Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout022492 PC AgendaAGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING February 24, 1992 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 vour 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 January 27, 1992, and February 3, 1992, Planning Commission Meeting. NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Case No: Applicant: Proposal: Location: Case planner: Substantial Conformance No. 22 Country Inn General Partnership To construct a 10 foot high noise attenuation wall on the east side of the site which is adjacent to Interstate 15. 27706 Jefferson Avenue Matthew Fagan Recommendation: Approval PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Case Planner: Recommendation: Plot Plan 11001, Amd. No.3, Extension of Time David E. Walsh Co. South of Margarita Road, approximately 400 feet east of Moraga Road and 550 feet north of Rancho California Road. Extension of time for Plot Plan No. 11001, an approved plot plan for a 220 unit apartment complex. Matthew Fagan Approval m Case: Applicant: Representative: Proposal: Location: Case Planner: Recommendation: Tentative Tract Map 25338 Dan and Stephanie Sterk/Leigh and Carole Waxman Leigh Waxman Proposed 28 unit condominium subdivision on 2.56 acres. The proposed project is located at the southeast corner of Solana Way and Rycrest Drive. Mark Rhoades Continue off calendar Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Case Planner: Recommendation: Tentative Tract Map No. 23102 Marlborough Development Corporation Northeasterly of the Intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and La Serena Way Second Extension of Time for a 37 lot Residential Subdivision on 16 acres. Mark Rhoades Approval Case: Applicant: Representative: Proposal: Location: Case Planner: Recommendation: Public Use Permit No. 580 Rancho Temecula Bible Church, Paster Kerry Martin Leonard C. Fowler, California Geo Tek, Inc. A request to revise the County approved Public Use Permit No. 580 to grant approval for existing mobile structures used as classrooms. South side of Santiago Road, between I-15 and Ynez Road Saied Naaseh Approval Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Case Planner: Recommendation: Television/Radio Antenna Ordinance City of Temecula City Wide An Ordinance establishing regulations for Television/Radio Antennas John Meyer Approval 2 Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Case Planner: Outdoor Advertising Displays Ordinance City of Temecula City Wide Interim Ordinance establishing regulations Advertising Displays. John Meyer Recommendation: Continued to March 16 meeting for Outdoor The regular scheduled meeting on March 2, 1992 is cancelled. Next meeting: March 16, 1992, 6:00 p.m., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California. Planning Director Report Plannine Commission Discussion Other Business ADJOURNMENT Ib pc/AGN2/24/92 3 ITEM # 2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAYt JANUARY 27t 1992 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order Monday, January 27, 1992, 6:05 P.M., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California. The meeting was called to order by Chairman John E. Hoagland. PRESENT: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey Also present were Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh, Director of Planning Gary Thornhill, Senior Planner Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner John Meyer, Planner Mark Rhoades, Assistant Planner Matthew Fagan, Deputy City Engineer Doug Stewart, Gary King, Community Services Director, Robert Righetti, Department of Public Works, and Minute Clerk Gail Zigler. PUBLIC COMMENT None COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND reviewed the agenda and advised that Item No. 7 would be continued off calendar at the request of the applicant. GARY THORNHILL advised that Item No. 11 would be continued to the meeting of February 3, 1992. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to approve the agenda as amended, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey COMMISSIONER FANEY arrived at 6:08 P.M. 2. MINUTES 2.1 Approval of minutes of January 6, 1992 Planning Commission Meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE8 COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved January 6, 1992, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAMEY. JANUARY 27, 1992 to approve the minutes of AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland COMMISSIONERS: None NOES: 0 NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS PROPOSED SUMMARY VACATION OF NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD Proposed summary vacation of North General Kearny Road, the northeasterly Temecula City Boundary, northeasterly of Nicolas Road. ROBERT RIGHETTI summarized the staff report. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to Adopt Resolution No. 92- (next) recommending the City Council adopt a resolution summarily vacating that portion of North General Kearny Road as recommended by staff, seconded by COMMISSIONER FANEY. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None SELECTION OF COMMISSIONERS SUBCOMMITTEES TO GENERAL PLAN TECHNICAL Selection of two commissioners, Land Use and Economic subcommittees. one each to serve on the Development technical GARY THORNHILL advised that the two appointed members would be meeting in early March to review the data, and provide direction and expertise in the committees' area of focus. After data is received from all the subcommittee meetings, the Planning Center will prepare the draft general plan elements. The technical subcommittees will then meet to review and comment on the draft elements in early May. PCMIN01/27/92 -2- 01/28/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 27, 1992 COMMISSIONER FORD volunteered to sit on the Land Use subcommittee and COMMISSIONER BLAIR volunteered for the Economic Development subcommittee. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to approve the appointment of Commissioner Ford and Commissioner Blair to the General Plan Technical Subcommittees, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS APPEAL NO. 19, APPEAL OF SIGN (PPA 248) An appeal of the Planning Director's Denial of an application for two wall mounted signs. Applicant is West Dallas, located at the Tower Plaza Shopping Center, 27469 Ynez Road. MATTHEW FAGAN summarized the staff report. CMAIRMANHOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 6:20 P.M. MARK TUCKER, West Dallas, stated that they were told during lease negotiations with Bedford, that their sign would be approved. When they designed the sign, staff advised them that they would accept one sign, "West Dallas Western Apparel". Mr. Tucker noted that 49% of his business was boots and he would like to advertise "boots" along with "western apparel". COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF asked the applicant if they could put all the wording on one sign. MARK TUCKER advised that there was an Edison electrical wall that was interfering with the sign being one sign with all wording. Mr. Tucker added that he was not aware until just prior to the meeting, that staff was not recommending the two signs. GARY THORNHILL commented that the real concern besides the number of signs, is the precedent the sign could set for a menu display. PCMIN01/27/92 -3- 01/28/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 27, 1992 CHAIRMJ&NHOAGLAND stated that with the location of "West Dallas" and the Edison electrical wall, this sign is not effective for northbound traffic on the highway. GARY THORNHILL suggested putting one sign at the northerly end of the building which included all that the applicant was proposing. MARK TUCKER stated that if he would have to get with his sign designers to address this suggestion. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND advised Mark Tucker that he was asking the Commission to overturn the ordinance and the Commission does not have that authority; however, there may be other avenues to explore with staff such as applying for a variance to the ordinance. GARY THORNHILL suggested that the Commission continue this item to the second meeting of February to allow staff time to explore other alternatives. JOHN CAVANAUGE advised that the Commission must act on the appeal as it was submitted, which does not prevent the applicant from coming back to the Commission with another proposal. COMMISSIONER FORD stated that he thought that some consideration should be given to the applicant regarding fees, due to the misunderstandings. GARY THORNMILL stated that staff could work that out with the applicant. COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to close the public hearing at 6:45 P.M. and Adopt Resolution No. 92-(next) denying Appeal No. 19 of Administrative Plot Plan No. 248, based analysis and findings contained in the staff report, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAREY. CHAIRM~_NHOAGLAND stated that he would support the motion with the understanding that the applicant will be able to work on some other options with staff. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF stated that the major finding to look at would be 5(c). GARY THORNHILL clarified that there will have to be extraordinary circumstances in Mr. Tucker's situation to support the variance. PCMIN01/27/92 -4- 01/28/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: JANUARY 27, 1992 Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland None 6. PLOT PLAN 242/PM 26664 6.1 Proposal to subdivide 7.1 gross acres into three parcels and construct three industrial buildings totalling 104,577 square feet. Located at the southeast corner of Rancho Way and Business Park Drive. MATTHEW FAGAN summarized the staff report. Matthew Fagan advised that Condition No. 61, Page 28 of the staff report should be deleted and replaced with the following Condition: No. 61 - Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall submit proof of provision for maintenance and repair of all on-site drainage facilities and landscaped parkways as directed by the Department of Public Works. This condition shall be superseded by the recording of alternate CC&R's with the final map. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 6:55 P.M. IDA SANCHEZ, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester Road, Temecula, representing the applicant, requested that Plot Plan Condition No. 16 be modified to delete "Prior to occupancy". Ms. Sanchez also requested that staff consider a dimenimous finding for Condition 29 of the Plot Plan and Condition 22 of the Parcel Map. JOHN CAVANAUGH indicated that staff would not be willing to make that finding. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF questioned the wall along the easterly portion of the property. IDA SANCHEZ indicated that the applicant was conditioned to put that wall in by the County. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF asked that staff include that condition as well. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF stated that he would like staff to ensure that the landscaping along Rancho Way looking down PCMIN01/27/92 -5- 01/28/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 27, 1992 the backside of the building be fairly dense. ROBERT RIGHETTI read the following two paragraphs to be included on Page 24 after the "Public Works Department": The following are the Public Works Department's 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 Condition shall be referred to the Public Works 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. Mr. Righetti stated that these two paragraphs should also appear on Page 34, inserted just before the heading "Prior to recordation of the final map". COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to close the public hearing at 7:00 P.M. and Adopt the Negative Declaration for Plot Plan No. 242 and Parcel Map No. 26664 Amendment No. 2 and recommend AdoPtion of Resolution 92-(next] approving Plot Plan No. 242 and Resolution No. 92-(next) approving Parcel Map No. 26664, Amendment No. 2 based on the analysis and findings contained in the staff report and modify the Conditions of Approval by deleting "Prior to Occupancy", Condition No. 16; continuous block wall on the easterly side of the property; replace Condition No. 61 as read by staff and add Condition by Public Works Department, seconded by COMMISSIONER BLAIR. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PLOT 7.1 PLAN 233, REVISED NO. I Proposal to construct a 1,270 square foot outdoor playground and patio addition to the southern elevation of the subject building. Applicant Bernard Karcher/BKL, Inc. GARY THORNHILL advised that the applicant was requesting a continuance to allow time to clarify outstanding issues between themselves and the owners of the property. PCMIN01/27/92 -6- 01/28/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES COMMISSIONER FORD moved to Revised No. 1 off calendar, FAHEY. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: NOES: 0 Continue seconded JANUARY 27, 1992 Plot Plan 233, by COMMISSIONER Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland COMMISSIONERS: None 8. THIRD TIME EXTENSION PARCEL HAP NO. 22629 Proposal for third extension of time residential subdivision on 4.8 acres. west side of Green Tree Lane, 300 feet Road. for a four lot Located on the North of Pauba HATTHEW FAGAN summarized the staff report. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 7:05 P.M. ROBERT VAN HOUGHTON, Centennial Engineering, 28480 Highway 74, Suite E, Romoland, questioned the Quimby Fee Requirement and stated that he concurred with the staff report. GARY .THORNHILL advised that the requirement for Quimby Fees was in the original conditions, this was just a rewording of the requirement which would replace the previous condition. BOB PIPHER, 41825 Green Tree Road, Temecula, stated that he thought that both this development and the next proposed development should be brought together somehow. KENNETH WILCH, 2440 S. Hacienda Heights, Hacienda Heights, California, representing the applicant on the next project, questioned why this developer was not required to do road improvements to obtain access off of Green Tree Road. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND suggested that Mr. Wilch discuss this with staff. JOHN TELESIO, 31760 Via Telesio, Temecula, indicated that he has been supportive of this project since it's inception. He stated that the developer had agreed that the centerline of Via Telesio would be offset to have the road width placed within the easement favoring the south PCMIN01/27/92 -7- 01/28/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 27, 1992 side and asked that staff reaffirm that understanding. ROBERT RIGHETTI indicated that staff concurred with Mr. Telesio's understanding and the project has been conditioned to reflect that understanding. Also, Condition 11, Item A, notes that staff reduced the street section to 24' even though a typical street section is 36'. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to close the public hearing at 7:20 P.M. and Reaffirm the previously adopted Negative Declaration for Tentative Parcel Map No. 22629 and Approve the Third Extension of Time for Tentative Parcel Map No. 22629, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 26521 Proposal for a 10 Lot Residential Subdivision on 11 acres. Located on the northeast corner of Green Tree Road and Grapevine. MARK RHOADES summarized the staff report. Mark Rhoades modified the following Conditions of Approval: No. 33 - "Prior to recordation of the final map the applicant or his assignee shall conform to Ordinance No. 460.93 Quimby by paying in full to the City of Temecula TCSD the fair market value of .13 acres of land as determined by the TCSD. The following item is a point of clarification from the Public Works Department and reads as follows "In order to relieve any ambiguity of Condition of Approval No. 80, staff recommends that the condition be revised to read as follows: No. 80 - A 28' wide paved access road to Pauba Road via Green Tree Road shall be provided within a recorded road easement as approved by the Department of Public Works. A turn-around bulb with a 38' minimum radius shall be provided at the intersection of Green Tree Road and Grape Vine. PCMIN01/27/92 -8- 01/28/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 27, 1992 CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF asked if staff met with the applicant to discuss alternative access routes. ROBERT RIGHETTI stated that staff did meet with the applicant and the engineer and looked at Green Tree from Pauba, driving that area in the rain. No decisions were made at that time as to other alternatives. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 7:25 P.M. KENNETH WILCH, 2440 S. Hacienda Boulevard, Hacienda Heights, representing the applicant, stated that the outstanding issue at the last two hearings was the off- site improvements and the width of those improvements. He added that they did not discuss the extension of Grapevine out to Pauba. Mr. Wilch added that they had been trying to work with the homeowners but they were strongly opposed to that. The way the conditions were written it still gave the applicant the option to do that; however, the rewording of the conditions reads that the only option is to take Green Tree to Pauba. Mr. Wilch stated that the understanding that they had during discussions in the field was that they would be required to provide a 24' width road and Condition No. 80 now reads 28' wide paved secondary access. COMMISSIONER FAHEY expressed confusion regarding the applicant's concern regarding the width of the private road, which she understood as a requirement for the turnaround bulb. MR. WILCH stated that he did not have a problem with the turnaround bulb, but with the width requirement for the 36' streets he felt was excessive for the rural environment. ROBERT RIGEETTI stated that staff considered this as the primary access to the subdivision which was why they planned the roadway as proposed. The County is considering a new policy, which states the larger type parcels will provide for a 28' road. Mr. Righetti stated that many private street residents are asking the City to take over maintenance of their roads and in order for the City to do that, they have to be brought up to City standards, which can be very costly. This road does serve as a residential collector road. BOB PIPER, 41825 Green Tree Road, Temecula, advised that 97% of the residents in this area have requested that the area remain rural, which would be a 24' road without PCMIN01/27/92 -9- 01/28/92 PLANNIN3 COMMISSION MINUTES JKNUARY 27, 1992 curb, gutter, street light and sidewalk. He also asked that the developer's CC&R's be mixed with the existing CC&R's. JOHN TELESIO, 31760 Via Telesio, Temecula, stated that he concurred with the applicant's points regarding the rural environment of this area. DONALD G~MAN, 41725 Calle Cedro, Temecula, stated that he was against the City's requirement that the applicant install curb, gutter, sidewalks and street lights. TONY BARRY, 41837 Calle Cedro, Temecula, stated that he was opposed to curbs, gutters, street lights and sidewalks. Mr. Barry also expressed a concern that Calle Cedro could be damaged during construction and requested provisions be written to ensure the road is returned to its present condition if such damage occurs. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF asked if Condition 38 and Condition 80 were in conflict. ROBERT RIGHETTI stated that Green Tree Road for the area along the front of this project, would be designed to City standard No. 104, Section B, but this is where the actual improvements would fall in the actual centerline of the street. He clarified that the curb and gutter was to be on Rancho Vista, not Green Tree or the private street. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF stated that he thought there was a shorter route to get out of this development and the Commission has indicated in the past that they are looking for some sort of paved route for emergency vehicles. COMMISSIONER FORD stated that he was concerned that improvements are being done; however, the roads still do not meet City standards. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND stated that the City did not know if there is going to be a rural standard in the future. He added that he felt that the development had to have a paved access. ROBERT RIGHETTI advised that on Page 17, just after Department of Public Works it should say "Prior to recordation of the Final Map". Additionally, Mr. Righetti stated that two paragraphs were not added and read them as follows: PCMIN01/27/92 -10- 01/28/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE8 JANUARY 27, 1992 The following are the Public Works Department's 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 Condition shall be referred to the Public Works 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. Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Sub-division Map Act any sub-division which is part of an existing assessment district must comply with said section. MARK RHOADES clarified that Conditions 22 and 33 would be deleted and the Condition he read during the staff report would be added. MARK RHOADES asked if Conditions 48 and 50 applied solely to Rancho Vista Road. DOUG STEWART stated that the only street that gets full street improvements is Rancho Vista Road. He modified Condition No. 50 to read "Street lights, curb and gutter, sidewalks shall be provided only along Rancho Vista Road adjoining the subject site, etc". All other street standards will be referred back to Conditions No. 36 - 40. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to close the public hearing at 8:00 P.M. and Adopt Resolution No. 92-1next) Adopting the Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract Map No. 26521 and Adopt Resolution No. 92-(next) approving Tentative Tract Map No. 26521, and delete Condition No. 22, delete No. 33 and replace with Quimby Act Condition as read, modify Public Works Section, Modify and amend Condition 80 as read, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None CHAIPa4~a~ HOAGLAND declared a recess at 8:00 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 8:10 P.M. CHAIRMAN HOAGLA~) stated that he would like to clarify why the Commission voted in favor of staff's PCMIN01/27/92 -11- 01/28/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MIlq~TE8 JANUARY 27, 1992 recommendations. Chairman Hoagland stated that he voted in favor of staff's recommendation to provide a paved access back this development for emergency vehicles. COMMISSIONER FORD stated that this was a sub-division tract map and the sizing of the lots, and following what the Council recommended on previous approvals, was to lean toward rural standards as they relate to larger lots. Both the City staff and Planning Commission has agreed that certain improvements have been reduced within the tract; however, offsite, they have been conditioned to provide a paved access which is Green Tree. The improvements that have been reduced are street lights, curb and gutter and sewer. 0e CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 18; AND SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 219, AMENDMENT NO. 2 10.1 Proposal to amend the boundary of the Paloma Del Sol (formerly the Meadows) Specific Plan to include Planning Area No. 36. Located on the southeast corner of Margarita Road and DePortola Road. MARK RHOADES summarized the staff report. CBAIRMANHOAGL3&ND opened the public hearing at 8:20 P.M. KEITH MCCANN, JR., 43121 Margarita Road, Temecula, made comments and requested modifications to the following: condition No. 8 requires an archeological study be done on the property which he stated he felt was redundant. Mr. McCann referred to the property being in use for many years. Condition No. 15 requires the submission of a biological report; however, areas No. 10 and No. 25 are the only two areas showing evidence of potential K-Rat habitat. Mr. McCann advised that disking is being done to the property on a regular basis for fire mitigation. Condition No. 16 requested verification of the requirement for payment to Fish and Game, which he requested to be put off until Plot Plan submission of approval. Staff indicated that they would not be willing to amend that Condition. PCMIN01/27/92 -12- 01/28/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 27, 1992 MR. MCCANN. questioned what staff considered the meaning of a "strip center", referring to the memo by Gary Thornhill to the Planning Commission. MR. MCCANN reviewed the landscape exhibits with the Commission. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF asked Mr. McCann if he received a copy of the letter from the School District and if he had any problem with the letter. MR. MCCANNstated that yes he did have a problem with the letter. Mr. McCann stated that he felt the School Board may not have had all the facts relating to the proposed project and the overall area when preparing their recommendation. CHAIEMANHOAGLANDasked if the applicant would be willing to amend the Specific Plan to include Area No. 1. MR. MCCANNstated that if it would make it more efficient then he had no problem with it. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND stated that he was very concerned with this 2 1/2 acres developing prematurely. LETTIE BOGGS, representing the Temecula Valley Unified School District, 31350 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, clarified the comments and recommendations made by the letter from the school district. She stated that the primary issue is the health and welfare of the students and staff at this site. The items that were marked were reasons of environmental safety, as well as attractive nuisance issues, unsuitable neighbor issues and traffic impacts. The way that staff marked the criteria was to create a buffer area between the school and the commercial area to the south and east of the area. COMMISSIONER FORD stated that he had a problem with the school district telling the City that you could not have a plumbing shop because some trucks will be coming into it, or you cannot have a fast food business because the kids would want to go there or a mail order business because there may be some shipping involved. NAYREE DAVIS, 28895 Vallejo, Temecula, speaking on behalf of the Los Ranchitos Homeowner's Association, stated for the record they were in opposition to a zone change at this time. Ms. Davis stated that if the Association were in favor of this zone change, which they are not, it PCMIN01/27/92 -13- 01/28/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 27, 1992 would be the responsibility of the Association to strongly oppose a possible City sanctioned zone change, before the CC&R issue is resolved first. Ms. Davis added that in order to build anything other than a single family dwelling, the Association would have to provide the legal consent of 51% of the voters. CHAIRMAN CNINIAEFF stated that he did not feel it was the City's obligation to step in and enforce the CC&Rs. This property is located at the intersection of two major arterials and surrounded by another forty acres of commercial development approved in the Specific Plan and this is not the location for a residence. KEITN MCCANNstated that he met with Bob Coslens, of the Temecula Unified School District on December 12, 1991, and asked what the school district's concerns were and Mr. Coslens stated that they were only concerned about beer and wine, therefore in the planning stages, the school districts concerns were recognized. GARY THORNHILL clarified that the City did not represent anything to the applicant with respect to the school district's wishes. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF stated again that he did not feel that this was an appropriate place for a residence. Mr. Chiniaeff also stated that he thought that the school board's list is very prohibitive. Commissioner Chiniaeff added that he was concerned about the development of this property in concert with the surrounding property. Mr. Chiniaeff stated that he thought it was premature to zone this property commercial until the general plan has been completed. COMMISSIONER FAHEY stated that she also thought is was premature to re-zone this area prior to the completion of the general plan. Commissioner Fahey stated that she felt that the commercial would be in conflict with the residential as well as the school. COMMISSIONER FANEY moved to Deny Change of Zone No. 18; and Specific Plan Amendment No. 219, Amendment No. 2, seconded by COMMISSIONER BLAIR. COMMISSIONER FAHEY amended her motion to close the public hearing as well at 8:55 P.M., COMMISSIONER BLAIR concurred. PCMIN01/27/92 -14- 01/28/92 PLANNIN~ COMMISSION HINUTES The Commission decided to take explain their reasons for recommendation. The clerk took a roll call vote as COMMISSIONER BLAIR: YES a JANUARY 27, 1992 roll call vote and voting for staff follows: Development could be inconsistent with the general plan. Would prefer that the Commission wait and work within the confines of the general plan. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF: YES COMMISSIONER FANEY: YES Property will eventually be commercial; however, the determination of how it fits into the larger scheme is best determined in the general plan and that process is yet to be completed. Premature change of zoning in light of the absence of a completed general plan. While the resldential area is in conflict and not appropriately buffered with plan commercial, commercial would not be appropriately buffered next to the school either so there is a conflict there. Also, since this is a discretionary action, that while the Commission does not have to vote and consider the CC&R'S, the Commission has PCMIN01/27/92 -15- 01/28/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES COMMISSIONER FORD: CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND: NO YES JANUARY 27, 1992 the privilege to do so. Ms. Fahey concluded that she was not in favor of overriding the CC&R ' s. Believes that the project will be consistent with the future general plan because of the nature of the resldential being surrounded by other commercial. Due to the fact that the roads are major arterial roads and will carry large volumes of traffic, it creates a natural separation. The CC&R's which are existing on it are a function of the homeowner's, that will have to be worked out with the applicant, and the Commission is not to be concerned with the CC&R's. Also, this project could be brought into a consistency level with the Specific Plan commercial with what is proposed there if properly oonditioned. Believes that this is a premature zone change. There is a posslbillty that it may be commercial at sometime; however, it may not be and what the ultimate PCMIN01/27/92 -16- 01/28/92 PLANNING COMMISSION HINUTES JANUARY 27, 1992 solution in the general plan is, is not clear now. It would be tragic to jump into a decision at this time, with a better solution in the near future. 11. OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAYS ORDINANCE 11.1 Interim Ordinance establishing regulations for Outdoor Advertising Displays city wide. COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to continue Outdoor Advertising Display Ordinance to February 24, 1992, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 12. AMENDMENT OF ORDINANCE 90-19 12.1 Proposal by the City of Temecula to amend Ordinance 90-19 establishing decision making authority for sub-division and land use applications, City of Temecula City boundaries. GARY THORNHILL reviewed the revised Approval Authority Ordinance. After Commission discussion, the following amendments were recommended: No. 3 No. 8 No. 11 No. 18 No. 20 No. 21 No. No. No. No. 22 23 24 27 Planning Commission Approval Planning Director Approval Planning Commission Approval Planning Commission Approval Planning Commission Approval Exceeding six months, Planning Commission Approval Planning Commission Approval Planning Commission Approval Planning Commission Approval Planning commission Approval PCMIN01/27/92 -17- 01/28/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ANUARY 27, 1992 CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 9:30 P.M. RUSSELL RUMANSOFF, 27349 Jefferson Avenue, representing the Temecula/Murrieta ABC Expediting Committee, indicated their support of staff's approach to streamline the approval process. LARRY MARKHAM, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester Road, Temecula, concurred with staff's approval authority proposal. STEVE ALQUIST, 31265 Infield, Temecula, Vice President of the Economic Development Corporation, concurred with staff's recommendation to streamline the process. PAT PARTON, 38605 Highway 79, Temecula, Executive Assistant for the Economic Development Corporation, very supportive of this process. GARY THORNHILL stated that parking adjustments are done at staff level. He also stated that any time there is an accompanying general plan change or re-zoning, everything will trail with that application and go on to the highest approval authority. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to continue Ordinance 92- (next] to the meeting of February 3, 1992, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Moagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT GARY THORNHILL updated the Commission on the , following items: Meeting scheduled for January 29, 1992, to select the firm for the Old Town Redevelopment Committee. Planning Commissioner's Institute April 9 - 11, 1992 in Anaheim. Growth Management Seminar in Sacramento, February 20, 1992. Possible joint luncheon with the Murrieta Planning Commission. PCMIN01/27/92 -18- 01/28/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 27, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION COMMISSIONER BLAIR asked what the follow-up procedure is for requests requirements. Commissioner Blair indicated that the landscape screening for Wincston Tires winchester s implemented as requested by the Commission. She also stated that the landscape planrings at Costco were not what the Commission had stipulated. GARY THORNHILL stated that staff would follow-up on those two items. COMMISSIONER FAHEY advised that she would not be present at the meeting of February 24, 1992, due a previously scheduled vacation. OTHER BUSINESS JOHN MEYER advised of the following joint City Council/Planning Commission meetings regarding the general plan: February 5, 1992 February 26, 1992 March 25, 1992 Commissioner Hoagland stated that he would not be attending these meetings due to previous commitments. Commissioner Fahey stated that she would not be present at the meeting of February 26, 1992, due to a previously scheduled vacation. ADJOURNMENT COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to adjourn at 10:00 P.M., seconded by COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF and carried unanimously. The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission will be held Monday, February 3, 1992, 6:00 P.M., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California. Chairman John E. Hoagland Secretary PCMIN01/27/92 -19- 01/28/92 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1992 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to Order Monday, February 3, 1992, 6:05 P.M., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California. The meeting was called to order by Chairman John E. Hoagland. PRESENT: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey Also present were Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh, Director of Planning Gary Thornhill, Senior Planner Debbie Ubnoske, Planner Mark Rhoades, Assistant Planner Matthew Fagan, Deputy City Engineer Doug Stewart, Robert Righetti, Department of Public Works, and Minute Clerk Gail Zigler. PUBLIC COMMENT None COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to approve the agenda as mailed, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. 2. MINUTES CHAIRMAN HOAGLANDadvised that approval of the minutes of January 27, 1992 would be continued to the meeting of February 24, 1992. NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 3. SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE NO. 21 Proposal to construct an ATM kiosk in the parking lot of an existing commercial center. Located at the northeast corner of Front Street and Moreno Road. MARK RHOADES summarized the staff report. Mr. Rhoades advised that the Old Town Historical Committee suggested that the aluminum frame mullions be wood. Staff has proposed that the orange tile wall be deleted and replaced with stucco. MIKE PADBERG, 530 Broadway, Suite 1500, San Diego, representing San Diego Trust and Savings Bank, advised the Commission that they were asked to match the shopping center as well as possible. Mr. Padberg stated that the orange tile proposed for the front is standard for off- site kiosks and the orange is a trademark. Mr. Padberg added that the tile protects against vandalism. Mr. Padberg also requested that the mullions on the sun screen remain aluminum. MARK RHOADES stated that staff's recommendation is a little flexible. He added that the applicant can keep the tile; however, staff would recommend that the color be changed. COMMISSIONER BLAIR stated that she would concur with the modifications by the Old Town Committee; however, understands the applicants need for a grafitti proof surface. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND stated that he was in support of the kiosk; however, he respected the wishes of the Old Town Committee and would recommend wood frame molds on the front of the sun screem. Chairman Hoagland stated that he would leave the decision up to staff on the color of the tile. COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to Direct staff to issue a letter of Substantial Conformance in accordance with Exhibit "A" and to include wood frame mullions in place of aluminum on the sunscreen and work with the applicant for an alternative to the burnt orange tile, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 4. TENTATIVE PARCEL HAP NO. 27198 4.1 Request to subdivide 6.37 acres into 5 lots existing Industrial Park located at 43218, 43234, 43264 and 43280 Business Park Drive. MARK RHOADES summarized the staff report. PCMIN02/03/92 -2- at an 43250, 02/05/92 CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 6:25 P.M. ANITA MILLER, Engineering Ventures, 43500 Ridge Park Drive, representing the applicant, asked for clarification of the following Conditions of Approval: Condition No. 13, Gary Thornhill advised that this condition could be deleted. Condition No. 15, Ms. Miller indicated that she was advised a letter would be sufficient. Condition No. 21, Doug Stewart advised that the purpose of this condition was to allow the cable company to place conduit in front of the building. Condition No. 22, Ms. Miller indicated that this condition refers to prior to the building permits; however, the buildings are almost complete. JOHN CAVANAUGH advised that this condition should read "Prior to the issuance of occupancy permit". Condition No. 23, Ms. Miller stated that although the applicant feels that everyone should pay their fair share, he has already paid 7% of one signal and 11% of another and the applicant feels that he has paid to much. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND asked if the applicant receives credit for what they have previously paid for. DOUG STEWART advised that signal mitigation fees are applied to regional off-site impacts. These signals do not fall into that category, therefore the applicant has been requested to pay their fair share. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to close the public hearing at 6:30 P.M. and Reaffirm Environmental Assessment No. 33338 for Tentative Parcel Map No. 27198 and Adopt Resolution 92-(next) approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 27198, based on the analysis and findings contained in the staff report and subject to the Conditions of Approval, deleting Condition No. 13 and modifying Condition No. 15 to read "Prior to issuance of Occupancy Permit", seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey PCMIN02/03/92 -3- 02/05/92 TENTATIVE P/~CEL N~P NO. 27232 Proposal to subdivide 6.31 acres into 3 parcels on Plot Plan No. 18, approved, located at the northwest corner of Lyndie Lane and Rancho California Road. MARK RHOADES summarized the staff report. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND asked if the County did not make the applicant pay the Negative Declaration fees, why do they have to pay now. JOHN CAVANAUGH stated that this was a new and separate project and staff could require them to pay the fees. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND stated that he changing the lines on a map, to have impact. did not consider any environmental COMMISSIONER FORD stated that the law applied to projects that are not graded, and the applicant's project was not graded. MARK RHOADES stated that staff is reaffirming a previous environmental assessment and will be filing a Notice of Determination with the County. GARY THORNHILL stated that when you are reaffirming a previous Negative Declaration, that is usually done one time. JOHN CAVANAUGH advised that after discussions with the Planning Director, and due to the fact that a Notice of Determination had been filed on the initial Plot Plan, he suggested that Condition No. 15 be deleted. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF asked if there was a provision in the conditions which precluded any parcel being developed prior to another. ROBERT RIGHETTI stated the conditions written to the map treats the entire map as one unit and any grading on the map would be done as a whole. If the plot plans coming in separately from the map and the applicant files for a grading plan, the plot plans have been conditioned to provide sufficient grading work and site improvements, to carry the plot plan and adjacent units that have to go in. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 6:40 P.M. PCMIN02/03/92 -4- 02/05/92 MARK ASPENSEN, Winchester Development Group, 27311 Jefferson, stated that they were in concurrence except for Condition No. 63, and asked if this condition required a new traffic study. Mr. Aspensen advised that the applicant has already done a traffic study and they are doing the traffic signal. ROBERT RIGHETTI advised that this Condition was written to allow a focused traffic study. COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to close the public hearing at 6:45 P.M. and Reaffirm the Environmental Assessment completed for Plot Plan No. 18, Tentative Parcel Map No. 27232 and Adopt Resolution 92-(next) approving Tentative Parcle Map No. 27232, based on the analysis and findings contained in the staff report and subject to the Conditions of Approval, deleting Condition No. 15, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey PARCEL MAP NO. 27239, AMENDED NO. I Proposal to subdivide 13.94 acres into six (6) parcels, located at the westerly side of Ynez Road and northerly of Winchester Road. MATTHEW FAGAM summarized the staff report. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to close the public hearing at 6:55 P.M. and Adopt the Negative Declaration for Tentative Parcel Map No. 27239, Amended No. 1 and Adopt Resolution No. 92-(next) approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 27239, Amended No. i based on the analysis and findings contained in the staff report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey PCMIN02/03/92 -5- 02/05/92 7. AMENDMENT OF ORDINANCE 90-19 7.1 Proposal to amend Ordinance 90-19 which establish the decision making process. GARY THORNHILL advised that this item would be passed on to the City Council. PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT GARY THORNHILL reminded the Commission of the joint meeting with the City Council on Wednesdy, February 5, 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to adjourn at 7:00 P.M., seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. The next meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission will be on Monday, February 24, 1992. Chairman John E. Hoagland Secretary PCMIN02/03/92 -6- 02/05/92 ITEM # 3 STAFF REPORT ~ PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION February 24, 1992 Case No.: Substantial Conformance No. 22 Prepared By: Matthew Fagan RECOMMENDATION: DIRECT Staff to approve Substantial Conformance No. 22 subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Country Inn General Partnership REPRESENTATIVE: Larry Hansen, LLH Construction, Inc. PROPOSAL: To construct a 10 foot high noise attenuation wall on the east side of the Best Western Country Inn which is adjacent to I-15. LOCATION: 27706 Jefferson Avenue EXISTING ZONING: C-1/C-P (General Commercial) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) M-M (Manufacturing-Medium) Interstate 15 M-SC (Manufacturing-Service Commercial) PROPOSED ZONING: Not requested EXISTING LAND USE: Motel SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Vacant Offices Interstate 15 Offices/Shopping Center PROJECT STATISTICS Height of Wall: Length of Wall: Location of Pilasters: 10 feet 190 feet 19 feet on center S%STAFFRPT%22SC.PC BACKGROUND Plot Plan No. 7549 for a 61 unit motel was approved by the Riverside County Planning Director on June 29, 1984. Traffic on Interstate 15 has increased greatly between 1984 and the present. Substantial Conformence No. 22 was submitted to the City of Temecula Planning Department on September 26, 1991. It proposes to mitigate noise impacts to the Motel from Interstate 15. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on October 3, 1991. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Substantial Conformance No. 22 is an application for the construction of a 10 foot high, 190 foot long noise attenuation wall which is on the eastern side of the Best Western County Inn. The Motel is located adjacent to Interstate 15 and takes access from Jefferson Avenue. The proposed wall is to be located approximately 20-32 feet from the existing motel. It will connect to the building as displayed in Exhibit D. The proposed wall would be located at the top of a slope which is within the CALTRANS right-of-way for Interstate 15. Staff was concerned with the height of the wall as well as visibility from I-15. ANALYSIS Desion & Color of Walls Staff was concerned with the initial design of the noise attenuation wall. The original design called for a continuous block wall which would be 190 feet in length. Staff recommended that the wall contain some relief which would create a more visually aesthetic wall along Interstate 15. The applicant resubmitted a design which included pilasters located 19 feet on center. The pilasters will consist of larger concrete blocks than those which comprise the wall. This design offered the relief which Staff had recommended. Staff was also concerned with the colors of the pilasters and the wall. Condition of Approval No. 8 will assure that the colors of these will be reflective of the motel. Acoustical Study Staff requested that the applicant supply an acoustical study which would provide information relative to the noise levels on the site. Staff also requested information which would display the effectiveness of the proposed 10 foot high wall. The applicant expressed that the noise study was an expense that he did not want to incur and asked that Substantial Conformance No. 22 be scheduled for the next available Planning Commission meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: DIRECT Staff to approve Substantial Conformance No. 22 subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. vgw S\STAFFRPT~22SC,PC 2 Attachments: Conditions of Approval - page 4 Exhibits - page 7 a. Vicinity Map b. SWAP Map c. Zoning Map d. Site Plan e. Elevations ATTACHMENT NO. 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL S%STAFFRPT',22SC.PC 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Substantial Conformance No. 22 Project Description: Construct a 10 foot high noise attenuation wall located on the east side of the Best Western Country Inn which is adjacent to Interstate 15. Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-040-036 Planning Department The use hereby permitted by this substantial conformance is for the construction of a 10 foot high noise attenuation wall located on the east side of the Best Western Country Inn which is adjacent to Interstate 15. 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. 22. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on Substantial Conformance No. 22 marked Exhibit "D" or as amended by these conditions. Architectural design of the proposed wall shall reflect construction elements/colors of the existing motel (reference Exhibit E). The applicant shall comply with the Public Works Department's Conditions of Approval which are included herein. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance and/or permits from the following agencies: Planning Department Engineering Department Caltrans S\STAFFRPT\22SC.PC 5 Wall elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit "E" and shall be submitted for Planning Department approval prior to the issuance of building permits. Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit "E" (Color Elevations). Prior to the issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the installation of walls, in accordance with the approved plan. 10. The wall shall be coated with a substance which make the clean up of any graffiti more feasible. The wall shall be maintained in a graffiti free manner by the owner. Building and Safety Department 11. Submit engineer designed structural details and calculations of wall for plan review. Structural details and calculations must be stamped with wet signature of an appropriately registered engineer. Public Works Department 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 personnel of the Department of Public Works. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY PERMITS: 12. The developer shall submit two (2) prints of a precise wall construction plan for the area where wall is to be constructed. Plan shall show existing slopes, right-of-way, property lines and drainage facilities. Plan shall be submitted on 24" x 36" sheets. 13. Clearance from CalTrans will be required for any work performed adjacent to their right-of-way, ATTACHMENT NO. 2 EXHIBITS CITY OF TEMECULA I I I I I I I I I I CASE NO.: EXHIBIT: A P.C. DATE: Substantial Conformance No. 22 February 24, 1992 VICINITY MAP CITY OF TEMECULA · \ \ '' RLI SITE CASE NO.: EXHIBIT: B P.C. DATE: Substantial Conformance No. 22 February 24, 1992 SWAP MAP S~TAFFI~22SC,PC CITY OF TEMECULA SITE CASE NO.: Substantial Conformance No. 22 EXHIBIT: C P.C. DATE: February 24, 1992 ZONING MAP S~TAFFRuI~22SC.PC CITY OF TEMECULA 't ,====== . ~ . I t ~ ~ I"=qO~ CASE NO.: Substantial Conformance EXHIBIT: D P.C. DATE: February 24, 1992 SITE PLAN S\STAFFRPT%22SC.PC ITEM # 4 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION February 24, 1992 Case No.: Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3, Extension of Time Prepared By: Matthew Fagan RECOMMENDATION: REAFFIRM the previously adopted Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 33522; and ADOPT Resolution 92-4 approving the Extension of Time for Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the staff report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: David E. Walsh Co. - A California Construction General Partner of Rancho Racquet Club Association REPRESENTATIVE: J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc. PROPOSAL: Extension of Time for Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3 an approved plot plan for a 220 unit apartment complex. LOCATION: South of Margarita Road, approximately 400 feet east of Moraga Road and 550 feet north of Rancho California Road. EXISTING ZONING: R-3-2,750 SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: R-1 (One-Family Dwellings) R-3-3,000/R-3 (General Residential) R-3-2,500 (General Residential) R-3-3,000 (General Residential) PROPOSED ZONING: Not requested EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Single Family Residence Vacant/Graded Vacant Apartments PROJECT STATISTICS Land Area: Landscape Area: Total Number of Units: Parking Spaces Required: Parking Spaces Provided: 13.8 acres 287,811 square feet (47% coverage) 220 503 510 BACKGROUND Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3 was approved by the Riverside County Planning Commission on December 6, 1989. The City of Temecula City Council approved Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3 on February 13, 1990. On December 17, 1991, an Extension of Time was requested for Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3. A Development Review Committee Meeting (DRC) was held on January 16, 1992. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3 Extension of Time is a request for a one year extension to the original approval period for the project. The original application for Plot Plan No. 11001 was for a 220-unit apartment complex to be located on approximately 13.8 acres. The proposed Extension of Time is not requesting any changes from the previously approved Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3. ANALYSIS Ordinance No. 91-09 amended Article 18.30 (f) of Ordinance No. 348 pertaining to extensions of time approval periods for plot plans. Section 18.30 (f) specifies that an extension of time may be granted by the Planning Commission upon a determination that a valid reason exists for the applicant not using the approval within the required period of time. It is Staff's opinion that the applicant supplied a valid reason for requesting an extension of time for Plot Plan No. 11001. With respect to Plot Plan 11001, Amended No. 3 a construction loan commitment from their bank had expired (Reference Attachment No. 6, a letter dated December 12, 1991 from the applicant explaining their request for an extension of time). Section 18.30 (f) further specifies that if an extension is granted, the total time allowed for use of the approval shall not exceed a period of three (3) years, calculated from the effective date of the approval. If the extension of time is granted, the expiration date for the approval will be February 13, 1993. EXISTING ZONING, SWAP AND FUTURE GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY Change of Zone No. 5385 was approved concurrently with Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3 on December 6, 1989 by the Riverside County Planning Commission. The existing zoning of the site created by Change of Zone No. 5385 is R-3-2,750 (General Residential). The Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP) designation for the site is 8-16 du/acre. Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3 Extension of Time, as conditioned, is consistent with existing zoning and the SWAP designation for the site. As such, it is likely that Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3 Extension of Time will be consistent with the City's General Plan recommendations for the property in question, upon the plan' final adoption. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Environmental Assessment No. 33522 was completed for this site in conjunction with Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3 and a Negative Declaration was adopted by the City of Temecula City Council on February 13, 1992. At that time, environmental issues were mitigated for the project through conditions of approval. The proposed Extension of Time does not indicate any changes to the previously approved Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3. Staff therefore recommends that the Planning Commission re-affirm the previously adopted Negative Declaration. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3 Extension of Time was filed with City of Temecula Planning Department on December 17, 1991. The previously approved Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3 proposed a 220-unit apartment complex located on approximately 13.8 acres. The applicant is proposing no alterations to the previously approved Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3. Ordinance No. 91-09 amended Section 18.30 (f) of Ordinance No. 348 pertaining to Extension of Time approval periods for Plot Plans. Under Ordinance No. 91-09, a Plot Plan's approval period may be extended one (1) year, in addition to the previous approval period of two (2) years, for a total of three (3) years. The applicant supplied valid reasons for their request, which is required under Ordinance No. 91-09. The proposed Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3 Extension of Time is consistent with the existing zoning designation of R-3-2,750 (General Residential, minimum lot size 2,750 square feet) and the SWAP designation of 8-16 du/acre. As such, it is likely that Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3 Extension of Time will be consistent with the future General Plan upon its adoption. An Environmental Assessment was completed for Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3 and a Negative Declaration was adopted by the City of Temecula City Council on February 13, 1990. FINDINGS There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3 Extension of Time will be consistent with the City's future adopted General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law. Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3 Extension of Time is a residential project. The proposed site is designated as residential by SWAP. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. If the proposed use is inconsistent, it will not be detrimental because of the residential nature of surrounding uses. Single family residential uses are located to the north of the site, and multi-family uses are located to the west. The existing zoning is for general residential uses to the south and east. The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws. The proposed use complies with local planning and zoning laws which are prepared in conformance with State planning and zoning laws. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use. The proposed Plot Plan, Extension of Time is in conformance with Ordinance No. 348. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare. Potential impacts are mitigated to a level of non-significance under the previously completed Environmental Assessment and through Conditions of Approval. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk, height, intensity, and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties, through appropriate building mass reduction techniques and landscape installation, and distance from planned adjacent structures. 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 to the existing R-3-2,750 zoning and SWAP 8-16 du/ac designation. Zoning on adjacent sites is R-l, R-3-2,500, R-3-3,000 and R-3. The SWAP designation on adjacent si~es is 8-16 du/ac. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. The project will take access from Margarita Road. The design of the project, the type of improvements, and the resulting street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project. The project has a adequate circulation throughout the entire site. 10. Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. This Staff Report contains mapping and Conditions of Approval which support the Staff recommendation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: REAFFIRM the previously adopted Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 33522; and ADOPT Resolution 92-__ approving the Extension of Time for Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the staff report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. vgw Attachments: Resolution No. 92-__ - page 6 Conditions of Approval - page 12 Exhibits - page 20 Vicinity Map SWAP Map Zoning Map Site Plan Elevations Floor Plans Landscape Plan Aerial Photo Artist Renditions Minutes of City Council Meeting, February 13, 1990 - page 21 Conditions of Approval for Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3 - page 22 Letter requesting Extension of Time for Plot Plan No. 11001 dated December 12, 1991 - page 23 Development Fee Checklist - page 24 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 92- ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 92- A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 11001, AMENDED NO. 3, EXTENSION OF TIME TO EXTEND THE APPROVAL PERIOD FOR PLOT PLAN NO. 11001, AMENDED NO. 3 ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 13.8 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF MARGARITA ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET EAST OF MORAGA ROAD AND 550 FEET NORTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-370-002, 003. WHEREAS, David E. Walsh Co. filed Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3 Extension of Time in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Plot Plan on February 24, 1992, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of said Plot Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THEPLANNING COMMISSION OFTHECITY OFTEMECULA 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 land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (2) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (3) The proposed use or action 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 Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and meet 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 of 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 Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3 Extension of Time proposed will be consistent with the General Plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. The project is consistent with Ordinance No. 348 and SWAP and therefore it is likely to be consistent with the future General Plan upon its adoption. (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. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project conforms to existing R-3-2,750 zoning and the SWAP 8-16 du/ac designation. (3) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. The project is consistent with Ordinance No. 348. 4. Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan 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 overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. The Planning Commission, in approving the proposed Plot Plan, makes the following findings, to wit: There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3 Extension of Time will be consistent with the City's future adopted General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law. Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3 Extension of Time is a residential project. The proposed site is designated as residential by SWAP. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. If the proposed use is inconsistent, it will not be detrimental because of the residential nature of surrounding uses. The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws. The proposed use complies with local planning and zoning laws which are prepared in conformance with State planning and zoning laws. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use. The proposed plot plan is in conformance with Ordinance No. 348. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare. Potential impacts are mitigated to a level of non-significance under the previously completed Environmental Assessment and Conditions of Approval. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk, height, intensity, and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties, through appropriate building mass reduction techniques and landscape installation, and distance from planned adjacent structures. 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 to the existing R-3-2,750 zoning and SWAP 8- 16 du/ac designation. Zoning on adjacent sites is R-l, R-3-2,500, R-3-3,000 and R-3. The SWAP designation on adjacent sites is 8-16 du/ac. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. The project will take access from Margarita Road. The design of the project, the type of improvements, and the resulting street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project. The project has adequate circulation throughout the entire site. Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. This Staff Report contains mapping and Conditions of Approval which support the Staff recommendation. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION III, the Plot Plan proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property. SECTION II. Environmental Compliance. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby determines that the previous environmental determination (Adoption of Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 33522 for Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3) still applies to Plot Plan No. 11001 Amended No. 3 Extension of Time. SECTION III. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3 Extension of Time extending the approval period for Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3 on a parcel containing 13.8 acres located south of Margarita Road, approximately 400 feet east of Moraga Road and 550 feet north of Rancho California Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 921-370-002, 003 subject to the following conditions: 1. Attachment No. 2, hereto. SECTION IV. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of February, 1992. JOHN E. HOAGLAND CHAIRMAN $~STAFFRPT~I 1001-1 .PP 10 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 24th day of February 1992 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL S'~TAFFRPT~,11001-1 .PP 12 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Plot Plan No; 11001, Amended No. 3, Extension of Time Project Description: Extension of Time for Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3 an approved Plot Plan for a 220 unit apartment complex. Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-370-002, 003 Plannine Department The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for Extension of Time for Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No, 3 an approved Plot Plan for a 220 unit apartment complex, The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3 Extension of Time. 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 The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3 Extension of Time marked Exhibit D, or as amended by these conditions. Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3 Extension of Time shall comply with any and all Conditions of Approval for Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655. (Condition No. 6 will supersede Condition No. 6 of the Riverside County Conditions of Approval). 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. The applicant shall comply with the Public Works Department's Conditions of Approval which are included herein. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District's transmittal dated January 8, 1991, copy of which is attached. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated January 14, 1992, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Municipal Water District transmittal dated January 13, 1992, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the California Archeology Inventory Eastern Information Center transmittal dated January 16, 1992, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Department of Transportation transmittal dated January 21, 1992, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside Transit Agency transmittal dated January 21, 1992, a copy of which is attached. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, three (3) copies of a Parking, Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. Plans shall meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 348, Section 18.12, and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. (Condition No. 14 will supersede Condition No. 17 of the Riverside County Conditions of Approval). A minimum of 503 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. 503 parking spaces shall be provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit D. The parking area shall be surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on 4 inches of Class II base. (Condition No. 15 will supersede Condition No. 18 of the Riverside County Conditions of Approval). Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance and/or permits from the following agencies: Planning Department School District Public Works Department Riverside County Flood Control Environmental Health Fire Department Eastern Municipal Water District (Condition No. 16 will supersede Condition No. 20 of the Riverside County Conditions of Approval. A Plot Plan application for a Sign Program shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Director prior to occupancy. (Condition No. 17 will supersede Condition No. 21 of the Riverside County Conditions of Approval). $~$TAFFRFr~l1001-l.F~ 14 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit E. (Condition No. 18 will include Condition No. 23 of the Riverside County Conditions of Approval). Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit E (Color Elevations). No building permits shall be issued by the City of Temecula for any residential lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer, or the developer's successors-in- interest, provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the City of Temecula Department of Building and Safety as mitigation for public library development. All existing specimen trees on the subject property shall be preserved wherever feasible. Where they cannot be preserved they shall be relocated or replaced with specimen trees as approved by the Planning Director. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance which is based on (the gross acreage of the parcels proposed for development) (the number of single family residential units on lots which are a minimum of one-half (1/2) gross acre in size). Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fees required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required under the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. (Condition No. 22 will supersede Condition No. 34 of the Riverside County Conditions of Approval). Prior to the sale or lease of any structure as shown on Revised Exhibit D, a land division shall be recorded in accordance with Riverside County Ordinance No. 460 and any other pertinent ordinance. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the developer shall at least 120 days prior to submittal for building permit, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such time as the City acquires the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the project. Security for a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the developer, at the developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. Prior to the issuance of a building pemrit, a Certificate of Parcel Merger shall be filed and approved by the Planning Department. Public Works Department The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval that shall either add to, supersede or amend the previously approved conditions 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 personnel of the Department of Public Works. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. Developer shall be subject to all previously approved conditions of development prior to this extension of time unless otherwise noted. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS: 27. Prior to issuance of a gra.ding permit, developer must obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES permit is granted or the project is shown to be exempt. 28. The developer shall submit two (2) prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the Department of Public Works. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 24"x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. 29. The developer shall submit two (2) copies of a soils report to the Department of Public Works. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. 30. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted as directed by the Department of Public Works at the time of application for grading plan check. 31. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way. 32. No grading shall take place prior to the improvement plans being substantially complete, appropriate clearance letters and approval by the Department of Public Works. 33. If grading is to take place between the months of October and April inclusive, erosion control runoff mitigation plans will be required. All plans shall be submitted with appropriate notes as directed and approved by the Department of Public Works. 34. All site improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects. $~;TAFFRPT%llOO1-l.F~P I 6 35. Improvement plans including parkway trees and street lights prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works shall be required for all public streets prior to issuance of an Encroachment Permit. Final plans and profiles shall show the location of existing utility facilities within the right-of-way as directed by the Department of Public Works. 36. Prior to any work being performed on the private streets or drives, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works. 37. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works. 38. Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Traffic control plans shall be provided as directed by the Department of Public Works and shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer, 39, The developer shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City standards, Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, and other traffic control devices as appropriate. B. Storm drain facilities. C. Landscaping (street and parks). D. Sewer and domestic water systems. E. Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines. 40. The developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval for offsite work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. 41. Drainage calculations shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Department of Public Works. 42. The developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT: 43. 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, 44. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact. (This shall supersede Condition No. 3 of County Road Letter dated December 6, 1989). 45. Prior to building permit, the subdivider shall notify the City's C.A.T.V. Franchises of the intent to develop. Conduit shall be installed to C.A.T.V. Standards prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. 46. Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of which has been provided to developer. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of the bond shall be 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. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY: 47. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District; Eastern Municipal Water District; Riverside County Flood Control District; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; Planning Department; Department of Public Works; Riverside County Health Department; CATV Franchise; Parks and Recreation Department; General Telephone; Southern California Edison Company; and Southern California Gas Company. 48. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent. 49. Improvement plans per City Standards for the private streets or drives shall be required for review and approval by the Department of Public Works. $'~TAFFRPT~lrlOOI*I.FP 18 50. Crosswalks shall be provided onsite on private street as directed by the Department of Public Works. 51. Construct onsite improvements including but not limited to curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights as shown on the approved improvement plans. 52. Dedicate a 28-foot easement for public utilities and emergency vehicle access for all private streets and drives. 53. A 28-foot wide secondary access road to Margarita Road shall be provided within a recorded private road easement as approved by the Department of Public Works. 54. Developer shall provide proof of an acceptable means of maintenance for all parkways, open areas, landscaping, drainage devices, drives and parking areas. Transportation Engineering PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: 55. Condition No. 19 of the County Road Department Letter, dated December 6, 1989, shall be deleted in its entirety. 56. A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for Margarita Road and shall be included in the street improvement plans. 57. Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering for the design requirements. 58. Bus bays will be provided at all existing and future bus stops as determined by the Department of Public Works. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS: 59. 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. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS: 60. All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and striping plan. 61, Landscaping shall be limited within corner cut-off areas of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance visibility, KENNETH L. EDWARDS RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND ' ' WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT January 8, 1991 City of Temecula Post Office Box 3000 Temecula, CA 92390 14 91 Gentlemen: Re: Plot Plan 11001 (Improvement Plan Ck. ~4) In accorOance with the conditions of approval for Plot Plan 11001 set forth in our letter to the City dated March 6, 1989, the following plans, prepared by J. F. Davidson Associates, Inc., have been submitted to the District for review: Plot Plan 11001, street improvement plans, dated December l?, 1990, consisting of 2 sheets, received by the District December 18, 1990. Plot Plan 11001, grading plans, dated November 8, 1990, consisting of 4 sheets, received by the District November 9, 1990. Plot Plan 11001, storm drain plans, dated January 3, 1991, consisting of 5 sheets, received by the District January 3, 1991. Plot Plan 11001, hydrologic and hydraulic calculations. The District has reviewed the plans submitted and finds them satisfactory with respect to flood control. However, the City should note that Plot Plan 11001 is located within the limits of the Mu,-rieta Creek/Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted. A mitigation charge for new development will be assessed. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of the new development. This new development has a total of 13.8 acres grcss. The charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee. The City should check to ensure that appropriate offsite facility easements have been obtained prior to work outside the road right of way. c: J. F: Davidson 'Assoc~ates';'I~>~ DEC 17 1991 MG:pln ~l)$'d ,.~1~,7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT OLEN J, ~'EWMAN Fll~ Cl'I~l: CITY 0~ TE~C;ULA ATTN) PLANNINB DEP7 PLOT PLAN '~&ffim f~r the ib~vm r'efer'eM;md ;~ t~ ~r'~glnal questions r'egera3. ng the meaning ~ ~and~,~L~nm mhall be e,'e-- 4er're~ tc> the ~la*flLn~ ael~ Engir~ee,-in~ Stmff, QMie~ Fire Depmrtment Plmnner' ~/cnawl E. ~ray, FLre ~apt~£~ SDecla!tmc ~) l),l)lO OWlCi DIstntt oJ So#them Cali/omm Doyle F Boen January 13, 1992 Matthew Fagan Planning Depafianent City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Dr. Temecula, CA 92590 RE: Plot Plan Nnmber 11001 Dear Mr. Fagan: As requested, we have reviewed the subject project and offer the following comments: DOMESTIC WATER The subject project is not located within Eastern Municipal Water District's water service area. SANITARY SEWER The subject project is fronted by an existing 8" diameter sanitary sewer pipeline in Margarita Road. The developer is expected to submit a proposed conceptual plan of sanitary sewer service for the subject project. The proposed plan of service and a $400.00 deposit are to be submitted through the District's Customer Service Depathnent for review and approval by District staff. Mail To: Post Office Box 8300 · SanJacinto, California 92581-8300 · Telephone (714) 925-7676 · Fax (714) 929-0257 Main Office: 2045 S. San Jacinto Avenue, 5anJacinto · Customer Service/Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue, Hemet, CA Matthew Fagan PP 11001 January13, 1992 Page 2 If you have any questions regarding these comments, please call me at (714) 925-7676, extension 409. Very truly yours, Judith C. Conacher Development Coordinator JCC/prs (wp-ntwk-pp11001 .prs) cc: Planning Maps & Records D. Crosley California Eastern Archaeological Information Inventory Center .~.~ INYO MONO RNER~IDE Eastern Information Cemer Department of Anthropology University of California Riverside. CA 92521 (714) 787-5745 CULTURAL RESOURCE REVIEW FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Date: ~'c.~n./~. TO: City of Temecula Development Review Committee RE: Case Transmit{a1 Reference Designation: Records at the Eastern Information Center of the California Archaeological Inventory have been reviewed to determine if this project would adversely affect prehistoric or historic cultural resources: The prc~oosed project area has not been surveyed for cut ruraL resources and contains or is adjacent to knotan cutturat resource(s). A Phase i stuc~f is recon~ne-~Jed. Based upon existing date the proposed project area has the potential for containing cutrural res~Jrce$. A Phase I study is recommended. A Phase I culture{ resource study (NF* ) identified one or more cutruraL resources. The projest area contains, or has the possibility of containing, cuLturaL resources. NoNever, due to the nature of the project or prior data recovery studies, an adverse effect on ouLturat resources is not anticipated. Further study is not v/ A Phase i culture{ resource study (KF- ~L:[~OF ) identified no culture{ resources. Further stuck/ is not rec~nded. There is a ton probability of cutturaL resources. Further study is nst recoawended. If, during construction, cuLturaL resources are encountered, uork should be ha{ted or diverted in the ia~ecliate area Site a qualified archaeotogist evstuates the finds and makes raceamends{ions. The subhiss{on of a cuLturaL resource management report is recommended foLtouing guidelines for ArchaeotqicaL Resource Xansgement Reports prepared ~ the Catifornia Office of Historic Preservation, Preservation PLanning BuL Letin/~(a), Oeceml:er 19~ or those report guidelines adapted ~ Riverside county. Phase ! - Survey. __ Phase 11 - Testing {Evarusts resource significance and integrity of knoNn resources and/or resources i~tified ira a field survey'.] __ Phase ILl - {PrOse add{{form{ investigations if rec/uired, evaluate project fRoacts, profxase measures to mitigate potential edverse effects.] If you have any questions, please give us a call. ncerel,~,/~ Eastern Information Center STATE OF CALIFORNIA--BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 8, P.O. BOX 231 SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92402 'DD (714) 383-4609 PETE WtLSON, Governor January 21, 1992 Development Review 08-Riv-15-5,130+ Planning Department Attention Mr. Matthew Fagan City of Temecula City Hall 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Mr. Fagan: Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed Plot Plan No. 11001 Extension of Time located south of Margarita Road, approximately 400 feet east of Moraga Road and 550 feet north of Rancho California Road. 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 encroachment permit from the Caltrans District 8 Permit Office prior to beginning work. Please be advised that this is a conceptual review only. Final approval will be determined during the Encroachment Permit process. If additional information is desired, please call Mrs. Minerva Rodriguez of our Development Review Branch at (714) 4384. 383- Very truly~.ur~ Attachment CALTP. ANS D~.v~.~OPMENT REVIEW FORM ?P II I Y~JR REFEREHCE PLAN CHEC[ER WE REQUEST THAT THE ITEMS CHECKED APPROVAL FOR THIS PROJECT: BELOW BE DATE /' tv - 15 - 5. I ( CO RTE PZv[) INCLUDED IN THeE CONDITIONS OF NORMAL RIGHT OF gAY DEDICATION TO PRQVZOE ~TORNAL STREET IMPROVEMENTS TO PROVIDE CUR8 AND GLJTTER~ STATE STANDARD NB-A HALF--WIDTH ON THE STATE HIGHWAY. HALF--WIDTH ON THE STATE HIGHWAY. TYPE A2-8 _ ALONG THE STATE HIGHUAY PARKING SHALL BE PROHIBITED ALONG THE STATE HZGh%/AY BY THE PROPER PLACEMENT OF HO PARKING SIGNS. 