analysis and Findings contained in the
Staff Report; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending
approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 26845
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:
Mr. and Mrs. James Meyler
Markham and Associates
Change of Zone from R-A 2 1/2 to R-A and four (4)
lot residential subdivision on 3.68 acres.
Northeast corner of Ynez and Santiago Roads
R-A 2 1/2 (Residential Estate, 2 1/2 acre lot size
minimum).
STAFFRPT\CZ15~26845.TPM
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
BACKGROUND:
North: R-A-2 1/2
South: R-A-2 1/2
East: R-A-2 1/2
West: R-1
(Residential Estate, 2 1/2
acre lot size minimum)
(Residential Estate, 2 1/2
acre lot size minimum)
(Residential Estate, 2 1/2
acre lot size minimum)
(Single Family Residential)
R-A (Residential Estate - half acre lot size minimum)
Single Family Residential
North:
South:
East:
West:
Single Family Residential
Vacant
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
Total Area:
Number of Parcels:
Proposed Parcel
Sizes:
3.86 gross acres,
net acres
4
2.85
Parcel 1 - 1.0 acres
Parcel 2 - .51 acre net
Parcel 3 - .62 acre net
Parcel 4 - .50 acre net
Tentative Parcel Map No. 26845 (TPM 26845) was
initially submitted to the City of Temecula for review
and consideration on April 5, 1991. Subsequent
Development Review Committee consideration
followed on April 22, 1991 and again on July 1,
1991.
As originally submitted, the map proposed a
residential subdivision of the subject site into 5
parcels ranging in size from .3 net acres to 1.00 net
acres, with a change of zone from R-A 2 1/2 to R-A
1/2. The initial proposal has been redesigned and
submitted with appropriate lot sizes based on Staff
concerns regarding the proposed net lot sizes and
requested zoning. The current proposal has been
reduced to 4 parcels with a minimum size of .5 net
acres.
STAFFRPT~CZ15\26845 .TPM 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant proposes a residential subdivision of
just under 4 gross acres, realizing 3 residential
parcels averaging approximately 1/2 acre each, and
a one acre parcel. The project site is located in a
rural but developing area of the City, on the
northeast corner of Ynez Road and Santiago Road.
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 ~mproved.
ANALYSIS:
Terrain of the subject site is gradually sloping.
decreasing in elevation from northeast to southwest.
On-site grade differential between highest and
lowest points is approximately 30 feet. Existing
vegetation on the project site is primarily non-native
grasses with evident disturbance by human activity.
Several corrals, mature landscaping and a single
family residence exist 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 1/2 to R-A reflects on-going urbanization of
the general area surrounding the subject site. Recent
project approvals in the vicinity of Tentative Parcel
Map No. 26845 (e.g., TPM 27018) have allowed
subdivision of land at densities similar or greater than
that requested by this proposal. Further to the west,
STAFFRPT\CZ15~26845 .TPM 3
land has been subdivided at even greater densities in
conjunction with larger scale tract home
developments for Specific Plan 180. Additionally,
the recommended Southwest Area Plan density for
the subject site is 1-2 dwelling units/acre. Densities
in this range are considered appropriate at present
pending extension of necessary support services,
primarily, to the area in question. As such, the
proposed change in land use designation allowing
residential subdivision of property at a density of two
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., Ynez Road and
Santiago Road, both of which are currently
recommended as 88 and 110 foot width right-of-
way dedications respectively, adjacent to the subject
site (reference Exhibit D). Both road frontages as
well as the proposed cul-de-sac will be improved to
provide all ultimate right of way prior to occupancy
of residences which may be eventually constructed
on the proposed parcels.
Improvement of affected rights-of-way as a
minimum, be bonded for prior to final map
recordation.
MaD Design
Applicant responses to the issues discussed above
are reflected primarily in the map design currently
proposed. The map, as presently configured, is
included in the project staff report. Specifically, the
map was redesigned to achieve minimum net parcel
sizes of one half acre minimum.
