HomeMy WebLinkAbout092192 PC AgendaAGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
September 21, 1992 6:00 PM
VAIL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
29915 Mire Loma DHve
Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Fahey
ROLL CALL:
Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, Ford, Chiniaeff
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners
on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each.
If you desire to speak to the Commissioners about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink
"Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Planning
Secretary before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for
individual speakers.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Approval of Agenda
Minutes
2. 2.1 Approval of minutes of August 17, 1992 Planning Commission meeting.
NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Case No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Development Code
City of Temecula
City Wide
Informational Item
John Meyer
Appoint a representative from the Planning Commission
Case No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Noise Ordinance
City of Temecula
City Wide
Informational Item
John Meyer
Staff requesting direction from the Planning Commission
PUBLIC HEARING
5. Case No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Case No,:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Planner:
Recommendation:
6. Case No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Case No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Case No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Plot Plan No. 245
Adams Advertising
East Side of Winchester Road, approximately 1,200 feet north of
the intersection of Nicholas Road and Winchester Road
Erection of one V-Type outdoor advertising display
Matthew Fagan
Denial
Plot Plan No. 246
Adams Advertising
East Side of Winchester Road, approximately 1,850 feet north of
the intersection of Nicholas Road and Winchester Road
Erection of one V-Type outdoor advertising display
Matthew Fagan
Denial
Specific Plan I (Campes Verdes)
Change of Zone 5617
Environmental Impact Report No. 348
Bedford Development Company
Southeast corner of Winchester and Margarita Roads
Specific Plan proposing 206 single family, 644 multi-family, 23.9
acres of commercial, and a 13.5 acre park on 132.9 acres.
Accompanying the Specific Plan is a Zone Change from R-R
(Rural Residential) and A-2-20 (Heavy Agriculture, 20 acre
minimum lot size) to SP (Specific Plan) and three tentative maps.
Debbie Ubnoske
Continue off Calendar
Specific Plan 263 (Temacula Regional Center)
Change of Zone 5589
Environmental Impact Report No. 340
Bedford Development Company
Southeast corner of Winchester Road and Ynez Road
Specific Plan proposing a 1,375,000 square foot commercial
core, 298,000 square feet of retail, and 810,000 square feet of
office, institutional, and mixed use residential on 201.3 acres.
Accompanying the Specific Plan is a Zone Change from R-R
(Rural Residential) and A-2-20 (Heavy Agriculture, 20 acre
minimum lot size) to SP (Specific Plan).
Debbie Ubnoske
Continue off Calendar
Specific Plan 255 (Winchester Hills)
Environmental Impact Report No. 324
Change of Zone 5532
Bedford Development Company
East side of Interstate 15, north of Winchester Road
Proposal:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Case No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Case No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Specific Plan proposing 1092 single family, 532 multi-family,
15.6 acres of commercial, 11.4 acres of commercial/office,
120.1 acres of business park, an 11.2 acre school site, and two
neighborhood parks consisting of 16.8 acres and 6.1 acres.
Accompanying the Specific Plan is a Zone Change from R-R
(Rural Residential) and I-P (Industrial Park) to SP (Specific Plan)
and five tentative maps.
Dabble Ubnoske
Continue off Calendar
Tentative Parcel Map 25213
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 25214
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 25215
Bedford Development Company
Southeast corner of Winchester and Margarita Roads
Tentative Parcel Mal~ 25213 proposes the subdivision of 166.3
acres into 12 parcels and one remainder parcel in conformance
to the land use plan for Specific Plan No. 1.
Vesting Tentative Tract 25214 proposes the subdivision of 27.7
acres within Specific Plan No. I into 139 residential lots.
Vesting Tentative Tract 25215 proposes the subdivision of 21.5
acres within Specific Plan No. 1 into 65 residential lots.
Dabble Ubnoske
Continue off Calendar
Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 25321
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 25322
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 25323
Vesting TentatiVe Tract Map 24324
Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 25464
Bedford Development Company
East of I-15, north of Winchester Road
Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 25321 proposes the subdivision of
130 acres within Specific Plan No. 255 into 50
commercial/industrial parcels.
Vesting Tentative Tract25322 proposes the subdivision of 91.5
acres within Specific Plan No. 255 into 402 residential lots.
Vesting Tentative Tract 25323 proposed the subdivision of 152
acres within Specific Plan No. 255 into 437 residential lots, 1
school site and 1 park.
Vesting Tentative Tract 25324 proposes the subdivision of
165.5 acres within Specific Plan No. 255 into 458 residential
lots, 7 multi- family residential lots and 1 park.
Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 25464 proposes the subdivision of
27 acres within Specific Plan No, 255 into 9 commercial/office
parcels
Debbie Ubnoske
Continue off Calendar
Case No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Public Use Permit No. 5
Newhope Lutheran Church
Southeast corner of Santiago Road and Ynez Road
A request for approval of a church including a multi-purpose
worship center building and a Sunday School building on 2.93
acres.
Saied Naaseh
Approval
Case No,:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Tentative Tract Map No. 25277 and Change of Zone No. 5724
Acacia Construction
Southwesterly side of Pechanga Creek between Via Gilberto and
easterly side of Temecula Creek Inn Golf Course
A request to subdivide a 47.7 acre parcel into 96 single family
lots and 5 open space lots and a zone change from R-R to R-1
Saied Naaseh
Recommend Approval
Next meeting: October 5, 1992, 6:00 p.m., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive,
Temecula, California.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
OTHER BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
ITEM #2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, AUGUST 17, 1992
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order Monday,
August 17, 1992, 6:00 P.M., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula,
California, Chairman John E. Hoagland presiding.
PRESENT: 5
ABSENT: 0
COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland
COMMISSIONERS: None
Also present were Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh, Planning Director Gary Thornhill,
Senior Planner Debbie Ubnoske and Minute Clerk Gall Zigler.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chairman Hoagland requested Item No. 6 be taken as the first item of business after
approval of the agenda.
It was moved by Commissioner Blair, seconded by Commissioner Fahey to approve the
agenda with Item No. 6 as the next order of business. The motion was unanimously
carried.
NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEM
PlanninQ Commission Chairman and Vice Chairman Election
Commissioner Ford nominated Dennis Chiniaeff as Chairman.
Commissioner Blair nominated Linda Fahey as Chairman.
Commissioner Chiniaeff withdrew his name from nomination and Commissioner
Fahey's nomination as Chairman was unanimously approved as follows:
PCMINB/17/92 -1- 919192
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS:
AUGUST 17o 1992
Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland, Fahey
None
Commissioner Chiniaeff nominated Steve Ford as Vice Chairman.
Commissioner Hoegland.nominated Billie Blair as Vice Chairman.
The nomination of Billie Blair as Vice Chairman was approved as follows:
AYES: 3
NOES: 2
COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland
COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff, Ford
Commissioner Hoegland turned the gavel over to Chairman Fahey who presided over
the remainder of the meeting.
Minutes
2.1 It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Ford, to
approve the minutes of August 3, 1992 as mailed. The motion carried as
2.2
2.3
PCMINa/17~92
follows:
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford, Hoagland
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff
It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Blair to
approve the minutes of July 20, 1992 as mailed. The motion carried as
follows:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey
It was moved by Commissioner Blair, seconded by Commissioner Hoagland to
approve the minutes of July 6, 1992 as mailed. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
-2-
919/92
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
ABSTAIN: 2 COMMISSIONERS:
PUBLIC HEARING
Chiniaeff, Ford
AUGUST 17, 1992
Variance No. 12
Proposal to erect two freestanding signs-one six foot high sign adjacent to Jefferson
Avenue and one twenty-five foot high sign adjacent to Interstate 15 with copy for the
Hungry Hunter and Jan Weilert R.V. on each sign.
Matthew Fagan presented the staff report.
Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 6:10 P.M.
Larry Bradley, Sign Tech Electrical Advertising, representing the applicant, concurred
with the staff report.
It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Blair to close the
public hearing at 6:10 P.M. and adopt Resolution No. 92-(next) approving Variance No.
12 based on the analysis and findings contained in the staff report and subject to the
Conditions of Approval.
The motion was unanimously approved as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland, Fahey
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
Tentative Tract Map No. 25277 and ChanQe of Zone No. 5724
Proposal is a request to subdivide a 47.7 acre parcel into 96 single family lots and 5
open space lots and a zone change from R-R to R-1.
Saied Naaseh advised that the item has been rescheduled to the meeting of September
21, 1992.
It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Hoagland to
continue Tentative Tract Map No. 25277 and Change of Zone No. 5724 to the
meeting of September 21, 1992.
The motion was unanimously approved.
5. Development Aclreernent No. 92-1 (DA 92-1 I, ChanQe of Zone No. 21 and Tentative
PCMIN8/17/92 -3- 9/9/92
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 17, 1992
Parcel Mao No. 27314, Amendment No. 2
Proposal is a request to subdivide a 96.9 acre parcel into 4 parcels and a 48.4 acre
remainder parcel, A Development Agreement to ensure the development of the project
as senior housing, congregate care facility, skilled nursing, personal care, a nine hole
private golf course and dedication of a 2.3 net acre parcel to the City of Temecula, and
a Zone Change from R-R (Rural Residential) to R-3 (General Residential).
Commissioner Blair stepped down due to a conflict of interest.
Saied Naaseh presented the staff report.
Roger D. Prend of Albert A. Webb Associates, 3788 McCray Street, Riverside,
architect representing the applicant, stated that they are in concurrence with the staff
report, however, commented on the severity of the five (5) year time limit and
suggested some additional language allowing the Planning Commission or the City
Council to use their judgement based on the amount of financial contribution or
improvement to the property instead of a five year limit, in the event of financial
difficulties. Mr. Prend added that the idea behind the development is to have a zone
change and a conceptual site plan/parcel map to allow a developer to come in and
finance a project and the development agreement is the guarantee for the right to do
the development as it is being proposed.
Commissioner Ford questioned whether the golf course is proposed to be public or
private.
Roger D. Prend stated that although it is proposed as private. the applicant would like
not to restrict it at this time and give the developer that option.
Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 6:30 P.M.
John Telesio, 31760 Via Telesio, Temecula, stated that he is in support of the project,
however requested clarification of the following: what is the meaning of senior
housing, and that the school portion will remain zoned R-R. Mr. Telesio also expressed
concern that the senior housing portion of this development is proposed adjacent to
the high school which might present a problem due to noise and lighting from football
and other school oriented events.
Bob Pipher, 41825 Green Tree Road, Temecuta, expressed his concern that the area
remain zoned R-R.
Bob Kosslyn, representing Temecula Valley Unified School District, also expressed a
reservation with the proposed senior project adjacent to the high school which may
generate noise and light pollution during school events. Mr. Kosslyn requested that a
disclaimer be presented in any purchase or rental agreement.
PCMINBI17~92 -4- 919192
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 17, 1992
Commissioner Ford expressed the following concerns:
Is there adequate parking for a public golf course?
A reciprocal access agreement is in place until the future plans for the school
are completed.
What is the definition of a completed golf course as referenced in the
development agreement?
Commissioner Ford expressed these concerns regarding the development agreement:
Page 18, 16.1 The number of units proposed in the development agreement
is not concurrent with that stated in the market report, clarify the request.
* Page 22, 18(E) Correct to read Pauba and Rancho Vista Road.
Page 23, 19(C) States that the grading must all be at one time and asked if the
developer been conditioned for immediate adherence to an erosion control
condition.
Page 24, 21 (A) Suggest that instead of "developer" should read "owner" or
"successor".
· Page 26, (31) Request staff to clarify the reference to specimen trees.
Page 26, (36) should read "entrance gates".
Page 26, (42) should include a requirement for clearances from the Army Corp
of Engineers, Fish and Game, and Fish and Wildlife.
Page 29, review and clarification of access points.
Commissioner Chiniaeff stated that conceptually the project appears to be good for the
community, however, he felt that the Commission was being asked to make
environmental findings that the Commission is not able to make regarding the following
matters:
grading impacts and erosion control
number of units planned
public vs. private golf course traffic impacts
impacts of dividing parcel 2 whose property line is on the lake
traffic impacts
impact of the stadium adjacent to the project and the proposed mitigation
a general plan presumption that this area will be zoned high density
Commissioner Chiniaeff also expressed these concerns regarding the development
agreement:
PCMINa/17/92 -5- 919192
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
#
AUGUST 17, 1992
requested clarification of Page 3, M-2 and M-3.
reference to the potential for amendment and interpretations; suggest outlining
what cannot be amended.
makes reference to maximum building heights and sizes of proposed buildings,
however, the Commission has not been provided that information,
Commissioner Chiniaeff concluded that he feels that the request was premature based
on the information provided to the Commission to make a recommendation.
Commissioner Hoegland stated that he concurred that the project appeared good
conceptually, however, this is a major development and requires a major development
review. Commissioner Hoagland expressed concern regarding the following:
what the impacts to the project and the surrounding residents would be if the
school relocates the gym and other facilities as stated.
# buffering of the school and the project with respect to noise, lighting, etc.
It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff to
continue off-calendar, Development Agreement No. 92-1 (DA 92-1 ), Change of Zone
No. 21 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 27314, Amendment No. 2 to allow the developer
to work with staff on some of the specific items discussed.
Commissioner Ford added that the specifications of the senior center should be
included in the development agreement.
The motion was unanimously approved as follows:
AYES:
5 COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
0 COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT
Gary Thornhill reported the following:
Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland, Fahey
None
PCMINa/17/92 -6- 919192
Temporary Sign Ordinance will come back to the Commission in three weeks.
Staff has been authorized to enforce removal of signs in public right-of-way and
Final technical sub-committee meeting scheduled for Tuesday, August 18th, on
Growth Management. Also planning a Town Hall meeting for August 27th and
a joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting for September 3rd.
Anticipate going to public hearing with the General Plan the third week of
October.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
vehicle mounted signs.
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
None
OTHER BUSINESS
None
ADJOURNMENT
The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission will be held on
Monday, September 14, 1992, 6:00 P.M., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive,
Temecula.
AUGUST 17, 1992
Chairman Linda Fahey
Secretary
PCMIN8/17/92 -7- 9~9~92
ITEM #3
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
John Meyer, Senior Planner
September 21, 1992
Development Code Advisory Committee
RECOMMENDATION: It is requested that the City Council:
APPOINT a representative from the Planning Commission to the
Development Code Advisory Committee.
DISCUSSION:
As part of the work program for the General Plan, The Planning Center has begun work on the
City's Development Code (zoning ordinance). The City Council has appointed members to an
Advisory Committee to review and provide direction on the Development Code. The purpose
of the advisory committee is to provide input on the procedures, standards and regulations
contained within the proposed code. Staff feels the advisory committee will play an important
role in assuring the Code is easy to use, implements the goals and policies of the General Plan,
and protects the community's public health, safety and welfare.
The advisory committee will include an appointee by each Councilmember, as well as a
representative from the Council and Commission. Planning Department Staff and the City
Attorney will also serve on the Committee. Therefore, Staff requests the Commission to
appoint one of it's members to the committee. The work program includes four Development
Code Advisory Committee Meetings over the next four months. A copy of the work program
has been attached for the Commission's review.
vgw
Attachment:
1. Development Code Schedule - blue page 2
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
DEVELOPMENT CODE SCHEDULE
ITEM #4
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
John Meyer, Senior Planner
September 21, 1992
Draft Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is requesting direction from the Planning Commission
regarding the Draft Noise Ordinance.
BACKGROUND
In response to concerns originating last summer, Willdan was asked to develop a Draft Noise
Ordinance to mitigate impacts resulting from excessive noise. The draft ordinance was
reviewed by all the City Departments and comments were forwarded to the Planning
Department. Comments were also received from the City Attorney, Sheriffs Department and
from Temecula Fire Services.
The consensus amongst City Staff was that the Ordinance was excessive in its regulation,
which would require resources beyond current staffing implement.
The Draft Ordinance has been attached for the Commission's review and comment.
DISCUSSION
Staff could not support the Noise Ordinance as it is currently written. Staff's position is that
provisions to mitigate excessive noise should be included in the City's Development Code
(Zoning Ordinance). Because work on the Code has begun, there is no need to develop a
separate ordinance at this time.
The Development Code can set standards based on interior and exterior noise levels for
residential uses and performance criteria for noise impacts for non-residential uses.
CONCLUSION
Staff requests the Commission review the attached Draft Noise Ordinance. If the Commission
concurs with staff, then this item will be tabled, and the noise issue will be addressed in the
City's Development Code.
If the Commission believes the Draft Ordinance has merit, staff will clean up the document
and present it to the City's Public Safety Commission to receive input, prior to scheduling a
Public Hearing before the Planning Commission.
vgw
Attachment:
1. Draft Noise Ordinance - blue page 3
2. Letter from the City Attorney - blue page 4
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
DRAFT NOISE ORDINANCE
DRAFT
ORDINANCE NO. 91-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ADDING CHAPTER 8 TO THE TEMECULA
MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO NOISE REGULATIONS AND
ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE CONTROL OF NOISES
WITHIN THE CITY.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following
findings:
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated City shall adopt
a general plan within thirty (30 months following incorporation. During that 30-month period
of time, the City is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the
following requirements are met:
(a)
The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general
plan.
(b)
The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, each
of the following:
(1)
There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed
will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time,
(2)
There is little or not probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan,
(3) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances.
The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community
Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General
Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the
boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan
guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General
Plan.
A:ANTENNA.ORD
The proposed land use regulations are consistent with the SWAP and meet the
requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit:
(a)
The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the General
Plan.
(b) The City Council finds, in adopting land use regulations pursuant to this title,
each of the following:
(1)
There is reasonable probability that Ordinance No. 91- will be
consistent with the General Plan proposal being considered or studied
or which will be studied within a reasonable time,
(2)
There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference
with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
(3) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances.
(c) The City Council further finds the following:
(1)
Inadequately controlled noise presents a growing danger to the health
and welfare of the residents of the City; and
(2)
The making and creating of disturbing, excessive, offensive or unusually
loud noises within the jurisdictional limits of the City is a condition
which has persisted and the level and frequency of occurrence of such
noises continue to increase; and
(3)
The making, creation or continuance of such excessive noises which are
prolonged or unusual in their time, place, and use effect and are a
detriment to the public health, comfort, convenience, safety, welfare,
and prosperity of the residents of the City; and
(4)
Every person is entitled to an environment in which the noise is not
detrimental to his or her life, health, and enjoyment of property; and
(5)
The necessity in the public interest for the provisions and prohibitions
contained in this chapter and enacted is declared to be a matter of
legislative determination and public policy and it is further declared that
the provisions and prohibitions contained and enacted are in the
pursuance of and for the purpose of securing and promoting the public
health, comfort, convenience, safety, welfare, prosperity, peace and
quite of the City and its inhabitants.
SECTION 2. Chapter 8 is hereby added to the Temecula Municipal Code, which shall
read as follows:
A:ANTENNA.ORD
CHAPTER 8
NOISE
PURPOSE. The purpose of this ordinance is to set forth the standards for the control
of noises within all land-use zones of the City. The purpose of these regulations is to ensure
that the noise standards are consistent with the health, safety, and aesthetic objectives of the
City.
DEFINITIONS. For purposes 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)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(el
(f)
(g)
(hi
(i)
Aoricultural Property shall mean a parcel of real property which is undeveloped
for any use other than agricultural purposes.
Ambient Noise Level shall mean the all-encompassing noise level associated
with a given environment, being a composite of sounds from all sources,
excluding the alleged offensive noise, at the location and approximate time at
which a comparison with the alleged offensive noise is to be made.
A-Weiqhted Sound Level shall mean the total sound level meter with a
reference pressure of 20 micro-pascal using the A-weighted network (scale) at
slow response. The unit of measurement shall be defined as dBA.
Code Enforcement Officer shall mean the Code Enforcement Officer of the City
or his duly authorized deputy.
Commercial Prooerty shall mean a parcel of real property which is developed
and used as either in or part or in whole for commercial purposes.
Cumulative Period shall mean an additive period of time composed of individual
time segments which may be continuous or interrupted.
Decibel (dB) shall mean a unit which denotes the ratio between two quantities
which are proportional to power: the number of decibels corresponding to the
ratio of two amounts of power is ten times the logarithm to the base ten of this
ratio.
Dwellina Unit shall mean a single unit providing complete independent living
facilities for one or more persons including permanent provisions for living,
sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation.
Emerqencv Machinery. Vehicle, Work. or Alarm shall mean any machinery,
vehicle. work or alarm used, employed, performed or operated in an effort to
protect, provide or restore safety conditions in the community or for the
citizenry, or work by private or public utilities when restoring utility service.
A:ANTENNA.ORD
(k)
(I)
(m)
(n)
(o)
(P)
(q)
(r)
(s)
(t)
(u)
(V)
Fixed Noise Source shall mean a stationary device which crates sounds while
fixed or motionless including but not limited to residential, agricultural, industrial
and commercial machinery and equipment, pumps, fans, compressors, air
conditionere and refrigeration equipment.
Gradino shall mean any excavating of filling of earth material or any
combination thereof conducted at a site to prepare said site for construction or
other improvements thereon.
Hertz (Hz) shall mean the unit which describes the frequency of a function
periodic in time which is the reciprocal of the period.
Health Care Institution shall mean any hospital, convalescent home or other
similar facility excluding residential.
Impulsive Noise shall mean a noise of short duration usually less than 1 'second
and of high intensity, with an abrupt onset and rapid decay.
Industrial Property shall mean a parcel of real property which is developed and
used either in part or in whole for manufacturing purposes.
Intrudinc~ Noise Level shall mean the total sound level, in decibels, created,
caused, maintained or originating from an alleged offensive source at a
specified location while the alleged offensive source is in operation.
LicenSed shall mean the issuance of a formal license or permit by the
appropriate jurisdictional authority, or where no permits or licenses are issues,
the sanctioning of the activity by the jurisdiction as noted in public record.
MajOr Roadway shall mean any street, avenue, boulevard, or highway used for
motor vehicle traffic which is owned or controlled by a public government
entity.
Mobile Noise Source shall mean any noise source other than a fixed noise
source.
PerSOn shall mean any natural person, firm, association, co-partnership, joint
venture, corporation or any entity, public or private in nature.
Person of Normal Hearino Sensitivity shall mean a person who has a hearing
threshold level of between zero (0) decibels and twenty-five (25) decibels HL
averaged over the frequencies 500, 1,000 and 2,000 hertz.
Residential Property shall mean a parcel of real property which is developed and
used either in part or in whole for residential purposed, other than transient
used such as hotels and motels, and residential care facilities.
A:ANTENNA.ORD
(W)
Simole Tone Noise shall mean a noise characterized by a predominant frequency
or frequencies so that other frequencies cannot be readily distinguished. If
measures, Simple Tone Noise shall exist if the one-third octave band sound
pressure levels in the band with the tone exceeds the arithmetic average of the
sound pressure levels of the two continuous one-third octave bands as follows:
5 dB for frequencies of 500 Hertz (Hz) and above or; by 15 dB for frequencies
less than equal to 125 Hz.
(x)
Sound Level Meter shall mean an instrument meeting American National
Standard Institute's Standard S1.4-1971 or most recent revision thereof for
Type 2 sound level meters or an instrument and the associated recording and
analyzing equipment which will provide equivalent data.
(y)
Sound Pressure Level of a sound, in decibels, shall mean 20 times the logarithm
to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound to a reference pressure
which shall be explicitly stated.
(z)
Vibration shall mean any movement of the earth, ground or other similar surface
created by a temporal and spatial oscillation devise or equipment located upon,
affixed in conjunction with that surface.
DECIBEL MEASUREMENT CRITERIA. Any decibel measurement made pursuant to the
provisions of this Chapter shall be based on a reference sound pressure of 20 micro-pascal
as measured with a sound level meter using the A-weighted network (scale) at slow response.
DESIGNATED NOISE ZONES. The properties hereinafter described are hereby assigned
to the following noise zones:
Noise Zone I - All residential properties.
Noise Zone II - All commercial properties.
Noise Zone III - All manufacturing or industrial properties.
EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS. The following noise standards, unless otherwise
specifically indicated, shall apply to all property with a designated noise zone:
NOISE
ALLOWABLE EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL
ZONE TYPE OF LAND USE 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 10 p.m. 7 a.m.
I Residential 55dBA 50dBA
II Commercial 65dBA 60dBA
III Industrial or manufacturing 70dBA 70dBA
Each of the noise limits specified here shall be reduced by 5 dBA for impulse or simple tone
noises, or for noises consisting of speech or music provided, however, that if the ambient
noise level exceeds the resulting standard, the ambient shall be standard,
A:ANTENNA.ORD
It shall be unlawful for any person at any location within the incorporated area of the City to
create any noise, or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied
or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the noise level when measured on any
other property, to exceed:
(1)
The noise standard for a cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in any
hour; or
(2)
The noise standard plus 5 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes
in any hour; or
(3)
The noise standard plus 10 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 5 minutes
in any hour; or
(4)
The noise standard plus 15 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 1 minute
in any hour; or
(5) The noise standard plus 20 dBA for any period of time.
In the event the ambient noise level exceeds any of the first four noise limit categories above,
the cumulative period applicable to said category shall be increased to reflect said ambient
noise level, In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the fifth noise category, the
maximum allowable noise level under said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum
ambient noise level.
If the measurement location is on boundary between two different noise zones, the lower
noise level standard applicable to the noise zone shall apply.
If the intruding noise source is continuous and cannot be reasonable discontinued or stopped
for a time period whereby the ambient noise level can be determined, the measured noise level
obtained while the source is in operation shall be compared directly to the allowable noise
level standards as specified respective to the measurement Iocation's designated land use and
for the time of the day the noise level is measured.
(1)
The reasonableness of teml~orarily discontinuing the noise generation by an
intruding noise source shall be determined by the Code Enforcement officer or
his duly authorized deputy for the purpose of establishing the existing ambient
noise level at the measurement location.
INTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS. The following noise, standard, unless otherwise
specifically indicated, shall apply to all residential property within all noise zones:
NOISE
ZONE
TYPE OF LAND USE
ALLOWABLE INTERIOR NOISE LEVEL
AT ANY TIME
I Residential 45 dBA
A:ANTENNA,ORD
The noise limit specified above shall be reduced by 5 dBA for impulse or simple tone noises
or for noises consisting of speech or music provided, however, if the ambient noise level
exceeds the resulting standard, the ambient shall be the standard.
It shall be unlawful for any person at any location within the incorporated area of the City to
create any noise or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied
or otherwise controlled by such a person which causes the noise level when measured within
any other residential dwelling unit in any noise zone to exceed:
(1)
The noise standard for cumulative period of more than 5 minutes in any hour;
or
(2)
The noise standard plus 5 dBA for a cumulative period of more than I minute
in any hour; or
(3) The noise standard plus 10 dBA for any period of time.
In the event the ambient noise level exceeds any of the first two noise limit categories above,
the noise standard applicable to said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum
ambient noise level.
If the measurement location is on a boundary between two different noise zones, the lower
noise level standard applicable to the noise zone shall apply.
If the measurement location is on a boundary between two different noise zones, the lower
noise level standard applicable to the noise zone shall apply.
If the intruding noise source is continuous and cannot reasonable be discontinued or stopped
for a time period whereby the ambient noise level can be determined; the sam procedures
specified in Section 5(e), shall be deemed proper to enforce the provisions of this section.
SPECIAL PROVISIONS. The following activities shall be exempted from the provisions
of this chapter:
(a)
Activities conducted on public parks, public amphitheaters, public playgrounds
and public or private school grounds including school athletic and school
entertainment events that are conducted under the sanction of the school or
which a license or permit has been duly issued pursuant to any provision of the
city code.
(b)
Outdoor gatherings, public dances, show, sporting and entertainment events,
provided said events are conducted pursuant to a permit or license issued by
the appropriate jurisdiction relative to the staging of said events. Such permits
and licenses may restrict noise.
A:ANTENNA.ORD
(c)
Any mechanical device, apparatus or equipment used, related to or connected
with emergency machinery, vehicle, work or warning alarm or bell, provide the
sounding of any bell or alarm on any building or motor vehicle shall terminate
its operation within 30 minutes in any hour of its being activated.
(d)
Noise sources associated with or vibration created by construction, repair
remodeling or grading of any real property or during authorized seismic surveys,
provided said activities do not take place between the hours of 8 p.m. and 7
a.m. on weekdays including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a Federal
holiday, and provided the noise standard of 65 dBA plus the limits specified in
Section 5(b) as measured on residential property and any vibration created does
not endanger the public health, welfare and safety or which a license or permit
has been duly issued pursuant to any provision of the city code.
(e)
All mechanical devices or equipment associated with agriculture operations
provided that:
(1)
Operations do not take place between 8 p.m. and 7 a.m. on weekdays,
including Saturday, or at any time Sunday or a Federal holiday; or
(2)
Such operations and equipment are utilized for the protection of salvage
of agricultural crops during periods or actual frost damage or other
adverse weather conditions; or
(3)
Such operations and equipment are associated with agricultural pest
control through pesticide application, provided the application is made
in accordance with permits issued by or regulations enforced by the
California Department of Agriculture.
(f)
Noise sources associated with the maintenance of real property, provided said
activities take place between the hours 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. on any day except
Sunday, or between the hours of 9 a.m. and 8 p.m. on Sunday.
(g)
Any activity to the extent regulation thereof has been preempted by State or
Federal law. NOTE: Preemption may include motor vehicle, aircraft in flight,
and railroad noise regulations.
SCHOOLS, CHURCHES, LIBRARIES AND HEALTH CARE INSTITUTIONS - SPECIAL
PROVISIONS. It shall be deemed unlawful for any person to create any noise which causes
the noise level at any school, hospital or similar health care institution, church, or library while
the same is in use, to exceed the noise standards specified in Section 5 prescribed for the
assigned noise zone level unreasonably interferes with the use of such institutions or which
unreasonably disturbs or annoys patients in a hospital, convalescent home or other similar
health care institutions, provided conspicuous signs are displayed in three separate locations
within I/10-mile of the institution or facility indicating a quiet zone.
A:ANTENNA. ORD
RADIOS AND TAPE PLAYERS ON PUBLICLY OWNED PROPERTY. Notwithstanding
any other provision of this Code and in addition thereto, it is unlawful for any person to permit
or cause any noise, sound, music or program to be emitted from any radio, tape player, tape
recorder, record player or television outdoors on or in any publicly owned property, park or
place when such noise, sound, music or program is audible to a person of normal hearing
sensitivity one hundred feet from said radio, tape player, tape recorder, record player or
television.
(a)
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, any person violating this
Section shall be guilty of an infraction and upon conviction thereof, is
punishable by a fine not exceeding fifty dollars, for a first violation; a fine not
exceeding one hundred dollars for a second violation of this Section within one
year; a fine not exceeding two hundred fifty dollars for each additional violation
of this Section within one year. A person who violates the provisions of this
Section shall be deemed to be guilty of a separate offense for each day, or
portion thereof, during which the violation continues or is repeated.
(b)
Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, no citation or notice to
appear shall be issued or criminal complaint shall be filed for a violation of this
Section unless the offending party is given a verbal or written notification of
violation by any peace officer, public officer, park ranger or other person
charged with enforcing this Section and the offending party given an
opportunity to correct said violation.
(c)
This Section shall not apply to broadcasting from any aircraft, vehicle or
stationary sound amplifying equipment or to the use of radios, tape players,
tape recorders, record players or televisions in the course of an assembly or
festival for which a license has been issued or a parade for which a permit has
been issued pursuant to or any other activity, assembly or function for which
a permit or license has been duly issued pursuant to any provision of the city
Code.
NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENT. The location selected for measuring exterior noise
levels shall be made within the affected residential unit. The measurement shall be made at
a point at least 4 feet from the wall. ceiling or floor nearest the noise source with windows
in an open position.
VIBRATION. Notwithstanding other sections of this chapter, it shall be unlawful for
an y person to create, maintain or cause any ground vibration which is perceptible without
instruments at any point on any affected property adjoining the property on which the
vibration source is located. For the purpose of this Ordinance, the perception threshold shall
be presumed to be more than 0.05 inches per second RMS vertical velocity.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS. Each Department whose duty is to review and approve
new projects or changes to existing projects that result in the creation of noise shall consult
with the Code Enforcement Officer prior to any such approval. If at any time the Code
Enforcement Officer has reason to believe that a standard, regulation, action, proposed
standard, regulation, or action of any Department respecting noise does not conform to the
A:ANTENNA.ORD
provisions as specified in this Ordinance, the Code Enforcement Officer may request such
Department to consult with him on the advisability of revising such standard or regulation to
obtain uniformity.
SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of
this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold
any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance.
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall
cause the same to be posted as required by law.
SECTION 6. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE. The City Council hereby finds that this
project does not have a potential for causing a significant affect on the environment.
Therefore, the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under Section
15061 (b)(3).
SECTION 7. 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 __day of
,1991.
ATTEST:
RONALDJ. PARKS
MAYOR
JUNE S. GREEK
CITY CLERK
A:ANTENNA.ORD
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )
CITY OF TEMECULA )
ss.
I, June S, Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No, 91- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a
regular meeting of the City Council on the day of
1991, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting
of the City Council on the day of , 1991, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
JUNE S. GREEK
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Scott F. Field
City Attorney
A:ANTENNA.ORD
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
LETTER FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
BURICE, v~TILLIAlVIS ~ SORENSEN
LOS ANGELES OFFICE
WEST SIXTH STREET. SUITE
April 20, 1992
Mr. John Meyers
Associate Planner
Planning Department
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Re: Proposed City Noise Ordinance
Dear John:
I have reviewed the provisions of the proposed City
Noise Ordinance submitted to our office. For purposes of
clarification, the following specific comments correspond to the
particular paragraph(s) or subparagraph(s) of that draft Noise
Ordinance:
DEFINITIONS.
(b) The term "alleged offensive noise" is vague and
legally conclusionary with respect to defining the term ambient
noise level. This definition should be objective and concise.
(p) Again, the term "alleged offensive source" should
be deleted and reworded in a more objective defining manner.
(q) It is confusing as to the reason why the term
"licensed" is contained in this Ordinance. There appears to be
no provisions within this Ordinance which require a license to be
issued by the City; therefore, this definition appears to be
unnecessary.
(x) The last line of the definition for the term sound
pressure level, "which shall be explicitly stated" is confusing;
i.e., it is not clear what reference is being made to, what
should be explicitly stated.
Mr. John Meyers
Associate Planner
April 20, 1992
Page 2
Exterior Noise Standards.
The last full paragraph at the end of this section
identifies the term "reasonable" or "reasonableness" of intruding
noise. Using such a standard is vague and leaves too much
discretion to the City Code Enforcement Officer to determine
exactly what a reasonable level of noise is before it is
considered to be an intruding noise source.
Interior Noise Standards.
The last three paragraphs of this section reference
measurement locations between different noise zones. It is
unclear when one would have the situation where an interior noise
is measured on a boundary between two different noise zones.
Also, the term "reasonable" is referenced with respect to
interior noise standards and, as already stated hereinabove, is a
vague measure to determine if a noise is an intruding noise
source.
Special Provisions
(b) The term "occasional" is vague and ambiguous and
leaves too much discretion with City enforcing authorities.
(c) The provisions of this subsection mandate that any
emergency alarm must terminate within 30 minutes in any hour of
its being activated. If this is the case, it would appear that
an ambulance with full sirens would have to terminate those
emergency sirens after 30 minutes of operation.
(f) The language contained in this subsection is vague
and ambiguous.
Schools, Churches, Libraries. Health Care
Institutions - Special Provisions
The term "unreasonably disturbs or annoys patients in a
hospital, convalescent home or other similar health care
institutions" is vague and ambiguous and fails to give sufficient
notice that an individual may be violating the provisions of this
Ordinance.
Mr. John Meyers
Associate Planner
April 20, 1992
Page 3
Radios. Tape Players on Publiciv Owned Property
(b) It appears that the provisions under the language
contained herein does not belong in this subsection.
