Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout110491 PC Agenda AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING November 4, 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 not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission 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 2.2 Approval of minutes of October 21, 1991 Planning Commission Meeting. NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Case Planner: Recommendation: Substantial Conformance No. 24 Conditional Use Permit (CUP 13) Mr. Daniel Branson 42245 Sarah Way, north side of Sarah Way, approximately 1/4 mile west of Diaz Road Tenant Improvement of an existing structure within the M-SC Zone for use as an indoor shooting range with accompanying retail sales of firearms and ammunition. Charly Ray Approval PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Case Planner: Recommendation: Extension of Time Tentative Tract No. 22761 Coleman Homes, Inc. West Side of Ynez Road, North of Pierce Lane, Specific Plan 180. Second Extension of Time for a 50 Lot subdivision on 16.7 acres. Mark Rhoades Continued to December 16, 1991 Residential Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Case Planner: Extension of Time Tentative Tract No. 22762 Coleman Homes, Inc. West side of Terra Vista Road, South of Ynez Road. Second Extension of Time for an 80 lot residential Subdivision on 28 acres. Specific Plan 180. Mark Rhoades Recommendation: Continued to December 16, 1991 Case: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Case Planner: Parcel Map 25139 50 City Center Associates West of Diaz Road and South of Cherry Street To create 66 commercial/industrial parcels on a 97 acre site in the M-SC Zone. Debbie Ubnoske Recommendation: Approval Case: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Case Planner: Recommendation: Parcel Map 25408 Phillip T. See Southwesterly of future extension of Winchester Road Southwest of Diaz Road. To create 20 commercial/industrial parcels on a 36 acre site in the M-SC zone. Debbie Ubnoske Recommend Approval Case: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Case Planner: Recommendation: Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23372, First Extension of Time Buie Corporation North of Rancho California Rd., Westside of Kaiser Parkway. Extension of Time for a 66-Lot Condominium and Apartment Subdivision. 469 Dwelling Units on 46.9 Acres. Mark Rhoades Recommend Approval Case: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Case Planner: Recommendation: Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23373, First Extension of Time ' Buie Corporation Northwest Corner of Kaiser Parkway and Rancho California Road. 348 Condominium units on 23.5 Acres, With an additional 7.5 acres of commercial. Mark Rhoades Recommend Approval Planninq Director Reoort PlannineI Commission Discussion Other Business ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: November 18, 1991, 6:00 p.m., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California Ib pc/Agnl ~/4 ITEM # 2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMI88ION MONDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1991 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order Monday, October 21, 1991, 6:10 P.M., at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California. The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Linda Fahey. PRESENT: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland Also present were Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh, Senior Planner Debbie Ubnoske, Deputy City Engineer Doug Stewart, Robert Righetti, Department of Public Works, Gary King, Park Development Coordinator, and Minute Clerk Gail Zigler. PUBLIC COMMENT JOSEPH TERRAZAS, 31160 Lahontan, Temecula, questioned how to address federal funding for the Pala Road Bridge and with what agency. DOUG STEWART advised that there are currently no federal funds available for improvements to the bridge; however, the City has added the bridge back into the improvements under AD 159 and the City is exploring other forms of funding. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA DEBBIE UBNOSKE advised of the following modifications to the agenda: Item No. Item No. Item No. Item No. 4, 1991. Item No. 4, 1991. 5, continued off calendar 6A, continued off calendar 8, applicant requests continuance, off calendar 14, engineering request for continuance to November 15, engineering request for continuance to November COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to approve the agenda as modified, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. PCMNI0/21/91 ' 1 ' 10123/91 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 21o 1991 AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland MINUTE8 Ford, Approval of minutes of October 7, 1991 Planning Commission Minutes. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF amended Page 3, sixth paragraph to read, "Are we opening the specific plan to allow for additional park land to be placed for consideration"; and Page 5, after motion, "Commissioner Chiniaeff returned to the Commission". COMMISSIONER FORD amended Page 15, fourth paragraph, " ..... both the Homeowner's Association meet...". third paragraph and applicant and the JOHN CAVANAUGH amended Page 9, under his comments, "probably" replaced with the word "probable". COMMISSIONER FAHEY amended Page 6, fourth paragraph, motion made by Commissioner Ford. COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to approve the minutes of October 7, 1991 as amended, seconded by COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND arrived at 6:15 P.M. and took over the gavel. NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 3. PLOT PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE 192 3.1 Proposal for signage, freeway sign. Located on the west side of Front Street, North of Lower Highway 79. MARK RHOADES presented the staff report. PCMNIO/21/91 -2 - 10/23/91 PI,/~s'NING COIOflSSION MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1991 COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF asked if staff had reviewed the sign at any lower elevations. MARK RHOADE8 stated that staff had reviewed the sign at a number of lower elevations, and it was not visible. LOU KABHMERE, applicant, 19555 Camino De1 Paz, Murrieta, reviewed a letter he received from the oil company which he plans to contract with, which indicated the company's concern for doing business at Mr. Kashmere's facility if he were not allowed the signage at 45'. Mr. Kashmere stated that without the approval for the proposed signage, he would have to go back and review the project and decide if it would be viable without the signage. Additionally, Mr. Kashmere offered to move the proposed sign on the other side of the driveway to get it away from the billboard. COMMISSIONER FORD stated that future growth of the freeway landscaping would block the visibility of the sign for southbound traffic and suggested that a freeway sign advertising of gas would be sufficient. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND asked how the proposed sign appears in relation to other signage for gas stations. MARK RHOADES stated that the City has not approved any signs over 45' since incorporation. COMMISSIONER BLAIR stated that staff indicated in the staff report that the proposed sign may be in conflict with the future general plan and therefore she would not be in favor of approving. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF stated that he felt Mr. Kashmere could effectively advertise without 100% visibility from all directions and moved to continue Administrative Plot Plan for the next two meetings to allow the applicant the opportunity to work with staff on a lower height for the proposed sign, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1991 4. SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE 23 4.1 Proposal to change parking and landscaping. Located at the Costco center. MARK RHOADES presented the staff report. ALl MOAYERI, representing Costco Wholesale,12705 48th Avenue, N.E., Kirkland, WA, requested approval to reduce the landscaping width on the west side of the building to allow easier mobility of trucks. Mr. Moayeri also requested that the trellis work proposed for all four sides of the building be reduced to just the front of the building. Mr. Moayeri indicated their concurrence with the staff changes, except to reduce the planter width. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF suggested that the applicant increase the size of the parking lot landscape finger along that side of the building. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to Direct staff to issue a Letter of Substantial Conformance in accordance with Exhibit No. 3 to reduce the landscape along the westerly side of the building from 18' to 14', seconded by COMMISSIONER BLAIR. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 5. SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE 21 Proposal for automated teller machine. Located at the southeast corner of Front Street and Moreno Road. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to continue Conformance 21 off calendar, seconded by BLAIR. Substantial COMMISSIONER AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PClvlNIO/21/91 '4 ' 10/23/91 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1991 6A. TENTATIVE TRACT 25277 AND ZONE CHANGE 5724 el Proposal to change the zone from R-R, Rural Residential, to R-l, single family residential and to create 102 residential lots and 7 open space lots. CRAIRMANROAGLAND opened the public hearing at 7:00 P.M. OARY CULP, 31045 Via Gilberto, Temecula,present to oppose the Acacia Development; however, declined testimony until the next public hearing. FRED GOOD, 45906 Hopactong Street, Temecula, declined testimony until the next public hearing. JOSEPH TERRAZAS, 31160 Lahontan Street, Temecula, expressed opposition to the Acacia Development based on the grading, inadequate infrastructure and flooding of the Pechanga Creek. DONALD WILKENS, 31176 Washana Court, Temecula, expressed opposition to the Acacia Development based on the grading, density, and inadequate infrastructure. DON MITE, 31109 Via Gilberto, Temecula, expressed opposition to the Acacia Development based on the grading, densities, traffic and flooding of the creek. COMMISSIONER FORD moved to close the public hearing at 7:05 P.M. and continue Tentative Tract Map No. 25277, Change of Zone No. 5724 off calendar and re-notice the public hearing, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND declared a recess at 7:05 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 7:15 P.M. 6. TELEVISION/RADIO ANTENNA ORDINANCE 6.1 Proposal for an ordinance establishing regulations for television/radio antennas, city wide. OLIVER MUJICA presented the staff report. FCMNIO/21/91 -- 5 - 10/23/91 PLANNING COMMI88ION MINUTE8 OCTOBER 21, 1991 COMMISSIONER CRINIAEFF questioned if the intent of the City Council in proposing this ordinance was to ban or control all antennas. OLIVER MUJICA advised that the way Ordinance 348 is currently written it leaves it open to roof mounted antennas. The major intent of this ordinance is to control roof mounted commercial transmitting antennas. After further research the Planning Director was directed to prepare an ordinance which addressed all types of antennas. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF questioned if staff reviewed the requirements for the FCC as it relates to amateur radio operators. OLIVER MUJICA advised that the federal regulations would be satisfied by exempting amateur radio operators. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND questioned the effect on existing roof mounted antennas. OLIVER MUJICA stated that existing roof mounted antennas would have a one year amortization and would be required to be removed at expiration. JOHN CAVANAUGH advised the Conunission that the City Council had decided that in order to address special circumstances, such as the inability to receive reception, they must provide a variance procedure to the ordinance. OLIVER MUJICA also stated that some cities allowed for retracting antennas; however, this creates an enforcement problem. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF questioned who gives approval on the variance. JOHN CAVANAUGH recommended that the variance procedure come before the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the pubic hearing at 7:30 P.M. The following individuals spoke against banning amateur radio antennas, addressing their importance in the case of disaster preparedness for fire, flood, earthquake, etc.: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1991 ROBERT BERG, 42701 Via Del Campo, Temecula. MICHAEL TUCCI, 42325 Via Consuelo, Temecula. MARGARET TUCCI, 42325 Via Consuelo, Temecula. JULIE 8ZABO, P.O. Box 1335, Wildomar. RICK SAVAGE, 43120 Vista Del Rancho, Temecula. JOSEPH TERRAZAS, 31160 Lahontan Street, Temecula. COMMISSIONER FAHEY expressed a concern that there were discrepancies in the report, as well as the ordinance, and the Commission needed clarification on what was exempt. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to continue Television/Radio Antenna Ordinance to allow staff to answer the questions raised by the Commission, seconded by COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF for discussion. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF suggested that staff look at the legality of disallowing amateur radios and also the technical issue of retracting antennas. COMMISSIONER FORD added the variance procedure to that. JOHN CAVANAUGH advised that the City Attorney's office would prepare a full set of variances as well as review the boundaries of exempting amateur radios. Mr. Cavanaugh stated that the City Attorney's office would have to research whether the ordinance can exempt amateur radio antennas entirely and still target other antennas. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to continue Television/Radio Antenna Ordinance and continue the public hearing to the second Planning Commission meeting on November 18, 1991, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ADULT BUSINESS ORDINANCE 7.1 Proposal for an ordinance to regulate Adult Business within Temecula City Limits. OLIVER MUJICA presented the staff report. PCMNIO/21/91 '7 ' 10/23/91 PLANNIN~ COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1991 CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND questioned what if an adult business came in and applied for a permit and a church comes in and rents space in the same facility and is within 1000 feet. JOHN CAVANAUGH advised that legally speaking you cannot prohibit the adult use from being established where it was originally approved. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND suggested that (D) on page 14 of the ordinance should be revised as well as (6) on page 16. JOHN CAVANAUGH revised (D) to read "...permit or renewal unless"; and (6) to read "A picture arcade". COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to close the public hearing at 8:00 P.M. and Adopt Resolution No. P.C. 91-(next) recommending adoption of the Adult Business Ordinance. JOHN CAVANAUGH advised that a recent case law requires that all C.U.P.s must have a time limitation for being enacted upon. Mr. Cavanaugh suggested the following wording be added to the ordinance under time limitation "An application for a C.U.P. shall be reviewed and enacted upon within 60 days from the date the application was deemed complete." COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF suggested making it 90 days and seconded the motion. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONER FORD asked that the Commissioners receive a copy of the map plotting the sensitive areas. JOHN CAVANAUGH advised that the plotting of these areas will have to be done before the ordinance is adopted by the City Council. 8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP Proposal of tenant improvement of an existing structure within the M-SC Zone for use as an indoor shooting range with accompanying retail sales of firearms and ammunition. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND advised that a letter was received by PCMNI0/21/91 -8 - 10/23/91 PLANNING COMMISSION MINI~TES OCTOBER 21, 1991 the applicant to continue CUP 13 off calendar. COMMISSIONER FORD moved to continue Conditional Use Permit 13 off calendar, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME FOR VESTING TRACT RAP NO. 23125 el Proposal to subdivide 88.4 acres into 215 single family residential lots. Located at the northeast corner of DePortola and Butterfield Stage Road. RICHARD AYALApresented the staff report. COMMISSIONER FORD made the following clarification to the Conditions of Approval for the TCSD: Condition 20 should reference Lots 213 and 214; Condition 22 should read Lot 218 instead of Lot "A"; Condition 22 should read Lot 217 instead of Lot "B"; Condition 23 should reflect 11.1 acres instead of 12 acres, Lot 215 for Lot "C" and Lot 217 for Lot "B", and amended to read "...upon completion and acceptance by the TCSD..."; Condition 24 should read Lot 216 instead of Lot "D"; and the interior slopes are Lots 219 consecutively through Lots 225. .CRAIRMANHOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 8:15 P.M. RON WILLIAMS, Ranpac Engineering, 27447 Enterprise Circle West, Temecula, representing the applicant, concurred with staff's recommendation. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to close the public hearing at 8:15 P.M. and recommend forward the following recommendation to the City Council: Accept Environmental Impact Report No. 263 for Second Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 and AdoDt Resolution No. 91-(next] approving Second Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125, subject to the modifications to the Conditions of Approval as noted above, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. PCMNI0/21/91 -9 - 10/23/91 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1991 CHAIR/4~a~ HOAGLAND stated that he felt it was inappropriate to approve these zone changes prior to completion of the General Plan. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland CHAIRMAN HOAGLANDreqUeSted staff present Items No. 10, No. 11, No. 12 and No. 13 together. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF stepped down due to a conflict of interest. DEBBIE UBNOSKE presented the staff report. DEBBIE UBNOSKE advised that staff had received a letter from the City of Murrieta requesting a continuance of these four items to allow their staff time to work with the City on generating traffic studies to deal with circulation problems relative to the City of Murrieta. DEBBIE UBNOSKE advised of the following amendment to Condition No. 19 of Parcel Map No. 24085, adding the following two notes: "Property is affected by earthquake faulting and ground fissures. Structures for human occupancy shall not be allowed in the fault and ground fissure area." Also, "County geological report #627 performed on June 7, 1989 by Schaeffer Dixon and Associates, is on file with the County of Riverside Planning Department. Specific items of concern are: Earthquake faults, fissuring and land subsidence, as well as landsliding, liquefaction and uncompacted landfill. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND requested that the traffic department advise the Commission of their discussions with the City of Murrieta. ROBERT RIGHETTI stated that staff would be adding the following condition to the Traffic Department Conditions for all of the parcel maps, under prior to recordation of the final map: "The developer shall provide bus turn-outs with pedestrian entrances as approved by the Riverside Transit Authority and the Department of Public Works. Turn-outs shall be shown on the street improvement plans. Additionally, Mr. Righetti amended Condition No. 84 of Parcel Map No. 25139 to read "Diaz Road at Cherry Street". DOUG STEWART advised that in staff's meeting with the City of Murrieta Planning Director and City Engineer, they were advised that the City of Murrieta did not have time to address these PCMNI0/21/91 -- :L 0 ' 10/23/91 PL]~FNING COH~ISSION HINUTE5 OCTOBER 21, 1991 issues. They indicated that they need time to study the proposals in relation to the bypass corridor, which they are two years away from. Mr. Stewart offered that the Commission could respect their wishes and continue this item off-calendar or take the stand that this is an issue that staff and elected officials have been studying for quite some time. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 8:30 P.M. DEAN ALLEN, 27450 Ynez Road, Temecula, representing Johnson & Johnson as president indicated the applicant's concurrence to the staff report and modifications to the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Allen provided a brief history of the project. MAX URESOL, 9968 Hybrid Street, San Diego, representing 50 City Center Associates concurred with the Staff's recommendation and requested the Commission's acceptance. CHAIRMAN HOAGLANDquestioned if the entire project was in the flood plain. MR. DRISOL stated that only a portion of the project was in the flood plain, which is currently being used for special events and may be permanently designated for use for special events. BILL DENDY, 9679 Old Castle Road, Valley Center, one of the owners, explained that based on a marketing strategy they will offer smaller parcels. ED BEECH 44602 Harvey Street, Murrieta, accept all conditions and requests the Commissions acceptance. COMMISSIONER FORD questioned how far Parcel Map 25408 will cut into the chaparral. ED BEECH stated that it would be just above the portion that they show as graded. FRED WIESHAUPL, representing NBS Lowry, advised that three of the council members are working on the traffic circulation for this development with Cal Trans. COMMISSIONER FORD expressed a concern for going forward without the input from the City of Murrieta. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND stated that he had concerns regarding the political ramifications in working with the neighboring community; however, he felt it would be unfair to the applicant to continue again. Mr. Hoagland stated that after reviewing the staff report PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1991 and hearing the testimony, he would feel comfortable with sending forth a recommendation to the Council that they approve this map. Mr. Hoagland added that the Council could deny the recommendation based on the information they receive. DOUG STEWART stated that the city is planning on going out with a request for qualifications on certain issues of the western by-pass corridor that only affect Temecula. The request is going to look at an alignment study and intersection study. There is an opportunity for the City of Murrieta to join us in the study and add how the by-pass corridor could affect their proposed circulation element. Mr. Stewart added that he was not sure how long that would take; however, he did not see a quick decision on this from the City of Murrieta for a couple of months. COMMISSIONER FORD stated that he had no problems with the first two maps (PM 24085 and 24086); however, he still has a problem with the grading on the other two maps. COMMISSIONER FAHEY concurred that she too expressed a concern for the grading. 10. PARCEL MAP 24085 10.1 Proposal to create 57 commercial/industrial parcels on a 73 acre site in the M-SC zone. Located on the westerly side of Diaz Road, north of the future extension of Winchester Road. COMMISSIONER FORD moved to close the public hearing at 9:00 P.M. and recommend that the City Council Adopt the Negative Declaration for Parcel Map No. 24085 and Adopt Resolution 91-[next) approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 24085 with modifications to Condition 19 relating to earthquake faulting and notification of geological testing and Transportation Condition 84 added, as noted above, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAREY. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN:i COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff 11. PARCEL MAPS 24086 11.1 Proposal to create 49 commercial/industrial parcels on a 70 acre site in the M-SC zone. Located on the westerly side of Diaz Road, north of the future extension of Winchester Road. PCMNIOF21/91 -- 12 -- 10/23/91 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1991 COMMISSIONER FORD moved to close the public hearing at 9:00 P.M. and recommends that the City Council Adopt the Negative Declaration for Parcel Map No. 24086 and AdoPt Resolution 91-[next) approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 24086, adding Transportation Condition 86, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN:i COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND requested that in the overall staff report we urge the City Council to continue to work with the City of Murrieta on traffic issues. 12. PARCEL HAP 25139 12.1 Proposal to create 66 commercial/industrial parcels on a 97 acre site in the M-SC zone. Located on the westerly side of Diaz Road, north of the future extension of Winchester Road. COMMISSIONER FORD moved to continue Parcel Map 25139 for two weeks to look at the cut area on the westerly slope edge where the existing chaparral is and including modification to Condition 84 to refer to Diaz Road as opposed to Winchester Road. DOUG STEWART suggested having the applicant stake the upper boundaries of that tract so that the Commission could see where it falls on existing terrain. The applicant concurred with the request. COMMISSIONER BLAIR seconded the motion. The applicant provided the Commission with a picture of the boundaries. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN:i COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff 13, PARCEL HAP 25408 13.1 Proposal to create 20 commercial/industrial parcels on a 36 acre site in the M-SC zone. Located on the southwesterly side of Diaz Road, southwest of the future extension of Winchester Road. FCMNI0/31/91 -- 13 -- 10/23/91 PLANN~N~ COMMTSSTON MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1991 COMMISSIONER FORD moved to continue Parcel Map 25408 for two weeks to look at the cut area on the westerly slope edge where the existing chaparral is and have the applicant stake the upper boundaries of the tract for the Commissions review. The applicant concurred with the request. COMMISSIONER FAHEY seconded the motion. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN:i COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF returned to his seat. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND took action on the following two items together. 14. EXTENSION OF TIME TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22761 14.1 Proposal for second Extension of Time for a 50 lot residential subdivision on 16.7 acres. Located on the west side of Ynez Road, North of Pierce Lane. 15. EXTENSION OF TIME TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22762 15.1 Proposal for second Extension of Time for a 80 lot residential subdivision on 28 acres. Located on the west side of Terra Vista Road, south of Ynez Road. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 9:20 P.M. DENMY EILBERT, 43180 Business Park Drive, Temecula, representing the applicant, stated that they were in the process of completing the erosion control plan and concurred with the recommendation for continuance. COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to continue Extension of Time for Tentative Tract No. 22761 and Tentative Tract No. 22762 and continue the public hearing until November 4, 1991, seconded by COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 16. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 26828/CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 13 16.1 Proposal to change zone from R-R to R-1 and a proposal to PLAI~ING CO~,IIS8ION MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1991 subdivide 35.5 acres into 130 residential lots. Located at the northwest corner of Rita Way and Seraphina Road. MARK RHOADEB presented the staff report. COMMISSIONER FAHEY stated that the last page of the airport study references that the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook further recommends no more than three dwelling units per acre and the maximum structural coverage of the area to be less than 20% in the traffic pattern areas. Although this report was not prepared for this project, but was prepared for the adjacent project, this project is proposed at higher densities. MARK RHOADE8 stated that the lot sizes were the same on the adjacent tract; however, there was a large easement on the adjacent project. COMMISSIONER FORD questioned if there was an aviation easement requirement. MARK RHOADES advised that there was not a requirement; however, staff had received a letter from the A.L.U.C. requesting one. COMMISSIONER FAHEY questioned council on the City's liability in overruling the A.L.U.C. JOHN CAVANAUGH advised that the City would not assume the liability; however, it relieves the operator of the liability. Mr. Cavanaugh added that whatever the recommendation is to the City Council on this matter, the provisions of the Public Utilities Code requires that if it is the decision of the City Council to override the recommendation by the Airport Land Use Commission, it must make specific findings that the particular project falls in line with purposes and intent of state law, saying that there is not a noise problem, air safety problem, etc. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 9:30 P.M. DON LOHR, Lohr & Associates, 43515 Ridge Park Drive, Temecula, expressed concurrence with the staff report and requested that Condition No. 75 be deleted. Mr. Lohr stated that they would participating in signal mitigation through the form of fees paid. ROBERT RIGHETTI advised that the City's policy on signal PCMNIO/21/91 -- 15 -- 10/~3/9l PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1991 mitigation fees is that the fees are being used on signals of regional impact. The rest are developer driven. In the case of the signals associated with Tract 23145, adjacent to this Tract, these two signals will be paid for by the developer. Mr. Righetti added that if these two signals had fallen within the City's boundaries, staff would have conditioned the applicant to participate in these signals through a reimbursement agreement. Staff has tied the occupancy of this Tract to those signal warrants; however, if the signals are not warranted, staff has no objection to giving occupancy. COMMISSIONER FORD questioned if the applicant would be opposed to providing permanent irrigation to the slopes behind the homes which are to be homeowner maintained. DON LOHR stated that they would not be opposed to irrigating these slopes. MARK RHOADES added that the applicant was conditioned to irrigate these slopes. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF stated that he met with Mr. Lohr prior to the meeting to review the proposal and at the time discussed the lots with the large slopes. He offered that the applicant has the ability to adjust the top of the slope to the property line by taking out two lots on each side of "C" Street as an alternative. DON LOMM indicated that the applicant does not feel that this is necessary and the easements will be a reasonable solution. COMMISSIONER FORD questioned if the applicant would be willing to install the interior fencing. The applicant responded that they understood they would be responsible for that fencing. COMMISSIONER FORD stated that he would like to see 15 gallon to 24" box trees. DON LOHR stated they would be willing to amend the condition to read "as approved by staff". COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF asked if the applicant was proposing to put a fence at the top of slopes 91 through 98, as well as along Serafina and questioned who will maintain the down slopes along the retaining wall. DAVID LOCKE, Lohr Associates, stated that what was proposed was that the wall would be at the top of the PCMNIO/21/91 ' 16 ' 10/23/91 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1991 slopes and would be maintained by the TCSD. GARY KING stated that he was not aware that this was the intent of the Condition that the TCSD maintain the slope area. At this time there has been no discussion of turning those slopes over to the TCSD; however, if that is the intent, they must go through the normal application process. MARK RHOADES stated that the Condition reads that the developer is responsible for the upkeep of the slopes until such time as the TCSD would take over the maintenance. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF stated that with no Homeowner's Association, there has to be a way of maintaining these slopes. DON LOHR stated that they hope the TCSD would take over the maintenance of these slopes and would proceed with making application. COMMISSIONER FAREY stated that the real issues were the conditions and findings. DON LOHR advised the Commission that the land use has already been established in this area. The project is not located in the flight path of the main runway and the project is barely in the 2 mile radius. He added that the sound study showed that the project is not affected by the sound of the airport. COMMISSIONER FORD stated that he asked staff and City Attorney to review the requirement for school fee mitigation. DON LOHR agreed to bring the School Fee up to building permit stage. JOHN CAVANAUGH advised that if the recommendation is for approval, staff will re-write Conditions 27 and 29 and advise as to what position the City will take. MARK RHOADES advised of the following modifications to the Conditions of Approval: deletion of Condition 10; Condition 16(A), No. 5, add "All properties adjacent to public right-of-ways; and Condition No. 14(A} the developer shall acquire easements for the placement of top of slope fencing for Lots 109 through 116 and 118, I'CMNIO/21/91 -17 -- 10723/91 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 21o 1991 129, and 130. ROBERT RIGHETTI advised that after discussion, staff feels that Condition 75 should remain as written. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFP stated that he was concerned with recommendation by the Airport Land Use Commission; however, this is the only land that does not have houses approved on it in that area. COMMISSIONER FORD stated that the Commission will have to make those findings that are going to approve this tract which is that the Commission has reviewed the sound study that shows that the noise levels are not detrimental; the densities are complimentary to other areas that fall within the jurisdiction and that there are housing developments closer to the airport that are already built. COMMISSIONER FAHEY stated that she felt the Commission did not need to compound the problems that already exist and that the Commission does not have the data to override the decision by the Airport Land Use Commission. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to close the public hearing at 10:10 P.M. and recommend Denial of the Negative Declaration for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26828 and Change of Zone No. 13 and recommend Denial of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26828 and Change of Zone No. 13 based on the recommendation by the Airport Land Use Commission, seconded by COMMISSIONER BLAIR. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF stated that he has concerns about the design of the tract and landscaping of the parkways; however, he was not sure he felt that the proposal should be denied. AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland NOES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff, Ford PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT None PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION PCMNI0/21/91 -- 18 ' 10/23/91 PL~ed~IN~ CO!,~ISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 21o 1991 COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF requested that staff provide the specific Item minutes in the staff report when bringing back continuances to the Commission. OTHER BUSINESS None ADJOURNMENT COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to CONMISSIONER FORD. adjourn at 10:10 P.M., seconded by The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission will be held Monday, November 4, 1991, 6:00 P.M., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula. Chairman John E. Hoagland Secretary PCMNIO/21/91 -- 19 -- 10/23/91 ITEM #3 MEMORANDUM FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning November 4, 1991 Substantial Conformance No. 24 Substantial Conformance No. 24 is an application for tenant finish of an existing structure for use as an indoor shooting range, with ancillary retail sales of firearms and ammunition. This application initially appeared as Conditional Use Permit No. 13 on the Planning Commission's agende of October 21, 1991, at which time the item was continued off-calendar by the Commission. At the applicant's request, Staff has reconsidered the proposal's conditions of approval as regards necessary payment of public facilities impact fees. As originally conditioned in the Conditional Use Permit application, the applicant is required by City Ordinance to comply with the following condition: "Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property of project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required for the project. The fee to be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of 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 security to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of the security shall be e2.00 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 from 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." Based on conversations with the applicant, and in consideration of the nominal public facilities impacts anticipated from the proposed change in occupancy of an existing structure, staff recommends the Planning Commission review this proposal as an item of Substantial Conformance (S.C. No. 24), thereby allowing evaluation of the project's merits as a non-public hearing item; consequently relieving the applicant of the requirement for payment of public facilities impact fees. RECOMMENDATION: Attachment A: DIRECT Staff to approve Substantial Conformance No. 24 subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Staff Report-Substantial Conformance No. 24 ATTACHMENT A STAFF REPORT SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE NO. 24 (S.C. NO. 24) RECOMMENDATION: APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION November 4, 1991 Case No.: Substantial Conformance No. 24 Prepared By: Charly Ray DIRECT Staff to Approve Substantial Conformance No. 24 subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Mr. Daniel Branson Westmar Commercial Brokerage Tenant improvement of an existing structure within the Manufacturing-Service Commercial (M-SC) Zone, for use as an indoor shooting range with accompanying retail sales of firearms and ammunition. 42245 Sarah Way, (north side of Sarah Way, approximately % mile west of Diaz Road) 921-030-026 Manufacturing-Service Commercial (M-SC) North: South: East: West: M-SC (Manufacturing-Service Commercial) M-SC (Manufacturing-Service Commercial) M-SC (Manufacturing-Service Commercial) R-R (Rural Residential) As existing, no change proposed Developed with Commercial/Light Industrial Structures. North: South: East: West: Light Industrial/Commercial Development Light Industrial/Commercial Development Light Industrial/Commercial Development Vacant S%STAFFRPT%24,SC 1 10 booth Pistol Range - Retail Sales - Office/Storage/Classroom - PROJECT STATISTICS Existing Structure - 6,670 +/- Square Feet Proposed Conditional Use Occupancy as follows: 4,560 +/- Square Feet 1,150 +/- Square Feet 960 +/- Square Feet Total 6,670 +/- Square Feet Parking: Proposed Hours of Operation: BACKGROUND 11 spaces dedicated to this use Additional adjacent parking areas will be utilized after 5 p.m. Daily, 10 a.m. - 10 p.m. Substantial Conformance Application No. 24 was submitted to the City of Temecula Planning Department on October 23, 1991. The proposal was previously considered by the City Development Review Committee (DRC) on September 12th, 1991 as Conditional Use Permit No. 13. DRC concerns regarding this project and related mitigation measures are contained in the following Project Analysis. The proposed use may be considered comparable to other uses constructed within the M-SC zone district. However, as it is not specifically identified as appropriate to the M-SC zone, the proposal is forwarded to the City Planning Commission for determination of the project's compatibility within the M-SC zone district. ANALYSIS As indicated above, the shooting range proposed by Substantial Conformance No. 24 is a use which may be permitted within the Manufacturing - Service Commercial zone district overlying the project site. By adopted City Ordinance, it is the Commission's purvey as to whether the use proposed constitutes a nominal change to the site as originally approved, i.e. is in Substantial Conformance with the original intent and design of the previously approved project. The project site, as constructed, consists of a complex of free-stahding, single-story structures designed to accommodate a variety of small (7,000 square foot +/-) manufacturing service-commercial tenants. Development Review Committee comments and concerns regarding this proposal focused on the following issues: 1. Potential health hazards related to air quality within the shooting range area. 2. Necessary structural fire protective measures. 3. Building security and public safety. S%STAFFRPT~24,SC 2 Environmental Health/Air Quality The proposed use involves indoor firing of sidearms, resulting in potentially hazardous concentrations of toxic air borne materials, particularly lead. Air filtering and exchange systems proposed as mitigation to this potential hazard are detailed in Attachment No. 4. The proposed air filtering/exchange system is considered adequate in concept by the City Building Official, The specific air filtering plans proposed to be constructed for the requested shooting range occupancy shall be reviewed and approved by the City Department of Building and Safety prior to issuance of building permits. Air filtering systems, as installed, shall be field inspected and certified as to adequacy by the air filtering systems manufacturer. This certification shall be incorporated into the City Building Official's final inspection documentation for the proposed occupancy. The as-built systems shall also be inspected and approved by the City Department of Building and Safety prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. Fire Protection Floor plans, submitted in response to Riverside County Fire Department comments requesting interior space use details, provided the information necessary to generate appropriate fire protection Conditions of Approval as detailed in Attachment No. 1. As conditioned, potential fire hazards associated with the proposed use are mitigated below a level of significance. No reloading of ammunition, nor bulk storage of gunpowder shall be allowed in conjunction with the proposed occupancy. Building Security/Public Safety A portion of the proposed use includes retail fire arms and ammunition sales. Gun stores are considered historically attractive targets for burglaries. As such, the City Police Department shall review and approve building security plans and proposed alarm systems prior to issuance of building permits. The Police Department shall also field inspect and approve the adequacy of as-built alarm systems prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. EXISTING ZONING/SWAP AND FUTURE GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The project, as conditioned, conforms with existing zoning ordinances affecting the subject property, and is compatible with Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) land use recommendations for the site (Reference Exhibit "C" ). As discussed previously, the proposal is also compatible with existing development in its immediate vicinity. As such, it is likely Substantial Conformance No. 24 will be consistent with the City's General Plan recommendations for the property in question, upon the Plan's final adoption. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Pursuant to applicable portions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is determined to be categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA per Section 15301, which addresses minor interior modifications to existing facilities. S\STAFFRPT\24.SC 3 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Based on the analysis 'above, it is staff's determination that impacts of the proposed use are similar to; and no more intense, nor objectionable than adjacent existing uses within the M-SC zone district. The project as designed and conditioned also conforms with exiting zoning ordinances and SWAP guidelines and as such will also likely conform with the City's future General Plan. Therefore, staff recommends the Planning Commission Direct Staff to approve Substantial Conformance No. 24 subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. FINDINGS There is a reasonable probability that Substantial Conformance No. 24 will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law. The project, as conditioned, conforms with existing applicable city zoning and development ordinances. Further, the proposal is similar to existing adjacent development and uses within the Diaz Road Business Park. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with the City's future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the Plan. The project is of insignificant scale in context of the broad goals and directives anticipated in the City's General Plan. The proposal is also compatible with existing development in its vicinity, minimizing potentials for future general plan inconsistencies. The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws. Reference local Ordinances No. 348,460; and California Governmental Code Sections 65000-66009 (Planning and Zoning Law). The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use. Adequate site circulation, parking, and landscaping currently exist on the subject site. (Reference Exhibit "D".) The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare. Reference the project Conditions of Approval (Attachment No. 1 ). The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area. The project conforms with applicable land use and development regulations and reflects design elements currently existing within the City. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. The project draws access from Sarah Way; a dedicated City right-of-way, currently improved to it's ultimate design configuration. The design of the project together with the type of supporting improvements are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through, or use of the property within the proposed project. No exterior alterations or additions to the existing, previously approved structure are proposed. S~STAFFRPT~24.SC 4 9. Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. Supporting documentation is attached. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: DIRECT Staff to approve Substantial Conformance No. 24 subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Attachments: 1. 2. Conditions of Approval - page 6 Exhibits - page 10 A. Vicinity Map B. SWAP C. Zoning Map D. Surrounding Land Use Map E. Site Plan F. Floor Plans Fee Checklist - page 11 Proposed air exchange system/ manufacturer's specifications - page 13 S%STAFFRPT\24+SC 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE NO. 24 S\STAFFRPT\24.SC 6 A'I'FACHMENT NO. 1 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE NO. 24 Project Description: Tenant finish and improvement of an existing structure within the M-SC Zone District for use as an indoor shooting range with accompanying sales of firearms and ammunition; shooting range to be approximately 4,560 square feet, with 10 firing stations; retail sales area to be approximately 1,150 square feet and office/storage classroom areas at 960 +/- square feet. Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-030-026 Planning Department The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for tenant finish and improvement of an existing structure within the M-SC Zone District for use as an indoor shooting range with accompanying sales of firearms and ammunition; shooting range to be approximately 4,560 square feet, with 10 firing stations; retail sales area to be approximately 1,150 square feet, and office/storage classroom area at 960 +/- square feet. The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Substantial Conformance No. 24. 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 one (1) year 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 one (1) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. This approval shall expire on In the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period of one (1) year or more, this approval shall become null and void. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on Substantial Conformance No. 24 site plan and floor plans, marked Exhibits D and E respectively, or as amended by these conditions. 6. Daily hours of operation shall be limited to between 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. City of Temecula Police Department 7. The City Police Department shall review and approve proposed building security system(s) prior to issuance of building permits. Security systems, as built, shall be inspected and approved by the City Police Department prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy. 8. The applicant shall comply with all state and federal laws pertaining to sales of firearms including documentation and reporting of sales to local agencies. Department of Public Works The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering Department. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further consideration. Prior to Issuance of Certification of Occupancy 9. Submit evidence that the Area Drainage Plan fees have been paid by the underlying Parcel Map. Department of Building and Safety 10. Comply with all applicable provisions of the currently adopted edition of the Uniform Building Mechanical and Plumbing Codes, the 1990 edition of the National Electrical Code, California State Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Handicapped Regulations and the Temecula City Code. Riverside County Fire Department With respect to the Conditions of Approval regarding the above referenced substantial conformance application, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: 11. No reloading of ammunition will be conducted at this site. 12. It is prohibited to use/process or store any materials in this occupancy that would classify it as an "H" Occupancy per Chapter 9 of the 1988 UBC. 13. Applicant/Developer shall 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). 14. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. 15. Applicant/Developer shall install portable fire extinguisher with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC. Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. S\STAFFRPT\24,SC 8 16. 17. 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. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and Safety Office. County of Riverside Department of Health The Environmental Health Services Department has reviewed Substantial Conformance No. 24 and has Prior to any building plan no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services are available in this area. review for health clearance, the following items are required: 18. 19. "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewer agencies. A clearance letter from the Hazardous Services Material Management Branch (Jon Mohoroski, 358- 5055), will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for: Underground storage tanks Hazardous Waste Generator Services Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with AB 2185) d. Waste reduction management S%STAFFRPT~24,SC 9 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 EXHIBITS S\STAFFRPT\24,SC 10 CITY OF TEMECULA ) '*' ./' r EXHIBIT 'CASE ~,p.c. DATE ~l.~,_~ CITY OF TEMECULA k~P.C. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA ) "' ,/ CITY OF TEMECULA ) ee ; · EXHIBIT NO. ~ 'CASE ao. ~.c. Ao,~l I ~?.c. DATE ll.d..~,\ ~ CITY OF TEMECULA '~ CITY OF TEMECULA ') 11 ' r,, * BULLET TRAP' OFFICE / z.~/ PISTOL L mm~' STORE ATTACHMENT NO. 3 FEE CHECKLIST S\STAFFRPT\24.SC 11 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST CASE NO.: SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE NO. 24 The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this project. Fee Habitat Conservation Plan (K-Rat) Parks and Recreation (Quimby) Public Facility (Traffic Mitigation) Public Facility (Traffic Signal Mitigation) Public Facility {Library) Fire Protection Flood Control (ADP) Condition of Approval Condition No. N/A Condition No. N/A Condition No. N/A Condition No, N/A Condition No. N/A Condition No. N/A Condition No. 9 S%STAFFRPT\24,SC ~, 12 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 PROPOSED AIR EXCHANGE SYSTEM TOTAL AIR SYSTEMS El--Air Handler/Coi~ El--Filter Section 2'0" rain, recommended on both sides for servicing filters. 75% RECIRCULATION/MAKE-UP PACKAGE T PLAN T i . ._L, I~--Air Handier [~l--Filter Section ! G ELEVATION 2'0' rain. recommended on bc~h sides for seaicing filters. PLAN EXHAUST AIR PACKAGE (1) Blse height 1" Turnec / Flange-T~ Sides (I) KI shown lor ngnt (2) ~ height The System I air recirculation system can be installed in most new or existing indoor firing ranges. A significant energy saving of heating or cooling can be realized because 75% of the air is recirculated. The system has been designed with a slight negative pressure in the range that will not allow unfiltered air to contaminate adjacent rooms. MAKE-UP AND RECIRCULATION EXHAUST PACKAGE PACKAGE Exhaust fan unit is sized to remove 25% of the supply air, Fan unit includes blower. motor and controls. Fan Housing has space available for installing cooling coils. The exhaust filtration section includes a 30% prefilter, The filtration section includes a 30% prefilter, 95% hag 950/0 bag filter and a 950/o DOP filter. This is a very filter, and 99.97% HEPA final filter. This system is efficient system designed to meet government standards. designed for optimum maintenance cost and efficiency considerations. ScanCo develobed the total exhaust system as a less expensive initial capital cost alternative to the 75% recirculation system. This system might be considered in milder climates where heating or cooling costs are not prohibitive. The system which is designed to meet EPA and OSHA standards can be installed in new or existing facilities. As the name implies, the system supplies 100% outside air. This air is then exhausted from the bullet stop end. A slight negative pressure is ,designed in the System. MAKE-UP AIR SECTION Make-up Air Fan The filter section includes a permanent filter designed to collect targer particulates and a rain hood to protect the air intake side. EXHAUST SECTION Exhaust fan unit is designed to remove all of the make-up air and create a slight negative pressure in the room. The filter section includes a 30°/0 prefilter, 95% bag filter and 95% DOP filter designed for optimum efficiency. N Fll i EJIIIIMII Weight Illl ~ Ufilt UfiS NP lie. EM1 1100 FEMI0-10 DEM03 3.0 684 EM2 3300 FEMI0-20 DEM03 7,5 923 EM3 5~00 FEM15-20 DEMQ8 75 1348 EM4 ~ FEM16-30 DEM08 150 1612 EM6 ~g00 FEM15-35 DEM15 150 1888 EM6 12100 FEM20-35 DEM25 150 2324 EM7 14,300 FEM3~40 OEM25 200 2460 EM6 16500 FEM2~*35 C)EM25 200 2537 EM9 18700 FE~:~540 OEM35 200 2845 EMI0 20900 FEM25-45 DEM35 25.0 3012 EM11 23100 FEM25-50 OEM35 30.0 3144 Suggested Specifications 75% AIR RECIRCULATION SYSTEM (SYSTEM I) The Recirculation System shall be as provided by ScanCo En- vironmental Systems. The system shall consist of two separate air handling and filtration packages. The recirculation/makeup air package shall be ScanCo size (R1 to R17) and shall supply CFM, using a maximum BHP of at a maximum off. inches W.G. static presure. The recirculation package shall be complete with fan section, motor, controls, and a filter section that includes 30% prefilter, 95% bag filter, and 99.97% HEPA final filter. The fan housing shall have space available for installing cooling coils. An exhaust filter package shall be ScanCo raze (ER1 to ER14) and shall supply~.CFM using a maximum BHP of~.at a max- imum of inches W.G. static pressure. The package shall include 30% prefilters, 95% bag and 95% bOP filter, Gages shall be installed to monitor static pressure (i .w.g.) for each filter section (prefilter section, bag sec- tion, final filter section). The combined packages are designed to operate in unison to meet regulatory standards, to obtain a negative pressure in the firing range, to achieve maximum filter life and to recirculate 75% of the supply air past the Shooting positions. TOTAL AIR EXHAUST SYSTEM (SYSTEM II) The Total Exhaust System shall be as provided by ScanCo Environ- mental Systems. The system shall consist of two separate air hand- ling and filtration packages. The make-up air package shall be ScanCo size (M1-M11) and shall supply CFM using a maximum of__.BHP at a max- imum of inCheS W.G. static pressure. The system shall be complete with fan section, motor, controls and a filter section that includes a permanent galvanized filter and a rain hood with birdscreen. The exhaust air filter package shall be ScanCo size (EM1-EM11) and shall supply.__CFM using a maximum BHP of.__at a maxi- mum_inches W.G. static pressure. The package shall consist of a fan/motor section and a filtra- tion section. The filtration section shall include 30% prefilter, 95% bag filter, and 95% bOP final filter. Gages shall be installed to monitor static pressure (i.w.g.) for each filter section (prefilter section, bag section, final filter section). The combined packages are designed to operate in unison, to meet regulatory standards, to obtain a negative pressure in the firing range and to achieve optimum filter life. OPTIONS Computerized Control System ScanCo offers a Computerazed Con- trol System to monitor and contr,'~l heating and cooling equipme~ Energy saving up to 25% have ,,, realized using this system with a one year payback. The system can be adapted to control indoor and outdoor lighting and security systems. This system is offered as an option. Other Options · Weatherproof · Cabinet Insulation · Various Voltages · Special Coatings · Motor Starter · Custom designed systems for any size ranges or any special space requirement. ScanCo Environmental Systems has a policy of continuous product research and reserves the right to change design and specifications without notice. ScanCo Environmental Systems, Inc. 50 Hi hlands arkwa,~i~01; , tlanta, 00 g P(4~4~!~2i2F50~XA GA 30082 II T [~--A~r Handler E}--Filter Section [~--Rainhood w/Birdscreen [';']--A~r Handler 'I' ~ B SIZE A EM2 EM3 4'1H~1'' MAKE-UP PACKAGE T L K 2'0' rain recommended on both ssdes for 3" Blse Height servicing filters PLAN ELEVATION c o F Q H J K G 2'0" rain. recommended on Ooth sides for servicing filters. 3" Bm Height EXHAUST AIR PACKAGE PLAN ELEVATION Rainhood 1" Turned Range-Typ S~des L (1) Kl shown for rsght hand e THE PROBLEM Indoor firing ranges generate lead contaminates in the air that can be toxic to inhabitants if the ventilation system is not properly designed and safety procedures are not carefully followed. Sources of lead dust and fumes during firing include (1) the lead primer (2) vaporization and fragmentation of the projectile as it passes through the weapon being fired and (3) fragmentarSon of the bullet as it strikes the bullet stop. Many indoor firing ranges in the past have ignored problems with lead contamination either inside the ranges or with air exhausted into the atmosphere. These prac- tices will not likely be tolerated by a more sophisticated society in the future as evidenced by the forced closing of many ranges. THE SOLUTION ScanCo has developed two ventila- tion/filtration systems for indoor firing ranges that when properly installed and maintained can provide dollar savings as well MEET TARGETED LEVELS FOR NIOSH EPA OSHA as meeting regulatory standards. These systems are the result of years of work in filtration, ventila- tion, heating, and air conditioning applications. ScanCo management strongly believes each range should have assigned to it a highly quali- fied specialist who has previously worRed on dozens of similar appli- cations. In most cases the ScanCo representative will visit the range and/or the engineering firm design- ing the range at least once in order to minimize any potential problems. GOVERNMENT STANDARDS OSHA: Limits occupational exposure to 50 micrograms of lead per cubic meter of air, averaged over an eight hour period. EPA: Limits lead in exhaust air to 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter, averaged over a calendar quarter. BENEFITS TO YOU · Compliance with NIOSH, OSHA and EPA standards. · Greatly enhances user comfort and satisfaction with your range - resulting in increased patronage. · Reduces potential liability resulting from employee health problems. · Reduces absenteeism and si of employees. · New permits are easier to obtain with plans outlining these systems. · Reduces outside air intake by up to 75% resulting in energy savings for heating and cooling that over a period of time can pay for the system. MAKE-U~* SCANCO RECIRCULATION & FILTER SYSTEM FIRING LINE TYPICAL SCANCO INDOOR FIRING RANGE RECIRCULATION AND FILTRATION SYSTEM ITEM # 4 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Douglas M. Stewart, Deputy City Engineer November 4, 1991 Tract Map No. 22761, Second Extension of Time On August 13, 1991, the Department of Public Works sent letters to all developers with active and inactive subdivisions within the City of Temecula. Said letter requested that all erosion and run-off control be in place no later than October 15th of this year. The developer for Tract Map No. 22761 and Tract Map No. 22762 has failed to comply with the established deadline in conformance with the conditions of their grading permit and the subdivision conditions of approval. Therefore, the Department of Public Works respectfully requests that both Second Extensions of Time for Tract 22761 and Tract 22762 be continued to the December 16, 1991, Planning Commission meeting to allow time for staff to resolve the issue with the developer. vgw S\STAFFRFT%22761-2.VTM MEMORANDUM FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Douglas M. Stewart, Deputy City Engineer October 21, 1991 Tract Map No. 22761, Second Extension of Time On August 13, 1991, the Department of Public Works sent letters to all developers with active and inactive subdivisions within the City of Temecula. Said letter requested that all erosion and runoff control be in place no later than October 15th of this year. The developer for Tract Map No. 22761 and Tract Map No. 22762 has failed to comply with the established deadline in conformance with the conditions of their grading permit and the subdivision conditions of approval. Therefore, the Department of Public Works respectfully requests that both Second Extensions of Time for Tract 22761 and Tract 22762 be continued to the November 18, 1991, Planning Commission meeting to allow time for staff to resolve the issue with the developer. vgw S\STAFFRPT\22761-2,VTM 2 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION October 21, 1991 Case No.: Second Extension of Time-Tentative Tract Map No. 22761 Prepared By: Mark Rhoades RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution 91-_ RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE the Second Extension of Time for Tentative Tract No. 22761 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the staff report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Coleman Homes REPRESENTATIVE: Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates PROPOSAL: Eighty (80) lot residential subdivision on 28 acres. Second Extension of Time. LOCATION: Between Rancho California Road and Santiago Road, west of Ynez Road. EXISTING ZONING: Specific Plan 180 (Rancho Highlands) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: R-A-5 (Residential Agricultural, 5 acre minimum) SP 180 (Rancho Highlands) R-1 (One-Family Dwellings) I-15 (Interstate 15) South: East: West: PROPOSED ZONING: Not requested EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Multi-Family Residential Single Family Residential Single Family Residential Interstate 15 PROJECT STATISTICS: Total Acreage: No. of Lots: Open Space Lots: Proposed DU/Acre Proposed Minimum Lot Size: 28 80 1 2.8 7,200 sq.ft. S~STAFFRPT~22761-2.VTM 3 BACKGROUND Tentative Tract No. 22761 was originally approved by Riverside County in July of 1988. The first time extension was approved by the City of Temecula in October 1990. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Tract Map No. 22761, is a proposal to subdivide approximately 28 acres into eighty (80) single family residential lots with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. The subject site is located south of Rancho California Road, west of Ynez Road and easterly of I-15. The project is consistent with the approved Specific Plan No. 180. FUTURE GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY The proposed density of 2.8 units per acre is consistent with the Southwest Area Community Plan. In addition, Staff finds it probable that this project will be consistent with the new General Plan when it is adopted, because of the existing pattern of area development. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission re-affirm the Environmental Impact Report No. 177 completed for Specific Plan No. 180. 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 commensurate with existing and anticipated residential development standards. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future and adopted general plan, if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that the project is in conformance with existing and anticipated land use and design guidelines standards. The proposed use or action complies with state planning and zoning laws, due to the fact that the proposed use conforms with those uses listed as "allowed" within the zoning designation of Specific Plan 180. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and density, due to the fact that; adequate area is provided for all proposed residential structures; adequate landscaping is provided along the project's public and private frontages; and the internal circulation plan should not create traffic conflicts as design provisions are in conformance with adopted City standards. S\STAFFRPT~2.2761-2.VTM at The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare, due to the fact that the conditions stated in the approval are based on mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts of the project. Tentative Tract Map No. 22761 is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk, height, density and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties, due to the fact that the proposal is similar in compatibility with surrounding land uses; and adequate area and design features provide for siting of proposed development in terms of landscaping and internal traffic circulation. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area, due to the fact that the proposed project is consistent with the current zoning of the subject site. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the EIR for the project, due to the fact that impact mitigation is realized by conformance with the project's Conditions of Approval. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact that the project currently proposes access points from Ynez Road which have been determined to be adequate by the City Engineer. 10. The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed projects, due to the fact that this is clearly represented in the site plan and the project analysis. 11. Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with is application and herein incorporated by reference, due to the fact that they are referenced in the attached Staff Report, Exhibits, and Conditions of Approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution 91-__ RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE The Second Extension of Time for Tentative Tract No. 22761 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the staff report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. vgw Attachments: 2. 3. 4. Resolution - page 6 Conditions of Approval - page 11 Staff Report-First Extension of Time - page 17 Exhibits - page 18 S\STAFFRPT~22781-2.VTM 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 91-_ S%STAFFRPT%22761-2,VTM 6 ATFACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 91-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 22761, An 80 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ON 28 ACRES AND KNOWN AS A PORTION OF ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 923-020-038. WHEREAS, Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates filed the Time Extension in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Time Extension application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Time Extension on November 4, 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 Time Extension. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Findings That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: (1) There is a reasonable probability that the Time Extension proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (2) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. S\STAFFRPT%22761-2.VTM 7 m (3) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. The proposed Time Extension is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. 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: (1) There is reasonable probability that the Time Extension proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (2) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (3) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no Time Extension may be approved unless the following findings can be made: The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. The proposed subdivision does not affect the general health, safety, and welfare of the public. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the proposed Time Extension, makes the following findings, to wit: (1) 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 consir:tent with existing site development standards in that it proposes articulated design features and site amenities commensurate with existing and anticipated residential development standards, S\STAFFRFT~22761-2.VTM 6 (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) 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 zoning designation of Specific Plan 180. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and density, due to the fact that; adequate area is provided for all proposed residential structures; adequate landscaping is provided along the project's public and private frontages; and the internal circulation plan should not create traffic conflicts as design provisions are in conformance with adopted City standards. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare, due to the fact that the conditions stated in the approval are based on mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts of the project. Tentative Tract Map No. 22761 is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk, height, density and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties, due to the fact that the proposal is similar in compatibility with surrounding land uses; and adequate area and design features provide for siting of proposed development in terms of landscaping and internal traffic circulation. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area, due to the fact that the proposed project is consistent with the current zoning of the subject site. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the EIR for the project, due to the fact that impact mitigation is realized by conformance with the project's Conditions of Approval. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact that the project currently proposes access points from Ynez Road which have been determined to be adequate by the City Engineer. The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easemsnts for access through or use of the property within the proposed projects, clue to the fact that this is clearly represented in the site plan and the project analysis. S%STAFFRFT\22761-2.VTM 9 (1:1) 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, and Conditions of Approval. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 2, the Time Extension proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property. SECTION II. Environmental Compliance. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby determines that the previous environmental determination Adoption of EIR No. 177 still applies to said Tract Map (Extension of Time). SECTION III. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve the Second Extension of Time for Tentative Tract Map No. 22761 for a 80 Lot residential subdivision on 28 acres and known as a portion of Assessor's Parcel No. subject to the following conditions: 1. Exhibit A, attached hereto. SECTION IV. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of November, 1991. JOHN Eo 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 4th day of November, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONER S~STAFFRPT%22761-2.VTM 10 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL S\STAF~FRPT%22761'2,VTM 11 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Tentative Tract Map No. 22761 Second Extension of Time DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval for this project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the appropriate staff person of the Department of Public Works. It is understood that the Developer has correctly shown on the tentative map all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review. The Developer shall comply with all Conditions of Approval as previously imposed or amended and with the Conditions noted below. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is part of an existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section. Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Department of Public Works a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation towards traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT: A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 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. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The final ~rading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan. S\STAI=FRFT\22761'2,VTM 12 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 security to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of the security shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed 910,000. 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. Condition No. 12 of the Engineering Department Conditions of the First Extension of Time, approved by Planning Commission on October 1, 1990, shall be deleted. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS: A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the City Engineer. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT: Prior to RECORDATION of the final map the applicant or his assignee shall pay the fair market value of 1.04 acres of required parkland to comply with City Ordinance No. 460.93 (Quimby). The amount to be paid shall be determined by TCSD staff within thirty (30) days prior to recordation of said map. 10, Exterior slopes bordering an arterial street may be dedicated to the TCSD for maintenance following compliance to TCSD standards and completion of the application process. S\STAFFRPT~22781-2.VTM 13 CITY OF TEMECULA ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Tentative Tract Map No. 22761 First Entension of Time Commission Approval Date: October 1, 1990 Expiration Date: July 18, 1991 Planning Department Unless previously paid, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. (Amended per Planning Commission October 1, 1990.) The subdivider shall submit to the Planning Director verification that Section 10.35 of Ordinance No. 460 has been previously satisfied or an agreement with CSA 143 which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City that the land divider has provided for the payment of parks and recreation fees in accordance with Section 10.35 of Ordinance No. 460. The agreement shall be approved by the City Council prior to the recordation of the final map. (Amended per Planning Commission October 1, 1990.) 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. 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. The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act, and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions. S\STAFFRFT%22761-2.VTM 1 at PRIOR 8. PRIOR 9. 10, 12. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District; Eastern Municipal Water District; Riverside County Flood Control district; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; Planning Department; Engineering Department; Riverside County Health Department; and CATV Franchise. 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 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, in addition to any other permits required. TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT: The subdivider shall submit four prints of a precise 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. (Amended per Planning Commission October 1, 1990.) TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY: 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. All street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Pavement striping, marking, traffic and street name signing shall be installed per requirements of the City Traffic Engineer. Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to Developer. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such increase. S\STAFFRPT%22781-2.VTM I 5 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS: 13. Traffic striping, marking and street name signing plans shall be designed as directed by the Department of Public Works. 14. A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the City Engineer. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT: 15. Prior to RECORDATION of the final map the applicant or his assignee shall pay the fair market value of 1.04 acres of required parkland to comply with City Ordinance No. 460.93 (Quimby). The amount to be paid shall be determined by TCSD staff within thirty (30) days prior to recordation of said map. 16. Exterior slopes bordering an arterial street may be dedicated to the TCSD for maintenance following compliance to TCSD standards and completion of the application process. S~STAFFRPT~22761-2.VTM 16 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNZNG DEPARTHENT SUBDZVISION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22761 MINOR CHANGE NO. 1 DATE: August 16, 1989 STANDARD CONDITIONS RIverside, tts agents, o es from any claim, acttoni or proceeding agatnst the County of Riverside or tts agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, votd, or annul an approval of the County of RIverside, tts advisory agencies, appeal beards or legislative body concerning Tract No. 2276%, Hinor Change No. 1, whlch actton is brought about within the ttme period provtded for in California Government Code Section 66499.37. The County of RIverside will promptly notify the subdtvlder of any such clatm, action, or proceeding agethat the County of Riverside and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the County fails to pr~ptly 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 hamless the County of Riverside. The tentative subdivision shall compl with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requ{rements 460, of Ordinance Schedule A, unless modified by the conditions listed below. This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. e The final mp shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance 460. 5. The subdivider shall submtt one copy of e soils report to the Riverside County Surveyor's Office end two coptea to the Departwent of Butlding and Safety. The re oft shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of ~ stte. 6. Zf any grading is proposed, the subdivider shall submit one print of T comprehensive grading plan to the Deparlanent of Butldtng and Safety. he plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, as amended by Ordtnence 457 end as amybe additionally provided for in these conditions of epproval. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22761, Nlnor Change No. 1 Page 2 0. 12, 6t A grading permit shall be obtained from the Deparl~ent of Building and Safety prior to commencement of any grading outside of county maintained road right of way. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. The subdivider shall comply with the street improvement recomendatlons 1 r out ined in the Riverside County Road Department's lette dated June 13, 1989, a copy of which is attached. Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract map boundary to a County maintained road. All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall continue in force until the governing body accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Road Commissioner. Street names shall be subject to approval of the Road Commissioner. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the County Surveyor. Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's letter dated Hay 12, 1989, a copy of which is attached. The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined by the Riverside County Rood Control Dtstrict's letter dated June 7, 1989, a copy of which is attached. If the lend division ltes within an adopted flood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of Ordinance 460, eppro rtlte fees for the construction of Irea drainage facilities shall be collected by the Rod Coamalssloner. a The subdivider shall comply with the fire Improvement recomendattons outlined in the County Fire Marshml'S letter dated May 11, 1989, e copy of which is attached. The subdivider shall camply with the conditions set forth in the t attar date Iipartmnt of Bu ldtng end Safety Land Use Otvtston's 1 d IMy 17, 1989, e copy of which ts attached. 17.. The subdivider shall comply with the conditions set forth in the ~ I)epamiment o': ~utldtng ~nd Safety Grading Dtviston's letter dated July 20, 1989, a copy of which is attached, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22761, Ninor Change No. 1 Page 3 0e The subdivider shall comply with Caltran's letter dated Nay 12, 1989, a copy of whtch ts attached. Subdivision phastng, tncludtn any proposed comon open space area Improvement phastn , tf applicable, shall be subject to Planntn9 Deparment approval, Any proposed phastng td shall prov e for adequate vehicular access to all lots In each phase, and shell substantially conform to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval, The subdivider and all successors in interest shall comply with the provisions of Development Agreement No. 3 and Specific Plan No. 180. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following: a. All lots shall have a minimum size of 7200 square feet net. b. All lot length to width ratios shall be in confornance with Section 3.8C of Ordinance 460. Corner lots and through lots, if any, shall be provided with additional area pursuant to Section 3.88 of Ordinance 460 and so as not to contain less net area than the least amount of net area in non-corner and through lots. d. Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development standards of the S.P. zone. When lots are crossed by major public utility easements, each lot shall have a net usable area of not less than 3,600 square feet, exclusive of the utility easment. f. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a wed-free condition end shall be either planted with tntertm landscaping or rovtded ~th other erosion control measures as epproved by the ~trector of Sutldtng and Safety. Prior to RECORDATION of the ftnal map the following conditions shall be satisfied: Prtor to the recordatton of the final mp the applicant shall submit m~Pttton clearances to the Riverside County Road end Survey Department that ell pertinent requtr~ments outlined in the attached approval letters from the following agencies have been met. TENTATZVE TRACT NO. 22761, Htnor Change No. 1 Page 4 Ce County Ftre Departerie County ~alth Department ~unty Flood Control County Planntng Depart~nent Bulldtng and Safety, Land Use end Gradtag DIvisions C81trans The common open space area shall be shown as a numbered lot on the ftnal map end shall be managed by a master property o~ers' association. A property oNner's association ~th the unqualified rtght to assess the armors of the tndhldual untts for reasonable maintenance costs shall be established and continuously maintained. The assodatton shall have the rtght to lien the property of the armors who default tn the pa~nnent of thetr assessments. Such 1ten Shall not be subordinate to any encumbrance other than a first deed of trust provtded such deed of trust ts made tn good faith and for value and ts of record prior to the 1ten of the association. the geeely fee a4mple title, to a41 IllfilleR IP lieliteR opeR opted aPeas, dtse~eltea el the gently ape aseeplable, At leadtat·Ms WPesedeR~ 4e the ~eeaty aeeeptteg t¢t;e 4~ seeh aPeas, the aehdtv4deP aha~a submit delemen~s she;1 be leb~elt to the IppPOvll Of that delllptmeMt end the O;;~ee el the Geeely Ge~asele (Deleted by Planntng Commission 8-Z5-89) deeMmeal leevey4eg tttle te the Illwehesew e~ aM 4ed4v4dua~ ~e~ eP unit wh4lh I~evtdee that the del~lPlttee lendttteel and FeltPtiltee6 46 4asleePlaid theFete by ~efePemee, (Deleted by Planeleg ~tsston :lrhe del;aPit4en el Woveells, leedtttens iml FeltFtlltena lubmtlted ;eqees~ '~ the burly el R4ve~tdev end the TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22761, Ntnor Change No. 1 Page 5 upon the Geenty~s demafd~ ttt~e to m~; oF may part e~ peeparty evnees~ ·aso·4atton and the deats4on to Feqetre she the Ilao·tat4en enaend~ttena;;y asseFt 144;l to she loser aeea~ sha;~ be el she·ere d(Sleet4sn of the Gean~ of RtveFetde, (Deleted by Planntn9 Co~elsston 8-Z6-89) she event that she seamen aFoh oF any Net thereof 4· sonyeyed martian sash Agomen aFea~ ev any Feet sheFeel3 absent the peter w~4tten sonseat ef the P;snn4n 94rests- e~ the GeMnay et Rtve;a~de or the GeentyA· ·elsesse,-~e-tntevesh The peaFIFty owners~ islestiPtoe ski;; hive the ftfht to assess the ewFews o~ each ~eemmem area~ and she;; lave the rteht 40 ;4on the Feepiety e~ amy seek owner whe de~au;ts 4n the payment e~ · netntensnae resetdad Jabsequent te the net~ae of isleslent ev ether areatamS the assesseta ~4en, (DeleT. ed by Planning 8-26-89) or property deanneMed there~eem absent she Fetes we(tieR senseriP the Printtag ~4rllter e~ the Geeely d R4veFe4de ev the Gevntyts oasesassists-Satirist, A proposed amendment sha~; he sans~dewed AiebStlnt4a;A 4f 41 a~ests the extents No· o ev mattensues e~ the Ass,men o,esA, (Deleted b7 Planning CommtssTon 8-16-89) the event of on7 eef;4et between sht· Bee;stetSon end she 4 4f lily1 oloeltatte~ Re, el led RIgid;at ees~ Sh4· gee~aesttan she;; sentel;r/(Deleted by P]lnntn9 Camtsslon 8-Z6-89) ke iptFevedv She de~;oraS4en of sevennoRtoN eeed4t4sns and elltF4Ot4On6 eke;; be elle~dld St She see t4me that the ~4nS~ ep 4s eooeededw (Deleted by Pllnnlng GiantsstiR Prior to recordsatan of the Steal subctvtston mr. the subdivider shall submtt the following documents to th; Pllnntng Deplrl~ent for elytee, ~htch decuReas shill be subject to the approval of that department and the Office of the County Counsel: (Added by Plonntng 6 Confission 8-~ -89) l) A ~c?a?atton of covenants, conditions end restrictions; and TENTATZVE TRACT NO, 22761, H1nor Change No. 1 Page 6 2) A sample document conveying tttle to the purchaser of an Individual lot or untt whtch provtdes that the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions ts Incorporated therein by reference. The declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions submitted for rev4ew shall (a) provide for a mintmum term of 60years, (b) provide for the establhfwnent of a robarty owners' association comprhed of the ovmers Of each 4ndlvtdual ~ot or unt t, (c) provtde for ownership of the common area by etaher the property owners' association or the owners of each Individual lot or untt as tenants tn common and (d) contain the followfng provisions verbatim: (Added by Planntngg Commtssfon 8-16-89) 'Notwithstanding any provhton tn thts 0eclaratton to the contrary, the following provision shall apply: (Added by Planntng Commission 8-16-89) The property owners' assoctatfon established heretn shall manage and continuously matntaln the 'common area', more particularly described on Exhtb~t ' ' attached hereto, and shall not sell or transfer the 'common are'~',or any part thereof, absent the prior wrttten consent of the Planning Oftactor of the County of RIverside or the County's successor-In-Interest. (Added by Planntng Commission 8-16-89) The property owners' assodatton shall have the fight to assess the ow. ers of each individual lot or unit for the reasonable cost of maintaining the 'common area' and shall have the right to l~en the property of any Such ovmer who defaults In the payment of a maintenance assessment. An assessment Hen, once created, shall be prior to all other Hens recorded subsequent to the notice of assessment or other document creattng the assessment Hen. (Added by Planntng Commission 8-16-8g) Thts Declaration shall not be terminated, *substantially' amended or proper~ cleannexed therefrom absent the prtor wrttten consent of the Plenntng Dtrector of the County of RIverside or the County's successor-In-Interest. A proposed amendment shall be considered t f 'substent el' tf tt a facts the extent, usage or maintenance of the 'camon area'. (Added by Planntng Caetsston 8-1&-89} Zn the event of anY conflict between this Oeclaretton and the Arttcles of Zncorporetton, the Bylaws or the proper~y mmers' association Rules and Regulations, tf anY, thts Declaration shell control." (Added by Planntng Coeetsston 8-ZG-8g) Once approved, the declaretton of covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be recorded at the same ttme~that the ftnal rap ts recorded, (Added by Planntng Commission 8-16-8g) TENTATZVE TRACT NO. 22761, Ninor Change No. 1 Page 7 fe The developer shall comply with the following parkway landscaping conditions: 1) Prior to the issuance Of buildin perml as, the developer shall secure approval of propose landscaping and irrt ation plans from the County Road and Planning Deparl~ent. All landscaping and irrigation plans and specifications shall be prepared in a reproducible format suitable for permanent filing with the County Road Departjnent. 2) The developer shall post a landscape perromance bond which shall be released concurrently with the release of subdivision performance bonds, uaranteein the vtabiltty of all landscaping which will be instaVled prior ~o the assumption of the maintenance responsibility by the district. 3) The developer, the developer's successors-in-interest or assignees, shall be responsible for all parkway landscaping maintenance until such time as maintenance is taken over by the district. The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes, landscaped areas and irri ,ton systema until such time as those operations are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director. Street lights shall be provided within the subdivision in accordance with the standards of Ordinance 461 and the following: 1) Concurrently with the filing of subdivision improvement plans with the Road Department, the developer shall secure approval of the proposed street light layout first from the Road Department's traffic engineer and then from the appropriate utility purveyor. 2) Following approval of the street 11ghttn layout by the Road Depariarent's traffic engineer, the developer shall also file an application with LAFCO for the formation of e street lighting district, or annexation to In existing lighting district, unless the slte is within an existing lighttrig district. 3) Prior to recordalton of the final map, the developer shall secure conditional approval of the street 11ghttng application from LAFCO, unless the site is within In existing lighttrig district. ,,, .,.t ..d other .tdoor ,tg.ting .h.,, . sh__ on electrtca~ submitted to the Department of Building and Safety fr*r plan check approval and shell comply with the Riverside Celery Plsnning Department Page Two October S, 1987 This certificition shall be signed by a responsible official of the water company. This Department has a statement from the Ranthe California Mater D~strtct agreeing to serve domestic water te each and every lot tn the subdivision on demand providing satisfactory financial arrangements are completed v~th the subdivider. It will be necessary for the financial arrangements to.be lade prior to the recordsSign of the final amp. This Department ha, a statement from the F. astern Nt~icipal Mater District agreeing to allow the subdivision ,eva~e system to be cent, meted to the severs of the District. The sever system shall be installed accordin9 to plans end specifications as approved by the District. the Cotn~ty Surveyor and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the sever system shall he submitted in triplicate. along with the original drawing. to the Cotrnty Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of manholes. complete profiles. pipe and Joint specifications and the size of the severs st the Junction ef the new system to the existing system. A single plat indicating location of sewer lines and water lines shall be a portion of the sewage plane and profiles. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and the lever dlltrtct with the relieving certifications el mortify that the design of the cover OySteR in Tract Map II?SZ is in accordance with the sever lyeten ex~anlion plans of the Astern Municipal Yater District and that the vests disposal system is adequate at this time to treat the entietpated wastes from the proposed tract.e ~bt_alsua,aua~,btJvbuiLttd,~e_~bt_Geautv lucxtxeL:a,ggf st_La, txltx, s&-xtsa&_&xv,xtt&s'uc ec_te,tbt 2tgutt tof_j. ht_fJiecda eU_eMbt-f. tua ,mU- It viII be necessary for the financial arrangements to be Bade prier to the recordalien of the final Rap. ~ KXNN&'TH I, &~21iVA!IDI teem Riverside County mtm~ r,a&wmeNia enema Pllnntng hpa~nt County ~mtnistrattve Center Me have reviewed this case and have the following coo,nines: Except for nuisance nature local runoff ~hich may traverse portions of the property the project ts confidered free from ordtnary storm flood hazard. Novever, I storm of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New construc- tion should comply wtth all applicable ordinances. The topography of the area consists of ~11 deftn~d ridges and natural water- courses which traverse the property. There is adequate area outstde of the nature1 watercourses for buildtrig films. The natural watercourses should be kept free of buildings and obstructions tn order to maintain the natural t drainage patterns of the area and to prevent flood damage to new bu ld rigs. A note should be placed on on environmental constraint sheet stattng, "All new buildings shall be floodproofed by elevating the ftntshed floors a mtntmum of 18 1riches above ed,laclnt ~round surface. Eroston protection shaql be provided for mobtle home supports. Thts project ts tn the . Area rues and 1 paid in accordance with the applicable 1 drainage plan fees she 1 be regulettons. Th. propo.d ...l. ,, ..,,..nt .,,,,..rds. ,--. f, ood fully develop to the control facilities or floodproofing B~y tap1 ted denstt, y. The DIstrtct's report dated Is sltll current for this predict. The D!strtct does not object to the proposed minor change. Thts project Is epart of . The project will be free of ord! ary store cud hazard u~en IEproveaents have ben construc ed in n fi t accordance utah approved plans. The attached coomeets apply. ntNor'Civt1 Engineer ItlVIRSIDE COUNTY FIR~ DEPARTMENT IN COOPERATION WtTH THE CAUFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY GLE~J. ~ 5-11-89 PLAHNZNGDEPARtMENT 22161 - NZN0lt CIL~GE I I Pie·BiN & ~alintrrtnI Office 4080 Id/oa Sueet, kite 11 IJvef~de. CA 92501 (/14) 1814606 With respect t~ the conditions of approval for the &hove referenced land division, the Fire Department reeo~ends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Riverside COunty Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: FIRE PROTECTION SChedule "A" fire protection apprcved standard fire hydrants (6"x4"x2{"), located one at each street intersection and spaced noB ore than 330 feet ·part in any direction. with f~o portion of any lot frontage Bore then 165 feet from · hydrant. ICLnlmum fire flow shall be 1000 G~M for 2 hours duration It 20 PSI. Applicant/developer shell furnish one cop/of the water systmn plans to the Fire DeparTment for review. Plans shell conform to fire hydrant types, location and Spacing, and, the syste~ shall meet the fire fZow requirements. Plans shall be signed/Spproved by I zeqiltered civil engineer end the loci1 w·ter company with the following oertificltion= el ~enify th·t tale design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the le/verside County Fire The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the ~roprllte water agency prior to any em~ustlbe building umterlalbelng ~3aced ms In lndtvidu~l &11 Imll~iags elm]/be constructed with fire retard·he roofing mterl·l as desuibed in Section 3203 of the gallore I~ild4~g C~le, Any wood ~_hingles Or lh&ke8 Shall have · C3asl °Is rat/a~g lad I~a11 be l~groved by the Fire Department I=ior to lastallation. Pz4~r to the ~tl~n of the lima/sm~, the beltear ~ ~lit wl~ ~e ~verside ~ty F~ ~t ·mb m of M~.~ ~ l~/~t ~ ~ttgation fin ~t~ ~, ~d ~ de~ be ~ defer ~e ~e of ~nt, b/~ Ny eter ~ a ~lt~ a~nt wi~ ~e ~ty deferring ~d ~nt ~ ~e ~ of b~n~ of s ~1~ ~mt. questions regarding the meanLeg of the conditions shall be referred to the Fire De~x'ramnt ~l&nning lad Zng.tneezLng Staff, Nay 17~ 1989 Admlniltrmive Center · 1777 Atlanta Avenue Riverside, 0A g2507 Riverside ~n~a~y.).tun .O~par.tment MAY 28 ~ Attention: ellcii Ira~lJleld County Adm strattve Center RIVEIISI~COUNTy 4080 Lemon Street IqjUqlNINGDEPARTMENT Riverside, CA 92501 RE: Tract 22761 - Ntnor Change Ladies and Gentlemen: The Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety has the following comments and conditions: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall obtain Planntng Department approval for ali on-site and off- site signage advertising the sale of the subdivision pursuant to Section 19.6 of Ordinance 348. Fireplaces may encroach 1' into required minimum 5' side yard setback. Nechantcal equipment may not be located tn required minimum 5' stde yard setback. Site located tn a Spectal Studies Zone -- G-19g. Developer Agreement 13 fees due prtor to butldtng permtt Issuance. Very truly yours, . Lind ~ DebarSmerit of BuildinV and Safety PLAF.IM MG ~Zemse ~ke the follo~i~ m Sedition o~ approval: . Prior to commefici~V I~y Grading e~ceedl~e 5g cubic NEXT I, DC: yar~l. Prior to approval of this use/subdivision · eradinV permit and approval o~ the rough Staging ·hall be obtainea from the BuilOing and Bafety Department. Prior tO iSSuanCe of any buildinV permit, the property Owner eha]l obtain C grading permit and approval to ConstruCt from the BuSlOinV a~a Safety Department. _._d. Constructing a rood, where erietar than ~g cubic / material is pieced or move~, reOuireo a grading pe-mit. Prior tO OcCupancy and/or PeVinning actual use of this permit, I grading permit and approval O~ the grading She;: be obtained from the Building and Safety Department. __,f. Provide verification that the e.istinS grading permitted and approval to construct wan obtai~d ~rom Building and Safety. War the final gradleg plan - Please provide tho applicable Solar&BiSon from County Bradlog Formo !l&-!l Please refer to dipar~nen~ forms 284-86, 284-120, 284-21 8nd ~8~-46' for applicable ~nformatlon to Include on your ~ad~g plus. . . - . . ' · ' · In 0~ ~0 ls~e I-~V p~, ~e follow~g ~ W 11 ~e mended 'a~ ~e pl~ review S~ge, - Prov~de S cop~es 'of ~e Prel~ha~ 2o~ls . lepo~. ' ' · ' . · ~c. ~cv~de 8 ~py cf ~e hy~clcVic-h~nul~c depa~. Pla~g · · Flood Control , Read Depa~en~ e. Provide · a set of pa~en= ' eondt=tou of appeal on ~e epproved ease. Provide an erosion control plan, prepared by a licensed landscape. archtree=, for plan zevlew, permit, and bending. Su~mtt S cop~es cf~he~TadinV plan Zor dls=ribu=ten and review. ' lefer to an~ IpeCtfAC plan related tot hAs pro~ec~. This properuy Is located ~n the Rancho California Potential 2~sLdence area· additional eeotechnlcal ~nformation is re~uired. Observe slope meT. backs from per~tt areas and structures per see=ion 701land figure.iS-1 oft he Unifermlulldin, g Cede as modified t~ O~lnance 487. '- Driveway ~Tades shall be lSt or less.' Show s~.Tee=and pad elevations. 