In summary, the proposed parcel map, together with
the requested change of zone from R-A-2 1/2 to R-
A, and mitigation measures specified in the project
STAFFP/'T\CZ15\26845 .TPM 4
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 Environmental Quality Act
(C.E.Q.A.).
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
As discussed in the preceding portions of this Staff
Report, proposed Change of Zone No. 14 and
Tentative Parcel Map No. 26845 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. 14
and Tentative Parcel Map No. 26845 will both
substantially conform to the City's General Plan
goals, objectives, and directives affecting the subject
property.
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
An Initial Environmental Assessment has been
prepared for Change of Zone No. 14 (CZ 14) which
has determined that the proposed zone change could
not have a significant effect on the environment.
The environmental analysis prepared for Tentative
Parcel Map No. 26845 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
STAFFI~T~CZ15\26845 .TPM 5
FINDINGS:
consideration because the measures specified in the
project's Conditions of Approval mitigate significant
potential adverse impacts.
Change of Zone No. 14
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-wide
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-A 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
STAFFRPT~CZ15\26845 .TPM 6
size and shape for the proposed residential
use. Possible land use conflicts are not likely
to arise as the project proposes residential
uses similar to those existing in the general
vicinity of the subject site.
Adequate access exists for the proposed
residential land use from Ynez Road and
Santiago Road. 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 MaD NO. 26845
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. 26845. 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
STAFFRPT~CZ15\26845 .TPM 7
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.
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 sighrings.
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. 26845.
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 Ynez Road and Santiago Road
public rights-of-way. Development of these
roads shall comply with City Engineering
Conditions of Approval contained herein.
STAFFRPT~CZ15\26845.TPM 8
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
MR:VGW
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.
10.
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.
Staff recommends that the City Planning
Commission:
RECOMMEND ADOPTION of the Negative
Declaration for Tentative Parcel Map No.
26845 and Change of Zone No. 14;
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending
approval of Change of Zone No, 14 based on
the Analysis and Findings contained in the
Staff Report; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending
approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 26845
based on the Analysis and Findings contained
in the Staff Report and subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval.
Attachments:
1.A, 1.B.
2.
3.
4.
A.
B.
C.
Resolutions
Conditions of Approval
Environmental Assessment
Exhibits
Vicinity Map
Zoning Map
Southwest Area Plan
Recommended Land Use(s)
Tentative Parcel Map No. 26845
Fee Checklist
STAFFRPT~CZ15\26845 .TPM
ATTACHMENT NO. 1A
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CHANGE
OF ZONE NO. 14 CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-A-2 1/2
TO R-A ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF YNEZ ROAD AND SANTIAGO ROAD AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 945-060-007
accordance
Ordinances,
WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. James Meyler filed Change of Zone No. 14 in
with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision
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 19, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify
either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said Change of Zone;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. FindinQs. 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.
STAFFRPT~CZ15~26845 .TPM 10
(2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
a)
There is a reasonable probability that the land
use or action proposed will be consistent with
the general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the
boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its
General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion
with the preparation of its General Plan.
C, The Planning Commission in recommending approval of the
proposed Change of Zone, makes the following findings, to wit:
a)
The proposed 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-wide
and regional development patterns.
STAFFRPT~CZ15\26845.TPM 11
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-A 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.
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 Ynez Road and
Santiago Road. 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.
STAFFRPT~CZ15~26845.TPM 12
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the
proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the
Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration,
therefore, is hereby granted.
SECTION 3. Recommendation.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends
approval of Zone Change No. 14 to change the zoning on 3.68 acres of land from R-
A-2 1/2 to R-A on property generally located at the southeast corner of Ynez Road
and Santiago Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 945-060-007.
SECTION 4.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th 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 19th day of August, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFFRPT\CZ15~26845 .TPM 13
ATTACHMENT NO. 1B
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
PARCEL MAP NO. 26845 TO SUBDIVIDE A 3.68 ACRE
PARCEL INTO 4 RESIDENTIAL PARCELS; GENERAL
LOCATION OF SAID MAP BEING THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF YNEZ ROAD AND SANTIAGO ROAD.
WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. James Meyler filed Parcel Map No. 26845 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 19, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify
either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said Parcel Map;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findinqs. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
STAFFRPT~CZ15\26845,TPM 14
(2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
a)
There is a reasonable probability that the land
use or action proposed will be consistent with
the general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
b}
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
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. 26845 proposed will be consistent with
the general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
STAFFRPT~CZ15\26845,TPM 15
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.
460, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are
made:
a)
That the proposed land division is consistent
with applicable general and specific plans.
b)
That the design or improvement of the
proposed land division is consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.
c)
That the site of the proposed land division is
physically suitable for the type of
development.
d)
That the site of the proposed land division is
physically suitable for the proposed density of
the development.
e)
That the design of the proposed land division
or proposed improvements are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or
substantially and unavoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat.
f)
That the design of the proposed land division
or the type of improvements are not likely to
cause serious public health problems.
g)
That the design of the proposed land division
or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at
large, for access through, or use of, property
within the proposed land division. A land
division may be approved if it is found that
STAFFRPT~CZ15\2ee45 .TPM 16
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. 26845. 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
subdivision and land use ordinances, and
conform with the City's Southwest Area Plan
(SWAP) guidelines affecting the subject
property.
c)
There is not a likely probability of substantial
detriment to, or interference with, the future
adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The
project is consistent with surrounding
development, and does not logically have the
potential to generate significant adverse
environmental impacts.
d)
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.
STAFFRPT~CZ15\28845.TPM 17
e)
f}
g)
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 sighrings.
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. 26845.
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.
h)
i)
j)
The site for the proposed use is provided legal
access via Ynez Road and Santiago Road
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.
STAFF~>T\CZI 5\26845 .TPM 18
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 Comoliance.
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. 26845 for the subdivision of a 3.68 acre parcel into 4
parcels, generally located at the northeast corner of Ynez Road and Santiago Road
subject to the following conditions:
A. Attachment 2, attached hereto.
SECTION 4.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th 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 19th day of August, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFFRPT\CZ15\26845 .TPM 19
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Parcel Map No:
Project Description:
Assessor's Parcel No.:
26845
4 lot residential
subdivision on 3.68
acres, located at the
northeast corner of
Santiaeo and Ynez Roads.
945-060-007
Planning Department
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision
Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule G, unless
modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in
accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request,
if made 30 days prior to the expiration date.
This 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.
STAFFI~T~CZ15\26845.TPM 20
7. 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:
10.
11.
12.
13.
Be limited to a maximum slope ratio of 2 to 1. Setbacks from top and
bottom of slopes shall be a minimum of one-half the slope height.
b. Be contour-graded to blend with existing natural contours.
c. Be a part of the downhill lot when within or between individual lots.
All slopes over three (3) feet in height shall be landscaped and irrigated
according to the City Development Code. A detailed landscaping and irrigation
plan, prepared by a qualified professional, shall be submitted to the City
Planning Department for review and approval prior to issuance of grading
permits.
The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations
outlined in the County Health Department's transmittal dated July 10, 1991,
a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined
in the County Fire Department's letter dated July 16, 1991, a copy of which
is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern
Municipal Water District transmittal dated August 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.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Rancho
Municipal Water District transmittal dated July 30, 1991, a copy of which is
attached.
14. 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 zone.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free
condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided
STAFFRPT~CZ15\26845.TPM 2 1
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
with other erosion control measures as approved by the Director of
Building and Safety,
The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes,
landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations are
the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director.
Prior to recordation of the final map, an Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS)
shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to delineate identified
environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed with the office of the
City Engineer. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning
Department for review and approval. The approved ECS shall be forwarded
with copies of the recorded final map to the Planning Department and the
Department of Building and Safety.
The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet:
"This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar
Observatory." All proposed outdoor lighting shall conform with the California
Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory Lighting Ordinance 655.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be
retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed
grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. Should the
paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a
pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading
contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or
representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt
grading activity to allow recovery of fossils.
Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit
within the project boundary until the developer's successor's-in-interest
provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures.
A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) per lot/unit shall be deposited
with the City as mitigation for public library development,
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.
STAFFRPT~CZ15\26845,TPM 22
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
All dwellings to be constructed within this subdivision shall be designed
and constructed with fire retardant (Class A) roofs as approved by the
Fire Marshal.
Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the
subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices
shall be permitted with Planning Department approval.
Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall not be
less than ten (10) feet.
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. 26845, 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.
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.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground,
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,
STAFFRPT~CZ15\28845 ,TPM 23
Two Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars ($1,275.00), which includes the One
Thousand, Two Hundred, Fifty Dollars ($1,250.00) fee, in compliance with AB
3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(2) plus the Twenty-
Five Dollar ($25.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the
Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152
and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight (48) hour
period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the
check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void
by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
25.
Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant shall submit a geology report
in accordance with Riverside County Ordinance 90-079 to the Riverside County
Engineering Geologist for the subject Tentative Parcel Map. The County
Geologist must transmit comments to the City of Temecula Engineering
Department and any identified geologic hazards will be recorded on the
Environmental Constraints Sheet.
26.
Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, the applicant shall
demonstrate compliance with all comments and conditions set forth by the
Riverside County Engineering Geologist.
27.
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 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.
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.
STAFFRPT%CZ15\26845,TRVI 24
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
28. As deemed necessary by the City Engineer or his representative, the developer
shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control;
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department;
CATV Franchise; and
Parks and Recreation Department.
29.
All road easements and/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication to
the public and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such
offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the
City Engineer.
30.
Ynez Road shall be designed and 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'/64').
31.
Santiago Road shall be designed and improved with 43 feet of asphalt concrete
pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the
dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 100
(110'/86').
32.
Street "A" shall be designed and improved, or bonds for the street
improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance
with County Standard No. 106, Section A (50'/32'), and shall terminate in a
cul-de-sac turn around per County Standard No. 800.
33. A transition taper, 495 feet in length, shall be provided from the end of the
proposed improvements to existing improvements on Ynez Road.
34. A transition taper, 210 feet in length, shall be provided from the end of
proposed improvements to existing improvements on Santiago Road.
35.
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
STAFFRPT~CZ15\26845.TPM 2 5
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
City for the acquisition of such easement at the developer's cost pursuant to
Government Code Section 66462.5, which shall be at no cost to the City.
Vehicular access shall be restricted on Ynez Road and so noted on the final
map.
Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No.
805.
Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be
delineated or noticed on the final map.
The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be
executed 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, traffic
signal systems relocation, and other traffic control devices as
appropriate.
b. Storm drain facilities.
c. Landscaping (street and parks).
d. Sewer and domestic water systems.
e. Undergrounding of existing and proposed utility distribution lines.
The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated
with adjoining developments.
Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. 461 and as approved by the
City Engineer.
Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the
Engineering Department a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation
towards traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time
of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written
agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a
building permit.
STAFFRPT~CZ15\28845.TPM 26
43. Street names shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineering
Department.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the
City Engineer.
Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a
minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment
as approved by the City Engineer.
A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent.
All driveways shall 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 (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 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-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."
Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface
drainage entering the property from adjacent areas.
STAFFRPT\CZ15\26845,TPM 27
55.
The subdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by
alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow.
Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities,
including enlarging existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement.
56.
Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CATV Franchises of the
Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time of
street improvements.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
57. 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.
58.
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.
59. All lot drainage shall be to the street by side yard drainage swales independent
of any other lot, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
60.
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.
61.
The grading plan shall designate a location and design for subsurface sewage
systems, and shall be submitted to Riverside County Health Department for
approval.
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT:
62.
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.
63.
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.
STA~:FRPT~CZ15~26845 .TPM ;28
64.
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; orovided 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:
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.
Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times
with adequate detours during construction.
67.
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.
Transoortation Engineering
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
68.
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the City Engineer for Ynez Road and Santiago Road and shall be
included in the street improvement plans.