3 5 FT RADIUS CUR8 RETURNS SHALL BE PROVIDED AT INTERSECTIONS WITH THE STATE NIGHWAY. STATE STANDARD N8 CABE--A WHEELCHAIR RAMPS SHALL BE PROVIDED [N THE CUR8 RETURNS AS DEFINED IN THE HIGHWAY DESIGN SECTION 105.4 (2), A POSITIVE VEHICULAR BARRIER ALONG THE PROPERTY FtONTAGE SHALL BE PROVIDED TO LIMIT PHYSICAL ACCESS TO THE STATE HIGHWAY. VEHICULAR ACCESS SHALL NOT BE DEVELOPED DIRECTLY TO THE STATE HIGHWAY, VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE STATE HIGHWAY SHALL 8E PROVIDED BY EXISTING PUBLIC ROAD CONNECTIONS, VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE STATE HIGHWAY SHALL BE ~ROVIDED BY STANDARD DRIVEWAYS, VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE STATE HIGHWAY SHALL BE ~ROVIDED BY A ROAD--TYPE CONNECTION. VEHICULAR ACCESS CONNECTIONS SHALL BE PAVED AT L-:AST WITHIN THE STATE HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY. ACCESS POINTS TO THE STATE HIGHWAY SHALL 8E DEVEL~)~ED IN A MANNER THAT WILL PROVIDE BIGHT DISTANCE FON MPH ALONG THE STATE HIGHWAy, __ I,.AHDSCAP[NG ALONG THE STATE HIGHWAY SHALL PROVIDE FOR SAFE SIGHT DISTANCEt COMPLY ~/1TH FIXED 08JECT SET 8ACC AND BE TO STATE STANDARDS, __ A LEFT--TURN LANE~ INCLUOING SHOULDERS ANO ANY N_=:~SSARY WIDENING~ SHALL BE PROVIDED OH THE STATE HIGIIgAT, __ A TRAFFIC STUDT iNDICATING ON ANO OFF--SITE FLO~ PATTERNS AND VOLUMESt PROBABLE iMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATIC~ MEASURES SHALL BE PREPARED, __ PARKING SHALL BE DEVELOPED IN A HANNER THAT t41LL tOT CAUSE ANY V~HICULAR HOV~MENT CONFLICTS~ INCLUDING PARKI~V~ STALL ENTRANCE AND EXITt WITHIM OF THE ENTRANCE FROM THE STATE NIGHWAY. CARE SHALL 8E TAKEN ~4HEN DEVELOPING THIS PROPER'iT TO PRESERVE AND PERPE17dATE THE EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTF. j~ OF THE STATE HIGHWAY, PARTICULAR CONSIDERATION StC3ULD BE GIVEN TO CUMULATIVE iNCREASED STORH RUNOFF TO INS3~ THAT A HIGHWAY DRAINAGE PRO8LEM IS NOT CREATED. PLEASE REFER TO ATTACHED ADDITIONAL CU!elENTS, ~]~OVIDE TO APPLIC,,ilu%|T. PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THIS IS X CONCEPTUAL R~VIEW ONLY, FINAL APPROVAL W. ~, BE DETERMINED DURING THE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT PROCESS, CONSTRUCTION/EEMOLITION t/ITNIN PRESENT ON PROPPED STATE RIGHT OF NAY SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED FOR POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE ( I ,E .ASBESTO$t PETROCHEMICALSt ETC. ) AND MITIGATED AS PER REQUIREMENTS OF REGULATORT AGENCIES, WHEN PLANS ARE SUSNITTED~, PLEASE CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ATTACHED le~'ZANDOUTn. THIS %~]LL EXPEDITE THE REVIEt/PROCESS AND TIME RETIRED F~ PLAN CHIC[. PROVIDE TO APPLIC~. __ ALTHOUGH THE TRAFFIC AND/OR DRAINAGE GENERATED BY THIS PROPOSAL DO NOT APPEAR TO HAV~ A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM t CONSIDERATION MUST BE GIVEN TO THE CUNULATZVE EFFECT OF CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA. ANY MEASURES NECESSARY TO MITIGATE THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF TRAFFIC AND/OR ORAlHAGS SHALL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO OR NITH DEVELQIq4ENT OF THE AREA THAT NECESSITATES THEM. CONSIDERATIOR SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE PROVISIONs. ON FUTURE PROVISION f OF SIGNILIZATION AND LIGHTING OF THE IT APPEARS THAT THE TRAFFIC AND/ON DRAINAGE GENERATED BY THIS PROPOSAL COULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE STATE NIGHt/AY SYSTEM OF THE AREA. ANT MEASURES TO MITIGATE THE TRAFFIC AND/ON DRAINAGE IHPACTS SHALL GE INCLUDED t/ITH THE DEVELQP~ENT. THIS PORTION OF THE STATE HIGHt/AY iS iNCLUDED 1N THE CALIFORNIA FLASTER PLAN OF STATE HIGHNAYS ELIGIBLE FOR OFFICIAL SCENIC }{IGHt/AY DESIGNATION AND IN THE FUTURE YOUR AGENCY HAY t/ISN TO HAVE THIS ROUTE OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED AS A STATE SCENIC HIGNt/AY. THIS PORTION OF THE STATE HIGHUAY HAS SEEN OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED AS A STATE SCENIC HIGHt4AYt AND DEVELOPMENT IN THIS CORRIDOR SHOULD BE COHPATIBLE t/ITN THE SCENIC HIGHt/AY CONCEPT · IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT THERE iS CONSIDERABLE PUBLIC CONCERN ABOUT NOISE LEVELS ADJACENT TO HEAVILY TRAVELLED HIGHNAYS. T. AND DEVELOPMENT,. 1N ORDER TO BE COMPATIBLE t/ITH THIS CONCERN,, HAY REQUIRE SPECIAL NOISE ATTENUATION MEASURES. DEVELOPMENT OF THiS PROPERTY SHOULD INCLUDE ANY NECESSARY NOISE ATTENUATION° CALTRANS DISTRICT 8 DEVELOPHENT REVIEt/BRANCH P .0. Box 231 SAN BERNARDINO/. CA 92402 A COPY OF ANT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON REVISED APPROVAL. A COPY OF ANY DOCIRENTS PROVIDING ADDITIONAL STATE HIGHUAY RIGHT OF t/AT UPON RECQNOATION OF THE HAP. ANY PROPOSALS TO FURTHER DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY · A COPY OF THE TRAFFIC ON ENVIIffiNNENTAL STUDY. ~// A CHECK PRINT OF THE PARCEL OR TRACT HAP. A CHECK PRINT OF THE PLANS FOR ANY IMPROVEMENTS t/ITH[N OR ADJACENT TO THE STATE NIGHt/AT RIGHT OF %JAT. A CHECK PRINT OF THE GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANS FOR THIS PROPERTY t/HEN AVAILABLE. R7'A RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY 18P5 THIRD STREET · RIVERSIDE. CA 9P507-3484 · BUS. I714) 684'0850 FAX [714] 68¢1007 January 21,1992 Matthew Fagan City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 RE: PP 11001 Dear Matthew: We currently provide service to the site mentioned above via Route 23 and we are requesting that a bus turnout or a pad for a bus stop be incorporated into the general design as the size of the planned project will negatively impact our level of service unless this amenity is constructed. An ideal location for the bus turnout would be on southside comer of Margarita Road nearside the primary gate adjacent to the proposed recreation center. If possible, we would also like to request that pedestrian walkways and wheelchair curb be provided near the turnout location specified above. I can indicate the exact location for the turnout as the project progresses. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. Your efforts to keep us updated on the status of this request will be very much appreciated. Please let us know when this project will be completed. Should you require additional information or specifications, please don~ hesitate to contact me. Sir. t, olely, BS4sc PDEV #137 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 EXHIBITS ATTACHMENT NO. 3 EXHIBITS E;',STAFFRPT',11001-'I .FP 20 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO.: Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3, Extension of Time EXHIBIT: A VICINITY MAP P.C. DATE: February 24, 1992 CITY OF TEMECULA DU/AC SITE CASE NO.: Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3, Extension of Time EXHIBIT: B SWAP MAP P.C. DATE: February 24, 1992 CITY OF TEMECULA SITE 0 CASE NO.: EXHIBIT: C P,C. DATE: Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3, Extension of Time ZONING MAP February 24, 1992 CITY OF TEMECULA I CASE NO,: EXHIBIT: D P.C. DATE: Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3, Extension of Time SITE PLAN February 24, 1992 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO.: Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3, Extension of Time EXHIBIT: E ELEVATIONS P.C. DATE: February 24, 1992 S~STAFFRPl~13001-l,PP CITY OF TEMECULA i CASE NO.: Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3, Extension of Time EXHIBIT: F FLOOR PLAN P.C. DATE: February 24, 1992 CITY OF TEMECULA G CASE NO.: Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3, Extension of Time EXHIBIT: F FLOOR PLAN P.C. DATE: February 24, 1992 $~,STAFFRPT~11001-1 .PP CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO.: EXHIBIT: G P.C. DATE: Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3, Extension of Time LANDSCAPE PLAN February 24, 1992 A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 4 MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON FEBRUARY 13, 1990 S%STAFFRP'i'%11001-1 .FP 2 1 City Council Minutes February 13, 1990 It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Moore to adopt an urgency ordinance to extend the moratorium through January S, 1991, with a provision added to Section 2, exempting non-commercial (Ham Radio) antennas as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 90-03 P,N ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA EXTENDING ORDINANCE NO. 90-01 WHICH DECLARE8 A MORATORIUM ON THE CONSTRUCTION AND USE OF TELEVISION AND RADIO ANTENNAS The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore Mu~oz NOES: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Parks ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 90-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DESCRIBING MEASURES TAKEN TO ALLEVIATE THE CONDITION WHICH LED TO THE ADOPTION OF URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 90-01 NOES: ABSENT: The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore Mu~oz, Parks 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Change of Zone No. 5385 and Plot Plan 11001 Mayor Parks declared the Public Hearing open at 8:46 PM. Hinutes\2/1]\~O -8- 03/02/~0 City Council Minutes February 13, 1990 City Manager F. D. Aleshire introduced County Planner Richard McHott who presented the staff report. Mr. McHott stated that this is an application for a 220 unit apartment project located on 13.8 acres located north of Rancho California Road and south of Margarita Road. The zone change will allow for a slight density increase. He further advised that this property does lie in the Stephens Kangaroo Rat preservation area. The Proponent David Walsh, gave the Council a report on the project. He stated that the project would be built for condo conversion at a later date. He outlined the amenities to be included in both the total project and in the individual units. Councilmember Lindemans questioned if this is a low-cost housing project. Mr. McHott explained that the project is not a low-cost project, the forms included in the Council's packet were for information only. Councilmember Lindemansquestioned if the project was designed for adult occupancy. Mr. Walsh explained that occupancy could not be limited to adults only, but that the design of the units did lend themselves more to use by adults than by families with children. Robert Oder, 29590 Mira Loma Drive, spoke in opposition to the development of the condominium concept. He questioned if the market for this type of development exists, stating that he had not had any success marketing his apartments as condominiums. Mr. Walsh, speaking in rebuttal, stated that a market did exist for condominiums and successful marketing depended upon the units being properly designed. Mayor Parks declared the public hearing closed at 9:06 PM. Councilmember Moore questioned the impact this development would have on traffic in this area. Councilmember Lindemans asked if any traffic mitigation fees have been collected for this project. Minutes\Z/l:]\90 -9- 03/02/90 City Council Minutes Februarv 13. 1990 Richard MacHott stated that no fees have been assessed for freeway on/off ramps as described by Councilmember Lindemans but all required street improvements recommended were included in the conditions. Councilmember Mu~oz stated he would like to see this matter continued to allow time to look at all the properties in the area and the impact of all the high density projects on traffic, schools and freeway access. Councilmember Lindemans expressed his concerns with increasing the density in any of the projected apartment projects. Councilmember Moore stated that the when the City Council adopted the Southwest Area Plan the City should make any recommended changes, but until then she felt it was only fair to use the Riverside County standards which have been given to the developers. Councilmember Birdsall asked the exact number of units to be added to the project if the zone change is approved. Mr. Walsh replied that the change would allow an additional 16 to 17 units, which would allow for the installation of the additional amenities he outlined at the beginning of the hearing. Mayor Parks commented that the City Council is operating under the Southwest Area Plan which allows for 8-16 units per acre, that the fees have all been included, the proposal is for a high quality development, and the issues of terrain have been properly addressed. He also stated that this meets a need for good entry level housing. Councilmember Mu~oz asked how much high density can the community tolerate in the areas where already impacted and where there is not recreational areas for the children. development traffic is sufficient Councilmember Lindemans asked if the developer would be amenable to a condition assessing additional fees to go toward freeway on and off-ramp development if the City Council adopts such a mitigation program later on. Mr. Walsh stated that this would be acceptable, Council does adopt such a fee schedule, and if such a condition could be defined now. if the City the cost of Councilmember Lindemans stated that he felt the City Council is sending out the wrong signal to developers by approving this project because of the increase in density. Minutes',Z/13\~O -10- 0~/0~/~0 City Council Minutes February 13, 1990 It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to approve Plot Plan 11011, Exhibit A, Amended No. 3 with the addition of a condition number 35 which would read as follows: 35. Prior to the issuance of individual building permits, the applicant shall comply with any generally applicable traffic mitigation program to pay for freeway, bridge and/or major thoroughfare facilities which may be established between the date of approval of this Plot Plan and the issuance of individual building permits, provided the fee shall not exceed $150 per unit. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Moore, Parks NOES: i COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz ABSTAIN: i COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Richard MacHott advised that this matter will be brought back to the City Council after the Planning Staff has prepared the necessary changes to reflect the Council action, and this should be within the next three to four weeks. COUNCIL BOSINESM 10. Classiflcation Titles, Salary Ranqes and Initial Personnel Policies City Manager F. D. Aleshire said that this action carries out City Council direction given at the budget workshop held on January 20, 1990 and the additional direction given regarding the position of Manager, Information Systems given on February 6, 1990. He then introduced personnel consultant Mr. Michael Deblieux of the firm of IEM (Ideas for Effective Management). Mr. Deblieux outlined the methods used in the preparation of the report and the recommendations to the City Council and invited questions. Councilmember Mu~oz questioned if the local data on salaries was included as requested by Council on January 20, 1990. Minutes\2/13\90 -11- 03/02/90 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PLOT PLAN NO. 11001, AMENDED NO. 3 $'~TAFFRPT~llOOl-l.Ff' 22 ) i RIVERSIDE COUMTY PLAMNIlt DEPARTffi)T COIQITIORS OF APPItOVAL David E. Walsh & Company 11777 Bern·trio Plaza Ct. San Dtego, CA 92128 5te. 207 PLOT PLAN NO. 11001, Exh. A, lid. ProJect Description: Construct 220 unit apartment complex Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-370-002, 003 Area: Rancho California 1. The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for a 220 unit apartment complex. 2. The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County of Riverside, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the County of Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning PP 11001, Exhibit A, Amended No. 3. The County of Riverside will promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the County 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 County of Riverside. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of approval date; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on plot plan .irked Exhibit A, Amd. f3, or as amended by these conditions. In the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period of one (1) year or .ire, this approval shall become null and void. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine h dlrectly upon ad3otntng property or public rig ts-of-way, and shall comply with Ordinance No. 655. The applicant shall ccm~ply with the street improvement reconmnendattons outlined in the County Road Dapartaent transmittal dated 8-14-89, · copy of which is attached. PLOT RAM RO. 11001, EXh. A Mended No. 3 Conditions ~f Approval Page 2 Water and swerage disposal facilities shall be installed tn accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department transmittel dated 7-20-89, a copy of which is attached, Flood protection shall be prqvtded in accordance with the RIverside County Flood Control Dtstrict transmittel dated 7-29-89, a copy of which is attached. Fire p~otection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittel dated 7-26-89, a copy of which is attached. 11. The applicant shall comply with the roc~m,endattons set forth in the Depar~nt of Building and Safety Land Use Section transmtttal dated 8-4-8g, a copy of which ts attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Department of Butldtng and Safety Grading Section transmittel dated 4-13-89, a copy of which is attached. The appliEant shall comply with the recommendations set forth In the Riverside County Geologtst's transmittel dated 8-18-89, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recenmendations set forth in the County Riverside Health Department, Division of Special Services transmittel .dated 9-22-89, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendation set forth in the Elsinore Union High School District transmittel dated 2-16-89, a copy of which is attached. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscmpe, irrigation and shadin plmns prtor to the issuance of occupancy pemtts. An eutmattc sprinkler system shall installed be and all ha landscaped areas s 11 be mtntatned in a viable growth condition. Planting within ten (10) feet of mn entry or extt driveway shall not he permitted to grow higher than thirty (30) 1riches. 7. Prior to the issuance of grmding or building permits, the mppltcmnt shall submit mn 18.12 perking, landscmptng and irrigation plot plan to the Planning Department and shall be mccempented by m filing fee ms set forth in Section 18.37 of Ordinance 348, A minimum of five hundred mnd twenty-nine (529) parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18,12, Riverside County Ordinance No, 348. Five hundred and twenty-nine {529) parking spaces shall be provided PLOT PLM I. 11001, Exh. A /mended No. 3 Conditions of Approval Page 3 19. 0e 21. as shown on the Approved Exhibit A, Plot Plan 11001, Amd. e3. The parking area shall be surfaced with (aspbaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 tnches on 4 inches of Class II base.) (decomposed granite compacted to a minimum thickness of three (3) Inches treated with not less than ~ gallon per square yard of penetration coat otl, followed within six mnths by an application of ;~ gallon per square yard of seal coat oil. A mintmum of sixteen (16) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on Exhibit A, Plot Plan 11001, Amd. #3. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectortzed sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height of 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches in size with lettering not less than I inch in height, which clearly and conspicuously states the following: · Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles my be reclaimed at or by telephoning " In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the symbol of accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. Prior to the lssuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain clearance and/or permits from the following agencies: · Road Department Environmental Health Riverside County Rood Control Fire Departaent Written evidence of c~pltance shall be presented to the Land Use Dtvlston of the Department of Building and S~fety, Prtor to the issuance of building permits the following additional and/or revised plans shall be submitted for Planntng Department approval: Signing Program t Shading Plans Landscaping, Irrtgat on and Lighting Plan PLOT PLAN I10. 11001, Exh. A Meded No. 3 Conditions of Approval Page 4 2 · Butldtng elevations shall be In substantial confonnance with that shown on Exhibit C, Patertals used In the construction of 811 buildings shall be tn substantial conformrice wtth that shown on Exhtbtt C (Color Elevations) and Exhtbit B (Naterials Board), These are as follows: Hatertel Color Roofing Material Windows and Doors Exposed Ttmber Trellls Stain/Deck Ratltngs & Perimeter Fencing Exterior Wall and Roof Fasta Column caps of Balcon- Ies and &Permiter Fence Htssion Sunrise t~08 by "Lifetile" Residential Series by "Windowmaster Products" $C-65 Stain by "Pittsburg Paint" 4004 Exterior acrylic by 'Ptttsburg Paint" X-97 By LaHabra Stucco By Davidson Brick Co. Traditional Espana Dusty Blue Shagbark Hickory Catus Pacific Sand Ross Tan 24. Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening material shall be subject to Planning Department approval, Se Prior to the final building inspection approval by the Building and Safety departaent, a six foot high decorative block wall or combination landscaped earthen berm and decorative block ~ell shall be constructed along the entire perimeter of the project. The required wall and/or berm shall be subject to the approval of the Director of the Department of Building and Safety and the Planning Director. 26. T~elve (12) trash enclosures which ire adequate to enclose a total of two (2) bins shall be centrally located within the pro4ect, and shall be h constructed prior to the tssuence of occupancy permits, Eac enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall be made with mmsonry block and a gate which screens the bins from eternal view. 27. Landscaping plans shall Incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along streets and withtn the perktrig areas, 28. All street ltghts end other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Butldtng and Safety for plan check approval and sbe11 comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No, 655 and the Riverside County Com~rohenstve General Plan, 29. Prior to issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Building end Safety to guarantee the PLOT PLAN RO. 11001, Exh. A Mended Ro. 3 Conditions of Approval J J Installation of planrings, wlls and fences in accordance with the epproved plan, and adequate maintenance of the planttng for one year shall be filed wlth the Director of Butldtng and Safety. Prtor to issuance of occupancy permits, all requtred landscape plantfng and Irrigation shall have been Installed and be tn a condition acceptable to the Dtrector of Butldtng and Safety. The plants shall be healthy and free of weds, disease or pests. The irrigation system shaql be properly constructed and tn good wrktng order. All utilities, except electrical 11nes rated 33kV or greater, shall be Installed underground. Prior to tssuance of grading permtts a Paleontologtcal Study shall be performed and submltted to the Planning Department for approval. if the potential for paleontologtcal resources are 1denttried prior to the tssuance of gradtng penntts, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontologtcal tmpacts. Should the paleontologist find the potential ts htgh for tmpact to significant resources, a pre-grade meeting betwen the paleontologist and the excavatlon and grading contractor shall be arranged. ~hen necessary, the paleontologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redtract or halt grading acttvtty to allow recovery of fosslls. 33. Prtor to the tssuance of grading or butldlng permit: The Secretary of the Interior must have approved the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan and any proposed taking of the $KR must be in compliance with the approVed plan: The Secretary of the Znterior must have tssued to the County, the Section tO(a) Permit requlred by the Engangered Spedes Act of 1973 end said Permit must be tn effect; end A report, prepared by a btologht permitted by the U.S. Ftsh and Wlldllfe Service to trap the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat for scientific purposes, documenting the amount and quality of occupted Stephens Kangaroo Rat Habttat subject to d~sturbance or destruction must have been submitted to end ipproved by the Planning Director, Prtor to the tssuance of e gradtng or bulldtng permtt, the applicant shall comply wtth the provision of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth tn that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superceded by the provisions of e Habitat Conservation Plan prtor to the pa~q~ent of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee requtred by the Habitat Conservation Plan as impishanted by County ordinance or resolution. PLOT PLAN NO, 11001, Exh, A ~mended No, 3 Conditions of Approval Page 6 35. Prior to the issuance of individual building permits, the applicant shall o~Lvly with any generally applicable traffic mitigation progrin to pay for frc=~By, bridge and/or major thoroughfare facilities, which may be established between the date of approval of this plot plan and the issuance of individ-~] building permits, provided the fee shall not exceed $150.00 ~er unit. (A~ded by TeK-ula City Council on 2-13-90}. 11/28/90 m~hbc 3/6/90 OFFICE OF ROAD COMMISSIONER & COUNTY SURVEYOR LebyD.~:see December 6, 1989 itLverside County Planning C--~ission 4080 Lemon Street ittverside, CA 92501 (Xpar~ent C~plex) R~: Plot Plan 11001 - Amend t3 Road Correction #1 Team I - SMD #9 Lot 27 of TR 3334 AP #111-111-111-9 · As amended by P.C. 12-6-89 Ladies and Gentlemenz With respect referenced item, reconmendations: to ~he conditions of approval for the above the Road Department has the following Prior to issuance of a building permit or.any use allowed by this 'permit, the applicant shall complete the following conditions at no cost to any government agency: Sufficient right of way along !targarita Road shall be conveyed for public use to provide for a 55 foot half width right of way. Sufficient right of way along the secondary entry (northeasterly driveway) shell be conveyed for public use to provide for a 60 foot full width right of way terminating in a sta~a~d cul-de-sac or should the proponent provide documents for a private shared secondary access with adjacent landowner, the alternate 'B' as described on l%oad Correction leap dated 8-11-89 shall be approved by the Road Department. Prior to issuance of a buildin~ permit or any use allowed by this permit, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Road Department the sum of $30,800.00 t~Nards s~ttigating traffic lmlmcts for signal sent·. Th~s amount represents 220 units x $140'.00 per unit $30,800.00. was aser,,-led at P.C. 12-6-89 _] Ftior to occupancy or any use allowe~ by this permit, the applicant shall construct the following at no cost to any government agencyz NA~g~l~ Road shall be improved with concrete curb a~ ~tter located 43 f~t ~ canterlAne and match up asphalt concrete pevAng; :econstruction; or tesuxfacing of existing dats mAned by the Road Cc==Assioner witUn · SS width dedicated rAght of way An accordance vith County Standatd No. 100. ~sphalt emulsion (fog seal) ehell be applied not less than fou~een days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.0S gallon per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section 39 and 94 of the State Standard Specifications. The landdAvAder eill provide a left t~ lane on Nargarita Road at the intersection with the primary entry as approved by the Road Department. SLx foot wlde concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along Margar£ta Rood in accordance with County Standard No. 400 and 401 (curb sidewalk). Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the Riverside County Road Cc~missioner. Completion of road improvements does not imply acceptance for main- tenance by COunty. Major dxainage Is involved on this p=oJect and its ~esolution shall be as approvedby the Road C~-.~ssionsr. Drainage control shall be as per Ordinance 460, ~ection 11.1. All work done within County right of way shall have an er=roachment permit, All dtive~a~ shall County 8tandaxds iepx:veeent plans. conform to the applicable Rivxrs~de and shall be shmm on the r,~iet All entrance driveways shall be channelised with concrete cub and gutte: to linevent 'back-on' paxking and interior drives fr~ entering/v/tAng driveways for a minimum distar=e of S0 feet measured from face of curb. · page 3 When blockwalls are required to be constructed on top of slope, a debris retention wall s~-11 be constructed at the street right of way line to prevent silting of sidewalks as approved by ~be Road Commissioner. Projects creating cut or fill slopes adjacent to the streets shall provide erosion control, sight distance cont. Tol and slope easements as approved by the Road Deparl:ent. The street design and improvement concept of this project shell be coordinated with P/P 771-G, P/P 882-00, P.P. 8328, 42 and MB 159/15-21, MB 5 / 5-30 any related improvement plans. Street lighting shall be required in accordance with Ordinance 460 and 461. The County Service Area (CSA) Administrator determines whether this proposal qualifies under an existing assessment district or not. If not, the land owner shall file, after receiving tentative approval, for an application with LAFC0 for annexation into or creation of a 'Lighting Assessment District' in accordance with Governmental Code Section 56000. All private and public entrances and/or intersections opposite this project shall be coordinated with this project and shown on the street improvement plans. A striping plan is required for Margarita Road. The removal of the existing striping shall be the responsibility of applicant. Traffic signing and striping shall be done by County forces with all incurred costs horns by the applicant. Should this project lie within any assessment/benefit district, the applicant shall prior to ztcordation make application for and pay for their rtapportionment of the assessments or pay the unit fees in the benefit distract unless said fees are deferred to building permit. The enV-rZ gate facilities shall provide for adequate stacking based on a P.M. peak hour. The applicant shall I~ a detailed proposal based upon a :%gistered engineer's findings for ~ Depaxtment epproval. Said plans may be l~corporated with the errwet improvement plans. 2e 2~m~'l JW The secondar7 entry w111 be coordinated wlth TR 23211 and w111 be ms approved b~ the i~r~ad Commissioner. Vet7 =u/y, ~urs, hns~Un~ Supervisor IBOM: l~vrJ~IDZ COUNTY I:'I,ANNING DEFT. July 20, 1989 SAM IL~RTINEZ, ZNVIRONI~I~A~ HE/j. TH SPECZA~IST IV PLOT PLAN 11001, AXENEeD NO. 3 Env~ro~ental Health Services has zevteved Amended No. 3 dated July 18, 1989 . Our current co=ments v~ll rs~-~n as sta~ed ~n our m~ ~ced Feb~ 1~, 1989, ~:tac .,BN. PORM 4. igor. 1/87) '- ,,~NNL'TH I_ mDWARDI ties II&Wlll' eTRzrr RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT Riverside County Planning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California Area: We have reviewed this case and have the following comments: Except for nuisance nature local runoff which may traverse portions of the property the project is considered free from ordinary storm flood hazard. However, e storm of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New construc- tion should comply with all applicable ordinances. The topography of the area consists of well defined ridges and natural water- courses which traverse the property. There is adequate area outside of the natural watercourses for building sites. The natural watercourses should be kept free of buildings and obstructions in order to maintain the natural drainage patterns of the area and to prevent flood damage to new buildings. A note should be placed on an environmental constraint sheet stating, "All new buildings shall be floodproofed by elevating the finished floors a minimum o/ 18 inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosion protection shall be provideo for mmbile home supports.' This project ts in the drainage plan fees shall be paid in accordance with the applicable r~lesArea and regulations. The proposed zoning is consistent with existing flood hazards. Some flood control facilities or floodproofing may be required to fully develop to the Implied density. /The Dtstrtct's report dated 3- ~'~)tS still current for this project. The District does not object to the proposed minor change. This project is m part of . The project vtll be free of ordinary storm flood hazard when tBpreve.~nt$ have been constructed in accordance with appruvod plans. The attached cowmerits apply. DATE: e KENNrrH L. I'DWARM RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT March 6, 1989 Riverside County Planning Department County Administrative Center R~verside, California 92501 Lt MAR 13 1989 RIVERSIDE DOUNTY PLANNrNG DEPARTMENT Attention: Regional Team No. 1 David Wahlgren Ladies and Gentlemen= Re: Plot Plan 11001 .This is a proposal to construct an apartment complex in the Temecula area. The site is along the south side of Margarita Roa~ about 800 feet east of Moraga Road. The topography of the area consists of a well defined ridge and a natural watercourse with a drainage area Of over 100 acres which traverse the north portion of this property. The applicant pro- poses to use a storm drain to collect and convey the flows in the above natural watercourse to the site's northwest corner. The storm drain design should be compatible with the downstream facilities. The south portion of the property is located on high ground. The oneits flows from this portion of the property would be concentrated to the site's south corner with parking lots. An easement for the outletting of this concentration should be ob- tained from the affected property owner. The Board of Supervisors has adopted the Murrieta Creek/Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan for the purpose of collecting drainage fees. Those fees are used to ~onstruct needed flood control facilities w~thin the particular area. The Area Drainage Plan fees apply to new land divisions and are normally not required of other types of new develol~nent. Virtually all new develolmnent causes increased storm runoff. These increases are part~Lcularly troublesome in t~ose wntershads where an Area Drainage Plan has been adopted. In order to miti- gate the downstream impacts brought about by increased runoff, the District reconnnends that Conditional Ose.Cases, Plot Plans and Public Use Cases be required to p~y a flood mitigation charge. M~tigation charges, where appropriate, will be similar to the current Area Drainage Plan fee rate. Riverside County Planning Department Re= Plot Plan 11001 - 2 - March 6, 1989 Following are the District's reconunendations= A flood m~tigation charge shall he paid. The charge shell equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new develolm~ent. The new development in this case includes a total of 13.8 acres. At the current fee rate of $932 per acre, the mitigation charge equals $12,862.00. The charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If Area Drainage Plan fees or mitigation char~es have al- ready been paid on this property in conjunction with an earlier land division or land use case, the developer should contact the District to ascertain what charges are actually due. The 100 year offsite tributary flows should be accepted and safely conveyed to an adequate outlet. The storm drain design should be compatible with the downstream facilities. ~nergency escape should also be provided· Offsite drainage facilities should be located within publicly dedicated drainage easements obtained from the affected property owners. The documents should be re- corded and a copy submitted to the District prior to the issuance of permits. 4. Onsite drainage facilities located outside of road right .. of way should be contained within drainage easements. Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and '~ obstructions. Drainage facilities outletting sump conditions should be designed to convey the tributary 100 year storm flows· Additional emergency escape should also be provided. The property's street and lot grading should be designed in a manner that perpetuates the existing natural drainage patterns with respect to tributary drainage area, outlet points and outlet conditions, otherwise, a drainage easement should be obtained from the affected property owners f~r the release of concentrated or di- verted storm flows. A copy of the recorded drainage easement should be sut~nitted to the District for review prior to tbe issuance of permits. Riverside County Planning Department Re= Plot Plan 11001 - 3 - March 6, 1989 A copy of the improvement plans and grading plans along with supporting bydrologic and hydraulic calculations should be submitted to the District for review and ap- proval prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. cc: J. F. Davidson and Associates Very truly yours, KENNETH L. EDWARDS ~HN H. KASHUBA .,nior Civil Engineer RC:seb PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7-26-89 4GBO t'---,~eaet,e-,a, IlL Rhwdk CA 92501 014) ~?~ DAVID VAHLGREH PLOT PLAN 11001 - A)~NDED 13 With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above refereetea plot plan, the Fire Department recessends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with R/verside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all c~ercial buildings using the procedure established in Ordinance 5~6. e Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1750 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residue1 operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the Job site. 3. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants, on a looped system (6"x~"xg~x2t), will be located not less than 25 feet.or more than .. 165 feet from any portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(e) in the system. The required fire flow may be ad3usted at a later point in the permit process to reflect changes in design, construction type, area separation or built-in fire protectionmeasures. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Departsent for review. Plane ,h,11 conform to the fire hydrant types, location and epicinS, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirmnte. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the followins certification: wI certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requireeats prescribed by the B/verside County Fire IkpaxL,ent." Tetra11 · complete fire spr~-~ler s~stom in all buildings requiring a fire flow of 1500 GPH or greater. The post indicator valve and fire department connection abel1 be located to the front, witk4u 50 feet of ahydranc, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement that the building(a) will be automatics/ly fire eprt-k~ered must be included on the title page of the building plan:. XtE: FP 11001 Page 2 Install a supervised rarer flay uonitorinS fire alarm system. Plans must be submitted to ths Fire Department for approval prior to installation, as per UnlformBuildlns Code. In 11eu of fire sprinkler requirements, building(s) must be area separated into square foot compartments, approved by the Flre Department, as per Section 505 (e) of the Uniform Building Code. 9. A statement that the building viii be automatically fire sprinklered must appear on the title pa~e of the building plans. 10. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. 11. Install' portable fire extinguishers with a minimum resins of ZA-10BC. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. Prlor to the issuance of a bulldinS permit, the developer shall deposit vtth the Riverside County Flre Department, a cash sum of $400.00 per unit as mitigation for fire protection impacts. Prior to issuance of buildins permits, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to subBit a check or money order in the amount of $345.00 to the Riverside County Fire Department for plan check fees. 14. Applicant/developer shall be responsible to.install a fire alarm system. '-- Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. Final conditions will be addressed vhen building plans are raySaved in Buildins and Safety. Install a hood duct fire extinguishing system. Contact a carfilled fire protection company for proper placement. Flans must be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. Access 2ares to be provided with key pad entry for emergency use. Access code to be issued by the Fire Department. 18. Access gates will be provided with eaergency back-up system. All questions regarding the usaulna of the conditions shall be referred to the Firs Department Fl~ing and F. ngineering staff. Chief Fire Department ~lanner By Laura Cabral, Fire Safety Specialist August 4, 1989 c'Depa ,eme.(: 06 c ud)d ..g a.d Administrative Center · 1777 Atlanta Avenue Riverside, CA 92507 Riverside County Planning Department Attention: Randy Wilson County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 RE: Plot Plan 11C01, Exhibit A, Amendment ~3 Ladies and Gentlemen: The Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety has the following comments and conditions: If the proposed project is to be "phased," an approved exhibit indicating which structures and on-site improvements are required for each "phase" should be req.uired. An additional plot plan or an approved exhibit for on-site signage will be required. Prior to the issuance of building permits, written clearance ks required from the following: · Elsinore Union High School District · Temecula Unified Schhol District Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the Land Use Division with evidence of recordation of a Certificate of Parcel Merger. Engineered plans are required for any walls or fences over six feet in height. An approved setback adjustment from the Planning Department is required for walls or fences over six feet in height found in required setback areas. Swimming pool to be fenced according to requirements specified in Ordinance 421.1. Health Department approval will be re- quired on pool plans. Administration (714) 682~840, (714) 787-2020 Planning Department Plot Plan 11001 August 4, 1989 Page 2 Zf approved elevations are required from the Planning Department the approved plans must be submitted to the Land Use Divtsion concurrently with submittal of structural plans for review. Prior to acceptance of structural plans for Building and Safety review, one complete set of approved conditions from Planning Department must be attached. Prior to issuance of building permits, proposed lighting must be in conformante with Nount Palomar Lighting Plan, Zone B, per Ordinance 655. Performance Securities Bond for maintenance of landscaping .may be required. Consult your conditions of approval. Very truly yours, Land Use hn~c~an /$n Grading Notes by: Log No./Special ~_k~ No.: PP //ool APT- Cem~L~l~ Comnents csP Initial Pro mY/de ~C. ~D ~. PyE o ~, ~o i . .< .I-,,~p T r - ,;.,y ' R/,u ~ I:)DUNTY OF RIVERSIDE " ~-J PLANNING DEPARTMENT August 18, 1989 FROH: RE: Randy Wilson - Team I Steven A. ~pfer~mn -' Engt.neering Geologist Plot Plan 11001 Slope.Stability Report No. 124 The fol lowlng ~eport has been reviewed ~elattve to slope stability at the subject site: 'Preliminary Soils Engineering Investigation, Plot Plan 11001, 13.8 Acre Site, Rancho California Area, County of Riverside, CA,' by Geo Soils, dated March 30, 1989; and "Addendum to Preliminary Soils Investigation, Plot Plan 11001," dated August 4, 1989 by Geo Soils. This report determined that adverse geologic structures are not anticipated to adversely affect the proposed development. This report redo.handed that: Fill slopes should be designed at 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) gradients and should not exceed 25 feet in height. Fill 'slopes should be properly built end compacted. Cut slopes In formattonal mtertals should be at gradients of 2:1 or less and should not exceed 25 feet in height. Cut slopes should be f~rther evaluated by an engineering geologist during site grading. Cut and fill slopes should he provided with appropriate surface dreiMge features end landscaped with drought tolerant vegetation as Soon as possible after grading. 