'Xnsuzathat a 1% ~rade [min~ can be~ain~ained fz~mbackof pad to Street, efvzesaoE CX:)UNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Development levity 08-RZV-15-4.83 Your Reference: T~M 22761 Ranthe Highlands PZeAning DepartBent Attention )is. Pelicia Bradfield County of Riverside 4080 Lmnon Street Riverside, CA 9250~ Bredfield: Thank you for the oppo~unity to revisv the proposed Tentative · ract Map No. 22761 located sou1~vssterly of Ranthe CeZifo~nia Road tad Ynaz Road, east of l-IS in hncho C~lifornia. Please refer to the attached Devalolment leviev Form vhich do~unsnts Celtfens' re iraants for this pro~ec~. Confor~ance vith these conditions ~s required for issuance of an Zncroacr~an~ Zr say york le necessary within the mute highvay right or vay, the developer suet obtain en encros~hsent peruit from the C&ltrens Dlstrl~ S h~i~ Offlee prior ~ ~i~ing york. If additional infatuation is desired, please Pall !(r. Thomas levilie st (714) 383-4384. Very truly yours, Dlstrl~ l~rsits Engineer art. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22761, Htnor Change No. 1 Page 8 requt'rements of Riverside County Ordinance rIo. 655 an~ the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. Prior to recordatton of the final flap, an Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the final flap to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed with the office of the County Surveyor· A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Depar)ent for review and approval. The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded final flap to the Planning Depar)ent and the Depar)ent of Building and Safety. The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet: 'County Geologic Report No. 199 & G.R. 199 (update) was prepared for this property and ts on file at the Riverside County Planning Department. Specific items of concern in the report are as follows: The following note shall be placed on the Environmental ConStraints sheet: 'Structure for human occupancy shall not be allowed within the 50 foot setback associated with the WildBar Fault·" A copy of the final flap and Environmental Constraints sheet shall be submitted to the Planning Department Engineering Geologist for review and appoval. The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet: "This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Nount Palomar Observato~." Prior to the recordation of the final map, the subdivider shall provide a final geologic report for Planning Deparl~ent approval· The report shall be performed by e qualified geologist using standard h mitigation measures proposed shall be scientific mat odology. Any incorporated into the destgn of the ftnal map and directed by the Planntn Director. This report shall be noted on in Environmental Constraints Sheet, wherever necessa~. Prior to recordatton of the final ma , the subdivider shall prepare m. and submit a written report to the ~lenntng Director of the County of 1 Riverside demonstrating comp lance with those conditions of approval and mitigation measures of this map and Envtreffaental Assessment Nos. 31943 and 31084 which must be satisfied prior to recordatton of the final map. The Planning Director mey require Inspection or other mmnttortng to assure such compliance. Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERHITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: TENTATIVE TRACT N~. 22763, Nlnor Change No. % Page 9 Oetal]ed Common open space area landscaping and Irrigation plans shall be submitted for P3anntng Oepartment approval for the phase of development tn process. The plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for the folioring: (/~ended by Planning Commission 8-%6-89) Permanent automatic frrtgatton systems shall be Installed on a11 landscaped areas requiring ~rr~gatton. (Amended by Planning Commission 8-%6-89) 2. Landscape screening where required shall be destgned to be opaque up to a mintmum hetght of stx (6) feet at maturity. (Amended by Planntng Commission 8-%6-89) All utillty servtce areas and enclosures shall be screened from view wtth landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle trea~ents, as approved b the Planning Director. Uttlit(es shall be placed underground. (j~n;nded by Plann(ng Commission 8-16-89) Parkways and landscaped butldlng setbacks shall be landscaped to provide vtsual screen(rig or a transition tnto the primary use area of the s~te. Landscape elements shall tnclude earth bem~ng, ground cover, shrubs and specimen trees tn conjunction with meandering sidewalks, benches and other pedestrian amen~t~e~ where appropriate as approved by the Planning Departznent. (Amended by Planning Commission 8-16-89) Landscaping plans shall ~ncorporate the use of spedmen accent tr,.s ,t k,y .,t,,. th. pro ,ct. < nd.d by Planntng Commt ~ere street trees cannot be planted wtth~n right-of-way of tntertor streets and project parkways due to Insufficient road right-of-way, they shall be planted outstde of the Poad d right-of-way. (/ken ed by Planntng Cew~tsston 8-Z6-89) Lanclscaptng plans shell Incorporate nathe and drought tolerant plants ,here appropPtate. (Mended by Planntng Commission 8-16-89) 8. All extsttng spedBen trees and significant rock outcroppings on the subject property shill be shown on the pro3ect's gradtrig plans and shall note those te be moved, relocated and/or retained. (Mended b~ Planntng Commission 8-Z6-89) 9. All trees shall he mtn~num double staked. Neaker and/or slow rowing trees shall be steel staked. (Mended by Planntng ~ommt sSton TENTATZVE TRACT NO. 22761, Htnor Change No. 1 Page 10 All approved gradtn and but]dtng plans shall reflect the utilization of post and beam ~oundattons or of combination the appropriate split level pads end.post and beam foundations when development ts proposed o..,ope, of ,if....rc.,t hort.ont, 1 distance of thirty (30~ feet.or 8-16-89) If the project is to be phased, prior to the approval of grading permits, an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. The plan shall be used as a guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for Individual phases of development and shall include the following: (Amended by P]anning Commission 8-16-89) Techniques which will be uttltzed to prevent erosion and sedl..tatio. durt. L. g,,ter the gr, dtng process. ( nded by Planning Commission ~-Z ) 2) Approximate time frames for gradin and identification of areas which may be graded during the hlgher probability rain months of January through Y4rch. (Amended by Planning Commission 8-16-89) 3) Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. (Aanended by Planning Commission 8-16-B9) 4) Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase. (Amended by Planning Commission 8-16-89) Driveways shall be designed so as not to exceed a fifteen (15) percent , grade. (Amended by Planntng Comm sston 8-16-89} Grading plans shall conform to Board adopted Hillside Development Standards: All cut end/or fill slopes, or individual combinations thereof, which exceed ten feet in verttcal helght shell be modified by an epproprteto combination of e special terracing (benchang) plan, increase slope ratio (i.e., 3:1), retaining ells, end/or slope planting combined with irrigation. All driveways shall not exceed a fifteen percent grade. (/mended by Planning Commission 8-16-89) e. All cut slopes located adjacent to engreded natural terrain and he ght shell' be contour-graded exceeding tan (10) feet in verttcel incorporating the following grading taclmtques: (Amended by Plenning Commission 8-16-89) 1) The angle of the graded.slope shall be gradually adjusted to the en~le of the naturel terrain. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22761, Ninor Change No. 1 Page %1 2) Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall reflect the natural rounded terrain. 3) 4) The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves with radii designed in proportion to the total height of the slopes where drainage and stability permit such rounding. Nhere cut or ftll slopes exceed 300 feet in horizontal length, the horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved in a continuous, undulating fashion. Natural features such as water courseS, spedmen trees and Significant rock outcrops shall be protected In the siting Of individual butldtng pads on final grading plans. (Amended by Planntng Commission 8-16-E9) Prior to the issuance of gradtng permits, the developer shall provide evidence tO the Director of Building and Safety that all adjacent off-site manufactured slopes have recorded slope easements and that slope maintenance responsibilities have been assigned as approved by the Oaractor of Building and Safety. (Amended by Planning Commission 8-16-89) 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 peleontological impacts. Should the paleontologist find the potential is high for impact impact to significant resources, a pre-grade meeting between the 1 pa eontologist and the excavation and gradtng contractor shall be arranged. Mhen necessary, the paleontologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt gradtrig activity to allow recovery of fosstls. (Amended by Planning Commission 8-Z6-89) Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a drainage Study indicating on- and off-site flw patterns end volumes, probeble impacts, and proposed mttt atton measures shall be prepared and shall be epproved by County ;~ood Control Dtstrtct end Caltrsns. (Mended by Planning Cammission 8-16-8g) All dwellings shall be locatod e minimum of ten feet from the top and tops of ell slo s over ton eet in verttcal bet ht unless otherwise 8pproved by the P~lnntng DtrecLr. (Mended by ~llnnlng Commission 8-16-89) Natoral drainage courses shall be retained in their natore1 state wherever possible. (Mended by Planning Commission 8-16-89) TENTATZVE TRACT NO. 22761, Htnor Change No. 1 Page 12 All bro~ dttches, terrace drains and other minor swales where required shal] be 11ned with natural eroston control materials or concrete, as approved by the Planntng D~rector and Building and Safety. (j~ended by Planning Commission 8-16-89) me ne Any import or export of materials shall be in accordance with County Ordinances No. 457 and No. 565 respectively. (Amended by Planning Commission 8-16-89) Prtor to the tssuance of gradtng permtt, the subd~vtder shall prepare and submtt a ~rttten report to the Planntng Director of the County of RIverside demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval and mitigation measures of this map and Environmental Assessment Nos. 31943 and 31084 which must be satisfied prtor to the issuance of a grading permit. The Planning Director may require ~nspectton or other monitoring to assure such compliance. (Amended by Planning Commission 8-16-89) 23, Prior to the hsuance of BUILDING PERNZTS the following conditions shal] be satisfied: No building pemtts shall be tssued by the County of RIverside for any resldent181 lot/unlt wfthtn the project boundary unttl the developer's successor's-In-Interest provides evidence of compliance with public factltty financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) per lot/untt shall be deposited vrlth the RIverside County Department of Bulldtng and Safer as mitigation for publlc library development. (Amended by Planntng ~omm sston 8-16-89) t b. Prtor to the submittal of butldlng lans to the Department of Butldtn and Safety an $cousttcal study shall be performed by In acousttca~ .,gtn.r to .st.,,sh:1 V..,ion =..ur. th.t sh.ll . appl(ed to individual d~elltn9 unitsthe subdivision to reduce ambtent tritertar noise levels to 45 CNEL and exterior notse levels to 65 CNEL. (~ended by Planntng Coee~tsston 8-16-89) c. Prior to the issuance of botldtng permtts, composite landscaping and Irrigation plans $hall be submitted for Planning Department approval. The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requiring landscaping and Irrigation to be lnstel]ed including, but not ltmtted to, parkway planttn , street tres, slope planting, lad Individual front yard landscapVng. (Mended by Planntng Commission 8-16-89) d. All dwellings to be constructed vtthtn thts subdivision shall be destgned and constructed wtth ftro retardant (Class A) roofs as approved .by the County Ftre Fatshal. (Mended by Planning Commission 8-16-89) TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22761, Htnor Change No. 1 Page 13 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 Deparl~ent approval. (Amended by Planning Commission 8-16-B9) f. Buildin separation between all buildings excluding fireplaces shall not be Vess than ten (10) feet· (Amended by Planning Commission 8-16-B9) g. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet. (A~ended by Planning Coff=nission 8-16-89} h. All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and automatic irrigation. (Amended by Planning Commission 8-16-89) i. Prior to the issuance of e building pemit, the subdivider shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning Director of the County of Riverside demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval and mitigation measures of this map and Environmental Assessment Nos. 31943 and 31084 which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Planning Director may require inspection or other monitoring to assure such compliance. (Amended by Planning Commission 8-16-89) Detailed common open space area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval for the phase of development in process. The plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for the following: (Amended by Planning Commission 8-16-89} 1. Permanent automatic irrigation systoms shall be installed on all landscaped areas requiring Irrigation. Z. Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be opaque up to m minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity. 3. A11 utility snrvtce areas and enclosures shall be screened from view with llndscaptn and decorative barriers or baffle treel~ents, as epprovnd Ey the Plenntng DIrector. Utilities shall be placed underground. Parkways end landscaped butldtng setlacks shall be landscaped to provide vtsuel screening or m transition tnto the primary use area of the sttm. Landscape elements shell include earth harming, ground cover, shrubs and spedman trees In con3unction with Bmandertng sidewalks, benches and other pedestrian amentries where appropriate as approved by the Planning Ik~artment. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22761, Minor Change No. 1 Page 14 ~ 4. 5. LandScaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent trees at key visual focal points within the project. Where street trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of interior streets and project parkways due to insufficient road right-of-way, they shall be planted outside of the road right-of-way. 7. Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant plants where appropriate. All existing specimen trees and significant rock outcroppings on the subject property shall be shown on the proJect's grading plans and shall note those to be removed, relocated and/or retained. 9. All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow growing trees shall be steel staked. Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PE)ITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. I f seasonal conditions do not permit lanttng, interim landscaping and erosion control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning Director and the Director of Building and Safety. Notwithstanding the preceding conditions, wherever an acoustical study is required for noise attenuation purposes, the heights of all required walls shall be determined by the acoustical study where applicable. c. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed throughout the subdivision in accordance wtth the standards of Ordinance 461. d, Street trees shall be planted throughout the subdivision in accordance wtth the standards of Ordinance 460. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit° the subdivider shall prepare and submit · written report to the Planning Director of the County of Riverside demonstrating c~xnpliance ~th all rtmatntng conditions of approval and mitigation maasures of this map and Envtrenmental Assessment Nos, 31943 and 31084, The Planning Director my requtre Inspection or other mmnttortng to assure such compliance. FB:mp August 14, 1989 BIIIAIITMINTAL LITTIN COUNTY OF RIVERBIDE PLANNZNG DEPARTNENT TO: Feltcta Bradfield - Specific Plans FROH: Steve A. Kupfeman - Engineering Geologist RE: Tentative Tract 22761 Slope Stability Report No. 14 (update) The following reports have been reviewed relattve to slope stability at the subject st re: *Slope Stability Evaluation for the Proposed Residenile1 Development, Tentative Tract 22761, Rancho California, RIverside County, CA," by Leighton and Associates, dated July 19, 1989. 2. *Response to County of RIverside Reriew Letter,' by Letghton and Associates, dated August 9, 1989. These reports detemtned that: 1. The proposed ftll slope adjacent to Ynez Road w~11 be stable against both deep-seated failure and surftctal fatlure. 2. The proposed ftll slope should be stable against both the deep-seated end the surftctel slopo fatlure under seismic conditions. These reports recamended that: 1. The recemmendattons tncluded tn the Generel Earthwork end Gradtrig Specifications (Appendix D) of the Letghton geotechntcal report dated ~une 16, 1989, should be Incorporated tnto destgn and construction. 2./,11 cut slopes should be observed by an engineering geologist durtng gr's~ fig. Cut and ~11 slopes should be protided with appropriate suffice drwinege features and landscaped (with drought-tolerant vegetation) as soon as p0sstbll otter gridtrig to etntmtze the potential for erosion. Bems should be prov'lded st the top of fill slobes, and brow ditches should be constructed it the top of cut slopes. Lot dratnage should be dtrected such that surface runoff on the slope face ls minimized. Felteta Bradfield - 2 - August 15, 1989 The other portion of fill slopes should be etther overbuilt by 2 feet (mtntm~) end trfmmed back to the ftntshed slope or ccepacted In increments of S feet (maximum) by s sheepsfoot roller as the f111 ts placed end then trackwalked to achieve the ftnal configuration. These reports sattsfy the General Plan requirement for a slope stabtHty report. The reco.~nendattons made tn these reports shall be adhered to tn the destgn and construction of this project. SAK:al OFFICE OF lOAD COMMISSIONER & COUNTY IUIIVEYOR June 13, 1989 Riverside County Planning Commission 4080 Lemon Street RIverside, C& 92501 RE: Tract Nip 22761 Hlnor Change !1 Schedule A - Team SP Ladles and Gentlemen: With respect to the conditions of approval for the re~erenced tentative land division map, the Road Department recommends that the landdivider provide the ~olloving street improvement plans and/or road dedications in accordance with Ordinance 460 end Riverside County Road Zmprovement Itandards (Ordinance 461). Zt Is understood that the tentative map · hOwl acceptah · centerline profiles, a11 existing easements, correctly traveled ways, and drainage courses with appropriate O's, and that emillion or unacceptabiZlty may requlre the map to be resubmitted further consideration. These Ordinances and the fell·win9 conditions are essential parts and a requirement occurring Ln ONE is as binding as though occurring in a11. they ate intended to be complementary and to describe the conditions for a complete design of the improvement. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Road Commlssioner's Office. 1, the landdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages caused b ·Zteratton oZ the drainage petterns, l,e., concentr·tton of diversion oK flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities including enZarg/ng existLng facilities and/ of by ·ecuri · drainage easement, &11 drainage easeBefits s~ae~l be ·hewn on the flnal map and noted as feZlees: "Drainage easeRent - no bulZdln , obstructions, 1 or encroachmonte by Zand fils are allove~". the proteCtLea ·~all be 8· aS;roved by the load Depettment. The Zanddivider ·beZ1 accept and properly dispose of al1 off·its dr·LeaVe riovine onto or through the elan. Zn the event the Road Coealssioner permits the use o~ latest· for drainage rposes, the provisions of Article ZZ of Ordinance as. 4~0 will apply. Should the quantitLee exceed the latest ·apecity orthe use of streets be prohlbLted for drainage purposes, the subdivider ·haXX provide adequate drainage facllitAes as approve by the loadDepartaent. ~ract~ap 22761 -Ntnor Change tl June 13, 1989 Page; Se NsJor drainage is involved on this landdivision a.d its resolution shall be as approved by the Road Department. 'A' and 'C' ltreets shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 104, Section A. (40'/60') "D" ltreet shall be asproved within the dedicated right of Way in accordance with C~unty Standard No. 105, Section A. (36'/20') Preece Lane and aS" $treet shall be improved with 34 feet of asphalt c~ncrete [mvssent within · 45 f~ot part width dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard 103, Section a. (22'/33') Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed throughout the landdivision in accordance with County Standard No. 400 end 401 (curb sidewalks). Ynez Road (northerly of Ranch. Vista Road) shall be improved with concrete curb and gutter l~csted 38 feet from centerline and match up asphalt COncrete paving; reconstruction| or resurfacin9 of existing paving as determined by the Rood cosnnlssioner within a 50 foc~ half width dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 101. tnez Road (southerly of Ranch, Vista Road) shall be improved with concrete curb and gutter located 32 feet from centerline and match u asphalt concrete paving; reconstruction~ or ·sentencing of existing paving as determined by the Rood Casmissioner within a 44 foot half width dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 102. a eecondarF access rood to the nearest paved road n mS·rained by the Ccm t~ shall be constructed within the bILe right Of ooy in accordance with County Standard ~06, Section l, (32'/60') at · grade and ·Zig·sent as · roved by the Road Commissioner. This Ls necessary for · purposes, Prior to the recordaLice of the final map, the developer shall dellsit with the Riverside Count Road De rise·t, a cash Sun Of SIS0.00 · lOt as mitigation ~o~ traf c signal impacts. 8hcolF~he developer to defer the tinolaf payment, · written agreement say be entered into with the Count deferring said payment to the tfae of issuance of a build[ng parait, Tract ~ap 22761 -Ntnor Change p~ne 13, 1989 ge 3 16. 18. 21. 22. 23. Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending · minimum of 300 ~eet beyond the project boundaries st · grade and alignment as spproved by the Riverside County Rood ~lssioner. Completion of rood Improvenears does not Reply acceptance for main- tenants by County, Electrical and cceuniootions trenches shall be provided in accordance with Ordinance 461, Standard 817. Aspbaltic maulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than fourteen days following placement of the asphalt Surfacing and shall be applied st · rate of 0~05 gallon per · quare yard. asphalt eeullion ·hall conform to Section 37, 39 and 94 of the State Standard Specifications. Standard cul-de-lacs shall be constructed throuVhout the landdivision. Corner cutbacks in conformsace with County Standard No. 805 shall be shown on the final up and offered for dedication. Lot access shall be restricted on ~nez Road and so noted on the final map. Landdivisions creating cut or fill slopes adjacent to the streets shall provide erosion control, light distance control and slope easements Is ·pproved by the Road Departsent. The landdivider shall provide utility clearance from Ranch· California Water DIstrict prior to the recordsalon of the final map, The minimum centerline radii shall be 300 feet or as approvsd by the Rood Department. The i~nismm lot frontages ·long the knuckles shall be 35 feet. All drivev· s shall ~onfora to the applicable Riverside County Stan~:rds. ~e minims garage lotback slmll be 30 feet measured from t~s face Of curb. All centerlion intersections shall be at low with · man·sum S0' tangent onelured from flow line or as approved by the Road Cmmissioner. Tract.Hap 22761 - Htner Change J~jne D, lge9 Page 4 The street desig. end lnprovement concept o~ this project shall be toordinsted with EP le0, Pm 22708, TR 22204, TR 21760 and ~R 22?62. Very truly · County of Riverside COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. May 12, 1989 HL~LTH SPECIALIST IV ~IACT MAP 22761, KINOR CRANGEf I Znv~rmmeuta2 blth Services he reined Mfmor Change leo. I dated May 5, 1989 . Our current cements ~ rem~n u stated in our latter dated ~cZobard, 1987. . ~:tec IIIVERid(Jt October 6, 1987 . -- -- -- ~- OCT05 Riverside County Planning Commission · 080 Lemon St. p RIVERSIDE COl. Riverside, CA l~SOl tANNING DEPAR IK; TRACT MAp ~2761: Being t subdivision of a portion of Lots 1, 3, · · g.llock 18 and a portion of Lots I · IS ·lock 19 of Pauba Land and VaLor Co. ms shown by Nap filed in Book II, Page S0? of Maps, Records of San Diego County California. (80 Lots) TAe Department of Public Health has reviewed Tentative ~o..~761 and recommends that: & water system shall be installed according to plans and specification as approved by the water company and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plan, of the vator system 0h,11 be submitted in triplicate. with a nintm~m scale not loss than one inch equals 200 feet. along w~th the original drawing to the County ·urveyor. The prints shall chow the internal pipe diameter. location or valves and rife hydrants| pipe and Joint Ipectficattons. and the ltze of the Rain at the 3unction of the new system to the existing eyetom. The plus shall cosply in all respects with Dlv. l, Part l, Chapter 7 of the California Health and lately Code, California Administrative Code, Title iS, Chapter 16, and General Order No. 10l of the Public Utilities Commission of the Irate of hiifornia,vhen applicable. The plans chall Be signed by a registered engineer and water company with the..rolloving certification: "l cerUry that the design of t~e setter eyeten in Tract Map lt761 is in accordance with the water Oyster e~ansion plans of the Jeanthe hlirornia Water District and that the water service, Itsrage and distribution system viI1 be adequate to provide water cervice to such tract. this oertificatton does not constitute a guarantee that it viii ouppiy mmter to such tries at any specific fluaRtifice, flows or pressures for fire protection or any other purpose". ATTACHMENT NO. 3 STAFF REPORT FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME S\STAFFRPT%22761-2.VTM 17 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION October 1, 1990 Case No.: First Extension of Tim Tentative Tract Map No, 22761 Minor Change No. 1 Prepared By: Richard Ayala Recommendation: Approval APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: Coleman Homes Robert Rein, William Frost & Associates Eighty 180) lot residential subdivision of 28 acres. First Extension of Time. Between Rancho California Road and Santiago Road, west of Ynez Road. Specific Plan 180 ( Rancho Highlands) North: R -A-5 South: SP 180 East: R-1 West: 1-15 ResidentialAgricultural, 5 acre minimum) Rancho Highlands) One-Family Dwellings) {interstate 15) Not requested. Vacant North: South: East: West: Multi-Family Residential Single Family Residential Single Family Residential Interstate 15 Total Acreage: No. of Lots: Open Space Lots: Proposed DU/Acre Proposed Minimum Lot Size: 28 80 1 2.8 7,200 sq.ft. STAFFRPT\TM22761 1 ANALYSIS BACKGROUND: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY Specific Plan No. 180, Rancho Highlands, was adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on June 5, 198Li. Amendment No. 1 to this Specific Plan, Change of Zone No. 5105, and Tract No. 22761 were adopted by the Board on July 18, 1988. The Amendment switched Planning Area Nos. 8 and 9 (Tract No. 22761) from the very low residential category of 0-2 DU/AC to the low residential density category of 2-5 DU/AC. Minor Change No. 1 to Tentative Tract No. 22761 was originally approved by the Riverside Board of Supervisors on November 1Ll, 1989. The application was submitted for the reconfiguration of streets and adjoining lot layouts to increase land use and circulation dficiency. Tract Map No. 22761, Minor Change No. 1 is a proposal to subdivide approximately 28 acres into eighty 180) single family residential lots with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. The subject site is located south of Rancho California Road, west of Ynez Road and easterly of 1-15. Desiqn Considerations The proposed subdivision has been designed in accordance with the standards of Ordinance Nos. 3Li8, ~,60 and Specific Plan No. 180. The main access to the project is Preece Lane. The project has been designed to provide increase land use and circulation efficiency. Density The proposed subdivision (Tract No. 22761, Minor Change No. 1) according to Specific Plan 180, requires proposed subdivisions to range from 2-5 DU/AC. The proposed subdivision consists of 2.8 DU/AC. Thus, meeting Specific Plan No. 180 density requirement for residential development. The proposed density of 2.8 units per acre is consistent with the Southwest Area Community Plan. In addition, Staff finds it probable that this project will be consistent with the new General Plan when it is adopted. STAFFRPT\TM22761 2 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: FINDINGS: On July 18, 1988, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors adopted a Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment Nos. 319L~3 and 31084 to be applied to Tract Nos. 22761, 22762, and 21760, Amended No. 2, at which time determined that the Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract No. 22761, Minor Change No. 1 will mitigate any environemtnal concerns. There is a reasonable probability that Tentative Tract No. 22761, Minor Change No. 1 will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed within a reasonable time in accordance with State law o 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. The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the circulation patterns, access, and density. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare. Tentative Tract No. 22761, Minor Change No. 1 is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk, height, density, and coverage is likely to create a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties. The proposal will not have an adverse affect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the Initial Study for this project. STAFFRPT\TM22761 3 That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with this application are herein incorporated by reference. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: APPROVE Tentative Tract Map No. 22761, Minor Change No. 1, based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. RA:ks Attachments: 1. Conditions of Approval STAFFRPT\TM22761 4 Location Map ATTACHMENT NO. 4 EXHIBITS S\STAFFRPT%22761-2.VTM 18 CITY OF TEMECULA ) Location Map CASE NO.V'T'I~ EXHIBIT NO. ~P.C. DATE tI-Hoql CITY OF TEMECULA ) SP- 180 r ~ CASE NO.VT"I~ Z2_1~1 CITY OF TEMECULA ~ CASE EXHIBIT NO. vAr_A~'r CITY OF TEMECULA ) A E VVW~ c s NO. EXHIBIT NO. ~,P.C. DATE ITEM # 5 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Douglas M. Stewart, Deputy City Engineer November 4, 1991 Tract Map No. 22762, Second Extension of Time On August 13, 1991, the Department of Public Works sent letters to all developers with active and inactive subdivisions within the City of Temecula. Said letter requested that all erosion and runoff control be in place no later than October 15th of this year. The developer for Tract Map No. 22761 and Tract Map No. 22762 has failed to comply with the established deadline in conformance with the conditions of their grading permit and the subdivision conditions of approval. Therefore, the Department of Public Works respectfully requests that both Second Extensions of Time for Tract 22761 and Tract 22762 be continued to the December 16, 1991, Planning Commission meeting to allow time for staff to resolve the issue with the developer. vgw S\STAFFRPT\22762-2 .VTM MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Douglas M. Stewart, Deputy City Engineer October 21, 1991 Tract Map No. 22762, Second Extension of Time On August 13, 1991, the Department of Public Works sent letters to all developers with active and inactive subdivisions within the City of Temecula. Said letter requested that all erosion and runoff control be in place no later than October 15th of this year. The developer for Tract Map No. 22761 and Tract Map No. 22762 has failed to comply with the established deadline in conformance with the conditions of their grading permit and the subdivision conditions of approval. Therefore, the Department of Public Works respectfully requests that both Second Extensions of Time for Tract 22761 and Tract 22762 be continued to the November 18, 1991, Planning Commission meeting to allow time for staff to resolve the issue with the developer. vgw S\STAFFRPT\22761-2.MEM 2 ANALYSIS Background Tentative Tract No. 22762 was originally approved by Riverside County in July of 1988. The first time extension was approved by the City of Temecula in October 1990. Project Description Tract Map No. 22762 is a proposal to subdivide approximately 16.86 acres into fifty (50) single family residential lots with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. The subject site is located south of Rancho California Road, west of Ynez Road and easterly of I-15. The project is consistent with the approved Specific Plan No. 180. FUTURE GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY The proposed density of 3.1 units per acre is consistent with the Southwest Area Community Plan. In addition, Staff finds it probable that this project will be consistent with the new General Plan when it is adopted, because of the nature of existing area development. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission re-affirm the Environmental Impact Report No. 177 completed for Specific Plan No. 180. 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 commensurate with existing and anticipated residential development standards. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future and adopted general plan, if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that the project is in conformance with existing and anticipated land use and design guidelines standards. The proposed use or action complies with state planning and zoning laws, due to the fact that the proposed use conforms with those uses listed as "allowed" within the zoning designation of Specific Plan 180. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and density, due to the fact that; adequate area is provided for all proposed residential structures; adequate landscaping is provided along the project's public and private frontages; and the internal circulation plan should not create traffic conflicts as design provisions are in conformance with adopted City standards. S\STAFFRPT~22761-2,MEM 4 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION October 21, 1991 Case No.: Second Extension of Time Tentative Tract Map No. 22762 Prepared By: Mark Rhoades RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution 91- recommending APPROVING The Second Extension of Time for Tentative Tract No. 22762 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the staff report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Coleman Homes REPRESENTATIVE: Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates PROPOSAL: Fifty (50) lot residential subdivision on 16.86 acres. First Extension of Time. LOCATION: Between Rancho California Road and Santiago Road, west of Ynez Road. EXISTING ZONING: Specific Plan 180 (Rancho Highlands) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: R~A-5 (Residential Agricultural, minimum) South: SP 180 (Rencho Highlands) East: R-1 (One-Family Dwellings) West: I-15 (Interstate 15) 5 acre PROPOSED ZONING: Not requested EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Multiple Family Residential Single Family Residential Single Family Residential 1-15 PROJECT STATISTICS: Total Acreage: No. of Lots: Open Space Lots: Proposed Density: Proposed Minimum Lot Size: 16.86 50 1 3.1 D.U./AC. 7,200 sq.ft. S\STAFFRFT%22761-2.MEM 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 91-__ S\STAFFRPT'~22761-2,MEM 6 m 10, 11. STAFF vgw The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare, due to the fact that the conditions stated in the approval are based on mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts of the project, Tentative Tract Map No. 22762 is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk, height, density and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties, due to the fact that the proposal is similar in compatibility with surrounding land uses; and adequate area and design features provide for siting of proposed development in terms of landscaping and internal traffic circulation. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area, due to the fact that the proposed project is consistent with the current zoning of the subject site. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the EIR for the project, due to the fact that impact mitigation is realized by conformance with the project's Conditions of Approval. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact that the project currently proposes access points from Ynez Road which have been determined to be adequate by the City Engineer. The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed projects, due to the fact that this is clearly represented in the site plan and the project analysis. 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, and Conditions of Approval. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution 91 - recommending APPROVING The Second Extension of Time for Tentative Tract No. 22762 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the staff report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Attachments: 2. 3. 4. Resolution - page 6 Conditions of Approval - page 11 Staff Report-First Extension of Time - page 16 Exhibits - page 20 S\STAFFRPT~22761-2.MEM 6 (3) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City, At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. The proposed Time Extension is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. 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: (1) There is reasonable probability that the Time Extension proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (2) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (3) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no Time Extension may be approved unless the following findings can be made: The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. The proposed subdivision does not affect the general health, safety, and welfare of the public. Cm The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the proposed Time Extension, makes the following findings, to wit: (1) There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law, due to the fact that the project is consistent with existing site development standards in that it proposes articulated design features and site amenities commensurate with existing and anticipated residential development standards. S\STAFFRPT\22761-2.MEM 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 91-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING OF THE SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 22762-A 50 RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ON 16.86 ACRES AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 923-020-038. WHEREAS, Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates filed the Time Extension in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Time Extension application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Time Extension on November 4, 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 Time Extension. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Findings That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. Be The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: (1) There is a reasonable probability that the Time Extension proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (2) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. S\STAFFRPT\22761-2,MEM 7 (11) 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, and Conditions of Approval. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 2, the Time Extension proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property. SECTION II. Environmental Compliance. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby determines that the previous environmental determination EIR No. 177 still applies to said Tract Map (Extension of Time). SECTION III. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves the Second Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 22762 a 50 residential subdivision on 16.86 acres and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 923-020-038 subject to the following conditions: 1. Exhibit A, attached hereto. SECTION IV. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of November, 1991. JOHN E. 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 4th day of November, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONER S\STAFFRPT\22761-2.MEM 10 (3} (4) (5) {6) (7) (8) (9) (10) 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 zoning designation of Specific Plan 180, The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and density, due to the fact that; adequate area is provided for all proposed residential structures; adequate landscaping is provided along the project's public and private frontages; and the internal circulation plan should not create traffic conflicts as design provisions are in conformance with adopted City standards. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare, due to the fact that the conditions stated in the approval are based on mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts of the project. Tentative Tract Map No. 22762 is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk, height, density and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties, due to the fact that the proposal is similar in compatibility with surrounding land uses; and adequate area and design features provide for siting of proposed development in terms of landscaping and internal traffic circulation. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area, due to the fact that the proposed project is consistent with the current zoning of the subject site. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the EIR for the project, due to the fact that impact mitigation is realized by conformance with the project's Conditions of Approval. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact that the project currently proposes access points from Ynez Road which have been determined to be adequate by the City Engineer. The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed projects, due to the fact that this is clearly represented in the site plan and the project analysis. S\STAFFRFT~22761-2.MEM g ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Tentative Tract Map No. 22762 Second Extension of Time Department of Public Works The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval for this project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the appropriate staff person of the Department of Public Works. It is understood that the Developer has correctly shown on the tentative map all existing easements, traveled ways, and dra,nage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review. The Developer shall comply with all Conditions of Approval as previously imposed or amended and with the Conditions noted below. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is part of an existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section. Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Department of Public Works a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation towards traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT: m A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 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. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Unifor~n Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan. S\STAFFRPT\22761-2.MEM 12 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL S\STAFFRPT\22761-2,MEM 1 I CITY OF TEMECULA ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Tentative Tract Map No. 22762 First Extension of Time Commission Approval Date: October 1, 1990 Expiration Date: July 18, 1991 Planning Department Unless previously paid, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. (Amended per Planning Commission October 1, 1990.) The subdivider shall submit to the Planning Director verification that Section 10.35 of Ordinance No. 460 has been previously satisfied or an agreement with CSA 143 which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City that the land divider has provided for the payment of parks and recreation fees in accordance with Section 10.35 of Ordinance No. 460. The agreement shall be approved by the City Council prior to the recordation of the final map. (Amended per Planning Commission October 1, 1990.) 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. 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. The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act, and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions. S\STAFFRPT\22761-2.MEM 14 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 security to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of the security shall be 92.00 per square foot, not to exceed 910,000. 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. Condition No. __ of the Engineering Department Conditions of the First Extension of Time, approved by Planning Commission on , shall be deleted. Transportation Engineering PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS: A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the City Engineer. Temecula Community Services District Prior to RECORDATION of the final map the applicant or his assignee shall pay the fair market value of 0.65 acres of required parkland to comply with City Ordinance No. 460.93 (Quimby). The amount to be paid shall be determined by TCSD staff within thirty (30) days prior to recordation of said map. 10. Exterior slopes bordering an arterial street may be dedicated to the TCSD for maintenance following compliance to TCSD standards and completion of the application process. S\STAFFR'°T\22781~2-MEM 13 RIVERSZDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTHINT SU~DIVZSiON CONDZTZONS OF APPROVA~ TENTAT/VE TRACT NO. 22762 DATE: 5-25-88 EIPIRES: STA!~)ARD CO~ITIONS Rherstde. tts agents. o ~ from shy clatm, actton, or proceeding qalnst.the County of RIverside or Its.agents, officers, or employees to'attack,' set astde, vetd, or annul an approval of the County of RIverside, tts advtsor~ agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Tract No. 22762, whtch actton-ts brought about w~thtn the ttme perlod provtded for tn Collfor~1a Government Code Sactton 66499.37. The County of RIverside utll promptly notify the subdivider of aRY such clatm, actton, or proceeding against the County of RIverside and w!11 cooperate u ly tn the defense. If the County falls to promptly notify the subdtrlder of any such clelm, actton, or proceeding or fatls to cooperate fully tn the defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be rosponstb]e to defend, Indemnify, or hold hamless the County of RIverside. The tentative subdivision shall comply ~th the State of California Subdivision Hap Act and to 811 the requirements of Ordinance 460, Scheduh A, unless modified by the conditions listed below, Thts Conditionally spproved tentsthe.map wtll expire two years after the County of RIverside Board of SuperviSors approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. e The ftnal map shall be prepared by e 11censed land surveyor subject to a]l the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Hap Act and Ordinance 460. S. The subdivider shall submtt one copy of 8 soils report to the RIverside County Surve~for's Offtce and two coptea to the Departsent of Butldtng and Safety. The report sboll address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. If any gredtng ts proposed, the ~ubdtvtder shall submtt one prtnt of comprehensive fading plan to the Deportment of klldfn9 end Safety. The plan shall CoWTy vlth the Untfom Butldtng Codes Chapter 70, is a~ended by Ordfnance 457 md ms ma)~oe additionally provtded for tn these conditions of approve1. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District; Eastern Municipal Water District; Riverside County Flood Control district; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; Planning Department; Engineering Department; Riverside County Health Department; and CATV Franchise. 