STAFFRPT~CZ15\26845.TPM 29
69.
Plans for a traffic signal pole relocation shall be designed by a registered Civil
Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for the intersection of Ynez Road
and Santiago Road and shall be included in the street improvement plans with
the second plan check submittal.
STAFFRPT~CZ15\26845.TPM 30
^ugust ~, 1991
Hark Rhoedes
City Of Temecula
43180 Business Park
Tcmecula, CA 92390
Suite 200
Dear Mr, RhoadeSr
requested, we have rev~ewe~ t~a suBJect project and cf'dar the
The eubJec~ project le not wlthln the Eastern Munici~al Wa~r
D~etT~C~ wa~er service area.
~NITX%~ sme~8
~he subject project is wl~hin the teetern Municipal Water Di~rio~;
e~wer service s~ea, however major Qff-site facilities ~oui~ be
recZuirad in cruet to serve the project. If se~ar ~erv~oe i~
~csired tAB ~eveloper is expected ~o submit a pro.u~sea con~s~tual
~l~n of sanitary sewer service for the subject ~r~3e:t b~d ~
$400.00 deposit to the Dintrict~s Customer Service De~a~t~en~ fo~
review an~ approval by Distric~ staff.
rE yO~ have questions re~arding ~hese comments,
71~/925-767E, extenSiOn 409.
Very trul~ yoUrS,
:cc/J
co: J. h:tcker
MaDe & RecOrds
SE\T BY: TF_~ECI. L~,
: ~- 8-~1 ;12:02P~;
July 30, 1991
Mr. Rols~tt Righetti
City of Temecula
Engineering Departmeal
.~3180 Business Par~ Drive
Tcmecu~ CA 92591
SUBJF. CY:
Water A,,ai]ahility
Tentative Parcel Map 26845
Chaflge of Zone 14 qj~L.j
Dear Sir or Madam:
Please bc advised thut the abovc-rctCrCtlCed property
boua~JarieS uf Rancho California Water District (RCV, qD). Wat~z setvine,
therefore, would be available upon ca.repletion 0f financial ar;anltcmcq:s
I:~tween RCWD and the prol~rty owner.
Water a,,ailabili~ would bz contingent upon the. property owucr signing
Agency A~eemcm which ~signs waler mnagsment rights, if any, to
R~.
If you have any questions, please contact Nft. genga 12k~h,r~.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P: E.
Manager of Development Engineering
SB:SD:ajtlf~t
co: .-w-.cJt:nga Dohcrty, F_.ngincczin{] Tcch.ic~an
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE ,, PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370
~ ' (714) 657-3183
GLEN J. NEWMAN
FIRE CHIEF
July 16, 1991
TO:
ATTN:
RE:
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPT
PARCEL MAP 26845 AMENDED #i
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
Install a standard fire hydrant (6x4x2~) at Ynez and A street. Minimum fire
flow shall be 1000 GPM for 2 hours duration at 20 PSI.
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.
MITIGATION
Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with
the City of Temecula, a cash sum of $400.00 per lot/unit as mitigation
for fire protection impacts.
All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to
the Planning and Engineering staff.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
By
Laura Cabral, Fire Safety Specialist
LC/tm
FI INDIO OFFICE
79-733 Country Club Drive, Sui.: F, Indio, CA 92201
(619) 342-8886 · FAX (619) 775-2072
PLANNING DIVISION
['1 TEMECULA OFFICE
41002 County Center Drive, Suite 225, Temetula, CA 92390
(714) 694-5070 · FAX (714) 694-5076
[21 RIVERSIDE OFFICE
3760 12th Strict, Rive=side, CA 92501
(714) 275J,777 · FAX (714) 369-7451 ~ pribted oo recVc/ed~eper
DRC ITEM NO, I '['P, ACT/I'AP, CEI~ MAP NO. ~e_ ~ 'F5
CITY OF TEI~!ECULA
TEMI~CUI.,A COhlMUNITY SERVICES DISI'RICT
QUIMBY ORDINANCE
nmouut of land to bc dedicated, or fccs pakl, shall be based on tile residential density of tile subdivisiou.
pc~sons per unit by the ratio of the number of acres of lmrk land required for each 1,000 persons (i.e., .005).