Although the foregoing constitutes specific concerns
regarding the provisions of the proposed Noise Ordinance, I have
general concerns as to the viability of the ordinance as it is
currently drafted. For example, I am inclined to believe that
the technical terms and specific noise standards would be very
difficult for the average layperson to understand. It is
certainly possible that an individual may violate the provisions
of this ordinance without actually being aware that such a
violation has been committed. Moreover, some of the standards
contained in the ordinance are vague, ambiguous, and authorize
too much discretion to City officials to determine whether a
violation exists. Such vague language fails to give individuals
the required notice and specificity for any illegal conduct.
Finally, enforcement of the provisions of this
ordinance would most likely be costly and time consuming for the
City. For example, since the provisions of the ordinance purport
to define violations in terms of an excess ambient noise level,
any such purported violation would have to be measured by the
appropriate equipment to determine the "offensive noise source".
Such violations could only be determined at the time the
offensive noise is emitted and the measurement must be done at
that time. Consequently, City Code Enforcement Officer(s) would
need to be dispatched each time an alleged violation exists from
a complaining party.
Please review the aforementioned comments and concerns
regarding this proposed ordinance and contact me at your earliest
convenience.
Enclosure
cc: David F. Dixon,
City Manager (w/o enc. )
Mr. John Meyers
Associate Planner
April 20, 1992
Page 4
Gary Thornhill,
Scott F. Field,
TEIq/11108988. LTR
Planning Director (w/enc.y
City Attorney (w/o enc.)
ITEM #5
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 21, 1992
Caee No.:
Plot Plan No. 245, Amendment No. I and Plot
Plan No. 246, Amendment No. 1
Prepared By: Matthew Fagan
RECOMMENDATION:
ADOPT Resolution No. 92- denying Plot Plan No. 245,
Amendment No. I and Plot Plan No. 246, Amendment No. 1
based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the staff
report.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Adams Advertising, Inc.
REPRESENTATIVE:
Same
PROPOSAL:
To erect two (2) V-type Outdoor Advertising Displays.
LOCATION:
East side of Winchester Road approximately 1,200 and 1,850
feet north of the intersection of Nicholas Road and Winchester
Road.
EXISTING ZONING:
M-SC (Manufacturing-Service Commercial)
SURROUNDING ZONING: North:
South:
East:
West:
R-2 (Restricted Single-Family
Subdivisions)
SP 164 (RGripaugh Estates)
SP 213 (Winchester Properties)
R-R (Rural Residential)
Residential
PROPOSED ZONING:
Not requested
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Single-Family Residences/Vacant
Vacant (SP 164 - Commercial)
Vacant (SP 213 - Residential)
Single-Family Residences/Vacant
S%STAFFRPT~245-246.PP
PROJECT STATISTICS
Billboard No. I (Plot Plan No. 245):
Height: 35 feet
Height from Roadway Grade: 25 feet
Size of Sign: 297 square feet
Billboard No. 2 (Plot Plan No. 246):
Height: 35 feet
Height from Roadway Grade: 25 feet
Size of Sign: 297 square feet
BACKGROUND
The City of Temeculs has adopted a number of Ordinances regarding Outdoor Advertising
Displays. Following is a chronology of Ordinances regulating Outdoor Advertising Displays:
Ordinance No. 90-08:
Adopted on April 24, 1990 and expired on June 8, 1990.
Ordinance No. 90-08 was an urgency ordinance adopting an
interim zoning ordinance pertaining to regulations for Outdoor
Advertising Displays. Section 3 (a) stated: "Pending the
completion and adoption of the General Plan of the City of
Temecula together with associated signage regulation for the
Land Use Code for the City of Temecula, the establishment of
Outdoor Advertising Display is hereby prohibited and no
application for sign location plan, plot plan or other applicable
discretionary entitlement for an Outdoor Advertising Display shall
be accepted, acted upon, or approved."
Ordinance No. 90-09:
Adopted on June 5, 1990 and expired on April 24, 1991.
Ordinance No. 90-09 was an urgency ordinance which extended
interim Ordinance NO. 90-08.
Ordinance No. 91-17:
Adopted on April 23, 1991 and expired on April 23, 1992.
Ordinance No. 91-17 was an urgency ordinance which further
extended interim Ordinance No. 90-08.
Ordinance No. 92-06:
Adopted on April 28, 1992 and will expire on April 28, 1993.
Ordinance No, 92-06 is a resolution pertaining to sign regulations
and establishes regulations for the use of Outdoor Advertising
Displays. Section 4.A. of Ordinance No. 92-06 contains a
hardship provision which would permit commercial off-premises
signs, provided that a finding of hardship is made by the Planning
Commission. Following a noticed public hearing, a commercial
off-premises sign may be approved subject to compliance with
the provisions of Riverside County Ordinance No, 348, Article
XIX (Advertising Regulations).
Ordinance No. 92-07: Adopted concurrently with Ordinance No. 92-06 as an urgency
ordinance.
ADOlicant's Submittal to the County of Riverside Plannino Department
Two (2) applications for Outdoor Advertising Displays were originally submitted to the County
of Riverside Planning Department on February 22, 1990. According to a chronology prepared
by the applicant (reference Attachment No. 3), there was confusion involved in processing
these applications through the County of Riverside Planning Department. Based on the
applicant's chronology, approval from the County of Riverside Planning Department was
received on three separate occasions. Subsequently, they were finally informed by Riverside
County that their project was within the City of Temecula and therefore, no permits could be
issued. The applicant's request for a "hardship exemption" is based on the processing time
at Riverside County. The applicant feels that if their applications were processed in a timely
manner through Riverside County, then they would have had their approval/permits prior to
the City of Temecula moratorium on Outdoor Advertising Displays. Attachment No. 4, dated
May 7, 1990, are the County of Riverside notices that the signs were to be considered by the
County of Riverside Planning Department. Attachment No. 5, dated May 31,1990, are denial
letters by the County of Riverside Planning Department for the proposed displays. Although
the denial letters are not signed, the date on the denial letters indicates that the projects were
being processed by Riverside County after the moratorium was established in the City of
Temecula.
City Staff requested either an approval letter or approved exhibits from the applicant, however
none of the requested items could be provided.
Submittal to the City of Temecula
Plot Plans No. 245 and 246 were submitted to the City of Temecula Planning Department on
July 15, 1992. The applicant has submitted these Plot Plans pursuant to Section 4.A. of
Ordinance No. 90-06 (the hardship clause contained within Ordinance No. 92-06). Staff
conducted a preliminary review of the submittal and informed the applicant that the necessary
findings could not be made for their hardship request. The applicant was also informed that
if the Plot Plan applications were pursued, Staff could not support a recommendation of
approval. This information plus comments relative to amendments to the submittal were
conveyed in a letter dated August 5, 1992. The applicant chose to pursue the applications
and re-submitted amended site plans on August 14, 1992. Staff reviewed the re-submittals
and determined that the projects were complete.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Plot Plan No. 245 is a proposal to erect a V-type Outdoor Advertising Display on the east side
of Winchester Road, approximately 1,200 feet north of the intersection of Nicholas Road and
Winchester Road. Plot Plan No. 246 is a proposal to erect a V-type Outdoor Advertising
Display on the east side of Winchester Road, approximately 1,850 feet north of the
intersection of Nicholas Road and Winchester Road. Total height of each Outdoor Advertising
Display shall be thirty-five (35) feet, however from the roadway grade, the signs shall be
twenty-five (25) feet in height. The distance between the two signs is approximately 640
feet. The separation of the display faces on the V-type signs is twenty-five (25) feet.
ANALYSIS
ADDrOVal PrOCedures
The Riverside County Planning Department processed applications for the City of Temecula
until July, 1990. All projects which were processed by the County of Riverside Planning
Department were ultimately placed on the agendas of the City of Temecula City Council.
According to Ordinance No; 89-13, notice of all decisions of l~he County Planning Director and
the County Planning Commission were to be filed with the Clerk of the City Council within
fifteen (15) days after the decision. No notice of decision for those two plot plans was
received by the City of Temecula City Clerk, and the Outdoor Advertising Display applications
were never received for action by the City of Temecula City Council. A hardship was not
incurred since there is no official approval by the County of Riverside Planning Director
(reference Attachment No. 4, letter to Mr. David Dixon dated September 12, 1990, which
states: "Due to the series of circumstances enumerated above, the sign applications would
not be approved"). In the event that the projects were approved by Riverside County, the
above mentioned procedure would have to be followed. Since the procedure was not
followed, the City Council would not have the opportunity to act on the Riverside County
Planning Director's decision if they had chosen to do so.
City Council Denial of Other Outdoor Advertising Disolay Aoolicetions
The City Council previously denied two appeals for Outdoor Advertising Displays. Both were
denied during the review period for the applicant's Outdoor Advertising Displays by the
Riverside County Planning Department. Plot Plan No. 1170 was denied on February 27, 1990
and Plot Plan No. 1168 was denied on March 13, 1990. Findings to support both denials
included aesthetic concerns of the proposed signage, and inconsistency and incompatibility
with present and future development of the surrounding property. Both of the applications
were denied prior to the moratorium on Outdoor Advertising Displays which went into effect
on April 24, 1990.
Inconsistency with Draft Future General Plan
The proposals to locate two (2) V-type Outdoor Advertising Displays on the east side of
Winchester Road, (one display approximately 1,200 feet north of the intersection of
Winchester and Nicholas Roads and the other approximately 1,850 feet north of this
intersection) are likely to be inconsistent with the City's future General Plan for the following
reasons:
The Draft Preferred Land Use Plan designation for the subject project site is Medium Density
Residential. If the Draft Preferred Land Use Plan is ultimately adopted, then the proposed
Outdoor Advertising Displays would be inconsistent with the residential designation for the
site.
Residential uses exist to the west of the project site and are proposed to the northeast and
the east. The Outdoor Advertising Displays would not be compatible with these residential
uses. Section E of the Land Use Element of the Draft General Plan states: "Residents want
adequate buffering from non-residential uses in terms of light, noise, traffic impacts and
neoative visual imDaCtS."
S\STAFFP~'P, 245-246.FT' 4
Section B of the Community Design Element of the Draft General Plan identified the northern
portion of the City along Winchester Road as a "gateway" to the City. It is further elaborated
in Section E: "The primary entrances or "gateways" to the City should be clearly defined
through monumentation, signage and extensive landscape design features". The intent of
Section E will not be met if Outdoor Advertising Displays are erected in this area,
Policy 1.4 of the Lend Use Element is to "Consider the impacts on surrounding land uses and
infrastructure when reviewing proposals for new development." The proposed project is
inconsistent with the Draft Preferred Plan, the Land Use Element and the Community Design
Element, due to its impact upon the surrounding development and the fact that the proposed
project site is a potential "gateway" to the City.
Twenty-Five (25) Wide Transoortation Corridor Easement
The Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP) contains a policy which requires a twenty-five
(25) foot transportation easement along Highway 79 (Winchester Road). Staff has been
requesting that right-of-way be set aside for this easement on both sides of Highway 79 for
all projects for future traffic mitigation programs. The applicant currently proposes to locate
the subject outdoor advertising displays within this right-of-way. The SWAP states: "This
easement may be used for additional parking and/or landscaping untie such time it is needed
for transportation improvements." In the event that the Planning Commission approves the
proposed outdoor advertising displays, it is Staff's recommendation that the two (2) outdoor
advertising displays be relocated, since they are permanent structures, and they should not
be located within this right-of-way.
EXISTING ZONING, SWAP AND FUTURE GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
Existing zoning for the project site is Manufacturing-Service Commercial (M-SC). Outdoor
Advertising Displays are a permitted use with an approved plot plan in the M-SC zone. The
proposed signage meets the requirements prescribed under Section 19.3 of Ordinance No.
348. The SWAP designation for the project site if General Light Industrial (LI). The SWAP
elaborates that the LI category is applied to areas that have been committed to the
Manufacturing-Service Commercial (M-SC) zone. The Draft Preferred Land Use Plan
designation for the project site is Medium Density Residential. Although the existing zoning
and the SWAP identify the subject property as Light Industrial, Staff cannot make the finding
that the proposed project will be consistent with the City's future General Plan based upon
the projects inconsistency with the Draft Preferred Land Use Plan as well as inconsistency
with the Land Use and Community Design Elements of the Draft General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Plot Plan No. 245, Amendment No. I and Plot Plan No. 246, Amendment No. 1 are statutorily
exempt pursuant to Article 18, Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.
S\STAFFRFT~245-246PP 5
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
Plot Plans No. 245 and 246 are proposals to erect two (2) V-type Outdoor Advertising
Displays on the east side of Winchester Road, north of the intersection of Winchester and
Nicholas Road. Ordinances No. 90-08, 90-09.91-17, 92-06 and 92-07 have been adopted
to regulate the use of Outdoor Advertising Displays. The applicant previously submitted two
applications for Outdoor Advertising Displays to the County of Riverside Planning Department,
however, no approvals ware received for the projects. The applicant has submitted two plot
plan applications to the City of Temecula under a hardship provision contained in Ordinance
No. 92-06. Staff has determined that a hardship has not been incurred by the applicant for
the following reasons:
1. No approvals'were received from the County of Riverside Planning Department.
The City Council never acted or had the opportunity to act upon the proposed projects
which were processed by the County of Riverside.
The applications were being processed by the County of Riverside after the moratorium
was placed on the use of Outdoor Advertising Displays by the City of Temecula.
The proposed Outdoor Advertising Display applications will be inconsistent with the City's
future General Plan. The subject property has been classified as Medium Density Residential
on the Draft Preferred Land Use Plan, and the use would be inconsistent with the land use
designation. Residential uses exist to the northwest and the north and are proposed to the
east of the subject site. The proposed signage would be incompatible with these uses. The
subject site has been identified as a potential gateway to the City and therefore, the use
would be detrimental in attaining a gateway appearance. The proposed signage is statutorily
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
FINDINGS
There is a likely probability that Plot Plan No. 245, Amendment No. 1 and Plot Plan No.
246, Amendment No. 1 will not be consistent with the General Plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. The Draft
Preferred Land Use Plan designation for the proiect site is Medium Density Residential.
The proposed signs are inconsistent with this ~and use designation. In addition, the
proposed signs are inconsistent with the Draft General Plan Land Use and Community
Design Elements.
There is a probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future
adopted General Plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan. The erection of two (2) V-type Outdoor Advertising Displays will be inconsistent
with the proposed land use designation of Medium Density Residential for the site.
There are existing residential uses to the west of the project site and residential
development is proposed to the northeast and the east of the site. In addition, the
Community Design Element has determined that the area of the project will be a
"gateway" to the City. By approving the proposed Outdoor Advertising Displays, the
proposed General Plan Goals and Policies will be difficult to obtain.
S~STAFFRFT~245-246.PP 6
The proposed use or action does not comply with all other applicable requirements of
state law and local ordinances. Ordinance No. 92-06 prohibits the establishment of
Outdoor Advertising Displays. Section 4.A. of Ordinance No. 92-06 contains hardship
provisions, however, a hardship has not been demonstrated to exist for the proposed
signs. Approvals were never granted by the Riverside County Planning Department,
and the subsequent approval procedure with the City of Temecula was not pursued.
The proposed signs are not designed for the protection of the public health, safety and
general welfare; and do not conform to the logical development of the land. Further,
the signs are not compatible with the present and future logical development of the
surrounding property. At the current time, the subject project site is zoned for
industrial development. The Draft Preferred Land Use Plan has been developed and the
designation for the site is Medium Density Residential. The present development in the
immediate area is vacant to the south, east and portions north of the site. Residential
uses exist to the north/northwest of the site. Proposed uses will include residential
uses to the north and east, with commercial and industrial uses to the south. The
signs, as proposed, will not be consistent with the immediate surrounding
development. In addition, the Community Design Element identifies this area as a
potential gateway to the City, the development of which would not include Outdoor
Advertising Displays.
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
ADOPT Resolution No. 92- denying Plot Plan No. 245,
Amendment No. 1 and Plot Plan No. 246, Amendment No. 1
based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the staff
report.
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Resolution No. 92- - blue page 8
Exhibits - blue page 13
Chronology and Letters Submitted by the Applicant - blue page 14
County of Riverside Notices of Decision - blue page 15
County of Riverside Planning Director Denials - blue page 16
S~STAFFRPT~245-246+PP 7
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
S\STAFFRFT~245-246.PP 8
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
I~F-~OLUTION NO. 9~-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLOT PLAN NO.
24~, AMENDMENT NO. 1 AND PLOT PLAN NO.
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO ERECT TWO (2) V-TYPE
OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAYS ON A PARCEL
CONTAINING 5.70 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE
OF WINCHESTER ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 1,200 AND
1,8~0 FEET NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF
WINCHESTER AND NICHOLAS ROADS AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 911-1~0-00~
WHEREAS, Adams Advertising filed Plot Plan No. 245, Amendment No. I and Plot
Plan No. 246, Amendment No. 1 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning,
Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Plot Plan applications were processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Plot
Plans on September 21, 1992, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either
in support or opposition to said Plot Plans; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission denied said
Plot Plans.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. ~ 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:
general plan.
The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the
S\STAFFRPT~245-246.PP 9
2. The planning agency finds, in appwving projects and taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, each of the following:
a. There is a reasonable probability that the land use or acrion
proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which
will be studied within a reasonable rime.
b. There is little or no probability of substanrial detriment to or
interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or acrion is ulrimately
inconsistent with the plan.
c. The proposed use or acrion 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 incorporarion of Temecula as
the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan
guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General
Plan.
C. The proposed Plot Plans are 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 rimely fashion with a prepararion of the general
plan.
2. The Planning Commission finds, in denying projects and taking other
actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this rifle, each of the following:
a. There is a likely probability that the land use or acrion proposed
will not be consistent with the General Plan proposal being considered or studied or which will
be studied within a reasonable time.
b. There is a probability of substantial detriment to or interference
with the future adopted General Plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with
the plan.
c. The proposed use or action does not comply with all other
applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances.
D. Pursuant to Seerion 18.30(c), no plot plan may be approved unless the following
findings can be made:
S\STAFFRPT%245*246PP 10
1. The pwposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and
with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances.
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.
E. The Planning Commission, in denying the proposed Plot Plans, makes the
following findings, to wit:
There is a likely probability that Plot Plan No. 245, Amendment No. 1 and Plot Plan
No. 246, Amendment No. 1 will not be consistent with the General Plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. The Draft
Preferred Land Use Plan designation for the project site is Medium Density Residential.
The proposed signs are inconsistent with this land use designation. In addition, the
proposed signs are inconsistent with the Draft General Plan I and Use and Community
Design Elements.
There is a probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted
General Plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The
erection of two (2) V-type Outdoor Advertising Displays will be inconsistent with the
proposed land use designation of Medium Density Residential for the site. Them are
existing residential uses to the west of the project site and residential development is
proposed to the northeast and the east of the site. In addition, the Community Design
Element has determined that the area of the project will be a "gateway" to the City. By
approving the proposed Outdoor Advertising Displays, the proposed General Plan Goals
and Policies will be difficult to obtain.
The proposed use or action does not comply with all other applicable requirements of
state law and local ordinances. Ordinance No. 92-06 prohibits the establishment of
Outdoor Advertising Displays. Section 4.A. of Ordinance No. 92-06 contains hardship
provisions, however, a hardship has not been demonstrated to exist for the proposed
signs. Approvals were never granted by the Riverside County Planning Department, and
the subsequent approval procedure with the City of Temecula was not pursued.
The proposed signs are not designed for the protection of the public health, safety and
general welfare; and do not conform to the logical development of the land. Further, the
signs are not compatible with the present and future logical development of the
surrounding property. At the current time, the subject project site is zoned for industrial
development. The Draft Preferred Land Use Plan has been developed and the
designation for the site is Medium Density Residential. The present development in the
immediate area is vacant to the south, east and portions north of the site. Residential
uses exist to the north/northwest of the site. Proposed uses will include residential uses
to the north and east, with commercial and industrial uses to the south. The signs, as
SISTAFFRPT',245-246.PP 1 I
proposed, will not be consistent with the immediate surrounding development. In
addition, the Community Design Element identifies this area as a potential gateway to
the City, the development of which would not include Outdoor Advertising Displays.
Section 2. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby denies
Plot Plan No. 245, Amendment No. 1 and Plot Plan No. 246, Amendment No. 1 to erect two
(2) V-Type Outdoor Advertising Displays on a parcel containing 6.70 acres located on the east
side of Winchester Road, approximately 1,200 and 1,850 feet north of the intersection of
Winchester and Nicholas Roads and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 911-150-005
5. Section 3. DENIED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of September, 1992.
LINDA FAHEY
CHAIRMAN
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA)
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 21st day of
September, 1992 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNHILL
SECRETARY
S'~ST AFFP"°T%245' 246.PP 12
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
EXHIBITS
S\STAFFRPT~245-246.PP 13
CITY OF TEMECULA
SITE /
CASE NO.: Plot Plan No. 245, Amendment No. 1/Plot Plan No. 246. Amendment No. 1
EXHIBIT: A VICINITY MAP
P.C. DATE: September 21, 1992
S~STAFFRpT~24S-24E.PP
CITY OF TEMECULA
J5
/ \
SVVAP - EXHIBI ? B
~P 1
Designation: General Light Industrial (LI)
SITE////
S-P {213)
R-R s-p {/6,4)
\ \
ZONING - EXHIBIT C Designation: Manufacturing-Service Commercial (M-SC)
Case No.: PLot Plan No. 245, Amendment No. lfPIot Plan No. 246, Amendment No. 1
P.C. Date: September 21, 1992
CITY OF TEMECULA
F~I~'I'IN& RI~NT O¢:
UL'TlttATE R~bHT OF
~E~..~ E/O
NINCHESTER
Proposed
Sign
~-J,,H41LTDN AI/E.
ROAD
TO NILOLAS RoAD
CASE NO.: Plot Plan No. 245, Amendment No. 1/Plot Plan No. 246, Amendment No. 1
EXHIBIT: D1 SITE PLAN
P.C. DATE: September 21, 1992
S\STAFFRpT~,245-2aE
CITY OF TEMECULA
EYIS'I'IN(=, RIt,,HT Of- ~IA"(
0L'TIr"IA'r'E RIbliT OF t,~Y
Proposed
Sign
j/TO
CASE NO.: Plot Plan No. 245, Amendment No. 1/Plot Plan No. 246, Amendment No. 1
EXHIBIT: D2 SITE PLAN
P.C. DATE: September 21, 1992
CITY OF TEMECULA
Landscape Corridors and Gateways
"'!
,I
Gateways
TF.,M~I~IOGP-COM DS~ · Draft Datc' July 20, 1992 ]l :~am
I%gc 10-10
CASE NO.: Plot Plan No. 245, Amendment No. 1/Plot Plan No. 246, Amendment No. 1
EXHIBIT: E LANDSCAPE CORRIDORS
P.C. DATE: September 21, 1992 AND GATEWAYS
SISTAFFRPT~245-246.PP
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
CHRONOLOGY AND LETTERS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT
S~STAFFRPT~,245-246-PP I 4
CHRONOLOGY
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
Applications were submitted to Riverside County February 22,
1990.
Processing should have been completed within 30-45 days and
prior to City's imposed moratorium of April 24, 1990.
Applications were approved; then, "at the last moment" the
required property owner's notices were not mailed out.
No comments were received, and the applications were again
approved.
Planner then thought signs were located within Specific Plan
213.
- We immediately advised planner that property was not
within Specific Plan 213.
- Planner then had to verify this.
Applications were again approved.
Ultimately, we were advised that the property was now in the
City of Temecula. Once again, the County was not issuing
the permits.
Due to the errors made by staff, Adams was advised of
this after Temecula had established a billboard
moratorium.
These applications should
approved through the County,
would have been approved.
have been administratively
and if processed correctly,
adams advertising, inc.
19081 Rocky Road, Santa Ana, California 92705, (714) 838-9026 · FAX (714) 730-5461
adams advertising, inc.
April 14, 1992
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
P 793 513 483
Mr. Gary Thornhill
Planning Director
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 3000
Temecula, CA 92390
Re: Application for Billboards in Accordance with Ordinance
No. 91-20, Section 4
Dear Mr. Thornhill:
Some time ago, we met and discussed a situation where, as a
result of a series of errors made by Riverside County, we did
not receive permits for two signs that should have been issued.
Enclosed is a letter from Riverside County that you may recall.
It outlines some of what occurred and supports the fact that a
mistake was made. I hope this helps refresh your memory of this
issue and of our meeting. I have also enclosed a chronology of
what occurred, together with a plot plan and map identifying the
sign locations.
We believe these circumstances constitute a hardship in that we
were erroneously precluded from building signs. As a result,
businesses and developers in the southwest area have suffered a
hardship as they have been wrongfully denied the opportunity to
promote their business by being denied' the ability to advertise
on these signs.
In light of the foregoing, it is our contention that we,
together with the community, continue to suffer a hardship which
we respectiully request you to relieve.
Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions or
need any additional information.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Yours truly,
RECEIVED
Michele Adams
MA:dt
[JUL 15 1992
'r,,J:T~_ OF TEMECULA
September 12~, 1990
'R 'VERbiDE COUrlCu,
PLArlrlirlG DEP, RCi IErI
Mr, David Dixon, City Manager
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 3000
Temecula, CA 92390
RE;
Ariains Advertls]n.~, Inc.
App/icatlons for $1~tn Permit Nee. 1183 and 1184
Dear Mr. Dixon:
On February 22, 1990 Adams Advertising, Inc. made application for two billboards to the
County of Riverside. The signs were proposed to be situated on the northeast corner of
Winchester Road and Hamilton Avenue in what has now become the City of Temecula.'
Typlca//y, the County would have conlpleted the processing of such applications within 60
d,~ys. Thus, in lh/s case, processing would normally have been completed before the
moratorium on new b/l/boards was imposed by your City on Apr~ 24, 1990. However, that
was not the case.
The Rivers/de Cour~ty .planning Department; in fact, did approve Ine applications but we
discovered at the la~,t moment that the requlred notices to neighboring property owners were
not mailed out. Furthermore, there Was some confusion as to ~ether the two signs were
to be located adjacent to Specific Plan No. 213. After the notices"were.maHed, no comments
were received, and the applications Were ~gain apRroved. Before the permits could be issued
we discovered that the two .sign structures were, in fact, proposed to be situated within the
City of Temecu/a. ......~: :2:..'. "~ ? ~ ~- ~, ,, ~, - . .~ .> ..' ...'.-,
Due ~o the series of ciYcumstance~ enumerated -bove the sign applications could not be
approved. However, ~he app//catlons were, in'fac<, in compliance with all regulations in effect
prior to the C/~y's moratorium and'could ha~e been acted upon favorably prior to that date.
". Ve~ ~ru/~.yours,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Joseph A. Richorals, Planning Director
8a/y$, .Chief Deputy P g Director
MFB:aea
cc.' Joseph S. Aklufi
4000 LEMON gTREEET. gT|4 FLOOR 79733 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE. SUITE E
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE NOTICES OF DECISION
S\STAFFRP"r~245-246.PP 15
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
4080 LEMON STREET, NINTH FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 275-3200
Joseph A. Rtchards, Planning Director
As prescribed under the provisions of County Ordinances, this is to notify you
that the appli cati on referenced below has been recei red to be considered by the
RIverside County Planntng Department.
Any person wishing to comment on the project must submit written comaants to
the Planning Department at the above address before May 7 1990.
NO PUBLIC HEARING on the application shall be held before a decision ts made
unless a hearing is requested in writing prior to the aforementioned date by
the applicant or other affected person, or if the Planning Director determines
that a public hearing should be required. If a public hearing is scheduled
before the Planning Di rector, you shall be notified.
The proposed project application may be viewed at the public information
counter, Monday through Friday from 9:O0 a.m. until 4:00 p.m.
If you have any coemrents to submit or wish to request a public hearing, please
return this sheet and return to this office by the above mentioned date.
OUTDOOR ADVERTISEMENT 1183, exempt from CEQA, is an application submitted by
Adams Advertising, Inc for property located in the Murrieta Area and Pirst
Supervtsorial District and generally described as the NE corner of Winchester
Road and Hamilton and made pursuant to OrdinanCe No. 348, Riverside County Land
Use Ordinance which proposes and off-site sign.
CASE & NO. OUTDOOR ADVERTISEMENT 1183
__ I do not wish a public hearing to be held on this case, but I would like
to submit comatents in regards to this project.
__ I am requesting that a public hearing be held on this case for the
following reasons:
I understand that I will be notified of the time and date of the public
hearing.
Signature
Print Name
Print Street Address
Print City/State Zip
RIVERSZDE COUNTY PLANNZNG DEPARTMENT
4080 LEMON STREET, NINTH FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALZFORNIA 92501
(714) 275-3200
Joseph A, Richards, Planntng Dtrector
As prescribed under the provisions of County Ordinances, thts is to notify you
that the application referenced below has been received to be considered by the
Riverside County Planning Department.
Any person wishing to comment on the project must submit written convnents to
the Planning Departwent at the above address before May 7, 1990.
NO PUBLIC HEARING on the application shall be held before a decision is made
unless a heart ng is requested in writing prior to the aforementioned date by
the applicant or other affected person, or if the Planning Director determines
that e public hearing should be required. If a public hearing is scheduled
before the Planning Director, you shall be notified.
The proposed project application wey be viewed at the public information
counter, Monday through Friday froe 9:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m.
If you have any comments to submit or wish to request a public hearing, please
return this sheet and return to this office by the above wentiOned date.
OUTDOOR ADVERTISEMENT 1184, exit frOm CEQA, is an application submitted by
Adams Advertising, Inc for property located in the Hurrteta Area and First
Supervisorial District and generally described as the NE corner of Winchester
Road and Hamilton and nmde pursuant to Ordinance No. 348, Riverside County Land
Use Ordinance which proposes and off°site sign.
CASE & NO. OUTDOOR ADVERTISEMENT 1184
__ I do not wish a public hearing to be held on this case, but I would like
to submit comments in regards to this project.
I am requesting that a public hearing be held on this case for the
' following reasons:
I understand that I will be notified
hearing.
Signature
of the time and date of the public
Print Name
Print Street Address
Print City/State Zip
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PLANNING DIRECTOR DENIALS
S\STAFFRPT~,245-246.PP 16
RiVER3iDE courlcy
PLArlrlirlG DEPAR;ITIErlC
DATE: 31 May 1990
Dear Applicant:
IE: Plot Plan lo. ] ~
Ilefional Tm IIo. Minnr Prrd~v-f~
ss on L] Board of Supervisors took the following ~ct,~on on the
above referenced plot pl an:
APPROVED the Plot Plan, Exhibtt , subject to the attached
condt ttons.
APPROVED the Plot Plan, Exhibit , subject to the attached
amended coM~tions.
APPROYED the Plot Plan, Revtsed Exhtbtt , subject to the
attached coedlUons.
APPROVED the Plot Plan, Revised Exhibit , subject to the
attached mended conditions,
UPHELD the appeal,
DENIED the appeal.
APPROVED the WZTHDRAWAL of the appeal request.
APPROVED the WtTHORAWAL of the Plot Plan.
OENZEO the Plot Plan based on the attached findings.
ADOPTEO the Negative Oeclaratton on the Envlronmental
ROted above.
Assessment
Thts actlon my be appealed to the ~a Planning Cemmtsston [] Board of
Supervisors within ten [10} days of the date of this notice.. The appeal must
be made In writing and submitted with a fee In accordance with the fee
schedule to the appropriate departaent. An appeal of any condl tt on
constitutes an appeal of the action as a whole and requires a new p~ltc
hearing before the appropriate hearing body.
Very truly yours,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Joseph A. Richards, Planning Direr
cc: Representart ve
File
29S-43
Revised _
8.10-88
4080 LEMON STREET. 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 787-6181
Sian P~an, Planner III
46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201
(619) 342-8277
RiVER: iDE COurlcu
PLArI~i~G DEPARCii1EIl
DRTE: 31 May 1990
Deer Applicant:
R/: Plot Plan Ilo. 11 4
EerlromenUT AssesmeLn~ No. N/A
liegeolin1 Teal lie. M~r~r Proj~c~
On 3z the River,,de Cou.ty B Pla..t.g ot,-,tor ra
Planning L] Board of S~rvtsors ~ok ~e follytrig actton on ~e
above terraced plot plan:
APPROV~D the Plot Plan, Exhtbtt , subject to the attached
condt tl ons.
APPROVED the Plot Plan, Exhlbtt , subject to the attached
amended conditions.
APPROVED the Plot Plan, Revised Exhtbtt , subject to the
attached coedl ttons.
APPROVED the Plot Plan, Revised Exhibit , subject to the
attached amended conditions.
UPHELD the appeal,
DENZED the appeal,
APPROVED the WXT~RAWAL of the appeal request.
A~PROVED the WITHORA~AL of the Plot Plan.
DENIEO the Plot Plan based on the attached findings.
ADOPTED the Negative Oechration on the Environmental
noted above.
Assessment
This action my be appealed to the Ix] Planning Cem~ntsston [] Board of
Supervisors wtthtn ten (10) days of the data of this notice... The appeal must
be made In writing and submitted vtth a fee in accordance ~lth the fee
schedule to the Ipprop,iate departaent. An appeal of any cond4 tt on
constitutes an appeal of the action as a ~hole and requires a new public
hearing before the a~p~opriate hearing body.
Very truly yours,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARll~[NT
Joseph A. P~c~_rds, Plar~Director
cc: Representative
File
Revtsed
8-1088
Sian Rf~nan, Plaumer III
4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE., CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 787'6181
46-209 OASIS STREET, ROON 34
INDIO, CALIFORNIA 9;2201
(619) 342qB277
ITEM #6
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
September 21, 1992
Environmental Impact Report No. 324, Change of Zone No. 5532, Specific Plan
No. 255, Environmental Impact Report No. 340, Change of Zone No. 5589,
Specific Plan No. 263, Environmental Impact Report No. 348, Change of Zone
No. 5617, Specific Plan No. 1, Tentative Parcel Map No. 25213, Vesting
Tentative Tract No. 25214, Vesting Tentative Tract No. 25215, Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 25321, Vesting Tentative Tract No. 35322, Vesting
Tentative Tract No. 25324 and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 25464
RECOMMENDATION:
CONTINUE Environmental impact Report No. 324, Change of
Zone No. 5532, and Specific Plan No. 255 Off Calendar.
CONTINUE Environmental Impact Report No. 340, Change of
Zone No. 5589, and Specific Plan No. 263 Off Calendar.
CONTINUE Environmental Impact Report No. 348, Change of
Zone No. 5617, and Specific Plan No. 1 Off Calendar.
CONTINUE Tentative Parcel Map No. 25213, Vesting
Tentative Tract No. 25214, and Vesting Tentative Tract No.
25215 Off Calendar.
CONTINUE Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25321, Vesting
Tentative Tract No. 35322, Vesting Tentative Tract No. 25324
and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No, 25464 Off Calendar.
The above cases were scheduled for the Planning Commission Hearing of September 14,
1992. The Planning Commission Hearing of September 14, 1992 was canceled due to lack
of a quorum. The above cases have therefore been placed on the next Planning Commission
Hearing Agenda, September 21, 1992, as required by State Law.
The Staff recommendations included in the September 14, 1992 Staff Reports for the above
cases were for continuance to November 16, 1992. At this time, staff is recommending that
the cases be continued off-calendar and re-advertised for Public Hearing.
ITEM #7
RECOMMENDATION:
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 21, 1992
Case No.: Public Use Permit No. 5
Prepared By: Saied Naaseh
ADOPT Negative Declaration for Public Use Permit No. 5.
ADOPT Resolution No. 92- approving Public Use
Permit No. 5 based on the Analysis and Findings
contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval.
New Community Lutheran Church
The Holt Group
A request for approval for development of a church
including a multi-purpose Worship Center and a Sunday
School building on 2.92 acres.