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 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, in addition to any other permits required. PRIOR 8. TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT: The subdivider shall submit four prints of a precise 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. (Amended per Planning Commission October 1, 1990.) PRIOR 9. 10. 11. 12. TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY: 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. All street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Pavement striping, marking, traffic and street name signing shall be installed per requirements of the City Traffic Engineer. Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to Developer. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such increase. S\STAFFRPT\22761-2.MEM 15 Conditions of Approval Tract No. 22762 Page 3 vehtc~lar access to oll lots tn each phase. end shall substantially confoe to the tnte, t and purpose ef the subdhIston approval. 28. Lots'created by this subdhlston shall .co.~ly vIth the following: a. All lots shall have a mintmum size of 7200 square feet net. b. M1 lot:length to ~tdthretlos sha11..be tn conromance vlth Sectton 3.8Col Ordinance 460. de Corner lots and through lots. ¶f any. shall be provided vIth additional area pursuant to Section 3.8B of Ordinance 460 and so as not to conteln less net area than the hast maount of net area tn non-corner Ind through lots. ..+ Lots created by this subdivision shall be tn conromance vtth the development standards of the S.P. zone. e. Vhen lots ere crossed by major public uttltty easeme~ts. each lot shall have a net usable Irea of not less than 3.600 square feet. exclusive of the utiltty easement. f. Graded but undeveloped land shall be mtntatned In a weed-free condition and shall be either planted vth tat,tin landscaping or provided WIth other' erosion control masu~es as approved by the Director of Building and Safety~: The subdhlder shall comply ~tth the Rancho Water District recomnendattons dated 10-6-87. a copy of vhtch ts attached. Prior to RECOT~)ATION of the final map the folioring conditions shall be satisfied: am Prior to the recordorion of the ftnal mp the applicant shall submit Nrttten charantes to the RIverside County Road and Survey Department that all pertinent requfments outllned tn the attached approval letters from the follovfng agenctes have been met. County Fire Departaorta CountyFlood Control County Health Departmat County Planning Department b. Prior to the recordat¶on of the fine1 map, Change of Zone No, 6tO5- ve shall be approved by the Board of Supervisors and shall be effect4 · Lots created by this land division shall be tn conromance wtth the development standards of the zone ultimately applied to the property, Conditions of Approval Tract No. 22762 Page Z A gredtng permit shall be obtained frm the Department of Building and Safety prior to coa~encement of any grading outside of county maintained road right of way. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prtor to recordeaton of the final map. The subdlvtder. sh·11 comply wtth the street improvement recmndattons outlined in the Riverside County Road Department's letter dated 11-13-87 a copy of ~htch is attached. 10. Legal access as required by Ordinance 460. shall be provtded from the tract map boundary to a County maintatnedromd. M1 road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall continue tn force until the governing body accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free front all encumbrances ·s approved by the Road Commissioner. Street names $hall be sublect to approval of the Road Commissioner. Easements, ~hen required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land dhtston boundary. A11 offers of dedication and conveyances sh·11 be submitted and recorded as directed by the County Surveyor. Water and sewerage dtsposal facilities shall be 1natalled in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Heaqth Department's letter dated }0-5-87 · copy of which is etaached. The subdhtder shall comply wtth the flood control recommendations outl4ned by the Riverside County Flood Control DIstrtct's letter dated 20-7-87 · copy of whtch ts attached. If the land dtvtston 11as within an adopted flood control drainage ares pursuant to Section 10.25 of Ordinance 460, appropriate has for the construction of ·rea drainage facilities shall be collected by the Road Co~nisstoner. The subdhtder sh·11 comply ~th the fire Improvement recoffnendattons outlined (n the County Fire Parshal's letter dated 10-6-87 · copy of which is ·ttached. The subdivider shall comply with the recmndations outlined in the Callruns letter dated 10-20-87, · copy of vhtch is attached. Subdivision phasing, Including any proposed coffqon open space area improvement phasing, if applicable, shall be sublect to Planning Deparment approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate Conditions of Approval Tract No. 22762 Page 5 The developer shall cosply ~lth the follwtng parkway landscaping conditions: l) 2) Prior to the tssuance of building pemtts, the developer $hall secure Ippreval of proposed landscaping end irrigation plans from the' County Road end Plannlng Department. All landscaptn end Irrigation plans end spoctficsttons shall be prepared ~n a reproducible format suitable for permanent .filing with the County Road Department. The developer shall post a landscape performance bend whtch shall be released concurrently With the release of subdhtshn performance bOnds, guaranteetrig the viabtltty of all landscaping ~hich wtll be Installed prtor to the assumption of the maintenance responsibility by the district. 3) The developer, assignees, shall maintenance until district. the developer'$ successors-(n-interest or be responsible for all parkway landscaping such time as maintenance is taken over by the The developer shall be responsible for mtntenance and upkeep of all slopes, landscaped areas and trrtgat(on systems unttl such ttme as those operations ere the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director. Street lights shall be provided withtn the subdivision tn accordance With the standards of Ordinance 46] and the following: l) Concurrently ~th the fillrig of subdivision Improvement plans with the Road Department, the developer shall secure approval of the proposed street light layout first from the Road Department's traffic engtneer end then from the appropriate uttllty purveyor, 2) Following approve1 of the street lightin layout by the Road Oepartment's traffic engineer, the developer sh&11 also fth an sppllcattonvtth LRFCO fort he formation of ~ street ltghttng district, or annexation to an extstlng 11ghttng district, unless the site !s vtthtn an e~lsttng lighting district. 3) Prior to recordatton of the final map, the developer shall secure condltlonll approval of the street 11ghttng application from LAFCO, unless the sttets within an existing lighting district. Prior to ~ecordation of the ftnal map, sn Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared ¶n conjunction With the final map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently Condtt(ons of Approval Tract No, 22762 Page 4 Ce de ee The cannon open space area shall be shown as a numbered lot on the ftnal Imp lid sha31 be managed by I master property o~ers association. A master property mmers association or appruprlate publlc maintenance agency shall be established by the developer encompassing the enttre spectffc plan, for the mmershtp, maintenance and management of the natural open space, and all commnon open space lots landscaping and frrt atton systems along public roads, ma~or project entry potnt facilities, slgnlng end 11ghttng ss necessa~ as defined thmugh the specTftc plan and conditions of approval. A property owner's Issoclatton vtth the unqualified rtght to assess h t e mmers of the Individual untts for reasonable mintchance costs shall be established and continuously maintained. The association shall have the right to 1ten the property of the mmers who default tn the pa~nent of thetr assessments. Such lien shall not be subordinate to any encumbrance other than a first deed of trust provided such deed of trust ts made tn good faith and for value and !s of record prtor to the lien of the association. Prior to recordatton of the ftnal subdivision map, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department the following documents for County approval vhtch shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Department that the total project will be developed and maintained in accordance with the intent and purpose of the approval. The document to convey tttle 2) Covenants, codes and restrictions to be recorded 3) Finagent and maintenance agreement to be entered tnto with the untt/lot o~ners of the project. The approved documents shall be recorded at the same ttme that the subdivision map is recorded, hid documents shall contain provisions for mmership or the Irrevocable right to use the open space and amenfates by the ovmers of the project. The approved documents shall also contaln a provision whtch provtdes that the CC & R's my not be terminated, or substantially mnded tdthout the consent of the County or tts successor-In-Interest. Conditions of Approve] Tract No. 22762 Page 7 6. Vhere street trees cannot be planted vtthtn right-of-way of · right-of-ray. 7. Landscaping plans shall Sncorporate nattve and drought tolerant plants ~here appreprlata. 8. All extsttng spectmen trees and significant rock outcroppings on t the subject property shall be sho~n on the proJet *s grading plans a d shaT1 note those to be removed,.relocated and/or retained. n 9. All trees shall be minimum double staked. g~o~tng trees shall be steel staked. Veaker and/or slov Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a drainage study indicating on-and off site flow patterns and volumes, probable tmpacts, and proposed mitigation measures shall be prepared and shall be approved by County flood Contrel Dtstrtct and Coltrens. Ce de Al1 approved grading and INtldtng plans shall reflect the utll(zatto of post and beam foundations or the appropriate combination of spltt level pads and post and beam foundations when develo;xnent ts proposed on slopes of fifteen percent or greater measured over a horizontal distance of thirty (30) feet. If the project ts'to'be phased, :prior to the approval of grading permits, an overall conceptual gradin plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for appreval. The lan shall be used as a guideline for subsequent detailed grading Vans for Individual phases of develol~ent and shall include the following: 1. Techniques ~htch will be utilized to prevent erosion and sedtmentatlon during and after the grading process. 2) Approximate ttme frees for fading end Identification of areas which may be graded during the Righer probability rain eonths of Januar~ through Hatch 3) Preltmtne~l pad and roadway ehvattons 4) Areas of temporat7 gradtag outside of · particular phase Dr?vevays shall be destgned so es not to exceed a fifteen (15) percent grade. Conditions of Approval Tract No. 22762 Page 6 filed vlth the offtee of the County Surveyor. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for revtew and approval. The approved ECS shall be forvertical wtth coptes of the recorded ftnal map to the Planntng Department and the Department of Bulldtng and Safety. k. The following note sbe11 be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet: "County Geologtc Report No. 199 & G.R. No. 199 (update) was prepared for this property and ts on ftle at the RIverside County Planning Department. 1. The following noteshail be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet: "This property ts located within thirty (30) mtles of Hount Palomar Observatory. All proposed ~utdoor 11ghttng systems shall comply trlth the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations dated 10-6-87 i copy of whtch ts attached. Prior to the tssuance of GRADING PERNITS the follow4ng conditions shall be satisfied: Prtor to the tssuance of gradtng pemtts detatled common open space area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be su~itted for Planntng Department approval for the phase of development tn process. The plans shall be certified bye landscape architect, and shall provtde for the following. 1. Permanent automatic Irrigation systens shall be Installed on all landscaped areas requiring Irrigation. 2. Landscape screening where requtred shall be designed to be opaque up to amtntmum hetght of stx (6) feet at mturtty. All uttllty servtce areas and enclosures shall be screened from view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle treatments, as approved by the Planntng DIrector. Utilities shall be placed underground. Parkways and landscaped bulldtng setbacks shall be landscaped to provide visual scroentng or · transition tnto the prtmary use area of the stte. Landscape elements shalT tnclude earth .bemtng, ground cover, shrubs and spectmen trees In conJunctfon with meandering sidewalks, benches and other pedestrian amentries where aplropr(ate ms approvedby the Planning Departmnt, 5. Landscaplng plans shdl Incorporate the use of speclmen accent trees at key wsual focal points wtthtn the project. Conditions+ of Approval Tract No. 22762 Page 9 2w All dwellings shall be located a minimum of ten feet from the toes and tops of all slopes over ten feet in vertical height unles otherwise approved by the Planning Director. 1. Natural dretnage courses shall be retained in their natural state wherever imsstble, m, All brow ditches, terrace drains and other minor swales 'where required shall be loned with nature1 erosion control materials or concrete, as approved by the Planning Director and Butldtng and Safety. Any 1report or export of materials shall be tn accordance with County Ordinances No. 457 &nd No, 565 respectively. Prtor to the issuance of BUTLO[NG PERHITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: e. No butldtng permits shall be issued by the County of RIverside for any residential lot/unit withtn the project boundary until the developer's successor's-in-interest provides evidence of compliance with publtc factltty financing measures, A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the Riverside County Department of Building mnd Safety as mitigation for public library development. b. Prior to the submittal of botldtng plans to the Department of Butldin9 and Safety an acoustical study shall be performed by an acoustical engineer to establish appropriate mitigation measures that shall be applied to individual dwelling units within the subdivision to reduce ambient interior noise levels to 45 CNEL and exterior noise levels to 65 CNEL, c. Prior to the issuance of butldtng pemtts, composite landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval. The plans shall iddress ill areas and aspects the tract requiring landscaping and Irrigation to be Installed Including, but not ltmited to, parkway planting, street trees, slope planting, and Individual front yard landscaping, d. All dwellings to be constructed' withtn this subdivision shall be designed mnd constrmcted with fire retardant (Class A) roofs as approved by the County Fire 14arehal. e. 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. Conditions of Approval Tract No. 22762 Page 8 fm Grading plans shall conform to Board adopted HIllside Develo;xnent Standards: Ali cut and/or Itll slopes, or Individual comb(nations thereof, Nhich exceed ten feet in vertical height shall be modified by an appropriate combination of a special terracing (benchtng) plan, (ncrease slope ratio (t,e,, 3:1), rotatntng ~alls, and/or slope planting combined w~th Irrigation. M1 driveways shall not exceed a fifteen percent grade, All cut slopes located ad3acent to ungraded natural terrain and exceeding ten (10) feet tn vertical height shall be contour-graded Incorporating the folloWrig grading techniques: 2) The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the angle oft he natural terrain. 2) Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded fom shall reflect the natural rounded terrain. 3) The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded w~th curves with radii designed tn proportion to the total height of the slopes Mhere drainage and stability pare1· such rounding. 4) Mhere cut or fill slopes exceed 300 feet In horizontal hngth, the horizontal contours of the slope sbell be curved in a continuous, undulat(ng fashion. Natural features such as ~ater courses, specimen trees and stgnfftcant rock outcrops shall be protected tn the string of Individual butldtng pa4s on ftnal grading plans. Prior to the Issuance of gradtrig permtts, the developer shall provtde evidence to the Director of Butld(ng and Safety that all adjacent off-sttemnufacturod slopes have recorded slope easments and that slope mtntanance rcsponsibtlttfes have been asslgned as approved by t the OTrector of Bu Idtng and Safety. Prtor to the Issuance of gradtng pemlts, a quallfled paleontologist shall be rata¶ned by the developer for consultation and comment on the ropesad grading w~th respect to potan·tel paleontologtcal 'Impacts. Ehould the paleontologist find the potential ts high for Impact impact to significant resources, a pro-grade moettng beteeen the paleontologist and the excavation and gradtng contractor shall be arranged. ihen necessary, the paleontologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, rodtract or halt grading activity to a11w recovery of fossils. OFFICE OF ROAD COI4141$SIONER & COUNTY SURVEYOR November 13, 1987 · Ittverstde County Fi·nnt.ng Coemdsslon 4080 Lemon Street RIverside, CA 92501 Re:. Tract Hap 22762 .* Schedule A - Team'SP * " Ladtes and ~entlemn: WIth respect to the conditions of approval for the referenced tantattve land dtvSston map, the Road Department recommends that the landdivider provtde the follovrlng street tmprOvenent plans and/or rued dedtc·tSons tn accordance vith -Ordinance 460 and RIvers·de County Road improvement Standards (Ordinance 461). Zt ts, understood that the tentattve mp correctly shows acceptable centerline profiles, ·11 extstSng easements, traveled mys, and dretnage courses wtth appropriate O's, and that thetr emSssSon or unacceptabSltt~v may requtre the map to be resubmttted for further consideration. These Ordinances and the follo~dn9 condttSons ·re assent(a1 parts and · requirement occurring In OliE Ss as btnd(ng as though Occurring tn ·11. They ·re tntanded to be complementary and to describe the condtt$ons for · complete design of the (mprovement. All quest(ons regardSng the true meanfng of the condftlons shall be referred to the ROad Conrn~ssSoner's Office. The landdtvSder'sha11 protect downstream properties from d~mayes caused b.v air·rat(on of the' dr·Snag· patterns, t.e., concentra- tion of d(vers$on of flow. ProtectSon shall be provtded b~v construct·rig adequsta dratnage f·ctlSttes Including enlarg(ny ex$st(n fac(lfttes or b~v secur(n · dra(nage easement or by both. Xli drs(nage easements sh·~l be shom on the fins1 sap and noted is follmes: "Drainage Easement - no building, obstructSons, or encroachmenU b~v lind ftlls are illowed". The protection shill be ms approved b7 the Road Department. The lsnddtvSder 'shall accept and proper17 dtspose of ·11 offsat· dratn·ge flowing onto or through the stte. In the event the Road Com~sstoner parmtts the use of streets for dra?nege ~p~ oses, the provlsSons of Art$cle Xl of Ordinance No. 460 l~mpply. Should the quantities exceed the street capaclt, y or the use of streets be prohibited for drainage INrposes, the sutxlSvtder shall profide adequate dralnage fadlStfeS is ·pproved b~ the ROad Department. Conditions of Approval Tract No. 22762 Page 20 f. ~utldtng Separation between all buildings Including ffreplaces shall not be less than tea (20) feet. g. M1 Street stde yard setbacks shall be · mtnImum of ten (:tO) feet. h. All front yards the11 be provided vfth landscaping and automatic . Irrigation. Frlor to the lssuance.of, OCCUPANCY PEltNTTS the followring conditions shall be satisfied: · . Rl1' 'landscaping and lrrlgatlon shall be'Install·din accordance ~lth · pproved plans prior' to the tssuance of occupancy pem(ts. If seasonal conditions do not permit planting, Interim landscaping and eroston control measures shall be uttllzed as approved by the Planntng Dtrector end the Director of Building.and Safety. Rot ,tthstandlng the preceding conditions, vherever an acoustical study ts required for nots· attenuation rposes, the hetghts of all required yells shall be determined ~ the acoustical study where applicable. c. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed throughout the subdivision tn accordance vtth the standards of Ordinance 461. Street trees shall be planted throughout the subdivision tn accordance wrlth the standards of Ordinance 460. ,.,' l~r-dct !~p 22762 Nov.ember 13, 1987 L* Page '3. 14. '18. 19. 20. 2:1. 22. 23. Standard cul-de-sacs shall be constructed throughout the land division. Comer cutbacks in conformance ~dth County $t4ndard No. 805 shall be sho~m on the fled map and offered for dedication. The landdivider shall comply ~lth the Colttans recommendations as outlined in their letter dated October 20, 1987 copy of ~htch is attached), prior to the recordatton of the final map. The landdivider shall p~ovtde uttltty clearance from Rancho Calif- ornia Mater District prior to the rocordation Of the final map. A copy of the final rap shall be submitted to Celttans, Dtstrict 08, Post Office Box 231, San Bernardino, California 92403; Attention: ProJect Development for review and approval prior to recordatton, The mtntmum cent,tithe red11 shall be 300' or as approved by the Road Commissioner. The ndntmum lot frontages along the cul-de-sacs and knuckles shall be 35 feet. All driveways shall confom to the applicable Riverside County Standards. The minimum garage setback shall be 30 feet measured frm the face of curb. /,11 centerline tritersections shall be at 90® with a minimum 50' tangent measured from rlo~ 1the. The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated ~th TR 22761, TR 21760 end $P 180. GH:lh Very truly yours, Road Dtvtston Engtneer Tra~Nap 22762 N~vember 13, ~987 Page 2 Ha]or dratnage ts tnvolved on this landdhtston and tts resolution she11 be as ·pproved by the Road DeparUnent; Streets "8% "D" shall be tmproved titbin the dedicated right of my tn accordance ~th County Standard No. 104, Section A. (40'/ 60'). 5, Street "C" shall be Improved wtthtn the dedicated rtght of way tn A accordance wtth County Standard No. 105, Sectton . (36'/60'). 6. Street "A" shall be Improved wtth 34 feet of asphalt concrete pavement wlthtn · 45 foot part-width dedicated right of way tn accordance utth County Standard No. 103, Section A. (22'/33'). 7. Concrete sidewalks' shall be constructed throughout the landdivision tn accordance ~th County Standard Ro. 400 end 401 (curb sidewalk). · 8. A prtman/end secondary access road to the no·rest paved road maintained by the County shall be constructed wtthtn the public r~ght of way tn accord·rice wtth County Standard No. 106, Section B, (32'/60') It · grade and alignment as ·pproved by the Road Commlsstoner. This ts necessary for drculatton purposes. Prtor to the recordatlon of the ftn·l map, the developer shall depostt ~th the RIverside County Road Department, · cash sum of $150.00 per lot as mitigation for traffic signal tmpacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of pa3nnent, he may enter tnto awrttten agreement ~th the County deferring satd pa~nnent to the ttme of Issuance of 8 butldtng permit. Zmprovement plans shall be based upon a cent·tithe .t.nd,.g. of f. et be,o.d th. project .t · grade and ·lIgnment as appreved by the Riverside County Road Con~tsstoner. Completion of read Improvements does not Imply acceptance for mtntonance by County. Lrlectrtc·l and comuntcattons trenches shall be provided tn accord·rice wtth Ordinance 461, Standard 817. Asphaltfc emulsfon (fog seal} shall be applled not less than fourteen days following placement of the asphalt surfacing end shall be ·p l~ed at · rate of O. O5 gallon per square yard. Asphalt mu~;ton shall confom to hctlons 37, 39 and g4 of the State Standard Specifications. Riverside Co~ty Planning Department Page Tvo OcLober S, 1987 Tl~is certificltio~ shill be signed by s responsible official of the vlter company. rO~~~iEDI_BMIL_b~ T~is Department' has a statement from.the Ranthe Cal.ifornia Water District agreeing to serve domestic water to each and every lot in the subdivision on demand providing satiaflctOry financial arrangements are completed with the. subdivider. It viII be necessary for the financial arrangements to be made-prior to the r. ecordation of the f~nal map. This. Department has I statement from the Eastern Municipal Water District agreeing to alloy the subdivision sewage system to be connected to the severs of the' Distr~ct. The sewer System shall be installed according to plans and specifications as approved by the District, the County Surveyor and the Health Department. Permanent prints o~ the plans of the sewer system shall be submitted in triplicate. along with the original drawing, to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of manholes, complete profiles, pipe and ~oinL specifications .and the size.~oF the sewers.at the ~unction .of the new system to the existing system. A single pill indicating location of sewer lines and valet lines shall be a portion of the sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and the sever district with the following certification: 'I certify that the design o~ the sewer system in Tract Map 22762 is in Iccordance with the sewer system expansion plans of the Eastern Municipal Water District and that the vast! disposal system is adequate this time to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed tract.' ~M£_vSXg£:l_~lGt_iL£!_v~t_v_lLlSali_i_vg_!ttkl_R£ig£_tg_tbm £tgg!mi_g~£_ibt_£tS~£gStl~O_~r--tbl_~iD&l_llR- It viII be necessary for the financial arrangements to be made prior to the recordalien of the final map. Sincerely, Division RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT October 7, 1987 itivereide County Planning Department County Adm~nistvat~ve Center litwayside, California. Attentions Specific ~luns Jeff Wainstein L~dies and Gantlet Tract 22762 This is a proposal ~o' divide about 16. acres in the temecula valley area.. The property is between Interstate 1S and Ynez Road about 1100 feet south of Ranch, Califotn~a Road. Well defined ridges end watercourses are the main geographical fea- tures in thin area. Storm tunoff both from Tract 22761 to the east and ~n this property is designed to be carried by interior street system end outletted at the southwest esther to a culvert under- neath the freeways' .According to the tentative map, storm runoff ' generated by a part of the northwest portion of this tract would be d~verted. Following are t~e Dlstrict*s reoe~-endationss 1. This tract is located within the li~Lta of the HurrYeta Creek/Temecula Valley Aces Drainage. Plan for ~.htch drainage fees have be"ned"Prod by the Board. Drainage fees shell be paid ms Bet forth m~der the provisions of the "Rules and Regulations for Administration of Ares Drainage Plans", 'amended Ju17 3, 1984s a. Drainage foes shell be paid to the Road Ccamdssioner ae port of the filing for record of the. subdivision final map or parcel map, oF if the recording of a final par- eel map is waived, drainage fees shell be paid el a condition of the weaver prior to recording a certifi- cate ,recapllanos evidencing the waiver of the parcel b. At the option of t~ land divider, upon filing a re- quired affidavit requesting defetmunt of the payment of INs, the d~ainage fees shell be paid to the Building Director st the time of issuance of · gradin; ~.~4, ~ building parsit for each appreved ;arc,l, whichever may be first obtained after the recording of the subdiv~- seen final map or parcel mapx tDwevet, Riverside County Planning Department Rex Tract 22762 October 7, 1987 Development of this property should be coordinated with the development of adjacent properties t~ ensure that ~atercouraes remain ~obstructed. end stormwaters are not diverted/tom one votershed to another. This my require the oonstrnction of temperar~ drainage ~cilities or offsite construction and grading, Drainage facilities outletting sump conditions should he designed to convey the tributary 100 year storm flows. Additional emergency escape should also be provided. A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final map along with e~pporting hydrologic and h~draulic calculations should be submitted t~ the District for. review and approval prior to recordation of the final map. Grading plans should be approved prior to issuance of grading permits. Ouestions concerning this matter may be referred to Robert Chiang this o~fice at 714/787-2333. Very truly yours, ccs mS/Lowry g *ne~S HN H. KASHUBA enior Civil Engineer RIVERSIDE COUI~T~Z RI~ DEPARTMEI~TT CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY RAY HEBRARD .10.6-67 Flsa~lae & F~ueednl Office 4080 Le~oa Street. ~lte 11 P~ve~dde. CA 92501 (/14) SPECIFIC PLAN Tr~M Tit 22762 With respect to the condit~Lons of approval for the above' refsrsnced lxnd division-, the Fire Depax~aent rsconuends the follov~ng fin protection measures be provided' in accordance Mlth/riverside County Ordln&nces sad/or recognized fire protection.. standards~ Schedule eAe fire protection appro~ed standard fin h~drsats (gex4"'ailJ-), located one at each street l~tersoction tad spaced no Bore thsa 330 feet-spare An any direction, with no portion of snF lot fz~ntags m~re thsa 165 feet from · hydrsn, Miniinto fire floe shall be 1000 GPN for 2 hours duretlon at 20 PSi. Appllcsat/devalcg~r shall fnxmish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Depertment for review. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and spacing, sad, the system shell meet the fire flow require~nts. Plans shall be ' aigned/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water ccn~any.vith. 1din follc~fing certifications el certify that the'design 6f the Mater system iS in eccordancs with the re41uirements prescribed by the Riverside County FIre Departs,nee. · 1~e febsired ~tez systea, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water 8gency prior to any coa~mltlbs bulldinS material be~ placed on &n individual All buildings shall be constructed Mlth firs retardant roofing material as described in Section 3203 of the Uniform Building Code. Any v~od shingles o~ shakes shall have a Cla/s ele rating and shall be aShroved by the FIrs Depaztaant 1~ to Installation. I4ITXGXTION ~ l~lor to the recordalien of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the R/verB/do Count~ Fire Department a cash st-- of 1400.00 pc: lot/unit so mit~gation for fife protection impacts. Should the developer cheese to defer the ties of payment, he/s~e my sator into a ~-ttten agreement with the County deferring said palnnunt to the time of lss~sa~s of a building permits All questions regarding the meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the FLre Department Planning and Engine,tiny sts~. DATE: $ep',~s~er 1, 1987 TO: RiVER;}iDE COUnEY PLAnninc DEPAREITIErlC Surveyor - Dave Dude ~ Road Department ' . S7 fieaTth - Ralph Lacks Ftre Protection C}(;~ (}~ ~ Flood Control D!strtct RECEIVED LAFCO Dou Vlerra ~,tV OCT 61987 Rancho Callf. Southern Caltf, £dtson Southern Callf. Gas General Telephone Dept. of TransporUtton t8 Hurtfete School .Temecvla Unton Temecula Chamber of Comerce fit. Palomar. County Library Cmtsstoner Bresson TRACT 22762 - (SP) - E.A. 31943 - Katser Development - NBS/Lown/- Rlncho California Dtstrtct- First Supervfsorta* Dfstrfct- Southwest corner of Rancho Calfforn~a Road and Ynez Road - R-R Zone - 16 acres ~nto 51 lots - (Related cases TR 21760/TR 22761 & CZ 5007) - Nod 119 - A,P. 923-020-038 Please.revtedthe case descrtkd above, along vtth the attached case map, A Land Dtvtston Comettee meettrig has'ken tantatlvely scheduled for October 8, 1987. If clearso tt w111 then go to public heartrig. Your con~ents and recommendations ere requested prior to October 1, 1987 in order that we ma~ tnclude them In the staff report for thts particular use, Should you have any questions regalling this Item, please do not heattale to contact Jeff Wetnstetn it 787-1363 Planner SEE AT~A~nr, u DATE: 1016187 SIGNATURE PLEASE prff t anne and tttle Dr. l~obe J. Bruceto/Assistant Dtrector/Falomar CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY This cue is artthen 30 tiles of the Palsmar Observatory and 40 therefore mtth~u the zone reqttrtul the use of lrd-ptessute aodt~ vapor lance fqr street 141ht4eB, am et4pulated by the ttvetmidt Count7 Board of SuperrLsors. Q~e request tibet e~_~_e design for. other trpee of outaNt ].~lthtinlq that my he ~ed' ~ ~ p~et~ ~ u~e c~8tetent ~t~ the opttit of the of the BOard o~ Supe~bot8 ~ich is blended to ~ti~ate the adverse effects 8u~ facilities have ~ Zhe utr~c8l rFsetr~ at P~t. steps to t~t end Z. Use the t42hnm amount of s4aht needed for the task. Orient and shield l$ght to prevent direct upvard i11Lmiostiou. TUrf off lights m~ 11:00 p.m. (or earlier) solsee, in couaercial applications, the associated business is soon past that time, In vhtch me the 3~Shte should be turned off at clostn8. ~ee 1on-pressure Iodi,re ll:apl for roadrays, valicuays, equipment yards, parking lots, security and other stroller applications. These lights need not be tarred off at 3~:00 p,m. For further $nformation, ull (818) 356-&035. Robert J. Brucato A~sistant D~ector T, C. Rowo October 7, 1987 OCT 13 1987 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Riverside County Planning Department 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor Riverside, California 92501-3657 Water Availability Reference: Tract 22762 Gentlemen: Please be advised tJ'mt the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District. Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner · signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If RCWD can be of further service to you, please · contact'this oZZice. Vary truly yours, RANCliO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Senga P. Doherty~ Engineering Services Representative rolm/vlr, t2sl RiVE:BiDE coun;,u PLAnninG DEPAREfilEr: DATE: September :I, 1987 TO: Assessor Butldtng and Slfe~y Surveyor - Dave Duds Road Department Health - Ralph Luchs FIre Protection flood Conire1 D!strtct Fish & Game LARGO Deu Yterra Postal Ruth. E, Davidson Service. · Dencho CallS. · ' Southern Caltfo Ed(son Southern Caltf. G~s General Telephone Dept. of Transportatto~ t8 Kurdeta School .Tarantula Unton Teaecula Chamber of Coenerce fit. Palemar County Library Coa~sstoner Bresson OCT 09 1987 RIVERS1 DE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TRACT 22762 - (SP) - E.A. 31943 -Katser Development - fiBS/Lowry - Rancho California Dtstrtct- Ftrst $upervtsorta DTstrtct - Southwest corner of Rancho Callfomta Road and Ynez Road - R-R Zone - 16 acres into 51 lots - (Related cases TR 21760/TR 22761 & CZ 5007) - Hod 119 - A.P. 923°020-038 · lease review the case described above, along wtth the attached case map. A Land · DIvision Committee meettrig has been tentathely scheduled for October 8, 1987, 1f tt clears, it k111 then go to pub11c hearing. Your comments and recommendations ere requested prtor to October 1, 1987 tn order that we m~y tacTads them In the stiff report for this particular case. Should you have any questions regarding thts 'ttm, please do not hasttare to contact Oeff Wetnstetn at 787-1363 Planner, Hode of future deZtvery: centrnlized. Contact vtth U.S.P.S. Grovth Coordinator required before construction for delivery locations. ox : .///-)-2...,P'2 SZENATUeE PLEJ~E print name end tttle 4080 LEMON STREET, P FLOOR RIVERS DE., CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787-6181 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 /~ATE: September 1, 1987 RiVERbiDE counc,u PLAnninG DEPARCITtEflC TO: Assessor Butldlng and Safety Surveyor - bye Duda bad Department .Health - Ralph Luchs Fire Protection flood Contrel Dlstrfct FIsh & Game .. * LAF~ Don Vferra .... · · Rancho Caltf. Southern Callf, Edison Southern Caltf. Gas kneral Telephone Dept.* of Transportation 14urrtet8 School · Tamecull Unton Temecule Chamber of Comeroe fit. hlomar County Library Coa~tsstone. r aresson OCT 0 7 1987 · . RtVEF~SIDECOUNTY '*. PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~RACT 22762 - (SP).- E.A. 31943 -Katser DeveTopment - fiBS/Lowry.- Rancho California Dtstrlct - First Supervisoris Dtstrtct - Southwest corner of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road - R-R Zone - 16 acres tnto 61 lots - (Relate~ cases TR 21760/TR 22761 & CZ 5007) - Hod 119 - AoPo 923-020-038 tlease ~vte~ the case described shave, along v~th the attached case mp. A Land Dtvtston Committee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for October 8, 1987. If , 'clearso It wtl1 then go to public hearing, .. : Your comments end reco~endatlons are requested prior to October 1, 1987 in order that may Include then In the staff report for this porttcular use, $hould3mu have any questions regarding this Iron, please do not hasttare to contact Jeff Wainstein at 787-1363 Planner · PLEASE print name end tttle 4080 LEMON STREET, 9~" FLOOR 46-209 OASIS STREET ROOM 304 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION October 2~,"1987 I...T?Development RevXev 08-Riv-15-~ .83 Tour Beferenoe: 0 CT g 2 B87 · fN22761 end RIVERSeDE COUNTY T~!4 22762 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Plannini Department County of Riverside lttent~on Nr. Jeff Veinstein' .Q080 Lemon Street 'l~vers~de, Ci 92501 Dear Nr. Wainstein: Thank you for the opportunity to review proposed TTH 22761 and TTH 22762 located southwesterly of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road, east of Interstate 35 in Rancho California. Please refer to the attached material on which our comments have been indicate~ by the items oheoked and/or by those 1tems noted under additional comments. If any work Is necessary Within th~ State highway r~ght of way, the developer must obtain an encroachment permit from the District 8 Offfoe of the State Department of Transportation prior to beginning the uork. additional information is desired, please call Hr. Patrick H. Connally at C71Q) 383-Q38~- Very truly yours, D~str~et Permits Engineer (Co Rte p~) (Io.r Re.f'~eAce.) ,/ Llth~u; the traffic end drainage 2onerated by this proposal do not appear to hav~ · li~lflcant effect ce t~e state hig~fay system, c~slder~tton e,~t be glve~ to the cu~lat~ve ef£ect of continued developsent in this ares. Any seasurea eeceasary to ed~lp~e the -m,lat~ve ~paet of trafflc and drainage s~uld be Zt appears t~at the traffic end dra~age genestad by this prepeel --~_;ld have s sl2nlfleant effect m the s~ M~ s,te ~ ~ r~. ~ masu~ n~essa~ . ~~t. This pertim of state hl2~rd~ Is Lneluded in the California Nestor Plan of State Nlg/~raya Ellglble for Official Scenic B12~aY Deslgrmtlon, and in the future yet agency my. ~ to have f~ts route officially ..d~sipted as a state scenic hlg~sy. . ,1~ds ~lon of state higl~ay has been officially des12nated as a state scecl~ - htgh~ay, and development In t~tls e~=rldo~ shculd be cce~atlble with t~e scenlc It is ~ecogntzed that there in eculderable public eeneern about noise levels adjacent to heavily traveled highways. ~ development, in order to be cc~pattble with 'this concern, my require special noise attenuation rosettes, Development of property should tnclude any necessary noise attenuatlm. Normal rlgh~ of ~sy dedication to prowlde* ball'-vldth on the state htg~dry. ~krmal street ImprovesSets to provide halfeeldth on the state Ittgh~ay. Curb and .gutter, State Stan.d~d .... almg 'the state Parking ~ pr~bSt~ alo~ ~ s~ Mg~y ~ ~1nt~ ~e ~ ~ ~ ~ p~ct~t ~ ~ Wk~2w ~d1~ ~ re~ ~ p~ at inten~l~ ~ ~ s~ ~ay. ~d ~~ r~ ~t ~ p~d~ ~ ~ re~. I ~ttlve ~lar ~lr 81q ~ pr~ ~ge Td~Icular Bonus to the state hii~ay be provided by existleg public road c~mectlons. Ve~dculmr access to the state M;~btay be prsvided by .. standard Ves~dculsr sccess shell not be Irov~de~ ~thin the lnt~rsectta.' at Vdxicular sonus to the state MeSsy be provided by a road-type cormsorion- Vehicular e_ _~_~ oamec~Uons be paved at leas~ ~Lhln t,he a~st, e hSghsmy right ~" ~ss ~ln~ ~ ~ s~ M~y ~ devel~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~lde sir' · Landscaping al.on~ t~e state htgh~ray be lad and forgiving in nature. · 1~ ~sne, ~r, ludin& sn.v ne~-_~r~ widm~iz~, be provided on the s~e Isl~hkmy s~ * r-~tderatitm be glv~ to the prorlstgm, or i~ture prorlsl~n, of slgnaltza~lon and 112~tlng or the intersection or and red ~c~s, and proposed sdtigsttm seaames be prepa . ' ~ate off-st;eet psrkin2, ~xtch does n~t require bscldn2 anto the s~st~ !~2h~sy, be provided. Parking lot be developed in a mnne~ that will not cause eny vehAcular movement c~fltcts, including parking stall ~trance and exits within of the ~tra~ce frc~ the state highway. Nsndicsp parking not be ~eveloped in t~e busy drtve~y entrance ares. Care be teken ~ developing this property t~ preserve and ~r~tuste ~e existing ~al~ge ~tt~ of ~ s~te ~y- Partight e~sid~stlcn s~ld ~stlve ~creas~ s~ ~off ~ ~s~e ~t s ~y drainage probl~ is ~a~. Please refer t~ *stteche~ additional cffe'nte. ~ · copy of any conditions of approval c~ r~vised approval. a eolry of any doeun~nts providing sddltScmal'state highway rlght of ~sy upon recordstim of the map. X lny protx~als to further develop this property. ~ · copy of the traffic or environmental study, if required. y · che~ print of t~e Parcel or Tract Hap, if requlr~l. /- ~ · check prlnt of the Plans for any improvements within the state highway rlght of way, if required. ATTACHMENT NO. 3 STAFF REPORT-FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME S%STAFFRPT%22761-2.MEM 16 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISS)ON October 1, 1990 Case No.: First- Extensirt d Time Tentative Tract Map No. 22762 Prepared By: Richard Ayala Recommendation: Approval APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: Coleman Homes Robert Rein, William Frost & Associates Fifty (50) lot residential subdivision of 16.86 acres. First Extension of Time. Between Rancho California Road and Santiago Road, west of Ynez Road. Specific Plan 180 (Rancho Highlands) North: R -A -5 South: SP 180 East: R - 1 West: 1-15 ( ResidentialAgricultural, 5 acre minimum) ( Rancho Highlands) ( One-Family Dwellings) {)nterstate 15) Not requested. Vacant North: South: East: West: Multiple Residential Single Family Residential Single Family Residential 1-15 Total Acreage: No. of Lots: Open Space Lots: Proposed DU/Acre Proposed Minimum Lot Size: 16.86 50 1 3.1 7,200 sq.ft. STAFFRPT\TM22762 1 ANALYSIS BACKGROUND: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: Specific Plan No. 180, Rancho Highlands, was adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on June 5, 198Ll. Amendment No. 1 to this specific plan, Change of Zone No. 5105, and Tract No. 22761 were adopted by the Board on July 18, 1988. The Amendment switched Planning Area No. 12 { Tract No. 22762 ) from the medium residential category of ~,-10 DU/AC to the low residential density category of 2-5 DU/AC. Tract Map No. 22762 is a proposal to subdivide approximately 16.86 acres into fifty {50) single family residential lots with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. The subject site is located south of Rancho California Road, west of Ynez Road and easterly of 1-15. Desiqn Considerations The proposed subdivision has been designed in accordance with the standards of Ordinance Nos. 3L18, 1160 and Specific Plan No. 180. The main access to the project is Tetra Vista Road. The project has been designed to provide increase land use and circulation efficiency. Density The proposed subdivision J Tract No. 22762 ) according to Specific Plan 180, requires proposed subdivisions to range from 2-5 DU/AC. The proposed subdivision consists of 3.1 DU/AC. Thus, meeting Specific Plan No. 180 density requirement for residential development. The proposed density of 3.1 units per acre is consistent with the Southwest Area Community Plan. In addition, Staff finds it probable that this project will be consistent with the new General Plan when it is adopted. STAFFRPT\TM22762 2 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: FINDINGS: On July 18, 1988, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors adopted a Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment Nos. 319L13 and 3108~, to be applied to Tract Nos. 22761, 22762, and 21760, Amended No. 2, at which time determined that the Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract No. 22762 will mitigate any environmental concerns. There is a reasonable probability that Tentative Tract No. 22762 will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed within a reasonable time in accordance with State Law. 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. The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the circulation patterns, access, and density. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare. Tentative Tract No. 22762 is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk, height, density, and coverage is likely to create a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties. The proposal will not have an adverse affect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the )nitial Study for this project. STAFFRPT\TM22762 3 That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with this application are herein incorporated by reference. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: APPROVE Tentative Tract Map No. 22762, based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. RA:ks Attachments: 1. Conditions of Approval STAFFRPT\TM22762 4 Location Map A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 4 EXHIBITS S\STAFFRFT\22761-2,MEM 20 CITY OF TEMECULA ~ Location Map ~/'~ctLt eTY ~CASE No.VIH2ZT~2~ EXHIBIT NO. .r kp.C. DATEI. t'L't"CII ~ CITY OF TEMECULA ~) 180 CASE NO. EXHIBIT NO. ~P.C. DATEII'LI'ql CITY OF TEMECULA ) ( 8o) \\ r CASE .0. EXHIBIT NO. ~P.C. DATE tl-~'ql / CITY OF TEMECULA ) f ITEM # 6 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning November 4, 1991 Tentative Parcel Map 25139 The Planning Commission continued these items from the October 21,1991 Planning Commission meeting. The item was continued in order to allow the Commissioners an opportunity to review the existing grading and chapparel relative to the proposed parcel lines. The applicant has staked the upper boundaries of the site in order to allow the requested visualization. Recommendation: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the following recommendation to the City Council: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Parcel Map No. 25139; and ADOPT Resolution 91-__ approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 25139 based on the analysis contained in the staff report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. vgw S\MEMOS\GAR~25139TFM.MEM COMMISSION MINUTES COMMISSIONER FORD moved to close the ~-__ ~0 P.M. and recommends that the ~_ '4ve Declaration for Parcel ResoX - 91-[next) 24086,"dc._ - Transpor COMMISSIONEK-- -v, AYES: ';--~"~ '~IONERS: OCTOBER 2 at Adopt the 24086 and d~ Parcel Map No. 86, seconded by Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland None '~{niaeff CHAI~' ,~.'(.~M~, requested that in the overall 4~. ^Port we u~ ~,~ City Council to continue to work with the City ~ {eta _~ traffic issues. . 12.1 Proposal to create 66 commercial/industrial parcels on a 97 acre site in the M-SC zone. Located on the westerly side of Diaz Road, north of the future extension of Winchester Road. COMMISSIONER FORD moved to continue Parcel Map 25139 for two weeks to look at the cut area on the westerly slope edge where the existing chaparral is and including modification to Condition 84 to refer to Diaz Road as opposed to Winchester Road. DOUG STEWART suggested having the applicant stake the upper boundaries of that tract so that the Commission could see where it falls on existing terrain. The applicant concurred with the request. COMMISSIONER BLAIR seconded the motion. The applicant provided the Commission with a picture of the boundaries. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN:i COMMISSIONERS: "---V~p 25408 13.1 Proposal ~.. 36 acre ~' ~n ...... ..~y~ide of Diaz ~Cen~ion of Winchester Road. -13- Chiniaeff parcels on a Located on the future 10/23/91 ITEM # 7 COMMISSION MINUTv-S OCTOBER 21 · COMMISSIONER FORD moved to cl'ose the public at 9:00 P.M. and recommends that the City Council the Negative Declaration for Parcel Map No. 2408~ a~ Resolution 91-{next) approving Tentative Map No. 24086, adding Transportation Condition 8 9conded by COMMISBIONERFAHEY. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Hoagland 0 None .STAIN:I COMMIS Chiniaeff CHAIRMAN urge the City on traffic issues. that in to continue to staff report we the City of Murrieta 12. PARCEL MAP 25139 12 · 1 Proposal to 97 acre site in zone. side of Diaz of Winchester Road. /industrial parcels on a Located on the westerly the future extension of COMMISSIONER two Weeks to at edge modificat: to Condition opposed Winchester havi applicant stake that the Commission exie terrain. The COMMISSIONER BLAIR continue Parcel Map 25139 for area on the westerly slope is and including to refer to Diaz Road as DOUG STEWART suggested boundaries of that see where it falls on concurred with the the motion. applicant provided the Commissi boundaries. ith a picture of AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: BI Fahey, land NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN:i COMMISSIONERS: Chit 13.1 Proposal to create 20 commercial/industrial parcels on a 36 acre site in the M-SC zone. Located on the southwesterly side of Diaz Road, southwest of the future extension of Winchester Road. --- j ~lO/2l~l -13- i0r23/91 ejsssJ pLM4INING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1991 COMMISSIONER FORD moved to continue Parcel Map 25408 for two weeks to look at the cut area on the westerly slope edge where the existing chaparral is and have the applicant stake the upper boundaries of the tract for the Commissions review. The applicant concurred with the request. COMMISSIONER FAHEY seconded the motion. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN:i COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF returned to his seat. CHAIRMAMBOAGLANDtook action on the following two items together. 