Cicclils given for I~roposcd parks will be under the discrctiou of tbe Temecula Commuuity Services District
(TCSI)) Director.
Whenever the actual au~ount of land Io be dedicated is less than the amount of land required to be dedicated,
Ihc subdivider shall pay fees for tile fair market value of any additional land that otberwise would bade been
required to be dedicated plus 20% for off site huprovcmcnts.
For subdivisious containing 50 parcels or less only the paymeut of fees may be required; provided however,
that ~vhen condominium project, slock cooperative or commuuity apartment project exceeds 50 dwelling units,
Ihe dedication of land may be required eveu Ihougb tile number of parcels may be less than 50.
XJI,ess thau 5 Parcels
Subdivisions contabling less than five 151 parcels w~71 be sltbject to the following conditions: Upon the request of a
huffdlng ponDif for cons~ucb~n of resid~l ~ucfure$ on one or more of ~e ~rcd$ wiffi[n four y~r$ following
approval of a t~tab~e map, pared map, or plann~ devdopmm~ r~l es~te devdopm~ s$~k coopsalive,
comn~unHy apa~mt proj~t and condominium for which a tmtaEve map or ~d map is ~d, a pr~et~fn~
OuimbV Act f~ in ~e an~ount ~ual to ~e fair market value of r~uird a~ge [Ru$ 20% for offdie improv~tsl
shall be paid by ~e own~ of ~ch such ~arcd(s) as a ~ndib~n to ~e issuance of suc~ p~R as au~o~z~ b,,
Riverside County Ordinance No. 460 as am~d~ ~rough Ordinance No. 460.93.
The following clmrt has been prepared to assist staff in calculating requirements of the existing Quimby
Oidinaucc:
Persons Per
Dwellings Type Dwelling Unit Acres Required*
~"} l(ea) Single Family (Detached Garage) 2.98 .01490
~j I(ca) Siugle Family (Attached Garage) 2,59 .01295
[Z3 I(ca) Mobile home 2.64 .01360
Z] 2(ca) Dwelltugs Uuits Per Structure 2.48 .01320
] 3 or 4(ca) Dwelling Units Per Structure 2.34 .01240
] 5 or More Dwelltug Units Per Structure 2.72 .01170
* l'lus 20% for offsite imlnovemcuts.
Uary L. King, I'ark Develop cu Coordinator (TCSD)
Date: :?' '/°° ' q /
COUNTY OF RIV~MSIDE DEPARTFaENT OF HEALTH
ENVIR0~AL HEALTH SERVICES DIVISION
3838 UNI~h~SITY AVE.
RIVERSIDE. CA 92503
THE DEPART~ OF HEALTH DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
SERVICES, LAND USE BRANDH, HAS RETIE~ ~ MAP DESCRIBED
~3BOVE. IF TFA'P,E Al°E ANY 0UESTIONS CONCE~ING THIS
SUBMITTAL, CONTACT (714) 275-8980. OUR RECOM~DATIONS APE
AS FOLLOWS:
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 cur considered opinion that the
soils that m:ght be encountered in this area are not be
conducive to effective subsurface sewage disposal systems
and because cf soil characteristics in the area, there may
be a requirement for extensive grading, compaction, cutting
etc. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF ~ FINAL HAP, an acceptable
soils feasibility report shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Environmental Health Services Division. (A
PERCOLATION FEASIBILITY REPORT IS REOUIRED).
Prior to any grading, the following information shall be
addressed and depicted by a Registered Civil Engineer (RCE).
Geo. togist with soils percolation expertise on all grading
plans for parcel maps, where SUBSURFACE SEPTIC SEWAGE
DISPOSAL is intended:
1.' The proposed cuts and/or fills in the areas
of the sewage disposal systems.
2. ]'he 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 o[iginal 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.
COUNTY CF RIVERSIDE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Page Two
FOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
MEALTH FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
F2ALTM
SAN
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 1 through 4 above.