Southeast corner of Santiago Road and Ynez Road
R-A-2V= (Residential Agriculture, 2~/~ acre minimum)
North:
South:
East:
West:
R-A & R-A-2 Y= (Residential Agriculture, 2 ~
acre minimum)
R-A-2~ Residential Agriculture, 2~ acre
minimum
R-A- 2 ~/~
minimum
R-A-2'/=
minimum
Residential Agriculture, 2'~ acre
Residential Agriculture, 2 '~ acre
N/A
Vacant
S\STAFFRFT~5PUP.PC
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Single Family Dwellings
Single Family Dwellings
Single Family Dwellings
Single Family Dwellings
PROJECT STATISTICS
Area Calculations
Area Name
Area
% of Total
Building 8,968
Worship Center - 5,599
Sunday School - 3,369
Covered walks and patios 7,613
Walks and courts 7,123
Parking area (asphalt) 41,087
Open space and planters 53.692
square feet 7 %
square feet 6 %
square feet 6 %
square feet 32 %
square feet 42 %
Total 127,451 square feet 100%
Parking Calculations
ReQuired Parkina Rate Reauired No. of Parkino SDaces Provided No. of Parldna SPaces
1 parking space per
35 square feet of
assembly area
65 65
1 parking space per
employee plus 1 parking
space for every 5 children
Total 87 86
Note: The assembly area and the Sunday School are not used simultaneously.
BACKGROUND
This project is proposed on Parcel 2 of Tentative Parcel Map No. 27018 which was approved
by the Planning Commission on August 5, 1991 (refer to Exhibit "J" and Attachment No. 6).
Future development will occur on Parcels 1 and 3 of Parcel Map No. 27018. In that meeting
it was brought to the Planning Commission's attention that one of the parcels will be
developed as a church. The Parcel Map received little opposition; however, the future church
use had some supporters from the audience along with some opposition from the surrounding
neighbors. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the parcel map was
consistent with the zoning and the church will require further approvals and input from the
S%STAFFRPT~5PUPPC 2
public. This project was submitted on March 23, 1992 and proposes a Worship Center and
a Sunday School building on parcel 2 as shown on Exhibit "E". Staff requested the applicant
to show their future plans for parcels 1 and 3 as shown on Exhibit "F". However, these plans
are conceptual and this project only contains the development proposed on parcel 2. Further
approvals will be necessary for any development on parcels 1 and 3 or any additions to parcel
2.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting approval for constructing a Worship Center and a Sunday School
building on Parcel 2 of Tentative Parcel Map No. 27018. The 5,599 square foot Worship
Center will be used for assembly area. The 3,369 square foot Sunday School will be used to
house four pre-school classrooms with 15 students each, for a total of 60 students.
According to the applicant, the Sunday School and the assembly area will not be used
simultaneously.
The access to the site is limited to Santiago Road; access is restricted to Ynez Road as a
condition of approval of the underlying map. A 20 foot landscaped structure setback is
provided along Ynez Road and Santiago Road. Moreover, a five (5) foot landscaped parking
lot setback is required along the property lines that abut residential zones. This setback is
provided along the easterly property line and it increases to 10 feet along the southwesterly
property line and to 20 feet along the southerly property line. A six foot high block wall is
proposed along the southerly property line to buffer the residence to the south. A four foot
high, fifty-four foot long monument sign with forty-four square feet of area is proposed on the
northwest corner of the property.
ANALYSIS
Proposed Project
The proposed project is the first phase of a multi-phase development proposed by the New
Community Lutheran Church. The first phase includes the Worship Center and Sunday School
buildings and 86 parking spaces. The future phases may include a 500 seat sanctuary, a
Christian Preschool with 100 students, a Christian day school with Kindergarten through
eighth grade plus related administration and storage space, a gymnasium and a total of 229
parking spaces including the 86 spaces in the first phase (refer to Exhibit "F").
FUture Phases
The applicant has indicated that the future phases may never be built; however, they have
been included per staff's request for informational purposes. A landscape plan has also been
prepared for this phase (refer to Exhibit "1"). The emphasis of these conceptual plans is on
buffering the adjacent single-family uses with landscaping. Twenty to thirty foot landscaped
areas separate the parking areas and the structures from the adjacent properties. Moreover,
future recreation and future playground areas have been placed at the southern and eastern
ends of the project to further buffer the structures and the parking areas from the surrounding
uses. Even though these play areas act as a buffer, they are a potential generator of noise.
The combination of the landscaped buffering, block walls and berming will mitigate these
impacts.
The impact of the future phases on the surrounding uses has not been assessed; however,
in staff's opinion, it could potentially impact the single-family dwellings immediately adjacent
to the site. Potential impacts associated with future phases will be assessed at the time of
subsequent development submittal.
Compatibility with Surroundino Develooment
This church is proposed along Ynez Road which is designated as a four lane secondary with
an 88 foot right-of-way and Santiago Road which is designated as an Arterial with a 110 foot
right-of-way in the Riverside County General Plan Circulation Element. This location is
appropriate for a church which, within residential areas, should be located along major roads
and away from local streets. Churches are traffic generators and should not be placed on
local streets that are not designed to carry the increased traffic. Therefore, Staff feels the
proposed project is an appropriate use of the site.
This project is located on the boundary of the Los Ranchitos development and the residents
have expressed concern regarding development of this project. Staff has met with the
residents and has addressed their concerns regarding parking, traffic, light, visual, noise and
removal of the Eucalyptus trees (refer to Attachment No. 5 and Condition Nos. 5, 20, 29, 31,
33,34,35 and 36). The residents were concerned regarding potential parking along Ynez
Road, Santiago Road and Vallejo Avenue. This concern has been addressed by prohibiting on
street parking on these streets (refer to Condition No. 29).
The traffic concerns have been addressed by requiring a traffic study. This study identifies
a total of 330 daily peak hour trips on weekdays which will have minimal traffic impacts. The
traffic study recommends half section improvements to Santiago Road and Ynez Road to City
standards adjacent to the project. The proposed access will ultimately be restricted to right
turn in/out only when Santiago Road is fully completed and when a secondary access is
provided to lot 3.
The visual, light and noise impacts have been addressed by incorporating set backs,
landscaping and walls into the project design, all the eucalyptus trees will be preserved on the
site.
The eight single-family dwellings abutting the site could particularly be impacted by this
development (refer to Exhibit "D"). The two houses along Ynez Road and the house along
Vallejo Avenue will not be impacted since no access is provided to these streets and the
landscape buffer will be sufficient to buffer the visual and noise impacts. The three houses
to the south, southeast and east of the property are set back sufficiently from the project
boundary, In addition, the landscaped buffer and the six (6) foot high block wall provided
within the project will be sufficient to reduce the visual and noise impacts. The parking lot
light standards are limited to a total of 13 with twenty foot poles and sharp cut off features
S~STAFFRPT',SPeJP,PC 4
that eliminate light pollution to the adjacent properties from the parking lot. Therefore, the
houses discussed will not be effected by the development of this project.
The only two houses that will be directly affected by increased traffic generated by this
proiect are located on Santiago Road, however, this impact will not be significant. The house
to the west is close to the existing street and will be even closer when Santiago Road is
improved to its ultimate 110 foot right-of-way width. The other house is considerably further
from the street and will be affected to a lesser degree than its neighbor to the west by the
noise and visual impacts generated by this development.
Parkina
The proposed development requires 87 parking spaces to meet the standards of Ordinance
No. 348. Eighty-six (86) parking spaces have been provided for the Worship Center and the
Sunday School. The applicant has indicated that the assembly area and the Sunday School
will not be used simultaneously and the Sunday School building will not be used as an
assembly area; therefore, staff feels the number of parking spaces provided is sufficient for
the project (refer to Condition No. 38). Future phases of this project will need to provide
additional parking spaces (refer to Condition No. 32). Parking will not be allowed along Ynez
Road, Santiago Road and Vallejo Avenue (refer to Condition No. 29).
Sians
The site plan shows two monument signs; one on the northwest corner of the property and
the other on the proposed access median. Ordinance No. 348 only allows one monument sign
for each parcel; therefore, the sign on the access median has been eliminated (refer to
Condition No. 30). The remaining monument sign replaces the existing Los Ranchitos sign
which is now located in the public right-of-way. The proposed monument sign is four feet
high and fifty-four feet long with a sign area of forty-four square feet. The location and the
size of this sign is a part of this request; however, further approval will be necessary from the
Planning Department for the sign copy.
EXISTING ZONING, SWAP AND FUTURE GENERAL PLAN
The proposed project meets all the requirements of the R-A zone. Churches require a Public
Use Permit in all zones if the Planning Commission makes a Finding that the project will not
be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community (refer to the
Findings).
The proposed project is consistent with the SWAP designation of 2.5 acre minimum
residential. Since the underlying zone that is consistent with SWAP allows churches with a
Public Use Permit, the project is consistent with SWAP.
The proposed project is consistent with the future General Plan of Very Low Density
Residential and all other elements of the General Plan. The future Development Code is
expected to allow churches in residential districts with a Conditional Use Permit if it is not
found to be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Study was prepared for this project and with the adoption of mitigation measures
which have been included in the Conditions of Approval, all the anticipated impacts have been
reduced to a level of insignificance. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared and
recommended for adoption.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The proposed project meets all the requirements of Ordinance No. 348. The impacts on
Single Family uses have been reduced since the landscape buffer and block walls have been
incorporated into the project design. The church is a proper use of the site since it is located
on a major intersection that will be able to carry the traffic generated from the project.
FINDINGS
The proposed project is consistent with Ordinance No. 348 since it meets all the
requirements of Ordinance No. 348.
The proposed project is consistent with the future General Plan since it is not
detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community.
The proposed project is consistent with SWAP since the underlying zone that is
consistent with SWAP allows churches with a Public Use Permit if they are not
detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community.
The proposed project is the proper use for the site since it is located on a major
intersection which will be able to carry the traffic generated by the project.
The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding single family dwellings since
the landscape buffering and block walls will reduce the visual and noise impacts of the
development.
The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment since all
the impacts have been reduced to a level of insignificant by the Conditions of
Approval.
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
ADOPT Negative Declaration for Public Use Permit No. 5.
ADOPT Resolution No. 92-__ approving Public Use Permit No,
5 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff
Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
Attachments:
5.
6.
7.
Resolution No. 92-. - blue page 8
Conditions of Approval - blue page 13
Exhibits - blue page 25
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning
C. SWAP
D. Surrounding Land Use
E. Site Plan
F. Conceptual Future Phases Site Plan
G. Elevations
H. Landscape Plan
I. Conceptual Future Phases Landscape Plan
J. Tentative Parcel Map No. 27018
Initial Study - blue page 26
Correspondence - blue page 40
Minutes of the August 5, 1991 Planning Commission Meeting - blue page 41
Los Ranchitos CC&R's Information - blue page 42
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 92-_
RF-~OLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMIgSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PUBLIC USE
PERMIT NO. S ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION OF A
WORSHIP CENTER AND A SUNDAY SCHOOL LOCATED
AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF YNEZ ROAD
AND SANTIAGO ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 922-140010
WHEREAS, the New Community Lutheran Church filed Public Use Permit No. 5 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 September 21, 1992, at which time interested persons had opportunity to
testify either in support or opposition to said Public ljse 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 heating, 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:
A. Pursuant to Government Cede 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:
general plan.
The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the
2. The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, each of the following:
a. There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action
proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which
will be studied within a reasonable time.
b. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan.
c. The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area
Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as
the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan
guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General
Plan.
C. The proposed Public Use Permit is consistent with the SWAP and meets the
requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit:
The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general
2. The Planning Commission finds, in approving of projects and taking other
actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this rifle, each of the following:
a. There is reasonable probability that Public Use Permit No. 5
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. The proposal is consistent with existing development in the vicinity.
c. 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.
3. Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no public use permit may be approved unless
the following findings can be made:
S\STAFFRPTXSP~JPPC 10
a. The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan
requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances.
b. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection
of the public health, safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the land
and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property.
D. The Planning Commission, in approving of the proposed Public Use Permit makes
the following findings, to wit:
1. The pwposed project is consistent with Ordinance No. 348 since it meets
all the requirements of Ordinance No. 348.
2. The proposed project is consistent with the future General Plan since it is
not detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community.
3. The proposed project is consistent with SWAP since the underlying zone
that is consistent with SWAP allows churches with a Public Use Permit if they are not
detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community.
4. The proposed project is the proper use for the site since it is located on
a major intersection which will be able to can3, the traffic generated by the project.
5. The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding single family
dwellings since the landscape buffering and block walls will reduce the visual and noise impacts
of the development.
6. The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment
since all the impacts have been reduced to a level of insignificant by the Conditions of Approval.
E. 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. Enviromental Compliance. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for
this project.
Section 3. Conditions. That the City of Temeeula Planning Commission hereby
approves Public Use Permit No. 5, a Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of
Temecula approving Public Use Permit No. 5, allowing construction and operation of a Worship
Center and a Sunday School and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 922-140-010 and subject to
the following conditions:
A. Attachment 2, attached hereto.
S\STAFFRFi~SPUP,PC 11
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVEI~ AND ADOFrED this 21st day of September, 1992.
LINDA FAHEY
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 21st day of
September, 1992 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNHILL
SECRETARY
S\STAFFP, PT~SPUP.FC 12
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
$\$TAFFRPT~SPUP PC I :3
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Public Use Permit No: 5
Project Description:
A request for approval for development of a church
including a multi-purpose Worship Center and a Sunday
School building on 2.92 acres.
Assessor's Parcel No.: 922-140-010
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
The use hereby permitted by this Public Use Permit is for a Worship Center with 5,599
square feet for an assembly area and a Sunday School with four Pre-school classrooms
with 15 students each for a total of 60 students.
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. 5. 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 ndt, 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
the site plan for Public Use Permit No. 5 marked Exhibit E, 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.
The applicant shall comply with the Engineering Department's Conditions of Approval
which are included herein.
S\STAFFRPT~SPUP,P~ 14
m
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the
provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittal dated July
1, 1992, 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 April 15, 1992, a
copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern
Municipal Water District transmittal dated July 9, 1992, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside Transit
Agency transmittal dated June 29, 1992, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho
California Water District transmittal dated June 19, 1992, a copy of which is attached.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, three (3) copies of a Parking, Landscaping,
Irrigation, and Shading Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department of
approval. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall
be shown. Plans shall meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 348, Section 18.12,
and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. The landscape plans shall be
consistent with the approved conceptual landscape plans (Exhibit H). All ground
mounted equipment, trash enclosures, etc. shall be screened from view by
landscaping.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape,
irrigation, and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. An automatic
sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be maintained in a
viable growth condition. Planting within ten (10) feet of an entry or exit driveway shall
not be permitted to grow higher than thirty (30) inches.
A minimum of 86 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12,
Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. 86 parking spaces shall be provided as shown
on the Approved Exhibit E. 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 E.
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:
S\STAFFRPT~,SPUP.PC 15
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or
license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be
towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be
reclaimed at or by telephone
.,
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a
surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at
least 3 square feet in size.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance and/or
permits from the following agencies:
Planning Department
Engineering Department
Environmental Health
Fire Department
Eastern Municipal Water District
Rancho Water District
Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit G.
Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial conformance
with that shown on Exhibit K (Color Elevations) and Exhibit L (Materials Board).
No roof-mounted equipment shall be permitted on any building within the project site.
Prior to the final building inspection approval by the Building and Safety Department,
a six foot high decorative block wall shall be constructed on the easterly,
southwesterly and southerly property lines of Parcel 2. 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.
All trash enclosures shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits.
Each enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall be made with masonry block and
a steel gate which screens the bins from external view.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with Ordinance No.
663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance which is based on the gross acreage
of the parcels proposed for development. Should Ordinance No. 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.
Six Class II bicycle racks shall be provided in convenient locations as approved by the
Planning Director to facilitate bicycle access to the project area. These racks shall be
depicted on the landscape plans.
S~STAFFRPT~SPUP.P~ 16
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, performance bonds, in amounts to be
determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the adequate
maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed with the Department of
Planning,
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
Should the developer be required to acquire off-site project interests, 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.
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).
"No Parking" signs shall be installed along Ynez Road, Santiago Road and Vallejo
Avenue as approved by the Department of Public Works.
The only monument sign (location and structure only) included with this approval is
located at the northwest corner of the property. Further approval will be necessary for
the sign copy. The second monument sign located at the driveway entrance is not
permitted by Ordinance No. 348 and shall be eliminated on the construction plans, All
other signage will require further approval of the Planning Department.
$\$TAF~RP'I~SPUP.PC 17
31.
The future phases of this development on Parcels 1 and 3 of Parcel Map 27018 will
require a 30 foot landscape buffer along the easterly, south easterly property line of
Parcel 3 with a six foot high decorative block wall and a 20 foot landscape buffer
along the southerly and northerly property line of Parcel 3 with a six foot high
decorative block wall on the southerly property line. This landscape buffer shall be 20
feet along the westerly property line of Parcel 2 and 30 feet along the southerly and
easterly property line of Parcel 2 with a six foot high decorative block wall on the
easterly property line.
32.
All future development on Parcel 2 or Parcels I and 3 will require further approval of
the Planning Commission and will require additional parking spaces.
33. The Eucalyptus trees on the site shall be preserved.
34.
The parking lot lights shall be only located as specified on the site plan, shall only be
20 feet high and shall have sharp cut-off to eliminate light pollution of the adjacent
properties.
35.
The lights placed on the buildings shall contain sharp cut-off to eliminate light pollution
of the adjacent properties.
36. No access shall be allowed on Ynez Road and Vallejo Avenue.
37.
Twenty-five percent of all trees within the development shall be twenty-four inch box
or larger.
38.
The worship center and the Sunday School shall not operate simultaneously. The
Sunday School shall not be used as an assembly area.
BUILDING AND SAFETY
39.
The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1991 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.
4O.
Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with
Ordinance Number 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
41.
Prior to the commencement of any construction work, obtain all building plan and
permit approvals.
42. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
43,
Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the
1991 edition of the uniform plumbing code, Appendix C.
$\STAFFRP'~SPUP+PC 18
44. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
45.
Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan for plan review.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval for this project, and
shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true
meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the appropriate staff person of the Department
of Public Works. The development of this project shall be consistent with the requirements
of Tentative Parcel Map 27018.
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 GRADING PERMITS:
46.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, developer must comply with the requirements of
a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State
Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES
clearance is granted or the project is shown to be exempt.
47.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the developer shall receive
written clearance at the appropriate stages of development from the following
agencies:
San Diego Regional Water Quality;
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;
General Telephone;
Southern California Edison Company; and
Southern California Gas Company.
48.
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"x36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer.
S%STAFFRPT',SPUP,PC I 9
49.
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.
50.
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.
51.
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.
52.
No grading shall take place prior to the improvement plans being substantially
complete, acquisition of appropriate clearance letters and approval by the Department
of Public Works.
53.
At all times during the course of construction, erosion control runoff mitigation plans
will be required and enforced. All plans shall be submitted as part of the grading plan
submittal with appropriate notes as directed and approved by the Department of Public
Works.
54.
All site improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and street
improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects.
55.
Street 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.
56.
Prior to any work being performed for onsite improvements, fees shall be paid and a
construction permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works.
57.
Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an
encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works.
58.
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.
59.
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, traffic signal
systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate.
B. Storm drain facilities and erosion control.
S\STAFFRPT~SPUP,PC 20
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
C. Landscaping (street and slopes).
D. Sewer and domestic water systems.
E. Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines if required.
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Department of Public Works
and any recommendations of any other agency as deemed necessary by the
Department of Public Works.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area
Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is
payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If the full Area
Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to this property. no new
charge needs to be paid.
The developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval for offsite work performed
on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works.
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.
If deemed necessary, a drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property
owners for the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent
property. A copy of the recorded drainage easement shall be submitted to the
Department of Public Works for review.
Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage
entering the Droparty from adjacent areas.
All concentrated drainage directed toward the public street shall be diverted through
the undersidewalk drains.
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:
68.
A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review
and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for
location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing
compaction and site conditions.
69.
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,
S%STAFFRPT~SPUP,P~ 2 1
70.
71.
PRIOR
72,
73,
74.
75,
76.
77.
78.
Prior to building permit, the subdivider shall notify the City's C.A.T.V. Franchises of
the intent to develop. Conduit shall be installed to C.A.T.V. Standards prior to
issuance of Certificates of Occupancy.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed
upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as
required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be paid shall
be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final
public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on
which developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the
developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of
which has been provided to developer, Concurrently, with executing this Agreement,
developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount
of the bond shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000. Developer
understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those
now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By
execution of this Agreement, developer will waive any right to protest the provisions
of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district,
or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this
project; provided that developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness
of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY:
A minimum street flowline grade shall be 0.50 percent. The minimum parking lot
flowline grade over asphalt concrete paving shall be 1.0 percent unless otherwise
approved by the Department of Public Works.
Onsite improvement plans per City Standards for all onsite construction shall be
required for review and approval by the Department of Public Works.
All driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula standards and shall be
shown on the improvement plans in accordance with City Standard 207 and 401 (curb
sidewalk).
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.
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along all public street frontages in accordance
with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401 except as noted below for Vallejo Avenue.
Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a minimum of
300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the
City Engineer.
All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved
by the Department of Public Works.
S~STAFFRPT~51~JP+PC 22
79.
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.
80.
Ynez Road and Vallejo Avenue shall be improved with 32 feet of asphalt concrete
pavement within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with City Standard No. 102,
(88'/64'). Sidewalks may be deleted on Vallejo Avenue to conform with the design
criteria of the Los Ranchitos area.
81.
Santiago Road shall be improved with 43 feet of asphalt concrete pavement within the
dedicated right-of-way in accordance with City Standard No. 100, (110'/86').
82.
Adequate pavement transitions for travel lanes shall be provided as directed by the
Department of Public Works,
83.
Upon completion of the ultimate improvements for Santiago Road, the access for this
site shall be restricted to right-in/right-out movement only, and a secondary access
shall be provided across parcel 3 of Tentative Parcel Map 27018.
84.
In the event road or off-site right-of-way are required to comply with these conditions,
such easements shall be obtained by the developer; or, in the event the City is required
to condemn the easement or right-of-way, as provided in the Subdivision Map Act, the
developer shall enter into an agreement with the City for the acquisition of such
easement at the developer's cost pursuant to Government Code Section 66462.5,
which shall be at no cost to the City.
85. No driveway access shall be allowed on Ynez Road.
86. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805.
87.
The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be consistent with and
coordinated with adjoining developments (PM 26845),
Transportation EnQineerina
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS:
88.
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the City Engineer for Ynez Road, Santiago Road and Vallejo Avenue and
shall be included in the street improvement plans.
89.
Plans for relocetion of the existing traffic signal pole shall be designed by a registered
Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for the intersection of Santiago Road
at Ynez Road and shall be included in the street improvement plans with the second
plan check submittal. Additional detector loops and signal heads shall be provided to
conform to the new lane configurations,
S\STAFFRPT~SP, JP,I~ 2 3
90.
91.
PRIOR
92,
PRIOR
93.
94.
95.
Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering for the
design requirements.
Bus bays will be provided at all existing and future bus stops as determined by the
Department of Public Works.
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.
TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and striping plan.
All traffic signal relocation improvements shall be installed and operational per the
special provisions, and the approved traffic signal plan.
Landscaping shall be limited within the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance visibility.
S%STAFFRPT%SPUP.PC 24
FROM:
RE:
RECEIVED
County of Riverside .,,,Lo.,.92
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
CITY OF TEMECULA DATE:
ATTN:P $axed Naaseh
'~AA~A~,~"nnvlronmental Health Specialist IV
07-0!-92
PUBLIC USE PERMIT N0. 5
Department of Environmental Health has reviewed
Use Permit No. 5 and will require the following
TO BU ! LD_I
the Public
Items
Adequate satisfactory detailed soils
perrotation testing in accordance with
the procedures outlined in the Riverside
County Waste Disposal booklet entitled
A "w~ii-serve" letter for potable wa~er from
the appropriate agency provzdlng water service.
Three detailed drawn to scale (1'=20") of the
proposed subsurface sewage disposal system and
floor plan/plumbln~ schedule to ensure septic
tank slzlnq.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
_ 210 WEST SAN/ACINTO AVENUE · PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370
~ (714) 657-3183
GLEN J. NEWMAN APRIL 15 1992
FIRE CHIEF
TO:
CITY OF TEMECULA
ATTEN: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC USE PERMIT - 5
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above refer-
enced plot plan, the Fire Department recommends the following
fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Riverside
County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards:
1. The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire
flew for the remodel or construction of all commercial
buildings using the procedure established in Ordinance 546.
2. Provide or show
delivering 2000 GPM
operating pressure,
combustible material
there exists a water system capable of
for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual
which must be available before any
is placed on the job site.
3. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants
(6"x4"x2 1/2"x2 1/2"), will be located no less than 25 feet
or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as
measured along approveO vehicular travelways. The required
fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in
the system.
4. The reOulred fire flow mav be adjusted at a later point in
the permit process to reflect changes in design. construc-
tion type. area separation or built-in fire protection
5. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water
system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall
conform to the fire hydrant types. location and spacing, and
the system shall meet the fire flow redulrements. Plans
shall be slgned/approved by a registered civil engineer and
the local water company with the following certification: "I
certify that the design of the water system is in accordance
with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County
Fire Department".
~] INDIO OFF1CE
79-733 Courterr Club Drlvt, Suit~ F, lndio, CA 92201
(619) 342~86 · FAX (619) 775-2072
PLANNING DIVISION
q 'H~iECULA OFFICE
41002 County Center D~i,tt, Sui~ 225, T~,~ala, CA 92390
(714) 694-5070 · FAX (714) 694-5076
PUP-5 Pg-2
6. Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings.
The post indicator valve and fire department connection
shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant,
and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement
that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinkled
must be included on the title page of the building plans.
7. Install a supervised waterflow monitoring fire alarm system.
Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval
prior to installation, as per UBC.
$. A statement that the building will be automatically fire
sprinklered must apprear on the title page of the building
plans.
9. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained
as fire lanes.
10. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer
shall deposit, with the City of Temecula, a check or money
order egualing the sum of $.25 per square foot as mitigation
for fire protection impacts. This amount must be submitted
separately from the plan check fees.
11. F'rlor to the issuance of building permits, the appli-
cant/develoOer shall be responsible to submit a check or
money order to the Riverside County Fire Department
for 01an check fees. please reference plan check number with
remittance.
Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are
revleweO in the building and Safety Office.
All Oueetions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be
ferred to the Planning and Engineering Staff.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
re-
Michael E. Gray,
Fire Cabrain Specialist
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Public Works Department,
Building Department,
Community Services Department,
Fire Department,
School District
FROM: Saied Naaseh
DATE:
August17,1992
SUBJECT: Conditions for Public Use Permit No. 5
The above referenced application was deemed complete on August 14, 1992 and the
Planning Department requests conditions based upon the exhibits dated July 21,
1992.
Conditions must be submitted on or before August 25, 1992.
If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact the Case Planner in
the Planning Department at (714) 694-6400.
Thank you.
S\STAFFRPT\SBOPUP-1 .LTR
July 9, 1992
~em. G. Aidrldge
777- "' :'7' 77
jut. I
Holt Group
Attn: Greg Halladay
275 North El Cielo
Suite D-3
Palm Springs, CA 92262
RE: Proposed Church Site at the Southeast Corner of
Ynez Road and Santiago
Dear Mr. Halladay:
Please be advised that the closest sewer to the above location ends in Santiago
approximately 200 feet west of the center line of Ynez Road.
Enclosed please find a copy of the District's sewer drawing index.
Should you have any questions, please contact this office.
Very truly yours,
EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
Pauline White
New Business Representative
PW:If
Enclosure
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, SanJacinto · Customer Service/Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue Hemet, CA
TER
CACTUi P ~
-- CIELO
-CAMPO VERDE
pRIIVlAVER~ ST
DE AZUL
RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY
1825 THIRD STREET · RIVERSIDE. CA 92507-3484 · BUS. (714] 684~3850 FAX [714) 684-1007
June 29,1992
RECEIVED
Saied Naaseh
City of Temecula
Planning Depadment
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
J U L 0 6 1992
Arts 'd ............
RE: Public Use Permit No.5 - New Community Lutheran Chumh
Dear Saied:
RTA does not currently provide transit service to the site mentioned above but based on the size
of the project and our plans for future transit expansion in Temecula, we are requesting that the
following transit features should eventually be included in this project:
Transit stop located at:
Southside corner of Santiago Road farside Ynez Road
This bus stop site is located on the map attached. A bus turnout, it determined by City
Traffic Engineer to be necessaW based on roadway cross section, travel volumes and
speeds should be provided at the above stop location.
The area adjacent to the bus turnout should include a paved passsenger waiting area
complete with a bus shelter and bench.
Paved, lighted and handicapped accessible pedestrian accessway should be provided
between the stop and the project site.
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 informabort or specifications, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Sincereby~
'Scott Ricilar'dson
Marketing Manager
SR/jsc
PDEV #180
RECEIVED
J U L 0 6 1992
A~'d ..... * .......
/
O
::D
Rancho
Water
June 19, 1992
Mr. Said Naaseh
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43180 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
SUBJECT:
Water Availability
Parcel Map 27018 - Lot 2
APN 922-140-010, P. U. P. No. 5
Lutheran Church
Dear Mr. Naaseh:
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 r~^ mORNI' W TER
,~AL. ~., n A x DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P. E.
Manager of Development Engineering
SB:SD:aj218/F18~
cc: Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
EXHIBITS
S~S'r~,FFP, PT~5.UP.PC 25
CITY OF TEMECULA
;ITE
CASE NO.: Public Use Permit No. 5
EXHIBIT: A
P.C. DATE: September 21. 1992
VICINITY MAP
5/STAFFRpT/SPUp.pC
SITE
CITY OF TEMECULA
SWAP - EX~IIBIT B
ZONING - EXHIBIT C
Case No.: Public Use Permit No. 5
P.C. Date: September 21, 1992
Designation: 2% Acre Minimum Residential
/-
/
:A-2
Designation: R-A 2%
CITY OF TEMECULA
-- VALLEJO AYENU~
/
CASE NO.: Public Use Permit No. 5
EXHIBIT: D
P.C. DATE: September 21, 1992
SURROUNDING LAND USE
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: Public Use Permit No. 5
EXHIBIT: E
P.C. DATE: September 21, 1992
SITE PLAN
CITY OF TEMECULA
VALLJJO AVENUE
CASE NO.: Public Use Permit No. 5
EXHIBIT: F
P.C. DATE: September 21, 1992
CONCEPTUAl, FUTURE PHASES
SITE PLAN
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: Public Use Permit No. 5
EXHIBIT: G
P.C. DATE: September 21, 1992
ELEVATIONS
CITY OF TEMECULA
m
CASE NO.: Public Use Permit No.
EXHIBIT: H
P.C. DATE: September 21, 1992
LANDSCAPE PLAN
S/STAFFRPT/BPUP PC
CITY OF TEMECULA
!!
F
CASE NO.: Public Use Permit No. 5
EXHIBIT: I
P.C. DATE: September 21, 1992
CONCEPTUAL FUTURE PHASES
LANDSCAPE PLAN
S~5TAFFRPT%SpUppC
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: Public Use Permit No. 5
EXHIBIT: J TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 27018
P.C. DATE: September 21, 1992
S~STAFFRpT\SPUP PC
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
INITIAL STUDY
S\STAFFRPT%5PUP.PC 26
Backaround
1.
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
Name of Proponent:
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
Agency Requiring
Assessment:
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Location of Proposal:
The Holt Group, Inc., for the
Lutheran Church Extension Fund
The Holt Groul~, Inc. (619) 320-0045
275 N. Cielo.D-3. Palm Sorinos.CA 92262
Lutheran Church Extension Fund
1333 Kickwood Rd., St. Louis, MO 83122
May 17, 1991
CITY OF TEMECULA
Public Use Permit No. 5
(New Community Church at Santiaoo and
Ynez Roads)
Southeasterly corner of SantiaQo and Ynez
Roads. Temecula, CA
Environmental linDacts
(Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets.)
Earth.
a.
b.
d.
Y~S Maybe No
Will the proposal result in:
Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures? __ __ ~
Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil? __ __ X__
Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features? __ __ X__
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features? _ _ X__
S\5TAFFRPT~SPUP,PC 27
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on
or off site?
Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
Exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards such as earth
quakes, landslides, mudslides,
ground failure, or similar hazards?
Air. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air
quality?
The creation of objectionable
odors?
Alteration of air movement,
moisture, or temperature, or any
change in climate, whether locally
or regionally?
Water. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial changes in currents, or
the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or
fresh waters?
Substantial changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
Yq~ Maybe
SlSTAFFRPT~SPUP.PC 28
Discharge into surface waters, or
in any alteration of surface water
quality, including, but not limited
to, temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity?
Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow or ground waters?
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct addi-
tions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flood-
ing or tidal waves?
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
Change in the diversity of species.
or number of any native species of
plants (including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare, or endangered species
o[ plants?
Introduction of new species of
plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
Substantial reduction in acreage
of any agricultural crop?
Ye~ Maybe No
S~STAFFRPI'~SPUP+PC 2 g
10.
Animal Life. Will the proposal result
in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
(birds, land animals including rep-
tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms or insects)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals?
Cm
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and Glare. Will the proposal
produce substantial new light or glare?
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
Substantial increase in the rate of
use of any natural resources?
Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource?
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal
involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including,
but not limited to, oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
Y~f Maybe No
X
S~STAFFRPT~SPUP.PC 30
11.
12.
13.
14.
Possible interference with an emerg-
ency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan?
Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing or create a demand for
additional housing?
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking?
Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic?
Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
Public Services. Will the proposal have
substantial effect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
YeS Maybe N_~o
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
5\STAFFRPT%SPUPPC 3 1
15.
16.
Parks 'or other recreational
facilities?
Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
f. Other governmental services:
Energy. Will the proposal result in:
Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy?
Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy?
Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
Y~ Maybe No
_ _ !
X
X
X
17.
Communications systems?
Water?
Sewer or septic tanks?
Storm water drainage?
Solid waste and disposal?
Human Health. Will the proposal
result in:
Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health)?
Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
Yes Maybe No
S~STAFFF~PT~SPUP.PC 32
18.
19.
20.
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result
in the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to
public view?
Recreation. Will the proposal result in
an impact upon the quality or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities?
Cultural Resources.
Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
Drehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object?
Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
X
X
X
Ye~ Maybe
S\STAFFRPT~,SPUP PC 33
Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environ-
mental goals? (A short-term
impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief,
definitive period of time while long-
term impacts will endure well into
the future.)
Does the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but cumu-
latively considerable? (A project's
impact on two or more separate
resources may be relatively small,
but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment
is significant.)
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substan-
tial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X
S\STAFFRPT',SPtIpPC 34
III Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
1.a.
1,c.
1.d.
1.e.
1.f.
1.g.
2.a-c.
3.8.
3.b,c.
3.d.
N0, The project in itself does not propose excavation or invasion of significant
geologic substructures.
Nq, At full realization, the project may involve constructing church-related
facilities with any necessary attendant grading and compaction. Due to the
limited scale of this potential project, environmental impacts of soil disruption
should be insignificant.
Nq, Construction pad grading of the subject site is anticipated should
construction activities eventually occur on the property in question. Given the
project's limited scale, impacts will be restricted to the immediate site. No
significant impact.
NO., No unique geologic nor physical features exist on the subject site.
No. The project, if fully realized, will result in minor overcovering of natural
terrain. Substantial increase in erosion of on and off site soil is not likely.
N0. The project does not propose elements or activities that will likely modify
existing erosion patterns affecting beach sands and river/stream beds.
N0: No construction is proposed in known earthquake, landslide, or similar
hazard zones.
No. The project is of insignificant scale in the context of City-wide and regional
development. Ambient air qualities should not be noticeably affected if
construction activities eventually occur on the proposal site.
N0. No development activities are proposed that could foreseeably impact
rivers, streams, ocean beds, inlets or lakes.
N~}. Localized runoff patterns may change subsequent to eventual construction
activities. However, due to the limited scale of this proposal and relative
distance from marine and fresh waters, these ecologic features should not be
impacted to any degree of significance.
No_. There is likely to be a nominal increase in off-site bodies of water volumes
due to increased runoff from the subject site should construction of church
facilities eventually occur, No realizable impacts.
No. The construction as a result of approval of this project, runoff
characteristics of the subject site may be altered, including minor fluctuations
in runoff characteristics such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity.
However, impacts of any significance are unlikely.
S\STAFFRPT~SPUPPC 3 5
3.f,g.
3.h.
3.i.
4.a ,c.
4.b.
4.d.
5.a.