4. EXTENSION OF TIME TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22761 14.1 Proposal for second Extension of Time 50 lot residential subdivision on 16.7 acrea on the west side of Ynez Road, North of P Lane. 6e 15.1 ION OF TIME TENTATIVE TRACT 2762 sal for second of Time for a 80 lot re subdivision acres. Located on the west side ?erra Vista Roa ~outh of Ynez Road. CHAIRMAN the public hearing at 9:20 P.M. DENNY representing process of concurred w~ 3 Business Park Drive, Temecula, ~licant, stated that they were in the [ng the erosion control plan and =ommendation for continuance. COSSIS for 22762 1991, BLAIR to Continue Extension of Time .re Tract N ~761 and Tentative Tract No. continue the hearing until November 4, by COMMISSI CHINIAEFF. NOES: 5 Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, 'land 0 COMMISSIONERS: e TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 26828/CHANGE OF 13 I Proposal to change zone from R-R to R-1 and a ~sal to - 14 - lo~3~x ITEM # 8 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION November 4, 1991 Case No.: First Extension of Time Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372 Prepared By: Mark Rhoades RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff Recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution 91-__ Recommending that the City Council APPROVE the Second Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23372, contingent upon the implementation of corrective grading and erosion control measures to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the City Council approval, based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the staff report, and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Buie Corporation REPRESENTATIVE: Margarita Village Development Company PROPOSAL: First Extension of Time for a 66 lot condominium complex and an apartment or congregate care facility with 469 total dwelling units on 46.9 acres. LOCATION: Northerly of Rancho California Road, on the west side of Kaiser Parkway EXISTING ZONING: Specific Plan 199 (Margarita Village) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: Specific Plan 199 (Margarita Village) Specific Plan 199 (Margarita Village) R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Specific Plan 199 (Margarita Village) PROPOSED ZONING: Not requested EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Vacant Vacant Single Family Residential Vacant S\STAFFRPT\23372.VTM PROJECT STATISTICS: Total Acreage: No. of Lots: Proposed Density: Planning Area 40: Planning Area 41: Total Site Density: 46.9 66 25 D.U./AC. 6.2 D.U./AC. 10.66 D.U./AC. BACKGROUND Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23372 was originally approved by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on November 8, 1988. The First Extension of Time was filed in October of 1990. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372 is a portion of the Margarita Village Specific Plan No. 199. The Tentative Map encompasses Planning Areas 40 and 41. Planning Area No. 40 proposes a 237 unit congregate care and/or apartment facility on 9.6 acres. The overall density of that project would be approximately 25 dwelling units per acre at buildout. Planning Area 41 is a 66 lot, 232 unit condominium development on 37.3 acres. The overall density of Planning Area 41 is approximately 6.2 dwelling units per acre. FUTURE GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map is generally consistent with the approved Specific Plan No. 199. The Southwest Area Plan designation for this project is Specific Plan. It is likely that this project will be consistent with the future adopted General Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Environmental Impact Report (EIR} No. 202 was previously adopted by Riverside County for Specific Plan No. 199. Staff has determined that said EIR still applies to this subdivision. 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 commensurate with existing and anticipated residential development standards. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future and adopted general plan, if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that the project is in conformance with existing and anticipated land use and design guidelines standards. The proposed use or action complies with state planning and zoning laws, due to the fact that the proposed use conforms with those uses listed as "allowed" within the zoning designation of Specific Plan 199. S~STAFFRFT\23372.VTM 2 The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and density, due to the fact that; adequate area is provided for all proposed residential structures; adequate landscaping is provided along the project's public and private frontages; and the internal circulation plan should not create traffic conflicts as design provisions are in conformance with adopted City standards. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare, due to the fact that the conditions stated in the approval are based on mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts of the project. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372 is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk, height, density and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties, due to the fact that the proposal is similar in compatibility with surrounding land uses; and adequate area and design features provide for siting of proposed development in terms of landscaping and internal traffic circulation. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area, due to the fact that the proposed project is consistent with the current zoning of the subject site. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the EIR for the project, due to the fact that impact mitigation is realized by conformance with the project's Conditions of Approval. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact that the project currently proposes access points from Kaiser Parkway which have been determined to be adequate by the City Engineer. 10. The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed projects, due to the fact that this is clearly represented in the ~ite plan and the project analysis. 11. Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with is application and herein incorporated by reference, due to the fact that they are referenced in the attached Staff Report, Exhibits, and Conditions of Approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Department Staff Recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution 91-__ Recommending that the City Council APPROVE the Second Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23372, contingent upon the implementation of corrective grading and erosion control measures to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the City Council approval, based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the staff report, and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. vgw S%STAFFRPT\23372,VTM 3 Atachments: 1, Resolution - page 5 2. Conditions of Approval - page 10 3. Staff Report-County of Riverside - page 14 4. Exhibits - page 15 S%STAFFRPT\23372,VTM 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 91-__ S\STAFFRPT%23372.VTM 5 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 91-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23372-A 66 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ON 46.9 ACRES AND KNOWN AS A PORTION OF ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 923-210-014. WHEREAS, The Buie Corporation filed the Time Extension in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Time Extension application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Time Extension on November 4, 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 Time Extension. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Findings That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: (1) There is a reasonable probability that the Time Extension proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (2) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference v~h the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, (3) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. S\STAFFRPT~23372.VTM 6 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. The proposed Time Extension is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. 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: (1) There is reasonable probability that the Time Extension proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (2) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (3) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no Time Extension may be approved unless the following findings can be made: The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances, The proposed subdivision does not affect the general health, safety, and welfare of the public. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the proposed Time Extension, makes the following findings, to wit: (1) There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law, due to the fact that the project is consistent with existing site development standards in that it proposes articulated design features and site amenities commensurate with existing and anticipated residential development standards. (2) 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 w:th the plan, due to the fact that the project is in conformance with existing and anticipated land use and design guidelines standards. S%STAFFRP~23372.VTM 7 (3) 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 zoning designation of Specific Plan 199. (4) The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and density, due to the fact that; adequate area is provided for all proposed residential structures; adequate landscaping is provided along the project's public and private frontages; and the internal circulation plan should not create traffic conflicts as design provisions are in conformance with adopted City standards. (5) 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. (6) Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372 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. (7) 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. (8) The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the EIR for the project, due to the fact that impact mitigation is realized by conformance with the project's Conditions of Approval. (9) The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact that the project currently proposes access points from Kaiser Parkway which have been determined to be adequate by the City Engineer. (10) The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed projects, due to the fact that this is clearly represented in the site plan and the project analysis. (11) Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with is application and herein incorporated by reference, due to the fact that they are referenced in the attached Staff Report, Exhibits, and Conditions of Approval. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION Z, the Time Extension proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property. S\STAFFRPT~23372,VTM 8 SECTION II. Environmental Compliance, That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby determines that the previous environmental determination Adoption of EIR No. 202 still applies to said Tract Map (Extension of Time). SECTION III. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372 for a 66 Lot residential subdivision on 46.9 acres and known as a portion of Assessor's Parcel No. subject to the following conditions: 1. Exhibit A, attached hereto. SECTION IV. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of November, 1991. JOHN E. 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 4th day of November 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONER S\STAFFRPT\23372.VTM 9 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL S\STAFf~RPT~23372.VTM 10 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372 First Extension of Time Commission Approval Date: Expiration Date: Planning Department Unless previously paid, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. 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. Department of Public Works The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval for this project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the appropriate staff person of the Department of Public Works. It is understood that the Developer has correctly shown on the tentative map all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review. The Developer shall comply with all Conditions of Approval as previously .imposed or amended and with the Conditions noted below. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is part of an existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section. S\STAFFRFT\23372.VTM 11 Delete Condition No. 24 of Riverside County Road Commissioner letter dated September, 30, 1988, and replace it with the following: Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Department of Public Works a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation towards traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit. An erosion control and slope protection plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The installation shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and site conditions shall be maintained to protect adjacent properties from damage due to runoff and erosion. Developer shall post a performance bond for erosion control and slope protection in an amount approved by the Department of Public Works. 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. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District; Eastern Municipal Water District; Riverside County Flood Control District; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; Planning Department; Department of Public Works; Riverside County Health Department; and CATV Franchise. Community Services 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 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, in addition to any other permits required. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT: Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property of project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required for the project. The fee to be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of 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 security to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of the security shall be ~2.00 per square foot, not to exceed ~ 10,000. Developer understands that said Agreement may S%STAFFRP~23372,VTM 12 PRIOR 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 from 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. TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY: 10. 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. 11. All street improvements striping, marking and signing shall be installed per the approved plans and to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS: 12. Delete Condition No. 36 of Riverside County Road Commissioner letter dated September 30, 1988. 13. Traffic striping, marking and street name signing plans shall be designed as directed by the Department of Public Works. Said plans shall include Rancho California Road, Margarita Road and all streets conditioned under this subdivision. 14. A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the City Engineer. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT: 15. Prior to recordation of the final map the applicant or his assignee shall pay the fair market value of 5.49 acres of required parkland to comply with City Ordinance No. 460.93 (Quimby). The amount to be paid shall be determined by TCSD staff within thirty (30) days prior to recordation of said map. 16. Exterior slopes bordering an arterial street may be dedicated to the TCSD for maintenance following compliance to TCSD standards and completion of the application process. S\STAFFRPT\23372.VTM 13 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 STAFF REPORT FROM THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE S\STAFFRPT\23372.VTM 14 RSS:(~:K~:mcb · -~UBMs /TAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPER. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ~~ .~.,. FROM: Planntng Department SUBMIT~ALDAT~ November 8, 1988 SUBJECT: VESTZNG TENTATIVE and TENTATIVE TRACTS located tn the "~./ I~argarlta V~11age Specific Plan (SP 199 Amendment No. 1) - First and Thtrd Supervisor~al Distr~cts -Rancho California Zonlng Area. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Recetve and File the Pl.anntng Co~n!sston act~On of 9-'28-88and 10 5 88 for · · : · : .... APPROVAL of Vesting Tentative Tracts 23371 Amended No. 1, 23372 ~i~'Ed~'No. I, 23373 Amended No. 1, 23470 and 23471 and Tracts 22915, 22916, 23100 Amended No. 1, 2310~ 23102, and 23103 Amended No. 1. Prey. Ann. rd. Depts. Comments Dist. AGENDA NC RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COffi41SSION MINUTES OCTOBER 5, 1988 (AGENDA ITDIS 5-2, 5-3, 5-4 - REEL 1003, SIDE 1 - TAPE 6, SIDE 1) VESTING TRACT MAP 23373 N4ENDED NO. 1 - EA 32548 - Hargarita Village Development Company - Rancho California Area - First/Third Supervisorial Districts - south of Rancho California Rd, west of Kaiser Parkway - 348 units - 31~ acres - SP 199 Zone. Schedule A VESTING TRACT"!qAP'23371ANENDEO NO, 1'- EA 32546 .- Hargartt.a Village "' Development Company - Rancho California Area - First/Third Supervisorial Districts - north of Rancho California Rd, east of Hargarita Rd - 1183 units - 398= acres - SP 199 Zone. Schedule A VESTING TRACT 23372/U4ENDED NO. 1 - EA 32547 '- Margarita Village Development Company;- Rancho California Area - First/Third .5upervisorial Districts -north of.Rancho-Californta*Rd, west of Kaiser. PaFkway - 469 units.on 56 lots r 4A~ . acres - SP 199 Zone. Schedule A The hearings were opened at 6:50 p.m. and closed at 7:11 p.m. STAFF RECO~qENDATION: Adoption of the negative declarations for'EA 32548, EA.; 31546, and EA 32547, approval of Vesting Tract ~tps 23373 Amended No. 1, 23371 Amended No. I and 23372 Amended No. 1, all subject to the proposed condtttons~.' Ms. Glfford also recommended approval of a waiver of the length to width ratle for Vesting Tract 23371 Amended No, 1. The subject tract maps were located 7 within Village A of the Hargarlta Village Specific Plan, and would create I 63 residential lots and a 9olf course on 254 acres. Staff had found the tract maps to be consistent with the adopted specific plan. Ms. Gtfford recommended several changes to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Purrlance asked about a fiscal impact report, and was informed this report had been furnished recently for A~nendment No. i to the specific plan. Jim Resney, representing the applicant, briefly reviewed the development, advising they were proposing a state-of-the-art adult retirement community which included a championship golf course with a 37,000 square foot clubhouse facility in the center of the project. He then referred to Condition 33(f) for all three tract meps, which required front yards to be provided with landscaping and automatic irrigation, and requested that this requirement deleted for larger lots, as it was his opinion that these homeowners would prefer to do their own landscaping. The CC&Rs would require them to comply with specific standards, Mr, Resney requested that this condition be amended by adding to the end 'or shall be installed within 75 days after close of escrow as provided in the CC&Rs in the 451100 square foot lot areas'. Road Department Condition 21 for Tract Hap 23371 and Condition 14 for the other two tract maps required a debris retention wall where block walls were required at the top of slopes. Hr. Resney requested that this condition be amended by adding: 'if applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Road Commissioner that a Haster Homeowners Association or other entity will satisfactorily maintain the slopes, the Road Commissioner may, at his option, waive this requirement of a debris retentionSall.' He thought that if they could convince the Road Commi$.toner that there would be no silting problems and that the slopes would be maintained, the debris retention wall would not 53 RZVERSZDE COUNTY PLANNZNG CONMISSZON HZNUTES OCTOBER 5, Z988 be needed. For aesthetic reasons, he felt it would be better not to have the small wall. Road Department Condition 22 for Tract 23372 and. Condition 15 for the other two' tract inaps: related to the mt'nimum 30 footgarageSetba.ckfrem faceqf.. curb. Hr. Resney felt this condltton conflicted with the specific 'pla'n development standards which allowed 16 foot driveways with roll up doors, setback either from the back of curb or the back of sidewalk. He would prefer to have the specific plan standards applied, but requested that the hearings not be continued. Lee Johnson.adylsed the.'$1ump wall deltneated:.tn ROad Department Condltton 21 was a wall they had beeh ~qUirlng for the past three'o~four years when the' Planning DepaPlunent required a block wall at the top of a slope. Depending on the size of the slope, the Road Department Design Engineer could require a two block high wall at the property line to keep the debris washing down the slope from crosstng the sidewalk. They would be wt111ng to consider any other alternative the developer might suggest, as long as tt accomplished the purpose of this condition, He requested that this condition be retained. Commissioner Donahoe asked whether adding to the ehd "or as approved by the Road Department" would give the developer the opportunity to provide an alternative plan, and Nr. Johnson agreed that it would. Hr. Johnson advised the garage setback required by Road Department Condition 22 for Tract 2337Z (Condition 15 for Tracts 23372 and 23373) was the minimum setback required by Ordinance 460. He had read the language requested by the applicant, but would prefer to retain the condition as originally proposed tn the Road Department letter. Hr. Resney explained they had been discussing the possibility of providing a 4 foot sidewalk, and would ltke to have a 24 foot setback rather than the.26 foot setback required by this condition. However, tf the Road Oepartment preferred the extsttng language, they would accept Hr. Johnson advised the condition would not alter the width of the s~dewelk in any way. Commissioner Beadling referred to Nr. Resney's request that front yard land- scaptn and irrigation not be requtred for the 1at er lots, and stated she felt t~ey should be required for all lots. Hr, GoldEin requested that the condition be ratatried as originally wrttten. There was no further testimony, and the heartng was closed at 7:1Z p.m. FZNDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Vesting Tentative Tract Naps 23371 Amended No. 1, 23372 Amended No. Z and 23373 Amended No. I are located within Village A of the Nargartta Vtllage Spectftc Plan (No. 199); the three tract maps will provtde 1763 dwe111ng units and a golf course on 254 acres; Tract 23372 Amended No. 1 has been condtttoned with the specific plan's condition of approval to mitigate tmpacts to the Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat; the tracts have been condtttoned to comply with Spectfic Plan 199, Change of Zone Case 5107, and Development Agreement No. 5; and a waiver of the lot length to width ratio wtll be needed for Vesting Tentative Tract 23371 Amended No. 1. All environmental concerns have been addressed tn EZRs 107, 202, and the initial 54 RZVERSZDE COUNTY PLANNZNG COffiqISSZON HZNUTES OCTOBER 5, 1988 studies for these tract maps, and no significant tmpacts have been found; the tract maps are consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan (as amended by CGPA 150), Change of Zone Case 5107, and Specific Plan 199 Amendment No. and conform to the requirements of Ordinances 460 and 348. The proposed project will not have a slgntficantef~ecton the environment. HOTZON: Upon motion' by Connisstoner Oonahoe, seconded by Cornmt=S~loner 'Sress~n and unanimously cartted, the Commission adopted t.~e negathe declarations for EA 32546, EA 32547 and EA 32548, and approved Vesting Tentative Tract Naps 23371 Amended No. 1 with a watver of the lot length to width ratio, 23372 Amended No. 1, and 23373 Amended No. 1, 811 subject to the proposed conditions amended as follows, basedon the above findings and conclusions and the recommendations Of.staff. Tract No. 23371 9 - Amend to reflect the September 30° 1988 Road Department letter. 23(2) and 23(3) - Amend to require the developer to comply with the parkway landscaping requirements as shown in Specific Plan No. 199 Amended No. I unless maintenance is provided by a homeowners association or other public enttty. 26 - Delete the last sentence ("The final map for Vesttng Tract 23371 shall show the park as a numbered ]of"). 33(c) - Roof-mounted machantcal equipment shall not be permitted wtthtn the subdhtslon, except for the clubhouse whtch may have screened equipment as approved by the Planntng Department; however, solar equipcent or any other ener saytrig devices shall be pemttted wtth Planntng Department approva~ Condition 34(a) for Tracts 23371, 23372, and 33(a) for Tract 23373 Add "and may be phased with the project". (to clartfy that walls ma;y be phased with the developeent of the tract. Condition 33(d) for Tracts 23371 and 23372, and 32(d) for Tract 23373 Butldtng separation between all buildings including ffraplaces shall not be less than ten feet unless approved by the Department of Butldtng and $tfety and the Ftre Oepartment per Speclfic Plan 199 Amended No. 1. 34(e) for Tracts 23371, 23372 and 33(e) for Tract 23373 - Delete Road Department Condition 21 for Tract 23371 and 14 for Tracts 23372 and 23373 Add to the end "or as approved by the Road Department" 55 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 (AGENDA ITEM 1-2 - REEL 1002 - SIDE I - TAPE i SIDE 1) AN NO. 1 - EA 32318 - Marlborough Dev. Corp. Rancho TRACT HAP 23100 ENDED - California/Skinner Lake Area - First and Third Supervisortel Districts - west -of Butterfield Stage Rd, northof Rancho California Rd - 291 lots - 122.5t acres - R-11SP Zones: 'SchedUle A ' ..**' .:. ... '.' TRACT MAP 23101 - EA 32533 - Marlborough Oev. Corp. - Rancho California/Skinner Lake Area - First and Third Supervisortel Districts - east of Kaiser Pkwy, west of Butterfield Stage Rd - 263 lots - 87t acres - SP/R-2-6000 Zones. Schedule A .TRACT'MAP '23t'02 - EA 32534- Maribm)roUgh De~...corp;'- Rancho--. California/Skinner 'Lake Area'- First and Third Supervisortel D!strtCts "nort~ of La Serene Nay, west of Butterfield Stage Rd - 37 lots - 16.4t acres - SP/R-Z .Zones. Schedule A TRACT MAP 23103 AMENDED NO. 1 - EA 32535 - Marlborough Dev. Corp. - Rancho California/Skinner Lake Area - First and Third Supervisortel Districts - west of Butterfield Stage Rd, north of Rancho California Rd - 18 lots - 29t acres - SP/R-A-1 Zones. Schedule A The heartngs were opened at 9:49 a.m. and closed at 10:08 a.m. STAFF RECOIelENDATZON: Adoption of the negattve declaraUons for EA 32318, 32533, 32534 and 32535, and approval of Tentative Tract Maps 23t00 Amended NO. 1, 23t01, 23102, and 23~03 Amended NO. ~ with a waiver of the lot length to width ratio, subject to the proposed conditions. The subject tract maps were located within Village B of the ~rgartta Village Specific Plan, and would divide the 254 acres into 605 residenUn1 lots. Staff had found the tract maps to be consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan, Specific Plan ~99 Amendment No. l, and the zoning which had been applied to the specific plan through Change of Zone Case 5207. Ms. Gtfford recommended several changes to the conditions for these tract maps, relaUng to requtrements for maintenance of the open space areas, park requirements, useable yard areas, and fenctng requirements. tit. Klotz suggested modifying the last condition for each tract map by beginning wtth the phrase "Oevelol~ent of the". Co~etsstoner Bresson requested that changes be made throughout to refer to etther "publlc use tratls" or "recreational tratls" tnstead of "equestrian tratls"; he felt these tems would mere accurately describe their use. Berry Burnell, representing the applkant, accepted the conditions as amended. It was his understanding that in the event any portton of the development agreement was held to be Invalid (for any reason), the conditions requiring compliance with that agreement would be null and votd; this was confirmed by County Counsel. There was no further testimony, and ~he hearings were closed at 10:08 a.m. FINOINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Tentative Tract Maps 23100 Amended No. 1, 23101, 23102, and 23103 Amended No. I are located within Village B of the Margarita 2 RIVERSIDlE COUNTY PUkNNING C04MISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 Village Specific Plan; the four tract maps would divide the 254 acres into 605 residential lots; the tract maps have been condttioned in accordance with the specific plan's conditions of approval to mitigate impacts on the Stephens Kangaroo Rat; the tract IMpS have been'condttioned ~o comply with Specific Plan ~99 Amendment NO~. 1,'Change Of .Zone CaseSXOT,.and.Oevelopmen~A reement- No. 5; a waiver for the lot lengthtowidth ratio will be needed f~r )ract ' 23103 Amended No. 1. All environmental concerns have been addressed in EIR 107, EIR 202, and the initial studies for these tract IMps, and no significant impacts have been found; the tract IMps are consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan (as amended by General Plan Amendment No. 150), Specific Plan 199 Amendment No..1 and Change of Zone Case 5107; the tract maps conform to the requirements' of Ordinances 348and 460. The.proposed p~ojects..Will not have a significant effect on the environment. ' MOTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Bresson, seconded by Commissioner Beadling *and unanimously carried, the Commission adopted the negative declarations for EA 32318, EA 32533, EA 32534 and FJk 32535, and approved Tentative Tract Haps 23100 Amended No. 1, 23101, 23102, and 23103 Amended No. 1 with a waiver of the lot length to width ratio, subject to the proposed conditions, amended as follows, based on the above findings and conclusions and the recommendations of staff. Tract Map 23100 Amended No. 1 22. Amend to conform to Condition 24 (to provide for maintenance of the common open space area by either a County Service Area or a Homeowners Association). 3. Prior to the issuance of occupancy penntts for 160 units on Tract 23100, the park area shall be developed per Specific Plan No. Amended NO. 1. Replace with the standard alternative condition providing for maintenance of the common open space area by either a County Service Area or Homeowners Association. 37(b) Wall and/or fence locations shall substantially conform to attached Figure I11-28 of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1. 81 l'ne development of Tentative Tract No. 23100 Amended No. I shall coyly with all provisions of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. Oevelopment Agreement No. 5 Tract Hap 23101 i and 17(h) Rear yards and useable side yards shall have an average flat area of 2000 square feet. 22. Amend to conform to Condition 24 (to provide for maintenance of common open space area by either a County Service Area or a Homeowners Association). RZVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COHRZSSION MINUTES SEPTEHBER 28, 1988 23. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for 160 units on Tract 2310I, the park area shall be developed per Specific Plan No. Amended No. 1. '24. Repi:ace'wi'ththe standard'alternative cOnditiOn providing for maintenance of the common open space area by either a County Service Area or Homeowners Association. 37(b) Wall and/or fence locations shall substantially confom to attached ~ FigUre III-28 of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1. 38. The development of TentatiVe' ~ract'No. 23101 Shall comply .With-all. ~rovisions of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1 and Development greement No. 5 Tract Map 23102 1. Amend to conform with Condition 33 (to provide for maintenance of the common open space area by either a County Service Area or a Homeowners Association. 33. Replace with the standard alternative condition providing for maintenance of the cuenon open space area by either a County Service Area or Homeowners Association. 35(b) Wall and/or fence locations shall substantially confom to attached Figure III-28 of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1. 36. The development of Tentative Tract No. 23102 shall comply With all provisions of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1 and Development Agreement No. 5 Tract Hap 23103 Amended No. I Amend to confom to Condition 22 (to provide for heintenance of the common open space area by either a County Service Area or a Honeowners Association. 2. Replace wrlth the standard alternative condition providing for maintenance of the common open space area by either a County Service Area or Homeowners Association. 34(a) Wall and/or fence locations shall substantially confom to attached Figure I11-28 of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1. 55 The development of Tentative Tract No. 23103 Amended No. I shall comply with all provisions of Specific Plan No; 199 Amendment No. 1 and Development Agreement No. 5 4 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 (AGENDA ITEHS 1-3 AND 1-4 - REEL 1002, SIDE 1 - TAPE 1, SIDE 1) TRACT MAP 22916 - EA 32505 - Rancho California Day. Co. - Rancho California Area - First Supervisorial District - north of Pauba Rd, west of Butterfield. Stage Rd - 259 lots -103.3~'acres, R-R/SP'ZoneS. Schedule .A TRACT HAP22918 - E~ 32504 - Rancho' CalifOrnia Day.'- Co.'- Rancho CalifOrnia Area - First Supervisorial District - south of Rancho Vista Rd, west of Butterfield Stage Rd - 287 lots - 91.6~ acres - R-R/SP Zones. Schedule A VESTING TRACT MAP 23471 - EA 32518 - Kaiser Development Co. - Rancho California Area -. First Superv. isorial District - south of Rancho Cal.tfornia Rd, west of Kaiser Pkwy - 155 lots- 44~ acres -'R-1/SP Zones. SchedUle-A VESTING TRACT HAP 23470 - EA 32517 - Kaiser Development Co. - Rancho California Area - First Supervisorial District - north of Rancho Vista Rd, - west of Kaiser Pkwy - 325 lots - 106.3 acres - R-1/SP Schedule A The hearings were opened at 10:10 a.m. and closed at 11:10 a.m. STAFF RECOHHENOATION: Adoption of the negative declarations for EA 32517, EA 32518, EA 32504, and EA 32505 and approval of Tentative Tract Naps 22915 and 22916, and Vesting Tentative Tract Naps 23470 and 23471 subject to the proposed conditions, and a waiver of the lot length to width ratio for all four tract maps. These four tract maps were located in Village C of Specific Plan 199 Amendment No. 1, and would divide the 345 acres into 1020 residential lots, provide a 10 acre school site, a 5 acre park site and 3 tot lots. Staff had found the proposed maps to be consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan, the adopted specific plan, and the zoning which had been applied to the property through Chan e of Zone Case,5107. Ms. Gtfford recommended several changes to the conditions of approval; these changes related to the minimum lot size, lot length to width ratio requirements, park requirements, landscaping/irrigation requirements, and a requirement for development of the tract maps in accordance with the adopted speclflc plan and approved development agreement. Commissioner Beadling questioned Ms. Gtfford's recommendation for deletion of the conditions for Tract llps 23470, 22915 and 22916 requiring landscaping and irrigation. Ms. Gtfford explained these three tentative maps roposed minimum 7200 square foot lots and the County did not normally require Vandscaptng and irrigation for lots of this size. Mr. Streeter felt this condition could be retained, as it was County policy to require landscaping and irrigation for 7200 square foot lots in the Rancho California area. Robert Ktmble, representing the applicant, advised they would prefer not to provide the front yardlandscaping and irrigation, and requested that the condition be deleted. Commissioner Beadling asked whether Mr. Kimble had seen the letter submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Pipher objecting to the density proposed in the area adjacent to their estate type hones. At her request, Mr. Ktmble located Mr. Pipher's subdivision which was next to Rancho Vista Road. They were proposing the 7200 square foot lots allowed by the specific plan for this area. Ms. Gtfford advised the tract map was a refillrig of a previously 5 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COeqJISSION MINUTES SEPT)BER 28, 1988 approved map, and there was no change in the density; the proposed tract map was within the density range allowed by the specific plan. Commissioner Beadling quoted from the letter, which requested that the density be reduced to the density originally proposed by the specific plan. She ~wanted to know what this density was, and was informed there had. been no change in the density. " ' ' ' ' '.- * · · Hr. Ktmble requested that Condition 4 of the Flood Control Dlstrlct's letter for Tract 23471 be deleted. This condition required maintenance ramps in the Long Canyon Channel; these ramps were not needed because they had dest ned this channel for their underlying map with 4:1 slopes. Hr. Lotz agree~ to the deletionof this condition. Hr. Kimb]e' then requested that. Road Department Condttton26 for Tract'22915 ind-Condition 2B.for Tract 22.916 be amended by'. adding to the end '"or as approved'by the Road Commissioner"; Hr. Johnson agreed to this change for both tract maps. Condition 20 for Tract 22916 required the park to be fully improved and developed prior to the issuance of building permits for 150 units, and Kimble requested that this condition be amended to require the l;rk prior to the issuance of occupancy for the 259th lot. Providing the ful improved park prior to 150 units would be a burden to the developer. Ns. Gifford advised Nr. Ktmble's request would delay completion of the park until after the entire tract had been completed; staff felt 150 units would afford the ' applicant an opportunity to build some units, and at that point the improve- ments could be tied into road improvements. The park would also be useful for the tract to the north, which was being developed by the sam developer. Hr. Ktmble requested clarification of the new condition staff had sug ested for Tract 22916 regarding mitigation for the Stephens Kangaroo Rat. ~r. Goldman explained this condition referred back to the specific plan condi- tions, which required eliher a Fiemorandum of Understanding with the Department of Fish and Game or that the applicant comply with the Countywide program being established by Riverside County. Robert Dudonay, also representing the applicant, advised he was actively involved with the task force appointed by the Board of Supervisors regarding the Stephens Kangaroo Rat program. There was no set pro ram at the present time, and he wanted to know whether they would be charg2~ the $750 per lot fee, or whether they would be held up until a specific program was estab- lished. He did not went to be dela ed, as th_ey would be read to pull build- ing permits within the next few wee{s. Fir. Klotz explained ~e Board had generally endorsed the concept of having a developer make a deposit of $750 per lot, accompanied by an agreement to pay the fee as ultimately adopted; this would allow the project to go forward. He felt this option would be available to the developer. He explained this was not necessarily the ultimate fee, but was onl a security to be deposited atainst the ultimate mitigation fee. This ex~{anation satisfied Mr. Dudone concerns. ys Fir. Kimble advised it was their understanding .that in the event Development Agreement No. 5 should be held invalid at some time in the future, the approval of the four tract maps would still stand, but the condition for 6 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COI~MISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 compliance with the development a reement would be null and void. Mr. Klotz advised this was explicitly provi)ed with n the i development.agreement. OPPONENTS:-' .... : Bob Pipher, 41825 Greentree Road, Temecula, advised the development in which he lived (known as Green Tree) contained approxi~.tely 96 acres and he and his wife owned approximately one-third of this property. They had submitted the letter requesting that the portions of the subject tract maps adjacentto their area be required to create lots similar in size. Mr. Pipher had. a map of the Hargartta V~l)age Specific Plan dated March 30,'1986, Which 'showed the density'th this area to be approximately half of' the density Currently .. ~roposed. Mr. Pipher advised this was an equestrian area, and people residing n the area needed riding trails. He requested a connecting trail from Pauba to Rancho Vista along the boundary between their subdivision and the subject development or along Kaiser Parkway; this would provide an additional landscaped buffer area. Hr. Pipher advised they had no problem with the proposed school site, but feltl the circulation syste~ proposed to serve the school was inadequate. In his opinion, Street "B' should be extended to Kaiser Parkway; this would then provide access to both the school site and the park from Kaiser Parkway. At f and providing an access the present time there was a steady flow of tra ftc, to the park site and school from Kaiser Parkway would help everyone in the area, in addition to making the park more accessible. Because of the traffic on Kaiser Parkway, Nr. Pipher thought it would be difficult for people living on the other side to reach the park. He therefore suggested that one or two tarks be required on the' other side *of Ka'tser Parkway', to benefit residents in hat area. Hr. Pipher requested a solid wall along the boundary between their development and the subject project. The people residing in this area were requesting a buffer, and would appreciate anything the Commissioners could do to help them. In answer to a question by Commissioner Brasson, Hr. Pigher advised there was no street between the area he was representing and t · subject site; the lots from the subSect tract map were backing up against the lots in his subdivision. When Nr. Pipher again requested equestrian trails, Hs. Gtfford briefly reviewed the proposed trail system, which included a trail along Rancho California Road, going up the Kaiser Parkway and ~D easement; no trails ware proposed in the southern area as requested by Nr. Pipher. Commissioner Bresson requested that these trails be designated as public access or recreational trails instead of equestrian trails. Nr. Burnell advised that an equestrian trail had hen established all along Pauba Road, going east and west, and there was a north/south trail in the Metropolitan Water District e~s~x~nt. going by the school administration site, along Rancho California Road to Kaiser Parkway. The residents of the Green Tree area could use the trail along Pauba, which connected to the trail along Green Tree Lane. This was a regional trail system, established under the direction of the Parks Department. 7 s. I., U, ND uSE VACANT MARGARITA VILLAGE Z RES HIlly VACANT VACANT '~ YSNEV&I~ ,,AG I.ERvE.. INQ. ~ I10, II iNO. tll,;.'llO'l ' · RES. · ..! V,e, CAMT ,' ..-. ,, ,,,, VACANq VAC~IT. VACANT HILLY ,."'*':': .......... U.C. :k I VACANT HILLY RE$IDE.NI~..~L VAJANT ~r /'/*** ..v,.,c~T/, . ,/" Aplk KACOR " I.~CAT,O.A~. SAP Use SPECIFIC PLAN OF LAND USE Area RANCHO CAL Sup. 0ist, I ~:s&.::':z: ss:::~:{~:,AsA, ess~r') ek.gZS Pe.,o.,,.,: · I · 't ' 0e88: RANCliO NO )CALf RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COIeqSSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 Commissioner Bresson requested information on the type of buffer to be provided. Mr. Burnell advised there would be masonry walls in the area north and south of Rancho Vista Road; he thought this Mould satisfy Mr. Pipher's concerns.. Mr. Burnell advised the ~rgarita Village Specific Plan had or)ginally been approved'with 'a slightly higher densi~y..in th'ts' area. .They. had added land with the amended specific plan but had not Changed densities' in the area of the subject tract maps. The exhibit presented by Mr. Pipher was a conceptual exhibit prepared by the engineer for internal use only and had never been presented to the County. Mr. Ktmble responded to Mr. Ptpher's request 'for an additional park on the other'side of Kaiser Parkway, by advising. Costain Homes was providing a park '. planned for Tract' 22715 to the north; ~ey were planning'to upgrade both parks over and above the requirements of the specific plan. Commissioner Oonahoe asked whether staff was recommending that a condition be added to require the wall as a buffer between the subject tract maps and the area represented by Mr. Pipher, and was informed this was a condition of the specific plan. Lee Johnson referred to Mr. Ptpher's sug estlon that "B' Street be ~xtended to Kaiser Parkway, and advised both he and 3ohn Johnson (Transportation Planning Section of the Road Department) felt this was an excellent recommendation. Circulation in this area might be improved by making this connection rather than having the school served by a cul-de-sac street. This would also give both the school and the park site access frama 66 foot wide street. When Commissioner Bresson asked whether this could be accomplished without redesigning the map, Mr. Johnson replted he felt the map would have to be amended. Mr. Streeter felt this provide a much better access.. Commissioner Beadling felt that a long cul-de-sac street going into a school was poor planning, as it required the cars and school busses bringing in children to wrap around and come back out the same way. Extending the street would allow the vehicles to drop off the children and go out a different way. Commissioner Bresson was concerned about creating a 4-way intersection, and Mr. Johnson agreed that a 3-way intersection created les~ problems. However, he still felt that providing access to Kaiser Parkway would result in better circulation service to the school site. Mr. Burnell did not feel it was necessary to extend "B" Street to Kaiser Park- way in order to provide adequate circulation for the scbool. He was concerned that the change in the roadway might cause problems with regard to the sewer lines. Mr. Burnell was also concerned about a 4-way intersection at Kaiser Parkway; he felt retaining the existing 3-way intersection would provide an overall better circulation system for residents of the area. Connissioner Bresson preferred the cul-de-sac street because it would not encourage through traffic along the school site. Mr. Johnson pointed out that there would be less opportunity to eventually obtain signalizatton for a 3-way intersection than for a' 4-way intersection. 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING CONNISSION MINUTES SEPTFJqBER 28, 1988 Mr. Kimble advised they had met with the school district and showed them the tentative map; they were pleased with the conft uratton of the school site as well as the proposed Street system. gr. Burneli advised their original design showed-the schOol/park site adjacent Kaiser Parkway,. and the school district had:objected'to this pl'an.becauSe they did not want the children' adjacent to a major street. Commissioner Bresson supported the tract map as currently designed, as it was satisfactory to the school district. There was no further testimony, and the hearing was closed at 11:10 a.m. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: .Tentative Tract Maps 22915, and 22916, and Vesting Tract Maps 23470 and-23471. are located within Viilage .C of .Specific Plan 199' Amendment No. 1 (the Yargarita Village Specific Plan); the four tract maps would divide the 345 acres into 1020 residential lots; design manuals have been prepared for Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 23470 and 23471; the tract maps have been condittoned to comply with Specific Plan 199 Amendment No. 1, Change of Zone Case 5107, and Development Agreement No. 5; a waiver for the lot length to width ratio will be needed for all four maps. All environmental concerns have been addressed in EIR 107, EIR 202, and the initial studies for these tract maps, and no significant impacts were found; the tract maps are consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan (as amended by General Plan Amendment 150), Specific Plan 199 Amendment No. 1 and Chan e of Zone Case 5107; and conform to the requirements of Ordinances 348 an) 460. MOTION: Upon motion b Commissioner Bresson, seconded by Co~hstoner Beadling and unanimously carried, the Commission adopted the negative ~ declarations for EA 32517, EA 32518, EA 32504 and EA 32505, and approved Tentative Tract Naps 22915 and 22916, and Vesting Tract Maps 32470 and 23471, all with a waiver of the lot length to width ratio, subject to the proposed conditions and based on the above findings and conclusions and the recommenda- tions of staff. Tract No. 23470 17(a) - All lots shall have a minimum size of 7200 square feet net. 174b) - Delete entirely 20 - Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for 150 units, one tot lot shall be improved and fully developed. 21 - Prtor to the issuance of occupancy permits for 275 units, the second tot lot shall be improved and fully developed. 27 - Prior to the issuance of building permits (balance to remain the same) The development of Vestin Tentative Tract Map 23470 shall comply with its Design Manual, with aV1 provisions of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. I and with Development Agreement No. 5 Tract No, 23471 9 RZVERSZDE COUNTY PLANNZNG COIeZSSZON MXNUTES SEPTENBER 28, 1988 ZO - Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for 200 units, one tot lot shall be improved and fully developed. 