5. Berms should be provided at the top of fill slopes, end brow ditches should be constructed at the top of cut slopes. Lot dratMge should be directed such that surface runoff on slope faces ts minimized. Thts report satisfies the General Plen re~atrement for m slope stability report. The recoendattons male tn this report shall be edhered to In the destgn end construction of thts project. ~K: rd COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE DEPA R TM EN T OF HEAL TH Sepcenber 22, 1989 To: landy Milson, Planer Tea l · iversids County Planning Department CAC A080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor liverside, CA 92501 Division of Special Senices · iverside County Health Department P.O. Box 7600 A065 County Circle Drive Riverside, CA 92513-7600 Subject: Amended leviev of an Acoustical bport for Racquetclub Apartments, PP 11001 Applicant: Gary Dubsis Malsh Building and Construction 11777 lar~ardo Plaz& Court, Suite 207 San Diego, CA 92128 Information Provided: April 7, 1989 Noise assessment and Noise Control leco~endattons, Kacquetclub Apartments (PP 11001) in the City of Fancho California, Kiverside County by J.J. Van !outon and Asloclates~ lnc, September 20, 1989 bvised lolls Assesssent ~nd Ioise Control Itecmezui~tlous, hcquetclub Apar~ntnts In the City of Rtucho Coli~ornia, liverside County ' by J-J, Van !onion and Associates, lnc, Noise Information Requirements: NOlae ~lement of RIverside County General Plan states 'to avoid future nolae hazard, the ~aximum capaclty design standard (average dally trips) for hlghvays and xsJor roads shall be used for determining the maximum future noise level, or 20 years in case of freerays. 2, Interior melee level dot dvelltng units Shall not exceed ~5 C~EL (dBA). For future noise estimates the FH~A RD 77-108 Highray Traffic Prediction Hodel shall be used. The project shall comply vith California Noise Insulation Standards, (CAC, Title 2~, Chl, Subch 1) as fellova: "(d) Wall and Floor Ceiling Assemblies. Wall and floor-ceiling assemblies separating dwelling units or guest rooms from each other and from public space such as interior cotrides and service areas shall provide air-borne and impac~ sound insulation for floor-ceiling assemblies. (2) Airborne Sound Insulation. All such separating Valls and floor-ceiling assemblies shall provide an airborne sound insulation equal to that required to meet a Sound Transmission Class (STC) of 50 (6~ if field tested) as defined in UBC S~andard No. 35-1. Penetrations or openings in coustr~ction assemblies for piping, electrical devices, recessed cabinets, bathtubs, selfits, or heating, ventilating or exhaust ducts shall be sealed, lined, insulated or othervise treated to maintain the required ratings. lkellin2 omit entrance doors from interior corridors to2ether vith their perlatter seals shell have · Sound TranndssionClass (STC) rating of not less than 30 and such perteeter seals shall be maintained in 2end operatin2 cnnditiom. (3) IWact Sound Insulation. All separating floor-ceiling assemblies hat-~een separate ~its or past rooms shall prowlde aspact sound iusulatiom equal to that required to meet an l~act Insulation Class (IIC) of 50 (&5 if field tastad) as defined in U~C Standard No. 35-2. Floor co~erings may be included in the assembly to obtain the same sound insulation required above.n .j Findings: Recomtendations: The follovs = The revised acoustical report provides accept:able' acoustical information for estimating the noise impacts to itacquetcluh Apartments and acceptable attenuation methods for achieving 45 CNEL interior noise levels. recmendations issued by the consultant shall be required as Exterior noise control to achieve an exterior CNEL l~vel of 65 dR: A perimeter wall havin2 · -4nimm height of 5' should be placed around all patios and balconies in units of Building B t16 and 122 facing ~argarita Road. A harrier having a minimum height of 5' should be located as shown in Figure 2, for the pool and tennis court area, The barrier height ls relative to the elevation of the arterial and or the exterior living space, whichever is greater. The barriers should be continuous structures w~thout gaps or gates and should be constructed of a material that is impervious to noise (e.g., concrete block, stucco-on-wood, 1/4" plate glass, earthen berm,'or any combination of these eaterisis). Interior Noise Control level to achieve an interior ~ Level of &5 dR: All viedays and sliding glass doors in the project should be veil fitted, veil veatherstripped assemblies, and should provide a sdni~nnn sound transmission class (STC) as lollors: Operable Location Vtnd~v Door Tuo "!" build4-! directly adjacent to Margarlta Road, Glazing useublins facing street 32 32 side elevation of end units 27 iorth alevatlen, Wo "Ca buildings directly south of the recreation Ally in dove end sliding glass doors ~oc specified above STC Fixed 27 27 25 -- 27 22 22 22 The Party Mall and f~o~r/ctiling Separation reco~ended by the consultant and stated in report (attached) shall be implemented. Specifications as Enclosure 3 of the V~R/tk Enclosure I (see J.J..VQn Hou~on's repor~ of 9-20-89 Raoquetclub Apartments) provides a d~scription of the assemblies used in the analysis. If assemblies ocher than these are desired, It is recommended that the sound transmission loss test report for the assemblies be revieved by a recognized acoustical engineer to ensure compliance vlth the County and State interior standards. Enclosure 2 provides a list of nanufaccurer's of sound rated glazing assemblies, A~ STC of 27 in a fixed vindow is generally provided by · pane of 1/4'* plate Bless in a veil fitted, well stopped assembly. STC is per ASTH Designations E-413 and E336 or Eg0. Bathrooms vhtch have tightly fitted doors separating them from the adjacent living areas are not considered to be habitable spaces and, therefore, do not require sound rated windows. thick. doors facing or having line-of-sight to Hartsrite Road be veil weatherstripped solid core assemblies, 1-3/~" Exterior yells of units adjacent to ~argarita Road and directly exposed to traffic noise should be constructed with 2" x ~" wood studs, 1/2" gypsum yell board interior and 7/8" thick s~ucco or eiding-on-shee~hing exterior, vith R-if insulation bstveen the studs. A~l ~oin~s should be ve~l fitted and/or caulked to for= an air tight seal, For those units adjacent to ~arg~rtta Road, the roof system should have ply~ood sheathing vhich is vel~ sealed. R-19 insulation should be placed in the attic space, if any. Forced air ventilation is required since the interior CNEL standard is to be met with vindovs closed. the Uniform Building Code specifies that the forced air ventilation system shall be capable of providing rio air changes per hour in hebi~able rooms with one-fifth of the air cupply taken from outside, This should be accomplished as fallova: a. A . forced air unit so that the fun may be operated ~ependently of the heatinK or coolinS functions, and he A fresh air intsle duct heritch the forced air unit nd the exterior wall or roof. The fresh air intake duct should also' incorporate st least sit feet of flexible fiberSIns ductin~ and at least cme 90 degree bend. gill mounted air conditionors, if used, should not be placed on an elfcarton facing the arterial for those ,m4ts adjacent to MartsflU load. There sbonld be no openings (mtl slots, vents, etc.) in the exterior ulls of units adjacent to Harlarita load. Sound Control SDecificat~o~s 1,0 ~ARTX WALL ]~ND DIVISION WALL SEPAlt~TION ASSEMBLIES Wall Xs~embl~ Construction l- Double row of 2" x 4" studs' 16" o.c. on separate plates spaced l" apart. 2a. 5/8" type X gypsum board screwed 12" o.c. each side. b. 1/2" type X gypsum board screwed 12" o.c. each side. 3. 3-1/2" thick attenuation blanket. Sound Transmission Class Test Authority: 1.2' Framing ' (STC): a..56 b. a. Owens/Coming Fiberglas, OCF448 b. Owens/Coming Fiberglas, OCF W-29-69 All studs in party walls shall be staggered (one wall from the other). Studs shall 'not override pla[es of party or division walls. Knot holes, warped lumber, splintered wood, splices, chips, and sawcuts shall not be permitted at vertical cr horizontal party wall connections. Framing at built-up corners and Joists to wall connec- tions along party walls shall fit 'tightly withou~ air gaps. Special care shall be taken that dry wall hailer blocking meets this condition between J6~sts. Double blocking between c~lling Joists ticned to eliminate flanking of sound division.walls at the Joists. shall be posi- over party br Ribbon caulking (e.g., Lowry's flO) shall-be used be- tween slab end sole plate and between doubl~ sole plates {a~ second floor).h~ all party walls. · Enclosure continued. Concrete pour material shall not flow onto party wall sole plates. Concrete shall not be poured onto or into party wall separation cavities between plates. 7. All wail insulation shall be snugly fitted and/or stapled between studs. Wallboard shall be wall fitted or apply caulking t.o the intersections of all floors, ceilings end walls with plywood and/or wallboard where the wallboard is not snugly fitted. Gypsum wallboard shall. continua to the r~of line on one side of the wall to avoid flanking of sound through the attic-space. Caulking.for all party or division walls shall be used · .in strict conformshoe with manufacturer's. specifica- tions; FLOOR/CEILING SEPARATION ASSEXBLIES Floor/Ceiling Assembly Construction la. 44 oz. carpet over 40 oz. hair pad. b, Cushioned vinyl flooring. 2. 2" X 10" Joists, 16" O.c. !.3. 5/8" ply~Dod subfloor nailed to joists. 4. 1-1/2" lightveight concrete, 15 psf. 5. R-11 insulation harts. 6. Resilient cha. nnels, 24" o.c. 7. ~/8" type X gypsum board screwed'12' o.c. to channels. Sound Transmission Class (STC): 58 Tes~ Authority: Geiger and Haue, USDA-2ST, 1~70. Impact Insulation Class (IIC): a. 67 b. 51 Tes~ Authorityc a. Gelget and Hamme, USDA-2ST, b. CedarSmoils Labs, 7711.12, 1970-. 1977.. Framing 1. All insulation shall be snugly fitted and/or stapled be- tween the Joists. V'~'Enclosure 3, continued. Gypsum board shall be yell fitted or apply caulking to the intersections- of plywood and/or gypsum wallboard where the gypsum wallboard is not.sDugly fitted. Caulking for all floor/ceiling assemblies shall be used in strict conformante with manuf'acturer's specifica- 4. Resilient channels, where used, shall be U.S. Gypsum Corporation Type RC-1. :. o Plumbing Waste and vata~ supply piping shal~ be isolated from building construction at points of contact with not less than 1/4" of felt padding. (Refer to Details 1, 2 and 4.) Piping and/or ducting within floor/ceiling assemblies shall be supported from the joists and completely iso- lated from the ceiling. The stud bay or Joist cavity surrounding the supply and waste piping shall be filled with open-faced fiberglas or equivalent sound absorptive material. 4. Common feed lines directly across party walls shall be permitted. (Refer to Detail 5.) The elbow below the. stool waste outlet shall be isolated from the position blocks with carpet padding or a felt material. The entire space around the elbow shall be filled with open-faced fiberglas or equivalent sound ab- sorptive material. (Refer to Detail 3.) Ducting 1. Intake or exhaust duct runs sh~ll not be positioned within the partition walls of common units. Sheet metal ducts in floor/ceiling assemblies of the up- per floor units shall not be secured to the ceiling ~oists of the units below. 3. Bathroom exhaust fan housings shall be surrounded with fib~.rglas or equiva~ent sound absorptive material 4. Bathroom exhsust fan duct runs shall include at least-a 6 foot length of fiberglas lined ducting in the duct run. Enclosure 3# continued. m 'Electrical Television and telephone outlets shall not be placed in party or division walls. Electrical boxes (switches, outlets, wall fixtures, etc.) in opposite faces of party or division walls shall .be separated horizontally by not less than 24 inches. Plastic sealer shall be wrapped around ba~k, sides, top and bottom of all electrical boxes in the party walls. Boxes shall be backed by R-11 t~sulation bates. Knockout plates on electrical boxes in all party or division walls shall not be bent cr removed where con- duits are not connected to the box. S.0 Xitchens and Bathrooms The party wail behind a tub and/or shower assembly shall be constructed consistent with the party wall specifica- tions. Wallboard shall be installed behind all tubs and/or showers which are adjacent to party walls. Voids between the wail and tub/shower units shall be completely filled with fiberglas insulation or equiv- alent sound absorptive material. 3. Kitchen dishwashers and disposals shall be isolated from the frame by resilient mounts. Flexible hose' couplings 'for inlet and cutlet water connections on the dishwasher shall be used so that no rigid connection exists. 7,0 Fireplaces 1. All .fireplaces shall have a tight ~itting manually operated flue damper. R-11 bates shall be 1natalled l~ all walls of fireplace chimney chases to the extent permitted by the Uniform Building Code and local requirements. Fl~or-fill shall be poured around the fireplace flue where Lt penetrates the second floor. Pipe Isolation at Floor / Ceiling Joists !')~t,~il I Pipe Isolation at Stud W~lls IX. tail r Position Blocks / a !n, Trap C,'-,,-~ ..,.,~,,..,: Joists I I Waste Pipe Isolation at Floor / Ceiling Se~paration r'x..I.til 3 ./ ;I e PLAnninG DATE: February 1, 1989 TO: Assessor Dutldtng and'Safety Surveyor - Dave Duda Road Department tlealth - Rolph Luchs Fire Protection Flood Control District Fish & Game U.S. Postal Service - Ruth E. Davtdson U.S. Fish & itldltfe Services Col Trans. Dtst. #8 Rancho Caltf. Water Southern Calif. Edison Southern Caltf. Gas CO. General Telephone Tenecula Union. School Dist. .. Ehinore Union SchoolDist;/ Con~tssion~ Jack Bresson , Eastern Hunicipal Water Dist. C.J. Crotinger CHANGE OF ZONE 5385 - (Tm-1) - E.A. 33521 -Davtd E. Welsh & Co - J. F. Davtdsor Assoc. Inc - Rancho Caltf Area - Firs: Supervisortel District - N. of Ranchc Colif. Rd. So of ~rgartta Rd - R-3-300( Zone - 13.8 Acres lnto 2 Lots - Schedult N/A - No Wetvet - CONCURRENTLY PLOT PL,A~ 11011- REQUEST Change Zone from R-3-30Ol to ' R-3-2500 - Nod 119 A.P 921-370-002,003 Please review the case described above, along with the attached case map. A Lane Division Confnittee meeting* has been tentatively scheduled for February 23, 1989. If t* clears,~lt wtll then go to public hearing.. Your cerements and reconunendattons are requested prior to Februa~ 23, 1989 in order the' · me may include them in the staff report for this particular case. Should you have any questions regarding thts item, please do not hesitate to contact ' David Wahl~ren at 787-1363. )manner DATE: The Elstnore Union High School District facilities are overcrwded and our educational programs seriously impacted by increasing student population caused by new residential, contnerctal and industrial construction. Therefore, pursuant 'to California Government Code Section 53080 of AB 2926 and SB 327, this district levies a fee against .all new developmnt pro~ects within its b ndartes~ 2/16/89 SIEHATURE ~/ PLEASE rtnt hue and title 4080LEIv~N STREET, 9 TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787-6181 Larry Maw, Superintendent 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-8277 ATTACHMENT NO. 6 Le:i I ER REQUESTING EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PLOT PLAN NO. 11001, AMENDED NO. 3 DATED DECEMBER 12, 1991 J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc. ENGINEERING PLANNING SURVEYING LANDSCAPEARCHITECTURE December 12, 1991 Project No. 88-10835 Mr. Gary Thornhill Director of Planning CITY OF TEMECULA P.O. Box 3000 Temecula, CA 92593 Re: PLOT PLAN 11001 APN: 921-370-002 Dear Mr. Thornhill: As agents for David E. Walsh Company, a California Construction General Partner of Rancho Racquet Club Associates, the developer of the subject Plot Plan 11001, we hereby request a time extension of one year for the Plot Plan Approval, per City of Temecula Ordinance No. 91-09. Enclosed for the processing of this time extension are the following: A check in the amount of $512.00 Two (2) copies of the application Two (2) copies of the Conditions of Approval Ten (10) copies of the approved Plot Plan. Our clients request the time extension, as they had a construction loan comitment from Sumitomo Bank, but unfortunately it expired. They are now working diligently to reinstate this loan commitment. Therefore, the time extension for the Plot Plan is respectively requested. You can see from copies of the attached correspondence that everything was in place to obtain the Grading Permit except the payment of the required fees. We also want to assure you that neither the Site Plan or Building Product is anticipated to change on this project. Your mediate scheduling of the Design Review Committee and advisement of the time and date will be appreciated. 27349 Jefferson Avenue. Suite 115, Temecula, CA 92590 P.O, Box 340, Temecula, CA 92593 .(714) 676-7710 FAX (714) 699-1981 Mr. Gary Thornhill CITY OF TEMECULA December 12, 1991 Page 2 Please send all correspondence to: George E. Prine or Linda Miller J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc. 27349 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 115 Temecula, CA 92590 Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Very truly yours, J.F. DAVIDSON i~ES-, /' GEP: cv INC. Engineer cc: David E. Walsh Company 11777 Bernardo Plaza Court, Suite 207 San Diego, CA 92128 Linda Miller, J.F.D.A. Jobs:hhl ATTACHMENT NO. 7 DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST S~STAFFRPT~11001*1 .FP 24 CASE NO.: CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3, Extension of Time 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 (County of Riverside) (Traffic Signal Mitigation) Public Facility (Library) Fire Protection (County of Riverside) Flood Control (ADP) Condition of ADoroyal Condition No. 22 Condition No. N/A Condition No. 46 Condition No, 7 Condition No. 20 Condition No. 10 Condition No. 8 Consistent with Specific Plan Consistent with Future General Plan N/A YES S~STAFFRPT~I 1 OO1-1 .Ff~ 2 5 ITEM # 5 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning February 24, 1992 Tentative Tract Map No. 25338 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: CONTINUE Tentative Tract Map No. 25338 off-calendar. This item was continued from the January 13, 1992 Planning Commission meeting due to unresolved technical issues relative to the tentative map. Ordinance No. 460 requires project statistics and site plan information be placed on the vesting tentative map. To date, the applicant has not provided the project amendments requested by staff. As a result, staff recommends that this item be continued off calendar until such time as staff and the applicant's engineer have resolved the technical issues relative to this project. klb $\STAFFRFT~25338TTM.MEM ITEM # 6 Case No.: RECOMMENDATION: STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION February 24, 1992 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23102, Second Extension of Time Prepared By: Mark Rhoades Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution No. 92-__ approving the Second Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23102 subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, based on findings contained in the Staff Report. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Marlborough Development Corporation REPRESENTATIVE: Marlborough Development Corporation PROPOSAL: Second Extension of Time for a 37 lot residential subdivision on 16,4 acres. LOCATION: West of Butterfield Stage Road and north of La Serena Way. EXISTING ZONING: Specific Plan No. 199 (Margarita Village) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: R-A-~ (Residential Agricultural) Specific Plan No. 199 R-R (Rural Residential) R-T (Mobile Home Subdivision and Mobile Home Park) PROPOSED ZONING: Not requested. EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Single Family Residential Single Family Residential Single Family Residential School S\STAFFRPT~23302-2.VTM PROJECT STATISTICS Total Acreage: Total Lots Proposed: Proposed Density: Proposed Minimum Lot Size: 16.4 acres 37 lots 23 DU/AC 7,200 sq.ft. BACKGROUND Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23102 was recommended for approval on September 28, 1988 by the Riverside County Planning Commission in conjunction with Tract Nos. 23100 Amendment No. 1; 23101; and 23103 Amendment No. 1. All four tracts implement Village B of the Margarita Village Specific Plan (SP 199 Amendment No. 1 ) which was previously approved by the Board of Supervisors on September 13, 1988. Subsequently all four tracts (231 O0 Amd. 1,23101,23102, and 23103 Amd. 1 ) were approved by the County Board of Supervisors on November 8, 1988_. On April 16, 1991, the First Extension of Time was approved by the City of Temecula Planning Commission for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23102. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23102 is a proposal to subdivide approximately 16.4 acres into 37 single family residential lots with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet and an average lot area of 12,385 square feet. The subject site is located west of Butterfield Stage Road and north of La Serena Way. The project is Planning Areas No. 2 and 3 of Specific Plan No. 199. ANALYSIS Desiqn Considerations The proposed subdivision has been designed in accordance with the standards of Ordinance Nos. 348,460 and Specific Plan No. 199. The main access to the project is La Serena Way, to the south. A portion of the project site is located to the east of an existing Metropolitan Water District (M.W.D.) easement. Clearances from M.W.D. have been obtained to permit construction of a street for access to that portion of the site. Density The proposed subdivision (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23102) is consistent with the density designation for Specific Plan No. 199 of 2-5 DU/AC. The actual proposed subdivision density is 2.3 DU/AC. Gradinq The subject site is currently vacant with some on site soil disturbance. The proposed subdivision will require approximately 89,000 cubic yards of raw cut and approximately 69,000 cubic yards of fill in order to provide for adequate building pads. The proposed grading is consistent with existing surrounding residential developments. S%STAFFRPT~231 O2-2, VTM 2 GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY The proposed density of 2.3 DU/AC is consistent with the Southwest Area Community Plan and Specific Plan No. 199 (Margarita Village). In addition, Staff finds it probable that this project will be consistent with the new General Plan when it is adopted, because of the current developed character of the surrounding areas. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An Environmental Assessment was prepared by the County of Riverside on Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23102. Environmental impacts were assessed in EIR No. 202 prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan. Additional environmental evaluations have been provided by the reports prepared for the specific plan amendment and the acoustical studies prepared for three adjacent tracts. No significant environmental impacts have been found. Therefore, Staff is not requesting any further environmental determination. 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 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 sti~te planning and zoning laws, due to the fact that the proposed use conforms with those uses listed as "allowed" within the project site's existing Specific Plan No. 199 (Low Density Family Housing) land use designation. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and density, due to the fact that; adequate area is provided for all proposed residential structures; adequate landscaping is provided along the project's public and private frontages; and the internal circulation plan should not create traffic conflicts as design provisions are in conformance with adopted City standards. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare, due to the fact that the conditions stated in the approval are based on mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts of the project. S%STAFFRPT~23102-2,VTM 3 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23102 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 (Specific Plan No. 199), and also consistent with the adopted Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP) designation of Specific Plan. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the Negative Declaration adopted by the County for the project, due to the fact that impact mitigation is realized by conformance with the project's Conditions of Approval. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact that the project currently proposes an independent access point from La Serena Way which has 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 these applicants and herein incorporated by reference, due to the fact that they are referenced in the attached Staff Report, Exhibits, Environmental Assessment, and Conditions of Approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution No. 92- approving the Second Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23102 subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, based on findings contained in the Staff Report. vgw S\STAFFRPT~23102-2.VTM 4 Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. Resolution - page 6 Conditions of Approval - page 12 Staff Report, First Extension of Time - page 15 Staff Report, Riverside County - page 16 Exhibits - page 17 A. Vicinity Map B. SWAP Map C. Zoning Map D. Tentative Map S\STAFFRPT~23102-2.VTM 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 92- S\STAFFRPT%23102-2.V'i'M 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 92- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23102 TO SUBDIVIDE A 16.4 ACRE PARCEL INTO 37 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, LOCATED WEST OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND NORTH OF LA SERENA WAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 923-200-019. WHEREAS, Marlborough Development Corporation filed Second Extension of Time in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Second Extension of Time application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Second Extension of Time on February 24, 1992, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission approved said Second Extension of Time; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISS ION 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: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. (2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: S~STA FFRPT\23102-2. VTM 7 (A) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (B) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, (C) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. 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 Second Extension of Time is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: A. 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 Second Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23102 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being studied which will be considered within a reasonable time because the project is consistent with current zoning and SWAP designations. (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 because all of the surrounding area is existing residential development. (3) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances because the project is consistent with the approved specific plan which is consistent with state law and local ordinances. Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. 460, no subdivision or extension of time may be approved unless the following findings are made: Am That the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. S\STAFFRPT~23102-2,VTM 8 C, D, E. That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type of development. That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. That the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land division. A land division may be approved if it is found that alternate easements for access or for use will be provided and that they will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. (1) The Planning Commission in approving the proposed Second Extension of Time, makes the following findings, to wit: (A) There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law, due to the fact that the project is consistent with existing site development standards in that it proposes articulated design features and site amenities commensurate with existing and anticipated residential development standards. (B) There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future and adopted general plan, if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that the project is in conformance with existing and anticipated land use and design guidelines standards. (C) The proposed use or action complies with state planning and zoning laws, due to the fact that the proposed use conforms with those uses listed as "allowed" within the project site's existing Specific Plan No. 199 (Low Density Family Housing) land use designation. S\STAFFRPT\23102-2.VTM 9 (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) 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. 23102 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 (Specific Plan No. 199), and also consistent with the adopted Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP) designation of Specific Plan. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the Negative Declaration adopted by the County for the project, due to the fact that impact mitigation is realized by conformance with the project's Conditions of Approval. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact that the project currently proposes an independent access point from La Serena Way which has been determined to be adequate by the City Engineer. The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed projects, due to the fact that this is clearly represented in the site plan and the project analysis. S%STAFFRPT%23102-2.VTM 10 (K) Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applicants and herein incorporated by reference, due to the fact that they are referenced in the attached Staff Report, Exhibits, Environmental Assessment, and Conditions of Approval. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION III, the Vesting Tentative Tract Map Second Extension of Time is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION II. Environmental Compliance. That the City of Temecula Planning commission hereby determines that the previous Environmental Determination (Adoption of Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 32534) still applies to said tract map. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in EIR 202 and in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. SECTION III. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves the Second Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23102 for the subdivision of a 16.4 acre parcel into 37 single family residential lots located west of Butterfield Stage Road and north of La Serena Way and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 923-200-019 subject to the following conditions: 1. Attachment No. 2, attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of February, 1992. 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 24th day of February, 1992 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: 4 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: 1 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS S\STAFFRPT\23102-2.VTM 11 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL S\STAFFRPT~23102-2.VTM 12 ATTACHMENT NO 2 CITY OF TEMECULA ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23102 Second 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 (9100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library development. This conditionally approved Second Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23102 will expire one (1) year after the original expiration date of the original tentative tract map unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. The original approval date is November 8, 1988. The subdivider shall comply with the original Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 23102 (see attached) except as amended herein. The subdivider shall comply with the requirements set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Health letter, dated November 7, 1991 which is attached herein. The subdivider shall comply with the requirements set forth in the Rancho Water District letter, dated November 14, 1991 which is attached herein. Community Services Department Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, the applicant or his assignee shall pay the fair market value of 0.48 acres of parkland to satisfy Quimby requirements. The amount to be paid shall be determined by TCSD staff within thirty (30) days prior to the recordation of said map. S~STAFFRPT~2.3102-2.VTM 13 All known slope and open space areas are hereby conditioned to be maintained by an established Homeowner's Association (HOA). Exterior slopes bordering and arterial street may be dedicated to the TCSD for maintenance following compliance to TCSD standards and completion of the application process. All slope and open space areas shall be identified by numbered lot, with the square footage of said areas noted on the final map. Public Works Department The following are the Department of Public Works additional 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 Subdivider has correctly shown on the tentative map all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvements constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the pro~ect to be resubmitted for further review and revision. The subdivider shall comply with all previous Conditions of Approval for this project except as amended or superseded herein. Delete Conditions Nos. 12 and 35 of the Additional Conditions of approval which were approved by the Planning Commission on April 15, 1991. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: 10. 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. 11. Maintenance for slopes, drainage devices and open space areas must be provided by Temecula Community Services District or the Homeowners Association. The limits of each maintenance area must be defined by numbered lots on the map. 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 request 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 the 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. S~STAFFRPT\23102-2.VTM 14 County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH TO: CITY OF TEMECULA DATE: ATT~ Rheades __ FRO~l.'~AM~ARTIN~ronmental Health Specialist IV RE: TRACT NAP NO. 23Z02, aND EX~:t~4SION OF-TINE ~ 11-07-91 Environmental Health Services has reviewed the proposed 2nd Extension of Time and has no objections. SM:dr attachment Wa r November 14, 1991 Mr. Mark Rhoades City of Temecula Planning Department 43180 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 SUBJECT: Water Availability Dear Mr. Rhoades: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management fights, if any, to RCWD. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Senga Doherty. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT ~nllon, P. E. Manager of Development Engineering SB:SD:ajw217 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 STAFF REPORT, FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME S%STAFFRPT',23102-2. VTM 15 Case No.: Recommendation: STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION April 15, 1991 First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23102 Prepared By: Richard Ayala ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23102 subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, based on findings contained in the Staff Report. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: R EP RESENT AT IV E: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Marlborough Development Corporation Marlborough Development Corporation First Extension of Time West of Butterfield Stage Road and north of La Serena Way. Specific Plan No. 199 (Margarita Village) North: South: East: West: R-A-1/2 ( ResidentialAgricultural ) Specific Plan No. 199 R-R ( Rural Residential ) R-T {Mobile Home Subdivision and Mobile Home Park) Not requested. VacaRt North: South: East: West: Single Family Residential Graded Lots I SingleFamily Residential ) Single Family Residential School A: VTM23102 1 PROJECT STATISTICS: Total Acreage: Total Lots Proposed: Proposed Density: Proposed Minimum Lot Size: 16.0, acres 37 lots 23 DU/AC 7.200 sq.ft. BACKGROUND: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23102 was recommended for approval on September 28, 1988 by the Riverside County Planning Commission in conjunction with Tract Nos. 23100 Amendment No. 1; 23101; and 23103 Amendment No. 1. All four tracts implement Village B of the Margarita Village Specific Plan (SP 199 Amendment No. 1 ) which was previously approved by the Board of Supervisors on September 13, 1988. Subsequently all four tracts (23100 Amd. 1, 23101, 23102, and 23103 Amd. 1 ) were approved by the County Board of Supervisors on November 8, 1988. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23102 is a proposal ~:o subdivide approximately 16.0, acres_Lnto 37 single family residential lots with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet and an average lot area of 12,385 square feet. The subject site is located west of Butterfield Stage Road and north of La Serena Way. ANALYSIS: Desiqn Considerations The proposed subdivision has been designed in accordance with the standards of Ordinance Nos. 30,8, 0,60 and Specific Plan No. 199. The main access to the project is La Serena Way. The project has been designed to provide increased land use and circulation efficiency. Density The proposed subdivision {Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23102) is consistent with the density designation for Specific Plan No. 199 of 2-5 DU/AC. The actual proposed subdivision density is 2.3 DU/AC. Gradinq The subject site is currently vacant and undisturbed. The proposed subdivision will entail approximately 89,000 cubic yards of raw cut and A: VTM23102 2 GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: FINDINGS: approximately 69,000 cubic yards of raw fill in order to provide for adequate building pads. The proposed grading is consistent with existing surrounding residential developments. The proposed density of 2.3 DU/AC is consistent with the Southwest Area Community Plan and Specific Plan No. 199 (Margarita Village). In addition, Staff finds it probable that this project will be consistent with the new General Plan when it is adopted. Environmental Assessments have been prepared on all four tracts {23100 Amd. No. 1, 23101, 23102, 23103 Amd, No, 1). Environmental impacts were assessed in EIR No. 107 and EIR No. 202 prepared ~or the Rancho Village Specific Plan and the Margarita Village Specific Plan. Additional environmental evaluations have been provided by the reports prepared for the specific plan amendment and the acoustical studies prepared for three tracts. No significant environmental impacts have been found. Therefore, Staff is not requesting any further environmental determination. There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the Cityis 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. A: VTM23102 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 project site's existing Specific Plan No. 199 {Low Density Family Housing) land use designation. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and density, due to the fact that; adequate area is provided for all proposed residential structures; adequate landscaping is provided along the project's public and private frontages; and the internal circulation plan should not create traffic conflicts as design provisions are in conformance with adopted City standards. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare, due to the fact that the conditions stated in the approval are based on mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts of the project. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23102 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 {Specific Plan No. 199), and also consistent with the adopted Southwest Area Community Plan {SWAP) designation of Specific Plan. A: VTM23102 4 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the Negative Declaration adopted by the County for the project, due to the fact that impact mitigation is realized by conformance with the project's Conditions of Approval. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-d-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact that the project currently proposes an independent access point from La Serena Way which has 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 ctearly represented in the site plan and the project analysis. 11. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps. exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applicants and herein incorporated by reference, due to the fact that they are referenced in the attached Staff Report, Exhibits, Environmental Assessment, and Conditions of Approval. Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23102 subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, based on findings contained in the Staff Report. RA:ks Attachments: R esol ution Conditions of Approval Exhibits A. Site Plan A: VTM23102 5 ATTACHMENT I RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23102 TO SUBDIVIDE A 16.4 ACRE PARCEL INTO 37 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, LOCATED WEST OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND NORTH OF LA SERENA WAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 923-200- 019. WHEREAS, Marlborough Development Corporation filed Extension of Time in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use. Zoning. Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Extension of Time application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Extension of Time on April 15, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS. at the conclusion of the Commission hearing. the Commission approved said Extension of Time; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1.~. Findinqs. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan. if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. ( 2 ) The planning agency finds. in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: A: VTM23102 6 There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. Ib) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. ~c) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. B. The Riverside County General Plan. as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The proposed Extension of Time is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: {1 ) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. (2) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title. each of the following: There is reasonable probability that First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23102 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. A: VTM23102 7 The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. D. (1) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No, 460, no subdivision or extension of time may be approved unless the following findings are made: a) That the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. b) That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. c) That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type of development. d) That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. e) That the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. f) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. g) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land division. A land division may be approved if it is found that alternate easements for access or for use will be provided and that they will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. (2) The Planning Commission in approving the proposed Extension of Time, makes the following findings, to wit: A: VTM23102 8 a) b) c) d) e) 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 ~he fact that the proposed use conforms with those uses listed as "allowed" within the project siteis existing Specific Plan No. 199 (Low Density Family Housing) land use designation. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and density, due to the fact that; adequate area is provided for all proposed residential structures; adequate landscaping is provided along the project's public and private frontages; and the internal circulation plan should not create traffic conflicts as design provisions are in conformance with adopted City standards. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare, due to the fact that the conditions stated in the approval are based on mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts of the project. A: VTM23102 9 f) g) h) i) j) Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23102 is compatible with surroundin9 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 (Specific Plan No. 199), and also consistent with the adopted Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP) designation of Specific Plan. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the Negative Declaration adopted by the County for the project, due to the fact that impact mitigation is realized by conformance with the project's Conditions of Approval. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact that the project currently proposes an independent access point from La Serena Way which has been determined to be adequate by the City Engineer. The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed projects, due to the fact that this is clearly represented in the site plan and the project analysis. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applicants and herein incorporated by reference, due to the fact A: VTM23102 10 that they are referenced in the attached Staff Report, Exhibits, Environmental Assessment, and Conditions of Approval. E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Tentative Tract Map is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community, SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. That the City of Temecula Planning commission hereby determines that the previous Environmental Determination {Adoption of Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No, 3253u,) still applies to said tract map. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in EIR Nos. 107 and 202 and in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is her.eby granted. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23102 for the subdivision of a 16.~ acre parcel into 37 single family residential lots located west of Butterfield Stage Road and north of La Serena Way and known as Assessoris Parcel No. 923-200-019 subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of April, 1991. DENNIS CHINIAEFF CHAIRMAN I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 15th day of April, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS A: VTM23102 11 ATTACHMENT II CITY OF TEMECULA ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23102 Commission Approval Date: Expiration Date: Planninq Department Unless previously paid, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. The subdivider shall submit to the Planning Director verification that Section 10. 35 of Ordinance No. o,60 has been satisfied regarding payment of parks and recreation fees in accordance with Section 10.35 of Ordinance No. L~60. Verification shall be submitted prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy. No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer~s successorbs-in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ~$100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library development. This conditionally approved Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23102 will expire one tl) year after the original expiration date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance u,60. The expiration date is November 8, 1991. The subdivider shall comply with the original Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 23102 {see attached ) except as amended herein. Enqineerinq Department The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering Department. A: VTM23102 12 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. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered Civil Engineer, subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No. u,60. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: As deemed necessary by the City Engineer or his representative. the developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Metropolitan Water District; Rancho California Water District; Eastern Municipal Water District; Riverside County Flood Control district; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; Planning Department; Engineering Department: Riverside County Health Department; CATV Franchise; and Parks and Recreation Department. All road easements and/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the City Engineer. 10. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities. utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the City Engineer. 11. A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC~,R's) shall be prepared by the developer and submitted to the Director of Planning, City Engineer and City Attorney. The CCF, R~s shall be signed and acknowledged by all parties having any record title interest in the property to be developed, shall make the City a party thereto. and shall be enforceable by the City. The CC[,R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded. The CC[,R's shall be subject to the following conditions: a. The CCF, Rss shall be prepared at the developer~s sole cost and expense. A: VTM23102 13 The CCF, R~s shall be in the form and content approved by the Director of Planning, City Engineer and the City Attorney, and shall include such provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials deem necessary to protect the interest of the City and its residents. The CCSR's and Articles of incorporation of the Property Owneras Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney, They shall be recorded concurrent with the final map. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City. The CCSRss shall provide for the effective establishment, operation, management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas and facilities. The CCSR~s shall provide that the property shall be developed, operated and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance. The CCSR~s shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the condition required by the CC~;R~s, then the City, after making due demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and perform, at the ownePs sole expense, any maintenance required thereon by the CCSR~s or the City ordinances. The property shall be subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not promptly reimbursed. 12. 13. The declaration shall contain language prohibiting further subdivision of any lots, whether they are lettered lots or numbered lots, All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by homeownePs association or other means acceptable to the City. Such proof of this maintenance shall be submitted to the Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to issuance of building permits. The developer, or the developePs successor, shall execute a current Public Facilities Agreement with the City of Temecula which provides for the payment of the sum of money per residential unit then established by Resolution of the City Council, prior to the issuance of any building permits for any individual lots. The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed guaranteein9 the construction of the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City standards. Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate. A: VTM23102 14 Storm drain facilities. Landscaping I street and parks). d. Sewer and domestic water systems. e. Undergrounding of existing and proposed utility distribution lines. 14. The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with adjoining developments. 15. Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. 461 and as approved by the City Engineer. 16. Prior to recordatlon of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation towards traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent. All driveways shall be located a minimum of two 12) feet from the property line. The subdivider shall submit four prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 24" x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. The subdivider shall submit four copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall address the soils stability and goolegical conditions of the site. A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. On-site drainage facilities, located outside of road right-d-way, shall be contained within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating "Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions." A: VTM23102 15 A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final map, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations should be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control District for review. 25. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 26. Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City~s CATV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time of street improvements. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS: 27. 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. 28° A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of- way. 29. 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. )f the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT: A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. Grading of the subject property shall 'be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY: 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. Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. A:VTM23102 16 Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than 10, days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39, and 90, of the State Standard Specifications. 35. Developer ~hall 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. Transportation Enqineerinq PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: 36. A signing plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for Streets "A" through "D" and shall be shown on the street improvement plans. Condition No. 5 in the County of Riverside Road letter dated July 22, 1988 shall be deleted. 38. Prior to designing any of the above plans. contact Transportation Engineering for the design requirements. 39. Condition No. 27 in the County of Riverside Road letter dated July 22. 1988 shall be modified to read: A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for La Serena Way and shall be included with the street improvement plans. 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. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS: All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and striping plans. A: VTM23102 17 Buildinq ~, Safety Del~artment ~,2. Submit approved tract map to the Department of Building and Safety for addressing prior to submittal for Structural Plan Review. ~,3. Obtain Land Use and Building Department clearance. School Fees shall be paid to Temecula Unified School District prior to issuance of permits. A: VTM23102 18 A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 4 STAFF REPORT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY S\STAFFRPT%23102-2.VTM 16 / Zoning Area: Rancho California Supervisorial District: First and Third EA No.: 32318, 32533, 32534, 32535 Specific Plan Section Tract Nos.: 23100 Amendment No. 1 23101, 23102 23103 Amendment No. 1 Planning Commission: 9-28-88 Agenda Item No.: 1-2 RIVERSIDE COUIfFf PLANNIRG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT 1. Applicant: 2. Engineer: 3. Type of Request: 4. Location: 5. Existing Zoning: 6. Surrounding Zoning: 7. Site Characteristics: 8. Area Characteristics: Comprehensive General Plan Designation: 10. Land Division Data: Tract Acreage Marlborough Development Corp. Community Engineering Services, Inc. The four tracts will subdivide 254 acres into 605 residential lots and 18 open space lots. West of Butterfield Stage Road, north of Rancho California Road and east of Kaiser Parkway. R-R (Change of Zone 5107 heard by the Board of Supervisors on 9-13-88 proposes Specific Plan lgg Amendment No. I zoning). To the west and south the tracts adjoin other portions of Specific Plan 199. To the east and north, the zoning is A-I-lO, A-2-20 and R-T. The N-A-P property located in the southwest corner of the tracts is zoned R-1. Vacant land traversed with low hills. Located on eastern edge of Rancho California con~nunity. Agricultural and rural land uses are located east of Butterfield Stage Road. Not designated as Open Space and Rancho Villages (General Plan Amendment No. 150 proposes a general plan designation of Specific Plan 199, Amendment No. 1). Residential Lots Open Space Lots Density 23100 Amd. I 1223 287 5 2.4 23101 87 263 8 3.0 23102 16 37 5 2.3 23103 Amd. i 2g 18 .6 Total Staff Report Tract Nos. 23100 Amended No. 1 23101, 23102 23103 Amended No. 1 Page 2 11. Agency Recommendations: See letters dated: Tract 23100 Amd. I 23101 23102 23103 Amd. I Road: 7-25-88 7-22-88 7-22-88 7-22-88 Health: 4-19-88 4-19-88 4-19-88 6-23-88 Flood: 6-17-88 6-17-88 6-17-88 6-17-88 Fire: 6-14-88 6-15-88 5- 3-88 4-28-88 B~WD 4-15-88 4-15-88 4-1g-BB 4-15-88 Rancho Water Dist. 6-20-88 6-16-88 4-18-88 6-16-88 Caltrans 3-30-88 3-30-88 Sheriff 4- 5:88 4- 4-88 4-5-88 4- 5-88 12. Letters: Opposing/supporting: None received as of this writing. 13. Sphere of Influence: Not within a City Sphere. ANALYSIS: Tract Nos. 23100 Amended No. 1, 23101, 23102 and 23103 Amended No. I implement Village B of the Margarita Village Specific Plan {SP 199 Amendment No. 1}. Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1, 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 designed to be consistent with these documents. The table below summarize the tracts' relationship and consistency with the Specific Plan's planninq areas. As shown, none of the tracts exceed the permitted number of residential units. COHPARISON OF TRACT MID SPECIFIC PLAN ~LIRG UNI~ Tract No. Proposed Specific Plan Permitted No. of Units Area No. of Units 23100 Amd. I 287 8, 10-12 291 23101 263 4, 6 263 23102 37 2, 3 37 23103 Amd. I 18 7, 9 19 605 610 Staff Report Tract Nos. 23100 Amended No. 1 23101, 23102 23103 A~ended No. I .-"' Page 3 ' Tract 23100 Amended No. I proposes a mini m 7200 square feet lot size and the development of the southern portion of Plnning Area 5, the proposed park. The tract has been conditioned to comply wi h the Stephens Kangaroo rat mitigation included in Specific Plan No. 199. shall be developed to assure c~p ity in grading and to meet neighborhood recreational needs. A lot line adjustment with the ~ncho ~lifornia Water District is also required prior to recordation of the final map. Tract No. 23101 proposes a minimum lot size of 6000 square feet but ensures a usable rear yard area per the specific plan conditions of approval. Tract 23101 will also comply with the specific plan's conditions of approval to mitigate Stephen's Kangaroo Rat impacts. Tract No. 23102 proposes a minimum 7200 square foot lot size. Tract 23103 Amended No. I proposes one acre minimum lot sizes along Butterfield Stage Road so as to provide a buffer and transition to wineries located to the east. The applicant is requesting a waiver to the County's requi red length to width ratio for lot 18 due to the difficult configuration of this parcel of land and restricted access on Butterfield Stage Road. All four tracts have been conditioned to mitigate impacts to the Mt. Pal o mar Observatory, school impacts, as well as comply with acoustical reports and the adopted specific plan and development agreement requirements. Environmental Assessments have been prepared on all four tracts. Environmental impacts were assessed in EIR 107 and EIR 202 prepared for the Rancho Village Specific Plan and the Margarita Village Specific Plan. Additional environmental evaluation has been provided by the reports prepared for the specific plan amendment and the acoustical studies prepared for three tracts. No significant environmental impacts have been found. FINDINGS: 1. Tentative Tract No.s 23100 Amended No. 1, 23101, 23102, and 23103 Amended No. 1 are located in Village B of the Margarita Village Specific Plan. 2. The four tracts will divide 254 acres into 605 residential lots. 3. The tracts have been conditioned per the Specific Plan's condition of approval to mitigate impacts to the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat. Staff Report Tract Nos. 23100 Mended No. 1 23101, 23102 23103 Amended No. I Page 4 4. The tracts have been condltloned to comply w~th Specific Plan 199, Change of Zone No. 5107 and Development Agreement No. 5. 5. A walver for length to wtdth ratio wtll be needed for Tract 23103 Amended No. 1. CONCLUSZORS: All environmental concerns have been addressed ~n EIRs 107, 202 and the tnltlal studles for these tracts and no significant Impacts have been found. 2. The tracts are conslsten~ wlth General Plan Amendment No. 150, Change of Zone No. 5107, Spectftc Plan No. 199, Amendment No. 1. 3. The tracts confom to the requirements of Ordinances 348 and 460. RECO~MENDATXONS ADOPTZON of a Ne attve Oeclaratlon for EA Nos. 32318, 32533, 32534, 32535 based on a Tlnd~ng ~hat the project w111 not have a slgn~flcant effect on the environment. APPROVAL of Tentative Tract Hos. 23100 Amended No. 1, 23101, 23102, and 23103 l~i~d~a'No. 1 subject to the attached conditions of approval. KG:mp m ~ Ill I TRACTS 23100, 23101, 23~02, 2:~103 I LAND USE I 1 'RES., 'ED ' ./-'VINEYARD lAP elOeZ~ F . I ' """"'~/VAC r'GRADING GRADED VAC ,M,emm, \% VAC 3r15,, R21r App. MARLBOROUGH DEVELOPMENT CORE LOCATIONAL MAP Use 254.9 ACRES INTO 610 LOTS Area RANCHO CALIFORNIA Sup. Dist, I ,SIc. T.TS,R. 2W Assessor's Bk. 99~3 Pg. VAR. Circulation RANCHO CALF. RD. ARTERIAL Element BUTTERFIELD STAGE RD. ARTERIAL I10' Rd. Bk. Pg. 55 C Date 8/11/1988 Drawn By F J.WdT~.~. 1500' RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT No 4 .J""".,,. R App, MARLBOROUGH DEVELOPMENT CORP. · /I/I 8Drtw~ S F J.W. Circulation RANCHO CALF, RO, ARTERIAL IIO" Eiernent BUTTERFIELD BTilt,~: RD. ARTERIAL ;o ,,;t,,,, ,-,,,';:,- '~'" ' 150~)' VER E COUI;TYING DE;AR~o sc~.~ RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTNENT SUBDIVXSION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23102 DATE: 9-28-88 STANDARD CONDITIONS The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold hamless the County of Riverside, its agents, officers, and employees from any clatm, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside or its agents, officers, or enployees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the County of Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Tentative Tract 23102, which action is brought about within 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 Riverside and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the County fatls to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the County of Riverside. The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Nap Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule A, unless modified by the conditions :listed below. This conditlonally approved tentative map will expire two years after the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Nap Act and Ordinance 460. The subdivider shall submit one copy of a soils report to the Riverside County Sutveyor's Office and two copies to the Department of Building and Safety. The report shall address the soils stability and geological condltlons of the site. If any grading is proposed, the subdivider shall submit one print of comprehensive grading plan to the Department of Botldtng and Safety. The plan shall comply with the Unifom Building Code, Chapter 70, as mended by Ordinance 457 and as maybe additionally provided for In these conditions of approval, Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract No. 23102 Page 2 14, 15' A grading permit shall be obtalned from the Deparb~ent of Bufldtng and Safety prior to ~.,.,=ncement of any grading outstde of county maintained road right of way. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordatton of the flnal map. The subdivider shall comply with the street Improvement recommendations outlined tn the RIverside County Road Department's letter dated 7-22-88 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~ntil 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 Conunissioner. 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 4-19-8B a copy of which is attached. The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined by the Rir~tside County Flood Control District's letter dated 6-17-88 a copy of which is attached. If the land division lies within an adopted flood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of Ordinance 460, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities shall be collected by the Road Commissioner. The subdivider shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined in the County Fire ~rshal's letter dated 5-3-BB a copy of which is attached. Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area improvement phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access to all lots in each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval. Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract No. 23102 Page 3 17. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following: 8, a Ali lots shall have a mintmum size of 7,200 square feet net bo All lot length to wldth ratios shall be in conformance with Sectlon 3.8C of Ordinance 460, CO 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. Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development standards of the Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1 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 easement. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. Trash bins, loading areas and incidental storage areas shall be located away and visually screened from surrounding areas with the use of block walls and landscaping. Prior to RECORDATIDN of the final map the following conditions shall be satisfied: Prior to the recordation of the final map the applicant shall submit written clearances to the Riverside County Road and Survey Department that all pertinent requirements outlined in the attached approval letters from the follo~ng agencies have been met. County Fire Department County Flood Control County Parks Department Rancho Water District County Health Department County Planning Department Eastern Municipal Water Dist. Prior to the recordatlon of the final map, General Plan Amendment No. 150, Specific Plan No. 199, Amendment 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 confonnance with the development standards of the zone ultimtely applied to the property. Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract No. 23Z02 Page 4 All extstlng structures on the subject property shall be removed prior to ~ecordatlon of the final map. Impacts to the Temecula Elementary and Elsinore Union High School District shall be mitigated at the development application stage in accordance with the district policies. 2Z. The common open space area shall be shown as a numbered lot on.~ flnal map and shall be managed by a master property ovmers assoclatlon ~' 22. The developer shall comply wlth the followlng parkway landscaping conditions: 1) Prior to recordation of the final map the developer shall file an applidation with the County for the formation of or annexation to, a parkway maintenance district for Tentative Tract No. 23102 in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, unless the project is within an existing parkway maintenance district. 2) S) Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall secure approval of proposed landscaping and irrigation plans from the County Road and Planning Department. All landscaping and irrigation plans and specifications shall be prepared in a reproduclbl e format suitable for permanent filing with the County Road Department. The developer shall post a landscape performance bond which shall be released concurrently with the release of subdivision performance bonds, quaranteeing the viability 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 parkway landscaping maintenance until such time as maintenance is taken over by the district. Prior to recordatlon of the final map, clearance shall be obtained from HetropolitantWater District relative to the protection of applicable easerents affecting the subject property. The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes, landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director. Street lights shall be provided within the subdivision in accordance with the standards of Ordinance 461 and the following: Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract No. 23102 Page 5 1) 2) Concurrently with the flltng of subdlvlslon Improvement plans wlth the Road I)epartment, the developer shall secure approval of the proposed street light layout first from the Road Department's traffic engineer and then from the appreprlate uttltty purveyor, Following approval of the street lighting layout by the Road Department's traffic engineer, the developer shall also file an application with LAFCO for the formation of a street lighting district, or annexation to an existing lighting district, unless the site is within an existing lighting district. 3) 4) Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall secure conditional approval of the street lighting application from LAFCO, unless the site is within an existing lighting district. All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655 and the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, detailed common open.space area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval for the phase of development in process. The plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for the following. 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 maturity, 3) All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle treatments, as approved by the Planning Director. Utilities shall be placed underground. 4) Parkways and landscaped building setbacks shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a transition into the prlmaryuse area of the site. Landscape elements shall include earth berming, ground cover, shrubs and specimen trees in conjunction with meandering sidewalks, benches and other pedestrian amenities where appropriate as Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract No. 23Z02 Page 6 g · approved by the Planning Department and Speclftc Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1. 5) Landscaping plans shall Incorporate the use of spedmen accent trees at key visual focal points within the project, 6) Where streets trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of interior streets and project parkways due to insufficient read 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. 8) 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, reiDrated and/or retained. 9) All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow growing trees shall be steel staked. All existing native specimen trees on the subject property shall be preserved wherever feasible..Where they cannot be preserved they shall be reiDrated or replaced with specimen trees as approved by the Planning Director. Replacement trees shall be noted on approved landscaping plans. 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: 1} Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process. 2) Approximate time frames for grading and identification of areas which may be graded during the higher probability rain months of January througih Hatch, 3) Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. 4) Areas of te~orary grading outside of a particular phase. All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded natural terrain and exceeding ten (10) feet in vertical heights shall be contour-graded incorporating the following grading techniques: Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract No. 23102 Page 7 0e 1,e 24e 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 terratn. 3) The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves with rad11 deslgned tn proportion to the total height of the slopes where drainage and 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. Gradlng plans shall conform to Board adopted Hlllstde Development Standards: All cut and/or ftll slopes, or Individual comblnatlons thereof, which exceed ten feet tn verttcal heights shall be modified by an a propriaM combination of a special terracing (benchtrig) plan tncrease s~ope ratio (t.e. 3:1), retainin walls, and/or slope planttng combined with trrlgatlon. All driveways shall not exceed a fifteen percent grade. Prior to the Issuance of gradtng pemtts, the developer shall provide evidence to the DIrector of Building and Safety that all adjacent off-site manufactured slopes have recorded slope easements and that slope maintenance responsibilities have been assigned as approved by the Director of Building and Safety, Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: With to the submittal of building plans to the Department of Building and Safety the developer will demonstrate compliance with the acoustical study prepared for Tract 23100 which established appropriate mitigation measures to reduce ambient interior noise levels to4S Ldn and exterior noise levels below 65 Ldn. b. Butldt separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall not benless than ten feet. c. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 10 feet. d. 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. e. 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 Condttlons of ~proval Tentative Tract No. 23102 Page 8 agreement between the developer and the County of Riverside, no building penntts shall be issued by the County of Riverside for any parcels wlthtn the subject tract until the developer, or the develo r's successors-in-interest provided evidence of compliance with ~e terms of satd Development Agreement No. S for the financing of public facilities. Prior to the recotdatlon of the final subdivision map, the subdivider shall submit the followlng documents to the Plannlng Oepartment for revtew, 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 conveying tltle to the purchaser of an Individual lot or unit whtch provides that the declaration of covenants, condttlons and restrictions is incorporated therein by reference. The declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions submitted for review shall (a} provide for a minimum tem of 60 years, (b) provide for the establishment of a property owners' association comprised of the owners of each individual lot or unit, (c) provide for ownership of the common area by either the property owners' association or the owners of each individual lot or unit as tenants in common and (d) contain the following provisions verbatim: 'Notwithstanding any provision in this Declaration to the contrary, the following provision shall apply: ,~ ~ L* The property owners' association established hereln shall manage and continuously maintain the 'common area', more particularly described on Exhibit '11-7' 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 Rtversle or the County's successor-in-interest. The property owners' association shall have the right to assess the owners of each Individual lot or unit for the reasonable cost of maintaining the 'common area' and shall have the right to lien the property of any such owner who defaults in the payment of a maintenance assessment. An assessment 1ten, once created, shall be prior to all other 1tens recorded subsequent to the notice of assessment or other document creating the assessment lien. This Oeclaratlon shall not be terminated, 'substantially' amended or property deannexed therefrom absent the prior written consent of the Planning Director of the County of Riverside or the County's Conditions of Approval Tentathe Tract No, 23102 Page 9 successor-In-Interest. A proposed amendment 'substantial' tf tt affects the extent, usage or ecommo~ areae, shall be consldeced maintenance of the In the event of any confltct between thts Declaration and the Articles of Incor oration, the Bylaws or the property ownerst assoclatton Rules and ReguVattons, tf any, thfs Declaration shall control,' O~ce apptoved, the declaratlon of covenants, condltlons and restrictions .shall be recorded at the same time that the flnal map is recorded. Prior t o the tssuance of gradlng permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the developer for consultation and con~ent on the proposed grading wtth respect to potential paleontologist impacts, Should the paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a pre-grade meetlng between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading contractor shall be arranged, When necessary, the SaleontologiSt or representative shall have the authority to temporarily lvert, redlrect or halt grading acttvlty to allow recovery of fossils. Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: ae Prior to the final building inspection approval, by the Building and SafetX De artment, walls shall be constructed along La Serene Way per Specific P~an 199 Amendment No. 1. The Required be walll shall subject to the approval of the Director of the Department of Building and Safety and the Planning Director. b. Wall and/or fence locations shall conform to attached Figure III-28 of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1. c, All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal conditions do not permit lenttrig, interim landscaping and erosion control measures shall be utilized as by the approved Planning Director and the Director of ~tldlng and Safety. d. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans and shall be verified by a Planning Department field inspection. e. Not withstanding the preceding conditions,the heights of all required walls shall be determined by the acoustical study where applicable. fo ~oncrete sidewalks shall be constructed throughout the subdivision in accordance with the standards of Ordinance 461 and Specific Plan No. lg9 Amendment No. 1. Condttlons of Approval Tentative Tract No, 23Z02 Page 10 g. Street trees shall be planted throughout the subdivision in accordance with the standards of Ordinance 460 and Specific Plan No, 199 Amendment No, 1 36, ~l'~nt~tve Tract No, 23102 conform to Specific Plan No, 199 Amendment No. I and Development Agreement No, 5, K6:mp OFFICE OF ROAD COklMISSIONER 6 COUNTY SURVEYOR July 22, 1988 LeRoy D. Smom Riverside County Planning Commission 4080Le~Dn Street Riverside, CA92501 Re: Tract Nap 23102 Schedule A o Team SP Ladies and Gentlemen: With respect to the conditions of approval for the referenced tentative land division nip, the Road Department recommends that the landdivider 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 tentative map correctly shows acceptable centerline profiles, all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses with appropriate q's, and that their mission or unacceptability may require the map to be resubmitted for further consideration. These Ordinances and the following conditions are essential parts and a requirement occurring in ONE is as binding as though occurring in a11. They are intended to be complementary and to describe the conditions for a complete design of the improvement. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Road Conrnissioner's Office. The landdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages caused 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 a drainage easement or by beth. All drainage easements shall be shown on the final map and noted as follows: "Drainage Easement - no building, obstructions, or encroachments by land fills are allowed". The protection shall be as approved by the Road Department. The landdivider shall accept and properly dispose of all offsite drainage flowing onto or through the site. In the event the Road Commissioner permits the use of streets for drainage pu oses, the provisions of Article XI of Ordinance No. 460 wtlr~ apply. Should the quantities exceed street the capacity or the use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the subdivider shall provide adequate drainage facilities as approved by the Road Department. Map 23102 luly 22. 1988 'a~e 2 MaJor drainage is involved on this landdivision and its resolution shall be as approved by the Road Department, La Serena Way shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 102, (32'/44'). Streets "A" thru "D" shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 105, Section A. (36'/ 60'). The landdivlder will provide a left turn lane on La Serena kay at the intersection with "A" Street as approved by the Road Department. The landdivider shall provide utility clearance from Rancho Calif. Water District prior to the recordation of the final The landdivider shall post a deposit and execute an agreement with the Hetropolitan Water District prior to the recordation of the final map. The minimum centerline radii shall be 300' or as approved by the Road Department. 10. 11. The minimum lot frontages along the cul-de-sacs and knuckles shall be 35 feet or as approved by the Road Commissioner. All driveways shall conform to the applicable Riverside County Standards. When blockwalls 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 Commissioner. The minimum garage setback shall be 30 feet measured from the face of curb. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed throughout the landdivision in accordance with County Standard No. 400 and 401 (curb sidewalk). Hap 23102 J1.~'22, 1988 sge. 3 Primary and secondary access roads to the nearest paved road main- tained by the County shall be constructed within the public right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 106, Section B, (32'/60') at a grade and alignment as approved by the Road Commissioner. This is necessary for circulation purposes. 20. 21. 22. Prior to the recordatton of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Road Department, a cash sum of $150.00 per lot as mitigation for traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of pa3nnent, he may enter into a written agreement ~th the County deferring said pa3nnent to the time of issuance of a building permit, /mprovement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a minimum of 300 fe~t beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the Riverside County Road Commissioner. Completion of road improvements does not imply acceptance for maintenance by County. Electrical and communications trenches shall be provided in accordance with Ordinance 461, Standard 817. Asphalttc emulsion {fog seal} shall be applied not less than fourteen days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Sections 37, 39 and g4 of the State Standard Specifications. Standard cul-de-sacs and off-set cul-de-sacs shall be constructed throughout the landdivision. Corner cutbacks in conformance with County Standard No. 805 shall be shown on the final map and offered for dedication. Lot access shall be restricted on La Serena Way and so noted on the final map. Landdivisions creating cut or fill slopes adjacent to the streets shall provide erosion control, sight distance control and slope easements as approved by the Road Department. 23. All centerline intersections shall be at 90° with a minimum 50' tangent measured from flow line. TCact Nap 23102 July 22, 1988 hge 4 4e The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with TR 23101, TR 22148, and SP 199. Street lighting shall be required in accordance with Ordinance 460 and 461 throughout the subdivision. The County Service Area (CSA) Administrator determines whether this proposal qualifies under an existing assessment district or not. If not, the land owner shall file an application with LAFC0 for annexation into or creation of a 'Lighting Assessment District' in accordance with Governmental Code Section 56000. All private and public entrances and/or intersections opposite this project shall be coordinated with this project and shown on the street improvement plans. A striping plan is required for La Serena Way. Traffic signing and striping shall be done by County forces with all incurred costs borne by the applicant. The landdivider shall comply with this department's recomEndations for SP 199 as outlined in our letter dated dune Z, 1988. GH:lh Very truly yours, Gus Hughes Road Division Engineer COUNTY OF t .IVERSIDE" DEPARTMENT f HEALTH o-.... RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT, 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92502 APR 2 1 1988 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Attn: Kim Gifford PIE; Tract Map 23102; Being a portion of the Rancho Temecula granted by the government of the United States of America to Luis Vignes by patent dated January 18. 1860 and recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, California in Book 1 of Patents at Page 37 and a portion of the Rancho Pauba granted by the government of the United States of America to Luis Vignes by patent dated January 19. 1860 and recorded in the Office of the San DIego County Recorder in Book I at Page 45. (37 Lots) Gent I emen: The Department of Public Health has reviewed Tentative Map No. 23102 and recommends thlt: A water system shall be installed according to plans and specification as approved by the water company and the Health Department. Permanent prindts of the plans Of the water system shall be submitted in triplicate. with a minimum scale not less than one inch equals 200 feet. along with the original drawing to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter. location of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and 3oint 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 Div. 5, Part 1, Chapter 7 or the California Health and Safety Code. California Administrative Code, Title 22. Chapter 16, and General Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California. when applicable. Riverside County Planning Dept. Page Two Attn: Kim Gifford April 19. 