5.b.
5,c.
6.a.
6.b.
7.8.
NO. Percolation rates of the project site will likely decrease subsequent to
eventual construction, thereby decreasing localized ground water recharge
rates. However, impacts of such limited potential development will likely be
insignificant.
N0. Water consumption anticipated which may result from this proposal are
insignificant in the context of City-wide development.
NO. The project site is not subject to identified flood hazard nor tidal
inundation.
NO. Subsequent to subdivision of the property in question, and in conjunction
with eventual potential construction, native species on the subject site may be
replaced with new plant species, i.e., turf, non-indigenous shrubs, trees, etc.
Significant impacts are unlikely.
No. Endangered/unique vegetative species are not currently present on the
subject property. The existing stand of mature trees on the southeasterly
corner of the project site will be preserved/relocated in accordance with City
ordinance.
No. The subject site supports no agricultural crops at present.
N0. Eventual construction may displace insignificant numbers of typical native
animals and insect species. Environmental consequences will be negligible.
N(2. The subject property does not serve as identified habitat for any
endangered species of animals or fish. Such species do not currently inhabit
the project site.
No. Elimination of insignificant habitat may eventually occur should
construction eventually occur. No noticeable impacts are anticipated.
Maybe. Ambient noise levels on the subject property may increase should
NO. Construction activities ensue approval of this parcel map. Long term noise
level increases are also a logical consequence of eventual development of the
project site. Overall noise level increase are considered insignificant in a City-
wide context.
NO. Eventual construction subsequent to parcelization of the subject site will
contribute only nominally to ambient light levels.
NO. The proposed project is allowed with a Public Use Permit in this zone.
Proper Conditions of Approval have been incorporated into the project to reduce
the impact of this project. No significant impacts are anticipated.
S%STAFFRPT~SPUP PC 36
9.a,b.
10.a.
10.b.
11~
12.
13.a,c.
13.b.
13.d.
13.e.
13.f.
14,a-e.
N0. Eventual construction and occupancy of the church facilities, which may
result subsequent to project approval, will not significantly affect resource
consumption rates.
NO, Hazardous substances of any significant quantity are not currently or
anticipated, nor are they to be located on the subject site.
N0. The project site is not within an identified emergency response/evacuation
plan movement corridor.
N0, The proposal does not entail addition or deletion of elements associated
with regional population growth.
N9. The proposal at full realization, will result in the addition of church facilities
to serve the region with no direct impact on housing. impacts are insignificant.
Maybe. The addition of the church facilities subsequent to full project
realization may contribute significant peak volumes to daily traffic to and from
the project site. Potential area-wide traffic impacts are mitigated as per the
City Engineering Conditions of Approval.
Ng: The project will contribute additional site specific parking spaces
subsequent to eventual construction activities. Effects on regional parking
availability are considered insignificant.
Maybe. Traffic will eventually commute to and from a currently vacant lot
which will eventually accommodate church related structures. Existing traffic
volumes and circulation patterns should not be noticeably affected. Traffic
impacts have been assessed and have been mitigated by appropriate Conditions
of Approval. Road improvements required of this project are contained in the
attached Conditions of Approval.
No. Waterborne, rail, and air traffic routes of significance are non-existent in
the vicinity of the project site.
Mt~yb¢. Potential increases in traffic volumes accessing the project site may
eventually increase the possibility of localized traffic hazards. Increases in
regional hazards above existing levels are considered insignificant. Localized
potential impacts are mitigated through required road and signalization
improvements as per the attached City Engineering Conditions of Approval.
N_0. All new development proposals eventually increase demands on public
services, Such demands are partially mitigated and financed by property taxes,
user fees, assessment districts, developer impact fees, etc. Impacts of this
individual proposal will not be significant as mitigated by the project Conditions
of Approval.
37
14.f.
15,a,b.
16.a-f.
17.a,b.
18.
19.
20.a,b.
20.d.
NO. Impacts on other governmental services have not been identified as
significant.
NO. Eventual construction and occupancy of church facilities should only
nominally affect consumption and stores of energy sources.
NO. Nominal extensions of individual service lines may eventually be required.
Impacts are considered insignificant.
NO. The project will eventually result in limited construction activities and
occupancy of church facilities; which is not normally associated with the
creation of health hazards. Further, no health hazards have been identified on
the project site.
.N.Q. Identified vistas of significance do not exist in the immediate vicinity of the
project site.
N0. The project site is not an identified recreational amenity. Further, use of
existing area-wide recreational facilities should increase only nominally at full
project realization.
NO. Due to the disturbed nature of the project site and surrounding area,
presence of historic or prehistoric archaeologic resources is highly unlikely.
N~. No religious or sacred facilities are present on or in the vicinity of the
project.
S\STAFFRPT~'SPUP.PC 38
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a signi-
ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi-
ficant effect on this case because the mitigation measures
described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval
have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required.
September 11, 1992
Date
For
CITY OF TEMECULA
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
CORRESPONDENCE
S\STAFFRPT',SPtlP.PC 40
HOPE LUTHERAN
RECEIVED APF, G S :932
CHURCH ....>:f 5'
EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCtl IN AMERICA
Rev. Lyle W. A. Peterson
Pastor
April 7, 1992
City Planning Commission
43172 Business Park Dr.
Temecula, CA 92590
Dear Members of the Commission,
It has been brought to my attention that New Community Lutheran Church of Temecula has plans to build
church facilities at the corner of Ynez and Santiago in Los Ranchitos.
This property was owned by Hope Lutheran Church during the 1970's with the intention of building our
church at that location. However, Kaizer Corporation offered Hope Lutheran property on Rancho
California Road in exchange for the church's Los Ranchitos property. At the time, the location on Rancho
Califorma Road was a more des'wable location for Hope church so the exchange was made and we are at
the location today.
I share this information with you to inform you that plans for a church at the comer of Ynez and Santiago
were in some of the earliest planning stages of our community. It is even more crucial in this day and age
with the difficulties that churches are having in locating affordable property that consideration be given
to the planning of locations for church and synagogues in the future.
Sincerely,
Rev. Lyle W. A. Peterson, Pastor
2'~g'~'/°~ r 676-6262
29385 Rancho California Road Temccula, CAR · or ice: (714)
Mailing Address: P.O. Box ~ 1]~10~ Pastor Study: (714) 699-1620
'S
1333 S, KIRKWOOD ROAD · ST. LOUIS. MO 63122-7295
TELEPHONE 1-800-843-5233
314/966-2630
FAX 314/965-2735
March 20, 1992
FAX 714-699-7303
City Planning Commission
City of Temecula
Temecula, California
RE:
PIJBLIC USE PERMIT
Advance Site #D07-26
NE Cor Ynez & Santiago Rd.
Temecula - Riverside County, CA
Gentlemen:
This is to authorize New Community Lutheran Church - Temeoula, California
to represent the Lutheran Church Extension Fund-Missouri Synod as
owner/applicant for the Public Use Permit regarding Lot 2, Tentative
Parcel Map No. 27018 as it pertains to the above referenced.
Very ' ,
~. Wendt,
Vice President Mortgage
Loans & Real Estate
sr
c: C. R. Fiege
Thomas C. Butz
Rev. Ken Molnar
¢
LOS RAI~CHITOS HOMEOWN~S ~SSOCIATION
PO BOX 471
TEM~CLrLA, CA. 92593
Saied Naaseh, Assoc. Planner
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA. 92590
May 13, 1992
RE: CHURCH BUILDING IN LOS RANCHITOS
Dear Mr. Naaseh,
The Los Ranchitos HOA appreciates very much the City Staff
effort to confront the church building issue with us before the
political process has to begin.
Here is the issue list we discussed forwarding to you for your
project summary. Also enclosed for your information is a copy of
our comments and concerns with regard to the Proposed Master Plan.
Maybe this additional information could give you more insight as to
what homeowners in Los Ranchitos would like to see planned for the
community in the future.
We look forward to meeting with you again, when the church has
submitted a revised proposal.
Los Ranchitos homeowners' aim is not to be a thorn in the side
of this church proposal, but to protect the rights of the
individuals who comprise this neighborhood. We seek the City's
support of our efforts as we feel Temecula will ultimately gain the
many qualities of an outstanding city in the process.
Contact persons for additional information or meeting times
are Rebecca Weersing @699-7814 or Nayree Davis @ 676-2466.
Thanks again for addressing our concerns.
Sincerely,
The Board of Directors
Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association
CHURCH ISSUES
Reasons Not To Have A Church There At All:
1. Los Ranchitos CC&RS specify single family residential
only.
2. Concern for the tax base for the City of Temecula allowing
so many churches to relocate in the city. (See the material we
left with you at our meeting: a directory listing of already
existing Temecula churches.)
3, Master Plan at this time proposes these three lots as
"Very Low Density" single family residential.
4, Another church on Santiago will make a Church Row,
especially with two very large churches within 1/2 mile on Vallejo
and La Paz.
5. This proposed church's plans for the use of the three lots
they own in Los Ranchitos do not so far make good use of the sight,
6. When the church applied to split one lot into three, we
understood they would resell for three single family homes.
7. We need to prevent a precident from being set for other
parcels in our neighborhood.
8. We already have one church, Rancho Cosunity Church, in
the neighborhood. This church was provided for in Kaiser's master
plan years ago.
9. Homeowners blocked the proposal of the Hope Lutheran
Church two years ago. Hope Lutheran pulled out because they did
not want to be unwelcome.
10. A majority of Los Ranchitos homeowners are opposed to a
church here. Additionally, five out of the seven most adjacent
homeowners are opposed to the plan.
11. Part of our own Master Plan proposal includes a gated
style entrance at the corner of Ynez/Santiago. Without the
church's cooperation this would not be possible.
12. Traffic speeds are already unsafe for homeowners along
Ynez when they enter or exit their properties. A church would
bring additional traffic to escalate the problem.
13. Egress for a church would bring church traffic onto
Santiago and or Vallejo, both quiet neighborhood streets.
14. PAI~KING is a real problem at the existing church. People
park at the closest entrance without consideration for homeowners.
Even with revised plans, how would any other church prevent this
problem?
Page 1
Concerns for Homeowners If A Church Is Permitted Bv A CUP:
A. Church's lack of concern for the individual rights of all
Los Ranchitos homeowners provided for in CC&Rs to maintain single
family residential dwellings.
1. Parking along our residential streets.
2. Increased traffic, noise, night lighting, and trash.
3. Architectural inconsistencies with ranch style residences.
4. Poor planning and use of lots.
5. Lack of specific provisions for buffers, fencing and
landscaping.
6. Lack of maintainance of rural aesthetics such as no curb
or gutter.
7. Unknown long term plans such as a school and total build
out time frame etc.
8. Egress from which street? Safety of egress for neighbors.
9. Neighborhood entrance statement could be lost.
10. If the church does not plan on occupying all three lots,
what are their intentions for the use or sale of the other ones?
11. Continued or worsened drainage problems at the corners of
¥nez/Santiago and Ynez/Vallejo.
12. Removal of full grown Eucalyptus trees on corner.
Page 2
LOS RANCHITOS HOMEOWN~MS ASSOCIATION
PO BOX 471
TEMECULA, CA. 92593
Mr. Thomas Butz
Lutheran Church Missouri Synod
1530 Concordia Dr,
Irvine, CA. 92715
May 13, 1992
RE: Church building in Los Ranchitos
Dear Mr. Butz,
The Los Ranchitos HOA recently received notice by the City of
Temecula of your local church's application for a Conditional Use
Permit to begin building a church. The City would like to help
mitigate any concerns of ours before the public hearing process
begins. A copy of our homeowners' concerns are enclosed for your
information. They were also sent to the City Of Temecula.
You should be aware that the Board of Directors of the Los
Ranchitos HOA is attempting to assist hOmeowners in finding an
amiable resolution to the problem your intended church development
is posing for homeowners. However, you should also be aware that
the rights provided by Los Ranchitos CC&Rs, including the
prohibition of any development other than single family residential
development, belong to each individual property owner.
You also need to know that we are finding substantial
homeowner opposition to commercial and church development because
it is in direct violation of the CC&Rs which govern property owners
in Los Ranchitos.
Sincerely,
The Board of Directors
Los Ranchitos HOA
28920 Vallejo Avenue
Temecu!a, CA. 92992
March 14, 1992
Rebecca Weersing
P.O. Box ~?1
Temecula, CA. 92593
Dear Rebecca,
REF: Los Ranchitos Homeowners Board Meeting
~n~ch 12, t992
As you requested, we are forwarding information relative to the notes
had made al referenced meeting:
~-fe will take pictures of traffic and ~!~ ~+,,~ .....
Val!ejo Avenue in area of Community Church on Sunday,
~rch 22, 1992 and forward same to you.
Two Church Guides are enclosed; however, they are paid adver-
tisements and do not reflect the true number of churches in
Temecu!a. Therefore, we have enclosed a list of ONLY
7emecu!a churches (37) taken from the telephone directory,
which ~ay not include additional new arrivals.
'?Ynen compared zo the number of churches listed for other com-
m'~nlties - such as Murietza, Wildomar, The Oaks, Canyon Lake,
:4enifee and possibly, E!sinore ~ we have by far the most
churches in the region.
We are supplying, as a city, a tax-free service to ~he entire
rezlon. ~e them start Za~ting care of their own
~ ~ t's let -
enough is enough!
Each zZ~e 7emecula pe..~mlts ar~other church to operate in our
~--I ~' loses income ~- t x mh~
..om its a base .... church currently
proposed will remove three (3) two-and-one-na!f (2½) acre par-
eels from its tax rolls and bring additional ousiders into the
com. z'~nity and on zo our already over-crowded streets.
The article concerni,~ Rancon's proposed deveiopmenZ in Homer
(reducing f=ve- r ,
z ace parcels to one-acre parcels) is enc!ose~.
It might be worth of note...at one point - approximately a
year ago - Steve Snow, of Rancon, who o~ns the vacant parcel
on Vaiiejo Avenue (with the creek bed rur~,ing Zhrou~ht it),
offered it for sale advertising it as a possible use for a
mortuary or nursery. Thanks Zo Don RonrPacher, who got on
his case, signs disappeared!
Regarding C.C. & R's:
Joan Sparkman spoke at one of our L. R. Homeowners meetings
regarding possible p!acemenz of a church on Va!lejo Avenue.
~Ynen questioned...'Why noz place it in Meadowview where YOU
live?' she said their C.C. & Rs. wouldn't permit it!! Le~'s
get a copy of Meadowviews C.C. & Rs. before we rewrite ours.
We gave a copy of the Canyon Lake C.C. & Rs. to Tim De!aney
when he was on the board. Suggest someone check to see if he
still has ~hem.
Sound barriers on Highway 15 in area of Highway 79 - facing
Los Ranchi~os properties and Community Church.
Teri will con~ac~ Ca! Trans regarding barriers and if neces-
sary, take some pictures of other areas like ours where Ca!
Trans has erected fairly go~-looking walls. Pictures may
be of help if we later wish to make a presenZaZion to Cal
Trans and/or Temecu!a City Council...Sometlme in the future.
Also enclosed, the ar~ic!e from L.A. Times newspaper written
last November where former City Council member Zakes a shot
a~ the Council regarding development. It also mentions some
residents dissatisfaction over gro~h, crime, smog, gangs and
traffic.
Hooe all ~h~ these arid zhose may be of some help!
Haszi!y, bu~ sincerely,
The Halls / jLm & Teri
cc: file
- 2
Ch!jP, CHES KNOWN TO BE !N THE TE.~ECULA AREA
iof;
I. Calvary BabZist church of Temecuia
30187 Nicolas Rd. & Ca!ie Medusa
969 - 8700
2. Calvary Chapel of Rancho Catif.
28373 Felix Va!dez Rd.
694 - 87~5
Calvary Chapel of Temecu!a Valley
27462 Enterprise Circle West
699 - 0553
4. Cen~er o Enrichment
f r Life
~1782 Enterprise Circle So., Ste. 'F'
696 I'~a3
5. Church of Christ
676 - 7728
6. Ed Dufresne Ministries (AKA: World Harvest Outreach)
~1769 enterprise Circle
694 - 8799
Fellowship Communi3y Church
2757~ Commerce ,Center Dr.
First Bab~isZ Church of Temecu!a
42101Moraga Rd.
699 - 742O
699 - 5~38
9.:hurch of Religious Science of Temecuia
2580~ Murie~Za Rd.
698 - 0838
Harvester Church of Temecu!a
~m613 ,Sa!ie Arna:
676 - 582~
11. His Church Christian Center
27780 FronL S~., SLe. 1
8208
Hope Luteran Church
~a38= Rancno o ~ ~ ....
-6262
jesuscristo E1 La Respuestra
42101Moraga
59~ - 5551
3192
of 3
14. Lamb ' s Fellowship
27570 tomm, eree CenZer Dr.
15. Las Brisas Bible Fellowship
28131 =ron5 Stree~
~aa _ 3511
16, Lutheran Church of the New Comm~,.~ni~y
27393 Ynez Rd.
699 - 9910
(A) New Comunity Luteran Church (LCMS)
31555 Rancho Vista Rd. & Margarita
676 - 1~92
18. New Life Counseling (independen= Fundamn~a!)
418~5 Fifth St.
676 - ~a58
19. New Covenan= Fellowship
2803C Del Rio Rd.
676 - 8852
20. Oak Springs Presbyterian Church
~17a5 Rider Way
677 - 3532
21.
Presbyzerian Church of Temecula
Spar~man Elementary School
Margarlic Rd., 1 btk. No. of Hwy.
Corr: 39918 kmber!y Circle
79
695 - la~=
22. ~aneho Babzist Church
29775 Santiago Rd.
676 - 291q
23, Rancho California church of :he Nazarene
~ Clubhouse :rive
699 - 7262
2Z.
699 - 3230
Rancho Co.,%:,lr. izv n~,,.~
2914n Vallejo Avenue
676 - 3571
3/92
:of3
CHURCHES P:.~!Ot,.~! TO :-E !T'! THE TEFE=C'F..A AREA (Con: 'd. ]
26. Rar~cho-Tmeecu!a Bible Church
29825 Santiago
676 - 4021
27.
Seventh Dsv Adventfist / Pastor: Harris Mu!!en
Meets at: Hope Luteran/~ncho Calif. Rd.
(Across from Target)
676 - 1886
676 - 9610
28. So. Calif. District Church of the Nazarene
28999 Front Street
676 - 1611
29. St. Anthony's Catholic Church
n1875 'C' Street
697 -4~03
30. St. Thomas Episcopal Church
31~30 La Serena Way
679 - 0757
~, Temecula Valley Community church
27~75 Commerce Center Drive
699 - 5795
32. Temecu!a =van~~=~-~ Free Chur !
27~75 Commerce Center Drive
676 - 3705
=~ Temecula nn~-e~ Methodist ,u
~=~ jefferson
676 - 1800
3n. Temecu!a Valley Christian Center
~1300 ~usiness ?~n~ D-ire
695 - 1123
Temeeuia V~=:~v House of Praise
42~ 11 Avertida All;arado
676 - 1388
:; Va!!ev Cbtistian Fellowshis
28aa1 Felix Va!Cez ld.
e,~ - 2550
Vineyard Christian Fellowship
2-Z753 Via Plon:ezurz
676 - 3882
3192
LOS RANCHITOS HOMEOWrazKS ASSOCIATION
PO BOX 471
~[,EKECU[.A, CA. 92593
John R. Meyer, AICP
Senior Planner
43174 Business Park Drive
TemecUla, CA. 92590
May 13, 1992
Dear Mr. Meyer,
Thank you for taking the time to meet with three Los Ranchitos
homeowners last week to discuss the proposed Master Plan Draft and
how Los Ranchitos fits into the overall plan.
Los Ranchitos homeowners are very pleased with the Proposed
Master Plan continuing a designation of Very Low Density for our
portion of the plan. However, we have outlined a few concerns and
corrections for you to review and consider in the next revision of
The Plan.
The majority of our community supports the issues we have
presented here. We feel all these issues together help to preserve
our rural designation and improve property values for ourselves and
ultimately improve and benefit the City of Temecula.
A handful of Los Ranchitos property owners would like to sell
their parcels for commercial uses. However these owners knowingly
purchased their properties with conditions, covenants and
restrictions against commercial uses.
The Board of Directors of the Los Ranchitos HOA is attempting
to assist homeowners in finding an amiable resolution to the
problem intended commercial development is posing to the
neighborhood. However, you should be aware that the rights
provided by Los Ranchitos CC&Rs, including the prohibition of
commercial development, belong to each individual property owner.
The majority of Los Ranchitos property owners are aware of the
many constraints of the borders of this neighborhood.
Additionally, most are in favor of maintaining the current
borders for the residents of the future. We are finding
substantial homeowner opposition to commercial development because
it is in direct violation of the CC&Ps which govern the property
owners here.
* Homeowners in Los Ranchitos seek the City of Temecula's
assistance in protecting our borders through the Master Plan
process.
We look forward to meeting with you again in the future to
discuss some of the specific issues which follow.
Please a~vise us of any other steps we may take to cooperate
with the City in this Master Plan process. Contact persons are
Nayree Davis @ 676-2466 Or Rebecca Weersing @ 699-7814.
Sincerely,
The Board of Directors
Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association
LOS RANC}{ITOS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
PO BOX 471, TEMECULA, CA. 92593
COMMENTS AND CONCERNS
TEMECULA MASTER PLAN
Issue 1-Corrections
Five Los Ranchitos parcels are currently showing incorrect
color codes on the Preferred Land Use Plan Draft. (The Draft which
is for view and sale at the front desk, also presented on 4/16/92)
1. Assessors parcel number iS incorrectly
coded as a Public/Institutional Facility (blue.) It should be
coded Very Low (light yellow.) The parcel is on the southwest
corner of ¥nez and Santiago, and is currently part of a 2 1/2 acre
single residence. La Petite Academy is adjacent to this site.
2. Assessors parcel number is incorrectly
coded Highway/Tourist Commercial (darkest red.) The city changed
its zone on March 24th to Neighborhood Commercial (lightest pink.)
This parcel is located on the southeast corner of Margarita and De
Portola.
3. AsSeSsors parcel number is incorrectly
coded Highway/Tourist Commercial (darkest red.) T~is parcel is an
undeveloped RA 2 1/2 lot and should be coded Very Low (light
yellow.) This parcel is located on the west side of Jedediah Smith
at Hwy. 79 south.
4. Assessors parcel number is incorrectly
coded Highway/Tourist Commercial (darkest red.) A home currently
occupies this RA 2 1/2 lot. It should be coded Very Low (light
yellow.) The parcel is located on the east side of Jedediah Smith
at Hwy. 79 south.
5. Assessors parcel numbers
are incorrectly coded as Very Low (light yellow.) This 'parcel is
the home of Rancho Community Church, and should be coded
Public/Institutional Facility (blue.)
Please note that all five of these parcels are currently
subject to the Los Ranchitos CC&Rs.
Issue 2-CC&R Jurasdiction
Assessors parcel numbers
are both currently subject to the Los Ranchitos CC&Rs. Neither
property owner has sought the legal approval of any of the other
individual community members to have commercial zones. Onlv the
city of Temecula recognizes these two parcels as commercial in this
proposed plan.
Issue 3-Recreational Trails
We have an existing Horse Trails System throughout Los
Ranchitos that we would like to have incorporated into the City's
new Parks and Recreation "Recreational Trails System."
Maintenance, mapping and use, especially where our trails
connect with other city trails would greatly enhance the whole
Temecula trail system.
Los Ranchitos trails help make us a unique community as well
as adding a special quality to the city and its newly planned
trails. A map of our trails is enclosed.
Issue 4-Roads
YNEZ/DE PORTOLA COR~RIDOR: Our first choice would be that
Ynez/De Portola remain a 2-lane road between Santiago and
Margarita. Additionally, we would ultimately request a speed limit
no higher than 45mph and stop signs placed at La Paz/Ynez and
Jedediah Smith/De Portola to slow traffic through our neighborhood.
Even though a recent traffic study at these locations did not
meet city standards for placement of stop signs or reduced speed
limit signs along the Ynez/De Portola Corridor, many hOmeowners
feel unsafe turning into Or out of their driveways due to the
excessive speed of people using this road to "pass through."
VALLEJO: Vallejo Avenue between La Paz/Vallejo and
Ynez/~allejo (near Rancho Community Church) has no speed limit
posted and a dangerous curve. People use this street as a cut
through to Hwy 79 south and also to get to the church. A speed
limit of 25 mph should be posted here since it is a residential
street, has a dangerous curve and a school housed in the church.
Additionally, neighbors near the church would support the
placement of "NO PARKING" signs on their easements to help ak~te
the problematic parking problems associated with the church's
school and its other activities all week long and on Sundays.
HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH: We are fully aware of the impact of the
widening of Hwy 79. Our concerns lie in the access points into Los
Ranchitos at La Paz and Jedediah Smith. These were originally
designed to be entrances into the neighborhood, not throughways and
shortcuts to other places.
Given the proposed improved circulation elements throughout
the city, such as widening Margarita, the Old Town back loop,
additional overpasses etc., we respectfully request that the
smaller, neighborhood style entrances of La Paz and Jedediah Smith
be preserved to discourage routing through Los Ranchitos.
Also, assuming the continuance of Lowest Density Residential
along this strip, can a buffer zone such as landscaping or walling
be provided for in the widening of Hwy 79 South?
WOODEN STREET SIGNS: The city holds a certain western style
and rural flavor which it seems the Master Plan is trying to
maintain.
The wooden street signs of several Temecula neighborhoods
should be included in any planning efforts since they obviously are
harder to obtain and costlier than plain metal signs. Los
Ranchitos is one Of the communities which takes pride in its unique
wooden street markers.
PALA ROAD: Los Ranchitos would not support any effort to re-
align Pala Road at an intersection with Jedediah Smith. (If this
becomes and option) Once again, this would create a reason for
non-residents to cut through the neighborhood.
COUNTY MAINTAINED ROADS: We support the continued rural (no
curb and gutter) less wide, less travelled use of Santiago and John
Warner Road. Further, we would support any effort to avoid the
punched through completion of Santiago Road.
However, several of our residents experience severe drainage
problems at their properties because of changes "up the street."
Orange sandbags are the norm along with roadside silt because of
poor maintenance etc.
Be it the County or the City, we have neighbors who need help
now in getting these drainage problems cleaned up.
INTERSTATE 15: Residents in Los Ranchitos near the 15 Fwy
would ultimately request a freeway block wall along the portion of
the freeway which is adjacent to LoS Ranchitos. Do you have
suggestions of how to get such a beast or is this a city issue?
Issue 5- Opportunity Area #4
Los Ranchitos would support the proposed "Professional Office"
designation in the proposed "Opportunity Planning Area #4" along
Hwy 79 South with the condition that no access is made available to
this commercial office designation from any road within Los
Ranchitos. Any access points should be made from Hwy 79 only.
Secondly, we would request fully landscaped, walled, buffers
between Los Ranchitos residents and any proposed office buildings.
We are very much in favor of this being an opportunity area where
the city can place architectural, buffer, access, and style
requirements On any development abutting the neighborhood on this
strip.
/
RECEIVED
5EP 1 ? i992
~,~ ............
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
MINUTES FROM THE AUGUST 5, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
S~STAFFRPT~SPJP.PC 4 1
Commissioner Blair made a motion seconded by Commissioner Ford to:
11.1 Close the public hearing.
11.2 Adopt a negative declaration for Tentative Parcel Map 27018
11.3 Adopt a resolution entitled:
With a change to Condition #41.
RESOLUTION NO. 91-76
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
NO. 24172 TO SUBDIVIDE A 5 ACRE PARCEL INTO EIGHT
PARCELS SITUATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD
BETWEEN PAUBA ROAD AND SANTIAGO ROAD AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 945-060-002.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES
5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland
NOES 0 NONE
12. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 27018
Proposal: Subdivision of 7.7+/- acres into 3 parcels averaging 2.5+ acres,
Southeasterly of Santiago and Ynez.
Oliver Mujica provide the staff report and recommended approval being
consistent with SWAP guideline and zoning. It has been conditioned that prior
to recordation a Geotechnical report is required.
Chairman Hoagland opened public hearing at 8:45
Tim Holt, Architect for Applicant, 275 N. El Cielo, Palm Springs, Ca.
representative for Lutheran Extension Fund, stated he concurs with staff
report. Wanted clarification of some items.
Mr. Pike, architect, 275 N. El Cielo, Palm Springs, Ca. stated he sent letter July
23 to Robert Righetti, Engineer, City of Temecula. Expressing his concerns
over some conditions and said he worked with staff to resolve them.
Ib/~CU,,n,'OeOS91 11
Donald Rohrobacker, 44281 Flowers Drive, Los Ranchitos Homeowner's
representative approves subdivision because 2-1/2 acre lots would be continuity
if they use as residential lots.
Ken Molnar, Minister New Community Lutheran, 31505 Ave Del Reposo,
Temecula, supports project approximately 50 people in audience stood at his
request in support.
Janice Duncan, 30890 White Rock Circle, Temecula, supports project needs
youth and teen progains.
Against Project:
Rebecca Weersing 41774 Yorba Ave., Temecula, in favor of 2-1/1 acres. Not
in favor of church, sidewalks incompatible with rural, trees would have to be
taken down.
Lennie Pechner 30092 Santiago Rd, across from Parcel 3. Signal 3 months old,
would be opposed to assessment district. No objection to split parcel into three
not rezoning property.
Gary Thornhill gave clarification that request is to subdivide only.
Sue Nemeyer, 29962 Santiago Rd., directly Across road. Is opposed to church.
Tim Holt rebutted rezoning. Public use at later time, He understands that at
this time it is just parcel split.
Commissioner Fahey said that there aren't any good standards for rural areas.
We should require road improvements consistent with rural area.
Commissioner Chiniaeff feels that this project is consistent with zoning
that the parcels are appropriate for this zoning. At future use further conditions
would be added.
Chairman Hoagland asked if churches are a permitted use in RA 2-1/2
Gary Thornhill replied that all churches must come in for review, CUP, PUP etc.
Commissioner Blair made a motion to close the public hearing at 8:55 seconded
by Commissioner Chiniaeff
Ib/~CMen/O80591 t 2
12.1 Adopt a negative declaration for TPM 27018; and
12.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
Commissioner Hoagland asked the standard language be added, that the
conditions attached also be added to the motion. Commissioner Blair,
seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff amended the motion for that addition.
The motion was unanimously carried to adopt:
RESOLUTION NO. 91-77
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PARCEL MAP NO.
27018 TO SUBDIVIDE A 7.7+/- ACRE PARCEL INTO 3
PARCELS AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF YNEZ
AND SANTIAGO ROADS.
AYES 5 Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland
NOES 0 None
13 PLOT PLAN 235
Proposal is for a class II Dog Kennel, Cattery and Grooming Shop
Northside of Las Haciendas Street Between Front Street and Del Rio Road.
Commissioner Chiniaeff announced conflict and left stage at 9:00 due to
conflict of interest.
Oliver Mujica gave staff report and recommended approval of project.
Chairman Hoagland questioned what classified this as Class II,
Oiiver answered the number of animals, and type of use over night
boarding etc.
Chairman Hoagland opened public comments at 9: 10.
Carol Dittmer, 41395 Calle Toledo, Temecula, applicant
Fully concur with recommendations.
Jim Kennington, 4099 Citrus Drive Fallbrook, Owner of property
spoke in favor. They are existing tenants as dog grooming and
Ib/PCM,n/Oa0591 13
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
LOS RANCHITOS CC&R'S INFORMATION
S\STAFFRPTtSPUP.PC 42
LEGAL ASSESSMENTS
CC&R's/LOS RANCHITOS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC.
NEW COMMUNITY LUTHERAN CHURCH
P.O. Box 653
Temecula, California
92592
. ¥~a, x.,.. L~. ~=..
CRL~ /OH~,' WFVTHUR. LI..M
New Community Lutheran Church
Attention: Building Committee
P. O. Box 653
Temecula, California 92592
Re: CC&R's/Los Ranchitos Homeowners Assoc.
Dear Members of the Building Committee:
Please be advised that I am in receipt of two letters from the
Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association addressed to Mr. Thomas Butz
and Saied Naaseh respectively both dated May 13, 1992.
Section 4.07 of the Declarations of Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions recorded on October 11, 1966 as Instrument No.
100757, which was not impacted by the Amendment to Declaration of
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions dated September 5, 1967 and
recorded on September 22, 1967, in pertinent part provides:
"4.07 Building Regulations·
Any building or structure of whatever type shall be
properly maintained. No building or other structure
shall be built or erected unless the building or other
structure is of a quality usual and customary for that
building or structure and of good quality and design. No
building, structure or improvement shall be built or
erected until the plans for such building or structure
shall have been approved in writing by the Architectural
Control Committee as provided in Article 6.02."
Section 6.02 o[ the Declarations of Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions recorded on October 11, 1966 as Instrument No.
100757, which was not impacted by the Amendment to Declaration of
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions dated September 5, 1967 and
recorded on September 22, 1967, in pertinent part provides:
1. Establishment of a five (5) member Architectural and
Environmental Control Committee ("AECC").
2. Majority of AECC members may designate
representative to act for AECC.
Record owners of majority of lots located within the
Property shall have power to change membership in the
AECC or restore to the AECC any of its powers or
duties.
Page Two of Three
4. AECC's approval or disapproval as required in
covenants shall be in writing.
IN THE EVENT THE CO~{MITTEE OR ITS DESIGNATED
REPRESENTATIVE FAILS TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE PLANS
AND SPECIFICATIONS WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER SUCH
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO IT,
APPROVAL WILL NOT BE REQUIRED ~ SUCH PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE DEEMED APPROVED AS SUBMITTED.
No building, outbuilding, fence, wall or other
improvement shall be erected, placed, added to or
altered on any lot until the constructions plans and,
as to buildings and outbuildings, specifications
drawn by a duly licensed engineer or architect and a
plan showing the location of the building on the lot
have been approved by the AECC as to the quality of
workmanship and materials, harmony of exterior design
with existing structures, location, enhancement or
detraction from the value of surrounding lots and
general aesthetic appearance.
It is my understanding that construction plans and
specifications drawn by a duly licensed engineer or architect and
a plan showing the location of the buildings on the lot owned by
New Community Lutheran Church ("NCLC") were hand delivered to the
AECC representative on February 3, 1992. (See Exhibit A attached
hereto.) It is also my understanding that no written approval or
rejection was received by NCLC from the AECC and therefore
paragraph 5. above applies.
NCLC followed the guidelines set forth in the CC&R's and as a
property owner it has rights just like any other property owner.
NCLC is entitled to rely on the procedures set forth in the CC&R's
for building and construction approval.
Thus while NCLC certainly will want to work with the
~ssociation, it has complied with the CC&R procedures concerning
approval of its plans and the Association does not have the legal
right to object to the plans at this time. There were procedures
available to the Association which it chose not to follow.
I might also add that, Section 7.01 of the Declarations of
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions recorded on October 11,
1966 as Instrument No, 100757, was amended by the Amendment to
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions dated
September 5, 1967 and recorded on September 22, 1967, and said
section now provides:
Page Three of Three
"7.01 Permitted Operations and Uses.
Unless otherwise specifically prohibited herein, any
agricultural operation or single-family residential use
will be permitted if it is performed or carried out so as
not to cause or produce a nuisance to adjacent lots.
Commercial uses permitted under the County of Riverside
zoning classification C-P, as amended from time to time,
shall also be permitted."
As I told you before, I have not reviewed zoning
classification C-P, but it is my understanding that your architect
has and feels that your project falls within the scope of zoning
classification C-P.
Open communication is the best solution to avoid problems with
any homeowner association. Trying to obtain a win-win solution
for everyone wins in the end. I look forward to working with the
Building Committee in pursuit of its endeavors.
May the Lord's blessings be showered upon this endeavor.
Please call me with any questions.
Sincerely,
hur, LL. M.
cJw/lp
encl.
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned declare: That I am, and was at the time of
the papers herein referred to, over the age of eighteen years.
My business address is
I served the following document(s):
BY MAIL: I placed a true copy in a sealed envelope
addressed as indicated above, on 1992. It was
deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day in the
ordinary course of business.