26 - Prior to the issuance of building permits (balance to remain the same) 32(f)- All 'front yards Shall be proVided'.With landscaping and man'ually." n operated, perma ent underground irrigation. Flood Control Condition 4 - Delete entirely 35 - The development of Vesting. Tentative Tract Hap 23471 shall comply with its DeSign Hanual; with all p~ovisions of Specific Plan No.. 19g Amendment No~ '1 and with Development Agreement NO. 5 - Delete Condition 4 of the Flood Control letter dated June 17, 1988. Tract No. 22915 24 - Prior to the issuance of building permits (balance to remain the same) 32 - The development of Tentative Tract Hap 22915 shall comply with all provisions of Specific Plan No, 199 Amendment No, I and Development Agreement No. 5 Road Department Condition 26 - Add to the end "or as approved by the Road Commissioner". Tract No. 22916 2 - Add the following: except for the lot length to width ratio. 20 - Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for 150 units in Tentative Tract-22916, the park shall be fully improved and dev.eloped. 25 - Prior to the issuance of building permits (balancp to remain the same) 32 - The development of Tentative Tract Hap 23916 shall comply with all ~rovtstons of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1 and Development greement No. 5 33 - Prior to issuance of grading permits, impacts to the Stephens Kangaroo' Rat Habitat shall be mitigated per the specific plan conditions of approval. Road Department Condition 28 - Add to the end "or as approved by the Road Commissioner'. 10 Zoning Area: Rancho California Vesttng Tentative Tract Nos.: 23371 Amd. Supervisortel DIstrict: Ftrst and No. 1, 23372 Amd. No. 1, 23373 Md. No. Z Thtrd Planntng C~,,,lsston: 10o5-88 E.A. Nos: 32546, 32547, 32548 Agenda Item No.: 5-2, 5-3, end 5-4 Spoctffc Plan Sectton 1. Applicant: Hargartta Vtllage Oevelopen. t Co. 2. Engineer: Rtck Engineering Company 3. Type of Request: The 3 tracts wtll subdivide 472 acres  tnto i763 residenttaT untts - . 4. Location: East of Her artto Road. north of Rencho 5. Extsttng Zontng: R-R (Change- of Zone 5107 heard by the~ " 8oard of S~pervtsors on 9-13-88 proposese ~ $P 199 Amd. No. t zontng). ' Surrounding Zoning: Stte Characteristics: Area Characteristics: ComprehensJve Ge~eral Plan Zoning to the north and west ts R-4, A-2-20, R-R, R-l; Zontng to the south ts Vacant land traversed w?th low htlls Located on eastern edge of Rancho California community Rancho Vtllages (General Plon Amendment No. 150 proposes a general plan des~ natlon of Speclftc Plan No. 199 Ame g~ent No. 13 10. Land D1v?stonDato: Vesting Tract 23371 And. No. 1 23372Amd. No. 1 23373 Pad. No. 1 Acreage Density (Du/Ac) 394 1183 3 37 * 232 6 31 348 11 11. Ageneff Recomendat~ons: 23371 lld. RO. I 23372 lid. No. I 23373 lid. RO. 1 Road 9-22-88 3-22-88 9-22-88 Heal th 7-25-88 9-7-88 7-25-88 Flood 7-22-88 7-22-88 7-22-88 Fi re 8-17-88 8-17-88 8-17-88 Shed ff 6-10-88 6-10-88 6-10-88 12. Letters: 13. Sphere of Znfiuence Influence None recetved as of thts ~'ltlng Not withtn a C~ty sphere AN~YSI$: Vesttng Tentative Tract ROs. 23371 lid. No. 1, 23372 lid. No. 1, and 23373 Amd. No. 1 fmplenent Vtl]age as e planned retirement coneunity tn the Fkrgartte Vl|lage Spectf¶c Plan ($P 199 Amd. RO. 1) Spec~ftc Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1, Change of Zone No. 5107, General Plan Amendment No. 150 and Development Agreene~t No. 5 were heard by the Board of Supervisors on September 13, 1988.:; These tracts have been designed to be consistent with these documents. The tsble below sumear~ze the tracts' relatlonsh¶p and consistency wtth the~ Spec~ftc Plan's planntng ereas. As shown, none of the tracts exceed the d pem~tted number of resi anttel units. C/3I~ARIS~IIOFTIACTAI) $PECZFICIq. AaDkIELLTRGUNZT$ Proposed Spectf~c Plan · Permitted Tract No. No. of Untts Area No. of Untts VTT 23372/and. No. I 1183 33-37, 42-45 1197 V1T 23372 And. No. I 232 41 234 V'tT 23373 Amd. No. I 348 38 348 A destgn manual has been prepared for all'three vesting maps w~tch provtdes guidelines for landscaping, floor 1arts, elevations and zontng. Acoustical studtes have hen proposed and ,t1~ be Implemented as required by the conditions of approval. MItigation for potential tmpacts to Mr. Pelomar are aTso lncTuded tn the conditions of approvaT. AddttlonaT evaluation found no cultural resources onslte. Vestfng Tentative Tract 23371,/mended No. ?tncludes an 18 hole golf course. As also required by the specific plan c~ndtttons, the tract has been condtttoned to taprove the park tn Plannfng Area 45. Zn conformance wtth the specific plan Vesttng Tentithe Tract 23372, Mended No. I has been condtttoned for mitigation of Impacts to the Stephens Kangaroo Rat. 11 should be noted that the number of untts for congregate care are on esttmate and will be reviewed at the development plan stage. Envtrnnmental usesants hive been prepared ~ all three tracts. R 2 Environmental Impacts ere assessed tn EIR 107 and [I 20 prepared for the Rancho Village $pectftc Plan and the hitget(as V411age Spectftc Plan. MdQttonal environmental evaluation has been provided by the reports prepared for the spec¶fic plan amendment and the acoustical studies prepared for the three tracts. No s~gnlf?cant env(ronmental tmpects have been found. Vesttrig Tentative Tract No. 23371 Mended 14o. 1, 23372 Mended No. 1, and 23373 Amended No. 1 are located in Vtllage A of the t4argertta Y~11age Specific Plan. 2. The three tracts v411 provide 1763 d~e11¶ng units and golf course open spac.e on 254 164 acres. (~mended by Planning Commission 10-5-88) 3. Tr.c, 23372 Mandnd his bee. co..,tto.ed condition of approval ~ mdtdga~ 4~acts 4. The tracts have been condtttoned to comply with S eciflc Plan No. 199, Change of Zone No. 5Z07 and Devehpment Agreement No. ~, 5. A ~aher for length to ~dth retJo .ill be needed fo Vesting Tentative Tract 23371 Amended Ro. l, CI)IICLUSTO!I$: &11 environmental concerns have been addressed in EIRs 107, 202 and the 1nittel stodtes for these tracts and oo significant tmpects have been found. 2. The tracts are oonststsnt with General Plan Amendment NO, 150 Change of Zone No, 5107, and $pectffc Plan No. 199, Amendment No.. 1, 3. The tracts conform to the requirements of Ordinances 348 and 460, RE~E:NOAT[QIIS ADOPTTO14 of a Negative Declaration for [A Nos, 32546, 32547, 32548 on a findtng T~ projects ~11 not have a s(gntficant effect on the environment. APPROVAL of Yest4ng Tentative Tract 14os. 23371 Amended 14o. 1, 23372 Amended No. I, a d 23373 Amended NO. I subject to the attached conditions of approval. n KG:mcb:mp RiVERSiDE COUNTY PLAHNZNG DEPART)tENT SUBDiViSiON CONDXTZONS OF APPROVAL VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 2337l" AHENDED Ng. I STANDARD CONDITIONS 1. The subdivider shall defend, Indemnify, and hold hamless the County of Rherside, 1is agents, officers, and employees frm any c18tm, Ictton, or procee41ng against the County of RIverside or tts agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aslde, vold, or annul an approve1 o the County of RIverside, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concernin Vesttng Tentative Tract 23371 Amended No. 1, which actton ts brought a~out vtthfn the time period provided for tn Co forrite Governmen~ 1t Code Section 66499.37. The County of RIverside rill promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the County of RIverside and wtll coo ·rate fully in the defense. If the County fails to promptly nottry the suCdtvtder of Iny such cl·tm, action, or proceeding o~ fa~ls to cooperate fully tn the defense, the subdivider shall not} thereafter, he 1responsible to defend, tndmntfy, or hold hamlessdthe County of Rhers de. 2. The tentative subdivision shall comply v4th the State of Coltfomta Subdivision Nap Act end to ·11 the re utrements of Ordinance 460, Schedule A, unless modtfted by the conditions ~fsted below. i 3. This conditionally approved tentative map wtll expire two years after the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors approval date, unless extend· as provtded by Ordinance 460. ' 4. The fins1 map s'ha11 he prepared by ·ltcensed land surveyor subject to the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Nap Act end Ordinance 460. ~ 5. The subdhtder shell subett one copy of esotls report to the RIverside < County Surveyor's Office and rye coptes to the Department of Butldtng Ifid Safety. The report shall address the sotls stability end geological conditions of the site. Zf any Fading ls proposed, the subdivider shall submtt one print of comprehensive gradtng plan to the Department of 8utldlng and Safety. The plan shall comply wtth the Untfom Butldtng Code, Chapter 70, as mended - by Ordinance 457 and as maybe additionally provided for in these conditions of approval. Conditions of Approval Tentjthe Tract No. 23371 kneaded No. I Page 2 7. & gradlng permit Shall be obtained from the Department of Building and Safety pr(or tO cemmencemenC Of any grading outside of county ,~lntatned f rood right- o ',ay. · · -'.: . ' ' .:: 8. ky delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recOrdeaton'Of the ftnal map. 9. The subdivider shall comply wtth the street 1mprovement rec~,.,,~ndations outltned tn the Rherstde County Rood Del~rtment's letter dated "g-30-88 a'copy of whtch Is attached. (Amended by Planntng ColmiSsion 10~5e88) ' ' ' - .' .. .. : ' ' ' Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract mp boundary tO a County rainrained road, All road easements shall be offered for dedication tO the public and shall cant¶hue fn force until the governing body accepts or abandons such offers, A11 dedications shall be free from ell encumbrances as approve~ bt~e the Road Co,etsstoner. Street names shall be subject tO approval oR Road Commissioner. [asementso utilities, w~thtn the conveyances Surveyor, when requtred for roadwU shpes, drainage factltths, etc., shall be shown on the final map tf they are located land division boundary. A11 offers of dedication and shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the County ~ater and sewerage disposal facilities shall be 4nst/lled t~ accordance with the provisions set forth ~n the Rherstde County Health Department's letter dated 7-25-88 a copy of~h(ch (s attached· The sulxlhtder shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined by the RIverside County flood Control Dtstrtct's letter dital 7-22-68 · copy of ~hlch ts attached. If the land dlvtston lies w~thdn en adopted flood control dretnlge area pursuant to Sectton 10,25 of Ordinance 460 a propflare fees for the construction of ires dra(nage facilities sha~l ~ collected b~ the Road Commissioner. The subd¶vtder shall comply with~ the fire improvement recommendat(arts !~rs letter dated 8-17o88 e copy of which outltned In the County FIre hal*s Is attached. $ulxltvtslon phasing, tncludtn any proposed common open space area Improvement phasfn , tf Ippl~cables shall be subject to Planntng Department approv:T. ~y proposed phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access to ell lo13 4n each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval. Conditions of ~F royal TentatTve TractS. 23371 ~lmended No. 1 Page 3 17. Lots'creaked'b7 this-subdivision shall comply.~th the .fo!1.wtng:. e. Corner lo13 and through lots tf an~, shall be rovtded with additional area pursuant to Sect~o 3.88 of Ordtna ce 68 and so as n n 4 not to contain less net area than the least amount of net area in non-corner and through lots. Lots created by' thts SubdtVtst~nShall.'be tn..'conformance '~th the development"standards of 'the 'Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1 zone. c. I&en lots ere crossed by major publlc utt1Ity easements, each lot shall have a net usable area of not less then 3,600 square feet, exclusive of the ut¶l~ty easement. .' d. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained tn a ~eed-free cond¶tlon and shall be e(ther planted with ~ntertm landscaping oP rovtded with other eroston control measures as approved by the Btrector of Butldfng and Safety. e. Trash btns, loading areas and tncldental storage areas shall be located away and visually screened from surrounding areas with the use of block walls and landscaping. Prior to RECOIIO&TION of the final map the following condft(ons shall be satisfied: e. Prior to the recorderton of the ftnal mp the applicant shall submtt written clearances to the RIverside Count~ Road and Survey Oepartment that all pertinent requirements outlined In the attached approval letters frm the folioring agencies have been met. ge 1 ntr Dtst. ,.-- , County;He!7,~h:Oe r~ment:, County" Pl iRnl ng" ~artant Pancho'llater Dtstr. tct' b. Prior ~vthe reco atton of the final mp, General Plan Mendmerit zone ultlmatel.v appl led to the p~opeT~cy. Conditions of Approval Tentsthe Tract No. 23371 Anended No. 1 Page 4 20. The Canaan open space areashall be shOWn as a numbered.lot ~n thai'final map and shall be managed by a ester property owners assocaatton. 21.. Prior to recordatlo~ of the final sutxlh~ston rap, the sutxltvJder shall submit the felledw documents to the PTann~n De rtle~t for'rovaew, which documents shalT be sub]act.to the approval ~ ~it department and the' Office of' the Counlt, Y. CounSel :.. · 1} A declit/finn of covenants, conditions and restrictions; and' 19. All ~tsttng structures on the subject property shall be moved prior to 'recordargon-of .the fSnai rap. A sample document conveyed tttle to the purchaser of an Individual lot r o untt ~hich provtdes that the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrtcttons ts incorporated therein by reference. Th~ declarathn of covenants, conditions and restrictions subm¶tted for ~ t ray ew shall (a) provtde for a mtnfmum tam of 60years, (b) provtde ~ for the establlshnent of I property owners' assoc(atton comprised of the ~ of each 4ndhtdual lot or untt, (c) prevtde for ownership of the and (d) contain to following provisions verbatim: · NothWfthstsndtng any provision tn thts Declaration to the contrary, the follo~fng provision shall apply: The property owners' association established herein shall manage and continuously maintain the 'common area', more pertlcularll described on Exhtbtt '1I~-17' of the specific plan attached hereto, led shill not salt or transfer the 'common aria', or any pert thereof, absent the prior w~tten consent of the Planning Otrector of the County of Riverside or the County's successor-tn-~nterest. The proper~ owner's assocfatfon shill have the rfght to assess the o~ers of rich 1ndtvfdual lot or unft for the reasonable .cost of etntitn¶ng the 'common area' sad shell have the right to 1¶an the property ~f an7 such mmer uho defaults (n the pe~_ent of a maintenance assessment. An assessment 1ten, once created, shall be prtor to 811 other 1tens recorded subsequent to the notice of assessment or other document creatfng the assessment 1ten. TMs Declaration shall not be terminated 'substantially' amended or raparty deannexed therefrom absent the pro ~ttten consent of the I~lanntng Director of the County of Rhers~de or the County's successor-In-interest. A proposed amendment shall'be considered 'substantial' 4f It affects the extent. usage or ,atnte,~ance of the 'common area'. Conditions of Approval Tentatfve Tract NO. 23371 Mended No. t Page 5 Zn the-went of any confi!ct between th¶s'Oeclaratton and the Arttcles 'of Zncor '~atton~ the Bylaws. or the propert 'oNners' assoC]a.tton Rules · ' and Regufittons, If any, thts Oeclaratfon I~all control." Once a proved, the declater¶on of covenants, conditions and restrictions . shall ~ recorded st the same ttme that the ftnal map ts recorded. t22,Prior. to recorded¶on of .the flea1 'mp, clearance she]l-beobtotnnd from - Retropolltan '.1eater District. r~lat~ve to 'the' .proteCtion of .applicable easements affectTrig the. subject property. Lot 1tee adjustments shall 'also be completed. 23. The developer shall toeply with the following ri'~Irenenf. t Is shom t~ $pectftc Plan No. m:~nnhtne~J'- · HOK or other Fubllc eattry: (Amended by Planning Commission 10-5-88) Prior to recordslion of the ftnal mp the developer shall file application utth the County for the fonnitfon of or In Za 16111 :to,~k parkway mlntenance dtstrtct for Vesting Tlntit~v:-.~'~c~ No.. 23371 kendad No. I In accordance with the LAndscaping and Ltghtfng Act of Z972, unless the project ts withtn an exist¶rig p/rkway mtntenance. 2) Prtor to the tssuance of butldtng pemtts, the developer shall secure approval of proposed landscaping and Irrigation plans from the County Road and Planntng Department. A11 landscapJng and Irrigation plans and specifications shall De prepared tna reproducible format suttable for permanent ftltng with the County Road Department. 3) The developer shall post I landscape performance bond whtch shell be released concurrently with the release of subdivision performance bonds, quarenteetng the vtabtllty of all landscaping whtch will be 1natalled prtor to the issur~tlon of the mtntenance responsibility by t the dlstr ct. 4) The developer, the developer's successors-In-Interest or assignees, shall be responsible for all parkway landscapSng maintenance unit such ttee as mtntenance ts taken over by the district. . 1 · 24. The deveJoper s~a11 be respons¶ble for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes, landscaped areas and trr¶gat¶on systems unit1 such t~me as those o erattons am the responsibilities of other parttes as approved by the P~anntng Director. ~. Stree~ ]tghts shall be provtded withtn the subdivision tn accordance ~tth the standards of Ordinance 46~ and the following: Conditions of Approval Tent, tttve TrAct No. 2337t A~ended No. 1 Page 6 Z) Concurrentl~ wtth the'ft1.tng of subdivision,improvement plans wtCh the Road Department; the de~elOper shall" secure approval. of the: proposed. street 11ghC 1A/out first from the Road Depar~ment's trafftc engineer' aid then from the appropr¶ete gt~ltt~y purveyor. 2) Follmftng approve1 of the street 11ghttng layout by' the Road Department's trAfftc engineer, the developer shall also ftle an Application wtth. LAFCO for the .fomatton of A street 11ghttng · . district, .:or.' Annexa.tton to An existtng 1-tgh~lng district', unlesS'the stte ts ~thtn in extsttng 11ghtlng district;' '." . -.' · 3) Prtor to recordAtton of the. ftnal map, the developer shill secure conditional approval of the street 11ghtlng Ippllclt¶ea, fram L&FCQ, unless the stte Is within an exlsttng 11ghttng district, "' 4).- All street 11ghts and other outd~r 11ghttng shall he shown ~ electrical plans submitted to the Department of Butldtng and S4fAt~ for plan check approval and shell comply ~tth the requirements of Rherstde County Ordinance No. 655 and the Rherstde County Comprehenshe General PlAn, 26. The park area (Planning Area No. 45) of the spectftc phn shall be tmprovnd alon wtth 811 road Improvements prior to the 1ssuence of butldlng perm(~s for 800 dvelllng untts tn Tract 23371 ~mended RO. 1. ~he f+naT--ma --for-Vesting-Treat-a33 ~-shaT}-she,-the-perk-es-a-numbered-ht~ (Amended ~;. Planntng CommSssSon 10-5-88) 27. Prtor to the tssuance of GRADZNG PERHZTS the following cond¶ttons shall be satisfied: PrSor ~o the tssuance of. grading pemSts, detalhd common open space area parktng lendscaplng and trrtgatSon plans shill he sutxa~tted for Plannlng I~part~ent approval for the phase of development In process. The plans shall be certified by a landscape archerect, aid shall provide for the foilwing. l) Pemanent automatic Irrigation systems shall be tnstalhd on all landscaped areas requiring Irrigation. 2) Landscape screening where requtred shall be destgned to he opaque up to a mtntmum hetgh~ of stx (6) feet at matortty. 3) All ut¶11ty servtce areas and enclosures shall he screened from vtew ~rtth landscaping And decorative barrtere or baffle treatments, as approved by the Planntng DIrector. Uttllttes shall be placed underground. Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract No. 23371/mended No. t Page 7 8e · Parbrays' ~nd landscaped. 'lNtldtng ', Setbacks:' shill be landscaped to provtde vtsual sCreenl'ng or I ~ransttton tnto the primary use area of he stte, Landscape elements ' shall tnclude earth barruing, round c%ver, shrubs ind spectmen trees tn conjunction with meandering sidewalks, benches and other pedestrian amentiles where appropriate as epproved b the Planntng Department and Specific Plan No, 199 ~n~ndment ~, 1, 'LandScaping pl'ans' shall' 4nCorporete +the use 0f specimen accent 'trees at key visual focal points wtthtn the project. 6) ihere streets trees cannot be planted wtthtn rtght-0f*vay of interior 7) streets and project parkva~s due to Insufficient road right-of-way, they shall be planted outside of the road right-of-way. Landscaping plans shall Incorporate nattve and drought tolerant plants where appropriate. ' 8) All extsttng specimen trees and significant rock outcroppings on the 9) All trees shall be minimum double staked. ~eaker and/or slow growtrig trees shall be steel staked, ~0. Parktng layouts shall comply wtth Ordinance 348, Section t8.1Z. All extsttng nathe s ectmen trees on the subject property shall be preserved ~herever feasible, tthere they cannot be preserved the shall be relocatnd or replaced ~th s actmen trees as approved by t~e Planning DIrector, Replacement trees sha~l be noted on approved landscaping plans. ptotu~ phased, prior to the approval of grading ,permits, I~ OVll D¶rectQr for Ip royal, The p a shall be used as a guideline for 1 nf subsequent dete~hd grading plans or Indlvldual phases of devehpment and shall include the following: 1) Techniques .htch wtll be uttltzed to prevent eroston and sedtmentatton durtng and after the grading process. 2) Approximate time frees for grading and Identification of areas which t mY be graded during the higher probabtl tY rain months of January h throug ,~r,.h. 3) Preliminary pad and roadway elevations, Conditions of ~proval Tentathe Tract leo. 23371 k.ended No. 1 Page XO a~cordanee-w~th-the~stenda~ds-ef-erdaeaeee-46{-aed-Spee4f~a--Pqa.--Ne, igg-~aenimeet-~=-{~ .(Geleta byPlanntng CommisSIOn ~0-5~88) Street trees shall be planted throughout the subdhtston In.accordance wtth the standards of Ordinance 460 and 5~ectf~c PIIfi No. Amndmnt No, I 35. 'T:)eveloment of .VestSrig .Tentative Tract No. 2337~ knended No..t.shail comply vtth all provisions of $pec(f¶c'Pl'an 'No. t99/~endment. No.' t 'and. .Development Agreement No. 5, KG:mcb:mp , .s J EXlST.~e zoNIt,4; -~...~. I SP 199 R-A-I/2 · A2 I.o, ..-I .,//"/ I. DCATIONAI,, MAP App, KACON -' Use SPECIFIC PLAN OF LAND USE Area RANCHO CAL Sup. INst. | ~:~'J~. ss:cc:.ss':~.::s A.,.or'. ek.92S Pe.,o,.,,:: NO ICIL! LeRoy D. OFFICE OF ROAD COMIUS$1ONER ~ COUNTY JURVEYOR Riverside County Planning Go,mission 4080 Leean Street Riverside, CA gZSOX Ladies end Dentleeen: September :30. 1988 *e Re: Tract Pap 2337Z - Amend I! - Road Correction Schedule A - TeaaSP PaptX , ,+ Vfth respect to the' conditions of epprovll for the referenced tentative lend dhfsfon flap, the Road Oepartment recommends that the lenddhldlr provide the following sirlet improveMot plans and/or roed'dedtclttons in iccordence with O~.~lnancl 460 end Riverside County ROld improvement Stlndards (Ordlnancl~ 46~). It Is understood that the tentative nap cQrroctly shove acceptohio centirline f pr~ tleso sli existing easements, traveled ,tYI, end drainage course~ vlth appropriate Q'I, end that their oatsSloe Or unecceptebllltynay require the up to be resubmitted for further consideration. l~ese Ordinances end the lolloven9 conditions ere essential parts end I requirement occurring in ONE is is bindi is though occurring In e11.' They ere intended to be compleflanter~ and ._ describe the conditions for e cmphte design of the improvement. A11 questions regarding the true meaning Of the conditions shall be referred to the Road Commlssloner's Office. .. t. The leed~lvfder shell protect downstream properties ira deftages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns, i.e., concentra- tion of diversion of flo.. Protection shell be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities Including enlarging existing facilities or by Securin I drainage easement or by both. A!1 drainage easements she~l be shown on the final flap end noted 8s follows: "Orateage Easement - no t~ildlng, obstructions, or encroact~ents by land fills are elhwed". The protection shill be as approved bY the had Department. l~e lenddhtder shall accept end prnperly dispose of all offsite drainage flowing onto or through the site. Zn the event the Road Commissioner permits the use of streets for drofn~ PU oses, the provisions of/retell Xg of 1hate vilr~ apply. Should the ;entities exceed t~hdInenee No. 460 e street capacity or the use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the su~lvider shall provide aGe;ate drainage '* -. facilities as epproved by the Road Department. T,r~ct~Ki~'2337:Z - ~aend #Z - R~,_.C:orr~ctton 1dip · Stpta~er 30, 2988 ' 3. Ha~or drainage Is Involved on this landdivision end its resolution .she11. be es approved b)f the Road Deparfamnt. 4. It/leer Pl~'Sha11:.k. laproved idtAIn'the dedicated right of fll'iCcOrdence with Crmn~. $teedlrll It; ZOI'. (38'/S0').' 5, LI hrena idly shall be improved vlthln the dedicated right.of In accordance with County Standard No. 6.. Street "A"i 'Be (fpom Street "C" TO "D·] .11~11.1~ Impr~m~ed as approved by the;bed Casuistloner. (66/H*'). . '.'~ ' . ,- ;':,:", lOllear FIRway) shall be improved le accordance with Modified County Standard No. 103. Section A. (48'148'). Street 'C" (700's ~esterl~ of Kaiser Perkweir) shall be Improve fn accordance with Nodiliad County Standard No. Street 'X', Street 'B" (ira Street "to Iily), Street -fete.. (from Street 'l' to Street "S$") shill be labroved to accordance with Hodtried huntJr Standard No, 103, Section A, (44'/44'). Street "R', shall be tq)roved in accordance with Modified CountJr Standard No. t04, hctloe A, (40'/40'). Streets "D" thru "Hue "lee "4" thru "qae "S" thnl "lie. "Y" thru "DO· Street, gEE", Street "FFe. "DG" thro eLL', Street "NIl" (from Street 'aS" SlJr), Streets "fiX' thru "AAA" end t~ unnamed streets ronnln~ between Street "B" end elba end between Street "B" end Street "CC shell be Improved in accordance with NodIliad County Standard No. lOS, Section A, (36'/36'), $o~ih:~i'~""'~ Iloed~thell,be improved within the dediCated ~.~l_t~8:(~,/3~te~cco~clen~i with COunty Standard No, ZO3~.S~.ct|on 33 The lenddhtder shall provide utility clearance from Rancho Caltf. liter District prior to the recorderton of the final up, '~i~t'lalp 2337Z - Amend IT._. Road CorTectton Ikp ll Septe~er 30, 1988 Page 3 ,J 14, The maxtnacenterline gradient shall not exceed 151, IS. The mfnlmumcenterllne radii' ~ha11 be as approved by the Road Department. Itlncho Ci11f..Rood'lndNlrglrltlRoedslm11 be Improvldv~th concrete cu~end gutter lOcateS 43'fat greecealerTing lea arch up siphalt concrete plyin; reconstruction; or resurfacin9 of exfstf paving Is determine by the Road Coe~lssloner within e 55 foot ~ln~f width dedicate right of vl~ In acco~ance with County Standard No. ZOO. &for tot he.filing of the final map with.the County Paco~ler's Offl:Ce,.the develope~ shilt provide evidence of continUoUs' malntenahce of all proposed private '~trlets Nitbin thi devllolmnt as approve by the Road Coe~issloner. SIdewalks within the developgent shell'to as approved by the Road Connlssioner, The minimum lot frontages along the cul-de-secs and knuckles shalT~-' be 35 feet unless otherwise specified in the particular ~ning classification. 20, All drhe~ays shall conform to the applicable Riverside County Standards and shall be sho~n on the street Improvement plans. A minimum of four feet of full height curb shall be const~vcted between driveways. 21, Hhen blockwalls are required to be constructed on top of slope, a debris retention ~lT:sha11 be censeracre et the street right of way line to prevent silting of sidewalks as epprovad b~ the Road Comm Iss ioner. The minimum garage setback shall be 30 feet measured free the face of curb. Should the developer provide evidence of roll up doors on the building plans, e reduction of 4' may be ellowed tat in no case shell the garage be closer then 20 feet fr~m back of sidewalk or curb $n the ebse ce of sidewalk, ' n Primal/end secondar~ access roads to the nearest pave road main- telned b~ the Count~ shell be constrvcted within the public ri ht of v_~y In accordance with Count), Standard No, 106, Section U, 132'/ /60') It I grade end alignment as epproved by the Road Commissioner. Prior to the recordallen of the fine1 map, the developer shell deposltidth the Riverside County Road Department, e cash sum of $150.00 par lot as mitigation for traffic Signal impacts, Should ,, ,~Tri'ct~*NIp ~3371 - J~end #1 - ad Co~lc~1on Rap #1 · 2S, ? ~;. :qt' plens~ shiil be' based ·upon · centerline'profile extending (mhtfaUa of ~0 feet beyond ~l project ~ndlrieS It I grade end alfg~nt as app~ved by ~1 Riverside ~unt~ bad ~!ssloner. ~pletfon of ~ed f~rov~nts does not i~i~ acceptrice for mlntenence by County. 26- Electrical end coK~unlcet.lons trenches shell.be provided In accOrdanceslib Ordi'nance 461, Standard 8Z7..' Aspbaltic enulslon (fog seal) shell be applied not less then · fourteen days following placemen~ of the asphalt surfacing iNS shell be applied it a rate of O.OS gallon r squlre~lrd. ASphalt emulsion shall conform to Sections 3~ 39 end 94 of the State Standard Specifications. Standard cul-deosacs and Imuckles and offset cul-de-sacs shall belt constructed throghout the lenddivision. Corner cutbacks tn conromance with County Standard No~80S shall be $hOke on the fine1 map and offered for dedication ~here epplfceble. 30. Lot access shall be restricted on Roncho California.'had, Hergarlta:: Roads Kaiser ParkwU and Lo Se eea't~y end sO noted ~n'tbe final r 31. haddiviSions creating cut or f111 slopes adjacent to the streets shall provide erosion control, sight distance control and sTope easements Is approved by the Road Department. 32. All centerline intersections shall be at gO% 33, -11e street design and Improvement concept of this project shall be Cdedfneted with TR 23372 and TR 23373. 34, Street 1l hting she]) be re aired In accordance with Ordinance 460 and 461 t~roughout the sub?vision. Service Area (CSA) l~e Count klmfnlstrator determines ~hether :his proposal quillflea under In w existing assessment allstrict or not. Zf not, the lend o~er shall file an application ~fth LAFCO for annexation Into or crlltfon of I "LIghting Assessment DIstrict" In accord·nee with Governmental Code Section 56000. 3S. All.. prfV·te..and pubTic entrances ind/or: .interSectiOnS oPposite this project shall be coordinated NIgh' this project ind shorn on the street Improvement plans. 36. 'A serfpin plan Is required for Rancho California Road, The removal of the lxTsting f f the striping shell be the rupunsfbll ty o sppllcsnt, Traffic signing end striping shell be done by County forces 'with'.·11. Incurred costs borne by thl applicant. 37. The main entrance 'gate shSlT be located · minimum of' 160" fro~ the flow line of Rancho Clllfornl· bid. GH:lh Y. trtJl~ 4 C, unty of Riverside RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATg: July 2G. lql8 l~:arlln. Environmental Health Services Tract 23371. ANndud No. I The Environmental Health Services has revlaved Tract hp 23371, Amnded Hap No. I dated July 19, 1988. Our current toeaunts will remain Is previously stated In our latter dated June 13, 1988 R/VER,~|DE COUt,'T!~. PLAr4NfNG DEPARTMEA,-T ."C'OUNTY RIVERSIDE .... DEPARTMENTof HEALTH ~I~cSIDECOUNTY PLANHINGD~PT. 4080 Lemon Street R~verside, CA 91501 Xttn: Ktthy Oilford JUN 21 1988 RIVEH ;UE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT l~; TRACtMAP 13371: That certain land situated in the unincnrporated territory of the County of Riverside, State of California, being Parcels Z, 2,3,4 and g of Parcel Map 21884 as shown on a map thereof filed in Book 144, Pages ~4 through 33 or Parcel Hips in the office of the Co~ty ~ ~ecorder or el~d B~vereide CoyLy together with s portion of the ~sncho Tamecult grated by the governaen~ of the United States of berica to Luis gignee by patent dated Janairy 18. 1860 ~d recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego testy, California {I,029 Lots) Gentiemeh= The Department Of Public Health has reviewed Tentative Hap NO. 23371 and recommends that: X water system shall be installed according to plans and specification as approved by the water company and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plins of the valor system shall be submitted in triplienS'e, with t minimum Wcale ~ot less than one inch equals 200 feet, &long with the original drawing to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter. location or Yalves.and fire hydrants: pipe and Joint specifications, and the size of the main at the ~unction of the new system to the existing system. The plans shall comply in all respects with Div. g, Part 1, Chapter 7 of the California Health and SafeLy Code, California Xdministrative Coda, Title 22. Chapter 16, and Senoral Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of the SLate of California. when applicable. Riverside County Planning Dept. Page Two · ALan: Kathy Oif/ord ' "':' June 13, lees The plLns shall be signed by a registered engineer and visor company with the following certification: certify'that the design of the v,ter system in 'Tract. Nip 23371.is'accord&nce wt~h the visor systa' ."" expansion plans of the Rimthe California Water District and that the valor service.storage and distribution system viii be adequate to provide visor service to such tract. This certification does not constitute a .guarantee that it viii supply water to such tract at · any specific quantities, flows or pressures for fire protection or any other purpose'. This certification shall be signed by a responsible official of the water company. rbg_mltum_!glt_ t_!v 8illt _tg_tbt_ muulx_ This Department has a statement from the Rancho California ~ater District agreeing to serve domestic water to each and every lot in the subdivision on demand providing satisfactory financial arrangements are completed with the subdivider. It will be necessaryfortho financial arrangements to be made prior to the recordation of the final map. This Department has s statement from the Eastern Municipal Water District agreeing to allow the subdivision sewage system to be connected to the severs of the District. The sever system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as spproved by the District, the County Surveyor and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the sever system shall be submitted in triplicate. along with the original drawing, to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of manholes, complete profiles, pipe and 3sine specifications and the size of the severs at thslunction of the new system to the existing system. A single plat indicating location of sever lines and valor lines shall be a portion of the sewage plans and profiles. The pls~s shall be signed by a registered engineer and the sever district with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the sever system in Tract Map 23371 is in accordance with the sever system expansion plans of the Eastern Xunicipal Water DistrAct and that the vases disposalsystem is adequate at Riverside Ca~znLy Plinning Dept- PageThree ATTN: Kathy Oil'ford ~lune 13,, 1988 this time to treat the anticipated vastes from the proposed Lr&ct,' It viII be necessary for financial arrangements to be made prior to.the recordsLion of the final. map. arLinez. Sr. anttari&n Environmental Health Services Riverside RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT PIAnnfng DeplrtJeent ! .. County MlntstrAttve Center Riverside, CalifornIA: .... Attention: ling!anal Teas AreA: Ve have reviewed this case and have the following cos;ants: ' !~Xcept for nutsince nature local runoff vMch may treverse'i~rtions'of the property the project is considered free from ordinAr storm ~o~d hazard. However, e storm of' unusual magnitude could cause some Yamage. New construc- tion should conWay with All Applicable ordinances. The topograph7 of the urea consists of yell defined ridges And nature1 water- courses which traverse the toparty. There is adequate area outside the natural watercourses for bur~ding sties. The natural watercourses shard be kept free of buildings and obstructions in order to mainlath the nature1 drainage patterns of the Irei and to prevent flood damage to new buildings. A note should be placod onan environmental constraint sheet startrig, "All new buildings shill be floodproofed by ehvattng the finished floors I minimum of 18 inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosion protection shall be provided for mobtle home supports. This 'proJect 'ts'tn the . Area shA 1 be paid in with the ru is and drainage plan fees 1 accordance applicable 1 regulations. The proposed zoning tl consistent vtth t fully develop o the implied density. The District's report dated ;ru,e 20, life ts still current for this pro~ect. The DIstrict does eat object to the proposed minor change. The attached comments ippl~. Ver~trul~ ~ours, KENeN L. EO~/ARD$ ,. . . nHiNfH.nKAS~BA o~~'Civll Eng~'~/!~neer CO: F~;ck ~eq31.eer:.3 Comp~ntv Rc RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT ..Tame 20, 1988 lttvefside County ' Planning Department County ~tmini-trativa Canter ltiverside, California J~teations. Specific Plans. .Kathy' Gl floral .. · I~dias and Gentleman: bs Vesting Tract 23371 This Is a proposal.to divide about 400 acres in the Temecula Valley area. The site is along the east side of Margarita Road between Rancho California Road and Lt Serene Way, This proJlc~ Is a portion of Specific Plan 199 (Margarita Village). Offsite flows from two major watersheds are tributary to the liteel northeast and southeast corners. The applicant proposes to accept and convey the flows from the northeast with a storm drain s~stem, and the flows from the southeast w~th a golf course grass channel from where the flows cross under P~ncho California Road ~n a culvert. O site flows would be drained into :~raats and storm drains according the above two systems with to their natural drainage pat- tern, According to the applicant, the site would be roughly graded with offsite and oneits flows directed into the proposed golf course and temporary drainage ~cilitie8. This is allowable if the natural drainage patterns art preserved and the temporary ~aollitiel havl thl 100 yeaz storm capacities. Following are the Dlstrict'l recon~endationss This tract is located within the limits of the Nurrista Cltek/Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan for Which drainage fees have been adopted by the Board. Drainage fees shall be paid as set forth under the provisions of the "Rules and Regulations for Administration of Aria Drainage Plans", amended February 16, 19888 Drainage fees shall be paid to the Road Commissioner as part of the filing for record of the subdivision final map or parcel map, or if the recording of a final parcel map ~z waive~ ~a~nage feel shall be ~id as a condit!Jn oft he waiver prior to recording a certificate of compliance evidencing the waiver of the parcel map~ or Xtvormide County Planning' Department Re= Vesf~tng TracL 2337l 20, 1988 At ~he option of the lend divider, upon filing a re- quired affidavit requesting deformant of the Pennant of fees, the drainage fees may be paid to the Building Director at the time of issuance of a grad- · ng parstit or b~tlding pa:ndt for each approvsd per- eel, whichever my be first obtained- after -'the · recording of the subdivision final "map- or ~treei sepT' provided however, this option to defer the ass may not be exercised for any parcel where grading or structures have been initiated on the parcel within the prior 3 your period, or parn~tts for either ac- tivity have been Issued on that parcel which remain .active. . . Pads should be elevated at'least 1 foot above the;100 year fled plain in the adjacent drainage ~acilities. Erosion protection should be provided for ·11 fill slopes exposed to the potential erosion hazards, 3-, Hydralogical end hydraulic calculations for both the tem- porary end ultimate drainage facilities should be aunt- ted to the District for approval, 4, Oneits drainage facilities located outside of road right of way should be contained within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note should be added to the final map stating, !.."Drainage easements shall be..kept free of bulld~ngs'~nd ,ObltrUCtlOfile· Offsite drainage facilities should ha located within publicly dedicated drainage easements obtained from the affected property owners. The documents should be corded and · copy submitted to the District prior to recordorion of the final map, 6, J~tl lots should be graded to drain to the adjacent street or an adequate outlet, The l0 year storm flow should be contained within the curb and the 100 year storm flow should be contained within the street right of way, ~hen either of these criteria is exceeded, additional drainage facilities should be installed, Drainage facilities outletting sump conditions should be designed to convey the tributary 100 year storm flows. Additional emergency escape should also be provided, Riverside County Planning Department bs Vesting Tract 23371 -3- June 20, 1988 ge The lmoparty*8 street and lot grading should be designed · An .a manner that perpetuates the existing natural drsinag~ patterns with respect ~o tributary drainage ~rea, outlet.point's and 'outlet coad!:tions, .otherwise, · drainage easement should be obtained from property owners for the release of concentrated or varied storm flows, A copy of the recorded drainage easement should be submitted to the District for review prior to the recordsties of the final map. If the tract is built in phases, each phase Shall be pro- tected from the' l' in 100 year tributary Storm fiows. Temporary erosion control measures should be implemented immediately following rough grading to prevent deposition of debris onto downstream properties or drainage facilities, Development o~this property should be coordinated with the development o~ adjacent properties to ensure that watercourses remain unobstructed end stormwaters-era not diverted from one watershed to another. This may require the construction of temporary drainage facilities or offsite construction and grading. Evidence of a viable maintenance mechanism should be sub- mitted to the District and County for review and approval prior to retardation of the ~lnal map. , A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final map along with supporting hydralogic and hydraulic cal- culations should be submitted to the District via the Road Department ~or review and approval prior to records- tics of the final map. Grading plans should be approvsd prior to issuance of grading permits. Questions concerning this matter maybe re£erred to Robert Chiang oft his office at 714/787-2333. Very truly yours, co, Rick Engineering Company e - KZNHETii L. w-DWARD2 ~i E .c i e, enact Civil ~ngineer RCapln 'I'EAf~Z 2337X - AItI~ED IX, gOAD COJtl~,C'tXO! fX Vitb respect to the' conditions of approval for the above referenced lind elyislam'- the Fire Department zecmenda the foilwing fire protection measures be provided in accordance vitb Liversida County 0rdineucee and/or recognized fire protection mtandard~t FIUPtOTB~XOX The valet maine shall be capable of providing a potential fire flay of 2500 Gird and an actual fire flay available from any one hydrant shall be ).~00 G~K for 2 hours duration at 20 PSX residual operating pressure. ipproved nuper firs hydrants, (6wx&"x2ix2|) shall be located at onc~ street intersection and spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction vith us portion of any 1ot frontage more than X65 feet Prone, hydrant. ipp~Scnut/~eveloper shall furnish one copy of the valet eyeten plans ~o ~he Fire Department for ray/my. rXaus shall contort to fire hydrant types, location sad spacings and, the system shall met the fire flay re~uireoente. Plans shall be ol&ned/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local vater company vitb the fellerlug'certification: *Z certify that the deslln of the valet ayetam is in accordance vith the requirements prescribed by the B~vsrside County PLro Department.m fifo Rove for the eouutry aluh v~lA be determined vhen plot plan Is .raylaved. The requirc~ valet system, lncludinl fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate valor agency prior to any combustible build/mS material btLu~ )laced on mu lndividua2 lot. '* All buildings shall be censervoted vith fire retardant roofinS uat~risl as described Sn Section 3203 of the Uniform Building Code. An7 rood shinSlea or sha~es shall haves Class sis rating and shall be spproved by the Pits hpartasnt prior to installation, ~'' "' ~'SIb.lecta ~aet 23371; ~ :'qe 2 I(XTXGATXON rare Deparaeut BAYI(Ot~ I. IZGZI 'lYGOorSe S. Yetu~, 71mnninl O{ficer. m ,!,, June 9. 1988 ..'re -.. Development Review · ~."~'- 08. Riv-15-q .98 Yeur Reference: ~j JU~il VT 23371t 23372, and Mar:afire Wlllale Planning DepartBent Attention Kathy Glfford- County of-Riverside ~080 Lemon Street Riverside. CA 92501 Dear Hs. Gifforda Thank you for the opportunity to reviev the proposed Vesting Tracts 23371. 23372, and 23373 located easterly of Z-15 and Nargarlta Road between Ranthe California Road and La Serene Vat in Ranoho California. Please refer to the attached material on which our comments have been indicated by the items checked and/or by those items noted under additional comments. If any work is necessary within the state highway right of way, the developer must obtain"an enoroac_hnent permit from the Cal~rans District 8 Permit'Office prior to beginning work, additional information la desired, please cell Mr. Patrick M. Cormally at (71q) 383-Q38Q* · ery truly H. I. LZVkXliOWSEl DiaLriot Fernits Engineer oat Lee Johnson. Riverside County Road Department ~'the ~ .... drainage generated by this prc~2csal d~not appear to hav~ · al2n flcsnt e_rfect on th~ st·to high~sy system, consideration must be given to the mmlstive e~fsct o~ ecnttnued development in this Ires. Any seamarea neces~ry to sdti2ste the ~..-,~stive impact of .... ! .dreina2e should be It appears that the traffic --' #~ ' ,w 2onerated by this proposal could have a 8iintflcant effect on the state hll~aY system of the eras, k~ measures necessary to mitilate the traffic .... a, impacts should be included with the developmnto This pot·see cf st·to hig!~ay has been officially desl2nated ss · st·to scenic hllh~sy, ·mS development In this eorrldor should be ecepstlblm with the seehie .hii~ay co~ce~t. It" is ~ecognlzed that there is consider·hie public eor~ern s~ut noise l'~evels sdJscent to heavily traveled hig~sys. Land development, in order to be~ccmpstlble with this c~cern, my require opeelal noise attenuation measures. Development of property should include shy necessary noise attenuation. Noreel ri2ht of ~sy dedication to provlde half-~ldth on t~e state hlg~day. Normal street lmprove~nts to provide Curb and gutter, 3tate Standard .. half-width cn the state hii~ay, along the state ktWs~ay. Parkin& be prohibited stq the state hlgh~sy by pain·in2 the curb red and/or by the proper placement .of "no perkingw e12ns. radius -°rb returns be provided st intersections with the state hlg~sy. ~dsrd ~elehalr raep mat be provided ~n the returns. Jt posiUve vdtTcular larrler along the property frontage be provided to limit* Vehicular access not be developed directly to the state hll/~ey. Vehicular access to the state hiB~ay be provided by exlstln2 public road connecttoMo access to the store hXS~sy be provided by vt~ays. access shall not be provided wlthin . of the intersection st 7e!~icultr access to the st·to hl2hwsy be provided by · road-type connection. · For~ 8-YZ)l-~ (Row. 5/87) (Continued on reverse) ' *' ' -' dlmtm for 'mWh md.~ tim mtata hlfhuuy. "' ' - ' A lm~ ~, ~ any ~ ~d~, ~ ~ ~ b m~ ~i~tS~ k ~ ~ ~ ~l~, ~ ~e ~S~m of li~allzatio~ and ~tl~ Of ~ ~~ of ~d Adequate off street par~4e.e, bhieh does not r~ire ~l~ ~ ~m m~ ~y, F~2 lot b devel~ in 8 m~ ~t ~ ~t caua ey v~ ~vunt ~filets, incl~ln2 ~r~nl m~ll etrance nd exit, ~ of ~ Handicap park~n2 not be developed in the busy drZvewy entrance area. Care be taken b~en developing this property to preserve and perpetuate the existing drainage i~tteru of the state h12h~y, Particular ec~sidarmticn shculd be liven to ?--~lmtive increased mtc~ rtmoff to insure that · hiBh~ay drainage probles is not A~y necessary njise attenuation be provided as pert of the developant of this property. ,//,. ,.-,r,. ..* Please refer 14 ettache~ sdditlcnal a copy o~ an7 eonditic~s of mpiFoval ~ revised approval. ·ecpy of an~ documents JFoviding additional rotate hl2hwaI right of way ~ recc~dmtlcn of the map. ~d~ULD LIKE THE OPPGaTb'~H TO REVIEW I~JRIJ~ THE APPROVJ~L PaC~qt ,_~ Any lwc~sals to fUrLher develop th~m peoperty. A ~ of the traffic cr envl~ounentul m4,.mm~, ~ required. A ~k print of t~ P~ f~ ~ 1~, ove~nts ~n the state hllhwY r~t of ~y, if I ~k print ~ ~ Gradln2 ~d ~ainap Pla~ f~ this pro~rty ~ available. ,Tune 10,198e JU[~ ].S l=~d lttvereide County Planni, g Depa.r. tnent Q080 Lemon St=eel, 9th Floor R~veraide, Celi~otn~a 92503 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Attention: Kathy Giffo=d, Planner RegardS_hi: Vesting Tracts: 23371, 23372 and 23373 Marga~ita Village De&r'Hs. Gtfford: Me a~e'ln receipt o~ your letters dated June ls 1988; tece4ved by thie'office on June 9, 1968. St. Deputy SniJders has reviewed the materj-~l, and ve offer the fcllovin2 infox~nation for your upcoming report. ,. l~oJect 23371, will increase the ~opulation 2rok~h by approximately q,788; project 23372 will increase th.e population by approx4~nately 1,936; and pro~ect 23373 will 1norease the population by approximately 1,392. The combined projects, upon completion will impact the RanchoI California aTea by an increase of 8,116 persons. These figures are arrived at by assuming that all residences have a minimum of three hedtoo~s. .. The deskable resident/deputy-Tet~c ks 1.S deputies per 1,000 persons. This projects upon completion of all three phases, will requ4re 12.1 deputies to facil£tate law'enforcement protection. It is of ~,~portance to note that this area ~s w~thin out designated Beat 31 a~ea, with an existing population of approximately q3,O00 peT- sons. At presents we have one deputy to covet this a~ea; · you have any fu~the~ questions at concerns in regards to the tnfomtton offered, please do not hesitate to contact this office. S~ncerely, Lake Elsino~e Station ATTACHMENT NO. 4 EXHIBITS S%STAFFRP'i%23372.VTM 15 CITY OF TEMECULA ) San O,ego VICINITY MAP N.T.S. ~ASE .o.,~.t~'~z EXHIBIT NO. ~p.C. DATE II.-H-qt y CITY OF TEMECULA ) II TY _ I VILLAGI SP 14 ~ MINi / THE MEADOWS f'~ASE NO.'Jlt~/,~lZ C.5,,ut,wi~TA.p.r,~ ~ ~)~ EX,lS.T ,O. ~P.C. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA ~ i~' CASE CITY OF TEMECULA ~ r 2,~.,~.~,,,72' EXHIBIT NO. ~P.C. DATE Conditions of Ap val Tentative Tract I~. 23371/mended No. t Page g Safety+the developer Vii1 demonstrate compliance ,tth the acoUstiCal stud prepared for Vest¶n Tentative Tract 2337Z Mended No. I whtch estaCltshed approprlata ,ltVgatton measures to reduce ambtent tritertot eotse levels to 45 LAIn and exterior noise levels helov 65'Ldn. Roof-mOunted mechan!c,l equtlxnent. shall not be pamltged ,tthtn the · ..suldtvtstOn, except 'fo~ the Clubhouse '~illCh m~ .'lave screened. · equtl:ment as epproved by Planning DIrectOr. 'Hovever Solar · "tlaen~ · any other energy saving devices shall be permitted' Ntth ~lanning ~rpartment approve1. (Mended bY Planning Commission 10-5-88) d. 6utldtng separation between all buildings Including fireplaces shall '" not be Tess than ten (ZO) feet unl'ess approved bY Department "eutTdtng .and Safet~ and fire Department Per S ectftc Plan No, ~mendment no. 1. (Mended b~ Planntng Cmnlssfon [;-5-88.) e. All street stde yard setbacks shall he a ftnlmum of ~0 feet. f. All front yards shall he provtded ~tth landscaping and automatic Irrigation. Prtor to the tssuance of OCCUPANCY PE~4ZTS the folioring conditions shall he satisfied: Prtor to the flee1 butldtng Inspection approval, bY the Butldlng and Safe.ty De artnoel, yells shall be constructed along ratser Parlacy end Rancho Calrlfornta Road, La Serene ~f, r41sar Park I~ay and Margarlta Road per the Des1 Manual. The raqutred wall shall he subject to the approval of the ]~re~tor of the Department of Butlding and Sat' ty and the Planning DIrector and be phased ~lth¶n the project tWMended b~ Planning Comfsston ZO-S~m'a~. b. mll and/or fence locations shall confom to attached Ftgure III-17 of Slmtftc Plan No. 199 Mena_~nt rio. 1. c. Al1 landscaping and Trrlgatlo~ shall be testalied tn accordance ,tth appruved plans prior to the tssuance of occupan peaIts. Zf seasonal -conditions do not rmlt ,1antleg, tnterSmc~andsca tng and erosion control measures shal~be uttFized as approved bJr the PF:nnlng Dtrector and the Director of Building and Safety, d. All parking landscaping and irrigation shall he testalied tn accordance v!~ approved plans end shall he verified bY I Planntng Department fi~d Inspection. ITEM # 09 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION November 4, 1991 Case No.: First Extension of Time Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373 Prepared By: Mark Rhoades RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff Recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution 91-__ Recommending that the City Council APPROVE the Second Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23373, contingent upon the implementation of corrective grading and erosion control measures to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the City Council approval, based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the staff report, and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Buie Corporation REPRESENTATIVE: Margarita Village Development Company PROPOSAL: First Extension of Time for a residential/commercial subdivision on 30 acres with 348 dwelling units proposed. LOCATION: Northwest corner of Rancho California Road and Kaiser Parkway. EXISTING ZONING: Specific Plan 199 (Margarita Village) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: Specific Plan 199 (Margarita Village) Specific Plan 199 (Margarita Village) R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Specific Plan 199 (Margarita Village) PROPOSED ZONING: Not requested EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Vacant Vacant Single Family Residential Vacant S\STAFFRPT~23373.VTM PROJECT STATISTICS: BACKGROUND Total Acreage: 30 No. of Lots: 8 Residential Acreage: 23.5 Proposed Units: 348 Density: 14.8 D.U./AC Commercial Acreage: 7.5 Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23373 as originally approved by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on November 8, 1988. The First Extension of Time was filed in October of 1990. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23373 is a portion of Specific Plan No. 199, Margarita Village. The Tentative Map includes Planning Areas 38 and 39. Planning Area 38 is a 7 lot subdivision on 23.5 acres. Three hundred forty eight condominium units are proposed. The density of the resident project portion will be 14.8 dwelling units per acre. Planning Area 39 is a 7.5 acre commercial lot. The proposed lot will provide neighborhood commercial and retail facilities, as identified in the Specific Plan. A plot plan will be required when development is proposed. FUTURE GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the approved Specific Plan No. 199. The Southwest Area Plan designation for this project is Specific Plan. It is likely that this project will be consistent with the future adopted General Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 202 was previously adopted by Riverside County for Specific Plan No. 199. Staff has determined that said EIR still applies to this subdivision. 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 commensurate with existing and anticipated residential development standards. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future and adopted general plan, if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that the project is in conformance with existing and anticipated land use and design guidelines standards. The proposed use or action complies with state planning and zoning laws, due to the fact that the proposed use conforms with those uses listed as "allowed" within the zoning designation of Specific Plan 199. S~STAFFRPT\23373.VTM 2 10. 11. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and density, due to the fact that; adequate area is provided for all proposed residential structures; adequate landscaping is provided along the project's public and private frontages; and the internal circulation plan should not create traffic conflicts as design provisions are in conformance with adopted City standards. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare, due to the fact that the conditions stated in the approval are based on mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts of the project. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373 is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk, height, density and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties, due to the fact that the proposal is similar in compatibility with surrounding land uses; and adequate area and design features provide for siting of proposed development in terms of landscaping and internal traffic circulation. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area, due to the fact that the proposed project is consistent with the current zoning of the subject site. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the EIR for the project, due to the fact that impact mitigation is realized by conformance with the project's Conditions of Approval. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact that the project currently proposes access points from Kaiser Parkway which have been determined to be adequate by the City Engineer. The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed projects, due to the fact that this is clearly represented in the site plan and the project analysis. Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with is application and herein incorporated by reference, due to the fact that they are referenced in the attached Staff Report, Exhibits, and Conditions of Approval. S\STAFFRPT\23373.VTM 3 STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Department Staff Recommends that the Planning Commission: vgw ADOPT Resolution 91-__ Recommending that the City Council APPROVE the Second Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23373, contingent upon the implementation of corrective grading and erosion control measures to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the City Council approval, based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the staff report, and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Attachments: 2. 3. 4. Resolution - page 5 Conditions of Approval - page 10 Staff Report-County of Riverside - page 14 Exhibits - page 15 S%STAFFRPT~23373.VTM 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 91-_ S\STAFFRPT\23373,VTM 5 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 91-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23373-A 8 LOT RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION ON 31 ACRES AND KNOWN AS A PORTION OF ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 923-210-014. WHEREAS, The Buie Corporation filed the Time Extension in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Time Extension application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered .'~id Time Extension on November 4, 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 Time Extension. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Findings That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: (1) There is a reasonable probability that the Time Extension proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (2) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. S%STAFFRPT\23373 .VTM 6 (3) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. The proposed Time Extension is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. 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: (1) There is reasonable probability that the Time Extension proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (2) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (3) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no Time Extension may be approved unless the following findings can be made: The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. The proposed subdivision does not affect the general health, safety, and welfare of the public. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the proposed Time Extension, makes the following findings, to wit: (1) There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law, due to the fact that the project is consistent with existing site development standards in that it proposes articulated design features and site amenities commensurate with existing and anticipated residential development standards. S\STAFFRPT\23373.VTM 7 (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) 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 zoning designation of Specific Plan 199. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and density, due to the fact that; adequate area is provided for all proposed residential structures; adequate landscaping is provided along the project's public and private frontages; and the internal circulation plan should not create traffic conflicts as design provisions are in conformance with adopted City standards. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare, due to the fact that the conditions stated in the approval are based on mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts of the project. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373 is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk, height, density and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties, due to the fact that the proposal is similar in compatibility with surrounding land uses; and adequate area and design features provide for siting of proposed development in terms of landscaping and internal traffic circulation. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area, due to the fact that the proposed project is consistent with the current zoning of the subject site. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the EIR for the project, due to the fact that impact mitigation is realized by conformance with the project's Conditions of Approval. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact that the project currently proposes access points from Kaiser Parkway which have been determined to be adequate by the City Engineer. The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed projects, due to the fact that this is clearly represented in the site plan and the project analysis. S\STAFFRFT\23373.VTM 8 (11) Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with is application and herein incorporated by reference, due to the fact that they are referenced in the attached Staff Report, Exhibits, and Conditions of Approval. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 2, the Time Extension proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property, SECTION II. Environmental Compliance. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby determines that the previous environmental determination Adoption of EIR No. 202 still applies to said Tract Map (Extension of Time). SECTION III. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373 for an 8 Lot residential and commercial subdivision on 30 acres and known as a portion of Assessor's Parcel No. 923-210-014 subject to the following conditions: 1. Exhibit A, attached hereto. SECTION IV. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of November, 1991. JOHN E, 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 4th day of November 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONER S\STAFFRPT%23373,VTM 9 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL S%STAFFRPT%23373.VTM 10 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373 First Extension of Time Commission Approval Date: Expiration Date: Planning Department Unless previously paid, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. 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. Department of Public Works The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval for this project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the appropriate staff person of the Department of Public Works. It is understood that the Developer has correctly shown on the tentative map all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review. The Developer shall comply with all Conditions of Approval as previously imposed or amended and with the Conditions noted below. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is part of an existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section. S\STAFFRPT~23373.VTM 11 Delete condition no. 15 of Riverside County Road Commissioner letter dated September 22, 1988 and replace it with the following: Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Department of Public Works a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation towards traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit. An erosion control and slope protection plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The installation shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and site conditions shall be maintained to protect adjacent properties from damage due to runoff and erosion. Developer shall post a performance bond for erosion control and slope protection in an amount approved by the Department of Public Works. 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. As deemed necessary by the department of Public Works, the developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District; Eastern Municipal Water District; Riverside County Flood Control District; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; Planning Department; Department of Public Works; Riverside County Health Department; and CATV Franchise. Community Services District 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 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, in addition to any other permits required. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT: Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property of project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required for the project. The fee to be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of fee. If aP interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established hy 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. S\STAFFRPT\23373.VTM 12 Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, developer shall post security to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of the security shall be 92.00 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 from 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: 10. 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. 11. All street improvements striping, marking and signing shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS: 12. Traffic striping, marking and street name signing plans shall be designed as directed by the Department of Public Works. 13. A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the City Engineer. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT: 14. Prior to recordation of the final map the applicant or his assignee shall pay the fair market value of 4.07 acres of required parkland to comply with City Ordinance No. 460.93 (Quimby). The amount to be paid shall be determined by TCSD staff within thirty (30) days prior to recordation of said map. 15. Exterior slopes bordering an arterial street may be dedicated to the TCSD for maintenance following compliance to TCSD standards and completion of the application process. S\STAFFRFT~23373.VTM 13 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 STAFF REPORT - COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE S\STAFFRPT\23373.VTM 14 DEPARUTIE E DATE: November 23, 1988 RE: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23373 Amd. 1 E. A. NLMBER: 32548' REGIONAL TEAM NO. 3peclTlc Plans Team Dear Applicant: The~ Riverside County Board of Supervisors has taken the followin action on the above referenced tentative tract map at its regular meeting of November ~), 1988 x APPROVED tentative map subject to the attached conditions. DENIED tentative map based on attached findings. -', APPROVED withdrawal of tentative map. "; *' :- .The, tract, map has been found to be consistent with all pertinent elements of,. the Riverside CoJnty eneral, Plan, and is', in compliance with the California Environmental qUal ty Act of 1970. . ' t will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declara on has ~e~dropted. Conditionally appr at aot map 'shall expire months after the approval at the Board of Superviso He -. of which is sho.~ unless within that period of time a fina " approVed ,.aJ~ th the County Pecorder. 'Prior to t e expiration d ', . ~)r~lVYlPaIPp~' for an extension o time. ~ Application shall he Plan~ri ' (30)' days prior to the n o h Very truly y~urs, R~VERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Roger S, 5treeter, Planntng Director RG:mp ' Ron Golcbnen, Principal Planner FILE - WHITE APPLICANT - CANARY ENGINEER - PZNK 295-39 (gev. 10/63) 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787-6181 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-8277 RSS.'~:';:gCb "' FROM:. Planning Department SUBMI1TALDATE: November 8, 1988 ~ ~et SUBJECT: VESTING TENTATIVE and TENTATIVE TRACTS located in the "~ Margarita Village Specific Plan (SP 199 Amendment No. 1) - First and Third Supervlsorial Districts - Rancho California Zoning Area. RECOMMENDED MOllON: Receive and File the Planning ~Con~ission action of 9-28-88 and 10-5-88 for / APPROVAL of Vesting Tentative Tracts 23371 Amended No. 1~ 23372 3~'~d[a'No. 1, 23373 Amended NO. 1, 23470 and 23471 and Tracts 22915, 22916, 23100 Amended No; 1, 2310~ 23102, and 23103 Amended No. I. Rol~ Streeter, Planning Director Prey. Agn. reL Depts. Comments Dist. AGENDA N* RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 5, 1988 (AGENDA ITEMS 5-2, 5-3, 5-4 - REEL 1003, SIDE 1 - TAPE 6, SIDE 1) VESTING TRACT MAP 23373 AMENDED NO. I - EA 32548 - Margarita Village Development Company - Rancho California Area - First/Third Supervtsorial Districts - south of Rancho California Rd, west of Kaiser Parkway - 348 units - 31, acres - SP 199 Zone. Schedule A VESTING TRACT MAP 23371 AMENDED NO. I - EA 32546 - Margarita Village Development Company - Rancho California Area - First/Third Supervisorial Districts - north of Rancho California Rd, east of Margarita Rd - 1183 units - 398t acres - SP lg9 Zone. Schedule A VESTING TRACT 23372 AMENDED NO. I - EA 32547 - Margarita Village Development Company - Rancho California Area - First/Third Supervtsorial Districts - north of Rancho California Rd, west of Kaiser Parkway - 46g units on 66 lots - acres - SP 199 Zone. Schedule A The hearings were opened at 6:50 p.m. and closed at 7:11 p.m. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of the negative declarations for EA 32548, EA 32546, and EA 32547, approval of Vesting Tract Maps 23373 Amended No. 1, 23371 Amended No. I and 23372 Amended No. 1, all subject to the proposed conditions. Ms. Gifford also recommended approval of a waiver of the length to width ratio for Vesting Tract 23371 Amended No. 1. The subject tract maps were located within Village A of the Margarita Village Specific Plan, and would create 1763 residential lots and a golf course on 254 acres. Staff had found the tract maps to be consistent with the adopted specific plan. Ms. Gifford recommended several changes to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Purrlance asked about a fiscal impact report, and was informed this report had been furnished recently for Amendment No. I to the specific plan. Jim Resney, representing the applicant, briefly reviewed the development, advising they were proposing a state-of-the-art adult retirement community which included a championship golf course with a 37,000 square foot clubhouse facility in the center of the project. He then referred to Condition 33(f) for all three tract maps, which ~equired front yards to be provided with landscaping and automatic irrigation, and requested that this requirement deleted for larger lots, as it was his opinion that these homeowners would prefer to do their own landscaping. The CC&Rs would require them to comply with specific standards. Mr. Resney requested that this condition be amended by adding to the end "or shall be installed within 75 days after close of escrow as provided in the CC&Rs in the 45x100 square foot lot areas'. Road Department Condition 21 for Tract Map 23371 and Condition 14 for the other two tract maps required a debris retention wall where block walls were required at the top of slopes. Mr. Resney requested that this condition be amended by adding: "If applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Road Commissioner that a Master Homeowners Association or other entity will satisfactorily maintain the slopes, the Road Commissioner may, at his option, waive this requirement of a debris retention wall." He thought that if they could ~onvince the Road Commissioner that there would be no silting problems and that the slopes would be maintained, the debris retention wall would not 53 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 5, 1988 be needed. For aesthetic reasons, he felt it would be better not to have the small wall. Road Department Condition 22 for Tract 23372 and Condition 15 for the other two tract maps related to the minimum 30 foot garage setback from face of curb. Mr. Resney felt this condition conflicted with the specific plan ka driveways with roll up doors, back of sidewalk. He would prefer to have the specific plan standards applied, but requested that the hearings not be continued. Lee Johnson advised the slump wall delineated in Road Department Condition 21 was a wall they had been requiring for the past three or four years when the Planning Department required a block wall at the top of a slope. Depending on the size of the slope, the Road Department Design Engineer could require a two block high wall at the property line to keep the debris washing down the slope from crossing the sidewalk. They would be willing to consider any other alternative the developer might suggest, as long as it accomplished the purpose of this condition. He requested that this condition be retained. Commissioner Donahoe asked whether adding to the end "or as approved by the Road Department" would give the developer the opportunity to provide an alternative plan, and Mr. Johnson agreed that it would. Mr. Johnson advised the garage setback required by Road Department Condition 22 for Tract 23371 (Condition 15 for Tracts 23372 and 23373) was the minimum setback required by Ordinance 460. He had read the language requested by the applicant, but would prefer to retain the condition as originally proposed in the Road Department letter. Mr. Resney explained they had been discussing the possibility of providing a 4 foot sidewalk, and would like to have a 24 foot setback rather than the 26 foot setback required by this condition. However, if the Road Department preferred the existing language, they would accept it. Mr. Johnson advised the condition would not alter ~he width of the sidewalk in any way. Commissioner Beadling referred to. Mr. Resney's request that front yard land- scaping and irrigation notbe required for the larger lots, and stated she felt they should be required for all lots. Nr. Goldman requested that the condition be retained as originally written. ~ ' ~ There was no further testimony, and the hearing was closed at 7:11 p.m. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 23371 Amended No. 1, 23372 Amended No. I and 23373 Amended No. I are located within Village A of the Margarita Village Specific Plan {No. 199); the three tract maps will provide 1763 dwelling units and a golf course on 254 acres; Tract 23372 Amended No. i has been condittoned with the specific plan's condition of approval to mitigate impacts to the Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat; the tracts have been conditioned to comply with Specific Plan lg9, Change of Zone Case 5107, and Development Agreement No. 5; and a waiver of the lot length to width ratio will be needed for Vesting Tentative Tract 23371 Amended No. 1. All environmental concerns have been addressed in EIRs 107, 202, and the initial 54 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PUNNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 5, 1988 studies for these tract maps, and no significant impacts have been found; the IXtl o t are co.siste.t .it, t,e re,ensive General Pla. Cas .mended by Change of Zone Case 5107, and Specific Plan 199 Amendment No. 1; and conform to the requirements of Ordinances 460 and 348. The proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Donahoe, seconded by Commissioner Bresson and unanimously carried, the Commission adopted tee negative declarations for EA 32546, EA 32547 and EA 32548, and approved Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 23371 Amended No. I with a River of the lot length to width ratio, 23372 Amended No. 1, and 23373 Amended No. 1, all subject to the proposed conditions amended as follows, based on the above findings and conclusions and the recommendations of staff. Tract No. 23371 9 - Amend to reflect the September 30, 1988 Road Department letter. 23(~) and 23(3) - Amend to require the developer to comply with the parkway landscaping requirements as shown in Specific Plan No..199 Amended No. I unless maintenance is provided by a homeowners association or other public entity. 26 - Delete the last sentence ("The final map for Vesting Tract 23371 shall show the park as a'numbered lot"). 33(c) - Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision, except for the clubhouse which may have screened equipment as approved by the Planning Department; however, solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Planning Department approval. Condition 34{a) for Tracts 23371, 23372, and 33(a) for Tract 23373 Add "and may be phased with the project". (to clarify that walls may be phased with the development of the tract. Condition 33(d) for Tracts 23371 and 23372, and 32(d) for Tract 23373 Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall not be less than ten feet unless approved by the Department of Building and Safety and the Fire Department per Specific Plan 199 Amended No. 1. 34(e) for Tracts 23371, 23372 and 33{e) for Tract 23373 - Delete Road Department Condition 21 for Tract 23371 and 14 for Tracts 23372 and 23373 Add to the end "or as approved by the Road Department" 55 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 (AGENDA ITEM 1-2 - REEL 1002 - SIDE I - TAPE 1 SIDE 1) TRACT MAP 23100 AMENDED NO. = EA 32318 - Marlborough Bey. Corp. - Rancho 1 California/Skinner Lake Area - First and Third Supervisorial Districts - west of Butterfleld Stage Rd, north of Rancho California Rd - 291 lots - 122.5, acres - R-1/SP Zones. Schedule A TRACT MAP 23101 - EA 32533 - Marlborough Dev. Corp. - Rancho California/Skinner Lake Area - First and Third Supervlsorial Districts - east of Kaiser Pkwy, west of Butterfield Stage Rd - 263 lots - 87, acres - SP/R-2-6000 Zones. Schedule A TRACT MAP 23102 - EA 32534 - Marlborough Dev. Corp. - Rancho California/Skinner Lake Area - First and Third Supervisorial Districts - north of La Serene Way, west of Butterfield Stage Rd - 37 lots - 16.4~ acres - SP/R-1 Zones. Schedule A TRACT MAP 23103 AMENDED NO. I - EA 32535 - Marlborough Dev. Corp. - Rancho California/Skinner Lake Area - First and Third Supervisorial Districts - west of Butterfield Stage Rd, north of Rancho California Rd - 18 lots - 29, acres - SP/R-A-1 Zones. Schedule A The hearings were opened at 9:4g a.m. and closed at 10:08 a.m. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of the negative declarations for EA 32318, 32533, 32534 and 32535, and approval of Tentative Tract Maps 23100 Amended No. 1, 23101, 23102, and 23103 Amended No. I with a waiver of the lot length to width ratio, subject to the proposed conditions. The subject tract maps were located within Village B of the Margarita Village Specific Plan, and would divide the 254 acres into 605 residential lots. Staff had found the tract maps to be consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan, Specific Plan 199 Amendment No. 1, and the zoning which had been applied to the specific plan through Change of Zone Case 5107. Ms. Gifford recommended several changes to the conditions for these tract maps, relating to requirements for maintenance of the open space areas, park requirements, useable yard areas, and fencing requirements. fir. Klotz suggested modifying the last condition for each tract map by beginning with the phrase "Development of the'. Commissioner Bresson requested that changes be made throughout to refer to either "public use trails" or "recreational trails' instead of ~"equestrian trails'; he felt these terms would more accurately describe their use. Barry Burnell, representing the applicant, accepted the conditions as amended. It was his understanding that in the event any portion of the development agreement was held to be invalid {for any reason), the conditions requiring compliance with that agreement would be null and void; this was confirmed by County Counsel. There was no further testimony, and the hearings were closed at 10:08 a.m. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Tentative Tract Maps 23100 Amended No. 1, 23101, 23102, and 23103 Amended No. I are located within Village B of the Margarita RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 Village Specific Plan; the four tract maps would divide the 254 acres into 605 residential lots; the tract maps have been conditioned in accordance with the specific plan's conditions of approval to mitigate impacts on the Stephens Kangaroo Rat; the tract ma s have been condittoned to comply with Specific Plan lgg Amendment No. 1, ~hange of Zone Case S107, and Development Agreement No. S; a waiver for the lot length to width ratio will be needed for Tract 23103 Amended No. 1. All environmental concerns have been addressed in EIR 107, EIR 202, and the initial studies for these tract maps, and no significant impacts have been found; the tract maps are consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan (as amended by General Plan Amendment No. 150), Specific Plan lgg Amendment No. I and Change of Zone Case 5107; the tract maps conform to the requirements of Ordinances 348 and 460. The proposed projects will not have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Bresson, seconded by Commissioner Beadling and unanimously carried, the Commission adopted the negative declarations for EA 32318, EA 32533, EA 32534 and EA 32535, and approved' Tentative Tract Maps 23100 Amended No. 1, 23101, 23102, and 23103 Amended No. I with a waiver of the lot length to width ratio, subject to the proposed conditions, amended as follows, based on the above findings and conclusions and the recommendations of staff. Tract Map 23100 Amended No. I 22. Amend to conform to Condition 24 (to provide for maintenance of the common open space area by either a County Service Area or a Homeowners Association). 23, Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for 160 units on Tract 23100, the park area shall be developed per Specific Plan No. Amended No. 1. 24. Replace with the standard alternative condition providing for maintenance of the common open space area by either a County Service Area or Homeowners Assocta(ion. 37(b) Wall and/or fence locations shall substantially conform to attached Figure III-28 of Specific Plan No. lgg Amendment No. 1. The development of Tentative Tract No. 23100 Amended No. I shall comply with all provisions of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. i and Development Agreement No. S Tract Map 23101 17(h) Rear yards and useable side yards shall have an average flat area of 2000 square feet. Amend to conform to Condition 24 (to nrovide for maintenance of the common open space area by either a County Service Area or a Homeowners Association). 3 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 23, Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for 160 units on Tract 23101, the park area shall be developed per Specific Plan No. Amended No. 1. 24. Replace with the standard alternative condition providing for maintenance of the common open space area by either a County Service Area or Homeowners Association. 37(b) Wall and/or fence locations shall substantially conform to attached Figure III-2B of Specific Plan No. lgg Amendment No. 1. 38. The development of Tentative Tract No. 23101 shall comply with all specific Pla..o. 19, ndment .o. land ,eve o .t sN 5 Tract Map 23102 Amend to conform with Condition 33 (to provide for maintenance of the common open space area by either a County Service Area or a Homeowners Association. 33, Replace with the standard alternative condition providing for maintenance of the common open space area by either a County Service Area or Homeowners Association. 35(b) Wall and/or fence locations shall substantially conform to attached Figure III-28 of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1. 36. The development of Tentative Tract No. 23102 shall comply with all provisions of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. I and Development Agreement No. 5 Tract Map 23103 Amended No. 1 21. Amend to conform to CondiUon 22 (to provide for maintenance of the common open. space area by either a County Service Area or a Homeowners Association. 22. Replace with the standard alternative condition providing for maintenanceof the common open space area by either a County Service Area or Homeowners Association. 34(a) Wall and/or fence locations shall substantially conform to attached Figure III-28 of Specific Plan No. lgg Amendment No. 1. The development of Tentative Tract No. 23103 Amended No. I shall comply with all provisions of Specific Plan No. 19g Amendment No. I and Development Agreement No. 5 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 (AGENDA ITEMS 1-3 AND 1-4 - REEL 1002, SIDE I - TAPE 1, SIDE 1) TRACT MAP 22916 - EA 32505 - Rancho California Dev. Co. - Rancho California Area - First Supervisorial District - north of Pauba Rd, west of Butterfield Stage Rd - 259 lots - 103.3, acres - R-R/SP Zones. Schedule A TRACT MAP 22915 - EA 32504 - Rancho California Dev. Co. - Rancho California Area - First Supervtsorial District - south of Rancho Vista Rd, west of Butterfield Stage Rd - 287 lots - 91.6± acres - R-R/SP Zones. Schedule A VESTING TRACT MAP 23471 - EA 32518 - Kaiser Development Co. - Rancho California Area - First Supervisortal District - south of Rancho California Rd, west of Kaiser Pkwy - 155 lots - 44, acres - R-1/SP Zones. Schedule A VESTING TRACT MAP 23470 - EA 32517 - Kaiser Development Co. - Rancho California Area - First Supervisorial District - north of Rancho Vista Rd, west of Kaiser Pkwy - 325 lots - 106.3 acres - R-1/SP Schedule A The hearings were opened at 10:10 a.m. and closed at 11:10 a.m. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of the negative declarations for EA 32517, EA 32518, EA 32504, and EA 32505 and approval of Tentative Tract Maps 22915 and 22916, and Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 23470 and 23471 subject to the proposed conditions, and a waiver of the lot length to width ratio for all Your tract maps. These four tract maps were located in Village C of Specific Plan 199 Amendment No. 1, and would divide the 345 acres into 1020 residential lots, provide a 10 acre school site, a S acre park site and 3 tot lots. Staff had found the proposed maps to be consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan, the adopted specific plan, and the zoning which had been applied to the property through Chan· of Zone Case 5107. Ms. Gifford recommended several changes to the conditions of approval; these changes related to the minimum lot size, lot length to width ratio requirements, park requirements, landscaping/irrigation requirements, and a requirement for development of the tract maps in accordance with the adopted specific plan and approved development agreement. Commissioner Beadling questioned Ms. Gifford's recommendation for deletion of the conditions for Tract t~ps 23470, 22915 and 22916 requiring landscaping and irrigation. Ms. Gtfford explained these three tentative maps proposed minimum 7200 square foot lots and the County did not normally require landscaping and irrigation for lots of this size. Mr. Streeter felt this condition could be retained, as it was County policy to require landscaping and irrigation for 7200 square foot lots in the Rancho California area. Robert Ktmble, representing the applicant, advised they would prefer not to provide the front yard landscaping and irrigation, and requested that the condition be deleted. Commissioner Beadling asked whether Mr. Kimble had seen the letter submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Pipher objecting to the density proposed in the area adjacent to their estate type homes. At her request, Mr. Kimble located Fir. Pipher's subdivision which was next to Rancho Vista Road. They were proposing the 7200 square foot lots allowed by the specific plan for this area. Ms. Gifford advised the tract map was a refiling of a previously RIVERSIDE COUNT~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 approved map, and there was no change in the density; the proposed tract map was within the density range allowed by the specific plan. Commissioner Beadling quoted from the letter, which requested that the density be reduced to the density originally proposed by the specific plan. She wanted to know what this density was, and was informed there had been no change in the density. Mr. Kimbl e requested that Condition 4 of the Flood Control Dt strtct's letter for Tract 23471 be deleted. This condition required maintenance ramps in the ong ca.yon t,eserampswere ,nX: ei ire, !e this channel for their underlying map 1 ~o the deletion of this condition. Mr. Kimble then requested that Road Department Condition 26 for Tract 22915 and Condition 28 for Tract 22916 be amended by adding to the end 'or as approved by the Road Commissioner"; Mr. Johnson agreed to this change for both tract maps. Condition 20 for Tract 22916 required the park to be fully improved and developed prior to the issuance of building permits for 150 units, and Mr. Kimble requested that this condition be amended to require the ark prior to the issuance of occupancy for the 25gth lot. Providing the ful~ improved park prior to 150 units would be a burden to the developer. Ms. Gifford advised Mr. Kimble's request would delay completion of the park until after the entire tract had been completed; staff felt 150 units would afford the applicant an opportunity to build some units, and at that point the improve- ments could be tied into road improvements. The park would also be useful for the tract to the north, which was being developed by the same developer. Mr. Kimble requested clarification of the new condition staff had sug ested for Tract 22916 regarding mitigation for the Stephens Kangaroo Rat. ~r. Goldman explained this condition referred back to the specific plan condi- tions, which required either a Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Fish and Game or that the applicant comply with the Countywide program being established by Riverside County. Robert Dudonay, also representing the applicant, advised he was actively involved with the task force appointed by the Board of Supervisors regarding the Stephens Kangaroo Rat program. There was no set pro ram at the present time, and he wanted to know whether they would be ch~rge~ the $750 per lot fee, or whether they would be held up until ~a specific program w~s estab- lished. He did not want to be dela ed, as they would be read to pull build- ing permits within the next few wee{s. Mr. Klotz explained ~e Board had generally endorsed the concept of having a developer make a deposit of $750 per lot, accompanied by an agreement to pay the fee as ultimately adopted; this would allow the project to go forward. He felt this option would be available to the developer. He explained this was not necessarily the ultimate fee, but was onl a security to be deposited aVainst the ultimate mitigation fee. This explanation satisfied Mr. Dudonay s concerns. Mr. Kimble advised it was their understanding that in the event Development Agreement No. 5 sho",ld be held invalid at some time in the future, the approval of the fou- tract maps wou)d still stand, but the condition for RIVERSIDE COUNI'Y PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 compliance with the development a reement would be null and void. Mr. Klotz advised this was explicitly provi2ed within the agreement. development OPPONENTS: ~ Bob Pipher, 41825 Greentree Road, Temecula, advised the development in which he lived {known as Green Tree) contained approxi~.tely 96 acres and he and his wife owned approximately one-third of this property. They had submitted the letter requesting that the portions of the subject tract maps adjacent to their area be required to create lots similar in size. Mr. Pipher had a map d of the Margarita Village Specific Plan dated March 30, 1986, which showe the density in this area to be approximately half of the density currently ~roposed. Mr. Pipher advised this was an equestrian area, and people residing n the area needed riding trails. He requested a connecting trail from Pauba to Rancho Vista along the boundary between their subdivision and the subject development or along Kaiser Parkway; this would provide an additional landscaped buffer area. Mr. Pipher advised they had no problem with the proposed school site, but felt the circulation system proposed to serve the school was inadequate. In his opinion, Street "B' should be extended to Kaiser Parkway; this would then ~rovide access to both the school site and the park from Kaiser Parkway. At he present time there was a steady flow of traffic, and providing an access to the park site and school from Kaiser Parkway would help everyone in the area, in addition to making the park more accessible. Because of the traffic on Kaiser Parkway, Mr. Pipher thought it would be difficult for people living on the other side to reach the park. He therefore suggested that one or two ptarks be required on the other side of Kaiser Parkway, to benefit residents in hat area. Mr. Pipher requested a solid wall along the boundary between their development and the subject project. The people residing in this area were requesting a buffer, and would appreciate anything the CommissiOners could do to help them. In answer to a question by Commissioner aresson, Mr. Pi her advised there w~s no street between the area he was representing and t~ it e subject s e; the lots from the subject tract map were backing up against the lots in his subdivision. When Mr. Pipher again requested equestrian trails, Ms. Gifford briefly reviewed the proposed trail system, which included a trail along Rancho California Road, going up the Kaiser Parkway and ~D easement; no trails were proposed in the southern area as requested by Mr. Pipher. Commissioner Bresson requested that these trails be designated as public access or recreational trails instead of equestrian trails. Mr. Burnell advised that an equestrian trail had been established all along Pauba Road, going east and west, and there was a north/south trail in the Metropolitan Water District easement going by the school administration site, along Rancho California Road to Kaiser Parkway. The residents of the Green Tree area could use the trail along Pauba, which connected to the trail along Green Tree Lane. This was a regional trail system, established under the direction of the Parks Department. 7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 Commissioner Bresson requested information on the type of buffer to be provided. Mr. Burnell advised there would be masonry walls in the area north and south of Rancho Vista Road; he thought this would satisfy Mr. Pipher's concerns. Mr. Burnell advised the Margarita Village Specific Plan had originally been approved with a slightly higher density in this area. They had added land with the amended specific plan but had not changed densities in the area of the subject tract maps. The exhibit presented by Mr. Pipher w~s a conceptual exhibit prepared by the engineer for internal use only and had never been presented to the County. Mr. Ktmble responded to Mr. Pipher's request for an additional park on the other side of Kaiser Parkway, by advising Costain Homes was providing a park planned for Tract 22715 to the north; they wore planning to upgrade both parks over and above the requirements of the specific plan. Commissioner Donahoe asked whether staff was recommending that a condition be added to require the wall as a buffer between the subject tract maps and the area represented by Mr. Pipher, and was informed this was a condition of the specific plan. Lee Johnson referred to Mr. Pipher's sug estion that "B" Street be extended to Kaiser Parkway, and advised both he and John Johnson {Transportation Planning Section of the Road Department) felt this was an excellent recommendation. Circulation in this area might be improved by making this connection rather than having the school served by a cul-de-sac street. This would also give both the school and the park site access from a 66 foot wide street. When Commissioner Bresson asked whether this could be accomplished without redesigning the map, Mr. Johnson replied he felt the map would have to be amended. Mr. Streeter felt this provide a much better access. Commissioner Beadling felt that a long cul-de-sac street going into a school was poor planning, as it required the cars and school busses bringing in children to wrap around and come back out the same way. Extending the street d would allow the vehicles to drop off the chil ren and go out a different way. Commissioner Bresson was concerned about creating a 4-way intersection, and Mr. Johnson agreed that a 3-way i~tersection created les~ problems. However, he still felt that providing access to Kaiser Parkway would result in better circulation service to the school site. Mr. Burnell did not feel it was necessary to extend "B" Street to Kaiser Park- way in order to provide adequate circulation for the school. He was concerned. that the change in the roadway might cause problems with regard to the sewer lines. Mr. Burnell was also concerned about a 4-way intersection at Kaiser Parkway; he felt retaining the existing 3-way intersection would provide an overall better circulation system for residents of the area. Commissioner Bresson preferred the cul-de-sac street because it would not encourage through traffic along the school site. Mr. Johnson pointed out that there would be less opportunity to eventually obtain signalization for a 3-way intersection than for a 4-way intersection. PL NN N DATE: June l, 1988 Assessor Building and Saret~ Surveyor - Dave Dude Road Department Ikalth - Ralph Luchs Fire Protection Flood Control District Fish & Game LAFCO, S Patsley U.S. Postal Service - Ruth E. Davidson JUN 13 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Sherlffts Department Airports Department UCR, Ltfe Sctence Dept., W.V. Nayhew GROF/T .... Eastern Municipal ~ater Dfst. Rancho"Calffornla t~aterDIst. E1sinore Union $chool Dtst. Temecula Unton School Dist, Sterra Club, San Gorgonio Chapter CALTRAN$ #8 VESTZNG TRACT 23373 - (Sp P1) - E.A. 32548 - ~r arlta VIllage Development Co - Robert Bern, William Assoc. - Frost & Rancho California Area - First Supervisorial District - X. of Rancho California Road, H. of Kaiser Parkway - R-R Zone - 28 Acres 348 Condomlnlum unit - (RELATED CASE TR 23371 & 23372) Nod - A.P. 923-210-023 Phase revtew the case described above, along vlth the attached case map. A Land Division Conntttee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for June 20, 1988. if it clears it will then go to public hearing. Your co~ents and recommendations are requested prior to June S, 1988 tn order that ve ma Include them in the staff report for this particular case, Should you have any questions regarding this Item, please do not hesitate to contact Kathy Gtfford at 787-6356 Planne~ COIgrbqTS: ~JIJ)i ll t!