1988 The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in Tract Map 23102 is in accordance with the water system expansion plans of the Rancho California Water District and that the water service.storage and distribution system will 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 official of the water company. This Department has a statement from the Rancho California Water 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 necessary for the flnanclal 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 of the District. 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 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 3oint specifications and the size of the SeW~TS at the junction of 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 plans and profiles. The plans shall be signed by registered engineer and the sewer district with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the sewer system in Tract Map 23102 is in accordance with the sewer system expansion plans of the Eastern Municipal Water District and that the waste disposal system is adequate at this time to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed tract." Blv~r~ide County Plannin9 Dept. Page Three AhN: Kim Gifford April 19, 19~8 It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be made prior to the recordation of the final map. SM:tac ' '#20/8leg ~ Eastern Municipal 'W'at er District April 15, 1988 Riverside County Planning Department 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor Riverside, California 92501 SUBdECT: VESTING TRACT 23102 (Gtfford) The Dtstrict is responding to your request for co~ents on the subject project(s) relative to the provision of water and sewer service. The items checked below apply to this project review. The subject pro~ect: X Zs not within EMNO's: X water service area sewer service area Must be annexed to this Oistrict's Improvement District No. in order to be eligible to receive domestic water/sanitary sewer service. Will be required to construct the following facilities: a.) Water Service b.) Sewer Service Comments were submitted to Riverside Co. (Feb. 15, 1988) regarding SP 199 - Am #1. This is to r~iterate those comments that sewers are to be gravity, regionally sized and no sewers will be allowed on private lands, or along lot lines. They are to be in streets. flust provtde adequate rtghts-of-~ay. Effi4O's RIght-of-May Department. The proponent should contact Nust provtde a stte for the construction of: se,er lift starton ~ater pumptrig starton ~ater storage ~eservotr Wtll be requtred to use reclaimed water In the greenbelt areas. Zs wtthtn the Assessment DIstrict. Conditions must be tncluded that the tract cannot be recorded unttl the assessment has been patd tn full or an aftmended assessment dtstrtct has been recorded. Requtres major master planning and the Dtstrtct cannot con~nent unt~l the master plan Is completed. Can be provtded wtth water servtce since the Dtstrtct has extsttng water facilities tn the area. (does no__tconstder fire flow) Can be provided wlth sewer servlce s~nce the DhtHct has adequate sewer facilities. All above comments are subject to revtston during submittal of tracts approval, Should you have questions on any of the above comments, please call me. for Very Trul~ Yours, EASTERN HUNZCIPAL k{ATER DISTRICT Planning Department TO: PLANN/NG DEPARTNENT RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY RAY HEBRARD FIRE CHIEf~ 5-3-88 Fia~nlnl &, Enlineerlnl Office 4080 Lemon ~treet, Suite 11 Rivehide, CA 9250] (714) 787,6606 A1TN: TEAN I RE: TR 23102 e Rith respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land division, the Fire Department Recommends the following fire protection mebsures be provided tn acrnrd~nce with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: FIRE PROTECTION Schedule A fire protection approved standard fire hydrants, (6"x4"x2~") located one at each street intersection and spaced no more than 330 feet apart in any direction, with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a hydrant. Ninimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for 2 hours duration at.2O PSI. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/a~proved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any conbustible building material being placed on an individual lot. All questions regarding the meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Fire Department Planning and Engineering staff. RAYMOND H. REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner George Tatum, Fire Department Planner Jhw Riverside County Planning Department Re= Tract 23102 - 2 - June 17, 1988 ge Onsite 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 buildings and obstructions". All lots should be graded to drain to the adjacent street or an adequate outlet. The 10 year storm flow should be Contained within the curb and the 100 year storm flow should be contained within the street right of way. When 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. The property's street and lot grading should be designed in a manner that perpetuates the existing natural drainage petterns with respect to tributary drainage area, outlet points and outlet conditions, otherwise, a drainage easement should be obtained from the affected property owners for the release of concentrated or di- verted storm flows. A copy of the recorded drainage easement should be submitted to the District for review prior to the recordation of the final map. Temporary erosion control measures should be implemented immediately following rough grading to prevent deposition of debris onto downstream properties or drainage facilities. Develol~uent of this property should be coordinated with the development of adjacent properties toensure that watercourses remain unobstructed and stormwaters are not diverted from one watershed to another. This may require the construction of temporary drainage facilities or offsite construction and grading· A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final map along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic cal- culations should be submitted to the District via the Road Department for review and approval prior to recorda- tion of the final map. Grading plans should be approved prior to issuance of grading permits. R~verside County Planning Department Re: Tract 23102 June 17, 1988 Questions concerning this matter may be referred to Robert Chiang of this office at 714/787-2333. Comunity Engineering Services, Inc. RC:sef Very truly yours, KENNETH L. EDWARDS 3HN H. KASHUBA :enior Civil Engineer e · - =IiVER iDE courlc,u PLAfiFIiI'IG DEPARCEIEnC DATE: March 16, 1988 &smellor Building and Safety Surveyor - Dave Dude Road Department Health -- Ralph Luchs Fire Protection Flood Control District Fish & Game LAFCO, S Paisley U.S. PostAl Service - ~uth X. Davidson APR 18 RIVERSIDE C3L:NTY pLANNING DEPARTR.~ENT Riverside County Parks Agr(culture Comtssioner Airports Depart, GROFZT Eastern !~jntcipal Water'DIstrict Rancho California Wa~r Dtst, Elsinore Union School D(st. Temecula Union School D(st, Sierra Club CLATRAN5 38 Commissioner Bresson Commissioner Donahoe Shertff's Depart, VESTING TKACT 23102 - (Sp P1) - E.A. 32534 -Marlborough Development Corp. - Community Engineering Services - Rancho California/Skinner Lake Area - First & Third Supervtsorlal District - N. of taserena Way, W. of Butterfield Stage Road - SP/E-1-7,000 Zone - 16.4 Acres into 37 lots - Schedule A - (CONCUP~ENT CASE SP 199 Amd #1, CZ 5107, TR 23100, 23101, 23103) - RELATED CASE SP 199 Hargarita Village - Hod 120/339 - A.P. 923-210-001 Please review the case described above, along vith the attached case map. A Land Division Committee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for May 16, 1988. If it clears, it will then go to public hearing. Your comments and recommendations are requested prior to Hay 1, 1988 in order that ve may include thm in the staff raporE for this particular case. S~ould you have any questions regarding this item, please do not hesitate to contact Kathy Cifford at 787-6356 Planner COMMENTS: The Elsinore Union High School District facilities are overcrowded and our educational programs seriously impacted by increasing student population caused by new residential, commercial and industrial con- struction. Therefore, pursuant.to .Ga/li.for~U~._~ G. overnment Co.de Section PLEASE print name mud title Joseph P. Enserro, Asst. Superintendent 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 46'209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619} 342-6277 gall OF. CAI.~,NIA.--IU$1NE,~, llANJPOITATION AND ~ A(~NCY :DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ~ l. PC,. BOx 231 SaN IEINARDINO, CA Harch 30, 1988 t!AR 3 1 1988 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING E~EPARTMENT ) e Development Review 08-Rlv-79-8.23 Your Reference: VT 23102 Planning Department Attention Ms. Kathy Gtfford County of Riv~rside 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 Dear H8. Giftoral: Thank you for %he opportunity to review the proposed Vesting Tract 23102 located north of La Serena Way and west of Butterfield Stage Road. This proposal is ~onstderably removed from an existing or proposed state highway, We have no speetftc comment on this proposal. If additional information is desired, please call Mr. Patrick M. Connally at (71~) 383-q38q- Very truly yours, H. N. LE~ District Permlts2ngineer RiVERSiDE COUn;,u PLAnninG DEPAREmEnC DATE: Parch 16, 1988 TO: A~eeseor · uildlug and Safety Surveyor - Dave Duds bad Department Health - Ralph Luchs Fire Protection Flood Control District Fish & Game LAFCO, S Paisley D.S. Postal Service - Xuth E. Davidson Riverside County Parks Agriculture Comtsstoner Mrports Depart. GROFIT Eastern Municipal Mater'District Rancho California Water Oist. Elstnore Union School Dist. Temecula Union School Dist. Sierra Club CLATiLeJL5 38 Commissioner Bresson Commissioner Denshoe Shertff's Depart. R!V~;'*~'*~'.~.:Ty PLANNd~G bc~'...~'~ ,:~T VESTING TRACT 23102 - (Sp P1) - E.A. 3253~ - Marlborough Development Corp. - Community Engineering Services - Rancho California/Skinner Lake Area - First & Third Supervisorial District - N. of Laserena ~ay, ~. of Butterfield Stage Road - SP/R-1-7,000 Zone - 16.~ Acres into 37 lots - Schedule A - (CONCURRE~T CASE SP 199 Amd #1, CZ 5107, TR 23100, 23101, 23103) - RELATED CASE SP 199 ~argarita Village - Mod 120/339 - A.P. 923-210-001 Please revtev the case descrlbe~ above, along vith the attached case map. A Land Division Committee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for Hay 16, 1988. If it clears, it ~ill then go to public hearing. Tour comments and recommendations are requested prior to Hay 1, 1988 in order that ve may include them in the staff report for this perticu~ar case. Should you have any questions regarding this item, please do not hesitate to contact Kathy Gtfford at 787-6356 Planner CO,~4ErES= DATE: 4-5-88 SIGNATURE FLEASE print name and title MODE OF FUTURE DELIVERY: CENTRALIZED. CONTACT WITH THE USPS GROWTH COORDINATOR REQUIRED BEFORE CONSTRUCTION FOR DELIVERY LOCATIONS. ROY MOON GROWTH COORDINATOR 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787-6181 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 a, INDIO. CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-8277 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 EXHIBITS S\STAFFRPT\23102-2,VTM 17 To RiversiN PROJECT SITE. CASE NO.: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23102, Second Extension of Time EXHIBIT: A VICINITY MAP P.C. DATE: February 24, 1992 S%STAFFRPT%23102-2.VTM SWAP - Exhibit B CITY OF TEMECULA Designation: Specific Plan 199 ZONING - Exhibit C Designation: Case No.: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23102, Second Extension of Time P.C. Date: February 24, 1992 Specific Plan S%STAFFRPT%23102-2,VT'M CITY OF TEMECULA / / CASE NO.: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23102, Second Extension of Time EXHIBIT: D VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23102 P.C. DATE: February 24, 1992 S\STAFFRPT~23102-2.VTM ITEM # 7 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning February 24, 1992 Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. 1 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution 92- approving Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. 1 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. BACKGROUND On January 6, 1992 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. I with several people speaking in favor of the project and a few speaking in opposition. Public testimony was heard and this item was continued to the February 24, 1992 hearing. In the meeting the Planning Commission requested additional information from staff prior to making a decision on the project. The areas of discussion included buffering the church from the residences to the south, additional landscaping, skirting of a mobile unit, increasing drive aisle widths, and inspection of the mobile units by the Building Official. DISCUSSION The Planning Department Staff has been working with the applicant regarding buffering and width of the drive aisles. Moreover, the Building Department Staff has been working with the applicant to determine the deficiencies of the mobile structures in terms of the Uniform Building Code and the applicable Fire Codes. The applicant has complied with most of the Planning Department's requests by revising the site plan. Other concerns have been addressed by conditioning the project. The revisions include: * Providing a six foot (6') high block wall along the southern property line. Providing a minimum five foot (5') landscape planter along the southern property line with the width increasing to ten feet (10') adjacent to the proposed parking spaces and the basketball court. Increasing the minimum drive aisle widths to twenty four feet (24') with the exception of the drive aisle parallel and closest to Santiago Road which is at seventeen feet (17'). This design is acceptable to the Fire Department since it offers a complete twenty four foot (24') loop on the site. However, according to the Fire Department representative, this width will need to be increased to twenty four feet (24') if the permanent sanctuary, multi-purpose classroom building is built per the original County approval (refer to Exhibit "E"). The seventeen foot (17') drive aisle is also acceptable to the Planning Department since it is an existing condition and is not a Public Health and Safety issue. The project has been conditioned to provide complete skirting around Building "A" to match the exterior of this building (refer to Condition No. 14)° Additionally, Condition No. 15 requires the applicant to provide landscaping for all the planters on the site plan which have been designated as proposed landscaping. In response to Planning Commission direction, an inspection was made of the premises at 29825 Santiago Road. The inspection revealed four (4) modular buildings and a historical chapel on the premises for classroom and assembly uses. Building permits were supplied by the applicant for modular buildings D and C and the relocation of a historical chapel as shown on the site plan dated January 24, 1992. The above-mentioned building permits were issued by the County of Riverside. Two (2) other buildings, building B and A are also modular in nature with building A being a combination of seven (7) attached units. Two (2) non-exempt storage buildings exist on the site without evidence of required building permits and inspections being obtained. A visual inspection of the interior and exterior of building A was performed as well as exterior inspections of building B and the storage buildings. The findings of those inspections are as follows: Buildino A Department of Housing and Community Development inspection was made on January 7, 1992. No determination to allow the B-2 occupancy change to A-3 was made. Request was left for plans to be submitted for review. The building was modified by the applicant by removing exterior wall coverings and installing electrical and insulation material. Non-bearing walls were built without proper smoke and draftstopping to form office space, classroom, an assembly room for an occupancy of 274, and storage rooms. Exiting does not meet basic requirements of the Uniform Building Code, for handicapped accessibility and fire resistive construction of exit corridor walls and ceilings. The building lacks seismic restraints. All disconnect switches for electrical and mechanical equipment have locking devices installed. Handrails are missing from front deck and stairs as well as the handicapped ramp. Buildinfi B This double-wide modular building contains three (3) classrooms, each with single non-accessible doors. Interior partitions were built to provide classroom separation presumably without proper smoke and draftstopping of concealed area above ceiling. Inspection was inhibited due to classes in session. Storaae Buildinos Both storage buildings appeared to be resting on natural grade where foundation construction is generally required. This report is an overview of the findings of the inspection that was performed. Only the major items of concern for life safety have been noted. Other concerns such as, but not limited to, improper door latch hardware and adequate restroom facilities exist but are not addressed in this report. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION This project has been found to be a Class 3 categorical exemption, Section 15303 of California Environmental Quality Act. FINDINGS There is a reasonable probability that Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. 1 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, contingent upon approval of the requested Public Use Permit, conforms with existing applicable city zoning and development ordinances. 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 the 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 potential for future general plan inconsistencies. Further, if found to be ultimately detrimental, the use is subject to termination under City Ordinance provisions contained in Section 18.31 of City Ordinance No. 348. 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 can be provided for the subject site. (Reference Exhibit "D".) The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare. 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution 92- approving Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. 1 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. vgw Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Resolution - page 5 Conditions of Approval - page 10 Minutes for January 6, 1992 Planning Commission Meeting - page 16 Building Official Memorandum - page 17 January 6, 1992 Planning Commission Staff Report - page 18 Exhibits - page 19 S\STAFFRFT~58OPUP-1.PC 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 92--- S%STAFFRPT~58OPUp-1 .PC 5 RESOLUTION NO. 92-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 580 REVISED NO. I ALLOWING EXPANSION OF RANCHO TEMECULA BIBLE CHURCH AT 29825 SANTIAGO ROAD; AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 922-130-001 WHEREAS, the Rancho Temecula Bible Church filed Public Use Permit No. 580 Revised No. 1 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Public Use Permit application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Public Use Permit on February 24, 1992, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Public Use Permit and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report regarding the Public Use Permit; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of said Public Use Permit; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: 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: $~STAFFRPT~58OPtJP-1 .PC 6 (1) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (2) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (3) The proposed use or action 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 Public Use Permit 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 of 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 Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. 1 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. The proposal is consistent with existing development in the vicinity. (3) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. The project as conditioned, is consistent with Ordinance No. 348. Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no public use permit may be approved unless the following findings can be made: (1) The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. S\STAFFRPT~58OPU P- 1, PC 7 (2) The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. The Planning Commission, in approving of the proposed Public Use Permit makes the following findings, to wit: There is a reasonable probability that Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. 1 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, contingent upon approval of the requested Public Use Permit, conforms with existing applicable city zoning and development ordinances. 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 the 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 potential for future general plan inconsistencies. Further, if found to be ultimately detrimental, the use is subject to termination under City Ordinance provisions contained in Section 18.31 of City Ordinance No. 348. 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). De 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 will be provided to the subject site, (Reference Exhibit "D".) The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare. 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. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Public Use Permit proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. This project is determined to be categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 of said Act. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. 1 a resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula approving of Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. 1, allowing operation of the Rancho Temecula Bible Church and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 922-130-001 and subject to the following conditions: 6. Attachment 2, attached h~reto. SECTION 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of February, 1992. 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 24th day of February, 1992 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS S\STAFFRP'~58OPUP-1 .PC 9 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL S\STAFFRPT~BBOPUP-1 .PC I 0 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Public Use Permit No.: 580 Revised No. 1 Project Description: Revisions to Previously AoDroved Public Use Permit No. 580 to grant approval for existing mobile structures used as classrooms. Assessor's Parcel No, 922-I 30-016 Planning Department The use hereby permitted by this public use permit is for revision to previously approved Public Use Permit No. 580, to grant approval for existing mobile structures used as classrooms. The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. 1. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. m The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. 1, Amendment No. 3 marked Exhibit "D", or as amended by these conditions. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655. Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittal dated October 10, 1991, a copy of which is attached. S\STAFFRPT~58OPUP-1.PC 11 Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated December 12, 1991, a copy of which is attached. One hundred two (102) parking spaces shall be provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit E and shall be designed in accordance with Section 18.12, Temecula City Ordinance No. 348. The parking area shall be surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on 4 inches of Class II base. A minimum of 3 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at__ or by telephone 10. 11. In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. Prior to the final building inspection approval by the Building and Safety Department, a six foot high decorative block wall shall be constructed along the entire length of the project site's southerly boundary consistent with Rancho Highlands Specific Plan. The required wall shall be subject to the approval of the Director of the Department of Building and Safety and the Planning Director. Eight (8) Class II bicycle racks shall be provided in convenient locations as approved by the Planning Director to facilitate bicycle access to the project area. Prior to the issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the City Building Official, shall be filed with the Department of Planning guaranteeing construction of the required perimeter screen wall per the approved plans and the installation of the landscaping. 12. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. S~STAFFRPT~580PU~1.PC 12 13. The applicant shall comply with Conditions 9, 17 through 22, and item No. 2 of the December 12, 1991 Fire Department correspondence within ninety (90) days following this approval. tf the applicant fails to comply with this deadline and/or the applicant does not demonstrate a good faith effort in meeting this deadline as determined by the Building Official, the Building Official shall start the revocation process for Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. 1, (Section 18.31 of Ordinance No. 348). 14. Skirting shall be provided around Building "A" to match the exterior of the building. 15. Landscaping and irrigation shall be provided in all planters designated as proposed landscaping. The plant types and number shall be subject to approval of the Planning Director. 16. School buses shall not be parked in the back parking area and they shall not be visible from the adjacent residences to the south. Building and Safety Department 17. Comply with applicable provisions of the 1988 edition of the Uniform Building, Plumbing and Mechanical, 1990 National Electrical Code, California Administrative Code title 24 Energy and Handicapped Regulations and the Temecula Code. 18. Submit at time of plan review complete exterior site lighting plans in compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the Regulation of Light Pollution. 19. Obtain all building permits prior to the commencement of any construction work. 20. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 21. Provide occupancy approval for all existing buildings (i.e. finialed building permit, Certificate of Occupancy). 22. All existing buildings and facilities must comply with applicable handicapped accessibility regulations. Engineering Department The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval that shall either add to, supersede or amend the previously approved conditions 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 personnel of the Department of Public Works. S'~STAFFRP'T~BBOPUP-1 .PC 13 It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. Developer shall be subject to all previously approved conditions of development prior to this extension of time unless otherwise noted. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS: 23. As determined by the City Engineer, the developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District; Eastern Municipal Water District; Riverside County Flood Control district; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; Planning Department; Engineering Department; Riverside County Health Department; CATV Franchise; and Parks and Recreation Department. 24. The developer shall submit four (4) prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code and Chapter 70 as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 24"x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. 25. The developer shall submit two (2) copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. 26. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. 27. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way. 28. 29. 30. No grading shall take place prior to the improvement plans being substantially complete, appropriate clearance letters and approval by the City Engineer. If grading is to take place between the months of October and April, erosion control plans will be required. Erosion control plans and notes shall be submitted and approved by the Engineering Department. All site plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency with approved plans. S\STAFFRPT~SeOPUP-1 ,PC 14 31. The existing front drive aisle parallel to Santiago shall be permitted to remain as constructed. All other drive aisles shall be a minimum of 24 feet. 32. 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. 33. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid per original Conditions of Approval of Public Use Permit No. 580. The charge shall equal the prevailing area drainage plan fee multiplied by the area of new development. The current fee due is 92,441.84, and is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. 34. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 35. All concentrated drainage directed toward the public street shall be diverted through the undersidewalk drains. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT: 36. A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 37. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY: 38. 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~580PUP-1 .PC 15 General Manager J. Andrew Sehlan[e Legal Counsel Redwine and She~vill Director of The Metropolitan [Fater Dist~ct of Southern California Doyle F. Boen May 6, 1991 Mr. Charley Ray, Case Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43180 Business Park Drive, Suite 200 Temecula, California 92390 SUIklECT: PUP 580 - Revision No. I Dear Mr. Ray: As requested, we have reviewed the subject project for the purposes of evaluating the District's ability to provide sanitary sewer service. An existing eight (8)-inch diameter sewerline is located in Santiago Road, fronting the subject project. At the present time, this Santiago Road sewer has available capacity to serve the subject project. It must be understood that the available capacity of the District's sewer system is continually changing due to development within the District. As such, service will be provided based on the timing of the subject project, the service agreement from the District, and the status of the District's permit to operate. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact the District's Customer Service Department at {714) 766-1810. Very truly yours, H~'i~.~~ Director of Planning HAS/DC:ib ,~'~ cc: John Fricker - EMWD Customer Service Department 6/I-ib 91-1077 Mail To: Post Office Box 8300 ® SanJacinto, California 92383-1300 ® Telephone L714) 925-7676 ® Fax (714) 929-0257 Main Office: 2045 S. San Jacinto Street, San Jacinto ® Customer Service/Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue, Hemet, CA Officers: John F. Hennigar October 10, 1991 Mr. Charly Ray City of Tcmecula Planning Department 43180 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 Water Availability Tract Map 20591 P.U.P. 580 Revision No. 1 Rancho Temecula Bible Church Dear Mr. Ray: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWDo If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Senga Doherty. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P. E. Manager of Development Engineering SB:SD:ajth245 cc: Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician RIVERSIDE COUNTY -.. FIRE DEPARTMENT 210 WEff SAN JACIN1D AVENIIE ' PBRRI-% CAI_rFORNIA 923'~ (714) (5f7-3i83 GLEN 3. NIBVf&4AN PIRE CHIEF December 12 1991 ~0: C~TY OF ~IMICULA A'E~rN~ ?LAI~NII~G DZl"lr EEl PUBLIC USE PEPlIT 580 Revise ~1 Amended The design of the sits improvements and use of the various buildings currently on the property. were apparently done without any tabard to the approved site plan or conditions of approval. The Fire Department iS reqUestinI the followin~ items prior to a Certificate of Conformante: I. Drivewa~s redssigned co provl4e 2~' two way traffic around the builain~e. 2. On-sire we=sT system with fire flow and fire hydrant spacing accordin~ to approvsd conditions. 3. erie=InI mobile unlrs mus~ be Certified ~y appropriate agency for construction type eccordln~ to usa. All quaetious regarding =he meaning of conditions shall be referred us the Flannin~ and En~inaering RAY~u E. KEGI5 Chief Ylre Department Planner Hipheal E. Gray, Fire Captain Specialist I.~XG/Cm F'ITe,~'IlAOppKI TAX UI'~) 5w,,-R]Tei ATTACHMENT NO. 3 MINUTES FOR JANUARY 6, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING S\STAFFRPT~580PU~I.PC 16 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: NOES: 0 JANUARY 6, 1992 Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland COMMISSIONERS: None CHAIRMAN HOAGL2kND declared a recess at 7:35 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 7:45 P.M. PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 580~ REVIBED NO. I 8.1 Request to revise the County approved Public Use Permit No. 580 to grant approval for existing mobile structures used as classrooms. Located on the south side of Santiago Road, between 1-15 and Ynez Road. SAIED NAJkSEH summarized the staff report. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND requested comments from the Chief Building Official. TONY ELMO, Chief Building Official, City of Temecula, stated that staff had no approvals and had not given any approvals for any of the portable classroom structures on the site or for occupancy, nor had the County of Riverside approved any. GARY THORNHILL advised that staff has been working with the applicant trying to get compliance on the structures; however, staff was having a difficult time getting some of the information needed and is still lacking some information. MIKE GRAY, representing the county of RiVerside Fire Department, stated that they also had been requesting information from the applicant. Mr. Gray advised that the improvements that were done at the site were sub- standard and none of them approved by any of the County agencies. Mr. Gray stated that some of the internal drive aisles were too tight for a fire truck, which presented a health and safety risk. Mr. Gray advised that he also had requested serial numbers for the portable structures; however, those he received did not match up with the portable units. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 8:00 P.M. PCMIN1/6/92 -9- January 7, 1992 PL/~NING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 6, 1992 KERRY MARTIN, pastor of Rancho Temecula Bible Church, advised the Commission that he and the church had every intention of cooperating with staff and abiding by the laws of the City. Mr. Martin questioned the accuracy of some of the findings as stated in the staff report. Mr. Martin concurred that the internal drive aisles were not the standard 24' in width; however, he pointed out that they had been that way since 1986 and they were given occupancy of the building. Mr. Martin also advised the Commission that the church had already agreed to build the block wall to screen the church from the adjacent residential. Mr. Martin advised the Commission that they had applied for the proper permits for the County and shortly thereafter their case was transferred to the City of Temecula. Pastor Martin concluded by saying that he was present t6 cooperate with staff and make these buildings as safe as possible. COMMISSIONER FKHEY asked if the applicant was aware that they needed permits in order to occupy the building. PASTOR MARTIN stated that while working with the County they had received a stamped "land use" approval from the County, which staff said the applicant had misinterpreted. LEONARD FOWLER, California Geo Tek, 42030 Avenida Alverado, Temecula, representing the applicant, stated that they did not concur with the findings as contained in the staff report, and discussed the following findings made in the staff report: Item No. 5 - this is a subjective comment and the applicant has been cooperative and asked that it be omitted. Item No. 4 - the chain link fence should not be an issue because the applicant has agreed to build a block wall. Item No. 3 - have never been advised that we did not meet the design guidelines of SP180. Item No. we have City. 2 - we are being asked to comply with something no access to, the future General Plan of the Item No. i - there is currently a minimum of 16' drive aisles; however, we are proposing 20' with one-way movement. On September 10, 1991, met with Laura Cabral of the County Fire Department, she instructed us to only PCMIN1/6/92 -10- January 7, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 6, 1992 reconstruct a curb approval of the 16' Captain Mike Gray. section and gave us her verbal a~sle, which was later rescinded by COMMIBSIONER BLAIR asked how the applicant would mitigate the situation of the basketballs going over the fence without the current 10' chain link fence. COMMISSIONERFORD asked if the applicant would be willing to condition to one way in and one way out access. LARRY FOWLER stated that they would accept that condition and that the parking lot currently is set up as one way only. The following individuals spoke in favor of the proposal and expressed their strong support of the church: LEONARD ROTH, 29605 Solana Way, N 10, Temecula. ROBERT BADDORF, 41399 Avenida Barca, Temecula. CHRISTOPHER ALLEN, 47280 Rainbow Oaks Drive, Temecula. JESUS Z/~MORA, 42700 Moraga, 41 "D", Temecula. CARLOS RAMIREZ, 42200 Moraga, 20 "E", Temecula. DEREK THOMAS, 30962 Via Norte, Temecula. BARRY LATTIE, 45547 Tournament, Temecula. JULIE LATTIE, 45547 Tournament, Temecula, secretary to Pastor Martin, stated that he has been more than cooperative with the City and their requests. Ms. Lattie indicated that she had received notification that the State Department of Housing has accepted their requests for inspection and is currently waiting for an inspector to contact them. Ms. Lattie also stated that she was never made aware that the County Fire Department did not have the correct serial numbers on the portable structures; however, she had them and would make them available to them immediately. ROBERT CARLSON, 31019 Corte Arroyo Vista, Temecula. FRED T/~TZER, 29738 Vail Brook Drive, Temecula. WILLIAM RENCH, 30624 E. Loma Linda, Temecula. RUDY MENDOZA, 31155 Camino Verde, Temecula. The following individuals spoke in opposition to the proposal: BARBARA HUGHES, 44278 Caba Street, Temecula, adjacent to the church site, opposed the proposal because the church has failed to comply with original property use, which required 6' high dense screening. She added that the church constructed a black-top, basketball court between her property line and the church, with a 6' high chain PCMIN1/6/92 -11- January 7, 1992 PLind4NIN3 COMMISSION HEETIN~ ~]s, NUiI~y 6, 1992 link fence (a 10' portion behind the basketball court to keep the balls coming. over the fence) and no room for landscape irrigation, and buses are being parked behind the church. Ms. Hughes said that due to the revisions the applicant has made, she should be afforded at the minimum, a 6' high stone/stucco wall that would afford her property privacy, noise reduction, a trespassing deterrent, protect property values and restrict lighting situations that may be required of the church so that it does not illuminate her property, the 10' fence removed and the buses parked in the front, not the rear, of the property. BOB HINZE, 44264 Caba Street, Temecula, stated that he had no objections to the church or school; however, when he moved to his property, he had understood that the church was going to put up a block wall between the adjacent properties. Mr. Hinze also stated that he felt there should be some skirting around the portable structures. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND asked what needed to be done by the applicant before the Planning Commission could give an approval. GARY THORNHILL stated the following issues needed to be addressed: deciding what type of buffering would be adequate; conditioning the project to protect adjacent property owners from the church site; look at the wall and accompanying landscaping; relocation of the basketball court; prohibiting parking of any vehicles and no additional paving at the rear of the project; comply with standards and satisfy the Fire Department requirements for internal driveways; and get public use permit approved in order to get permits for the temporary structures. COMMISSIONER FAREY stated that in addition to the many issues as stated by the Planning Director there were also the issues of skirting and meeting the landscape code requirements around the temporary structures; and time frames for the conditions, which perhaps would satisfy the nearby residents and the church members. In lieu of all of the unresolved issues, Commissioner Fahey felt that a continuance would be necessary and moved to Continue Public Use Permit No. 580 to the meeting of February 24, 1992, to have staff address these particular issues with proposed conditions, which would deal with the concerns that were voiced at the meeting. PCMIN1/6/92 -12- January 7, 1992 PLANNIN~ COMMISSION MEETIN3 ~ANUARY 6, ~992 JOB~ CAVANAUGH reminded the Commission that the Chief Building Official, Teny Elmo, stated that it was uncertain if there were any other violations, just that they structures were constructed without permits. Mr. Cavanaugh suggested that an inspection could be made, with the consent of the property owner allowing the Chief Building Official to inspect the structures and see if there is anything wrong with them, or get a inspection warrant from the courts, in order for staff to get a list of what needs to be done to the structures. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF seconded Commissioner Fahey's motion for discussion. MIKE GRAY, Riverside County Fire Department, stated that the portable structures were built under the authority of the State Housing Authority. The applicant has indicated that they have applied for an inspection of the portable structures to the State. That inspection will tell whether these structures were constructed properly, and if not, what needs to be done to bring them up to code. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF stated that although the Commission was not saying that the church should not be where it is, there are some issues that need to be addressed. The block wall and the landscaping are very important issues, and the basketball court should not be where it is. Mr. Chiniaeff also stated that the permit process was set up to address adjacent land uses; however, the church was here first. Mr. Chiniaeff asked that the maker of the motion consider that if the inspection report is not made available by 2/24/92, the item will be continued again. KERRY MARTIN indicated to the Planning Commission and staff that he would be more than willing to have the Chief Building Official inspect the portable structures and bring them up to code. COMMISSIONER FAHEY amended her motion to continue Public Use Permit No. 580 to February 24, 1992, subject to staff having the results of City Staff inspections and State Department of Housing inspections of the portable structures. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PCMIN1/6/92 -13- January 7, 1992 ATTACHMENT NO, 4 BUILDING OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM S\STAFFRPT%BBOFUP-1 ,PC 17 CITY OF TEMECULA MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission/Planning Director Anthony Elmo/~/ Chief Building Official February 7, 1992 Public Use Permit No. 580 In response to Planning Commission direction, an inspection was made of the premises at 29825 Santiago Road. The inspection revealed four (4) modular buildings and a historical chapel on the premises for classroom and assembly uses. Building permits were supplied by the applicant for modular buildings D and C and the relocation of a historical chapel as shown on the site plan dated January 24, 1992. The above-mentioned building permits were issued by the County of Riverside. Two (2) other buildings, building B and A are also modular in nature with building A being a combination of seven (7) attached units. Along with two (2) non-exempt storage buildings existing on the site without evidence of required building permits and inspections being obtained. A visual inspection of the interior and exterior of building A was performed as well as exterior inspections of building B and the storage buildings. The fmdings of those inspections am as follows: Building A Depamnent of Housing and Community Development inspection was made on January 7, 1992. No determination to allow the B-2 occupancy change to A-3 was made. Request was left for plans to be submitted for review. The building was modified by the applicant by removing exterior wall coverings and installing electrical and insulation material. Non-bearing walls were built without proper smoke and draftstopping to form office space, classroom, an assembly room for an occupancy of 274, and storage rooms. P-,xiting does not meet basic requirements of the Uniform Building Code, for handicapped accessibility and fire resistive construction of exit corridor walls and ceilings. The building lacks seismic restraints. All disconnect switches for electrical and mechanical equipment have locking devices installed. Handmils are missing from front deck and stairs as well as the handicapped ramp. Planning Commission/Planning Director February 7, 1992 Page 2 Building B This double-wide modular building contains three (3) chssrooms each with single non- accessible doors. Interior partitions were built to provide classroom separation presumably without proper smoke and draftstopping of concealed area above ceiling. Inspection was inhibited due to chsses in session. Storage Buildings Both storage buildings appeared to be resting on natural grade where foundation construction is generally required. This report is an overview of the f'mdings of the inspection that was performed. Only the major items of concern for life safety have been noted. Other concerns such as, but not limited to, improper door latch hardware and adequate restroom facilities exist but are not addressed in this report. AIFJsf ATTACHMENT NO. 5 JANUARY 6, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT $~$TAFFRPT'~580PU~l.PC 18 RECOMMENDATION: STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION January 6, 1992 Case No.: Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No.1 Prepared By: Saied Naaseh Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: ADOPT Resolution 92- denying Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. 1 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Rancho Temecula Bible Church REPRESENTATIVE: California Geo Tek, Inc. PROPOSAL: A request to revise the County approved Public Use Permit No. 580 to grant approval for existing mobile structures used as classrooms. 29825 Santiago Road Specific Plan 180, Rancho Highlands PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Specific Plan 180 Specific Plan 180 Specific Plan 180 Specific Plan 180 Not Requested Church/School North: South: East: West: Single Family Dwellings Single Family Dwellings Vacant Church S\STAFFRPT\SBO-1 .PUP 1 PROJECT STATISTICS Gross Area 3.92 Acres Number of Buildings 5 Assembly Area 1930 Square Feet Number of Classrooms 10 Number of Existing Parking Spaces 44 Number of Proposed Parking Spaces 58 Number of FacultyEmployees 13 Number of High School Students 13 BACKGROUND On December 4, 1986 the Riverside County Board of Supervisors approved Public Use Permit Number 580. This permit allowed the applicant to build a Sanctuary, to relocate an existing church building to the site to be used as a multi-purpose building and to locate two mobile units to be used as classrooms for the school for a total of four structures. The project, as constructed, is not consistent with the County approval. In addition, mobile structures were placed on the site without proper permits and approvals. These structures are used as classrooms. Exhibits "D" and "E" show the original site plan approval by the County and the existing site plan, respectively. On July 5, 1990 the residents complained to the City regarding the noise from the increased number of students and the ineffectiveness of the chain link fence as a buffer between the school and the residents (refer to Exhibit I). At that time the City became aware of the inconsistencies of the built project with the approved exhibits. The City indicated these inconsistencies to the applicant in the October 10, 1990 correspondence from the City Attorney and requested the applicant to file for a Revision to Public Use Permit No. 580 (refer to Exhibit H). On February 26, 1991 the applicant filed for this revision. At the March 28, 1991 Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting and two subsequent DRC meetings the following issues were identified: Uncertified and unapproved mobile structures used as classrooms are existing on site. Substandard parking aisle widths exist on site. The chain link fence on the southern property line is not a sufficient buffer between the church playground and the existing residences. The applicant has been aware of these issues; however, they all remain unresolved. Therefore, Staff has brought the matter before the Planning Commission for action. ANALYSIS This project was approved over five years ago by Riverside County and it has always been in violation of the approved Public Use Permit No. 580. The facility is in violation of several building and fire codes; therefore, Staff is not supportive of expanding the operation. S~STAFFRPT~580-1 .PUP 2 It is staff's opinion that the request to expand this operation should be denied. Additionally, the existing facilities should be made to conform with the building and fire codes. As an option the Planning Commission may allow the applicant thirty (30) days to comply with all the City requirements. If the property is not brought into compliance within that period then the Planning Commission may direct the Building Official to start the revocation process on the Public Use Permit Number 580. This option is available to the Planning Commission through Ordinance 348, Section 18.31, Findings and Procedure for Revocation of Variances and Permits (refer to Exhibit "F"). According to this Section the Building Official has the authority to revoke this permit if one or more of the following findings are made: That the use is detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or is a public nuisance. 2. That the permit was obtained by fraud or perjured testimony. 3. That the use is being conducted in violation of the terms and conditions of the permit. That the use for which the permit was granted has ceased or has been suspended for one year or more. Clearly, in Staff's opinion, findings No. I and No. 3 could be made for this project in that the mobile structures have been deemed unsafe by the Department of Building and Safety and are not approved as classrooms and the Conditions of Approval for Public Use Permit Number 580 have not been fully complied with (i.e., the project was never built per the approved site plan). ZONING, FUTURE GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY The SWAP and zoning designation is Specific Plan. The project is not consistent with the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan Design Guidelines. The objective of these guidelines is to establish a unique community identity. The mobile structures and the landscaping do not create this unique community identity and are not consistent with the rest of the Specific Plan ~t%-~ef~l~ architecture and landscape design. Therefore, the project is not consistent with SWAP and the zoning. The project will not be consistent with the future General Plan as it will jeopardize the public health and welfare with unapproved structures that are used as classrooms. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS Staff has concluded that these structures are not safe to be used as classrooms and they need to be certified by the Building and Safety Department and the Fire Department. The project is not consistent with existing zoning, the SWAP and it is anticipated the project will be inconsistent with the future General Plan as discussed in the Analysis section. The structures have been in violation of several codes and standards for over five years. Therefore, Staff recommends denial of this request. S\STAFFRPT~580-1 .PUP 3 FINDINGS The approval of this project is detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare, in that the drive aisles do not meet the minimum 24 feet required by Ordinance No. 348 and the Fire Department, and in that the existing structures are not approved to be used as classrooms. There is a reasonable probability that Public Use Permit No. 580 Revised No. 1, will not be consistent with the City's future General Plan, in that it will be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare for the reasons mentioned in Finding Number 1. The project is inconsistent with the approved Specific Plan No. 180, Rancho Highlands, in that the mobile units do not meet the Design Guidelines. The project has been a nuisance to the adjoining property owners, in that the chain link fence does not provide an effective buffer between the school playgrounds and the existing residences. The project applicant has been uncooperative with Staff in correcting the mentioned deficiencies in the Staff Report in that the structures remain unapproved and present a danger to the students using the facilities. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution No. 92-_ denying Public Use Permit No. 580 Revised No. 1, based on the analysis and findings contained the Staff Report. vgw Attachments: Resolution No. 92-_- page 6 Conditions of Approval - 9 Exhibits - page 14 A. Vicinity Map B. SWAP Map C. Zone Map D. County Approved Site Plan E. Proposed Site Plan F. Section 18-31, Ordinance 348 G. County Conditions of Approval H. Misc. City Correspondence I. Neighborhood Complaints Development Fee Checklist - page 19 S\STAFFRPT~580-1 .PUP ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 92- S\STAFFRP'T~580-1 .PUP 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 92- A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 580 REVISED NO. I ALLOWING EXPANSION OF RANCHO TEMECULA BIBLE CHURCH AT 29825 SANTIAGO ROAD; AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 922-130-001 WHEREAS, the Rancho Temecula Bible Church filed Public Use Permit No. 580 Revised No. I in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Public Use Permit application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Public Use Permit on January 6, 1992, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Public Use Permit and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report regarding the Public Use Permit; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: The approval of this project is detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare, in that the drive aisles do not meet the minimum 24 feet required by Ordinance No. 348 and the Fire Department, and in that the existing structures are not approved to be used as classrooms. There is a reasonable probability that Public Use Permit No. 580 Revised No. 1, will not be consistent with the City's future General Plan, in that it will be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare for the reasons mentioned in Finding Number 1. The project is inconsistent with the approved Specific Plan No. 190, Rancho Highlands, in that the mobile units do not meet the Design Guidelines. S~STAFFRPT~580-1 .PUP 6 The project has been a nuisance to the adjoining property owners, in that the chain link fence does not provide an effective buffer between the school playgrounds and the existing residences. The project applicant has been uncooperative with Staff in correcting the mentioned deficiencies in the Staff Report in that the structures remain unapproved and present a danger to the students using the facilities. SECTION 2. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby denies Public Use Permit No. 580 Revised No. 1 a resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula denying Public Use Permit No. 580 Revised No. 1 allowing operation of the Rancho Temecula Bible Church and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 922-130-001. SECTION 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of January, 1992. 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 6th day of January, 1992 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS S\STAFFRPT~580-1 .PUP 7 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL S\STAFFRPT~580-1 ,PUP ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Public Use Permit No.: 580 Revised No. 1 Project Description: Revisions to Previously Aooroved Public Use Permit No. 580 to grant approval for existing mobile structures used as classrooms. Assessor's Parcel No. 922-130-016 Planning Department The use hereby permitted by this public use permit is for revision to previously approved Public Use Permit No. 580, to grant approval for existing mobile structures used as classrooms. The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. 1. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. 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 cease operation for a period of one year or move, this approval shall become null and void. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. 1 marked Exhibit E, or as amended by these conditions. S\STAFFRPT\580-1 .PUP 9 Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655. Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittal dated October 10, 1991, a copy of which is attached. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated December 12, 1991, a copy of which is attached. One hundred thirteen (113) parking spaces shall be provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit E and shall be designed in accordance with Section 18.12, Temecula City Ordinance No. 348. The parking area shall be surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on 4 inches of Class II base. A minimum of 3 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on Exhibit D. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at or by telephone In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. 10. Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening material shall be subject to Planning Department approval. 11. Prior to the final building inspection approval by the Building and Safety Department, a six foot high decorative block wall shall be constructed along the entire length of the project site's southerly boundary consistent with Rancho Highlands Specific Plan. The required wall shall be subject to the approval of the Director of the Department of Building and Safety and the Planning Director. S\STAFFRPT~580-1 .PUP 12. All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655. 13. Eight (8) Class II bicycle racks shall be provided in convenient locations as approved by the Planning Director to facilitate bicycle access to the project area. 14. Prior to the issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the City Building Official, shall be filed with the Department of Building and Safety guaranteeing construction of the required perimeter screen wall per the approved plans. 15. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. 16. Within forty-eight (48) hours of the approval of the project, the applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand, Two Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars (~1,275.00), which includes the One Thousand, Two Hundred, Fifty Dollars (~1,250.00) fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(2) plus the Twenty-Five Dollar ($/25.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty- eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). 17. A landscape plan shall be submitted in accordance with the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan subject to the Planning Director approval prior to issuance of building permits. 18. The applicant shall submit all the information requested by the Building Official and the Fire Department within thirty (30) days following this approval. Furthermore, the applicant shall comply with all the conditions of approval for Building Department, Fire Department and condition No's. 11 and 18 for the Planning Department, within ninety (90) days. If the applicant fails to comply with any of the above deadlines, the Building Official shall start the Public Use Permit revocation per Ordinance No. 348, Section 18.31. Building and Safety Department 19. Comply with applicable provisions of the 1988 edition of the Uniform Building, Plumbing and Mechanical, 1990 National Electrical Code, California Administrative Code title 24 Energy and Handicapped Regulations and the Temecula Code. 20. Submit at time of plan review complete exterior site lighting plans in compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the Regulation of Light Pollution. 21. Obtain all building permits prior to the commencement of any construction work. S\STAFFRPT~580-1 .PUP 11 22. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 23. Provide occupancy approval for all existing buildings (i.e. finialed building permit, Certificate of Occupancy). 24. All existing buildings and facilities must comply with applicable handicapped accessibility regulations. Engineering D~partment PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS: 25. As determined by the City Engineer, the developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District; Eastern Municipal Water District; Riverside County Flood Control district; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; Planning Department; Engineering Department; Riverside County Health Department; CATV Franchise; and Parks and Recreation Department. 26. The developer shall submit four (4) prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code and Chapter 70 as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 24"x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. 27. The developer shall submit two (2) copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. 28. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. 29. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way. 30. No grading shall take place prior to the improvement plans being substantially complete, appropriate clearance letters and approval by the City Engineer. 31. If grading is to take place between the months of October and April, erosion control plans will be required. Erosion control plans and notes shall be submitted and approved by the Engineering Department. S\STAFFRPT~80-1 .PUP 32. All site plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency with approved plans. 33. All driveways shall be a minimum width of 24 feet. Existing parking areas and driveways shall be brought into conformance with Ordinance No. 348, Section 18.12. 34. 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. 35. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid per original Conditions of Approval of Public Use Permit No. 580. The charge shall equal the prevailing area drainage plan fee multiplied by the area of new development. The current fee due is ~2,441.84, end is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. 36. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 37. All concentrated drainage directed toward the public street shall be diverted through the undersidewalk drains. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT: 38. A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 39. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY: 40. 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~580-1 ,PUP 13 General Manager J. Andrew Schlange Legal Counsel Redwine and Shetrill Director qf The Metropolitan Water Dtstnct of Southera Calijornia Doyle F. Boen Rogers M. Cox May 6, 1991 Board of Directorf /lodger D Stems, Presidef Chester C Gilbert, Vice PI Wm G. Aidridge John M Cdmdures Craig A Weaver Mr. Charley Ray, Case Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43180 Business Park Drive, Suite 200 Temecula, California 92390 SUBJECT: PUP 580 - Revision No. 1 Dear Mr. Ray: As requested, we have reviewed the subject project for the purposes of evaluating the District's ability to provide sanitary sewer service. An existing eight (8)-inch diameter sewerline is located in Santiago Road, fronting the subject project. At the present time, this Santiago Road sewer has available capacity to serve the subject project. It must be understood that the available capacity of the District's sewer system is continually changing due to development within the District. As such, service will be provided based on the timing of the subject project, the service agreement from the District, and the status of the District's permit to operate. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact the District's Customer Service Department at (714) 766-1810.. Very truly yours, Director of Plannin9 HAS/DC:ib cc: John Fricker - EMWD Customer Service Department 6/I-ib 91-1077 Mail To: Post Office Box 8300 · SanJacinto, California 92383-1300 · Telephone (714) 925-7676 · Fax (714) 929-0257 Main Office: 2045 S. SanJacinto Street, San Jacinto · Customer Service/Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue, Hemet, CA RanP, Water October 10, 1991 Mr. Charly Ray City of Temecula Planning Department 43180 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 Water Availability Tract Map 20591 P.U.P. 580 Revision No. 1 Rancho Temecula Bible Church Dear Mr. Ray: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWDo If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Senga Doherty. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P. E. Manager of Development Engineering SB:SD:ajth245 cc: Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician RIVERSIDE COUNTY HRE DEPARTMENT 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE, PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370 (714) 657-318t OL[~ J. NEWMAN FIRE CHIEF December 12 1991 TO; CITY OF TMCULA ATT~| ?LANNIX~G DEFT EE: PUBLIC USE FEBHIT 580 Revise 4[ Amended The design of the site improvements and use of che various buildings currencly on the property. were apparently done without any regard Co the approved sine plan or conaiticns of approval. The Fire Department is requesting the following items prior to a Certificate of Confo~manca: ~. Driveways teaselined co provlae 2~' two way traffic around =he bui~din~s. 2.3n-site rarer system with fire flow and fire hydrant spacing according to approvad conditions. 3. existing mobile un~ts must be certified by approprAace a~ency for Construction :ype according to use. All questions regarding tAe meaning of cnmiitious shall ~e referred to the Plannin~ and Engineering staZ£. RAYMOED E. K~GZ5 Chle~ ~lre Department Flatnet Michael E. Gray, Fire Captain Specialist Ql~lOOl;FiC[ (819) 1a.8~6 · FAX (Slg) 77~1072 PLANNING DIVISION ATTACHMENT NO. 3 EXHIBITS S\STAFFRPT%580-1 .PUP 14 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO.: Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. 1 EXHIBIT: A P.C. DATE: February 24, 1992 VICINITY MAP S\STAFFRFT~FORM-1 CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNIT' SP 180 -SITE CASE NO.: Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. 1 EXHIBIT: B P.C. DATE: February 24, 1992 /11 SWAP MAP S\STAFFRPT%FORM-1 CITY OF TEMECULA I SITE CASE NO.: EXHIBIT: C P.C. DATE: Public Use Permit 580, Revised No. 1 February 24, 1992 ZONING MAP CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO.: Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. 1 EXHIBIT: D PROPOSED SITE PLAN AMENDED #3 P.C. DATE: February 24, 1992 S%STAFFRPT~FORM-1 CITY OF TEMECULA ~ ~""~' i"' t~'~ ......, ....'~ . . CASE NO.: Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. 1 EXHIBIT: E COUNTY APPROVED SITE PLAN P.C. DATE: Februa~ 24, 1992 EXHIBIT F S\STAFFRPT~580-1 .PUP SECTION 18.31. FINDINGS AND PROCEDURE FOR REVOCATION OF VARIANCES AND PERMITS. Any conditional use permtt, publlc use permtt, variance, caminertia3 MECS pemlt, or accessory MECS pemtt may be revoked by the Dtrector of Butlding and Safety upon finding that one or more of the following conditions for revocation extst. (1) That the use ts detrimental to the publtc health, safety or eneral welfare, or ts e publlc nuisance. That the use ts ~tng conicted tn ~olatton of the terns and con~ttons of t~ ~mtt. (4) That the use for ~ch t~ ~mlt ms Fanted has ceased or has ~en susandad for one ~ar or mo~. Upon detemlnatton by the Dtrector of Butlding end Safety that grounds for revocation exist, the following procedure shall take effect: (1) NOTICE OF REVOCATION. Notice of revocation end a copy of the f(ndings of the Dtrector of Butlding and Safety shall be matled by the D~rector by certified mall to the owner of the property to which the permit or vartance applles, as shown by the records of the Assessor of RIverside County. The deckston of the Director of Building and Safety shall be ftnal unless a nottce of appeal ts ttmely f~led. (2) NOTICE OF APPEAL. tfithtn 10 days following the matltng of the nottce of revocations the owner of the property to wh(ch the permit or vartance appltes may ftle w~th the Planntn Director a notice of appeal frm the deckston of the D(rector o~ Butldtng and Safety. A nottee of appeal shall be accanpanted by the ftltng fee set forth tn Ordinance No. 671. A nottee of appeal not accempanled by such fee shall be deemed null and votd and shall not be processed. (3) SETTZNG HEARING; COSTS. Appeals wtthln the area ;lurtsdict(on of the East Area Planntng Counctl, w~th the exception of appeals concerning commercial k~ECS pemtts, shall be heard by the Council ors tf the Council so elects, shaql be heard by a County Hearing Officer pursuant to and tn accordance wtth Ordinance No. 643. All other appeals, Including appeals concerning cam,erctal IdECS pemtts, shall be heard by the Planntng Camtsston, of tf the C~,,,,ts$1on so elects, shall be heard by a County Heartng Officer pursuant to end tn accordance wtth Ordinance No. 643. . Notice of the ttme, date and place of the heartng shaql be gtven as provtded tn Section 18.26(c). In the event that an appeal ts heard by a County Hearing Offtcer end the owner of the property to ~htch the permtt or vartance a pltes does not prevail tn the appeal, the owner shall not be obligated to PaY cry heartng costs. Zn the event that an appeal ts beard by a County Hearing Offtcer and the owner of the property to whtch the permit or vartance appltes prevatls tn the appeal, the owner shall not be obligated to paY all heartng costs. 199 (4) TESTIMONY UNDEFL OATH. All testimony at the heart rig shall be taken under Oath. iS) NOTICE OF OECISION. Notice of the Planntng C~.,,tsston or Planntng Council's decision and a report of the proceedings shall be ftled with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors not later than 15 days following the date the dectston is adopted. A copy of the notice and the report shall be mailed to the applicant and ~roof of such matling shall be indicated on the original notice . 1led with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. If the Planning C~,.ntsslon or Planning Counctl does not reach a dectston due to a tie vote, such fact shall he reported to the Board of Supervisors in the same manner and within the same time for reporting decisions and such a fatlure to reach a decision shall cons tt tute afft rmance of the But 1 ·ng Dt rector ' s revocatt on of the pemt t or variance. (6) PLACEMENT OF MATTER ON BOARO'S AGENDA. The Clerk of the Board of Superrlsors shall place the Notice of Decision on the Board's agenda for the next regular meeting to be held following the lapse of 5 da~s after the Notice is ftled with the Board. (7) TRANSFER TO BOARD OF SUPERVZSORS ON APPEAL. The revocation or non-revocation of a pemtt or variance by the Planning C~mmlsslon or Planning Council shall be ftnal unless, within ten (lO)days following the matter at which the Nottce of Dectston was on the agenda of the Board of Supervisors. the following occurs: a. An appeal to the Board of Supervisors is made b.v the owner of the property whtch ts the sub.leer of the revocation proceedings, or b. The Board of Supervisors orders the matter transferred to tt for further proceedings. (8) FURTHER PROCEEDZNGS BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. If either of the actions mentioned in paragraphs a. and b. of Subsection 7 above are taken, the Board of Supervisors may: a. Refuse to review the Planntng Cmntss~on or Planntng Count11 's decision, tn which case the dectslon shall be ftnal. or b. Review a transcript or recording of the testimony and all other evi dance Introduced before the Planning Cc.,..tsston or Planntng Counct1. and based upon that record, affirm or reverse the dectston of the Planning Cmntsston or Planntng Counctl or refer the matter back to the Planning Cmntsston ' (9) or Planntng Counctl for the taktn of further evtdence hearing additional argment in which case notice shall or gtven to the owner of the property which is the subject of the proceedtngs, or c. Set the matter for hearing before itself. At such hearing the Board of Supervisors shall hear and decide the matter de novo as tf no prior hearing had been held. Nottee of the ttme, date end place of the publlc hearing shall be given as provided In Sectton z8.26(c). ACTZON BY THE BOARO OF SUPERVZSORS. The dectston of the Board of Supervisors on revocation of a pemtt or vartance ts ftnal. 200 EXHIBIT G S\STAFFRPT%580*1 .PUP RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 580 Project Description: Church and school Assessor~s Parcel No. 922-130-001 Area: Rancho California This approval shall be used within two (2) years of approval date; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the ~wo.(2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. 1. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on plot plan marked Revised Exhibit A-#1. 2. In the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period of one (I) year or more, this approval shall become null end void. 3. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. The applicant shall comply with the street improvement recou=nendations outlined in the County Road Deparunent transmtttal dated 7-29-86, s copy of which is attached. Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department transmittal dated 7-23-86, a copy of which is attached. 6. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District transmittel dated 7-18-86, a copy of which is attached- Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance 546 and the County Fire Warden~s transmittal dated 7-21-86, a copy of which is attached. All landscai~lD__j~]~..1 be plsnt~li accordance with Exhibit B (with the exception of Nerium 0leander, which shall be replaced with any one of the following plants: Pittosporum Tobira, Dodonaea Viscosa, Nandins Domestics, or Euonymus K/autschovica, and shall be 5 gallon containers) prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be maintained in a viable growth condition. Planting within ten (10) feet of an entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty (30) inches. PUBLIC USE PEP~IT NO. 580 Conditions of Approval Page -2- 11. 12. 109 parkin~ spaces shall be provided as shown on the Approved Revised Exhibit A-~I. The parking area shall be surfaced with aspbaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on 4 inches of Class II base. A minimum of 3 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on Revised Exhibit A-#I. Each parking apace reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height of 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches in size with letter- sting not less than I inch in height, which clearly and conspicuously states the following: "Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at or by telephoning In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicaCing the symbol of accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the sanctuary, the applicant shall obtain clearance and/or permits from the follnFlng agencies: Road Department Fire Department Planning Department Environmental Health Written evidence of compliance shall be presented to the Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety. Prior to the issuance of building permits for the sanctuary, a liquefaction and soils study shall be submitted and approved by the County Geologist. All permanent structures shall be constructed in accordance with the recommendations of the approved report. Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit C. Floor plans shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit D. PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 580 Conditions of Approval Page -3- Department, a jix oC high hain I fence phs11 k- ,--&ellad alnne the southwest ~a southnet project bowSPrit, t~t is, sloq the parkiq area ~a~ ~he sou~t ~er ~ ~e nv ~o~ ~e pla~ field to ~ere ~he parking begins on the east side of ~he project. pl,,-~ n~----~. This ,1an shall ~r~ } Or -- ~SS six foo~ h~ghe 17. n c nZlose a' total of tv ins ~ shall be centrally located ~ithin the proJ t, and shall be con tructed prior to the iss~nce of occupancy pe~its. Each enclosure shall be six feet in heiSht and s~ll be ride with nsonry block and a ~ate which screens the bins fr~ external view. 18. All landscapln2 and trrtletton .shall be installed in accordance kith approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy'permits. 19. The property is located within thirty (30) miles of Hount Palemar Observatory. Light and glare may adversely impact operations at the observatory. Outdoor lighting shall be minimized, especially during the late night and early morni~ug hours. All outdoor lighting shall be from low pressure sodium lamps theare oriented and shielded to prevent direct illumination above the h~rizontal plane passing through the luminare. All lighting shall be in ~onformance with the Lamp Type and Shielding Requirements Per Fixture, a copy of which is attached. 20. All existir~ structures on the subject property shall conform to all of the applicable requirements of Ordinance 348. 21. Three Class II bicycle racks shall be provided.in convenient locations to facilitate bike access to the project area. 22. Prior to"M'lg~.'.'.~m~spsncy permits, all required landscape planting and irrigatio~'ehaI~:kSv~bsen installed and be in a condition acceptable to the Dlrec~..~tl6in2 and Safety. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease or pests, The irrigation 'system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 23. Brier to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit, all of the foregoing conditions of this conditional use permit shall be complied with. PUBLIC USE PEPailT NO. 580 Conditions of Approval Page 26. 27. The development of the property shall be in accordance with the mandatory requirements of all Riverside County Ordinance and State Laws, and shall conform substantially with approved Specific Plan 180. as filed in the office of the Riverside 8ounty Planning Department. Prior to the issuance of building permits for the sanctuary the developer shall submit an Energy Resource Conservation Plan to the Department of Building and Safety for approval. The plan shall include but not be limited to the following: a. Building construction designs shall incorporate site orientation and product design that maximizes solar access potential. b. Archltectural features and landscaping shall be used to reduce s~-~.er heat to the greatest extent possible. Class II bike lanes shall be constructed on Santiago Road, along the church sine, as approved by the Road Department. The use of outdoor lighting shall be minimized; recreational, parking lot and decorative lighting shall be turned off when the associated facilities are not in use. 28. Grading shall be performed in accordance with the following criteria: 14here cut and fill slnpes are created in excess of ten (10) feet in vertical height, detailed landscaping and irriSation plans shall be submitted to the Planntu~ Department prior to approval of grading plans. The plans shall be reviewed for type and density of ground cover, shrubs and trees. Angular forms shall be discouraged. The ~raded form shall reflect the natural rounded terrain. Graded slopes shall be oriented to minimize visual impacts to surround- ing areas, The overall shape, height and grade of any cut and ftll slope shall be developed in concert with the existing natural contours and scale of the natural terrain of a particular site. The toes and tops of all slopes in excess of ten (10) feet in vertical height shall be rounded with curves with radii designed in proportion to the total height of the slope where drainage and stability permit such rounding. PUBLIC USE PEPJilT NO. 580 Conditions of Approval Page -5- Cut or fill slopes exceeding one hundred (100) feet in horizontal length, shall be graded to meander the toe and top of the slope. Brow ditches, terrace drains and other minor svales shall-be lined with natural erosion control materials or concrete. Grading work shall be balanced on site. ~GrSded bu~ undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free condition and planted with interim landscaping. EXHIBIT H S\STAFFRPT~580-1 .PUP , ,ofTemecula s Park Drive ,, Temecul~, C~lifornia 925c)0 CERTIFIED MAIL Ronald J. Parks M~/or RETURN RECEIPT REOUESTED Patrlcla H. Birdsall Mayor ProTein AugUst 23, 1991 Karel F. Llndemans Councilmember Peg Moore Councilmember J. Sal Mufaoz Councilmember David R DIxon Ci~ Manager (714) 694-1989 FAX 1714| 694-1999 Rancho Temecula Bible ~hurch Pastor Kerry Martin 29825 Santiago Road Temecula, CA 92591 Subject: Public Use Permit (P.U.P.) 580-Revision No. I Dear Pastor Martin: Please be advised that the City of Temcula will initiate Public Use Permit (P.U.P.) revocation procedures pursuant to section 18.29.F of the City Development Code (enclosed), if the above referenced application remains incomplete, thereby preventing further processing of the proposal and subsequent review by the City Planning Commission. UpQn your receipt of this notice, you are provided 10 days to submit all previously reqUested information as indicated by the attached Development Review Committee comments dated March 28, 1991; and the initial project Notice of Determination of Application Completeness dated March 11, 1991. Should the application remain incomplete after 10 days, revocation proceedings will ensue. Please contact me @ (714) 694-6400, should you have any questions regarding this correspondence. sincerely, Charly Planning Assistant Gary Thornhill Planning Director of Temecula Drive ,, Temecula, California 92590 Ronald J. Parks May~r patrlcla H. ~irdsall Mayor P~ Tam Karel R LJndenwns Councilmember Councilmember J. Sal Mul~oz Councilmernt~er David R DIe City Manager 1'7141 694-1989 1'7'141 6944999 4, 1991 Mr. Leonard Fowler California Geo Tek, Inc, 42030 Avenida Alvarado Suite A Temecula0 CA 92590 Subject: Public Use Permit No. 580 (P.U.P. 580) Revision No. I Dear Mr. Fowler: Pursuant to our phone conversation of September 3, 1991, I am forwarding this correspondence confirming the City Planning Director's decision to allow an additional 2 weeks to complete the application P.U.P. 580, Revision No. I prior to the City'a initiation of P.U .P. revocation proceedings. (Reference correspondence to Pastor Kerry Martin, Dated August 23, 1991, copy to California Geo-Tek). The decision to allow this delay in revocation proceedings recognizes your unfamiliarity with the background of the proposal in question, and your stated willingness to act in good faith towards its completion. The extended deadline for application completion is September 23, 1991. Should the application for P.U.P. 580, Revision No. I remain incomplete beyond September 23, 1991, revocation procedures previously noted will be immediately forthcoming. Please contact me at (714) 694-6400, should you require further information or clarification of this correspondence. Charly Ray -~;ry Thornhill Planning Director CR\GT:vgw cc: Tony EImo-Building & Safety Rancho Temecula Bible Church Mayor '~on Parks Mayor Pro Tem Karel F. Lindemans CITY OF TEMECULA P.O. Box 3000 Temecula, California 92390 (714) 694-1989 FAX (714) 694-1999 Conference Notice October 10, 1990 Councilmembers Patricia H. Birdsall Peg Moore J. Sat Mu~oz CERTIFIED MAIL - P_~4 I ~"l-s';o RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Pastor Kerry Martin 29825 Santiago Road Temecu)a, CA 92390 Re: Buildinq and Land Use Dear Pastor Martin: It has come to the attention of the City Attorney's Office that you are in violation of the following provisions of Riverside County Ordinances Nos. 348 and 457; an adopted reference of City of Temecula Ordinance No. 90.04. One mobile office and one mobile classroom without a Public Use Permit. Modular office ( "Temporary Assembly" ). Blacktop with playground equipment, basketball court without Public Use Permit. 