BY PERSONAL
envelope addressed as
the party named above
SERVICE: I placed a true copy in a sealed
indicated above and such envelope by hand to
~ J 5 ~ ~ 1992.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State
of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on ~ ~ ~ ~ , 1992 at ~o e~
California. ~/~ ~
HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH
EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH IN AMERICA
Rcv. Lyle W. A. Peterson
Pastor
April 7, 1992
City Planning Commission
43172 Business Park Dr.
Teme~ula, CA 92590
Dear Members of the Commission,
It has been brought to my attention that New Community Lutheran Church of Temecula has plans to build
church facilities at the corner of Ynez and Santiago in Los Ranchitos.
This property was owned by Hope Lutheran Church during the 1970 's with the intention of building our
church at that location. However, Kaizer Corporation offered Hope Lutheran property on Rancho
California Road in exchange for the church's Los Ranchitos property. At the time, the location on Rancho
California Road was a more desirable location for Hope church so the exchange was made and we are at
the location today.
I share this reformation with you to inform you that plans for a church at the comer of Ynez and Santiago
were in some of the earliest planning stages of our community. It is even more crucial in this day and age
with the difficulties that churches are having in locating affordable property that consideration be given
to the planrang of locations for church and synagogues in the future.
Rev. Lyle W. A. Peterson, Pastor
29385 Rancho California Road Temecula. CA ~23~0 . Office: (714) 676-6262
Mailing Address: P.O. Box ~.+'~ ,~ IC~ ~'~' Pastor Study: {714) 699-1620
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned declare: That I am, and was at the time of
the papers herein referred to, over the age of eighteen years.
My business address is ~e~aCo~u~,~ ~1~- ~o,~
on
addressed as
I served the following document(s):
-- L_~.~%c~e~ ~C~"
follows: ~ ~U~b
~ BY MAIL: I placed a true copy in a sealed envelope
addressed as indicated above, on 1992. It was
deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day in the
ordinary course of business.
~ BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I placeda true copy in a sealed
envelope addressed as indicated above and such envelope by hand to
the party named above ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ 1992.
I declare under
of California that the foregoing
Executed on ~'~ ~ ~ ~
California.
penalty of perjury under the laws of the State
is true and correct.
1992 at ~7: ~0 e~A
VANCE HINP, Ic~'Hs
April 9, 1992
TO: Whom It May Concern
FROM: Vance Hinrichs ~LE~.
Attached is a copy of the Amendment fo the CC&R's for the Los Ranchitos project
as executed on September 5, 1967. It specifically amends the use of Lot 86 by
permitting Commercial Use on this property. Note in particular that Lot 86 is
uniquely excluded from the residential limitations imposed on other property in the
Los Ranchitos development.
It may also be of interest to note that a former Home Owners Association officer
identified these lots as the only property that would be able to accommodate a
church, because of the amended CC&R's. He indicated that the change was
specifically made to permit placement of a Lutheran Church on that location many
years ago. Use of this area by the church rather than commercial retail or
commercial office use is totally consistent with the original intent of the approved
and recorded amendment that is attached.
Attachment: Amended CC&R's
Parcel Map 14078 showing Lot 86
BAY COLONY EXECUTIVE CENTER · 8777 E VIA de VENTURA. SUITE 290 SCOTTSDALE. ARIZONA 85258
T
THE LUTHERAN CHLsRCH-MISSOL'RI SYNOD
April 10, 1992
Building Committee
New Community Lutheran Church
P. O. Box 653
Temecula, CA 92593
Re:
Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions
Los Ranchitos Homeowners' Association
In'me, Cahforn~a 92'1=, 3203
Thorna,s C. Butz, IJ^B.. M.A.
Assistant to file Prestdenl
Gentlemen,
Please be advised that our records indicate that the C.C. & R.s for the area that today includes
the Los Ranchitos Homeowners' Association were amended and recorded, as amended, on
September 22, 1967. (See Attachment 1)
Likewise at the time of a subsequent transfer, the Los Ranchitos Homeowners' Association
specifically agreed to, and had recorded, an Assignment and Assumption Agreement
concerning the commercial nature of Lot 86. (See Attachment 2}
In order to complete your files we are pleased to enclose copies of the two aforementioned
attachments.
If there are parties refernng to "residential limitations" on Lot 86, they should be referred to
these two documents which specificall3' exclude Lot 86. which encompasses the three parcels
~hich are contained in 3our subdivision, from said limitations.
If you have any questions, please feel free lo contact me.
Yours truly,
Tho~
Business Administrator
(TRACT NO. 3553)
THIS A~t~N~ItT TO D~CUM~TIOH O~ COVENA~iT8, CONDITZON8
AND R~BTRICT.I~NB, made =h&s _~Sth clay of September , 1~7, ~y
RANC~O CALI?ORZ~A. a partnership, comi~sed of Temecula Znveicmen~
Company. a California corporation; Temecula Proper~ies, Znc., n
CaZifo=nl& corporation/and Xaiser Kancho C&~ifornia, Inc.,
California cor~oration, &a partr~s=l (herein&fret teEerred co as
CalL~o~n~&, w~,~ch Notice o~ Add',cion of Terz~o~y added cor~n
'4.05 Signs, All eign~ on Lot 86 shill only
4, with tempeot to ~ot B6, the rollowing ~hall bo ,ddod
=a ~rticle 4.08(d) o£ the Peclatetion;
"(d) Ptovllion shill be made Cot adequate parksnil
~Lrchitectural control Co~ttee with any building plans."
5. With respect to Lot 86, the rollwing shill be ~ddod
~ut81 Woduc~s on ally lo~,"
o~ Covenants, Condic~ns and Restrictions
e~rme~ ~d aFproved.
a
RANCHO CALZFOPaIA, a partnership
(SEA/,) 0 ~Y ~~N~ _.
WUPNESS my hand and otficieZ meal.
Homo (T~md or
(SEAb}
STATE OF C, ALIFORNIA ) SS.
COUNTY OF Alam¢0u )
_ ~ , _'_'._::'_'i::','_
(SEAL)
-- T
END RECORDED []OCUMENT. W. D. BALOCH. COUNTY RECORDER
Tamecalla. California g2390
ASSIGh~NT AND ABSU~i~TION AGP, EE~ENT
THIS ASSXGhI~ENT AND ASSUHPTXON AG~EN~ZNT dated as of December 30. L980.
between F. ACOR REALTY. INC.. a CaLifornLa corporation, quccessnr In
interest co Rancho CaZifornia, ·partnershLp (herctnarcer re[erred co
nIa corpurarton r a r to as "ASSIGNEE").
14ITNESSETH:
WHEREAS. ASSIr;NOR'S predecessor in interest exetuced e DeclaraLlon
of Covenants. Conditions and Restrtcb£one dated SeT, tember 30. 1966.
with respect to Lots 1 through 102 Ln Tract No. 3552. s~ shorn on a
map recorded October 5. ~966. as Document Nu. 98816. in Book ~6.
Pa~es 63 through 66. of M~sce/Xaneous Mope. Re~or~ oE RLverstde
County. Call/ornia, which Declaration was recorded on October
~°66. as ln=trdment Nu. 100/~7. of Of[~claZ Records of Rivermade
County, California (herelneftar referred to as the "Declaration");
and
WllEREAS, the DeclaratiOn wee amended by a Notice of Addition of
Territory dated Au use 24, 1o67, ~nd t
CaliEornla. ~o include Lotm I Chruu~h 3k ut Tract Nu. 36~b. am ,ho~
.~n a mlp recorded September 20. lgG am Document Jo. 82G5 . in Book
. 6
~7, P~ae 86 and ~7. of HLmccllmneoum Nmpm. RecorJ~ nf ~LvcrsLde
recorded September ... 1967. am Instruant No. ulYO~. o. Of~icial~
~II~K~S, the Declaration was .mended by m Notice o{ Addition of
Territory dated Hay 1~, 1968, and record&J on
In.cr~nent No. 8077~, o~ O{{~c~al Records ~( R!verm~de County.
Caligornla. Co Include Lore
Pa~e i of 3
WEKEAS, ASSZGNOK desires Co mss~gn CO ASSZGNEE a~l off LOs rlKhcs
~4HER~AS, ArcLuZe VZZi, SecCLon 8,03 of the Declaration empo~url
ageu~e~ and ~grees Co per~om aiZ ductel and obligation= Co be
3r~,r~/.'T~e'~l~s~h~EeS~=essly· agree' cha~ ASSIGNO~,'.I~'I~: have
~ol/~tnR, rights an~p~r~ '
par~.el~,'or~o~e creaEed on sa~,~nr
b, ~o,'ap rovi sll: 'si~ns co be locsced'on said Loc 86
c, ~i~p~oV~'~ZZ"Dtovte~onl'mede f - DarkLy' on lald'~o~
hareco thaL tn mddLtLon to ASSZUNOR'i qp~rovm~ LO the ~buv$ L~emm,
KACOR KEALTY. II;C.,
~Authorized A&enc
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
S~.
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )
On ~'~ . ,. ~-//,F/~/ before me. the underMigned, a
Notary ~;~.n'and for said SCece, pe:'mona].].y appeared
,~ .? .,- ,'.~; >, ,: "'
~
ACKNOWl, EDCMENT
SEAL
STATE O~ CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
""L,~ ' ~ ;'~
END RECORDED DOCUHENT
On February 4, 1981 , before me. the undermiSned.
hoCa'T~/PubU. c in and for ~'~d ~c^l;e, ~ersonmlly appeareO
SEAL
Pmg~ 3 o~ ]
DONALD D, SULLIVAN. COUNTY RECORDER
BUILDING COMMITTEE LOG
January 13, 1992
Building Committee members Louis Todd and Paul Yelton artended the
Los Ranchitos Home Owners Association Board of Directors' meeting at
Mr. John Marshall's home. The Board was told of the intent of our
church to build on one lot on the corner of Ynez and Santiago. The
other two lots would be held for future church buildings. The Board
members discussed and asked questions regarding the proposed church
facility. The chairman of the Board, Dr. Sweeney, asked the question,
"Would our church be willing to sign an agreement with the association
stipulating that we would never sell the two additional lots for
commercial use?" We stated that we would.
After twenty minutes of discussing the church building plans, we were
excused from the meeting.
February 3, 1992 7:30 PM
Building Committee members Louis Todd and Paul Yelton hand delivered
landscape plans, site plane, building elevation plans, civil engineering
plans for grading and drainage, plus an architect's hand made model of
the church building to the home of Architectural Control Chairman
John Marshall. Also, we submitted with the drawings and model a letter
requesting the Home Owners Association's timely response for approval.
Mr. Marshall was advised by Louis iodd that we would appreciate a
decision for approval as soon as possible, and he reminded Mr. Marshall
that the association had 30 days in which to reply.
February 13, 1992 Fred Charley
Building Committee members Fred Chaffey and Paul Yelton artended a
Los Ranchitos Home Owner Association Board of Directors' meeting
to participate in a question and answer discussion regarding our church
property. This meeting was held at Callaway Winery. This meeting was
advertised in the Los Ranchitos Home Owenets Association Newsletter that
was entitled "Winter !992." The paper requested owners to attend the
meeting or write a letter stating their concerns on our plans. The
letter stated, "New information is available about proposed church."
Approximately three home owmers, along with the regular board of directors,
'artended the meeting. One owner responded with a letter that was negative
'to the church building. An open question and answer meeting was presented
By Charley and Yelton [e those attending. The meeting ended with Yelton
asking board president, Dr. Swooned, for a fast reply. Dr. Sweeney said
he would present it to the next board mee%ing. At this time we were
excused from the meeting.
February 14, 1992 7:30 PM
Louis Todd called John Marshall, Los Ranchitos' Architectural Control Chairman,
for a progress report and to ask if any more information was needed, Mr, Marshall
said, "No."
BUILDING COMMITTEE LOG - Page 2
February 26, 1992 7:35 PM
Louis Todd called John Marshall, Architectural Control Chairman, for a
progress report. Mr. Marshall said he would be calling us in a few days.
March 5, 1992
Thirty days have elapsed since plans were submitted to the Architectural
Control Chairman. Therefore, accordin~ to the CC&R'e, page 9, our plans
are approved because Los Ranchl:os Architectural Control Committee failed
to approve or disapprove the drawings within thirty (30) days.
March 12, 1992
Board of Directors meeting - No replay.
April 9, 1992
Board of Directors meeting - No reply.
The board drill has all our plans and building model.
California 92663
A}IENDbtENT TO D]~CL~DJ~TION OF
COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS
%~IS APLENDF,~-NT TO DECLARATION OF COVENA/qTS, CONDIT~O~CS
AND RESTRICTIONS, made this 5th day of SeDtember , 1967, by
/
RANCId0 CALIFOR~NIA, a par~,nership, composed of Temecula Investment
Company, a California corporation; Temecula properties, Inc., a
~r Rancho California, Inc., a
,rs (hereinafter referred to as
]dment to Covenants~ Conditions
}{cstrlcticns (permits com_mercial
SETH :
uted a Declaration of Covenants,
copy: DO NOT }{E140VE
ring Lots 1 - 102, in Tract No.
October 5, 1966, as Documen~ No.
9h 66, both inclusive, of Niscel-
e County, California, ~hich
er 11, 1966, as Instr~ment No.
side County, California (the
~ition Co Territory dated
· .'as rcccL'c~;.i on S~i~t__erjbc_r_..9_O____' 1967, as
California, which Notice of Addition Of Territory· added certain
territory to the property c6vered by the Declaration~ a~,d
WHERFAS, Doclarant desires to amend said Declaration;
and
WI~I~EAS, pursuant to 1~ ticle 8.02 thereof, said Declara-
tion may be amended with the written consent of the owners of
fifty-one per cent (51%) of the property subject to the-Declara~
tion~ and
,
~aiEREAS, Declarant is the owner of Over fifty-one per
cent (51%) Of the property subject to the Declaration.
NOW, T]fREFORE, DECL~oJ~NT HEREBY A~fh~S THE AFORESAID
DECLA]IATIO~] OF COVENANTS, C0~]DITIONS A~ RESTRICTIONS AS FOLLOWS:
1. This Amendment to Declaration of Covenants, Condi-
tions and Restrictions shall apply only to Lot ~6 in Tract No.
3552, and to no other property subject to the DeclaratiOn.
2. With respect to said Lot 86, Article 3.01 of the
Declaration is deleted in its entirety and in it~ place is in-
serted the following:
"3.01 No portion of Lot 86 shall be sold or
leased u~less and until the ~chltectural Control Com-
er said Lot 86 to be s~_~ or leased."
- 2 -
3. With resp?ct to Lot 86, Article 4.05 of t. hc~ Declara-
tion shall be deleted in its entirety and in its place shall be
serted the following:
"4.05 Siqns. All signs on Lot 86 shall only be of
such size, design, color and location as are specifically
approved by the Architectural Control Committee in writing."
4. With respect to Lot 86, the following shall be added
as Article 4.08(d) of the Declaration:
"' (d) Provision shall be made for adequate parking
on Lot 86 with respect to any commercial use thereof. The
Architectural Control Conunittee shall not approve the design
of any improvements unless adequate provisions are made for
parking and such parking plan shall be submitted to the
Architectural Control Conunittee with any building plans."
5. With respect to Lo~ 86, the following shall be added
at the end of A/ticle 7.01 of the Declaration:
"Co~nercial uses permitted under the Coumty of
Riverside zoning classification C-P , as amended from
tii,~e to time, shall also be permitted."
6. With respect to Lot ~3G, Article 7.02(a) of ~he
be inserted ~ile fcllo,~ing:
"(a) All inc]usurl:~l al~d manufacturing, il~cl~lc~.ing
- 3 -
the drying, packing, cannil]g, froezing or other methods
of processing fruits. nuts, vcgehables and ouher ogricul-
rural products on any lot."
7. Except as herein expressly amended, the Declaration
of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions is hereby ratified, re-
affirmed and approved.
IN WITNESS V~EREOF, the undersigned has executed this
,
Amendment to Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
On the day and year first above written.
(SEAL)
(s~l~L)
RANCliO CALIFORHIA, a Partnership
BY:
BY:
a Califo(nia corporatlon
- 4 -
PARCEL MAP NO. 14078
_lll,L,~4wtl_]__~. ]~(,7__ , before me, the undersigned, a Notary l'ubl~c
nnd lot 4aid State, personally ap[,cared
rtner and that such part~ership executed the same.
'I'NESS my hand and official seal.
Name {Typed or Printed).,l
'ATE OF CALIFORNIA
,UNI~ OF Alameda
t~qcl~leln~er 181 1967 , before me. the undersigned, a Notary Public
, and for said State, personally appeared
,own to me to be the Vice President, and__ ~o~Qr O. Gnl!c..ey
,o,~n to me tO be tileAssistant Secretary Of 'I'EI~ECULI~ PROPERTIES, INC.,
me corporation that executed the within instrument and knoun to me tn
~r[~oration, said corporation being known to me to be one of the partners
LT;4ESS my hand and official seal.
l~alne {Typed or Printed).
,u:.u~,' Oi'._ORAI;GE ) Ss.
n September 7~ 1967, before me, the undersigned, a l]otary [hlbllc
,1 i,,Id for sdid State, personally appeared II. L. Caldwell
.... ,,n to mu to be thuViee Prcsidel~t, and 1]. U. Po~:cr
PARCEL MAP NO. 14078
':" .II %
ITEM #8
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 21, 1992
Case No.:
Change of Zone No. 5724 and Tentative Tract
Map No. 25277, Amendment No. 4
Prepared By: Saied Naaseh and Robert Righetti
RECOMMENDATION:
RECOMMEND Adoption of Negative Declaration for Change of
Zone No. 5724 and Tentative Tract Map No. 25277,
Amendment No. 4; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 92- recommending Approval of
Change of Zone No. 5724 and Tentative Tract Map No. 25277,
Amendment No. 4 based on the Analysis and Findings contained
in the Staff Report; and subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Acacia Construction
REPRESENTATIVE:
Markham and Associates
PROPOSAL:
A request for approval of a Change of Zone from Rural
Residential (R-R) to One Family Dwellings (R-l) and Open Space
(R-5) and a request for approval of a subdivision to include 96
single family lots and 5 open space lots proposed on 47.7 acres.
LOCATION:
Southwesterly side of Pechanga Creek between Via Gilberto and
the easterly side of Temecula Creek Inn Golf Course.
EXISTING ZONING:
Rural Residential (R-R)
SURROUNDING
ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Multiple Family Dwellings (R-2)
County
Rural Residential (R-R)
Rural Residential (R-R)
PROPOSED ZONING:
One Family Dwellings (R-l) and Open Space (R-5)
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
One Family Dwellings
Vacant
Vacant
Golf Course
PROJECT STATISTICS
Number of lots 101
Single Family lots 96
Open Space lots 5
Total Area 47.7
Single Family lots (gross) 28.6
Single Family lots (net) 21.3
Open Space lots 19.0
Lot No. 98 (Pechanga Creek) 11.74
Average parcel size 9,665
Minimum lot size 7,200
Gross density (including
the open space acreage)
Net density (not including
the open space acreage) 3.36
Excavation 200,650
Excess 1,800
Total oak trees on site 297
Oak trees to be saved 257
Oak trees to be transplanted 36
Oak trees to be eliminated 4
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
square feet
square feet
2.01 dwelling units per acre
dwelling units per acre
cubic yards
cubic yards
BACKGROUND
Tentative Tract Map No. 25277, Amendment No. 4 and Change of Zone No, 5724 were
originally submitted to the County of Riverside on February 16, 1990 and were transmitted
to the City on April 30, 1990. The original map application proposed 137 residential lots.
On August 1, 1990 it was redesigned to 105 residential lots and six (6) open space lots in
order to preserve the oak trees. The map was further amended to reduce the number of
residential lots to 102 in order to preserve more of the natural topography of the site and to
provide public access to open space areas. This map with 102 residential lots and seven (7)
open sl~ace lots, along with the change of zone request, was heard by the Planning
Commission with a recommendation for denial from staff on July 1, 1991. The Planning
Commission took testimony on the project from the adjacent neighborhood groups who were
opposed to the project and continued the project off-calendar and directed staff and the
applicant to address Commission's concerns,
The issues and concerns expressed by the individual Commissioners included the following:
1, Excessive Grading and Clustering.
2. Preservation of Oak Trees.
3. Traffic, Access, and Signalization of Via Gilberto and Pala Road Bridge Timing.
4. Appropriateness of the Change of Zone.
5. Wildlife Corridor.
6. Buffering the 10 Acre Lots to the South.
7. Requirement of a Specific Plan to include the Querry Property.
8. Lack of Coordination with Other Agencies.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting approval for a zone change from Rural Residential (R-R) with
minimum half acre lots to One Family Dwelling (R-1) with minimum 7,200 square foot lots and
Open Space (R-5). In addition, the applicant is now requesting approval for a 96 single family
lot subdivision with five (5) open space lots. The open space portion of the project is
approximately nineteen (19) acres, all of which will be dedicated to the City for maintenance,
including the 11.74 acre Pechanga Creek. The open space area, which includes the majority
of the preserved and transplanted oak trees will be kept in a natural state and will include
approximately 9,435 lineal feet of decomposed granite (D.G.) pedestrian trails and four picnic
areas that could include tot lots, benches and barbecue amenities.
The project's primary access will be provided from Via Gilberto with a bridge that will be
constructed over Pechanga Creek to connect the existing street to the subject property with
full paved access. The secondary 32 foot paved access will be provided through the adjacent
property to the east (the Querry's property, Tentative Tract Map No. 27473) and the Wolf
Valley Home Owners Association parcel which will connect the project site to Via Eduardo
with a second bridge that will be constructed over Pechanga Creek (refer to Exhibit "F").
A portion of the property is currently located within the flood plain. The effected portion of
the property will be raised above the flood plain with excess fill material from other portions
of the site to satisfy the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements.
ANALYSIS
This project has been redesigned several times and since the original design the total number
of residential lots have been reduced from 137 to 96. The applicant has been working with
staff to address all issues raised by the Planning Commission at the previous hearing on July
1, 1991. The following represents a summary of these issues and how they have been dealt
with:
Excessive Grading
The Planning Commission suggested using a clustered development concept to preserve the
hillside. This concept has been partially used within the project to preserve the open space
area, which contains the oak trees, by further reducing the residential lots from 102 to 96.
Fifteen percent of the site has been preserved as open space. If the Pechanga Creek is
included within the open space area over 39 percent of the project has been retained as open
space. Further clustering will reduce the grading impacts of the development. Staff has
suggested to the applicant to eliminate lots 69 through 75 but the applicant has not been
receptive to this idea.
Staff has prepared a table (Table 1 ) which shows a lot by lot grading analysis of the project
(refer to Attachment "5"). Table I identifies the following information for each lot: the
highest and lowest points of the natural topography, the difference between the highest and
lowest points of the natural topography, the pad elevation for each lot, the amount of cut or
fill necessary for the high point and the low point to reach the proposed pad elevation. This
table may be used to identify the lots that need the most amount of cut or fill to reach the pad
elevation. Table 2 identifies four categories of cut and identifies the lots that fall under each
category:
Table 2
Number
Lot Numbers of Lots
Maximum amount of vertical cut
in feet to the highest elevation of
the natural topography within
each lot
59,60,64,66,67,76,91,92
61,65,69,73,74,81,82
63,70,71,72,80
62,75,79
8 15-20
7 21- 25
5 26-30
3 31 +
It should be noted that the numbers for the amount of cut are the worst case scenario for any
lot since the highest point of the natural topography of each lot was used to calculate the
amount of cut necessary to achieve the pad eievation.
Drainage
With the placement of fill within the existing floodplain area, some change to the limits of the
area of flooding can be anticipated. A preliminary drainage analysis was prepared by the
applicant and submitted to staff for review. This analysis shows that approximately 7250
cubic feet per second of stormwater will be conveyec: within the creek during the 1 O0 year
storm event.
Due to the limitations of the preliminary study provided, it is difficult to predict at this time
what the stormwater impacts will be to the northwesterly side of the creek adjacent to the
existing subdivisions. Slope protection will be required as determined by the Department of
Public Works and final pad elevations for the lots adjacent to the creek will be determined
when final detailed hydrotogic studies are completed by the developer (refer to Condition Nos.
65 and 72). The developer will comply with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) requirements to mitigate polluted storm runoff into the creek.
Preservation of Oak Trees
By reducing the number of residential lots from 102 to 96, the number of Oak trees that need
to be transplanted is reduced from 40 to 36. Furthermore, by minor adjustments of the lot
lines, 28 Oak trees are now proposed to be located in the open space areas rather than within
individual lots. These open space lots will be maintained by the City and no new non-native
vegetation or irrigation will be introduced to these areas, thereby, increasing the trees chance
of survival. Thirty-three (33) Oak trees will remain within individual lots. The future owners
of these lots will be responsible for maintenance and survival of these trees. Staff is
requesting that an information packet be distributed to the future owners of lots with Oak
trees to inform them of the importance of Oak trees at the time of purchase and how to
maintain them (refer to Condition No. "27"). However, the City would not have any control
on their long term survival. It should be noted that 19 of these 33 Oak trees are within lots
1,2 and 3 and the remaining 14 are within 12 different lots.
Table 3 summarizes the inventory of the 297 Oak trees on the site identifying their status and
the mitigation measures that will be imposed on them.
Table 3
I Status of Oak Trees No. of Trees I
Eliminated 4
Mitigation Measures
Transplanted 36
Condition No. 19
Saved 257
Located Within Individual Lots
Located Within Open Space Lots
33
224
Access/Traffic
Primary access to the site is provided from Via Gilberto to Pala Road. Secondary access is
provided through the Querry property to the east, (Tentative Tract Map No. 27473) and the
Wolf Valley Home Owner's Association parcel across from Pechanga Creek. Tentative Tract
Map No 25277 is conditioned to construct two bridges across the creek to Via Gilberto and
Via Eduardo (refer to Condition Nos. 46 and 92).
Primary Access:
The primary access to the site is provided from Via Gilberto which is classified as a local
street with a 60 foot right-of-way (ROW). Nineteen existing lots within Tract No. 19939 have
direct driveway access to this street (refer to Exhibit "E"). The project will generate
approximately 970 average daily trips which will utilize Via Gilberto and to a lesser extent, Via
Eduardo.
The increased traffic on Via Gilberto will warrant a traffic light at Pale Road. This traffic light
will be designed and installed by the developer prior to issuance of the occupancy permit for
the first dwelling unit (refer to Condition Nos. 16 and 102).
This project will add to the existing congestion at the intersection of Pale Road and Highway
79. However, the future residents of this tract will be contributing to Assessment District
159, which now includes the new Pala Road bridge construction. It is anticipated that the
construction of the bridge will commence by the end of 1995. In order to avoid additional
congestion especially during construction of the new bridge, Staff recommends to delaying
the issuance of the first occupancy permit until this bridge is completed (refer to Condition
Nos. 87 and 94).
Secondary Access:
Secondary access to the site will be provided by construction of 32 feet of A.C. paving within
a 45 foot right-of-way (refer to Condition No. 47). This road will traverse the Querry property
and the Wolf Valley Home Owner's Association parcel east of the project site to connect with
Via Eduardo, which presently terminates as a cul-de-sac at the northeast end of Pechanga
Creek. A full 45 feet of right-of-way needs to be acquired by the applicant from the Querry's
for this access. A 30 foot, half width, right-of-way currently exists along the easterly
boundary of the Wolf Valley Home Owner's Association parcel from the terminus of Via
Eduardo and continues southeasterly across the Querry property. An additional 30 foot right-
of-way must be acquired by the applicant from the Wolf Valley Home Owners Association
(HOA) parcel to be added to the existing 30 foot right-of-way for the ultimate improvements
along the extension of Via Eduardo over the creek.
If the developer fails to acquire the additional 30 feet from the Wolf Valley Home Owner's
Association, he may request the City enter into the condemnation proceedings for that portion
of the right-of-way from the terminus of Via Eduardo to the northerly boundary of Tentative
Tract Map No. 27473 at the developer's sole expense.
The applicant has indicated that they are unable to acquire the necessary rights-of-way from
the owner of the adjacent property (Tentative Tract Map No. 27473) prior to approval of the
tentative map and have requested that they be conditioned to acquire it prior to recordation
(refer to Condition No. 39). Per the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462.5, "A city, county,
or city and county shall not postpone or refuse approval of a final map because the subdivider
has failed to meet a tentative map condition which requires the subdivider to construct or
install offsite improvements on land in which neither the subdivider nor the local agency has
sufficient title or interest, including an easement or license, at the time the tentative or final
map is filed with the local agency, to permit the improvements to be made. In such cases,
the city, county, or city and county shall, within 120 days of the filing of the final map,
pursuant to Section 66457, acquire by negotiation or commence proceedings pursuant to Title
7 (commencing with Section 1230.010) of part 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure to acquire
an interest in the land which wilt permit the improvements to be made, including the
proceedings for immediate possession of the property under Article 3 (commencing with
Section 1255.410) of Chapter 6 of such title. In the event a city, county, or city and county
fails to meet the 120-day time limitation, the condition for construction of offsite
improvements shall be conclusively deemed to be waived. Prior to approval of the final map
the city, county, or city and county may require the subdivider to enter into an agreement to
complete the improvements pursuant to Section 66462 at such time as the city, county, or
city and county acquires an interest in the land which will permit the improvements to be
made."
The City has notified the applicant that it does not wish to enter into condemnation
proceedings for secondary access right-of-way across the Querry property. Therefore, the
applicant has offered to record an agreement waiving his rights per section 66462.5, as noted
above, within 72 hours of this approval of Tentative Map 25277, Amendment No. 4 or this
approval shall be void by reason of failure of compliance with development condition (refer
to Condition No. 39). Said agreement shall stipulate the following:
The applicant shall agree not to record any phase of this map until all secondary access
right-of-way has been acquired.
The applicant shall agree to waive their rights as granted by the Subdivision Map Act
in Section 66462.5 in relation to the Querry property.
The applicant shall agree to not request or require the City to enter into condemnation
proceedings against the Querry property owner for right-of-way or easements.
The applicant shall agree to pursue at their own expense and costs the acquisition of
any off*site right-of-way.
The applicant shell agree that no condition of approval for off-site improvements shall
be waived due to their failure to acquire any necessary off-site right-of-way.
The applicant has also indicated that an alignment for the access road cannot be fixed at this
time. Therefore, the applicant has agreed not to record any phase of Tentative Map 25277
until Tentative Map 27473 has been approved, a preliminary grading and construction analysis
has been completed for the road and all environmental impacts have been identified and
reduced to a level of insignificance by implementing the mitigation measures as required by
CEQA. If Tentative Map 27473 is not approved, the applicant shall submit a revised map
showing a fixed alignment for the access road across the adjacent property, shall obtain the
right-of-way for roadway purposes, shall complete a grading and construction analysis,
comply with all CEQA requirements including mitigation measures, and shall pay all fees
associated with the processing of the revised map, right-of-way acquisition and all associated
studies (refer to Condition Nos. 40 and 41 ).
Appropriateness of the Change of Zone
The existing zoning on the site is Rural Residential (R-R) which allows minimum half acre lots.
The total gross acreage of the site is 47.7 acres which includes the 11.74 acre Pechanga
Creek. If the lots were designed with the current site coverage, (35.96 acres), up to 72
dwelling units would be allowed under the current zoning. Therefore, approval of the
proposed zone change will increase the density of the site 33 percent.
However, this zone change is consistent with the Draft Preferred Land Use Map of the future
General Plan which designates the site as Low Density Residential, 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per
acre with a target density of 1.3 per acre. The project density, which is 2.01, may exceed
the target density only if the project provides some amenides that would not have been
offered otherwise. This project provides approximately 19 acres of open space which
includes the 11.74 acre Pechanga Creek. Additionally, the project will provide improvements
to the open space area including trails, picnic areas, a tot lot and signage. These open space
areas and their improvements exceed the minimum requirements for the Quimby Act, which
requires dedication of only 1.24 acres or the dollar amount equivalent.
Furthermore, when the City starts the consistency zoning to implement the General Plan, this
property will be zoned Low Density Residential with Planned Development Overlay. The
overlay district will be necessary since the Low Density Residential requires 0.5 acre minimum
lots but the project provides an average lot size of 9,665 square feet. This overlay district
will be appropriate for this site since the project meets the General Plan density requirement
and smaller lot sizes were necessary to preserve the natural environment including the oak
trees and the wildlife corridor.
The Wildlife Corridor
The Pechanga Creek has been identified as a wildlife corridor being used by Mountain Lions
and other animal species. The Nature Conservancy, The Mountain Lion Foundation, and
Preserve Our Plateau have expressed concerns regarding the preservation of this corridor and
have expressed opposition to approval of this project (refer to Attachment No. 6). Staff has
investigated their concerns by conducting a site inspection with a qualified biologist, Mr. Doug
Padley, who is considered one of two experts in Mountain Lion populations and their travel
patterns in this area. According to Mr. Padley the project will not adversely impact the
movement of Mountain Lions in this area as long as proper mitigation measures are
incorporated into the project design (refer to Condition Nos. 18.F.2., 26.B., 26.C., 27, 28,
29 and 30). It should be noted that the Mountain Lions use this corridor very infrequently.
The best estimates available to staff indicates that only six Mountain Lions use it every ten
years.
These mitigation measures deal with revegetation of the creekbed to encourage wildlife
movement through the corridor, requirement of a combination of block wall and wrought iron
fencing for the lots along the creek to discourage the potential conflict between pets in the
backyards and the wildlife passing through, restricting the type of lighting in the backyards
that abut the creek to provide a dark movement corridor which is preferred by the wildlife and
the requirement of signage through out the trails to inform the users of the potential conflicts
of humans, pets and wildlife after dark.
Buffering the 10 Acre Minimum Lots to the South
Although the Planning Commission expressed a concern relative to buffering the large lots to
the south, the project is not proposing a buffer between the R-1 lots and the 10 acre minimum
lots to the south.
Requirement of a Specific Plan to Include the Querry Property
The applicant has not prepared a Specific Plan for this project. The Querry property to the
east has filed for a tentative map which would have allowed a more comprehensive review
of these two projects if the Querry map was at the same stage of development review
process as Acacia. However, one of the benefits of the filing of the Querry map is that the
alignment of the secondary access is known (refer to Exhibit "F").
Coordination with Other Agencies
At the July 1, 1991 Planning Commission meeting, the School District expressed a concern
regarding the lack of coordination between the project applicant and the School District.
Moreover, there were also concerns regarding the availability of sewer and water services to
the site. Both of these issues have been addressed as follows:
The School District has issued a letter to the City conditioning the project to pay the
applicable school fees.
The project is outside the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) and needs to be annexed
to their existing boundary and receive approval of the Sewer Service Improvement Plans prior
to recordation of the Final Map (refer to Condition Nos. 35 and 43). Pursuant to
conversations and letters from EMWD,the applicant may be responsible for extending the
existing sewer line on Rainbow Canyon Road approximately 3,000 feet to the project site.
This line may have to go through the Temecula Creek Inn property, continue on the south side
of the Creek and connect to the project site. The information received from EMWD indicates
that the property owner of the golf course is not in favor of granting an easement to extend
the sewer lines through their property. It is the responsibility of this applicant to acquire this
easement. Other alternative alignments may be considered for design by EMWD and the City
of Temecula prior to recordation of the Final Map and all off-site improvements shall be
designed and approved.
Furthermore, the applicant will be responsible to annex the project to the existing boundary
of the Rancho California Water District and receive approval of the water service improvement
plans prior to recordation of the Final Map (refer to Condition Nos. 35 and 43). Further
studies will be required to determine whether the existing water line on Via Gilberto contains
sufficient pressure to serve the project. Otherwise, a larger diameter line needs to be installed
by the applicant on Via Gilberto to connect it to the Pala Road main. in either case the line
has to be extended over the creek either underground or through conduit in the bridge.
ZONING, FUTURE GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY
The zoning on the property is Rural Residential (R-R) which allows minimum half acre
residential lot sizes and a variety of commercial uses. This project is proposing a zone change
to One Family Dwellings (R-1) which allows minimum 7,200 square foot residential lot sizes
and Open Space (R-5). This zone change will increase the density of the site about 33
percent. The proposed project is consistent with the R-1 development standards.