~ DATE: SIGNATURE PLEASE print name and title 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE CALIFORNIA 92501 (714} 787-6181 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 INDIO, CAL FORNIA 92201 (619) 342-8277 RIVERSIDE COUNIY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 Mr. Kimble advised they had met with the school district and showed them the tentative map; they were pleased with the configuration of the school site as well as the proposed street system. Mr. Burnell advised their original design showed the school/park site adjacent Kaiser Parkway, and the school district had objected to this plan because they did not want the children adjacent to a major street. Commissioner Bresson supported the tract map as currently' designed, as it was satisfactory to the school district. There was no further testimony, and the hearing was closed at 11:10 a.m. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Tentative Tract Maps 22915, and 22916, and Vesting Tract Maps 23470 and 23471 are located within Village C of Specific Plan 199 Amendment No. I (the Margartta Village Specific Plan); the four tract maps would divide the 345 acres into 1020 residential lots; design manuals have been prepared for Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 23470 and 23471; the tract maps have been condtttoned to comply with Specific Plan 199 Amendment No. 1, Change of Zone Case 5107, and Development Agreement No. 5; a w~tver for the lot length to width ratio will be needed for all four maps. All environmental concerns have been addressed in EIR 107, EIR 202, and the initial studies for these tract maps, and no significant impacts were found; the tract maps are consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan (as amended by General Plan ndment 150). specific h: le o.e Case 510~; and conform to the i~::e4 4 . MOTION: Upon motion b Commissioner Bresson, seconded by Con~nissioner Beadling and unanimously carried, the Commission adopted the negative declarations for EA 32517, EA 32518, EA 32504 and EA 32505, and approved Tentative Tract Maps 22915 and 22916, and Vesting Tract Maps 32470 and 23471, all with a waiver of the lot length to width ratio, subject to the proposed conditions and based on the above findings and conclusions and the recommenda- tions of staff. Tract No. 23470 17[a) - All lots shall have a minimum size of 7200 square feet net. 17(b) - Delete entirely 20 - Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for 150 units, one tot lot shall be improved and fully developed. 21 - Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for 275 units, the second tot lot shall be improved and fully developed. 27 - Prior to the issuance of building permits {balance to remain the same) 36- The development of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 23470 shall comply with its Design Manual, with all provisions of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. I and with Development Agreement No. 5 Tract No. 23471 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 20 - Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for 200 units, one tot lot shall be improved and fully developed. 26 - Prior to the issuance of building permits (balance to remain the .same) 32{f) - All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and manually n operated, penna ent underground irrigation. Flood Control Condition 4 - Delete entirely 35 - The development of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 23471 shall comply with its Design Manual, with all provisions of Specific Plan No. lgg Amendment NO. I and with Development Agreement No. 5 Delete Condition 4 of the Flood Control letter dated June 17, 1988. Tract No. 22915 24 - Prior to the issuance of building permits (balance to remain the same) 32 - The development of Tentative Tract Map 22915 shall comply with all provisions of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. I and Development Agreement No. 5 Road Department Condition 26 - Add to the end "or as approved by the Road Commissioner". Tract No. 22916 2 - Add the following: except for the lot length to width ratio. 20 - Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for 150 units in Tentative Tract 22916, the park shall be fully improved and developed. 25 - Prior to the issuance of bbilding permits (balance to remain the same) 32 - The development of Tentative Tract )~p 23916 shall comply with all provisions of SpeCific Plan No. i99 Amendment No. I and Development Agreement No. B 33 - Prior to issuance of grading permits, impacts to the Stephens Kangaroo Rat Habitat shall be mitigated per the specific plan conditions of approval. Road Department Condition 28 - Add to the end "or as approved by the Road Commissioner". 10 Zoning Area: Rancho California Supervfsorlal DIstrict: FIrst and E,A, NOS: 32546, 32547, 32548 Specific Plan Sectton Vesting Tentative Tract Nos.: 23371 Amd. No. l, 23372 ~d. No. 1, 23373 Amd. No. 1 PlanMng Commission: 10-5-88 Agenda Item No.: 5-2, 5-3, and 5-4 RIVERSIDE COU!ITY PLMIIIXNG DEP,~RT!~XT ,, STAFF REPORT 1. Applicant: 2, Engineer: 3,-: Type of Request: · Margartta Vtllage Davelopme~t Co, Rtck Englneerlng Company The 3 tracts w111 subdhtde 472 acres "~'f;6;" Surrounding Zontng: ~ 7,' Stte Characteristics: ~ 8, Area Characteristics: :(Change Of Zone 5107 heard bythe L,': Board of ~pervtsors on 9-13-88proposes SP 199 Amd; No, I zontng), Zoning to the north and west ~s R-4, A-2-20, R-R, R-l; Zoning to the south is R-R Vacant land traversed wtth low htlls Located on eastern edge of Rancho California comnuntty Vtllages (General Plan Amendment 150 ' proposes a general plan. Plan No. 199 10.~ Land Dhtston Data: "' Vesting Tract 23371 Amd,. No, 1 23372/~d, No, 1 23373 Amd, Noo I ~s( natidn of Specific en~ent No. 1) Acreage: UnSts Danstty (Du/Ac) 394 1183 3 37 "' 232: 6 31 348 11 '4t2' 'T753' 11. Agency Rec~,,~endat~ons: 23371 Amd. No. I 23372 Amd. No. I 23373 Amd. No. I Road 9-22-88 3-22-88 9-22-88 Health 7-25-88 9-7-88 7-25-88 Rood 7-22-88 7-22-88 7-22-88 Ft re 8-17-88 8-17-88 8-17-88 5herl ff 6-10-88 6-10-88 6-10-88 12. Letters: 13. Sphere of Znfiuence Znfluence None recehed as of thts wrtttng Not within a City sphere ANAL~IS: Yesring Tentative Tract Nos. 23371Amd. No. 1, 23372 Amd. No. 1, and 23373 Amd. No. I implement Village as a planned retirement con~untty in the trgartta Village Specific Plan (SP 199 Amd. No. 1) Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1o Change of Zone No. 5107, General Plan Amendment No. 150 and Development Agreement No. 5 were heard by the Board of Supervisors on September 13, 1988. These tracts have been destgned to be consistent with these documents. The table below summarize the tracts' relatlonshtp and consistency w~th the Spectftc Plan's planning areas. As shown, none of the tracts exceed the pemltted number of residential untts. C~PARI,~R OFTRACTNI) SPECIFIC PLAR ~LI~6 U~ITS Tract No. Proposed Spectftc Plan Pemttted No. of Units Area No. of Units VTT 23372 Amd. NO. I 1183 33'37, 42-45 1197 VTT 23372 Amd. NO. I 232 41 234 VTT 23373 Amd. NO. I 348 38 348 A design manual has been prepared for all'three vesting maps whtch provtdes guidelines for landscaping, floor lans, elevations and zoning, Acoustical studies have been proposed and will be Implemented as required by the conditions of approval, Htttgatton for potential impacts to Ht, Palomar are also included tn the conditions of approval, Additional evaluation found no cultural resources onstte, Vesttrig Tentative Tract 23371, Amended No. I tncludes an 18 hole golf course. As also required by the specific plan conditions, the tract has been condtttoned to improve the park in Planning Area 45. In conformance with the specific plan Vesting Tentative Tract 23372, ~ended No. I has been conditioned for mitigation of impacts to the Stephens Kangaroo Rat. It should be noted that the number of units for congregate care are on estimate and will be reviewed at the development plan stage. Environmental assessments have been prepared on 811 three tracts. Environmental impacts were assessed in EIR 107 and EIR 202 prepared for the Rancho Village Specific Plan and the ~rgarita Village Specific Plan. Additional environmental evaluation has been provided by the reports prepared for the specific plan amendment and the acoustical studies prepared for the three tracts, No significant environmental impacts have been found. Yesring Tentative Tract No. 23371 Amended No. h 23372 Amended No. 1, and 23373 ~nended No. I are located in Villa~e A of the Hargarita Village Specific Plan. The three tracts will provide 1763 dwelling units and golf course open spac~ on )54 164 acres, (Amended by Planning Commission 10-5-88) Tract 23372 Amended No. 1 has been condtttoned condition of approval to mitigate impacts to the the Specific Plan's phens Kangaroo Rat. The tracts have been conditioned to comply with Specific Plan No, 199, Change of Zone No, 5107 and Development Agreement No, 5, A watver for length to width ratio will be needed fo Vesting Tentative Tract 23371 Amended No. h CONCLUSIONS: All environmental concerns have been addressed in EIRs 107, 202 and the initial studies for these tracts and no stgQtftcant impacts have been found. 2, The tracts are consistent .w~th General Plan Amendment No, 150 Change of Zone No, 5107, and Specific Plan No, 199, Amendment No, 1. 3. The tracts conform to the requirements of Ordinances 348 and 460. RECOMNENDATIOMS ADOPTION of a Negative Oeclaratton for EA Nos. 32546, 32547, 32548 on a finding ~ projects will not have a significant effect on the environment. APPROVAL of Vesting Tentative Tract Nos. 23371 Amended No. 1, 23372 Amended No. 1, and 23373 Amended No. I subject to the attached conditions of approval. KG:mcb:mp RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTHENT SUBDIVISION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23373 AHENDED NO. I STANDARD CONDITIONS Riverside, its agents, o es from any claim, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside or its agents, officers, or emplo es to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the County of &~everside, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Vestin Tentative Tract 23373 Amended No. 1, which action is brought about witgin the time period provided for in California Government Code Section 66499.37. The County of Riverside will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the County of Rtyerstde and will coo erate full in the defense. If the County fails to p~omptly notify the subdivider o~Yany such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the County of Riverside. 2. The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Hap Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule A, unless modified by the conditions listed below. This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors approval date, unless extended as provtded by Ordinance 460. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all the .requirements of the State of California Subdivision Hap Act and Ordinance 460. 5. The subdivider shall su.bmtt one copy of a soils report to the Riverside County Surveyor's OffiCe and two copies to the Department of Building and Safety. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site.' 6. If any ~radtng is proposed, t~; subdivider shall submit one print of comprehensive grading plan to the Department of Building and Safety. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, as amended by Ordinance 457 and as maybe additionally provided for in these conditions of approval. Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract No. 23373 Amended No. 1 Page 2 A grading pemlt shall be obtatned from the Department of Butlding and f Sa ety prior to commencement of any grading outstde of county maintained road right of Nay. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordatton of the final The subdivider shall comply w~th the street improvement recommendations outlined In the Riverside County Road Department's letter dated 9-22-88 a copy of which is attached. Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract nap boundary to a County maintained road. All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall Continue in force until the overolng body accepts or abandons such offers. All e tcatlons sha~l be free from all encumbrances as approved dd b the Road Ccnuntsstoner. Street names shall be subject to approval of ~e Road Comaisstoner. Easements, when requtred for roadway shpes, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the County Surveyor. 33. ~ater and sewerage dtsposal facilities shall be tnstalhd in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's letter dated 7-25-88 a copy of which is attached. The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommendatlons outlfned by the RIverside County Flood Control Distrtct's letter dated 7-22-88 a copy of which is kttached. if the land dtvtston 11es withtn an d flood control dratnage area pursuant to Sectton 10.25 of Ordinance a opted 460 appro rfate fees for the construction of area dralnage facilities shah be collected by the had Comtsstoner. The subdivider shall comply with ~he' fire Improvement recommendatlons outlined tn the County Ftre~rshal's letter dated 8-17-88 a copy of which fs attached. Subdhtston phastng, Including any proposed Common open space area Jmprovement phasing, ff applicable, shall be subject to Planning r Department approval. Any p oposed phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access to all lots In each phase, and shall substandallY conform to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval. Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract No. 23373 Amended No. 1 Page 3 17. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply wtth the following: Corner lots and through lots, tf any, shall be provtded with additional area pursbant to Sectton 3,8B of Ordinance 460 and so as not to contatn less net area than the least amount of net area in non-corner and through lots. Lots created by this subdhtston shall be tn conromance wtth the development standards of the Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1 zone. When lots are crossed by major publtc utiltty easements, each lot shall have a net usable area of not less than 3,600 square feet, exclusive of the utility easement. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaplng or provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. e. Trash bins, loading areas and incidental storage areas shall be located awa and visually screened from surrounding areas with the use of block ~ra~ls and landscaping. Prior to RECOROATION of the final map the following conditions shall be satisfied: Prior to the recordatton of the final map the applicant shall submit written clearances to the Riverside County Road and Survey Department that all pertinent requirements outlined in the attached approval letters from the following agencies have'been met. County Fire Department County Flood Control County Parks Department Eastern:~nictpal Mater Dtst. County Health Department County Planning Department Rancho Water District Prior to the recordatton of the final map, General Plan Amendment 150, Specific Plan No. 199 Amendn~nt No. 1, Development Agreement No. 5, and Change of Zone No, 5107 shall be approved by the Board of Supervisors and shall be effective. Lots created by this land division shall be in conformance with the development standards of the zone ultimately applied to the property. 19, All existing structures on the subject property shall be removed prior to recordation of the final map. Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract No. 23373 Amended No. 1 Page 4 The Connon open space area shall be shown as a numbered lot on the final map and shall be managed by a master property owners association. Prior to recordatton of the final subdivision map, the subdivider shall submit the following documents to the Planning Department for review, which documents shall be subject to the approval of that deparbnent and the Office of the County Counsel: 1) A declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions; and 2) A sample document conveyed~ttle to the purchaser of an individual lot or unit which provides that the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions is incorporated therein by reference. The declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions submitted for review shall {a) provide for a minimum term of 60 years, (b) provide fo~ the establts n hme t of a property owners' association comprised of the owners of each individual lot or unit, (c) provide for ownership of the common and (d) contatn to following provisions verbatim: "Nothwtthstandtng any provision in this Declaration to the contrary, the following provision shall apply= The property owners' association established herein shall manage and continuously maintain the 'common area', more particularly described on Exhibit 'IIX-17' of the specific plan attached hereto, and shall not sell or transfer the 'common area', or any part thereof, absent the prior written consent of the Planning Director of the County of Riverstde or the County's successor-in-interest. The property owner's association shall have the rtght to assess the .owners of each individual lot or unit for the reasonable cost of maintaining the 'connon'area' and shall have the right to lien the property of any such Owner who defaults in the payment of a maintenance assessment, An assessment lien, once created, shall be prior to all other liens recorded subsequent to the notice of assessment or other document creating the assessment lien, This Declaration shall not be t~rminated, 'substantially' amended or ropetry deannexed therefrom absent the prior written consent of the Planning Director of the County of Riverside or the County's successor-in-interest, A proposed amendment shall be considered 'substantial' if it affects the extent, usage or maintenance of the 'common area', In the event of any conflict between this Declaration and the Articles of Incorporation, the Bylaws or the property owners' association Rules and Regulations, if any, this Declaration shall control.' Condi ttons of .koprova | Tentative Tract No. 23373 Amended No. 1 Page 5 Once approved, the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be recorded at the same time that the final map is recorded. Prior to recordatton of the final map, clearance shall be obtained from t4etrepolttan Water District relattve to the protection of applicable easements affecting the subject property, Lot line adjustments shall also be completed. The developer shall comply with the following parkway landsca tng re utrements as shown in Specific Plan No. 199 Amen merit No. I unVess maVntatned by HOA or other public entity: (Amended b~ Planntng Commission 10-5-88) 1) Prior to recordatton of the final map the developer shall file an application with the County for the formation of or annexation to, a - parkway maintenance district for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23373 Amended No. I in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, unless the project is within an existing parkway maintenance. 2) 3) Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall secure approval of proposed landscaping and irrigation plans from the County' Road and Planning De artment. All landscaping and irrigation plans and specifications sKall be prepared in a reproducible format suitable for permanent filing with the County Road Department. The developer shall post a landscape performance bond which shall be w, th the rel.s. o, su ivision perfo nce ua e vtabtlity of all landscaping which will be installed prior to the assumption of the maintenance responsibility by the district. 4) The developer, the developer's successors-in-interest or assignees, shall be responsible for all parkwa landscapin maintenance until such time as maintenance is taken over ~y the dtstrlct. 24. The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes, landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those responsibiliti.-of oth.r p.rt,.s ss approved by the 25. Street lights shall be provided within the subdivision in accordance with the standards of Ordinance 461 and the following: 1) Concurrently wtth the filing of subdhfston improvement plans with the Road Department, the developer shall secure approval of the proposed h d street light layout first from t e Roa Department's traffic engineer and then from the appropriate utility purveyor. Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract No. 23373 Amended No. % Page 5 z) Following approval of the street ltghttng layout by the Road Oepartment's trafftc engineer, the developer shall also fih an application with LAFCO for the formatfort of a street ltghttng district, or annexation to an exlsttng ltghttng district, unhss the site ts withtn an existing lighUng district. 3) Prior to recordatton of the final map, the developer shall secure conditional approval of the street 11ghttng application from LAFCO, unless the site is within an extsttng lighting district. 4) All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shov~ on electrical plans submitted to the De artment of Butldtng and Safety for plan check approval a d shall comply with the requirements of n · Riverside County Ordinance No. 655 and the Riverside County : Comprehensive General Plan. Prior to the tssuance of GRADING PERMITS the following condlUons shall be satisfied: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, detailed common open space area parking landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planntng Department approval for the phase of development tn process. The plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for the following. 1) Permanent automatic Irrigation systems shall be Installed on all landscaped areas requiring irrigation. 2) Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height of six (6) feet at ma(urtty, 3) All uttllty service areas and enclosures shall be screened from vtew with landscaping and decorative barrters or baffle treatments, as approved the Planning Director. Utilities shall be by placed underground. : 4) Parkways and landscaped butldtng setbacks shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscape elements shall include earth bermtng, round cover, shrubs and specimen trees tn conjunction with meandering sidewalks, benches and other pedestrian amentries where appropriate as approved by the Planning Department and Specific Plan No. 199 /~endment No. 1. 5) Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent trees at key visual focal points within the project. Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract No. 23373 Amended Page 7 6) Mere streets trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of tntertor streets and project parkways due to insufficient road right-of-way, they shell be planted outside of the road right-of-way. 7) Landscaping plans shall Incorporate nattve and drought tolerant plants where appropriate. 8) All existing specimen trees and significant rock outcroppings on the sub ect property shall be shown on the project's grading plans and shatl note those to be removed, relocated and/or retained, 9) All trees shall be mtntmum double staked. Weaker and/or slow growing trees shall be steel staked. 10.. Parktng layouts shall comply with Ordfnance 348, Section 18.12, 27. All exhttng native specimen trees on the subject property shall be preserved wherever feasible. Where they cannot be preserved they shall be relocated or replaced with specimen trees as approved by the Planning Director° Replacement trees shall be noted on approved landscaping plans. 28. Zf the project ts to be phased, prior to the approval of grading permits, an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for a prove1. The plan shall be used a guideline for subsequent detat~ed grading plans for as individual phases of development and shall include the following: 1) Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and sedfmentatton during and after the grading process. 2) Approximate time frames for grading and identification of areas which may be graded during 'the higher probability ratn months of January through l~arch. 3) Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. , 4) Areas of temporary gradfng outside of a particular phase. Gradtng plans shall confom to Board ado ted Htllstde Development Standards: A1 cut and/or flll slopes, or Individual combinations thefor, which exceed ten feet (n vertical height shall be modified by an a proprfate combination of a special terracing (benchtn) plan, (ncrease s~ope ratlo H.e., 3:1), retaining walls, and/or slope pVanttng combined with Irrigation. All drheways shall not exceed a fifteen percent grade. Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract No. 23373 Amended No. 1 Page 8 All cut slopes located adjacent to un raded natural terrain and exceeding ten (10) feet in vertical heights shalV be contour-graded incorporating the following grading techniques: 1) The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the angle of the natural terrain. 2) Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall reflect the natural rounded terrain. 3) The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves with radii designed in proportion to the total height of the slopes where drainage d an stability permit such rounding. 4) Where cut or fill slopes exceed 300 feet in horizontal length, the - horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved in a continuous, undulattng fashion. 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 paleontologtcal impacts. Should the paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a pre-grade meeting between the paleontologlst and the excavation and grading contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redtract or halt grading acthtty to allow recovery of fossils. Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: In accordance with the written request of the developer to the County of Riverside, a copy of which is on file, and in furtherance of the agreement between the 'developer and the County of Riverside, no building permits shall be issued by the County of Riverside for any parcels within the subject tract until the developer, or the developer's successors-in-interest provided evidence of compliance with the terms of said Development Agreement No. 5 (or the financing of public factl'ittes. -' be, With the submittal of building plans to the Department of Building and Safety the developer will demonstrate compliance with the acoustical study prepared for Vesting Tentative Tract 23371 Amended No. I which established appro rlate mitigation measures to reduce ambient interior noise levels to 4E Ldn and exterior noise levels below 65 Ldn. 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. Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract No. 23373 Amended No, 1 Page 9 Butldtng separation between all buildings Including fireplaces shall not be less than ten (10) feet unless approved by the Oepart=ent of Butldtng and Safer and Ftre Department per Specific Plan Amendment No. 1. [A~nded by Planntng Conuntssion 10-5-88) No. 199 e. All street stde yard setbacks shall be a mtn~mum of 10 feet. f. All front yards shall be provMed w~th landscaping and automatic Irrigation. 33. Prtor to the tssuance of OCCUPANCY PERHITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: .a. Prior to the ftnal butldtng inspection approval, by the Butldtng and Rancho ~11fornta P~Dad. ac Way per the Design ~nual. ~e required ~all shall be subject to the approval of the Dtrector of the Depart~nent of Building and Safety and the Planning O~rector and may be phased with the pro~ect. {~nded by P3anntng Con~n~sston 10-5-88) b. Wall and/or fence locations shall confom to attached Figure III-17 of Specific Plan No. lgg Amendment No. 1. c. All landscaping and trrfgatlon shall be installed tn accordance with approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal conditions do not permit plantin , tntertm landscaping and erosion control measures shall be uttltze~ as approved by the Planning Otrector and the O$rector of Building and Safety. All perUrig, landscaplng and Irrigation shall be (nstalled accordance wtth approved plans and shall be vettried by a Planning Department field Inspection. : e.--Consrete-sldewalks-sha11-be-eenstFue~ed-threughout-the-subd4vh4on--4n aeeerd~nee--wtth--the-standards-of-erd~nange-46{-and-Spec~fic-P~an~Ne= (Deleted by Planntn~ 199-Amendme~t-~e,-t~ Con~ntsston 10-5-88) f. Street trees shall be planted throughout the subcltvtston tn accordance wtth the standards of Ordinance 460 and Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. I 34. Development of Vestfng Tentative Tract No. 23373 Amended No. I shall comply with all provisions of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1 and Development Agreement No. 5. OFFICE OF ROAD CONNI~31ONER 6 COUNTY SURVEYOR September 22, 1988 Riverside County Planning Commission 4080 Lemon Street RIverside, CA 92501 Ladles and Gentleteen: Re: Tract ~p 23373 -Amend 12 - Road Correction Schedule A - Team $P Nap t1 ~ith respect to the conditions of approval for the referenced tentative land division map, the Road Department recommends that the landdhlder provide the following street Improvement plans and/or road dedications In accordance with Ordinance 460 and Riverside County Road Zmprovement Standards (Ordinance 461). Zt is- understood that the tentsthe map correctly shows acceptable centerline profiles, all existing easements, traveled ways, end drainage courses with appropriate O's, and that their omission or unacceptabillty may require the map h to be resubmltted for furt er consideration. These Ordlnancei and the following conditions ire essential parts and a requfreT~ent occurring in ONE Js as binding as though occurring In a11. They are intended to be complementary and to describe the conditions for a comphte design of the improvement. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referr.~d to the Road Commissloner's Office. The landdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages cause by alteration of the drainage patterns, i.e., concentra- tion of diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities including enlarging existing facilities or by securing e d~alnage easement or by both. Ali drainage easements shall be shown on the final map and noted as follows~ *Drainage Easement - no building, obstructions, or encroachmania by land fills are allowed". The protection shall be as approve4 by the Road.Department. 2. The landdivider shall accept and properly dispose of ell offsite drainage flowing onto or through the site. -Zn the event the Road Commissioner permlts the use of streets for drainage ~l, oses, the provisions of Article X! of Ordinance No. 460 apply. Should the. quahtitfes exceed the street capacity or the use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the subdivider shall provide adequate drainage facilities as approved by the Road Department, 3. PaJor drainage Is involved on this landdivision and its resolution shall be as approved by the Road Department. 4. All Interior streets sh~11 be improved in accordance with County Standard No. 105, Section A or greater as approved b), the Road d Cecmissloner (too ifled no The landdivlder shell provide utility charante from Rancho Calif. later District prior to the recorderIon of the final m~p. 6, The maximum centerline gradient shall not exceed 15S, 7o The minimum centerline radii shall be as approved by the Road Department, gutter located 43 feet t n t p concrete dpavtng; reconstruction; or resurfaclng of existing paving as etermined by the Road Commissioner within I 55 foot half width dedicated right of way tn accordance with County Standard No, 100, Kaiser Parkway shall be Improved wtth concrete curb and gutter located 38 feet from centerline and match up asphalt concrete paving; reconstruction; or resurfacin9 of existing paying as determined by the Road Commissioner within a 50 foot half width dedicated right of way in accordance wi.th County Standard No, lot. Prior tO the' filing of the final map with the County Rocorder's ! Office, the developer shall prov de evidence of continuous ~qaintenance of all proposed private streets wIthln the development as approved by the Road Commlssloner, All driveways shall conform to the ap;~llcable Riverside County Standards and shall be sho~n on the street Improvement plans, ~en block~alls are required to be constructed on top of slope, a debris retention wall shall be constructed at the street right of way line to prevent silting of sidewalks as approved by the Road ~jafss !.oner, Concrete sidewalks shall be'constructed on Rancho California Road .and Kaiser Parkway in accordance with County Standard No, 400 and 40Z (curb sidewalk), M access n)ad to the nearest paved road maintained by the County shall be constructed wtthtn the public rt ht of way in accordance with County $tand·~l No. 106, Section B, 132'160') ·t · grade and &llgnment el epproved by the Road Ccxmissioner. Prior to the recordatlon of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Road Department, a cash sum of $140.00 per unit for parcels 1-7 as mitigation for traffic signal tmpacts, Should the developer choose to defer the ttme of payment, he may enter Into a vTJtten agreement with the County deferring said payment to the tim of Issuance of a t~lldfng pomlt. Parcel 8 is not subject to signal mlt/gat/on at this time. It Is postponed until the time of development, ~mprovement plans shall be based upon · cent·flirt· profile extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries ·t · grade and alignment as approved by the Riverside County Road Comfssioner, Completion of road improvements does not imply acceptance for mafntenance byCounty. Electrical and communications trenches shall be provided In accordance with Ordinance 461, Standard 817. Aspbaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than fourteen days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at · rate of 0.05 gallon per.square yard. Asphalt e~ulslon shall confom to Sections 37, 39 and 94 of the State Standard Spec|ficatlons, Corner cutbacks In conromance with County Standard No. 805 shall be shoHn on the final map and offered for dedication. Lot access shall be restricted on Rancho California Road and Kaiser Parkway and so noted on the final map with the exception of one opening on Rancho Colifornfa Road approximately 400' westerly of intersection with Kaiser Parkway, tanddhislo~s creating cut or f111 slopes adjacent to the streets shall provide erosion control, sight distance control and slope easements as approved by the Road Department, 22. All entrance gate facilities shall be located a minimum distance of 60' from gate to flow'line,-~ 23. A~I cent·flirt· Intersections shall be at 90*, 24. The street ~esig~ and improvement concept of this project sha~1 be coordinate~ with TR 23371 and TR 23372. ./~e 4 25, Street lighting shall be requl~ed fn accordance vith Ordinance 460 end 461 throughout the subd|vlsion. The County Service Area (CSA) . Admtn|strator datemines whether this proposal qualifies under an existing assessment district or not, If not, theland owner shall file an application with LAFCO for annexation Int or creation of Prior to recordatlon of the-final mp, the landdivider'shall record CC & R's providing Ingress and e Pass for parcel I thru 7 and shall be sub3ect to review and approval by Riverside County Counsel. GH:lh Ve truly yours, .. - as 8-:L7-OO Pbm~r,I & r-~nm.i.l C>Sc. 4080t. euoeSlnm. Jultt IlL ~ CA 92501 (TI4) 717.66(~ ?Z,A,~ZNG DEP&X,~(Elff lr,&l'1~ GZ/T0gD Z*/ULC*r 23373 - &,v, ZZ~)E~ I1, POD COP3~C'ETON ll Vithxespect tO the conditions of approval for the ·boys referenced land division, the Firs Department reco~ends the following firs protection measures be provided in accordance with Y, iverslde County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: FIRE PROTECTION glee water maine shall be capable of providing · potential firs flow of 2~00 GPH and an actual fire flov ·vailable from any one hydrant shall be 1500 GPH for 2 hours duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, Apprnved super fire hydrants, (6"x4"x2|x2J) ·hall be located at each street intersection and spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction vith no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from · hydrant, · Applicant/developer shall fnrnish one copy of the vatat system pla~s to the Fire Department for review, Plans shall conform to fire hydrant typess location and · pacenee ands the system shall meet the fire flow requiremanage Plane shall be signed/epproved by · registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certificatlonz "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the l~verside County Fire Departmentse The required water systems including rite hydrantso shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water fiebey prior to any gombustiblt building material being ~laced on an individual lot, All hulldines shall be constr~cted with fire retardant roofing material as described in Section 3203 of the Uniform Building Code, Any wood shingles or shakes shall have · Class "B' rating and shall be approved by the Tire Department prior to installation. NITIGATION Prior to the retardation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the liverside County Fire Department, s cash sum of ~400.00 per lot/unit as mitigation for fire protection ispacta. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payments he/she may enter into · written agreement with the County deferring said payment to the ties of issuance of a building permit, AIA qunstloas regarding the mashing of conditions shalA be referred to the ?lsnniuS and Engineering staff, RAYHOHDH, IF, GIg Chief Firs Department planner By George S. Tatum, Planning Officer TZtOi: RIVERSIDE COUNTT PLANNING DEPARTHENTDATI~: Tract Nap 2i373. Amended No. I Environmental Health Servlces The Envlronmental Health Services has revlewed Tract Hap 23373, Amended Hap No. I dated July ig, 1988. Our current co~nents'vill remaln as previously stated in our letter dated June 13, 1988. AUG 3 1980 RIVE~SiD~ COUNTY PLANN!NC, .n. EPA.nTMENT RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT July 22, 1968 lttve~lides r~llfrw~w ladies Vestt~ ~tact 23373 Amenclean',. I Yollc~tn9 are the rastrlct's ~ecu~,er~at,tcr~,, 1, ~,ts tract is lr, ated within the limits o~ the Murrteta Creek/Ter~ecula Valley Area Drainage Plan f~r ~,~tch drainage fees have lx, en eac~:~cea by the Boar~. Drainage fees shall be paid as set forth under the prcvi- alons of the 'l~ules ar~ 1Regu,tattons fm:xt" 2e~ministraticn o~' Area ])rainage plmne", amemaed Fel~-/16, 1988: ao Eratnage fees shall be lmtd to the l~ad G~,,,dssicrar as .~t of the M~tng Z~ record oZ the suMiviaicn final map or parcel rap, cr if the r__~rord/ng o~ a f~nal pxrce/map ~s waived, drainage fees shall te l=aid as a ccrditim of ~ ~iver lxlor to reccrding a certlficat~ of ~,vlla~e evi~encizxJ the ~dver o~ t~e l~rce.1 ~ap~ At the ~m of the land aivide[, u~n filtn~ a r~,~d ~ fida~t r~e~ &f~t of ~ ~t of ~s, ~ ~ge ~v~ my ~ ~n ~h~ a~ ~ r~ of ~ ~ defer the fees mall not be exercised fur any t~rcel where gr~8{ng . cr structures have ~ initiated cn the l~rcel within the [~ior 3 year Friod, or F~nits for either activity have bern issue~,,~ m that ~aroel which re~{n ~t/ve. ./ ". pl~u'~tn~ Delmu-tment Pa8 Vest/rig Trdct 23373 ~dedNo. 1 -2- July Bui 3a4--2. permits ~, this x~Ject m'ruid ~,~t be lss~d tmtil the a-~ln rysten l=opoeed by Tract 23372 to the north has been installed. Otherwise, arrange~nts e~uld be made to coll~-t ~nd mf~ly Crmite a~anage ~hcllities locatsd cutside of toed right of way be amta/ned within drainage ease~ts with ndninun width 'of 20 ~eet shoknmtl'mftnalmsp. Anc~eahouldbeaddedtothef~nmpstat- 1rig, ~Dra/fmge usemerits ~ be kept free of buildings and Offsite dra/nage facilities should be located within Imblicly dedicat- ed dra/nage easements ct:~{ned fi-an the affected l=opert7 owners. ~e do=uments should lm reccrded and a cc~y xanitted to the l~lstrict ~rlor to r~rdat/cn of the ~ map. ~he 10 ~ store flow should be cmtained within the curb and the 100 year storm flow should be ~tatned within the street right of %~w_n either o~ these criteria Is exceeded, aS~/ticr~l drainage f~a~41~- ties should be inzalled. Drainage factltttes outletting sun~ oc~ittc~s should be designed to cor~ey the trib~ry 100 year storm flows. Mdittonal em~gency es- T~e ~-rtT's street and lot gradin9 should be designed in a m~ner that F_~etuates the exist/rig ratural dra/nage patterns with respect to trib~ar~ drainage area, outlet points and outlet caxtiticms, otherwise, a drainage easement should be obtained fran the affected property ~wners fi3r the re/ease of ccr~e~trated cr ~/ver+__~_ store flows. A coFf of the recorded drainage easement should be su~nitted to the District for review 1:=1or to the rec'c=dation of the final 9. Devel~,t or this t=ol~rty should be coordinated with the deve/cp- m~t of adjacent lroperties to ~'lsure that ~terccurses r~ain m- cbstructed and stor~aters are not diverted fra~ c~e watershed to other. ~hts may rec/u/re the cc~structicn of tavF~rary dra/nage facx littes or offsite ,;~-,,struct/cra ara July 22, 19e8 O~esticr~ ~ this nattar my be rer~tred t~ ~bert ChtancJ c~ this office at 714/787-2333. Very truly y:urs, ~C.-pln COUlxt'i'Y oF .t 1 VERSIDE : DEPARTMENT ' of HEALTH RIVERSIDE C0URTFPLXI~qlNG DEPT. 4OS0 Lemon Street Riverside. CA 92502 Attn: Kathy ~ifford JUN 2 1 1988 RIVERSmOE COUNTY PLANNING DEPAFIIMENT REI TRACT PAP 23313= That certain land situated in the unincorporated territory of the County of Riverside, State of California, being Parcels l, 2,3,4 and 5 of Parcel Map 21884 as shown on a map thereof filed in Book 144, Pages 24 through 33 of Parcel Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said Riverside County together with a portion of the Rancho Temecula granted by the ~overnment of the United States of America to L~is Vignes by patent dated January 1860 and recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, California (8 Lots) Gentlemen: The Department of Public Health has reviewed Tentative Map No. 23373 and recommends that: A water syst. em shall be installed according to plans and specification as approved by the water company and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the water system shall be submitted in triplicate, with · minimum scale not less thin one inch equals 200 feet, alon9 ~ith the original drawing to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and joint specifications, and the size of the main at the junction of the new system to the existing system. The plans shall comply in all respects with Dlv. S, Part 1, Chapter 7 of the California Health and Safety Code, California Administrative Code, Title 22, Chapter 1S, and General Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, vhe,~ applicable. Riverside County Plan~ing Dept. Page1~o Attn: Kathy Gifford June 13, 1988 The plans shall be signed by · registered engineer and water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in Tract Nap 233?3 is accordance with the water system expansion plans of the Rancho Californi& Water District a~d that the water service,storage and distribution system viii be adequate to provide water service to such tract. This certification does not constitute a guarantee that it will supply water to such tract at any specific quantities, flows or pressures for fire protection or any other purpose'. This certification shall be signed by a responsible offici&l of the water This Dep,rtment has a statement from the ~ancho California Water District agreeing to serve domestic water to each and every lot in the subdivision on dem&nd providing satisfactory financial arrangements are completed with the subdivider. It will be ~ecessary for the financial arrangements to be made prior to the recordation of the final map. This Department has a statement from the Eastern Municipal Water District agreeing to allow the subdivision sewage system to be connected to the sewers o~ the District. The sewer system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as &pproved by the District, the County Surveyor and ~he Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the sewer system shall be submitted in triplicate, along with the original drawing, to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of manholes, complete profiles, pipe and joint specifications and the sixe of the sewers at the Junction of the new system to the existing system. A single plat t~dtcating location of sewer lines a~d water lines shall be a portion of the sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and the sewer district with the following certification: 'I certify that the design of the sever system in Tract Hap 2~373 is in accordance with the sewer system expansion plans of the Eastern Hunicipal Water District and that the waste disposal system is adequate at Riverside CourtLy Planning DepL. Page Three ATI~: K&Lhy Gifrord J~ne 13, 1988 this time to treat the snticipeted vastes from the proposed tract,' It viII be uwcessery for financial arrangements to be made prior to the recordsalon or the final map. s el ~h errices SM:tsc PLaNNiNd DEP, :tCMErlC DATE: June 1, 1988 TO: assessor Surveyor - Dave Dude J Road Department .... ' Health - Ralph Luchs ' JUr 16 1988 Fire Protection Flood Control District Fish i LAFCO, S Patsle~ .. o U,S. Postal Service - Ruth E, Davidson RIVERSIDE COUNTy PLANNING DEPA. RTMENT $herlff's Department VESTING TRACT Z3373 - (Sp P1) - E.A. Airports Departn,,nt 32548 -Nat arise Village Development C, UCR, Life Science Dept W.W. Mayhew - Robert BeTh, gilltam Frost & Assoc. GROFJT Rancho California Area - First Easter~. Municipal Water Nst, Rancho'Calffornta k~ter Nst, Elslnore Union School Ifist, - Temecula Union School Dlst. Sierra Club, San Gorgonto Chapter CALTRANS f8 Supervisortel District - N. of Rancho California Road, M, of Kaiser Parkway - R-R Zone - 28 Acres 348 Condomlnium -(RELATEO CASE TR 23371 & 23372) Mad ' A.P. 923-210-023 Please review the case described above, along with the attached case map. A Land Ohhton Corraltree meeting has been tentathely scheduhd for Oune 20, 1988. If it clear it will then go to public hearing. Tour c~nT~,nts and recommendations are requested prior to 3une 5, 1988tn order that we e Include them in the staff report for this particular case. Should you ~ave any questions regarding thts item, Elease do not hesitate to contact Kath~ Gifford at ~87-6356 Planner The~lslnore Union HIgh School District faclllths are overcrowded and our educational programs seriously Impacted by Increasing student population caused b~newresfdenttal, commercial and Industrial construction. Therelores pursuant to California Government Code Section 53080 of AB 2926 and SB 327, this district hvfes a-fee against all new development pro~ects withtn its boundaries. DATE: S1G~IATURE Tq. Fj~S[ prlnt name and tt~l~, Joseph Enserro, Assistant Superintendent 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787-6181 46-209 OASIS STREET. ROOM 30 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 9220 (619) 342-827 q~,TE: 3une 1, 1988' AsSessor kildtn9 and Safety Surveyor - Dave Dude ~ad Oepartment lienlib o Ralph Luchs Fire Protection Flood Control DIstrict Fish & GaBe LAFCO, S PaJslW U.S. Postal Service - Ruth E. Davtdson RIVERSIDE COUNTy PLANNING DEPA. RTMENT S~erlff*s Department AIrports Department FVESTXKG TRACT 23373 - {Sp P1) - E.A. 1 t 32548 - Nat afire Vtl age 0evelopmen 'Co. UCR, Life Science...Dept., V.V. Na.v~ev - Robert Be~n, V~11(m Frost & Assoc. - ~ ' ' ~ncho California A~a - Ft~t Eastern Huntctpal T~ater Nst. Rancho California ~ater Dtst. ETsfnore Union School Dfst. Temecula Union School Diet. Sierra Club, San Gorgonto C~apter CALTRAH$18 $upervlsorlal District - N, of Rancho .California Road, V. of Kaiser Parkway - R-R Zone - 28 Acres 348 Condomlnium units -(RELATEO CASE TR 23371 i 23372) Nod - A.P, 923-210-023 elease revted the case described above, a.long with the attached case map. A Land hision Co,~atttee meeting has been tentsthely scheduled for Oune 20, 1988. [f tt clear~ tt vfil then go to public hearing. Your coements and recommendations are requested prior to aune S, 1988 tn order that we my include the= !n the staff report for this particular case. Should you have any questions regarding this Item, please do not hesitate to contact Kathy Gtfford at 787-635q Planne~ EASTERN INFbRMATION CENTER Archaeological Research Unit Universiity of California Riversldt CA 92521 PLEASE print hare and title 080 LEMON STREET, 9'" FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 (714} 787-6181 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 3Cu INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92~. (619) 342-821' · DATE: June 1, 1988 TO: Assessor Building and Safety Surveyor - Dave I)uda ... Road Department Health - Ralph Luchs FIre Protection Flood Control District FIsh i Game LAFCO, S Patsley U.S. Postal Service - Ruth E. Davidson JUH 13 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Shefiff's Department Airports Department UCR, Life Science Dept., V.V. Hayhew GROFIT EastemNunictpal rarer Dtst. Rancho"Callfornla t4ater Dtst. Elsinore Unton $chool Dist. Temecula Unton School D!st. Sterra Club, San Gorgonto Chapter CALTRAHS #8 VESTING TRACT 23373 - (Sp P1) - E.A. 32548 - Pargarlta Village Development Co - Robert Bein, ~tlltam Frost &Assoc, - - Rancho California Area - First Supervtsorial District - N, of Rancho California Road, ~, of Kaiser Parkway - R-R Zone - 28 Acres 348 Condominfum unit - (RELATED CASE TR 23371 & 23372) Hod - A.P, 923-210-023 Phase revte~ the case described above, along with the attached case map. A Land Dtvlston Committee meeting has been tentathely scheduled for June 20, 1988. If It dears tt w111 then go to publlc heartng, Your comments and recommendations are requested prior to June S, 1988 in order that ~e ma Include them !n the staff report for this particular case, Should you have any questions regarding thts Item, phase do not hesitate to contact Kathy Gtfford at 787-635( Planner. COffifJfrS: ~JUIi ll li. DATE: SIGNATURE PLEASE print name and title 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 ('/14) 787-6181 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORN!A 92201 (619) 342-8277 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 EXHIBITS S\STAFFRP'T%23373,VTM I 5 CITY OF TEMECULA ) VICINITY MAP N.T.S, r ~ EXHIBIT NO. CASE NO.'~Z~ ~P.C. DATE IFN-ql j CITY OF TEMECULA ) 14 ~U~AC f | TY PARK ARGARITA SP / / ?! / THE MEADOWS "" SP 219/' EXHIBIT NO. CASE ~,P.C. DATE I~q-~l ) ~ CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT NO. CASE NO."~I'I'lZ~'~'7~ ~P.C. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA ) " 'C,~E NO.V'1ffiZ}31) ~P.C. OATS I't'.'~-ql ~