10' chainlink fence with gate in violation of existing Public Use Permit. Trespassing on neighbor property. Storage shed without a building permit. Lack of approved landscaping plan and landscaping screen per Public Use Permit No. 580. Building permits for all structures on site. and, Pastor Martin October 10, 1990 Page 2 The followin9 Public Use Permit No. 580 Conditions: Condition No. 1: The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on plot plan marked Revised Exhibit A-~I. Condition No. 13: Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit C. Condition No. 10,: Floor plans shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit D. Condition No. 15: Prior to final building inspection a six foot high chain link fence shall be installed along the southwest and southeast project boundaries, that is, along the parking area at the southwest corner all the way around the play field to where the parking begins on the east side of the project. Condition No. 16: Prior to the final building inspection approval by the Building and Safety Department, an addendum to the landscaping plan shall be approved by the Planning Department. This plan shall provide for dense six foot high landscaping screen along the chain link fence. Condition No. 18: All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Condition No. 20: All existing structures on subject property shall conform to all of the applicable requirements of Ordinance No. 30,8. Condition No. 22: Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, all required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and in a condition acceptable to the Director of Building and Safety. Condition No 23: Prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit, all of the foregoing conditions of this conditional use permit shall be complied with. Conditions of Approval also include payment of required development mitigation fees, including but not limited to the following: - Signal mitigation fees. - Fire mitigation fees. - Flood mitigation fees. and, School fees or an exemption letter from Temecula Unified School District. Pastor Martin October 10, 1990 Page 3 Please be advised that this/these violation|s) can be remedied by court order throuqh civil in/unction or prosecuted as a criminal misdemeanor with a maximum fine of one-thousand dollars {$1,000.00) or a six month jail sentence for each criminal violation charqed. Please be further notified that this/these violationsl s) can also be prosecuted as a nuisance, and that failure to remedy the violation{s) within a reasonable time, will result in a special assessment on your property taxes of all costs of enforcement, including attorney~s fees. However, before any legal action is begun, an office conference has been set up to discuss this/these matter{s). The purpose of the office conference is to provide an opportunity to resolve this/these code violation{ s) without the necessity of formal legal action. The time established for the office conference is Tuesday, October 16, 1990 at 10:00 a.m., p.m. at Temecula City Hall located at Ll3180 Business Park Drive, Suite 200, Temecula, California. If you fail to appear at this conference, this office will be forced to assume that the above charge{s) is/are correct and shall act accordingly. However, you may wish to avoid the office conference date and by having the correction confirmed through a personal inspection by the Building Official, Mr. Anthony Elmo. He may be reached at {71q) 69q-6L~00. The violationis) may be corrected in the following manner: File a revised Public Use Permit application with the City of Temecula Planning Department, along with appropriate fees. Obtain, or provide documentation of, required Building and Safety permits for all existing structures on site including play equipment and fencing. Comply with Conditions of Approval Nos. 1, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 23. Pay appropriate development mitigation fees required by Public Use Permit No. 580. Pastor Martin October 10, 1990 Page u, Please note that my office is not at City Hall, Should you need to contact me, I may be reached at |71u,) 545-5559. Sincerely, Scott F. Field City Attorney City of Temecula copy: Dave Dixon, City Manager Gary Thornhill, Plannin9 Director Anthony Elmo, Building Official Gibbs [, Craze Co., L.P.A. [other] [other-not certified] BS: CNotice MVviol {3/23/90) CERTIFIED MAIL - P-35~, 135 656 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED EXHIBIT I S\STAFFRPT%S80-1 .PUP LOCAL .REPORT TEMECULA -- A 10-foot high wire ' ti~at's no good," she said. Dinners are a problem, too. 'Whenever we sit down to eat dinner, the kids are playing ball over at the church and invariably, as soon as we get started on the meal, a ball comes flying over into our yard. Of course, the kids can't climb a ten-foot high fence, so one of us always gets up and gives them back the ball. It'sjust continual annoyances," Hughes said. The family wants the fencing removed and replaced by a wall. "lilt won't block out the sound, at least it will give us a little privacy," Hughes said. Neighbors Ray and Elllien Colbert agree. "Nobody likes that fence," said Elllien Colbert. "It's not exactly attractive and our neighbore are really having a hard time selling their house because people take one look at the fence and what's behind it -- (the mobile units that make up many of the church's bullclings) and they don~ want to move in there. It's making our property values go down.' Together, the families of Cabo Street have hro,~hf cornnlnin~s to the citv Pastor Kerry Martin of Hancho Temecula said he wants to be able to save money for permanent buildings at the church. 'We have almost aH temporary buildings and our church is very active and growing,' he said. "We don't want to have problems with our neighbore here, but if I am going to spend money, it's going to be on permanentbUildings, notawall.'~ Martin said that his public-use-permit from the city only requires a chain-link fence. "If she (Hughes) wants a wall, maybe she ought to pay for it," he said. "Otherwise, we can't seem to make her happy." Church officials are now talking to t~ city Planning Department and may be required to put up a v~all, Martin said. 'That would be an expensive proposition. We would be willing to split the cost with the neighbors if they wanted · fence marks the property line between Rancho Temecula Bible Church and , School and Barbara Hughes' back yard. : And she is sick of looking at it. "My family has absolutely no privacy · with that thing," said Hughes. "We can't have a barbecue, we can't have anything without facing a lot ofpoople in our ~ backyard." Hughes' teen -aged daughter does not like to sun-tan in the lmckyard any more, ~ because she has been beckled by the school's teen-aged bop so many times. 'My daughter goes out to sun herself and there's 20-some boys running around for P.E. (physical education) class. She should be able to go out in the yard and use it whenever she wants ts, we all should." ~ Her husband, Robert, who commutes from Temecula to his job in Costs Mesa, is · awakened at 10 p.m. daily to the sounds of . starting care and bri~t lights shining through thebedroorswindow. Hu~hes Homeowners Barbara Hughes, foreground, end Ray and Elllien bors there went to~ave a wall built on the pr~i,/.line. Thee .! Colbert, behind the Rancho Temecula Bible Church and School iS s lO-foot high~fence there now, but rel ants say the, complex, The church/school lot abuts,the r homes and neigh-~giy, ':' ~'~,~? :,. ~· .:. Church's fence d sturbs ' ,,.. i MARYMcKENZIEITheCdi,~rnion ,ls,~:/:" >~,%' Twophonecalist4j~lanningstaffwera When you have to wake up at 4 a. ,n~,~( Temeculo City Planning P. O. Box 3000 Temecula, California August ! 5, 1990 Dear Mr. Marshall: As per your request yesterday, I am writing the city another letter in regards to Permit Use #560 Rancho Temecul8 Bible Church on Santiago. You should now be in receipt of a complaint form filed in June 1990, a neighborhood petition signed in July 1990, and a memo from Gary Thornhill, to David Dixon dated August 30, 1990. Also, I have spoken numerous times to Karen Castro, Charlie Ray, two times to you, once to Dave Dixon, twice to Gary Thornhill and other employees whose name I do not remember. However, by now I would think the entire department remembers my name and most of the employees have told me not to call them anymore as the case is out of their hands. Most recently, Charlie Ray has redirected me to you....you tell me however the problem is being discussed once again by the City Manager and the City Attorney. Both the City Manager and the City Attorney were discussing this same problem lost August to no avail for me. It seems entirely redundant to repeat my concerns about the property on Santiago...the Church. Quickly outlined, the once small historical church has grown and also became a school from grades K to 12. There is no solid screening between our properties. I am subjected to not only constant weekend Church activities including Wednesday night youth group meetings and other Church related meetings which involves automobile headlights, people talking, general activity noise and loss of privacy but now I have to deal with daily school activities with an enrollment over 200 plus students. This includes a school bell, physical education classes, traffic and general noise and activity appropriate to any school situation. I do not feel comfortable using my backyard. I feel exposed, vunerable to theft, trespassing persists, headlights illuminate our house, sleep is lost and our teenage daughter gets heckled by students everyday. She cannot work on a tan like other teens. We have no backyard yet pay heafty taxes for one. To make matters worse, last year the church poured black top and erected 8 I0 foot chain link fence without a permit 810ng our property line. They put up a basketball pole, and hoops. Kids love to play volleyball, hockey and other sports daily in this area. Balls are always coming into our yard. They yell to us to retrieve the balls or some come into the yard to get the balls. This fence is ugly. Seriously affecting the value of my property. It needs to come down. The church put that fence up knowino full well theu /My newest concerns seem to be with our Tememcula Planning Department. It is my understanding this property has nine violations pending. Why action has not be taken against the pastor is beyond me. No one at the Department seems to know either. Everyone empathizes with my problem and agrees I have a point but then refers me to someone elses phone number or asked me to write another letter. rm done with wMting letters. A SOLID WALL needs to divide my property from the church/schools. The planning department needs to get me that wall by enforcing building codes or they can shut down this church/school for violations. It has been three years of waiting patiently and being put on hold by from one employee to the next. Let's get the job done or get someone in the Department who can do the work effectively. Temecula, California 92592 cc: California. News city cou.cil,, Temecula City Planning P.O. Box 3000 Temecula, California 92390 July 5, 1990 Dear Karen gastro: We the adjacent property homeowners and neighborhood interested parties want to voice our objection to the land us~of property '580, Bible Temecula Church. Their land use permit which was obtained in 1986 provided for a little Bible Church (historical building) along Santiago Blvd. Since that time the congregation has increased dramatically and a daily school program begun. The school enrollment is projected to be 200 students in September 1990. The oMginal permit use as we understand it is in seMous violation at'this time. There is now a blacktop basketball court that runs along the rear end of their property line and 10 foot poles in preparation for chain link fencing. (Hughes backyard). Recently. seven more mobile units were brought onto the property to create a temporary sanctuary. These buildings are also along the rear of the property. (Heinz backyard). There appear to be 14 mobile units to date plus one shed. Not only do we have school noise during daytime hours but the Church is used in the evening hours. We are affected by car headlights and general traffic noise. Plus, we have typical Sunday morning activities noise. The chain link fence is no longer a sufficient property screen/divider. The permit called for a six foot dense landscape screen also which is now virtually impossible to plant because of the blacktop poured directly along the dividing property line. We feel an attractive block wall will be the only solution to this problem. It would decrease same noise, block headlights at night, provide some Privacy during the day, protect our property from stray students and overall improve the esthetic view of this piece of property. We also hope the city puts time limitations on the use of these tempor~'ra~''''''''~'~ ' buildings as they are nonconforming, mixmatched group of mobiles which is very unsightly. hank you for your consideration of this matter. -7~w6-z~/~, . ~ 7~ - 7z/ ~ ~ ATTACHMENT NO. 6 EXHIBITS S%STAFFRPT~580F%JP-1 .PC 19 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO.: Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. 1 EXHIBIT: A P.C. DATE: February 24, 1992 VICINITY MAP CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNIT~ SP 180 , ;ITE CASE NO.: Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. 1 EXHIBIT: B P.C. DATE: February 24, 1992 ,I I I SWAP MAP CITY OF TEMECULA I/ ;ITE CASE NO.: Public Use Permit 580, Revised No. 1 EXHIBIT: C P.C. DATE: February 24, 1992 ZONING MAP CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO.: Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. 1 EXHIBIT: D PROPOSED SITE PLAN AMENDED #3 P.C. DATE: February 24, 1992 S\STAFFRPT%FORI~*I CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO.: Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. 1 EXHIBIT: E P.C. DATE: February 24, 1992 COUNTY APPROVED SITE PLAN ITEM # 8 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning MEMORANDUM February 24, 1992 Television/Radio Antenna Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT Resolution No. 92- recommending adoption of the Antenna Ordinance, entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING CHAPTER 6 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO ANTENNA REGULATIONS AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF ANTENNAS." PROPOSAL An Ordinance establishing regulations for the use of Antennas. The purpose for preparing the proposed Antenna Ordinance is due to the inadequacy of the County Ordinance No. 348 as it relates to Antennas. BACKGROUND On January 6, 1992, the Planning Commission considered an ordinance which establishes regulations for the installation of commercial transmitting antennas and non-commercial antennas, which includes satellite dish, television/radio and FCC licensed amateur radio antennas. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Commission continued this item in order to allow the Staff to meet with the representatives from the local amateur radio operates club in order to understand their concerns. DISCUSSION The local club's basic request was to permit antenna's up to 65 feet without conditional use permit approval, subject to design and performance standards as established in the ordinance. Other minor clarifications were also discussed. S'~STAFFRPI'%ANTENNA3.0RD Revisions to the definitions and format have also been made in an effort to simplify the ordinance. Staff recommends nonconforming antennas to be regulated through Ordinance 348 Section 18.8 Non-Conforming Uses, which establishes a three year amortization period. CONCLUSION The proposed Antenna Ordinance is intended to provide the City with balanced standards that provide adequate use of television and radio antennas, while providing the necessary control needed to ensure public health, safety and welfare. Several cities permit antennas to exceed the height limits of the base zoning district, subject to various design and operational standards. Based on general direction provided at the previous Commission Meeting, the attached ordinance has been modified to reflect the 65 foot height limit requested by the local amateur radio club. The Planning Commission may modify this as it sees fit. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: vgw The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution No. 92- recommending adoption of the Antenna Ordinance, entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING CHAPTER 6 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO ANTENNA REGULATIONS AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF ANTENNAS." Attachments: 2. 3. 4. Resolution - page 3 "Draft" Ordinance - page 6 Planning Commission Staff Report (dated January 6, 1992) - page 15 Planning Commission Minutes (dated January 6, 1992) - page 16 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 92-__ $%$TAFFRPT'~ANTENNA3.ORD 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 92-__ RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE ANTENNA ORDINANCE. WHEREAS, City Ordinance No. 90-04 adopted by reference certain portions of the non-codified Riverside County Ordinances, including Ordinance No. 348 ("Land Use Code") and WHEREAS, such regulations do not contain provisions for the use of antennas; and WHEREAS, the City of Temecula desires to regulate the use of antennas and to protect the health, quality of life, and the environment of the residents of Temecula; and WHEREAS, public hearings were conducted on October 21,1991 and December 16, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; and WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, County Library, Rancho California Branch, the U.S. Post Office and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby finds that the proposed Antenna Ordinance will provide for the establishment of regulations for antennas in a fair and equitable manner. SECTION 2. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula further finds that the proposed Antenna Ordinance is necessary to bring about eventual conformity with its land use plans. SECTION 3. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby finds that this ordinance does not have a potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, the ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under Section 15061 (b)(3). S%STAFFRPT~ANTENNA3.ORD 4 SECTION 4. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby recommends to the City Council adoption of the proposed Antenna Ordinance. The Ordinance is incorporated into this Resolution by this reference and marked Exhibit "A" and dated February 24, 1992, for identification. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of Febraury 1992. 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 6th day of January, 1992 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS $~,STAFFRPlV, NTENNA3,ORD 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 ORDINANCE NO. 92-_ S%STAFFRFT'~NTENNA3.ORD 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 ORDINANCE NO. 92-__ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PERTAINING TO ANTENNA REGULATIONS AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF ANTENNAS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 - FINDINGS. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings: 1o Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated City shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the City is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan if all of the following requirements are met: (a) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. (b) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, each of the following: ( 1 ) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (2) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (3) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable require- ments of state law and local ordinances. 2. 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 land use regulations are consistent with the SWAP and meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: (a) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the General Plan. (b) The City Council finds, in adopting land use regulations pursuant to this title, each of the following: (1) There is reasonable probability the Ordinance No. 92- 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 require- ments of state law and local ordinances. 3. There is the need to control the location and design of antennas, including Amateur Radio antennas, in order to protect the public health, safety, and welfare and to maintain community design objectives. 4. The City of Temecula desires to allow amateur radio antennas in residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial areas of the City, subject to appropriate regulation to prevent these antennas from creating a negative impact on neighboring properties. 5. The City of Temecula desires to adopt antenna regulations that provide for the regulation of both FCC licensed Amateur Radio and all other antennas within the City in order to minimize aesthetic blight and to ensure proper location, attachment, and structural integrity thereby protecting the public health, safety, and welfare. Accordingly, the City of Temecula hereby adopts the following: Section 2. PURPOSE. The purpose of this ordinance is to set forth the develop- ment standards for the installation and maintenance of antennas within all land use zones of the City. The purpose of these regulations is to ensure that the design and location of antennas are consistent with the health, safety, and aesthetic objectives of the City, while providing the technical requirements of these antennas. DEFINITIONS. The purpose of this Ordinance, the following words, terms, phrases, and their derivations, shall have the meanings given herein. Then consistent with the context, words used in the present tense singular include the plural. (a) "Antenna" means any systems of wires, poles, rods, reflecting discs, or similar devices of various sizes, materials and shapes including but not limited to solid wire or wire-mesh dish, horn, spherical, or bar configured arrangements, used for the transmission or reception of data, facsimile, television, voice or other forms of telecommunications, including citizens band (CB) antennas. Any such system is further defined to be external to or attached to the exterior of any building. (b) "Antenna height or height of antenna" means the distance from the property's grade to the highest point of the antenna and its associated support structure when fully extended. (c) "Antenna support structure" means a mast, pole, tripod or tower utilized for the purpose of supporting an antenna(s) as defined above. (d) "FCC licensed Amateur Radio antennas" means an antenna its associated support structure, such as a mast or tower, that is used for the purpose of transmitting and receiving radio signals in conjunction with an amateur radio station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission. (el "Commercial transmitting antenna/dish" means antennas used for transmit- ling or transmitting television and/or radio and/or cellular telephone communications. (f) "Obstruction-free reception window" means the absence of man-made or natural physical barriers that would block the signal between a satellite and an antenna. (g) "Non-commercial antenna" means any satellite dish or television/radio antenna, other than in conjunction with an Amateur Radio station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission. (h) "Reception window"means the area within the direct line between a land based antenna and an orbiting satellite. (i) "Satellite dish antenna" means any apparatus capable of receiving commu- nications from a transmittee or a transmitter relay located in planetary orbit. (j) "Vertical Antenna" means an antenna consisting of a single, slender, rod-like element which is supported at or near its base including but not limited to whip antennas. Section 3. REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS A. PERMITTED ACCESSORY USE. The following antennas are permitted as an accessory use in the specified zoning districts and are subject to all applicable regulations and issuance of appropriate permits. (1) Satellite receiving antennas in non-residential zones on sites not contiguous to a residential zone. (2) Amateur radio and vertical antennas that do not exceed 30 feet in height in all zones. $%STAFFRPT~,NTENNA3.0RD 9 (3) Amateur radio antennas that are between 30 feet and 65 feet in height and comply with Section 4.D of this Ordinance, Amateur Radio Antenna Development Standards. (4) Common residential skeletal type radio and television antenna used to receive UHF, VHF, AM and FM signals of off-air broadcasts from radio and television stations. (5) Satellite Dish antennas in all residential zones. B. CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USE. The following antennas shall not be erected or relocated except upon the granting of a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with Section 18.28 of Ordinance No. 348 hereof. The requirements of Ordinance No. 348 and of this Ordinance first shall be construed in a manner to make them compatible. When there is a conflict between the two, the provisions of this Ordinance shall control. may be allowed subject to Planning Director approval, in the specified zoning districts, (1) Two (2) or more Satellite receiving antennas in nonresidential zones on sites contiguous to a residential zone. (2) All antennas that exceed 65 feet in height, in all zones including but not limited to amateur radio and vertical antennas. Section 4. DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATIONAL STANDARDS A. LOCATION OF NON-COMMERCIAL ANTENNAS. Non-commercial antennas may be established in all zoning districts as accessory uses and then shall conform to the regulations contained in this Ordinance. B. LOCATION OF COMMERCIAL TRANSMITTING ANTENNAS. Not- withstanding any provision to the contrary in this Ordinance, no commercial transmitting antenna shall be established or expanded except in the M-SC, M-M and M-H zoning district, subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit, and then shall conform to the regulations contained in this Ordinance. C. DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR NONCOMMERCIAL ANTENNAS. (a) All ground-mounted antennas shall be required to maintain their supporting structures at least five (5') feet from any side property line; ten (10') feet from any rear yard property line; and fifty (50) feet from any front yard property line on lots greater than an acre in size. (b) No antenna or its supporting structure shall be located in the area between the front property line and the dwelling on any lot less than an acre in size. S~STAFFRPT~NTENNA3.ORD 10 (c) Within residential developments, no antenna shall be higher than thirty (30') feet above grade level, except satellite dish antennas which shall not exceed fifteen (15') feet in height. (d) A maximum of two (2) antennas shall be allowed per lot, except as provided for under regulations for FCC licensed Amateur Radio antennas. (e) All roof-mounted satellite dish antennas within residential developments are prohibited. (f) Within non-residential developments, no antenna shall be higher than the maximum height permitted in the zone, measured from grade level, except as provided for under regulations for FCC licensed Amateur Radio antennas. (g) Within non-residential developments, no antenna shall be roof-mounted except on a flat portion of the roof structure with parapets, and/or architecturally matching screening plan. D. AMATEUR RADIO ANTENNA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The following standards shall apply to Amateur Radio Antennas installed within the City of Temecula. Install vertical antennas in excess of sixty-five (65) feet in residential zones subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. Any amateur radio antenna shall be required to maintain its supporting structures at least five (5') feet from any side property line; ten (10') feet from any rear yard property line; and fifty (50) feet from any front yard property line on lots greater than an acre in size. Replacement of an amateur radio antenna support structure shall be subject to all applicable regulations and issuance of appropriate permits. However, the supported antenna, including the array, may be replaced without issuance of a new building permit, provided the replacement antenna does not exceed the maximum weight, dimensions or wind load area specified in the current building permit. The antenna, including guy wires, supporting structures and accessory equipment, shall be located and designed so as to minimize the visual impact on surrounding properties and from public streets. The materials user in constructing the antenna shall not be unnecessarily bright, shiny, garish, or reflective. E. ANTENNA OPERATIONAL CRITERIA AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. The following regulations shall apply to the establishment, installation and operation of all antennas in all zones: S'tSTAFFRPT~ANTENNA3.ORD 11 (a) Antennas shall be installed and maintained in compliance with the require- ments of the Building Code. Antenna installers shall obtain a building permit prior to installation. (b) No advertising material shall be allowed on any antenna. (c) All electrical wiring associated with any antenna shall be buried underground or hidden in a manner acceptable to the Building Official. (d) Every antenna must be adequately grounded, for protection against a direct strike of lightning, with an adequate grounding method approved by the City of Temecula Building Official. (g) installation must meet wind velocity criteria as set forth in the Uniform Building Code when deemed necessary by the City of Temecula Building Official. F. DESIGN.AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL TRANSMITTING ANTENNAS. (a) All ground-mounted antennas shall be required to maintain their supporting structures at least ten (10') feet from any property line and ten (10) feet from any other structure. (b) The base of all ground-mounted antennas shall be screened by walls, fences or landscaping at least six (6') feet in height obscuring visibility of the base of the antenna. Landscaping shall be of a type and variety capable of growing within one (1) year to a land- scape screen which obscures the visibility of the base of the antenna. (c) All antennas and their supporting structures shall be located in the rear yard or side yard, except a street side yard. (d) No antenna shall be higher than the maximum height permitted in the zone, measured from grade level. (e) A maximum of one (1) antenna shall be allowed per lot. (f) No antenna or its supporting structure shall be located within 1,500 feet of Interstate 15. (g) No antenna or its supporting structure shall be located within 1,000 feet of any other such antenna. G~ VARIANCES. Pursuant to the procedures of Section 18.27 of Ordinance No. 348, any person may seek a variance from the provisions of this Ordinance. No fee shall be charged to an applicant for a variance that is required solely for the purposes of complying with the Ordinance. Any variance so granted is revocable for failure by the applicant or property owner to comply with the conditions imposed. A variance shall be issued for an antenna if it meets the following standards: S~STAFF~NTENNA3.0RD 12 (a) Locating the antenna in conformance with the specification of this Ordi- hence would obstruct or otherwise excessively interfere with reception, and such obstruction or interference involves factors beyond the applicant's control; or, the cost of meeting the specifications of this Ordinance is excessive, given the cost of the proposed antenna. (b) The variance application includes a certification that the proposed installation is in conformance with applicable City Building Code regulations. Furthermore, the application must contain written documentation of such conformance, including load distributions within the building's support structure and certified by a registered engineer. (c) If it is proposed that the antenna will be located on the roof, where possible, the antenna shall be located on the rear portion of the roof and be consistent with neighboring improvements, uses, and architectural character. NON-CONFORMiNG ANTENNAS. All antennas, in any zone, lawfully constructed and erected prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, which do not conform to the requirements of the provisions of this Ordinance for the particular zone in which they are located, shall be considered Non-Conforming Structures as defined and regulated in Ordinance 348 Section 18.8, Section 5. SEVERABILITY. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decisions shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. Section 6, The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law. Section 7. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE. The City Council hereby finds that this project does not have a potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under Section 15061 (b)(3). Section B. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage, The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause copies of this Ordinance to be posted in three designated posting places. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of February, 1992. S%STAFFRPT~ANTENNA3.ORD 13 ATTEST: Patricia H. Birdsall Mayor June S. Greek City Clerk $~,STAFFRPT%ANTENNA3,0RD 14 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATED JANUARY 6,1992 S%STAFFRPT',ANTENNA3.ORD I 5 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning January 6, 1992 Television/Radio Antenna Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT Resolution No. 92- recommending adoption of the Antenna Ordinance, entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING CHAPTER 6 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO ANTENNA REGULATIONS AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF ANTENNAS." PROPOSAL An Ordinance establishing regulations for the use of Antennas. The purpose for preparing the proposed Antenna Ordinance is due to the inadequacy of the County Ordinance No. 348 as it relates to Antennas. BACKGROUND On December 16, 1991, the Planning Commission considered an ordinance which establishes regulations for the installation of commercial transmitting antennas and non-commercial antennas, which includes satellite dish, television/radio and FCC licensed amateur radio antennas. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Commission continued this item in order to allow the City Attorney the opportunity to clarify the conditional uses provisions within the ordinance. DISCUSSION The Conditional Uses provisions have been amended to eliminate any reference to satellite receiving antennas, which is consistent with recent court decisions. In addition, the City Attorney has simplified the Operational Criteria and Performance Standards. The amortization period for non-conforming antennas has also been extended from one year to two years. The City Attorney will be available the night of the meeting to respond to any questions. S'~STAFFPiq~ANTENNA2.0RO CONCLUSION The proposed Antenna Ordinance provides the City with the standards to thoroughly review an applicant's proposal as well as providing the necessary control measures needed to ensure the public safety; to provide organization; and control the overall quality and number of such antennas. In addition, the proposed ordinance provides adequate regulation in order to comply with the FFC's order. The new Antenna Ordinance will serve as interim regulations until the City's Zoning Development Code is prepared and adopted. At that time, this Ordinance will be incorporated and/or modified into the final Zoning Development Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution No. 92- recommending adoption of the Antenna Ordinance, entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING CHAPTER 6 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO ANTENNA REGULATIONS AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF ANTENNAS." vgw Attachments: 2. 3. 4. Resolution - page 3 "Draft" Ordinance - page 6 Planning Commission Staff Report (dated December 16, 1991 ) - page 15 Planning Commission Minutes (dated December 16, 1991) - page 16 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED JANUARY 6, 1992 S~STAFFRPTU~NTENNA3.QRD 16 Commi as follows./ July 1, 1993, post a bonc~with bond has been' posted ~struct the recreation to approv~e' the minu~es as tONeR POPa~. lONERS: /;;~ord, Chiniaeff, ~- Hoagland NOES: COMMISSIONE.R~:~/ None ABS] I COMMISS ERS: Fahey ~ ;'. i COMM SIONERS: Blair oner Blair abstai d from approval of the minutes for 16, 1991, due she was not present at that NON PUBLIC HE/%RING ITEMS p~BLIC HEARING ITEMS TELEVISION/RADIO AMTENN~A ORDINANCE 3.1 Proposed Ordinance establishing Television/Radio Antennas Citywide. regulations for JOHN MEYER summarized the staff report. JOHN CAVANAUGH advised that in view of the FCC's opinion on regulating satellite dish antennas and amateur radio antennas, the previously submitted Television/Radio Antenna Ordinance has been revised. Mr. Cavanaughstated that under the FCC opinion, any regulations placed on satellite dish antennas must be set forth in zoning ordinances; however, discretionary action can be taken on amateur radio antennas. As proposed, satellite dish antennas and amateur radio antennas will have existing standards and conditions, but any amateur radio antenna in excess of 30' must receive Conditional Use Permit approval. This would give the City the discretionary authority to review these types of antennas when they are above 30', with a maximum height of 65'. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF questioned the reference to Planning Director approval of the C.U.P. in the revision. JOHN CAVANAUGH advised that the C.U.P. would be under Planning Commission approval. PZ,A~4ZMG eOW(XBBXON X~?X~g ~A.N~ARY 6, X992 CNAIRNANNOAGLaNDopened the public hearing at 6:15 P.M. RICK 8AVAGB, 43120 Vista Del Rancho, Temecula, spoke in opposition to the ordinance as it was being proposed. Mr. Savage supplied the Planning Commission members with a copy of a recent City of Los Angeles Planning Staff report stating their position on the height of vertical antennas and read from that report as follows, '... however, staff feels that there is a problem with this approach of giving neighbors veto power over proposed antennas which may result in most antenna requests being opposed by at least one neighbor, thereby necessitating a lengthy zoning administrator approval process. These disapprovals may result from real concerns on the part of the neighbors, a misunderstanding of the real nature or purpose of the antenna, fears from radio and television interference, usually unwarranted if the equipment is operated correctly, or even from neighborhood feuds and spite. Perhaps such a vital emergency function should not be subject to the potential blockage or delay. While neighbors concerns are certainly valid, staff feels there is to much danger of misuse and to much power invested in surrounding property owner opinions of such an important service. Also, what is the opinions of other nearby neighbors who would have no input because they are not immediately adjacent. Staff has drafted an alternative ordinance, NXB, (a copy was presented to the Commission members) which permits such antennas up to 65' as a matter of right in all agriculture and residential zones provided they antennas are not used for commercial purposes. There would be no zoning administrator approval process for antennas over 65' in height, the existing yard variance procedure could be used for higher antenna". Mr. Savage stated that the original suggestion to staff was a four step process which is now an eleven step process. ROBERT BERG, 42701 Via De1 Campo, Temecula, indicated his opposition to the ordinance as written, and stated that previous versions appeared more acceptable. Mr. Berg offered that a couple of members of the Golden Triangle Amateur Radio Club would be available to work on the ordinance with staff. MICHAEL TUCCI, 42325 Via Consuelo, Temecula, representing the Golden Triangle Amateur Radio Club, RACES, EVAC and ARES, opposed the ordinance as being presented and discussed the technical limitations of a 35' antenna. RON PERRY, 29879 Camino De1 Sol, Temecula, representing pCMIN1/6/92 -3- January 7, 1992 PLANNIN~ COMMISSION MEETIN~ ~ANUARY 6, 1992 the Public Safety Commission, stated that he has been working very closely with the Police and Fire Department on a Emergency Communications Plan, which relies on .volunteer amateur radio operators. Mr. Perry stated that 30' was not an adequate height to clear the many man made objects around the location of the operators, and the 30' height limitation was not in keeping with the Public Radio Bureau. Mr. Perry stated that he would like to see the 65' brought back and requested that the proposed ordinance be continued and the opportunity to work with staff to refine the proposed Ordinance. COMNI88IONERClIINIAEFF stated that he felt the 65' height antenna for public safety reasons is important for the amateur radio operators and the C.U.P. process for every antenna over 30' would not be favorable. COMMISSIONER-CHINIAEFF moved to continue Item 3 and direct staff to work with the amateur radio community to develop an ordinance that would allow amateur radio development for 65' antennas without going through the C.U.P. process, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. CHAIRMAN BOAGLAND stated that although he could appreciate the services provided by the amateur radio operators, living in a residential community of small lots, someone may have some concern with a 65' permanent antenna right next to their property. He also stated that there should be some consideration given to existing roof mounted satellite dish antennas as referenced on Page 11. Chairman Hoagland stated that he understood from previous discussions that after two years, these existing antennas would be non-conforming and if these individuals who had the non-conforming antennas came to the City for any type of permit they would be required to bring that antenna into conformance. Chairman Hoagland requested staff to bring back a solution to that problem. COMMISSIONER BLAIR stated that she did not find a problem with the C.U.P. requirement for antennas over the 30' height and she did not feel that the Planning Commission would be overwhelmed with requests for this type of permit and therefore she would not support a motion that directed staff to increase the height to 65,. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND and COMMISSIONER FORD stated that they also had concerns for 65' fixed structures COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF amended his motion by referring Item 3 back to staff and directing staff to work with the PCMIN1/6/92 -4- January 7, 1992 PLaNNINO COMMISSION MEETINO ~AI~OARY 6, 1992 -.amateur radio community to determine heights that will work for them in terms of amateur radio and bring Item 3 back to the Planning Commission with a recommendation at the meeting on February 17, 1992, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. -' AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Fahey GARY THORNHILL advised that the meeting of February 17, 1992 was a holiday, therefore Item 3 would be continued to the meeting of February 24, 1992. 4. PLOT PLAN 233, REVISED · 1 Proposal to construc a 1,270 square foot outdoor playground and patio ad 'tion to the southern elevation the subject building. ocated at the N.W. corner of ~ ~ho C ' ' _ . n hearing at e:50 P.N. COMMISSIO R BI,%IR moved to cljS~the public hearing at 6:50 P.M. a d continue Plot Plan ~3, Revised No. 1, at the applican's request, to the 'planning commission meeting of Ja ary 27, 1992, seconded by COMMISSIOMER CHINIAEFF. ~ AYES O SSIONERS Bla \ Fo · \ : 4 C : lr~ rd, Chiniae f, S Hoaglan%d~~ NE y S. PLOT PLAN8 REVI8ED 5.1 Proposal construct a 225 square f t addition to an evision structure, add a 20 square foot generator pa~ and a 1,000 gallon prop e tank site. Located at 252 LaSerena Way, Temecula. MATTHEW FAGAN su arized the staff report. ' P 1992 ITEM # 09 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning February 24, 1992 Outdoor Display Ordinance This item is not ready for Planning Commission consideration at this time. Staff therefore requests this item be continued to the March 16, 1992, Planning Commission meeting. The City Attorney is making final adjustments to the ordinance at this time.