The future General Plan Draft Preferred Land Use Map designates the site as Low Density
Residential (0.5 to 2.0 dwelling units per acre) with a target density of 1.3 dwelling units per
acre. The project density may exceed the target density if certain amenities, such as open
space, are offered by the project over and above the minimum requirement. This project is
designed with extensive open space and a trail system which exceeds the minimum
requirements. The proposed density of this project is 2.01 dwelling units per acre which is
consistent with the maximum density of 2.0 dwelling units per acre of the future General
Plan. (For further discussion on consistency with the Future General Plan, refer to the
"Appropriateness of the Change of Zone" Section).
The proposed project is consistent with SWAP, which designates the site as 2-5 dwelling
units per acre. The site density is 2.01 dwelling units per acre.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An initial Study was prepared by Staff and no significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project; therefore, a Negative Declaration has been recommended. The mitigation
measures contained in the Conditions of Approval shall be implemented in order to reduce the
impacts to an insignificant level.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The proposed project has been redesigned several times during the past 3 years. The
following represents some of the positive aspects of the project:
The total number of residential lots have been reduced from 137 to 96 to reduce the
impacts on the natural environment.
2. Only 4 of the 297 oak trees will be eliminated,
3. A traffic signal will be installed on Via Gilberto.
A trail system and picnic areas will be installed in the open space areas to be used by
the public.
The project has been sensitive to the wildlife corridor (Pechanga Creek) within the site;
and it will actually enhance this corridor by revegetation of the creek.
The project design might not be the best example of hillside development, but is has come a
long way from a flat land subdivision of 137 lots. It represent approximately three years of
negotiations and improvements to the original design.
17. 1992
FINDINGS
Change of Zone No. 5724
There is a reasonable probability that Change of Zone No. 5724 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 density of the project, 2.01
dwelling units per acre, is consistent with the Low Density Residential Land Use
designation of the future General Plan. Furthermore, the proposed R-1 zone will be
consistent with the Low Density Residential Zoning District with a Planned
Development Overlay Zone.
There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference, with the
future General Plan if Change of Zone No. 5724 is ultimately inconsistent with the
Plan, due to the fact that the project is consistent with the existing single family
dwelling developments in the immediate vicinity and their underlying zones.
The project is compatible with surrounding land uses since this project is a single
family dwelling development and the surrounding land uses are single family dwellings,
a golf course and vacant land.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on the environment since mitigation
measures have been incorporated to the project design and Conditions of Approval to
reduce the impacts t0 a level of insignificance.
Tentative Tract Map No. 25277
There is a reasonable probability that Tentative Tract MaP No. 25277 will be
consistent with the City's future General Ran, which will be completed in a reasonable
time and in accordance with State Law. The project, as conditioned, conforms with
existing applicable city zoning ordinances and development standards. Furthermore,
the proposed density of the project, 2.01 dwelling units per acre, is consistent with
the future General Plan Land Use Designation of Low Density Residential.
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,
since the surrounding land uses are single family dwellings, a golf course and vacant
land.
The proposed use or action as conditioned complies with State planning and zoning
laws, local Ordinance Nos. 348 and 460; and California Governmental Code Sections
65000-66009 (Planning and Zoning Law).
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or
welfare since all impacts have been mitigated to a level of insignificance.
The project is compatible with surrounding land uses since the proposed single family
dwellings are consistent with the existing single family dwellings, the golf course and
the vacant land surrounding the project.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the Environmental Analysis for this project.
Said Findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with this application 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.
The Planning Commission has considered the effect of its action upon the housing
needs of the region and has balanced these needs against the public service needs of
its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources (Gov. Code Section
66412.3) and finds that the project density is consistent with SWAP and the future
General Plan. Additionally, it wilt provide more diversity in the housing type available
to the residents of the City of Temecula.
11.
The proposed project will not result in discharge of waste into the existing sewer
system that is in violation of the requirements as set out in Section 13000 et seq. of
the California Water Code by requiring the project to comply with Eastern Municipal
Water District's requirements.
12.
The design of the subdivision provides to the extent feasible, for future passive or
natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision (Gov. Code Section 66473.1 )
by limiting the height of the future structures to 40 feet and requiring setbacks
according to the R-1 standards.
13.
The project has acceptable access by means of dedicated right-of-way and has been
conditioned to acquire the necessary right-of-way for secondary access.
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
RECOMMEND Adoption of Negative Declaration for Change of
Zone No. 5724 and Tentative Tract Map No. 25277,
Amendment No. 4; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 92- recommending Approval of
Change of Zone No. 5724 and Tentative Tract Map No. 25277,
Amendment No. 4 based on the Analysis and Findings contained
in the Staff Report; and subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval
Attachments:
5.
6.
7.
8.
Resolution No. 92- - blue page 14
Conditions of Approval - blue page 20
Exhibits - blue page 40
A. Vicinity Map
B. SWAP
C. Zoning
D. Tentative Tract Map No. 25277, Amendment No. 4
E. Lots fronting on Via Gilberto
F. Tentative Tract Map No. 27473
G. Zone Change No. 5724
Initial Study - blue page 41
Table 1 - blue page 59
Correspondence - blue page 60
What to do if you Encounter a Mountain Lion - blue page 61
Oak Tree information - blue page 62
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTIONS
ATFACHMFNT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5724 TO CHANGE THE
ZONING FROM R-R TO R-1 AND R-5, AND TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP NO. 25277, AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO
SUBDIVIDE A 47.7 ACRE PARCEL INTO 96 SINGLE
FAlVHI,Y LOTS AND 5 OPEN SPACE LOTS LOCATED AT
THE SOUTHWESTERLY SIDE OF PECHANGA CREEK
BETWEEN VIA GILBERTO AND THE EASTERLY SIDE OF
TEMECULA CREEK INN.
WHEREAS, Acacia Construction filed Change of Zone No. 5724 and Tentative Tract
Map No. 25277, Amendment No. 4 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning,
Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said applications were processed in the time and manner prescribed by State
and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said applications on September 21,
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
recommended approval of said applications;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the
following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall
adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month
period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the
following requirements are met:
general plan,
The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the
2. The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, each of the following:
a. There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action
proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which
will be studied within a reasonable time.
b. There is litfie or no probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan.
c. The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area
Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as
the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan
guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General
Plan.
C. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of said applications makes
the following findings, to wit:
Change of Zone No. 5724
1. There is a reasonable probability that Change of Zone No. 5724 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 density of the project, 2.01 dwelling units
per acre, is consistent with the Low Density Residential Land Use designation of the future
General Plan. Furthermore, the proposed R-1 zone will be consistent with the Low Density
Residential Zoning District with a Planned Development Overlay Zone.
2. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference,
with the future General Plan. If Change of Zone No. 5724 is ultimately inconsistent with the
Plan, due to the fact that the project is consistent with the existing single family dwelling
developments in the immediate vicinity and their underlying zones.
3. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses since this project is
a single family dwelling development and the surrounding land uses are single family dwellings,
a golf course and vacant land.
4. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on the environment since
mitigation measures have been incorporated to the project design and Conditions of Approval
to reduce the impacts to a level of insignificance.
Tentative Tract Map No. 25277
1. Them is a reasonable probability that Tentative Tract Map No. 25277 will
be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time
and in accordance with State Law. The project, as conditioned, conforms with existing
applicable city zoning ordinances and development standards. Furthermore, the proposed density
of the project, 2.01 dwelling units per acre, is consistent with the future General Plan Land Use
Designation of Low Density Residential.
2. 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,
since the surrounding land uses are single family dwellings, a golf course and vacant land.
3. The proposed use or action as conditioned complies with State planning
and zoning laws, local Ordinance Nos. 348 and 460; and California Governmental Cede Sections
65000-66009 (Planning and Zoning Law).
4. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public
health or welfare since all impacts have been mitigated to a level of insignificance.
5. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses since the proposed
single family dwellings are consistent with the existing single family dwellings, the golf course
and the vacant land surrounding the project.
6. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built
or natural environment as determined in the Environmental Analysis for this project.
7. Said Findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental
documents associated with this application 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.
9. The Planning Commission has considered the effect of its action upon the
housing needs of the region and has balanced these needs against the public service needs of its
residents and available fiscal and environmental resources (Gov. Code Section 66412.3) and
finds that the project density is consistent with SWAP and the future General Plan.
Additionally, it will provide more diversity in the housing type available to the residents of the
City of Temecula.
10. The Planning Commission shall determine whether the discharge of waste
from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system would result in a violation of the
requirements as set out in Section 13000 et seq. of the California Water Code. If the Planning
Commission finds that the proposed waste discharge would result in or add to a violation of said
requirements, the Planning Commission may disapprove the tentative map or maps of the
subdivision (Coy. Code Section 66474.6).
11. The proposed project will not result in discharge of waste into the existing
sewer system that is in violation of the requirements as set out in Section 3000 et seq. of the
California Water Code by requiring the project to comply with ~:~tern Municipal Water
District's requirements.
12. The design of the subdivision provides to the extent feasible, for future
passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision (Gov. Code Section
66473.1) by limiting the height of the future structures to 40 feet and requiring setbacks
according to the R-1 standards.
13. The project has acceptable access by means of dodicated right-of-way and
has been conditioned to acquire the necessary fight-of-way for secondaBt access.
F. As conditioned pursuant to Section 3, the Tract Map proposed is compatible with
the health, safety and welfare of the community.
Section 2. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project
indicates that the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment with
the incorporation of the mitigation measures into the project design, and a Negative Declaration,
is hereby granted.
Section 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
recommends approval of Change of Zone No. 5724, and Tentative Tract Map No. 25277,
Amendment No. 4 located at the southwesterly side of Pechanga Creek between Via Gilberto
and the easterly side of Temecula Creek Inn subject to the following conditions:
A. Attachment No. 2, attached hereto.
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of September, 1992.
LINDA FAHEY
CHAIRMAN
I ~BY 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 21st day of
September, 1992 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNHILL
SECRETARY
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Tract Map No: 25277, Amendment No. 4
Project Description: A request for approval of a
subdivision to include 96 single family lots and 5
open space lots proposed on 47.7 acres
Assessor's Parcel No.: 918-180-050, 019
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act
and to all the requirements of Ordinance No. 460 unless modified by the conditions listed
below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and
City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date.
This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the approval date,
unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. The expiration date is
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map.
Subdivision phasing shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Any proposed
phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access to all lots in each phase, and shall
substantially conform to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval.
A copy of both the comprehensive rough grading plan and the final precise grading plan
shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. All on-site cut
and fill slopes shall:
Be limited to a maximum slope ratio of 2 to 1 and a maximum vertical height of
thirty (30) feet. Setbacks from top and bottom of slopes for structures shall be
a minimum of one-half the slope height or as otherwise approved by the City
Engineer.
B. Be contour-graded to blend with existing natural contours.
The applicant shall comply with the Army Corps of Engineers recommendations outlined
in the letter dated March 6, 1992, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the Rancho California Water District recommendations
outlined in the letter dated March 4, 1992, a copy of which is attached.
Rev,eed September 17. 1992 21
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
The applicant shall comply with the California Department of Fish and Game
recommendation outlined in the transmittals dated July 9, 1991 and April 20, 1992,
copies of which are attached.
The applicant shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined in the
County Fire Department's letter dated August 4, 1992, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Temecula Valley
Unified School District's transmittel dated August 12, 1992, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Community Services
Department transmittal dated July 7, 1992, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern Municipal
Water District transmittal dated January 28, 1991, a copy of which is attached.
Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following:
Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development
standards of the R-1 zone.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free condition and
shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion
control measures as approved by the Director of Building and Safety.
The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes, landscaped
areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations are the responsibilities
of other parties as approved by the Planning Director.
Prior to recordation of the final map, an Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be
prepared in conjunction with the final map to delineate identified environmental concerns
and shall be permanently filed with the office of the City Engineer. A copy of the ECS
shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The approved
ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to the Planning Department
and the Department of Building and Safety. The following shall be noted on the ECS:
A. The Pechanga Creek is designated as a wildlife corridor.
This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory.
All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of
Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations.
All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of Technology,
Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as outlined in the Southwest Area Plan.
17. Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS, the following conditions shall be satisfied:
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, detailed landscaping and irrigation plans
shall be submitted for Planning Department approval for the phase of development
in process. These plans shall be consistent with the conceptual landscape plan as
required by Condition No. 18.F. The plans shall be certified by a landscape
architect, and shall provide for the following:
(1)
Automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all landscaped areas
requiring irrigation. However, areas being retained in their native state shall
not have permanent irrigation systems and should not be irrigated unless
revegetation is required.
(2)
Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be opaque up to
a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity.
(3)
Front yards shall be landscaped including street trees. Typical front yard
landscaping shah be included for interior lots, corner lots and cul-de-sac
lots.
(4)
A wall and fencing plan shall be submitted for the project . Wooden
fencing shall not be allowed on the perimeter of the project or the side yard
of corner lots. This plan may be incorporated into the landscape plans.
(5)
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent trees at
key visual focal points within the project.
(6)
Where street trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of interior streets
and project parkways due to insufficient road right-of-way, they shall be
planted outside of the road right-of-way.
(7)
Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant plants
where appropriate.
(8) Trails and picnic area facilities shall be depicted on the landscape plans.
(9)
All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow growing
trees shall be steel staked.
(10) All street trees shall be a minimum of 15 gallon.
All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded natural terrain and exceeding ten (10)
feet in vertical height shall be contour-graded incorporating the following grading
techniques:
(1)
The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the angle of
the natural terrain.
18,
(2)
Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall reflect the
natural rounded terrain.
(3)
The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves with radii
designed in proportion to the total height of the slopes where drainage and
stability permit such rounding.
(4)
Where cut or fill slopes exceed 300 feet in horizontal length, the horizontal
contours of the slope shall be curved in a continuous, undulating fashion.
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.
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the
appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be
superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment
of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required
by the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or
resolution.
A qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the developer for consultation and
comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological
impacts. Should the paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to
significant resources, a pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the
excavation and grading contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the
paleontologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert,
redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils.
All manufactured slopes shall be planted with erosion control, low, fire resistant,
native and drought tolerant landscaping. The temporary irrigation for these slopes
shall be removed after plants have been established. The temporary irrigation shall
be designed as not to damage the existing oak trees on the site.
Prior to the approval of rough grading plans and recordation of the Final Map, a
comprehensive rough 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:
Approximate time frames for grading and identification of areas which may be
graded during the higher probability rain months of January through March.
B. Preliminary pad and roadway elevations.
C. Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase.
19.
D. Oak tree preservation according to Condition No. 19.
E. Grading on the open space lots shall be kept to a minimum to preserve the natural
state of the environment. This condition applies to lots 97, 99 and 100.
F. Prior to recordation of the final map, a conceptual landscape plan shall be
approved by the Director of Planning. The following shall be considered when
preparing and approving this plan:
( 1 ) The preservation of the Oak trees is required by Condition No. 19.
(2) The revegetation of the Pechanga Creek as required by Condition No. 29.
(3) Using drought tolerant, fire resistant plant type for slope planting as
required by Condition No. 20.G.
(4) All slopes over three feet high shall be irrigated and landscaped.
(5) Irrigated and non-irrigated areas shall be identified.
(6) Trails, picnic areas and all associated signs within the open space areas
shall be identified.
(7) Typical front yard landscaping for interior, corner and cul-de-sac lots shall
be included to include street trees, hydroseeding or sod, shrubs and ground
cover.
(8) Location of all walls and fences shall be identified. The perimeter of the
project shall include decorative block wall, wrought iron or combination as
specified in Condition No. 27. Corner lot side yards shall be decorative
block wall.
(9) Erosion control shall be consistent with Ordinance No. 457.75.
(10} Timing of installation of all landscaping shall be specified on the plans.
An oak tree protection and replacement program, prepared by a licensed arborist (oak tree
specialist/biologist) shall be prepared prior to recordation of the final map and shall be
implemented. This arborist/biologist shall be present on the site throughout all grading
and construction activities which may impact the oak trees on the site. The program shall
include but not be limited to the following components:
A. Program Elements to be graphically depicted on rough and precise grading plans:
(1) The location of the trunk and extent of dripline for all trees within the
project site and the type and location of any project fencing. The trees
that will be saved, transplanted or eliminated shall be identified on these
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
plans. Trees that are eliminated shall be replaced as specified on Condition
No. 19.B.8. All the trees on the project site and within 75 feet of the
centerline of the secondary access on the Querry property to the east
(Tentative Tract Map No. 27473) or the extent of ground disturbance
necessary for the construction of this road, whichever is more, shall be
identified.
Construction envelopes shall be designated on all parcels located outside
the driplines of all oak trees. All ground disturbances including grading
shall be prohibited outside construction envelopes.
Equipment storage and staging areas shall be designated on rough and
precise grading ptans at least six (6) feet outside of dripline areas.
All replacement trees and transplanted trees may be used to revegetate the
creek as specified in Condition No. 29.
Permanent tree wells or retaining walls shall be specified on precise grading
plans.
Drainage plans shall be designed so that oak tree trunk areas are properly
drained to avoid ponding.
All utilities shall be placed directly adjacent to roadways and driveways in
order to minimize impacts to trees. All utilities shall be placed within
construction envelopes.
The following bonds shall be secured by the developer, or his successors
in interest:
(A)
Prior to issuance of grading permits: To preserve, transplant and
replace the eliminated trees with new saplings in compliance with
the conditions of approval during the grading, construction or any
other related activity,
(B)
Prior to acceptance of the open space lots by the City: To ensure
the long term survival of the transplanted trees and new saplings.
(C)
Prior to acceptance of the open space lot by the City: To ensure
the "long term survival" of any tree that has been damaged as a
result of construction activities.
Long term survival shall mean a minimum of 10 years or if otherwise
determined by the arborist and approved by the Planning Director.
The amount of bonds shall be determined by the arborist and approved by
the Planning Director.
Sections B and C above shall not apply to trees within individual parcels.
(9)
All oak trees within 25 feet of proposed ground disturbances shall be
temporarily fenced with chain-link or other material throughout all grading
and construction activities. The fencing shall be installed six feet outside
the dripline of each oak tree, and shall be staked every 6 feet.
(10)
No artificial surface, pervious or impervious, shall be placed within 6 feet
of the dripline of any oak tree. If this is determined to be infeasible, the
affected trees shall be transplanted.
Program elements to be printed as conditions on final grading and building plans:
(1)
No grading or development shall occur within the driplines of oak trees
which occur in the construction area.
(2)
No construction equipment shall be parked, stored or operated within 6
feet of any oak tree dripline.
(3)
No fill soil, rocks or construction materials shall be stored or placed within
six feet of the dripline of an oak tree.
(4)
Any roots encountered that are one inch in diameter or greater shall be
cleanly cut and sealed with a tree-seal compound.
(5)
Any trenching required within the dripline or sensitive root zone of any oak
tree shall be done by hand. Any oak tree roots greater than one inch in
diameter exposed in any trench shall be cut and sealed with approved
sealant immediately after the trench is excavated.
(6)
irrigation shall not occur within the dripline of any existing oak tree that has
not previously been irrigated, except as otherwise recommended by the
arborist.
(7) Only designated trees shall be transplanted and/or eliminated.
(8)
Any oak trees which are eliminated and/or damaged (more than 40% of
root zone disturbed) shall be replaced on a 10:1 basis with 10 gallon size
saplings grown from locally obtained seed. Where necessary to remove a
tree and feasible to replant, trees shall be boxed and replanted. A drip
irrigation system with a timer shall be installed as recommended by the
arborist. Trees shall be maintained until established (ten years or as
determined by the arborist and approved by the Planning Director). The
plantings shall be protected from predation by wild and domestic animals,
20.
and from human interference by the use of staked, chain link fencing and
gopher fencing during the maintenance period.
(9)
Any unanticipated damage that occurs to trees or sensitive habitats
resulting from construction activities shall be mitigated in a manner
approved by the Planning Director. This mitigation may include but is not
limited to tree replacement as specified in Condition No. 19.B.8. The
required mitigation shall be done immediately under the direction of the
Planning Director prior to any further work occurring on site.
(1 O) All trees located near proposed buildings shall be protected from stucco or
paint during construction.
( 11 ) A Planning Director approved arborist shall be onsite throughout all grading
and construction activities which may impact trees located on the site.
Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit a copy of the
precise grading plans to the Planning Department for review and approval. All
aspects of the plan shall be implemented as approved. MonitorinG: Planning
Department shall conduct site inspection throughout all phases of development to
ensure compliance with and evaluate all tree protection and replacement
measures. Release of performance security requires Planning Staff signature.
Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied:
No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit within
the project boundary until the developer's successor's-in-interest provides
evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures. A cash sum of
one-hundred dollars ($100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as
mitigation for public library development.
All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required elements
from the subdivision's approved fire protection plan as approved by the County
Fire Marshal.
All dwellings to be constructed within this subdivision shall be designed and
constructed with fire retardant (Class B) roofs as approved by the Fire Marshal.
Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision,
however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted
with Planning Department approval.
Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall not be less than
ten (10) feet.
F. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet.
21.
22.
23.
24.
The precise grading plan shall be subject to the approval of the Fire Department,
Minimum 30 foot rear and side yard setbacks shall be required for lots abutting
(from the side or rear) the open space areas to minimize the fire hazards. The
developer shall consider this condition when designing the units to ensure
compliance with these setback adjustments. Native, drought tolerant and fire
resistant landscaping shall be used to protect the slopes to further reduce the fire
hazards, or other mitigation measures approved by the Fire Department.
Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied:
All landscaping and irrigation within each individual lot shall be installed in
accordance with approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permit for that
lot. If seasonal conditions do not permit planting, interim landscaping and erosion
control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning Director and the
Director of Building and Safety.
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans
and shall be verified by City field inspection.
Cm
All landscaping and irrigation outside individual lots shall be completed prior to
issuance of the first occupancy permit.
The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its
agents, officer, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of
Temecula or its agents, officer, or employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul an
approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body
concerning Tentative Tract Map No. 25277, which action is brought within the time
period provided for in California Government Code Section 66499.37. The City of
Temecula will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding
against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to
promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to
cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be responsible to
defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula.
All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be
provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and
constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. Telephone, cable TV,
and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in the residence.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground.
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
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
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).
The following information shall be included with the White Report and be available to the
prospective residents of the project at the time of initial marketing:
A. A copy of the State Department of Agriculture Pamphlet, Living Among the Oaks.
The back yard lighting for all lots abutting the Pechanga Creek shall be limited to
a type that limits light pollution in the creek.
The Pechanga Creek is designated as a wildlife corridor and using the trails after
dark is discouraged.
A combination of block wall (3 feet high) and wrought iron (3 feet high) fencing shall be
constructed along the rear property lines of all lots abutting the Pechanga Creek. The
same wall shall be constructed along the side and rear property lines of all the lots that
abut all the open space areas. The side yard fencing on all corner lots shall be a block
wall.
Signage shall be included for appropriate locations on the trails to inform all trail users of
the potential presence of Mountain Lions after dark. The sign shall read "Warning,
Mountain Lion Country, A Risk, There are Mountain Lions in this area, they are
unpredictable and dangerous. Minors (under 18 years of age) may be attacked without
warning, they must remain under direct adult supervision at all times." Signage shall be
approved by the Director of Planning prior to issuance of Occupancy Permits.
The creek shall be revegetated to enhance the wildlife corridor for wildlife movement.
This revegetation shall be subject to approval of a qualified biologist/an arborist and a
registered landscape architect. This plan shall be submitted for review and approval of
the Planning Director prior to issuance of grading permits. Oak trees that need
transplanting may be used to revegetate the wildlife corridor.
A pamphlet shall be available to all trail users to providing tips in case of encountering
Mountain Lions (refer to Attachment "7" of the Staff Report). This pamphlet shall be
available at all trail signs.
No grading permits shall be issued until the precise grading plans and the final landscape
plans for the entire project is approved by the Planning Department,
The applicant shall receive appropriate Fish and Game and Army Corps of Engineers
permits prior to issuance of grading permits. A copy of clearances from these agencies
shall be submitted to the Planning Department.
33. The precise grading plan shall include the secondary access alignment through the Querry
property to the east (Tentative Tract Map No. 27473).
34.
Trails and picnic areas shell be developed, completed and dedicated to the City prior to
issuance of the first occupancy permit for the project.
35.
The applicant shall complete the annexation procedures to the Eastern Municipal Water
District and Rancho California Water District and receive approval of the improvement
plans for installation of all utilities prior to recordation of the Final Map.
36.
A historic site, CA-RIV-330-H, is located just outside the project boundary to the South
of the southwest property line. This adobe wall shall be protected from grading and
possible blasting even though it is outside the project boundary. Fencing shall be erected
around the adobe walls to protect the structural integrity of the wall from equipment and
grading. If blasting is required within the vicinity of the wall, acceptable mitigation
measures shall be incorporated to protect the structures. The fencing shall be shown on
the grading plans. This fencing shall be at least four feet high and thirty feet in diameter
surrounding the wall. With the incorporation of these mitigation measure, the impacts
would be reduced to a level of insignificance.
37.
Heavy construction activity and deliveries shall be restricted to the hours of 7 a.m. to 7
p.m. on weekdays.
3¸8.
A mitigation monitoring program shall be submitted to identify all environmental mitigation
measures contained in the Conditions of Approval. This program shall identify the
impacts the mitigation measures, the stage of the development the mitigation measures
are to be enforced and the responsible party for monitoring the mitigation measures. All
cost necessary to implement his program shall be the responsibility of the applicant.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval for this project, and
shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true
meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the appropriate staff person of the Department of
Public Works.
It is understood that the Subdivider has correctly shown on the tentative map 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 RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
39.
The Subdivider shall record a written agreement within 72 hours of approval of the
Tentative Map confirming an offer to waive the owner's rights as described in section
66462.5 of the Subdivision Map Act or this approval shall be revoked and deemed void.
The Subdivider shall not request or require the City of Temecula to enter into
condemnation proceedings to acquire any offsite right-of-way needed within Tentative
Ravesad SeOtemb~ 17, 1992 31
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
Tract Map No. 27473 to comply with these conditions of approval. The Subdivider shall
not record any phase of the approved tentative map until adequate right-of-way for
secondary access has been acquired at the owner's sole expense. Failure to acquire any
offsite right-of-way shall not void or invalidate any condition of approval.
Subdivider shall not record any phase of this map until Tentative Map 27473 is approved
showing a fixed alignment for the secondary access road, and a preliminary grading and
construction analysis has been completed in complete compliance with CEQA
requirements identifying all mitigation measures.
If Tentative Map 27473 is not approved prior to the Subdivider's request to record any
phase of this map, the owner shall submit a revised Tentative Map to the City of
Temecula for review and approval showing a fixed alignment for the secondary access
road across the adjacent property, shall acquire the necessary right-of-way for roadway
purposes at his sole expense, shall complete a grading and construction analysis, and
shall be in complete compliance with CEQA requirements including mitigation measures.
Subdivider shall pay all fees associated with the processing of a revised map and all
associated studies.
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.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
San Diego Regional Water Quality;
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;
Metropolitan Water District;
Temecula Community Services District;
General Telephone;
Southern California Edison Company;
Southern California Gas Company:
Army Corp of Engineers; and
Department of Fish and Game
All road easements and/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public
and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications
shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of Public Works.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50,
51.
52.
Via Gilberto and Streets "A" through "J" shall be improved with 40 feat of asphalt
concrete pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the
dedicated right-of-way in accordance with City Standard No. 104, Section A (60'/40').
The Via Gilberto and Via Eduardo crossings at Pechanga Creek shall be improved with full
width bridges consistent with the ultimate required road improvements, or bonds for the
bridge improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance
with applicable City, County and State Standards.
A secondary access road with a minimum of 32 feet of A.C. paving shall be provided
within a minimum of 45 feet of dedicated right-of-way, or bonds may be posted, from
Street "H" or Street "J" across the adjacent property (Tentative Tract Map No. 27473).
The right-of-way shall be 60 feet in width with 32 feet minimum of A.C. paving from the
terminus of Via Eduardo southwesterly to the boundary of Tentative Tract Map No.
27473. The existing cuFde-sac shall be reconstructed for through traffic and drainage.
Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, recreational trails, landscape easements,
drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within
the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted
and recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works.
The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed
guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance with
applicable City standards.
Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter,
sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal systems,
and other traffic control devices as appropriate.
B. Storm drain facilities.
C. Landscaping (street and slopes) and erosion control.
D. Sewer and domestic water systems.
E. All trails, as required by the Temecula Community Services District.
F. Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines.
The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with
adjoining developments, (Tentative Map No. 27473).
Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in accordance with
the requirements of Ordinance No. 91-43 and as approved by the Department of Public
Works.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Department of
Public Works a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation towards traffic signal
impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment of traffic signal
mitigation fee, he may enter into a written agreement with the City deferring said
payment to the time of issuance of a building permit.
Street names shall be subject to the approval of the Building and Safety Department.
The minimum centerline radii shall be 300 feet or as approved by the Department of
Public Works.
All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by
the Department of Public Works.
Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a minimum of 300
feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent.
Engineered improvement plans for the bridge crossings shall be included with the street
improvement plans and shall be required for review and approval by the Department of
Public Works.
All driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula standards and shall be
shown on the street improvement plans in accordance with City Standard 207 and 401
(curb sidewalk).
All driveways shall be located a minimum of two (2) feet from the side property line.
The subdivider shall submit two (2) prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the
Department of Public Works. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code,
Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The
plan shall be drawn on 24" x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer.
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.
The subdivider shall submit two (2) copies of a soils report to the Department of Public
Works. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site.
A formal drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public
Works. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Department of Public
Works.
66.
On-site drainage facilities, located outside of road right-of-way, shall be contained within
drainage easements shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map
stating "Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions."
67.
A drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners for the release
of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent property. A copy of the
recorded drainage easement shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the
recordation of the final map.
68.
If deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, a copy of the improvement
plans, grading plans and final map, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic
calculations shall be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control District for review.
69.
Slope protection shall be provided for all work performed within Pechanga Creek. All
facilities shall conform to City of Temecula and Riverside County Flood Control standards.
70.
Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage
entering the property from adjacent areas.
71.
The subdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration
of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be
provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing facilities
or by securing a drainage easement.
72.
A portion of the site is in an area identified on the Flood Hazard Maps as Flood Zone A
and is subject to flooding of undetermined depths. Prior to the approval of any plans, this
project shall comply with Ordinance 91 -12 of the City of Temecula and with the rules and
regulations of FEMA for development within a Flood Zone "A" which may include
obtaining a letter of map revision from FEMA.
73.
The developer shall record an Environmental Constraint Sheet delineating the area within
the 100-year floodplain and any other development constraints.
74.
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:
75.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, developer must comply with the requirements of a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water
Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until a NPDES clearance is
granted or the project is shown to be exempt.
76.
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.
77.
78.
79.
If blasting is to occur during the grading process, permits shall be obtained from the City
of Temecula Police Department. Notice shall be given to all residents and property
owners within 1000 feet of the project boundary at least 3 days prior to blasting. Blasting
shall only be conducted between the hours of 10:00 AM and 4:00 PM, Monday through
Friday except Federally recognized holidays. If an emergency situation related to safety
or weather conditions should occur, blasting may occur outside of these hours. Blasting
shall be performed in accordance with the following specifications, and in such a manner
that noise, ground and air vibration, and dust are maintained at levels which satisfy
Federal, State, County and City standards:
A. Blasting shall be conducted by a trained and licensed blaster.
The explosive used for blasting work will be standard commercial products
specifically designed for mine applications.
C. Blasting shall be performed using electric or non-electric blasting systems.
All blasts shall be detonated with a millisecond delay system to limit the quantity
of explosive detonated per delay period and to provide for sequential control of the
blast detonation.
The explosives shall include bulk ANFO suitably primed for blast hole conditions,
unless other more suitable materials are deemed appropriate by the blasting
consultant.
F. Water-resistant explosives shall be used where wet blast hole conditions exist.
Explosive supplies shall be used in accordance with the technical recommendations
of the manufacturer and the Institute of Makers of Explosives.
All blast holes shall be carefully stemmed with inert granular material, and
individual blast holes will be loaded with due recognition of instant rock fracture
and burden conditions.
Seismic monitoring of each blast shall be performed by an independent, qualified
consultant.
Prior to any work being performed within Pechanga Creek, a 404, 1603 and any other
necessary permits shall be obtained from the appropriate agencies, (Army Corp of
Engineers, Department of Fish and Game, San Diego Regional Water Quality Control
Board, etc.)
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.
17. 1992 36
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
PRIOR
86.
87.
88.
89.
No grading shall take place prior to the improvement plans being substantially complete,
appropriate clearance letters have been obtained, and approval of the grading plan has
been granted by the Department of Public works.
Erosion control and runoff mitigation plans shall be required. All plans shall be submitted
with appropriate notes as directed and approved by the Department of Public Works.
Erosion control and runoff mitigation shall be maintained at all times.
All lot drainage shall be to the street by side yard drainage swales independent of any
other lot.
If deemed necessary at the time of grading permit issuance, a flood mitigation charge
shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied
by the area of new development. The charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior
to issuance of permits. If not deemed necessary or if the full Area Drainage Plan fee or
mitigation charge has already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
A letter of permission shall be required from all adjacent property owners for any grading
work within their property.
If necessary, a permit from the County Flood Control District is required for any work
within their right-of-way.
TO BUILDING PERMIT:
A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review
and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location
and elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing
compaction and site conditions.
Prior to the issuance of any building permits, construction of the expansion, realignment
or replacement of the Pala Road Bridge over Temecula Creek shall have begun.
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 comprehensive rough grading plan.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed
upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as
required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be paid shall be
in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee, If an interim or final public
facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which
developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the developer
shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of which has been
provided to developer. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, developer shall post
security to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of the security shall
be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000. Developer understands that said
Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming
benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By execution of this Agreement,
developer will waive any right to protest the provisions of this Condition, of this
Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or
collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project; Dr0vided that
developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee,
and the amount thereof.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
90.
Complete 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.
91,
A 32 foot wide secondary access road from Street "H" or Street "J" to Via Eduardo shall
be completed within a recorded right-of-way for roadway purposes as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
92.
Full width bridge crossings at Via Gilberto and Via Eduardo shall be completed within the
dedicated right-of-way for roadway purposes to be acquired by the subdivider at his own
expense. A minimum of 32 feet of A.C. paving within 60 foot right-of-way shall be
completed to connect to the existing Via Eduardo cul-de-sac terminus to the northerly
boundary of Tentative Map 27473.
93.
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 may be required to be prepared by a registered
Civil Engineer,
94.
No occupancy shall be granted until the expansion, realignment or replacement of the Pala
Road Bridge over Temecula Creek has been completed.
TransPOrtatiOn Enoineerino
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
95.
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved
by the Department of Public Works as directed hy the Department of Public Works and
shall be included in the street improvement plans.
96.
Plans for a traffic signal shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by
the Department of Public Works for the intersection of Via Gilberto at Pala Road and shall
be included in the street improvement plans with the second plan check submittal.
97.
Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering for the
design requirements,
98. A Transportation Demand Management program will be required.
99. Subdivider shall execute an agreement for the reimbursement of construction cost above
his pro rata share of the improvements of the traffic signal at Via Gilberto and Pala Road
from future development as determined by the Department of Public Works.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
100. 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 Department of Public Works.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
101. All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and striping plan.
102. The traffic signal at Via Gilberto and Pala Road shall be installed and operational I~er the
special provisions and the approved traffic signal plan.
103. The subdivider shall provide "stop" controls at the intersection of local streets along Via
Gilberto as directed by the Department of Public Works.
104. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to
driveways to provide for minimum sight distance,
R~PLY TD
A~TENTION OF
Office of the Chief
Regulatory Branch
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS
PO BOX 2711
LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90053-2325
March 6, 1992
RECEIVED
! 1c)1992
MARKHAM · ASSOC~TES
't'EMECUI.,.A, CA 92390
Acacia Construction
c/o Markham and Associates
41750 WInchester Road, #N
Temecula, CA 92590
Gentleman:
It has come to our attention that you plan to construct a
residential development (Tentative Tract Map No. 25277) in the
southwesterly side of Pechanga Creek between Via Gilberto and the
easterly side of Temecula Creek Inn Golf Course, Temecula,
Riverside County, California. This activity may require a U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers permit. A Corps of Engineers permit is
required for:
1. Work or structures in or affecting the "navigable waters
of the United States", including adjacent wetlands; construction
of a pier, wharf, bulkhead or jetty, dredging, dredge disposal,
filling and excavation are examples of work or structures
affecting navigable waters;
2. The discharge of dredged or fill material into the
"waters of the United States", including adjacent wetlands;
placing bank protection, temporary or permanent stock-piling of
excavated material, grading roads, any grading (including
vegetative clearing operations) involving filling low areas or
leveling the land, and construction of weirs, diversions,
approach fills or other structures involving the placement of
fill material are examples of activities involving the discharge
of dredged or fill material;
3. The transportation of dredged or fill material for the
purpose of dumping it into ocean waters;
4. Any combination of the above.
-2-
Enclosed you will find a permit application form and a
pamphlet that describes our regulatory program. If you have any
questions, please contact Roberty Smith of my staff at (213) 894-
5606. Please refer to this letter in your reply.
Sincerely,
Jona'~an Freed~
~/Chief, South Coast Section
Enclosures
Water
March 4, 1992
City of Temecula
Temecula Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Development Review Committee Agenda
Thursday, March 5, 1992
Item No. 1
Tentative Tract Map 25277
Attention: Matthew Fagan, Case Planner
To Whom It May Concern:
Rancho California Water District (RCWD) would like to provide comments
relative to the above-referenced item scheduled for the March 5th Committee
meeting.
The property is not within RCWD's service boundaries. The proponent
remitted an annexation processing deposit on February 27, 1990. However,
the District placed the annexation on hold pending the completion of a special
environmental assessment.
Water service from RCVqD would not be available to the property until the
annexation process is completed. Recently, the processing time involved in
completing an annexation has been approximately two years.
you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Laurie Williams
Manager of Engineering Services
Cai iforr, ia De. Dartment, c,f Fish snci Game
330 u-c, lden S, bclle. $u~t,e 56
Lonc~ ~e~,zh, CA
RECEIVED
AP 22B
TEMECULA, CA 92390
1992
Mr. Larry Markham
z~ ?~r/W~r~c}-lest. er Road, Stlit,~ N
I
leme.:ula, CA 92590
STATE OF CALIFORNIA--THE RESOURCES AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
330 Golden Shore, Suite 50
Long Beach, California 90802
(213) 590-5113
July 9, 1991
Mr. Scott Wright
The city of Temecula
43180 Business Park Drive, Suite
Temecula, California 92390
200
Dear Mr. Wright:
Tentative Tract 25277 (SCH 91062057)
The California Environmental Quality Act and the California
Endangered Species Act require the lead agency to appropriately
condition the project and fully implement the statutory mitigation
and monitoring requirements to offset adverse impacts to the
following resources which may be impacted by this project.
Endanqered or threatened species of plant and animals. If the
project would result in take, on or off project site, of any
State-listed species or habitat essential to its continued
existence, the applicant must obtain authorization from the
DFG pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 2081.
Wetlands. Compliance with the DFG's Wetland Policy requires
that there should be no net loss of wetland acreage or wetland
habitat values, either on or off project site, due to project
development. A mitigation and monitoring plan subject to DFG
approval should be required for loss of sensitive habitats,
including, but not necessarily limited to, freshwater marsh,
riparian woodland, oak woodland, and riparian scrub
vegetation.
Watercourses. The DFG opposes the elimination of watercourses
and/or their conversion into subsurface drains. All
watercourses, whether intermittent or perennial must be
retained and provided with setback buffers appropriate to
preserve the riparian and aquatic habitat values. Earthen
channels should be interconnected with adjacent large open
space areas to increase their effectiveness as wildlife
corridors in urban surroundings. The DFG has direct
jurisdiction under Fish and Game Code sections 1601-03 in
regard to any proposed activities that would divert or
obstruct the natural flow or change the bed, channel, or bank
of any river, stream, or lake. We recommend early
consultation since modification of the proposed project may be
required to avoid impacts to fish and wildlife resources.
Scott Wright
July 9, 1991
Page Two
Formal notification (with fee) under Fish and Game Code
Section 1603 should be made after all other permits and
certifications have been obtained. Work cannot be initiated
until a streambed alteration agreement is executed.
The project sponsor is subject to the user fee provided by
Fish and Game Code Section 711.4, and the fee is payable to the
County Clerk at the time of or prior to filing the Notice of
Determination by the lead agency. If a Negative Declaration is
filed, the user fee is $1,250. If an Environmental Impact Report
is filed, the fee is $850. It is our assessment that this project
will result in cumulative loss of fish and wildlife resources and
is not exempt from the user fee.
In conclusion, if your analysis reveals that the
above-mentioned concerns have been fully addressed throughout
your decision-making process, we would not object to the project
approval. However, we request that you provide us a copy of the
final environmental document immediately upon approval and prior
to filing the Notice of Determination. If you have any questions,
please contact Kim McKee at the above address or by telephone at
(213) 590-5137.
Fred Worthley
Regional Manager
Region 5
cc: Office of Planning and Research
Environmental Services Division
TO: CITY OF TEMECULA
ATTEN: PLANNING DEF'ARTMENT
RE: TRACT 25277
AUGUST 4, 1992
With respect to the review of the above referenced project. The
site was previously designated Hazardous Fire Area by Riverside
County due to the limited access, steep slopes and natural vege-
tation. The hazardous designation expired when the city incorpo-
rated. However. the threat from wildland fires is still a concern
and should be taken into consigeratlon in the design of the of
the lots adjoining the open space and in the treatment and main-
tenance of the open space lots. The project is proposing dead end
cul-de-sacs that exceed ordinance lengths. the project should not
be ap0roved unless the developer can provide evidence that the
off-site right-of-way can be acquired and that acceptable alter-
nate or secondary public access can be constructed to a location
other then Via Gllberto Road.
]'he Fire Department recommends the following fire
measures be provided in accordance with Temecula City
and/or recoonized fire protection standards.
i. Schedole A fare protection adOroved stanOard fire hydrants.
C6"x4".~2 112") located one at each street intersection and spaced
no more than 330 feet apart in any direction, with no portion of
an,/ let frontage more than 165 ft. from a hydrant. Minimum fire
flow shall be 1000 GPM for 2 hours duration at 20 PSI.
2. Applicant/developer shall furnish one Copy of the water plans
to tr, e Fire Department for review. P'lans shall be signed be a
registered Civil engineer. containing a Fire Department approval
signature bloc~. and shall conform to hydrant type. location.
spaclno and minimum fire flow. Once plans are signed bY the local
water tompan',. the orlolnals shall be presented to the Fire
Department for sipnature.
Tract 25277 Cent. Aug. 4, 1992
3. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be
installed an~ accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to
any combustible building material being placed on an individual
lot.
4. Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant/developer
shall provide the City Engineer with evidence that acceptable
public secondary access can be constructed.
5. All buildings shall be constructed with class "B"roofing mate-
rial as described in Section 3204 of the Uniform Building Coge.
Any wood shingles or shakes shall be approved by Building and
Safety prior to installation.
6. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall
deoosit. with the City of Temecula, a cash sum of $400.00 per
lot/unit. as mitigation for fire protection impacts. Shoulg the
developer choose to defer the time of payment~ he/she may enter
· nto a written agreement with the County deferring said payment
to the time of issuance of the first building permit.
All Questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall
ferred to the Planning and Engineering Staff.
be re-
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
Michael E. Gr~'~,~~
Fire Canrain Specialist
TEMECULA VALLEY
Unified School District
August 12, 1992
Citv of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Attention: Salad Naaseh
Re: Acacia Construction Tract Map 25277
We would like to take This opportunity to state our position regarding the
payment of school fees for the above referenced tract map. The Ternecula
Valley Unified School District will collect the amount m effect at the time that
the building permit is applied for.
Thank you for your time and cooperation concerning this matter.
Very truly yours,
Temecula Vatley Unified School District
LetTie Bol;]gs
Coordinator, Facilities Planning
31350 Rancno vtsta Road Temecuia. CA 92592, (714) 676-2561
Saied Naaseh, Planning Department
TC.
Beryl Yasinosky _~___~
Senior Development Assistant
DATE July 7, 1992
=:::m:r,!~-= Tentative Tract No. 25277, Amended No. 4.
The Temecula Community Services Department staff (TCSD) has reviewed the conditions
as set forth in the City of Temecula Conditions of Approval and recommends
APPROVAL of Tentative Tract Map No. 25277, Amended No. 4, subject to the
developer or his assignee conforming to the TCSD Quimby Ordinance No. 460.93 as
follows:
1. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the applicant or his assignee, shall offer
for dedication lot numbers 97, 98, 99, 100, and 101, for park land and recreational
trails and execute a Letter of Agreement with the City of Temecula, Community
Services Department, to improve the proposed dedication areas in accordance with
existing City standards.
2. Exterior slopes (as defined as: Those slopes contiguous to public streets that
have a width of 66' or greater) and/or slopes contiguous with proposed recreational
trails, shall be offered for dedication to the City of Temecula for Maintenance
purposes following compliance to existing City standards and completion of the
application process. All other slopes and open space shall be maintained by the
individual homeowners or an established Homeowner's Association (HOA).
3. All proposed slopes, open space, park land, and recreational trails intended for
dedication to the City of Temecula shall be identified on the Final Map by numbered
lot. with the square footage of said lot number indexed as a proposed City
Maintenance area.
4. Access points for all proposed City Maintenance Areas shall be identified on the
Final Map.
All questions regarding the meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Temecula
Community Services Department.
Gary L. King, Development Services Administrator
Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner
January 28, 1991
Mr. Sam Martinez
County of Riverside
Department of Health
Post Office Box 1370
Riverside, California 92502
Subject: Tentative Tract Map 25277 - Supplemental SAN 53 Information
Dear Mr. Martinez:
This letter is in response to your request for Information descptbing Eastern
Municipal Water District's (EMWD) service responsibility to the subject projecl.
Please be informed that, according to our records, the subject project lies
outside the EMWD'S service area. in order tO be eligible for service by EMWD,
the subject property must annex to EMWD and Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California (MWD). For information retarding annexations, please contact
the District's Customer Service Department at 714) )66-1810.
AsSuming the subject project is annexed into EMWD and MWD, the following comments
regarding sanitary sewer and reclaimed water service may apply:
Sanitary Sewer
1. The anticipated daily wastewater flow from the subject project have been
estimated as follows:
Average Daily Flow (ADF}:
ADF = (105 DU) (3.5 PERSONS/DU) (lOO GPCD) = 0.0368 MGD
Peak Daily Flow (PDF):
PDF ' (2.5) (ADF) - 0.092 MGD
2. lhe project iS located within the service area of the District's Rancho
California Regional Water Reclamation Facility (RCRWRF), located In
lemecula,
The RCRWRF presently has a treatment capacity of 5.0 MGD and an average
daily flow of 3.5 MGD. The RCRWRF iS beinq expanded to 6.25 MGD.
Availability of treatment capacity is dependent on the construction timing
of the subject project.
~r. Sem Martinez -2-
January 28, 1991
The nearest available existing EMWD sanitary sewer ptpelinP to the sub}oct
project is a X2-inch diameter pipeline located along Rainbov~ Canyon Ro~d
at approximately Pechanga Creek.
The cunflguratlon Of an onsite gravity flow sewer system shall allow for
a connection in accordance with District standards to the exlStinq sewn,'
described in Item No. 4 above. It is considered the responsibility uf
the developer to propose a plan of service that takes into consideratio,~
the subject project grading plan, any tributary flow to the project site,
and any offsite facilities required to make the proper connection to th~
existing sewer system. It would seem that a logical offsite sewer alignment
would parallel the South side of Pechanga Creek for an approximate distance
b..w..n the s. ject roJ.ct and the . tsting ,a,nbo.
a
Construction of an approved plan of service will allow for the subject
project to be connected to the existing and master*planned sewer collection
system comprised of q combtnatl on of qravi ty flow and presSu_~i~.d so%it
pipeltnes~ and treatment and disposal facilities. ~he disposal of treated
wastewater will be accomplished by a combination of' State approved
beneficial use and percolatton practices.
Available sewer currently does not front the subject project. The developer
is expected to propOSe onstte and offsite sewer plans that must be reviewed
by and receive the proper EMWD Planning Department approvals.
It must be understood that the available capacity of the Dlstrict's se'~er system
changes continuously due to development within the District. As such, service
will be provided based on the timing of the Subject pro~ect, the service
agreement with the District, and the status of the Dtstrict's permit to operate.
Should you have any questions regarding these COmmentS, please contact Ruth
Newsham or me at (714) 766-1850.
Very truly yours,
Director of Planning
~qF/HAS:RN:lp
Cc: Joe Rlchards, Riverside County Planning Department
John Fricker, EMWD
90-3418
WO#: 91-325
7/P
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
EXHIBITS
CITY OF TEMECULA
/
!
,:SITE
//
~)
?
/
-./ \ ,/:' /,
CASE NO.: Change of Zone No. 5724 & Tentative Tract Map No. 25277, Amendment No. 4
EXHIBIT: A VICINITY MAP
P.C. DATE: September 21, 1992
S\STAFFRPT\5724CZPC
CITY OF TEMECULA
)IC
/ INDIAN
IIIIBVATIOI
L SITE /
SWAP - EXHIBIT B
Designation: 2--5 Dwdling Units Per Acre Residential
,~SITE
:7
ZONING - EXHIBIT C Designation: R-R
C3se No.: Change of Zone No. 5724 & Tentative Tract Map No. 25277, Amendment No. 4
P.C. Date: Seplember 21, 1992
S\STAFFRPT/5724CZ PC
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: Change of Zone No. 5724 & Tentative Tract Map No. 25277, Amendment No. 4
EXHIBIT: D TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 25277, AMENDMF, NT NO. 4
P.C. DATE: September 21, 1992
S'STAFFRPTI,5724CZ PC
CITY OF TEMECULA
r-T'] <"~'T'
CASE NO.: Change of Zone No. 5724 & Tentative Tract Map No. 25277, Amendment No. 4
EXHIBIT: E TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 27473
P.C. DATE: September 21. 1992
S/STAFFRPT\5724CZ PC
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: Change of Zone No. 5724 & Tentative Tract Map No. 25277, Amendment No. 4
EXHIBIT: F LOTS FRONTING ON VIA GILBERTO
P.C. DATE: September 21, 1992
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: Change of Zone No. 5724 & Tentative Tract Map No. 25277, Amendment No. 4
EXHIBIT: G ZONE CHANGE NO. 5724 ~[
P.C. DATE: September 21, 1992
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
INITIAL STUDY
Rev,sed Septerreer 17, q 992 4 1
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
BACKGROUND
1. Name of Project:
Acacia
2. Case Numbers:
Change of Zone No. 5724 and Tentative Tract Map
No. 25277, Amendment No.4.
Location of Project:
Southwesterly side of Pechanga Creek between Via
Gilberto and easterly side of Temecula Creek Inn Golf
Course
Description of Project:
A request for approval of a zone change from Rural
Residential (R-R) to Single Family Residential (R-l) and
a subdivision to include 96 single family lots and 5
open space lots proposed on 47.7 acres.
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
August17,1992
6. Name of Proponent:
Acacia Construction
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
8180 E. Kaiser Blvd., Suite 200
Anaheim Hills, CA 92808-2213
(714) 282-5800
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations to all the answers are provided in Section III)
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
Y~ Maybe No
Unstable earth conditions or in changes geologic
substructures?
X
X
Disruptions, displacements, compaction, or
overcovering of the soil?
Change in topography or ground surface relief
features?
The destruction, covering or modification of any
unique geologic or physical features?
Rev,sed September 17, 1992 42
Y~ M~vbe No
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,
either on or off the site?
f. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion? __X
g. The modification of any wash, channel, creek,
river, or lake? X
h. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards
such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground
failure, liquefaction, or similar hazards? _
i. Any development within an Alquist-Priolo Special
Studies Zone? _
Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X
b. The creation of objectionable odors? _
c. Alteration of air movement, temperature, or
moisture or any change in climate, whether
locally or regionally? __
Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements, in either marine or fresh waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface runoff? X
c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?
X
X
X
X
X
X
Change in the amount of surface water in any
waterbody?
Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration
of surface water quality, including but not limited
to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of
ground waters?
X
Rew$1d 5eptecnbet 17. 1992 4 3
YeS Maybe No
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions, withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
h. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise
available for public water supplies?
i. Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding?
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species,or number of
any native species of plants (including trees,
shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
X
X
6. Noise.
a.
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare,
threatened, or endangered species of plants?
c. Introduction of new species of plants into an
area of native vegetation, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing species?
d. Reduction in the acreage of any agricultural crop?
Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of
any species of animals (animals includes all land
animals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, shellfish,
benthic organisms, and/or insects)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare,
threatened, or endangered species of animals?
c. The introduction of new wildlife species into
an area?
A barrier to the migration or movement of animals?
Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat?
Will the proposal result in:
Increases in existing noise levels?
44
X
X
X
X
X
X
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
c. Exposure of people to severe vibrations?
Light and Glare, Will the proposal produce or result in
new light or glare?
Land Use. Will the proposal result in:
a. Alteration of the present land use of an area?
Alteration to the future planned land use of an
area as described in a community or general plan?
Natural Resources, Will the proposal result in:
An increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources?
YeS Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
b. The depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? __ __ X
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal result in:
A risk of an explosion or the release of any
hazardous substances in the event of an accident
or upset conditions (hazardous substances includes,
but is not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)?
The use, storage, transport or disposal of any toxic
or hazardous materials (including, but not limited
to oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)?
lq.
12.
Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or an emergency evacuation plan?
C ,
Population. Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate of the human
population of an area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or
create a demand for additional housing?
X
X
X
X
X
Yq~ Maybe No
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular
movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand
for new parking?
c. Subs:~antial impact upon existing transportation
systems, including public transportation?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation
or movement of people and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards To motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians?
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have substantial effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
f. Other governmental services: Libraries
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing
sources of energy, or require the development
of new sources of energy?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ye~ Maybe
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems,
or substantial alterations to any of the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? __X _
b. Communications systems? X _
c. Water systems? __X _
d. Sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks? X _
e. Storm water drainage systems? __X _
f. Solid waste disposal systems? X _
g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed or inefficient
pattern of utility delivery system improvements for
any of the above? _ _
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? __ __
b. The exposure of people to potential health
hazards, including the exposure of sensitive
receptors (such as schools and hospitals) to
toxic pollutant emissions? _ _
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open
to the public? __ __
b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site
open to public view? _ _
c. Detrimental visual impacts on the surrounding area? _ _
19. Recreation, Will the proposal result in an impact upon
the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources
or opportunities? __ _
X
X
Ye~ Maybe N._.Qo
20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
The alteration or destruction of any paleontologic,
prehistoric, archaeological or historic site?
Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building, structure,
or object?
Any potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
Restrictions to existing religious or sacred uses
within the potential impact area?
X
III DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Earth
1 .a. Yes.
Note: A geotechnical report for the project site was prepared by Soil Tech, Inc. on
June 21, 1989; an amendment was prepared on April 13, 1992.
The proposed project will cause changes in the geological substructures which
include alluvium to a depth of up to 31.5 feet, colluvium to a depth of up to 2 feet,
sandstone and bedrock. These changes will be primarily caused by ripping and
probably by blasting. Moderate to difficult ripping might be required in the
sandstone and bedrock formations. Blasting might be required in the granitic unit
and cuts deeper than 25 feet. The sandstone and bedrock formations cover over
50 percent of the site and are located to the southeast of the 1060 contour line.
Lots 58, 63, and 64 are located on bedrock as identified in the Soils Report. It is
difficult to predict the requirement of blasting at this stage; usually in the grading
stage anything that is impossible to rip is blasted. Therefore, if in the grading stage
blasting is required proper mitigation measures will be required acceptable to the
Public Works Department, Planning Department, Police Department and Fire
Department.
Furthermore, the project will not cause unstable earth conditions. A slope stability
report has been prepared. With the incorporation of the mitigation measures
introduced in this report the significant impacts are reduced to a level of
insignificance.
1 .b.c,
Yes. The project will cause disruptions, displacements, compaction and
overcovering of the soil and result in changes to the natural topography. The
project design includes 200,650 cubic yards of excavation, 180,770 cubic yards
1.d.
1,e.
1,f.
1.g.
1.h.
1.i.
of embankment, 18,080 cubic yards of shrinkage and 1,800 cubic yards of excess.
The difference between the highest and lowest points of the natural topography is
140 feet. Furthermore, the difference between the highest and lowest finished pad
elevations is 94 feet. Since this grading will not cause any other environmental
damage, i.e. disturbance of the oak trees, and mitigation measures such compaction
of the soil, slope stability and erosion control have been incorporated into the
conditions of approval, no significant impacts are anticipated.
No. A site inspection by Staff revealed no unique geologic or physical features on
the site. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated.
Yes. The project will increase wind and water erosion of the soil on a short term
basis; however, standard mitigation measures such as spraying the graded areas
and sand bagging during the grading operations will reduce the impacts to an
insignificant level. The long term impacts will not be significant since slope planting
will protect the slopes against erosion.
Yes. The project will cause a change in siltation, deposition and erosion since the
site will be covered with concrete, asphalt and landscaping. However, this impact
is not considered significant since drainage facilities will direct the storm water into
Pechanga Creek and ultimately to Santa Margarita River.
Yes. The project will cause modification of the Pechanga Creek by filling the creek
bed to allow the construction of single family dwellings. No significant impacts are
anticipated since the creek will still be able to carry the 100 year flood.
Maybe. The project lies within an active area of faulting and seismicity within the
Southern California region. This seismicity has included numerous earthquakes
ranging in Richter magnitude from 4.0 to 5.0 within 30 miles of the site and have
been recorded during the period of 1932 through 1972 according to the preliminary
Geotechnical Investigation which included mitigation measures for soils compaction,
foundation, and structural design to mitigate the impacts to a level of insignificance.
These mitigation measures shall be monitored by the Building and Safety and Public
Works Departments. Moreover, a portion of the project site is within liquefaction
hazard areas. Mitigation measures in the Geotechnical Investigation shall be
implemented by the Public Works Department to mitigate the impacts to an
insignificant level.
No. The project site is not within an Alquist Priolo special studies zone. Therefore,
no significant impacts are anticipated.
2.8.
2.b.
2.c.
3.a.c.d.
3.b.
3,e.
3.f.
Yea. The development of this project will cause air emissions and deterioration of
ambient air quality. Short term impacts affecting the surrounding air quality would
result from emissions generated by construction vehicles and dust generated during
grading operations. These impacts are not considered significant because of their
short term nature. According to the South Coast Air Quality Management District
handbook the long term impacts of this project do not meet the threshold levels of
significant air quality impacts. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated.
No. The development of this project wilt not cause objectionable odors since these
odors ere not caused by residential projects. No significant impacts are anticipated.
No. The development of this project will not cause alteration of air
movement,temperature or moisture or any change in climate,whether locally or
regionally since these impacts are not associated with this type of project. No
significant impacts are anticipated.
Maybe. The proposed project is going to allow filling the flood plain to permit the
construction of dwelling units above the flood plain which may cause alteration of
the course or flow of flood waters.
Proper permits and agreements shall be secured with the affected Federal, State,
and local agencies including the Army Corps of Engineers, FEMA, Fish and Wildlife,
Fish and Game, Flood Control and Public Works Department prior to issuance of
grading permits to reduce the impacts to an insignificant level. The applicant has
consulted the Fish and Game and Army Corps of Engineers and has received
preliminary clearances from these agencies. However, further permitting will be
required from these agencies. No significant impacts are anticipated.
Yes. The development of this project will cause changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff; since it will introduce
impervious surfaces that will direct the storm water to Pechanga Creek. This
impact is not anticipated to be significant since the creek will be able to carry the
storm water. No. significant impacts are anticipated.
No. The development of this project will not cause a discharge into surface waters,
nor alter the surface water quality. Storm water runoff and possibly irrigation runoff
from the proposed project would ultimately flow into the Santa Margarita River.
Runoff pollutants will be typical of those of urbanized areas, including motor oil,
pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers. This impact will be mitigated by the clearance
issued by the State Water Resources Control Board. This clearance will insure
compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), No
significant impacts are anticipated.
No. The runoff from the project is conveyed to Pechanga Creek and ultimately to
Santa Margarita River which recharge the ground water in the Murrieta-Temecula
basin. The runoff from this project is not anticipated to change the direction or rate
of flow of ground waters. No significant impacts are anticipated,
3.g,
3.h,
3,i,
4.a,b.
4.c.
4.d.
5.b.
5.d.
No. The development of this I~roject will not change the quality of ground
waters,either through direct additions, withdrawals, or through interception of an
acluifer by cuts or exaltations. The project site is not within the service area of
Rancho Water District which will provide water serwces to the project. The
applicant will annex to the district. If the annexation is complete, direct withdrawal
of ground water will be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
No. If the project is annexed to Rancho Water District, there will be no substantial
reduction in the availability of water. No significant impacts are anticipated.
Maybe. A portion of the project site is within the flood plain. However, the pad
elevations have been raised above the flood plain. The project has been conditioned
to meet FEMA requirements and the Public Works Department prior to issuance of
grading permits. No significant impacts are anticipated.
Yes. The 48 acre site contains: (1) Non-native Grassland and Phase of the Valley
and Foothill Grassland Natural Community, (2) the Southern Mixed Chaparral Phase
of the Riparian Woodlands Natural Community. The Non-native Grassland and the
Southern Mixed Chaparral will be mostly eliminated due to development. However,
from the 297 Southern Oak Riparian Woodland 3 will be removed, 24 will be
transplanted and the rest will be preserved. The project has been redesigned
several times to preserve these trees. Proper mitigation measures have been
included to preserve, replace, and monitor the oak tree community within the
project site to reduce impacts to a level of insignificance.
Yes. The ultimate development of the project will produce new non-native species
of plants within the individual lots. However, the open space areas within the
project which contain the oak trees will not be introduced to non-native plants. The
slopes within these areas will be planted with native species and temporarily
irrigated subject to approval of an Abrorist. No significant impacts are anticipated.
No. The project site is not currently being used for agricultural purposes; therefore,
no significant impacts are anticipated.
Maybe. The ultimate development of the project may eliminate some of the native
animals on the site; however, some may survive in an urban environment. The only
additions to the animal life are expected to be household pets. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The Biological Reports did not identify any Stephen's Kangaroo Rats,
Gnatcatchers or any other endangered species present at the site. A petition was
filed with Fish and Wildlife to list the Mountain Lion on the Endangered Species list
on February 1992; however, the petition has not been approved. No significant
impacts are anticipated.
Maybe. The Pechanga Creek has been used as a corridor for two Mountain Lion
Communities located in the Palomar and the Santa Ana Ranges. The creek has
6.a.
6.b.c.
8.a.
8.b.
9.a.b.
been left as open space to provide for a continued movement of wildlife which is
between 200 and 300 feet in width. The project has been redesigned several times
to provide open space corridors to the property to the south which is a mountainous
area. The Pechanga Creek Corridor will be left as open space and additional open
space will be provided to link the creek to the open space area to the south. This
combination should be sufficient to preserve the wildlife corridor. Because of these
mitigation measures no significant impacts are anticipated.
Yes. The development of this project will cause an increase to existing noise levels.
The short term impacts are associated with the grading and construction of the
project and the long term impacts will mostly result from the traffic generated by
this project. Due to the size and location of this project these impacts are not
considered significant.
Maybe. If it is determined during the grading operation that blasting will be
required, the grading stage of this project will expose people to severe noise levels
and vibrations. Necessary mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce the
impacts. If no blasting is required, no significant impacts are anticipated.
Yes. The project will result in an increase in the light and glare of the area.
However, the project has been conditioned to comply with Mr. Palomar Observatory
lighting requirements to reduce the impacts. Furthermore, the Pechanga Creek is
being used by wild life. This corridor will not be impacted since the lots will back-
up to the creek. Substantial light and glare is not anticipated in the back yards and
the street lights will be further away from the creek. Therefore, no significant
impacts are anticipated.
Yes. The existing zoning on the property is Rural Residential which will allow
approximately 72 parcels on this site assuming the Pechanga Creek remains as open
space. The proposed project which includes a change of zone to R-1 will create 96
residential lots. Therefore, this zone change will increase the density of the project
by 33 percent. No significant impacts are anticipated from this increase.
No. The Draft Preferred Land Use Plan designates the site as low density
residential which allows a maximum density of 2 dwelling units per acre. The gross
site area is 47.7 acres which makes it consistent with the General Plan. Therefore,
no significant impacts are anticipated.
No. The implementation of the proposeo project would increase the rate of
consumption of both renewable and non-renewable natural resources during
construction and project operation. The oak trees present at the site will be
preserved or transplanted. A monitoring program will insure their well being or they
will be replaced with new trees, The Pechanga Creek is a natural resource being
used as a wildlife corridor; therefore it is being preserved. The natural resources
consumed during construction would be aggregate materials, timber, and energy
resources for on-site construction equipment and for transport vehicles which would
bring supplies to the site. At build out, energy resources required during project
lO.a.b.
10.c.
11.
12.
13.a.c.
13.b.
13.d.
13.e.
operation would include gasoline, natural gas for heating and cooling, electricity for
lighting and appliances. As all of these resources are readily available commercially,
the proposed project would not have a significant impact on natural resources.
No. The project will not cause a risk in explosions in the event of an accident nor
will it cause the use, storage, transport nor disposal of any toxic or hazardous
materials since the residential nature of the project does not necessitate the
presence of explosives, and toxic or hazardous materials. No significant impacts
are anticipated.
No. The proposed project will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an
emergency evacuation plan since a secondary access to the site will be provided
through the proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 27473. This access is acceptable
to the Fire Department and will only be used in the event of an emergency.
Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated.
No. The ultimate development of the site will create 96 single-family dwelling units
which will generate approximately 272 new residents. This increase could be in the
form of out of town residents moving into the city, the relocation of Temecula
residents in the area or a combination of the two. This impact is not expected to
be significant.
Yes. This proposal will add to the existing housing stock. It will result in
construction of houses on vacant land which is used as an open space area by the
neighborhood residents. However, this impact is not anticipated to be significant
since the project site is zoned for residential. Moreover, trials and picnic areas have
been incorporated into the project design to be used by the neighborhood residents.
Maybe. The proposed project will generate approximately 960 trips per day which
will be traveling through Via Gilberto and continue on to Pala Road. This impact is
not anticipated to be significant since the trips will not affect the service level of Via
Gilberto. However, it will increase the traffic on Via Gilberto to a point where a
traffic signal will be warranted on Pale Road and Via Gilberto to mitigate the
impacts of this project. With the incorporation of this mitigation measure impacts
are reduced to a level of insignificance.
No. The proposed project will not create additional demand on existing parking
facilities since the proper number of parking spaces will be provided as garages.
Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated.
No. The proposed project will not adversely affect the present pattern of circulation
or movement of people since it is being served by existing road systems. No
significant impacts are anticipated.
No. This project will not cause alterations to waterborne, rail, or air traffic due to
the nature of the project, its geographic location, and local transportation system.
Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated.
13.f.
14.a.
14.b.
14.c.
14.d,
14.e,
14.f.
15.a.b.
Maybe. Project-related traffic could create new traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists and pedestrians, both on and off the project site. Points of conflict would
be created as a result of additional traffic on Via Gilberto and an increased number
of left hand turns from Via Gilberto to Pala Road. Internal circulation within the
subdivision could also result in potential hazards to pedestrians. Since Via Gilberto
is now a barricaded street, traffic is now limited to residents and visitors to the
tracts on either side of Via Gilberto. A traffic light will be installed at Pala Road and
Via Gilberto to reduce these impacts to a level of insignificance. Therefore, no
significant impacts are anticipated.
Yea. The proposed project will have an impact on fire protection. Mitigation fee
of $400.00 per dwelling unit will be collected to mitigate the impacts of this
development on Fire Services. The Fire Department has reviewed the project and
has placed Conditions of Approval on the project to reduce the impacts of the
project to an insignificant level.
Yes. The proposed project will have an impact on police service. The City of
Temecula is contracting through the Riverside County Sheriff's Department for law
enforcement services. This contract provides for thirty-one sworn officers and
seven non-sworn officers. Additional services are provided to the city through
various divisions within the Sheriff's Department. The average response time for
priority one calls is 6.5 minutes which according to the Sheriff's Department is well
within industry standards for adequate service levels. The City intends to maintain
a ratio of 1 officer per 1,000 residents. NO significant impacts are anticipated.
Yes. The proposed project will have an impact on the schools; however, this
impact will be mitigated by the payment of school fees. No significant impacts are
anticipated.
No. The project will have an impact on the existing recreational facilities. However,
this impact is not significant since it proposes public open space area with trails and
benches for the residents and Quimby fees will be collected to increase the number
of parks in the City or develop the City owned parcels as parks.
Yes. The project will cause increased traffic on existing city streets and will
introduce new streets, both of which will increase the maintenance cost to the City.
However, these impacts are not considered to be significant since the new homes
and the new residents will generate additional revenue to the City to maintain
streets.
Maybe. The future projects residents will be using governmental services such as
libraries, however, a $100.00 per dwelling mitigation fee imposed for this project
will mitigate the impact. No significant impacts are anticipated.
No. The implementation of the proposed project would increase the rate of
consumption of fuel and other energy resources. During construction, construction
equipment would be consuming energy resources. At buildout, energy resources
16.a.b.
16.c.d.
16.e.
16,f.
16.g.
17.a.b.
would be required during project operation, such as gasoline, natural gas, and
electricity. However, the proposed project would not result in the use of substantial
amounts of fuels or energy which are commercially abundant. No significant
impacts are anticipated.
Yes. These services will need to be extended to the project site upon the
completion of an agreement between the applicant and the individual utility
companies; however, the impact is not anticipated to be significant.
Yes. The sewer and water lines will need to be extended to the project site. The
proposed project is outside the service boundaries of both the Rancho Water District
and the Eastern Municipal Water District which provide the water and sewer
services respectively. Annexations to their boundaries will be necessary to provide
service to this project. The sewer lines from the project will have to be extended
to Rainbow Canyon Road where the existing sewer line is located. This connection
line will be approximately 3,000 feet. No significant impacts are anticipated.
Yes. The proposed project will cause a need for new storm water drainage
systems. The storm water drainage system will be built on site and will direct the
storm water to the Pechanga Creek and subsequently to the Santa Margarita River.
No significant impacts are anticipated.
Yes. The project will cause an increased demand for solid waste collection and
disposal. The solid waste pick-up and disposal will be handled by the company
under contract with the City and new residents will be assessed. No significant
impacts are anticipated.
No. All the services are within close proximity to the project site and could be
available to the site upon arrangements with the individual utility companies. No
significant impacts are anticipated.
No. The nature of the proposed uses permitted on the project site is not such that
they would create potential health hazards. No significant impacts are anticipated.
18.a.b.c.
No. The proposed project will not result in the obstruction of any scenic vista, view
open to the public, or detrimental visual impacts on the surrounding area. The
residents abutting the north side of the creek have a view of the project site through
their wrought iron fencing. However, this project will not block that view. No
significant impacts are anticipated.
19.
No, The proposed project will not result in impacts upon the quality or quantity of
existing recreational resources or opportunities. The project will provide open space
area to be used by the project residents and others in the neighborhood. These
open space areas might include trails, benches and a tot lot. Furthermore, Quimby
fees will be collected to further provide parks and open space and recreation
20.a.c.d.
20.b.
opportunities to the surrounding residents. Therefore, no significant impacts are
anticipated.
No. An Archaeological Assessment was prepared by Jean Keller which
recommended no further research for resources is necessary within the boundary
of the project. Furthermore, the San Bernardino County Museum had no
recommendations regarding this project. No significant impacts are anticipated.
Maybe. A historic site, CA-RIV-330-H, is located just outside the project boundary
to the south of the southwest property line. This adobe wall shall be protected
from grading and possible blasting even though it is outside the project boundary.