(TITLE)
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
Background
1. Name of Proponent:
2. Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
Agency Requiring
Assessment:
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Mr. & Mrs. James Meyler
27710 Jefferson Avenue Suite #105
Temecula. CA 92590
(714) 699-1040 (714) 676-6069
Julv 29, 1991
CITY OF TEMECULA
Tentative Parcel MaD NO. 36845 and
Change of Zone No. 14
Location of Proposal:
North easterly corner of Santiago and
Ynez Roads. Temecula. CA
II
Environmental Impacts
(Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets.)
Ye~ M~ybe NO
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures? _ __ X
b. Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil? _ _ X
c. Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features? __ __ X
STAFFRPT~CZ15~26845.TPM 3 1
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on
or off site?
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?
Yqi Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\CZ15\26845,TPM 32
Plant
a.
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?
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct addi-
tions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flood-
ing or tidal waves?
Life. Will the proposal result in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or number of any native species of
plants (including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare, or endangered species
of plants?
Introduction of new species of
plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
Y~l Maybe NO
X
X
X
X
_ X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT~CZ15\26845.TPM 33
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
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. 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:
a. Substantial increase ~n the rate of
use of any natural resources?
b. Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource?
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFFeT~CZ15~28845 .TPM 34
10.
11.
12.
13.
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?
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?
Yes M~vbe NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT~CZ15\26845 .TPM 3 5
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:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks or other recreational
facilities?
Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
f. Other governmentalservices:
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:
Power or natural gas?
Communications systems?
Water?
Sewer or septic tanks?
Storm water drainage?
Solid waste and disposal?
YeS Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT~CZ15~26845.TPM 36
17.
18.
19.
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
STAFFRPT\CZ15~26845.TPM 37
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
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\CZ15\28845 ,TPM 38
III
1.a.
1.b.
1,C,
1.d.
1.e.
1.f.
1.g.
2,a*c
3,8,
3.b,c.
Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
No. The project in itself does not propose excavation or invasion of
significant geologic substructures.
No. At full realization, the project may involve constructing residential
dwelling units 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.
Maybe. The proposed project is located within an identified subsidence
report zone. The project is conditioned to require comments and
conditions from the Riverside County Engineering geologist, prior to
recordation of the final map which will mitigate any adverse impacts.
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.
N0. 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
ecologic features should not be impacted to any degree of significance.
STAFFRPT~CZ15\28845.TPM 39
3.d.
3.e.
3.f,g.
3.h.
3.i.
4.a,c.
4.b.
4.d.
5.a.
5.b.
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.
N0. 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.
N0. Percolation rates of the project site will likely decrease subsequent
to eventual construction, thereby decreasing localized ground water
recharge rates. However, impacts of such limited potential development
will likely be insignificant.
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 existing stand of mature trees on the
southeasterly corner of the project site will be preserved/relocated in
accordance with City ordinance.
N0. 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.
N0. 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. As identified in the Biological Study prepared for
this site.
STAFFRPT~CZ15\26845 .TPM 40
5.c.
6.8.
7.8.
9.a,b.
10.a.
10.b.
11.
12.
13.a,c.
13.b.
13.d.
NO. Elimination of insignificant habitat may eventually occur should
construction eventually occur. No noticeable impacts are anticipated.
Maybe. Ambient noise levels on the subject property may increase
No. 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. 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 residential
structures which is an allowed use of the property in question.
NO. Eventual construction and occupancy of the Residential units, 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.
N(~. The project site is not within an identified emergency
response/evacuation plan movement corridor.
N0. The proposal does not entail addition or deletion of elements
associated with regional population growth.
Ng. The proposal at full realization, may result in the potential addition
of residential units which will provide additional housing the City.
Impacts are insignificant.
N0. 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 residential related structures.
Existing traffic volumes and circulation patterns should not be noticeably
STAFFRPT~CZ15~26845.TPM 4 1
13.e.
13.f.
14.a-e.
affected. The impact is considered insignificant with the road
improvements required of this specific tentative parcel map are contained
in the attached Conditions of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map No.
26845.
N0. 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 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.
14.f.
15.a,b.
16.a-f.
17.a,b.
18.
19.
Ng. Impacts on other governmental services have not been identified at
this time.
No. Eventual construction and occupancy of residential units 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.
Ng. The project may eventually result in limited construction activities
and occupancy of residential units; 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.
N0. 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. The impact of is not considered
significant.
STAFFRPT~CZ15~26845 .TPM 42
20.a,b.
20.d.
21 .a-d.
N(;). Due to the disturbed nature of the project site and surrounding area,
presence of historic or prehistoric archaeologic resources is highly
unlikely.
N0. No religious or sacred facilities are present on or in the vicinity of
the project.
NO. Reference items 1 - 20.
STAFFRPT\CZ15\26845 .TPM 43
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.
X
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required.
July 29. 1991
Date
For CITY OF TEMECULA
STAFFRPT~CZ15\26845 .TPM
ATTACHMENT
NO. 4
EXHIBITS
STAFFRPT~CZ15\26845.TPM 45
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
-F~V/E C, UUA-
V/C/N/T Y M,~ P
no scale
VICINITY MAP
CASE NO. t.,t Iq J
P.C. DATE~'IOi°ql
CITY OF TEMECULA )
~'~S~pZONE
CZ 5105
R-A-2
CZ 2200
R-A-2
ZONE MAP ) P.C. DATE~--ICI'-'Cll
R-A-2 I/2
CZ
CASE NO.
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
~u/XC
SP- 180
COMMUNITY PA
SWAP MAP
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 26845
41750 WINCHESTER ROAD, SUITE "N"
TEMECULA.CA 92390 676-6672
(r'. r.t.,,t. 2foe,,HS
r NO "rr~Z,~,~q~
CASE · C-~, eH
P,C. OATE~,.|Cl.ql
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
CASE NO.: Tentative Parcel Map No. 26845
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 AoDroval
Condition No. 20
Condition No. 27
Condition No. 64
Condition No. 42
Condition No. 19.a
Condition No. 10
Condition No. 60
STAFFRPT\CZ15\26845.TPM 46
ITEM #10
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission (~
Oliver Mujica, Senior Planner
August 19, 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 August 5, 1991, at the request of
the Planning staff, the Planning Commission continued this item to their meeting of
August 19, 1991.
On August 12, 1991, the City Attorney decided to continue this item to the Planning
Commission Public Hearing date of September 16, 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 readvertising 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 September 16,
1991.
OM:ts
SANDEFKM\STAFFRP'I~TVIRADIO,ORD
ITEM #11
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Planning Director Jg'~n
August 19, 1991
Parcel Map No. 25059, Minor Change No. 1
The applicant is requesting a continuance of the above referenced project to the
September 16, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. The applicant is working with
Staff on the above referenced project 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 September 16, 1991, Planning Commission Meeting.
ITEM #12
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission (~
Oliver Mujica, Senior Planner
August 19, 1991
Case No.: Directional Sign Ordinance
The Directional Sign Ordinance was considered by the Planning Commission at their
meeting of August 5, 1991. At the conclusion of the Public Hearing, the Planning
Commission continued this item to their meeting of August 19, 1991 in order to allow
staff the opportunity to refine the proposed ordinance.
On August 12, 1991, the City Attorney decided to continue this item to the Planning
Commission Public Hearing date of September 16, 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 readvertising of the Public Hearing is not required.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission CONTINUE the Directional Sign
Ordinance to their meeting of September 16, 1991.
OM:ts
ITEM #13
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Planning Director J~/~ {~1r
August 19, 1991
Change of Zone No. 17 and first Extension of Time Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 23125
The applicant is requesting a continuance of the above referenced project to the
September 16, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. The applicant is working with
Staff on the above referenced project and Staff concurs with the applicant's request
for 8 continuance.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
Continue change of Zone No. 17 and First Extension of
Time Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23175 to September
16, 1991, Planning Commission Meeting.
WIMBERVG\PLNG~COZ17