Fencing shall be erected around the adobe walls to protect the structural integrity
of the wall from equipment and grading. If blasting is required within the vicinity
of the wall, acceptable mitigation measures shall be incorporated to protect the
structures. The fencing shall be shown on the grading plans. This fencing shall be
at least four feet high and thirty feet in diameter surrounding the wall. With the
incorporation of these mitigation measures the impacts are reduced to a level of
insignificance.
IV
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Does the project have the potential to either: degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of · fish, wildlife or bird species, cause a fish,
wildlife or bird population to drop below self sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant, bird or animal
species, or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
Yes Maybe No
X
Does the project have the potential to achieve short
term, to the disadvantage of long term, environmental
goals? (A short term impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of
time while long term impacts will endure well into the
future.)
Does the project have impacts which are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project's
impact on two or more separate resources may be
relatively small, but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment is significant.)
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
V
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME "DE MINIMUS" FINDINGS
Does the project have the potential to cause any adverse effect,
either individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife resources?
Wildlife is defined as "all wild animals, birds, plants, fish,
amphibians, and related ecological communities, including the
habitat upon which the wildlife depends on for it's continued
viability" (Section 711.2, Fish and Game Code).
No
X
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect
on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case
because the Mitigation Measures described on the attached sheets and
in the Conditions of Approval that have been added to the project will
mitigate any potentially significant impacts to a level of insignificance,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL iMPACT REPORT is required.
Prepared by:
Signature
Saied Naaseh, Associate Planner
Name and Title
August 17, 1992
Date
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
TABLE I
LOT BY LOT GRADING ANALYSIS FOR TRACT 25277
Pad
Lotshigh Lots low elevation
Lot # point-feet point-feet feet
1 1060 1052 1072
2 1060 1052 1072
3 1060 1052 1072
4 1076 1060 1065
5 1076 1064 1065
6 1072 1060 1063
7 1060 1056 1061
8 1060 1056 1060
9 1060 1056 1059
10 1056 1052 1058
11 1052 1048 1056
12 1052 1044 1055
13 1048 1044 1053
14 1048 1044 1051
15 1048 1044 1049
16 1048 1044 1048
17 1048 1044 1048
18 1048 1048 1048
19 1048 1040 1049
20 1046 1040 1049
21 1046 1040 1049
22 1044 1044 1049
23 1046 1046 1050
24 1044 1044 1050
25 1044 1044 1050
The amount of The amount of
Elevation Cut (C)/Fill (F) Cut (C)/Fill (F)
difference required for the required for the
between the high high point to low point to
& low points of become the pad become the pad
the lot-feet elevation elevation
8 12 F 20 F
8 12 F 20 F
8 12 F 20 F
16 11 C 5 F
12 11C 1F
12 9C 3F
4 1F 5F
4 0 4F
4 1C 3F
4 2F 6F
4 4F 8F
8 3F llF
4 5F 9F
4 3F 7F
4 1F 5F
4 0 4F
4 0 4F
0 0 0
8 1F 9F
6 3F 9F
6 3F 9F
0 5F 5F
0 4F 4F
0 6F 6F
0 6F 6F
Pad
Lots high Lots low elevation
Lot # point-feet point-feet feet
26 1048 1046 1052
27 1048 1048 1052
28 1049 1049 1053
29 1050 1050 1054
30 1052 1052 1056
31 1052 1052 1058
32 1056 1056 1060
33 1060 1060 1064
34 1064 1060 1068
35 1076 1064 1073
36 1096 1076 1088
37 1096 1084 1084
38 1084 1076 1080
39 1076 1068 1076
40 1072 1060 1072
41 1060 1056 1064
42 1056 1056 1057
43 1056 1056 1056
44 1052 1052 1055
45 1050 1050 1054
46 1049 1048 1052
47 1049 1048 1054
48 1050 1050 1056
49 1052 1052 1062
50 1056 1056 1066
51 1056 1056 1073
52 1060 1056 1073
The amount of The amount of
Elevation Cut (C)/Fill (F) Cut (C)/Fill (F)
difference required for the required for the
between the high high point to low point to
& low points of become the pad become the pad
the lot-feet elevation elevation
2 6F 4F
0 4F 4F
0 4F 4F
0 4F 4F
0 4F 4F
0 6F 6F
0 4F 4F
0 4F 4F
4 4F 8F
12 3C 9F
20 8 C 12 F
12 12 C 0
8 4C 4F
8 0 8F
12 0 12 F
4 4F 8F
0 1F 1F
0 0 0
0 3F 3F
0 4F 4F
1 3F 4F
1 5F 6F
0 6F 6F
0 10 F 10 F
0 10 F 10 F
0 17 F 17 F
4 13 F 17 F
Pad
LoB high Lots low elevation
Lot # point-feet point-fe~ feet
53 1060 1056 1074
54 1060 1056 1074
55 1060 1060 1076
56 1072 1064 1076
57 1084 1068 1078
58 1088 1064 1075
59 1096 1068 1080
60 1104 1084 1086
61 1112 1088 1090
62 1132 1092 1098
63 1132 1096 1106
64 1136 1104 1120
65 1144 1116 1123
66 1148 1136 1130
67 1152 1120 1134
68 1152 1128 1142
69 1152 1132 1127
70 1148 1128 1119
71 1144 1122 1115
72 1136 1096 1110
73 1132 1108 1108
74 1132 1100 1110
75 1144 1108 1112
76 1144 1140 1128
77 1144 1128 1130
78 1136 1128 1132
~9 1132 1104 1098
Theamount of The amount of
Elevation Cut (C)/Fill(F) Cut (C)/Fili(F)
difference required for the required for the
between the high high point to low point to
& low points of become the pad become the pad
the tot-feet elevation elevation
4 14 F 18 F
4 14 F 18 F
0 16 F 16 F
8 4 F 12 F
16 6 C 10 F
24 13 C 11F
28 16 C 12 F
20 18 C 2 F
24 22 C 2 F
40 34 C 6 F
36 26 C 10 F
32 16 C 16 F
28 21C 7 F
12 18 C 6 C
32 18 C 14 F
24 10 C 14 F
20 25 C 5 C
20 29 C 9 C
22 29 C 7 C
40 26 C 14 F
24 24 C 0
32 22 C 10 F
36 32 C 4 F
4 16 C 12 C
16 14 C 2 F
8 4 C 4 F
28 34 C 6 C
Pad
Lomhigh Lots low elev~ion
Lot # point-feet point-feet feet
80 1120 I100 1090
81 1108 1092 1084
82 1104 1072 1080
83 1088 1060 1074
84 1064 1056 1067
85 1052 1048 1050
86 1052 1048 1054
87 1064 1056 1056
88 1072 1056 1058
89 1072 1060 1061
90 1072 1064 1063
91 1084 1068 1064
92 1084 1068 1066
93 1076 1074 1068
94 1080 1076 1070
95 1080 1076 1070
96 1076 1068 1072
97 Open Space
98 Open Space
99 Open Space
100 Open Space
10t Open Space
The amount of The amount of
Elevation Cut (C)/Fill (F) Cut (C)/Fill (F)
difference required for the required for the
between the high high point to low point to
& low points of become the pad become the pad
the lot-feet elevation elevation
20 30 C 10 C
16 24 C 8 C
32 24 C 8 F
28 14 C 14 F
8 3F llF
4 2C 2F
4 2F ' 6F
8 8C 0
16 14 C 2 F
12 llC 1F
8 9C IC
16 20 C 4 C
16 18 C 2 C
2 8C 6C
4 10C 6C
4 10C 6C
8 4C 4F
SISTAFFRPT\25277.FRM
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
CORRESPONDENCE
BOAI~D OF DIP~ECTOR5
HOn William Newsore
E\ECLITt\E D~P, ECTOR
MG k j ,Palmer
HO',,OR,~R,~ BO.\RD
A NOn Profit
Tax Deauct~ble
,rganizat~on
RECE!VEn, J tl L 2 A iS2
MOUNTAIN LION FOUNDATION
RO. Box 1896 · 5ACP, AMENTO. CA 95812 916-442-2666
July 20, 1992
Mr. Saied Naaseh, Associate Planner
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Dr.
'Temecula, CA 92590
FOR THE HEARIMG RECORD, AUGUST 3, 1992
ACACIA HOMES DEVELOPMENT
City of Temecula, Planning Commission
Dear Mr. Naaseh:
The Mountain Lion Foundation is very
concerned about the loss of habitat and movement
corridors ("habitat linkages") for mountain lions
and other wildlife throughout California.
The Mountain Lion Foundation has been active
in taking steps to preserve such habitat areas.
Enclosed is a copy of our report Preservinq Couqar
Country for land-use managers. A copy of our
petition to list the Santa Ana Mountains
population of mountain lions as endangered under
the provisions of the federal Endangered Species
Act is also included (See Figure 6 for a
description of the Pechanga Creek wildlife
corridor and mountain lion data from Dr. Paul
Beier). I have also enclosed a copy of our letter
Eo Mr. John Meyer of the City of Temecula
expressing our interest in working with the City
of Temecula as the General Plan is prepared.
Relative to the proposal before the City of
Temecula Planning Commission for the Acacia Homes
Development, I would like to provide the following
comments for the hearing record:
As noted in the enclosed Petition prepared
· for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the
status of the mountain lion in the Santa Ana
Mountains of southern California, this population
is virtually isolated from surrounding lion
populations. If completely isolated, over time we
anticipate that the population would go extinct
due to inbreeding problems and a general decline
in the population.
Recvclea paDer
The.only viable wildlife corridor that could
be used (or is now being used) is through Pechanga
Creek, linking the Santa Ana Mountains with the
Palomar Range. Other potential corridors pose
serious barriers to the movement of mountain
lions, according to Dr. Paul Beier, who is
conducting the Orange County Mountain Lion Survey
on behalf of the University of California and the ·
Department of Fish and Game.
Not only is the Pechanga Creek wildlife
corridor important for mountain lions; other
wildlife and plant species benefit from
uninterrupted corridors that link populations,
preventing inbreeding and other disasters that may
cause species extinction in the long run.
From a planning standpoint, it is important
to preserve the corridor now, in order to maintain
the movements of mountain lions and other species,
as well as to prevent development projects from
running into conflicts with wildlife. For
example, if the Pechanga Creek corridor is
foreclosed to mountain"lion movements by the
Acacia Homes Development, the U,S. Fish and
Wildlife Service may conclude that the Santa Ana
Mountains population of mountain lions should be
listed as an endangered species as there are no
viable alternatives for protecting the population.
Listing would impede other development projects in
the region that would have to comply with the
strict provisions of the federal Endangered
Species Act. Another potential problem is human
and pet conflicts with mountain lions -- if
planned correctly, the Acacia Homes Development
can encourage mountain lion movements while
discouraging interactions between pets and humans.
Planning for the wildlife corridor is important
from the outset.
Indeed, since the Temecula area has been
experiencing growth, some habitat for the mountain
lion has been degraded along the Pechanga Creek
watershed. Dr. Paul Beier has recommended taking
steps to enhance the wildlife corridor (through
planting of native shrubs, reducing lighting of
the corridor while enhancing lighting in
residential areas, restricting dogs, etc.) in
order to increase the chances for mountain lions
to move effectively between the Palomar Range and
the Santa Ana Mountains. Certainly, these
provisions for enhancing the wildlife corridor
must be included in any development proposal like
the Acacia Homes Development.
Also, since mountain lions are secretive and
generally shy animalS, the wildlife corridor could
be used for open space and recreational purposes
(hiking, biking, nature study, horse-back riding,
etc.) bythe residents, as long as precautions are
taken to reduce the chances of conflicts. Proper
planning now can reduce these potential conflicts
and ensure that the wildlife corridor is an asset
to the community.
We have recommenaed that the City of
Temecula, during the General Plan process, engage
in a Coordinated Resource Management Plan process
(CRMP) with other state and federal agencies,
including county land-use agencies, the U.S.
Forest Service, the Department of Fish and Game,
andU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Through the
CRMP process, all relavent government agencies
will be involved, and the City of Temecula will be
able to coordinate activities so that the full
wildlife corridor can be protected throughout its
length instead of on a piece-mealbasis. Experts
like Dr. Paul Beier and other interested
organizations, like the National Audubon Society,
Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, and the Mountain
Lion Foundation, can also be involved in the CRMP
process.
Dr. Beier's report "Determining Minimum
Habitat Areas and Habitat Corridors for Cougars"
(copy enclosed).provides much information on how
to address the size and limits of the wildlife
corridor. Beier notes that, based on his computer
model, "if as few as 1-4 animals per decade could
immigrate into a small population, the probability
of population persistence increased markedly.
Thus a corridor for immigration would benefit a
small population in an area where further loss of
habitat will occur." (from Page 1, Abstract).
Thus only minimal use by mountain lions is needed
for the corridor to prove viable for protecting
the Santa Ana Mountains population from
extinction.
In conclusion, we urge the Planning
Commission to:
(1) Delay approval of the Acacia Homes
Development until-the General Plan for the City of
Temecula is approved:
(2) Use the General Plan process to provide
long-term protection to the Pechanga Creek
wildlife corridor, with particular emphasis on
maintaining and enhancing the corridor for use by
mountain lions while discouraging conflicts for
the surrounding developed areas;
(3) Work with other state, federal and
nonprofit conservation agencies to coordinate
efforts to protect the mountain lions and the
Pechanga Creek wildlife corridor in perpetuity;
(4) Consult with Dr. Paul Beier and other
mountain lion and wildlife experts on the most
viable means to enhance the Pechanga Creek
wildlife corridor for use by mountain lions and
other wildlife; and
(5) Keep the Mountain Lion Foundation
informed of your actions on the Acacia Homes
Development and the Pechanga Creek wildlife
corridor.
Should the Planning commission wish to
proceed with the Acacia Homes Development at this
time, the Mountain Lion Foundation feels that a
complete Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under
the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act is legally required. Please send us
all appropriate CEQA documents for the Acacia
Homes Development at this time, and please include
us on your list of interested parties to recieve
future notices and CEQA documents for review.
Thank you for your consideration of our views
and concerns. We would be happy to work with the
City of Temecula to seek protection for the
Pechanga Creek wildlife corridor, mountain lions,
and other wildlife.
Sincerely yours,
Mark J. Palmer,
Conservation Director/CEO
ENCLOSURES
BOARD OF DIRECTOR5
Non Wilharn Newsam
RCIDDI Joseph HUFwLTZ
Bill Yeates
SCOtt Hennessv
E'.,ECUTI~.L L)IEECTDP,
HD\OR XFq BO.',P D
MOUNTAIN LION FOUNDATION
RO. Box 1896 · SACP, AMENTO. C,,~ 95812 91G'442'2666
July 20, 1992
Mr. John Meyer
City of Temecula
43174 Busines~ Park Dr.
'Temecula, CA 92590
RE: CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
Dear Mr. Meyer:
The Mountain Lion Foundation is. deeply
concerned about the future of the mountain lion in
California. In particular, We have been active in
seeking protection for habitat for mountain lions
and other wildlife.
The Mountain Lion Foundation was a major
sponsorof Proposition 117 ("The Mountain Lion
Initiative"), passed by California voters in June
1990. Proposition 117 prohibits trophy hunting of
mountain lions and provides $30 million annually
for the next 30 years for habitat acquisition and
enhancement.
The Mountain Lion Foundation further authored
the Petition to list the Santa Ana Mountains
population of mountain lions as endangered under
the provisions of the federal Endangered Species
Act. A copy of the petition is enclosed for your
information. Also enclosed is a copy of our guide
for local land use managers: Preserving Couqar
Country.
We understand that the City of Temecula is
involved in developing a new General Plan.
Dr. Paul Beier, conducting the Orange County
Mountain Lion Survey for the University of
California and the state Department of Fish and
Game, has identified Temecula Creek as an
important wildlife corridor that can serve to
allow movement of mountain lions between the Santa
Ana Mountains and the Palomar Range.
Without thi~ habitat link, the Santa Ana
Mountains population would be isolated and
expected to die out due to inbreeding and related
population deterioration over time.
Therefore, the Mountain Lion Foundation urges
the City of Temecula to include protections for
this wildlife corridor in the city General Plan.
Movements for mountain lions and other wildlife
must be planned in advance, both the protect and
preserve our wildlife heritage and to minimize the
conflict between'development and wildlife needs.
Please add the Mountain Lion Foundation to
your list of interested parties who receive
notices of the process and drafts of the General
Plan. We are interested inhelping protect the
corridor for the long term.
As protection of the mountain li0n involves
other jurisdictions besides the City of Temecula
(e.g. county property, National Forest lands, and
federal and state wildlife agencies), may we
suggest the city take this opportunity to engage
in a Coordinated Resource Management Plan process
(CRMP) with appropriate state and federal
agencies? This process allows for coordination to
address resource issues, like wildlife
preservation, and will help spread the burden of
planning and responsibility among several
government agencies instead of solely the City of
Temecula.
Thank you for your consideration of our
comments.
Sincerely yours,
ENCLOSURES
Mark J. Palmet,
Conservation Director/CEO
PRESERVE OUR t"LATEAO
,.
John Meyer, Senior Planner
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Dr.
Temecula, CA 92590
August7,1992
RE: General Plan preparation
Dear Mr. Meyer:
Thank you for this opportunity to make additional comments on the preparation
of Temecula's new General Plan. Our grassroots citizens group of several hundred
members is dedicated to the preservation of the Santa Rosa Plateau and its
surrounding ecosystem.
We urge you to incorporate provisions for wildlife movement corridors into the
General Plan. Such early attention will undoubtedly avoid serious conflicts later on,
such as the current California Dept. of Fish and Game lawsuit against the City of
Anaheim over mountain lion corridors in Coal Canyon.
Wildlife corridor planning should be done after consultation with expert
biologists and focus on "habitat linkages" rather than narrow corridors. In this way, we
will preserve the viability of the natural world which the public cherishes while also
siting appropriate development. Areas of particular concern at this time include
Temecula Creek and Pechanga Creek, and we urge specific protection of these
riparian corridors in the General Plan.
Thank you very much for consideration of these additional comments.
W~th best regards,
Dan Silver, MD
President
Mailing address:
1422 N. Sweetzer Ave., #401
Los Angeles, CA 90069-1528
PRESERVE OUR PLATEAU
I~or.~ OfiiQ., Box lr~ ~t,Jol~.},, ~ifif~,nl,, ~95~
August7,1992
RECEIVED
AUG I 0 1992
Ans 'd ................
Mr. Saied Naaseh, Associate Planner
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Dr.
Temecula, CA 92590
RE: Acacia Homes proposed development
Dear Mr. Naaseh:
Our grassroots citizens group of several hundred members is dedicated to the
preservation of the Santa Rosa Plateau and the surrounding ecosystem. We believe
that potential adverse impacts to the Pechanga Creek wildlife movement corridor from
th~s proposed project are significant and require preparation of an Environmental
Impact Report. For example, adverse effects on mountain lion populations would be of
major s~gnificnace. Furthermore, processing of this application should wait until the
adopbon of a General Plan in which these larger environmental constraints are
considered.
We urge you to require protecbon for the Pechanga Creek habitat linkage and
for other such crmcal areas. Please include th~s letter in the administrative record and
put us on the maihng hst for hearing notification and public documents under CEQA.
Thank you very much.
S~ncerely,
Dan Silver. MD
President
Maihng address:
1422 N. Sweetzer Ave., #401
Los Angeles, CA 90069-1528
PRESERVE OUR PLATEAU
August 25,1992
RECEIVED
AUG 2 8 1992
lns 'd ..........
Mr. Saied Naaseh, Associate Planner
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Dr.
Temecula, CA 92590
RE:
Acacia Homes proposed development (Tentative Tract Map No. 25277, Change
of Zone No. 5724, public hearing Sept. 21)
Dear Mr. Naaseh:
Our grassroots citizens groub of several hundred members is dedicated to the
preservation of the Santa Rosa Plateau and the surrounding ecosystem. We have
revtewed the Initial Environmental Study and Environmental Determination for Acacia
Homes and find them legally deficient in several aspects.
As you know, the California Environmental Quality Act requires that if there are
potentia~y significant impacts, an environmental impact report must be prepared.
While you state that these potential impacts exist in many areas, it is erroneously
concluded that they would be mitigated to insignificance by the findings in the attached
Inmal Environmental Study. Our comments are as follows:
1) No threshholds or standards are established for findings of
insignificance. For example, what scientific standards did you use to conclude that
impacts to the Pechanga Creek wildlife corridor will be ~ns~gnihcant? (5.d.) What
threshholds for sfitat~on. eroston. etc. were used to determine that ~mpacts to
Pectnanga Creek would be insignificant? (1 .f., 1 .g.)
2) There is no reasoned analysis to support conclusions made. For
example, in 1 .f., watershed Impacts are noted. but the conclusory statement that these
Impacts are not s~gnificant "s~nce drainage facd~ties will d~vert storm water into
Pechanga Creek and ultimately into the Santa Margartta R~ver" is circular: It is the
~mpacts of these flood alterations on the creek and the river which are the very object
of our concern. in 1 .g., it ~s noted that pan of the creek bed will be filled. These
mulhple impacts are not adequately addressed by referring to only 100 year flooding
capacity
In 3b., the statement that ~ncreased runoff will be tns~gnificant due to the fact
that the creek "will be able to carry the storm water" is conclusory and not backed up
by evidence. What about scouring, Impacts to vegetation, and downstream ~mpacts?
In 3.e., the statement that water pollution impacts will be insignificant due to
future permitting by the state or federal government does not ensure that impacts are
reduced to insignificance, but only that conditions of a particular permit are to be met.
According to CEQA, these measures need to be stated in advance, not deferred.
3) An adequate analysis of watershed mitigation alternatives was not
undertaken. Alternative watershed management, such as detention basins and dry
wells, was not considered. These measures must be considered in order to reduce
the impacts of direct stream discharge from increased impervious surface run-off and
attered flow patterns,
4) Cumulative regional impacts on the watershed from increased flow
velocities, runoff, erosion, etc. were not even considered let alone
mitigated. It is the incremental effects of numerous small projects such as Acacia
which cause significant long-term impacts to the Santa Margarita River system. These
cumulative impacts must be adequately disclosed and mitigated.
The current document does not provide decision-makers with adequate
~nformation and short-changes the public interest. We again ask that a full
Environmental Impact Report be prepared to address these serious legal deficiencies
or that further and sufficient analysis be undertaken in a new mitigated negative
declaration.
The most important lesson of the Acacia experience is that only a
comprehensive wildlife corridor and watershed management plan
encompassing all past, current, and future development will successfully
address cumulative impacts and preserve the vital public resources of
the Santa Margarita River system. We would be happy to work with you to
resolve these ~ssues, particularly ~n the context of the new General Plan.
Sincerely,
Dan Silver. MU
President
Mailing address:
1422 N. Sweetzer Ave., #401
Los Angeles, CA 90069-1528
CC:
City Council
Jonn Meyer, Semor Planner
August31.1992
Friends of the Santa Margarita River
P O Box 923 Jailbrook. CA 92u88
AU~ 3 1 1992
Ct TY OF r~Mt~CLILA
Mr Saied Naasch
City of Tcmccula Planning Dcpartntcnt
43174 Busincss Park Drive
Tcmccula CA 9259(}
Acacia Homes P, cx ~cxk of lnmal Stud\ fur Negative Declaration for Tcntatt:c Tract map ~-
25277 and (hangc of Zone r- 5724
Dear Mr Naasch
The Friends of the Santa Margarita River is an organization of several hundred pcOplc dcdicatcd
to protecting and prcscl xmg the natural riparian environment ofthc Santa Margarita RIver and its
tributaries
}hMoltc:fih. the 5:rata 'Mar[.{;u'ihi v,a., a ,.till iound ii,.ci supp,.lrtmg all u/d~gcnous population of
stcclhcad hlcrc:tscd use ,.1I the undclground aqultcl~, and imported xxatcr ha~c slgni~cantl}
degraded flus last f,'cc ~¢Bs i,,~ river i,I soulbern C:,lifornia and t]sh populatxons arc ~ Irktall',
Bur/c\lsI~211t Ahhou~h there is no x~:t\ Illat Illis mcr can bc restored to Its pristine historical
protect [ilcbc xxiltcls Irom further dcgradamm and M~cncxcr possible llllprOXC the quahi> ofxxatcrs
dE,char~cd rata the Silllla %I:tI~.H IIil :Hk] It, tr~httt:tr~c~
quzltl[~. of tills v, atcr" ']'llc '1 DS. the .znMunt ,it' added I'hosphatc and Nnratc fcrlzhzcrs and
I g -'Thc prcUcct will cause mod!/icanon q/'the Pechanga Creek b3,.~lling the creek bed No
stgn(/ic~Tnt nnflacts are anncq~ated since the creek .'ill still be able to carry the ]00 year,flood"
3 b -" the creek will be oble to carry the storm water."
Although Pcchanga Creek may be able to handle 100 3car floods at this time how x~cll x~ ill it
handle 100 >'car floods after this and other possible projects of this t>pe are allowed to increase the
rainfall runoff? It is also important to look downstream. Historicall>' the waters converging at
Tcmecula Gorge backed up. creating cattail ntarshes along both sides of Tcmecula and Murricta
Creeks Urban development x~ith its houses, concrete and asphalt paving in the Santa Marganta
xx atcrshcd has increased rainfall runoff man>' times over. now even relatively minor storms create
flooding problems Accordina to the Riverside County Flood Control District. as stated at a recent
meeting w~th the Temecula City Council. the Tcmecula Gome will not accept 100 year floodwaters
and flood xxatcr xxill back up oil both Tcmccula and Murricta Creeks They state that it will rcquirc
s~gnl~cant alteration (blasting) to relieve tbis congestion This ~intcr's stomps (a ten :,'car event)
crcatcdproblcmsmman>arcas Whatdcgrccoffioodmgcantbccham~clacccptattb~stm~c?
VCcstcrn creek and rt,.cr beds ha'.c c,.olvcd to handle large inundations. water meanders. changing
course and slov, mg as it cncountcrs natp.'c patches of vcgctation Prqjccts of this tfpc x~hich fill m.
straighten and narroxx an2, portion of a historic strcam channel decrease the soil surface axailablc
to absorb runoff, and burr) the xxatcr to thc rp.'cr xxhcrc ~t piles up behind the Tcmecula Gorge
Rcccntl3 the C~t) of Tcmccula along x~ith Union for R~vcr Greenbelt Environment (U.R GE) xxas
axxardcd an urban streams $50./)0(} grant to promotc a ri,.cr greenbelt through the Cit', of
Tcmccula To allox% prQIccts such as thc Acacia Homes to channehzc "insignificant" portions of the
trlbutar,, crocks is &rcctl5 m opposmon to the stated purposc of this grant winch is to beauIll> and
promote pubhc uses ofTcmccula's rl%cr corridors Continued acceptance of prOjects ofth~s type
xxfil chinmate anx posstblht> ofaxoldmg a concrete channel through Oldtoxx~ The City of
] cmecula should allo'~ no changes to tile historic banks of the Santa Margarita and its
tributaries, including Pechanga Creek, before a comprehensive plan for the Santa Margarita
~atershcd is prelmred.
x.\ tlat arc these condmons' .-\cct,rdmg to the E P A urban runoff. v, lth Rs increased phosphates
and ntlratcs. has resulted m a e~(ll',, algae grox~Ih on tile surface and bottom of the Santa Margarlta
Rl'.cr alld slglIlficalll degradation ,.fitlie csltK/r,. a! ('amp P211dlclon a condlttol~ tbc'. fcc] is
tillacceptable for the Illallx rare and cn&mgcrcd species riga: rcl', oil tl~csc ,.',atcrs Tile dc'.clopcr
aud tile (It> of Tcmccula should not defer rcspons~blht3 Io slate and federal agencies ',,.hose
mablhl,. to Sufftclcnll> re'. ~c'.', all proloots has allov, cd the quaht', of the mcr and its cstuar> to
degrade to their present cond~l~on_s
The ans,.xcr "".la,. be" ts al~phcd onl3 to the prt~lcct area and does not address the effects of
Ctlllltllallx C altered x~atcr qualit\ 011 dox~nstrcam spcclcs
IV - I "Does the project have the potential to degrade the quail.n, qf the envlranment'~''
Yes. Without specific plans to catch and treat "first flush" pollutants. and retention basins to
alloxx for percolation of increased water ranoff. it appears this project will significantl.x degrade the
environment. Plans to deal with these problems should be undertaken at this time or a complete
EI.R should be prepared detailing procedures to be taken to mitigate these problcms.
Although the conditions created by this project may seem insignificant. each ncx~ "insignificant'*
prqject adds to the cumulative total of decreased water recharge. increased runoff and increased
pollution It is the le~zal responsibility of the City of Temecula to protect the qualit}' of thc xxater
discharged into the river for those downstream users, which includes the community of Fallbrook
as x%cll as the U.S Marine base at Camp Pendleton.
This application for tract approval and a negative declaration relies upon the State and Fcdcral
agencies and thc Rancho Watcr District for their approvals on admirtcd environmental conccms.
but does not suppl} these agencies x~ith the data that supports their conclusions that thcsc nnpacts
arc mstgnl~cant It ts the rcsponsibilit.x of the developer to quanti~ these concerns and proxc that
the\ arc m tb. ct "msigm~cant" It should be the concern of the Cit.x of Tcmccula to address tbcse
cc~nccrns thoroughl:, smcc the c~t} ~s legall} responsible to dox~nstream users for the qualit} and
quant~tx of the xxatcr
7 ".$'tth.vtanlta/]lflht and g/arc zs not annctpated m the back yards "
This has notbig to do dlrcctl.x xxlth xxatcr concerns. hox~cvcr. ~t is paramount to the contmucd
usefulness of thc plalmcd wfidlifc corridor Is there a CC&R rcgulatmg light sourccs within this
dc~ clopmcnt" If noL oxenors concerned about pcrcm~cd dangerous x%ildlifc arc frcc to restall
xqldhfc disruptrag hght sources m their back'Sards
Friends of the Santa Mar~arita River firmly believes that historic Pechanga Creek must be
proleered. B.~ insurin~ no chan~e m its historic banks, first flush pollution containment and
nn site ~ alcr alelent ion this can be achicx cd ~ ithout significant sustained economic effect on
the ~ro~sth and dcxelopmcnt of the City of Temecula.
\\ c ~xould bc hiq~p\ [o x%ork ~xtth the Citx of Tcmccula and the proponents of Acacia Honlcs. or
:m} ott~cr proloci. on ~ssucs that c/'l~ct the Santa Marganla Rtxcr ~xatcrshcd
Nnncx II Backstrand
President
714 h77-7341
Rainbow Canyon Village Homeowners Association
P.O. Box 1675
Temecula, CA 92593
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Saied Naaseh
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Rainbow Canyon Village Homeowners Association
ZONE CHANGE ACACIA PROJECT
August 31, 1992
The mitigation measures described with the initial environmental study .will not mitigate
potentially significant impacts to a level Of insignificance.
Page 13 states a traffic signal at Pain Road and Via Gilberto will handle the traffic
problem. Let me tell you Rainbow Canyon Villager is at the bottom of the ladder and will
receive the full impact of the 960 trips per day this project will generate when trying to
turn on to Pain Road.
Gridlock and traffic hazards will increase at Rainbow Canyon Road and all other
intersections on to PaPa. when this project is complete.
·
·
·
·
·
Lack of a new bridge over Temecula Creek
Lack of fire protection near 79S
Lack of a traffic hght at Ra,~bow and Pain
Lack o~' a traffic ~mpact for the proposed Pechanga Indian gaming house on Pain
Lack of a traffic ~mpact for the proposed wate,' park on Rainbow Canyon Road
Because of the above, all zone requests and others tn this area should be denied until
corrected.
Sincerely,
)
Eric Brown
President - Rainbow Canyon Homeowners Association
RECEIVL
AUG 1 1992
CITY 0F TI:MgCULA
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
WHAT TO DO IF YOU ENCOUNTER A MOUNTAIN LION
IF AN ENCOUNTER OCCURS,
HERE ARE SOME TIPS:
DON'T RUN!
Don't crouch down; the lion has seen you long before you saw it.
Hold your ground, wave your hands, shout!
If the lion behaves aggressively, throw stones.
Convince the lion that you are not prey and that you may be dangerous
yourself.
If you have little children with you, pick them up. Do all you can to
appear larger.
Report any mountain lion sightings, IN DETAIL, to the City of Temecula
Community Services Department as soon as possible.
ATTACHMENT NO. 8
OAK TREE INFORMATION
Rev~led Septerre~er 17. 1992 62
If you're lucky enough to have a big oak tree
How many custom houses have been designed to future · nati~
oak, only to have the tree die a few years later'?. And how many
developments named for a stand of oaka have any (or more than
a small handful) of the original trees remaining?
Here arc some facts of life about coexisting with native oaks.
(For more on keeping native oaks healthy, see page 190.)
Oaks are highly adaptable. An acorn may take root on a dry
hillside. next to a creek, in · lawn, or in a desert. Individual trees
adapt to specific ~onditions. But once they adapt, survive, and
mature, their environmental tolcrance~ become increasingly
narrow. Dry-season irrigation of · tree that's become accus-
tomed to a century of dry summers can actually cause its death.
gf ~om mutt change soil Iml around an
oak. use retaining walls :o mi~mize soil
movement and prexerve ori~r~al grade
root zone, the grade is altered. Excavation potentially destroys
or damages roots; adding soil reduces the amount of air cirnu-
lnting in the soil and can promote root-destroying fungus.
There is no guarantee that you can add fill around an oak
without killing the tree. But if you must. take the following
steps. First, at existing soil level, remove grass, leaves, and other
material that may form an ·it-and-water barrier. To aid air
circulation. use 4-inch-¢tiameter plastic drainage piped on the
original soil surface. Set them so they radiate out from the
trunk, then rising to the new nail level near the arco's drip line.
Use only porous topsoil us fill around trees, and be sum it slopes
away from the trunk.
TreneAiag. The need for this familiar construction process is
often taken for granted. But under an oak's canopy, it can
destroy a major portion of the trne's roots.
The best alternative to trenching ia to bore through the soil.
(Boring will contact and damage some roots--but fewer than
trenching will.) Then install a conduit pipe large enough for all
If boring is not possible, dig only one trench and use a single
conduit for all services. (lt's not uncommon for each contractor
to dig his own trench, multiplying the damage to the tree.)
Pm, istg. Coveting tha toll with any no·porous material blocks
the circulation of air and water. Instead, pave with brick on a
bed of sand. You can also cover the area with rock, gravel, or
mulch. Any material that allows movement of air and water
into the soil is acceptable.
Decking. Use large beams and few support piers to minimize
digging. in situations where there will be a lot of foot tra~c
around the tool zone, it's better to install an appropriately
constructed deck than to do nothing. The decking keeps soil-
compactlag footsteps off the root zone. t3
Keep in mind that native oaks die alowly. It might take a decade
or longer for an old tree to die after enduring construction
around its base. A succen story bused on one trots survival for
eve years or so doesn't prove much.
The most vulnerable parts of a mature oak are the root zone and
the bash of the trunk. A native oak develops a deep taproot early
in its life; later, the mo~t important roots are relatively shallow,
within the top 3 feet of soil.
Figure that an oak's roots extend at least Rvcrat yards beyond
the outermost edge of the areo's foliage. Ideally, you should keep
this entire are~ free of disturbance. This means no grading,
digging, trenching, paving, landscaping, or summer irrigation;
no construction equipment near; not even much foot traffic.
If you compromise, assume that the trec's long,term survival is
at ~orne risk. But you can still preserve the root-zone area in as
natural a condition Ks possible. Keep ground disturbances to a
minimum, and keep them as far from the trunk Ks you can.
precautions to take when ymj build ·round a native oak
A mature tree is adapted to a specific balance of moisture, air,
soil temperature. and nut·cult A change in any one factor can
upset the balance and cause the tree to decline or even die.
There is no one general rule. The age, size, species, location, and
health of the individual tree all figure in that tree'a ubilisy to
tolerate change.
Here are ~xoe of the commoneel zonstruction-related oh·l-
tengas to native oaks, and some way% to minimize the damage.
Grade changes. Any time you add or remove soil from an oak's